Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 05-19-10 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia May 19, 2010 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission shouldadopt the Agenda for the meeting................................................................ (no tab) 2) April 7, 2010 Minutes...................................................................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC MEETING 5) 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment — Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan and Northeast Land Use Plan — Modifications to the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation in the vicinity of Route 11 North, to include the removal of areas of DSA and to reflect recently approved development proj ects. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 6) Route 11 Northeast Land Use Plan Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................(C) 7) Water Service in the Stephenson Area. Mr. Lawrence...................................................................................................................(D) 8) Other FILE COPY MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on April 7, 2010. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Christopher Collins, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the April 7, 2010, agenda for this evening's meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee — 4/22/10 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported on actions taken by the Transportation Committee, as follows: 1) recommended approval of the 2010-2011 Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plans with the additions of Light Road and Cattail Road to the Unscheduled Hardsurface Road Improvements and moving Ridings Mill, Warm Springs, and Woodside Roads from the Scheduled Plan back to the Unscheduled Plan; 2) recommended approval of the application for the construction of Snowden Bridge Blvd. in the Graystone Industrial Park; 3) recommended moving forward with applications for potential federal safety grant applications for a number of intersections along Routes 7 and 277; 4) recommended an incremental approach to improve safety at the Route 50 and Route 614 (Back Mountain Road) intersection rather than to proliferate signal lights on county roads; 5a) a public hearing for the Phase II Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2615 Minutes of April 7, 2010 -2 - Study of the Shady Elm Drive intersection with VA 37 will be held in April by the MPO; and, 5b) the Northeast Land Use Plan is being updated to reflect the results of the traffic model study. Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) — 4/06/10 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the Comprehensive Policy Plan is being completely revised this year. He reported about the kick-off meeting last evening with about 40 people in attendance. Commissioner Kriz said the Comprehensive Policy Plan will be divided up into sections and several different committees will work individually on those portions of the Plan. He said there are about ten committee groups altogether. Commissioner Kriz emphasized the fast time schedule; he said first drafts will be due by July 1, 2010. 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. PUBLIC HEARING 2010-2015 Agricultural and Forestal District Update. Consideration of the renewal of the South Frederick, Double Church, and Red Bud Districts, and the creation of the Albin, Apple Pie Ridge, and South Timber Ridge Districts. The renewal and creation of these districts will establish a total of 10,585.012 acres within the Agricultural and forestall District Program for the ensuing five year period. Properties incorporated into an agricultural and forestal district are guaranteed certain protections as specified in Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia. Action — Recommended Approval of Three New Districts and the Renewal of Three Existing Districts Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) met on March 18, 2010, and unanimously recommended the creation of three new agricultural and forestal districts: the Albin Agricultural and Forestal District; the Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District; and the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District; along with the renewal of three existing agricultural and forestal districts: the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District; the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District; and the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. He noted that if all six districts are approved, Frederick County will have 10,585 acres within its Agricultural and Forestal Districts Program for the ensuing five-year period. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2616 Minutes of April 7, 2010 -3 - Mr, Cheran proceeded to give the location and description of each of the three new proposed districts. The Planning Commission considered and acted upon each of the new districts separately, as follows: Albin Agricultural and Forestal District Consisting of 1,017.84+ acres within 14 parcels, located within Gainesboro Magisterial District, across North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522) to the north, Route 37 to the east, and Poorhouse Road (Rt. 664) to the west. This proposed district contains predominantly agricultural operations with 90 percent agriculture (livestock, orchards, and crop harvest) and 10 percent open-space/woodlands. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. No issues or areas of concern were raised by Commission members. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Comissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Albin Agricultural and Forestal District consisting of 1,017.84+ acres within 14 parcels and located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District Consisting of 889.052+ acres within 34 parcels, located within the Stonewall and Gainesboro Magisterial Districts, across Payne Road (Rt. 663) to the north, Welltown Road (Rt. 661) to the east, Apple Ridge Road (Rt. 739) to the west, and Glendobbin Road (Rt. 673) to the south. This proposed district contains predominantly agricultural operations with 90 percent agriculture (livestock, orchard, and crop harvesting) and 10 percent open -space/ woodlands. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. No issues or areas of concern were raised by Commission members. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District consisting of 889.052+ acres within 34 parcels and located in the Stonewall and Gainesboro Magisterial Districts. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2617 Minutes of April 7, 2010 -4 - South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District Consisting of 466.70+ acres within seven parcels, located within the Back Creek Magisterial District, bordered by Hollow Road (Rt. 707) to the north, and Muse Road (Rt. 610) and Golden Orchard Road (Rt. 708) to the east. This proposed district contains predominantly agricultural operations with 90 percent agriculture (orchard, and crop harvesting) and 10 percent open-space/woodlands. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates said that while doing surveying work in this particular area, he noticed that a couple properties are missing from the map and some of the tax map numbers do not match up correctly with the property owners. Commissioner Oates suggested he get with the staff to add those properties before the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District consisting of 466.70+ acres within seven parcels and located in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran next provided the location and description of each of the three districts proposed for renewal. The Planning Commission considered and acted upon the renewal of each district separately, as follows: Update of the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District This district will consist of 949.20+ acres within the Opequon Magisterial District. The removal of one parcel, PIN 86-A-32, consisting of 74.53+ acres will decrease the district from its former 1,023.73+ acres to 949.20+ acres. This district contains predominantly agricultural operations, with 75 percent livestock and cultivation of hay, and 25 percent open-space/woodlands. Chairman Wilmot noted this district includes five -acre sites. Mr. Cheran said it has been the policy of Frederick County to include a property within an agricultural and forestal district, if the property meets established criteria and if the property is contiguous within one mile of the existing district. Commissioner Unger questioned the validity of a five -acre parcel being considered as an agricultural or forestal producing property for a tax break. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, interjected that having a property within an agricultural and forestal district is only one qualifier to getting a land use assessment tax break; the property must still have active farming activities. He said the property owner must still go through a land use assessment managed by the Commissioner of Revenue. Mr. Lawrence further explained the Land Use Assessment Program requires at least five acres of pasture; therefore, a five -acre lot with a house does not qualify for any tax abatements. Mr. Lawrence said being included within an agricultural and forestal district shows commitment from the property owners who want to maintain a rural community and the county is attempting to honor that commitment. Frederick County Planning Commission rage Lu 16 Minutes of April 7, 2010 -5 - Chairman Wilmot inquired if the five -acre sites to be included within this revised district were built upon. She asked if they could be built upon once they are included within the agricultural district. Mr. Cheran replied they can be built upon, but they cannot be subdivided. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the update and renewal of the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District consisting of 94920+ acres located in the Opequon Magisterial District. Update of the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District This district will consist of 1,079.69+ acres within the Stonewall Magisterial District. The proposed addition of two parcels, PIN 55-A-3 and 55-A-4, consisting of 245.81+ acres, and the removal of two parcels, PIN 44 -A -28F and 44 -A -28H, consisting of 15.4+ acres, will increase this district from its former 849.28+ acres to 1,079.69+ acres. This district contains predominantly agricultural operations, with 75 percent agriculture (livestock, horses, and crop harvest) and 25 percent open-space/woodlands. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. No issues or areas of concern were raised by Commission members. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the update and renewal of the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District consisting of 1,079.69+ acres located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Update of the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District This district will consist of 6,182.53+ acres within the Back Creek Magisterial District. The proposed addition of five parcels, PINS 62-12-5-53, 72-A-24, 73-A-31, 73-A-73, and 84-A-50, consisting of 429.36+ acres, and the removal of three parcels, PINs 84-A-29, 73-A-3, and 73-12-13, consisting of 221.48+ acres, will increase this district from its former 5,974.65+ acres to 6,182.53+ acres. This district contains predominantly agricultural operations, with 90 percent agriculture (orchard and crop harvest) and 10 percent open-space/woodlands. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and the following person came forward to speak: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2619 Minutes of April 7, 2010 Mr. Paul Anderson, one of the original property owners who established the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District, spoke on behalf himself and the Frederick County Farm Bureau. Mr. Anderson was in favor of the renewal of the three existing districts and the establishment of the three new districts. He said there were many benefits to belonging in an agricultural district; one is the land use and the other is the protection it provides agriculture in the case of. nuisance suits. Mr. Anderson advised against limiting inclusion in an agricultural and forestal district to the number of acres. He said an intensively farmed five -acre tract could result in a higher profit return than a larger parcel used for cattle. No issues or areas of concern were raised by Commission members. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the update and renewal of the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District consisting of 6,182.53+ acres located in the Back Creek Magisterial District. An Ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article III, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program — Part 301 Establishment and Purpose, 165-301.01 Purpose; 165-301.02 Applicability, 165-301.03 Right to Transfer Development Rights; General Provisions; Part 302 Sending and Receiving Properties; 165-302.01 Sending Properties; 165-302.02 Receiving Properties; 165-302.03 Calculation of Development rights; 165-302.04 TDR Sending Property Development Limitations; 165-302.05 Sending Site Certification; 165-302.06 Instruments of Transfer; Part 303 Transfer Process and Development Procedures; 165-303.01 Transfer Process; 165-303.02 Development Approval Procedures; and Article I General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions; 165-101.02 Definitions and Word Usage. These amendments provide revisions to the Frederick County Code to include a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program for Frederick County. Action — Recommended Approval Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, provided a brief history of how the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance came about. Mr_ Lawrence reported that, in March, the Board of Supervisors believed the TDR document was in an appropriate state to go through the public hearing process for adoption. Mr. Lawrence explained that the TDR Program is an opportunity to preserve the rural landscape and farmland. He said it provides an opportunity for landowners in the farming community to sell the development rights from their farm without actually selling the land. A purchaser would take those development rights and apply them in a designated growth area of the county. Mr. Lawrence next explained the three components of the TDR ordinance: the sending site requirements (the rural land), the receiving site requirements (the UDA), and the transfer/ development process. Qualifications of the sending properties were: agricultural lands zoned RA located outside the UDA and SWSA; must be shown on the sending/receiving area map; must be 20 acres or greater in size; and must be a subdividable (public road access) property per the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Lawrence also explained the density bonuses that would be available for the sending properties. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2620 Minutes of April 7, 2010 -7 - Qualifications for the receiving properties were: properties must be zoned RA, RP, or R4, located within the UDA, and Comprehensively Planned for residential land use; be located in a defined Rural Community Center; be located on the sending/receiving area map; be served by public water and sewer, be served by state roads or private roads; and properties may exceed underlying density maximums. Mr. Lawrence continued, explaining some of the incentives for the developer to use this program; those incentives included no rezoning process, no engineering process, and no payment of proffers. Commissioner Thomas raised the possibility for high-density development on the receiving properties, in which the County would have to absorb all the costs for schools, transportation, emergency services, etc., and the developer would not be responsible for off -setting the costs with proffers. Mr. Lawrence responded that the ordinance sets the maximum density increase available; it limits the number of development _rights adeveloper could bring onto the property, Mr. Lawrence said in regards to impacts on community services, the sending properties within the rural areas could have ended up with houses on five acre lots and the County would not receive any additional compensation through proffers. Mr. Lawrence said that from a cost of service perspective, the County would much rather see those houses within the UDA, rather than scattered over the rural landscape. He added it is more cost efficient for the County to provide those services in designated growth areas. Commissioner Oates said he supported the TDR Program, but had concerns regarding the proposed calculations used for determining development rights within the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Oates said when he surveys properties for development, the land contained within easements or submerged lands still counts towards the total acreage; he asked why a landowner wanting to use the TDR Program would be penalized by not allowing those areas to count towards total acreage. Commissioner Oates suggested the use of a sketch plan to lay out lots, rather than using GIS data or floodplain maps, which were not entirely accurate. Commissioner Oates said he was not looking for the TDR to be more favorable than another type of subdivision, but simply thought it should be comparable to a regular subdivision as far as the calculations. Mr. Lawrence replied the intent was to make the TDR Program as simple as possible; it was not the intention for someone who farms to have to spend a lot of money through surveying, engineering, or soil work to determine whether they should sell their rights. Mr. Lawrence said if someone simply wants to preserve their farmland and not spend a lot of money, the information available on the County's computer systems would be sufficient to use. He added that someone should not get credit for lots they were not going to create, such as those in a floodplain; he said a subdivision is laid out based on where there are successful perc sites, a house footprint, etc. Commissioner Thomas suggested including criteria specifying if a landowner is getting the benefits of being in the Agricultural District, such as doubling the density units, and then the property is removed from the Agricultural District after selling the property's development rights, the remaining available rights will be reduced by the true number that was sold. Mr. Lawrence stated this criterion was appropriate and could be placed within the ordinance. A discussion among Commissioners and staff followed regarding the possible impacts of not receiving proffers from the development that would take place in the urban areas under the TDR Ordinance. Chairman Wilmot pointed out that one district was missing from the list of receiving districts, the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) District. She commented that of the four receiving districts, only the RA District could result in the situation where there will be zero proffers offered inside the UDA. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2621 Minutes of April 7, 2010 Chairman Wilmot thought the TDR ordinance would be very attractive for a TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design) District because it allows the greatest density; she believed it was imperative to add this housing design. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Paul Anderson, a farmer in the Back Creek District, was in favor of the TDR Program. Mr. Anderson said that when the RA Study began a few years ago, a large burden was placed on agriculture. He said farmers have equity in their land and they depend on the sale of parcels when times get rough, but the implications of the RA Study made subdividing parcels harder and more expensive. He said if a farmer has to bear the expense of having parcels surveyed and engineered, more lots will have to be sold to make up the cost difference. Mr. Anderson said the new TDR Program gives the farmer the opportunity to sell off development rights, if he needs money, and continue farming his land and maintain the rural nature of the area. Mr. Anderson said he represents the Frederick County Farm Bureau, and the Farm Bureau represents over 250 family farms in Frederick County. He said the Frederick County Farm Bureau is in full support of the TDR Program. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comment portion of the public hearing. No other issues were raised by members of the Commission. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the TDR Draft Ordinance, dated March 23, 2010, with the following revision: If a property is removed from an Agricultural and Forestal District, the developmental rights remaining will equal what is available for the underlying sending district minus any developmental rights already sold. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an Ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article III, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program — Part 301 Establishment and Purpose, 165-301.01 Purpose; 165- 301.02 Applicability, 165-301.03 Right to Transfer Development Rights; General Provisions; Part 302 Sending and Receiving Properties; 165-302.01 Sending Properties; 165-302.02 Receiving Properties; 165-302.03 Calculation of Development rights; 165-302.04 TDR Sending Property Development Limitations; 165-302.05 Sending Site Certification; 165-302.06 Instruments of Transfer; Part 303 Transfer Process and Development Procedures; 165-303.01 Transfer Process; 165-303.02 Development Approval Procedures; and Article I General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions; 165-101.02 Definitions and Word Usage. This amendment was recommended for approval with the following revision: If a property is removed from an Agricultural and Forestal District, the developmental rights remaining will equal what is available for the underlying sending district minus any developmental rights already sold. This ordinance amendment provides revisions to the Frederick County Code to include a Transfer of Development Rights Program for Frederick County. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2622 Minutes of April 7, 2010 Sea Consideration of the proposed Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans for Frederick County for Fiscal Years 2010-2011 through 2015-2016, along with the Secondary System Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2010, in accordance with Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of Virginia. All projects in the Secondary Six -Year Plan which are eligible for federal funds will be included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which documents how Virginia will obligate federal transportation funds. Action — Recommended Approval Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, provided the Commission with the financial history faced by VDOT and the County over the last few years, starting with the statewide revenue forecast reductions from Spring of 2008 through 2010, which totaled $4.61 billion. Mr. Bishop next focused on the Statewide Secondary Highway Program and noted the program approved in FY 2008- 2013 had $1.3 billion for secondary roads, not including interstate or primary projects, such as Route 37 or Route 277. The approved program for FY 2009 through 2014 totaled $1.0 billion initially, but had to be revised and cut to $0.6 billion. For the FY 2010 through 2015 Program, the budget was reduced to $0.5 billion and again, revised to $0.3 billion. Next focusing on Frederick County, Mr. Bishop said the 2007/2008 Program had an average of $3.2 million; however for 2010/2011, the average amount is approximately $255,000.00. Mr. Bishop next reviewed the individual road plans for Frederick County. Beginning with the Interstate Road Improvement Plan, he said there are no recommended changes; although there is support for moving forward with Exit 310 and Exit 307 and the improvements to I-81. Regarding the Primary Road Improvement Plan, no new changes are recommended. Mr. Bishop said last year, the South Frederick Parkway was added, which was a part of the Route 277/Route 522 Triangle; there are no new roadways to add in this year. Mr. Bishop noted that should the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) progress, the modeling would indicate the six -lane section would need to be expanded; however, since that has not yet been adopted, it did not seem appropriate to make the change within this plan. Regarding the Secondary Road Improvement Plan, the Number 1 Project, Sulphur Springs Road, is the one funded project and most of the funding is previous year allocations; therefore, this project is still moving forward. The other funded project is the Tasker Road and White Oak Project; a safety project is also considered at White Oak and Route 277. Mr. Bishop said the remainder of the projects are place holders, such as Warrior Drive, and a number of revenue-sharing projects. Regarding the Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects, there is one publicly -funded project, which is Ridings Mill Road; Woodside Road is part of a master plan for Titan Concrete and is not state funded. Finally, with the Unscheduled Hardsurface Road Improvement Plan, the top three projects, Ridings Mill Road, Warm Springs Road, and Woodside Road are previously -scheduled projects, which have been de -programmed due to funding cutbacks. He said they are in the first, second, and third places to recognize them; these projects seem to be appropriate to consider, should the Board of Supervisors choose to do so as more funding becomes available. Mr. Bishop said two new projects were added to the Unscheduled list at the bottom, Light Road and Cattail Road. Mr. Bishop said the Transportation Committee reviewed this information on March 22, 2010, and forwarded a recommendation of approval. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing by calling for citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2623 Minutes of April 7, 2010 -10 - Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the proposed Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans for Frederick County for Fiscal Years 2010-2011 through 2015-2016, along with the Secondary System Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2010, in accordance with Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of Virginia. All projects in the Secondary Six -Year Plan which are eligible for federal funds will be included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which documents how Virginia will obligate federal transportation funds. PUBLIC MEETING Subdivision Ordinance Variance Request of Robert & Lynda Carpenter, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for exceptions to Section 144-24(B) Lot Requirements and Section 144-31(C)(3) Rural Subdivisions of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, to allow the creation of a parcel of land intended to accommodate the development of the Round Hill ground water storage tank. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported this request is to create a 0.763+ acre parcel in the RA Zoning District, which would otherwise need a minimum of five acres. Also, reduced setbacks are requested for a 20 -foot BRL (building restriction line) along the western property line, which otherwise would need to be 60 feet; a 25 -foot BRL along the southern property line, which otherwise would need to be 60 feet; and a 40 -foot BRL along the northern property line, which otherwise would need to be 100 feet. In addition, an allowance of a 20 -foot easement for a right-of-way, rather than the required 50 -foot easement, is requested. Mr. Cheran said the waivers are being requested to allow the creation of a parcel of land intended to accommodate the development of the Round Hill Ground Water Storage Tank. He said if the Commission recommends approval, staff is recommending there be a provision included that would restrict the utility to public use only. Commissioner Thomas inquired about the reason for all the variances requested and if there was a hardship. Mr. Cheran replied that the applicant's representative, Greenway Engineering, has stated that the Sanitation Authority would prefer to own the property with the water tank; however, they would like to own the smallest amount of land possible to set the tank on. Commissioner Triplett asked who would be using the water from the storage tank. Mr. Cheran stated users would include the National Lutheran Home and properties within the Round Hill Land Use Plan, which was extended out to Poorhouse Road. Mr. Cheran stated that one of the criteria for the Round Hill Land Use Plan was to have water and sewer services available; he said this proposed tank is one of the components to get water and sewer to the Round Hill community. He said the master plan for the National Lutheran Home specified the need for a water storage tank for the benefit of the Round Hill community. Frederick County Planning Commission rage 2624 Minutes of April 7, 2010 -11 - Commissioner Oates commented that the property is not within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and a waiver should be included for a health system, since an approved drainfield is required for every new lot created. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, said that back in 1995, Frederick County initially contemplated the Round Hill Land Use Plan (LUP) and the extension of public water and sewer services for the Round Hill community. Mr. Wyatt said as the plan has progressed over time, particularly with the design of the National Lutheran Home project, the Sanitation Authority is now tasked with considering the development of infrastructure necessary to service the defined area of the Round Hill LUP. Mr. Wyatt said the Sanitation Authority preferred to have the water tank system in place with the first phase of the National Lutheran Home project. Their goal was to provide a facility that was fairly innocuous to the community at large and the idea of the ground storage tank came into play. Mr. Wyatt explained the tank level needed to provide adequate water pressure for the system to work effectively and; therefore, a 1025 elevation contour was established. This 1025 contour is the driving factor for the tank location. Mr. Wyatt said the Sanitation Authority does not want to own any more land than necessary to site the facility; he said the height of the tank at the top of its dome is 41 feet; they would be cutting into the side of the hill to place the tank. Using a visual aide, Mr. Wyatt showed the reveal of the potential visual portion of the tank. Mr. Wyatt said they are working on behalf of Silver Lake to meet their commitment to deliver the water service required for National Lutheran Home. Commissioner Kriz asked legal counsel if Frederick County had the power to condemn land to place a public utility. The County Attorney, Mr. Roderick Williams, replied yes, the County would indeed have that power, if is consistent with its mission. Commissioner Thomas inquired why the water tank is being located on the western property boundary and not back into the center of the property, so the waivers wouldn't be so great. Mr. Wyatt replied the base of the tank is basically where the 1025 contour is located; the balance of the property is for grading and an access cut. Mr. Randy Kepler, also with Greenway Engineering, explained they were holding the base of the water tank to this location because of the structure of the tank and the manufacturer's requirements; he said the tank needed to be recessed down into the ground with a three-foot bury depth on the downhill side to make sure the tank doesn't slide down hill after it's constructed. Mr. Kepler said there is very little leeway to move the tank, other than a few feet. He said the tank is specifically located at this 1025 elevation to ensure there is sufficient pressure in the system and secondly, to make sure the tank is structurally sound. Commissioner Kriz asked Mr. Wyatt to provide the dimensions of the tank and approximately how much will be visible. Mr. Wyatt said the tank is 70 feet in diameter and the highest point at the dome is 41 feet in elevation. Mr. Wyatt said the reveal above Skyview would be about 15 feet. Commissioner Crosen inquired how much vegetation would be removed and how much would be replaced. Mr. Kepler said the parcel is approximately .73 acres and about 3/ of that would be cleared; he said areas along the northern and eastern boundary would be replanted with evergreens. Commissioner Lemieux asked for the elevation change from the top of the dome to the bottom of the foundation. Mr. Wyatt said it was about 60 feet of elevation difference. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2625 Minutes of April 7, 2010 -12 - Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing by calling for citizen comments. The following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Richard G. Larsen, an adjoining property owner to the west, said that he and his wife, Harriet, own the three-bedroom log cabin on their property, which was constructed in 1926. Mr. Larsen stated this is a rural, historic area and he described the historic significance of the eastern side of Round Hill. He said the water tank is proposed to be located 300 feet from the front of their home. Mr. Larsen said they are the only users of Skyview Lane, which they solely pay to maintain. He said a tank at this elevation will allow for a gravity fed system, eliminating the need for a booster system and providing a cost savings to the Sanitation Authority. He said the water will be pumped in from a "to be constructed" pumping station behind the new Walmart and piped up to the new tank. Mr. Larsen said these variances are being requested to cut costs and not because of undue hardship. Mr. Larsen thought the tank could be built at another location without damaging the value and beauty of his property and the surrounding properties; he suggested construction behind the Walmart with a raised tank and booster system or on the Carpenter or Silver Lake property, or the southern end of Round Hill. Mr. Larsen said this tank is proposed to be located in the upper comer of the Carpenter's 156 -acre property. Mr. Larsen also believed there were inaccuracies in the application; he thought there needed to be a 100 -foot setback from his property and he did not think the Carpenters had a prescriptive easement to Skyview Lane. Mr. Tim Campbell said he and his wife, Laura C. Burley, own the property at the end and to the north of Skyview Lane. Mr. Campbell agreed with Mr. Larsen's comments. He said the applicant asked him to grant an easement for the water pipe to come through his property and also, to restrict what he does with his land in order to provide a view for trucks to see a distance down the road. Mr. Campbell said they are not inclined to grant that easement. Mrs.Charlotte Driver, wife of Bradley B. Driver, adjoining property owners, said she and her husband were opposed to the application. Mrs. Driver said it has been erroneously stated that they were in agreement with the application and she wanted to correct that. Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium to respond to the public comments. Mr. Wyatt said the Sanitation Authority also had questioned the issue of access on Skyview Lane and they had their attorney, Mr. Benjamin Butler, conduct an analysis. It was Mr. Butler's opinion that a prescriptive easement is available to the Carpenter property; therefore, the Sanitation Authority would have access. Regarding road maintenance, he felt sure the Sanitation Authority would be willing to negotiate an agreement to share in the cost of road maintenance, although their use of the road would be extremely limited. Mr. Wyatt stated this appears to be the right location for this water tank for the community as a whole, as far as visibility is concerned_ He said the option available on the Silver Lake property, which was shown on the master plan, is more visually obtrusive and will impact a greater number of existing residents along Poorhouse Road. Mr. Wyatt added that the Sanitation Authority has stated they do not want to own five - acre lots, when they need only 3/4 acre to site their tank; furthermore, the 1025 elevation is the catalyst for the placement. Regarding the issue raised by Mr. Larsen about the 100 -foot setback, Mr. Wyatt believed the plat was accurate based on discussions with the Planning Staff. Commissioner Oates inquired about the easement to be acquired through Mr. Campbell's property; he said if the Campbells are not willing to grant the easement, is there a backup plan to route a water line. Mr. Wyatt said the Sanitation Authority asked Greenway to pursue this option as a first step and the Planning Staffs approval signature on the plat would be conditioned upon the easement being delivered. He said discussions have taken place; however, a formal contract has not been presented with a dollar amount to purchase because if the requested waiver was not granted and the lot unable to be Frederick County Planning Commission rage iozo Minutes of April 7, 2010 -13 - created, there was no need to determine a dollar value for the easement. Mr. Wyatt said if the waiver is granted and the easement offer is declined, the Sanitation Authority will explore the 20 -foot Skyview Lane as the mechanism for access and the utility line for transmission. Commissioner Thomas said if the waiver proceeds, the Sanitation Authority should include within the application the rebuilding of Skyview Lane from the tank to Poorhouse Road because construction vehicles will damage the gravel road. Mr. Wyatt said a road survey is typically done before construction to evaluate the condition of the road to determine a baseline, so if damage is done during construction, the Sanitation Authority would rectify the situation. Commissioner Oates was also in favor of the Sanitation Authority taking care of the road after construction with tar and chip. He also said he would like to see the site plan before voting on this to know what type of screening is proposed for the western property line along the road; he suggested a double row of evergreens along Skyview Lane. Chairman Wilmot asked the County Attorney if the variances sought could be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Roderick Williams, the County Attorney, replied yes. Chairman Wilmot recalled an additional statement whereby this parcel will have direct access to a state road, Poorhouse Road, by Skyview Lane. Mr. Cheran agreed. Commissioners next raised the issue of the color of the water tank. Commissioner Triplett made a motion to recommend approval of the variances requested with the stipulations that site be surrounded by a full -screen buffer, consisting of a double row of evergreens; that Skyview Lane be paved from the tank to Poorhouse Road with an agreement on shared road maintenance; and, the color of the tank be appropriately selected. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the variance requests of Robert & Lynda Carpenter, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for exceptions to Section 144-24(B) Lot Requirements and Section 144-31(C)(3) Rural Subdivisions, of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, to allow the creation of a parcel of land intended to accommodate the development of the Round Hill ground water storage tank. The proposed new parcel will require the following variances: • Allowance of a 0.763+ acre minimum lot size for a parcel in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District which would otherwise need a minimum of five acres. • Allowance of reduced setbacks in the RA (Rural Areas) District to establish a 20 -foot BRL (building restriction line) along the western property line, which would otherwise be 60 -foot BRL; • Allowance of reduced setbacks in the RA (Rural Areas) District to establish a 25 -foot BRL along the southern property line, which would otherwise be a 60 -foot BRL; • Allowance of reduced setbacks in the RA (Rural Areas) District to establish a 40 -foot BRL along the northern property line, which would otherwise be a 100 -foot BRL; Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2627 Minutes of April 7, 2010 -14- • Allowance of a new, minor rural subdivision parcel to be accessed via a 20 -foot, rather than a 50 - foot, minimum required right-of-way; this parcel will have direct access to a state road-- Poorhouse oad,Poorhouse Road (Route 654), via Skyview Lane. This recommendations is based on the following stipulations: the site will be surrounded by a full -screen buffer, consisting of a double row of evergreen trees; after tank construction, Skyview Lane will be paved from the water tank to Poorhouse Road and an agreement reached on the shared maintenance costs for the road; and the color of the tank be appropriately selected. The majority vote on this recommendation for approval was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Mohn, Lemieux, Triplett, Kriz, Madagan, Oates, Crockett, Manuel, Ambrogi, Crosen, Unger, Wilmot NO: Thomas ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission rage 2622; Minutes of April 7, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP�f , Deputy Director �r COUNTY ofFREDEW CK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Public Meeting - Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) Designation Modification; Route 11 North, Northeast Land Use Plan, in the vicinity of the Graystone Office and Industrial Park. DATE: April 29, 2010 Planning Commission Update. This item was previously tabled for 60 days by the Planning Commission at your February meeting to allow additional time for the request to be reviewed and evaluated in conjunction with the Public Meeting held for the NELUP Update. This meeting was held on April 20, 2010 and was well attended. In general, the overall modifications to the DSA appeared to be well received. There were no comments specific to the modification of the DSA in this area. The Public Hearing for this Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment was held at your February meeting. Therefore, this is a Public Meeting item. A recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the modification of the DSA would be appropriate at this time. The area modified is generally bounded by Route 37 to the north; Milburn Road to the east; Route 11 to the west; and Red Bud Road to the south. Background. At their January 23, 2010 meeting, the Board of Supervisors directed Staff to prepare an amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan to remove several areas of Developmentally Sensitive Areas that were previously identified during earlier land use planning efforts in this part of Frederick County. Specifically, the Board directed staff to schedule a public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to remove the developmentally sensitive area designation from the area bounded by: Route 37 to the north; Milburn Road to the east; Route 1 I to the west; and Red Bud Road to the south. The following is a proposed Amendment to the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan; Northeast Land Use Plan and Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan, to modify the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation in the vicinity of Route 11 North, to include the removal of areas of DSA and to reflect recently approved development projects, as directed by the Board of Supervisors. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 226.01-5000 Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) Designation Modification Planning Commission Public Meeting Page 2 April 29, 2010 Enclosed with this agenda item is a copy of the original Northeast Land Use Plan, approved in 2003, and a copy of the modified 2003 North East Land Use Plan with the DSA modified as directed by the Board of Supervisors. Staff has also provided a close up version of the modified area for additional clarification. The Updated 2003 Northeast Land Use Plan is slightly different from the original Plan in that it has been updated to reflect those changes, and only those changes, that the Board of Supervisors have approved since the original 2003 approval of the Northeast Land Use Plan. These changes include an updated zoning layer reflecting all of the rezonings approved by the BOS, an updated SWSA and UDA boundary, and an updated Eastern Road Plan. No changes have been made to the text contained within the 2003 Northeast Land Use Plan. As the Board is aware, it is anticipated that a more significant update to the NELUP will occur during 2010. The Board of Supervisors' approval of the Graystone Office and Industrial Park rezoning included the consideration ofthe Developmentally Sensitive Areas in the vicinity of the project. The Planned Unit Development designation that exists on the property has been extended to cover the entire Graystone Property reflective of the Boards' approval of the Graystone Office and Industrial Park project. In those other areas where the DSA has been removed outside of the boundaries of the Graystone project, no new land use designation has been proposed. Following the public meeting, a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on this modification to the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Northeast Land Use Plan and Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan to modify the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation in the vicinity of Route 11 North, would be appropriate. MTR/bad Attachments Streets r"`. Future Pt37 Bypass Urban Development Area LongRangel-andUse _ Industrial Historic \ D: ®RRZa909 Location _. SVSA Residential ' planned Unit Development Business Instautionat N 0 SLE S 0.45 0,9 1.8 Miles Amendment to Long Range Land Use 2007 January 27, 2010 J r 000rr.`��S•� � ti Il ❖.p•..❖•�•ra► it Y O•y♦♦y ♦• II I 1 � Ii ♦ • '•i 20♦4rri riTi��• d♦•Oi•'d%♦ �ririp•ii r��•�♦�•♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦d'•ii Oyer ♦�.♦♦�p • '�•i �� �♦♦p�b0•`♦♦•♦♦♦•♦•�''sf♦i♦ ♦♦ •�♦ •� O'•i��'•i�♦ �,'�.'w�' �••�i•♦��'•i�'♦�i�i0•i �i•'�'�' ♦♦♦♦ •♦♦♦•♦ Op• ♦�♦ ri ♦r♦�♦ij�ii ' i•"�♦O•ip� ..O'+•.�i♦p, '„I ♦", •♦• •i 0���, ♦•ii00•'••iri09♦ ♦ •♦�•Oip� �P'• �r ' r•♦iii0♦'♦'�••♦••♦•♦r'•i•♦'•i•♦'�ii• O'•i • ''''•O•'•i�♦%�i♦ r'� •• ••• rrrr•rryoo•.dooro•.�.r.•�r ♦O♦Q•♦IY''.•'♦ . ♦•�rr'♦•it'►00♦�i�� orr.'�oo�.�r.� .... � �� ,.r� � /�-, i•Oi�i� ♦ ..<�V rO�'♦••♦%♦�i�iF'%ii•♦r'♦�%%O�'♦�•♦'i�%♦i'i�0ii�i'4•i`'♦�♦•'♦ivd���i���•`'w•♦���•���y�• .00❖ ..or., ..•..•�. ti.•.g•...o•. oo*`+rrr..❖.❖.,❖.•�Pv'o .!.!♦S!. w!.!.!♦SSl.!._ � ��O:.O•�aS2.O'err_'.4a2.�!:.S_r.�r'..:._Q�♦e:•::d!::•:•:•5:•:•y�•:'��:r:��•a:��:�:`!:� .�..❖�.oy.� Streets r"`. Future Pt37 Bypass Urban Development Area LongRangel-andUse _ Industrial Historic \ D: ®RRZa909 Location _. SVSA Residential ' planned Unit Development Business Instautionat N 0 SLE S 0.45 0,9 1.8 Miles Amendment to Long Range Land Use 2007 January 27, 2010 N qrh Pnct Land use Pi et Qi) Huo,se Jft�n-iJa}9es House0.5 ----------- + Cwn' H.Yft H—e, H.3 pit,o, 110"60 J J ze VaWoJ4 (7 ,111 Ten,nt H.. A H11i C no �'y Bran— /* CMVO1,,,,rH.2 House. /7 ,6Ta. tit _1f. G I 111an U- us - Fn -1:, N� J hoof V S,Iwoi sr "iffer House :J Gas 'Z Aw kt 1�pl,dtmn, Dr. H.W. House A ail .us. 4' 4,4' 4 s as,I. . . . . . . ..... 1 -1 7 660 4r X N. 2 Miles Legend 7 Proposed Land Use Zoning Residential B 1 (Business, Neighborhood District) Business 82 (Bu3inesa, General Dialfial) Industrial B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) I r., Planned Unit Development EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) Historic I 05A HE (Higher Education District) range I H.use < nnj Eastern Road Plan Ml (Industrial, Light District) 1u o 7• #V*4# New Major Arterial M2 (industrial, General District) Improved Major Arterial MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) f New Minor Arterial MS (Medical Support District) ed MintirArterial OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) ImprovR4 (Residential Planned Community District) New Major Collector J R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) Improved Major Collector RA (Rural Area District) AA I Tr 1 J 0%� New Minor Collector RP (Residential Performance District) C"k,,o improved Minor collector UDA N d#Ramp SVVSA RuralCommunityCenter Parcels W_ E S Frederick County Planning Department DSA Modification Adopted by Board of Supervisors All BBS Approved changes to August 13, 2003 - Updated; March 3, 2010 the Comprehensive Plan since original adoption. eL Ian- U s Pasl an Nnlrth 11 0119 OVVJI& H.11 school Nr)rth Pact Ad I %- 9 1 P %-A %a L Land Mise Plan 0.5 1 So— Hill Htn's. rraJ ? J i"Wk7j"oll T. n f T, 117ify Cedar 1"11 f t 1 E.B. cl—mov House x `-4-� .. % yr.« '"•4. - � � 1 - t% ' House AL 7 p I r , CJ H. 9 �7 x 4 ,ft, Z-Z a x J�Nl r C*I;1fan, on HW H iu % A, tt jr SO yl 4 ;J V. el 4A, I 74 �V. Land Usm, 3 T A - P 1- ..A 4 W �Z lly N� w Legend 7z- AfProposed Land Use Eastern Road Plan 4 Residential 4W#,#NeW Major Arterial Bualnome IMPTOYed M-Jorktofial Industrial 0%&New MlnQFAdoflHJ ,46, Planned Unit Development improved Mi— Man.) Histodc 1 QSA p, AfUTA flk*Now Major Collwor > A SVVSA Improved Major Collector Rural Conimmity Centore X-,�jj New minor collector RuralCommunityCenter Improved Minor Collector V C Percale Ramp • W E s. S 'rederick County Planning Department OSA Modificatio kdopted by Board of Supervisors All 1308 Approved changes t kugust 13, 2003 - Updated; March 3, 2010 the Comprehensive Plan sine originial adoptior 2 Miles COUNTY of FREDERiCR Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MET140RANI)UM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: NELUP Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan, 2010 Update. DATE: April 29, 2010 The 2010 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan Update is presented to the Planning Commission as a discussion item. A recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to move the 2010 NELUP Update would be appropriate. The Community Area Plans Subcommittee of the CPPC has been working to update this plan over the past couple of years. The plan was originally adopted in 1996 and, subsequently, amended on several occasions, most recently in 2003. In recent years, a significant amount of development activity has occurred in this corridor resulting in a need to revisit the North End Frederick Land Use Plan. Changes in this part of the County have also presented new opportunities to refine the land use plan. A particular effort of this study has been to reevaluate the transportation element and ensure that it is supportive of the land use. It proposes an enhanced transportation network that is functionally acceptable. For the first time, Frederick County was able to utilize transportation modeling into a small area land use plan. This modeling verified that with minor modifications, the transportation network was balanced with the land use plan. The 2010 NELUP effort incorporates a land use map and two transportation maps, one of which identifies the network and one that designates the typical sections of the road network, as well as a community facilities map which also recognizes and incorporates the environmental elements of this portion of the County into the Plan. An overview of the key elements contained in the 2010 NELUP update has been provided. This summarizes the text of the land use plan. The draft text of the land use plan will be presented to the CPPC at their May Meeting. 107 Nortb Xetit Street, este 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22671-5099 Planning Commission Re: NELUP Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan, 2010 Update April 29, 2010 Page 2 A public informational input meeting took place on April 20, 2010. This was well attended with 111 members of the community participating. The update to the Plan was generally well supported with input guiding the final draft of the land use plan. No changes to the plan were made following the public informational meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. MTR/bad Attachments Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan 2010 UPDAT.E: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Overview of Update: Land use. An evaluation of current land uses and proposed modifications to the future land use designations, including potential additional areas, areas of prioritization, and locations for targeted land uses, are key parts of this Update to the Plan. A strong nexus between the proposed land use designations and the other components of the study update is maintained. This land use plan is vitally important in addressing some of the County's Economic Development goals. The Plan proposes areas specifically located to support the County's O -M Office and Manufacturing Park District, the district designed to provide areas for research and development centers, office parks, and minimal impact industrial and assembly uses, and located to support targeted business and industries. The general locations of commercial and industrial land uses have been refined. Transportation. Transportation remains a key component of this Community Area Plan with Route 37, interstate 81, and Route 11 continuing to play a vital role in the growth and development of this area. New north south road connections, in addition to new east west connections over the interstate, have been evaluated and are being proposed. The redesign of Exit 321 at Clearbrook, including alternatives, will continue to be evaluated. The role of the railroads in the future of this part of the County remains a consideration. The Plan promotes connectivity between land uses with strong multimodal access emphasis. Modeling effort evaluated the proposed network, potential weaknesses in the proposed network, proposed modifications, and aided in determining lane needs. Community Facilities. The County's community facility providers have collaborated and evaluated their current and future needs in this part of the County. The most critical need identified is that of the Clearbrook Fire and Rescue community who are looking at an immediate need to relocate and expand into an area that would better serve this part of the County. A particular emphasis has been to ensure that the necessary infrastructure components needed to support the County's Economic Development strategies are available. This includes water and sewer, electricity, gas, and communications. New park and school locations are recognized. Developmentally Sensitive Areas. DSA's, including historical, recreational, and environmental resources, continue to be a strong component of this land use plan. The characteristics of the Red Bud Run area as its own unique DSA are recognized. This area will continue to form the southern boundary of the Plan and provides connectivity with Millbrook High and Redbud Elementary School Complex. This DSA borders with the Senseny Eastern Frederick Urban Land Use Plan Clearbrook DSA including park area is recognized. The Plan clearly identifies the rural areas of the County from the more concentrated development of the Urban Development Area and Sewer and Water Service Area. Promote the Rural Community Centers of Clearbrook, Stephenson, and Brucetown. The Plan recognizes the removal of small areas of DSA to reflect approved development projects (Route 11 North, South of future Route 37). For additional Study Information: WWW.COJrederick.va.us/plannIng or call (S40) 665-5651 a \� NELUP - Revision .q Alternative Filar Transportation 4 9 Workin DRAFT ,ter April 20, 2010 _Rw with >_ Proposed Future Land Use IJ t a,. f. ! t , a }� fT; f � $ * •A j'M F ., �� r �� .rte \ �� �� � -•' ?y � £ � 1 � fes•,,,. SharedAccessReverseFrontage_Alternative Critical Access Management Area _ ; - -''"• DRAFT_NELUP RDS_ALTERNATIVE ^.0 Proposed NELUP Roads Status a. Future Overlays 1 s ( OverlayTyp b "�•� Heavy industrial j�.�-�� B Iw F \ �Q Mixed Use Industrial Office y. } warehouse r aR > North Eastern Land Use Plan (New) t\.,R Land Use IiasmeSa Industrial t Extractive Mining r "'�az �! �--�'"� 9, '-•`'*",� � Planned Unit Development �I r� Residential cleamrook Community DSA ev to en enstve Areas Rd Bud D elopm tally Sti ©Rural Community Canter j - i� -"__ -- i 4'•r a : Rural Area Fire & Rescue School Park Urban Development Area SWSA i 0.25 0.5 1 Miles r uv lnw„. trKos n:<vl�°�.m .+.eawnu w� "� i f Nt�lxenZquw[tN x>;H=iwteuw�_waxce rm"y'wr,Rw¢5o� r..w NELUP - revision alternative Plan Transportation R Working DRAFT April 20, 2010 Pox,R„xrx all h 4r rteD,plxF xr \\ a �� I „,Rfr `�• "6w4W � WfxxP /t mi'`'x rxo 6rrff'e l r kx� W- r t rrU u o xm r W hQtF4xOl A .4 �fek � I I +fia fMrrxq�y !j d rRa� yFRPDxcR ��t � �. 8 PQyrP� 1 an`b1 DWhne � J ire. ry 1 tr .� ,d� Gfurx 4 xRtW] xD�xrR.r.rooxRP - F: 1 Q `'t SharedAccessReversaFrontaga_Alternative 4 �4je+i, I—N_o Critical Access Management Area DRAFT NELUP RDS ALTERNATIVE Proposed NELUP Roads Status v ` I • i� � ,Rj Future C) Urban Development Area SVVSA 3� g` F Railroads J�`. 0 0.25 0,5 1 Mies i �,4 � � ..,, .��� 3ke 4nw � °j �'S h xrrmro-xnwre xe Iwt. lwe=rnaWe v..RR4�rurx,..w.r w NELUP - Revision Alternative Plan Lane Divides Working DRAFT Aprils, 2010 xir FENAv CfillcalAoCeSS Management Area Proposed NFLUP Roads Status 1%. Future Proposed Lane Divides 4 Lane Limited Access wl CD Lanes (it required) 6 Lane Divided 4 Lane Divided C> Urban Development Area Sewer & Water Service Area Railroads 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles % ti NELUP - Revision Future Lard Use Working DRAFT i April 20, 2010 r <' Community Facilities FIlkNatural and Recreational �-- � Resources wF•�"0µ !i ------ ------ f E r • - J E i I y . •\. \ lIx ^ .. , r: n a F �. _ , r , { i . r V • iax.ur.i<itr au �•. •• �`"'""{��src.'d'.)•---� _ aLu'r • ' �� _ ` • ,....,.. r.. 1 1 •« � � `y /... tv. � - - (. 41 f _ , - ! ! old SharedAccessReverseFrontageRd 'X e-", Critical Access Management Area DRAFT NE ROADS f t a ,•`��-,�., ,"�o i'1+,,. Future / r } Historical Landmark Survey Points Area Facilities Elementary School Future Elementary School 41, ,. id e School '. � x i e \, M igh School Fire &Rescue Station Rural Community Center Current DSAs w 1� i Park suture Park f h i CD onservatianArea `. f { i Water Resources Area r o Natural Resource & Recreation Areas ✓i /; - .° ; / Urban Development Area V o ' t �` Sewer & Water Service Area 05 Q5 .2 4 Mites 0 4 - I , :- ,_ ,.. a. -yet. , .�•„•.,w �. r a I , 1+� •�� 1 d rl � .i+"'^q.�^^ viyn,a z„vw _ w'°°l+•w+naw,.'4.wti++wt _ .. _ .. _ �0.w^s C7 C COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Extensions of Water Service Outside of the SWSA Stephenson Rural Community Center DATE: April 20, 2010 This past fall, staff received a request to enable an existing residence of the Stephenson area to gain access to a public water line located within their front yard. The residence was located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and was, therefore by policy, not permitted to access this public water. Many of the property's adjacent neighbors, while also outside the SWSA, did have water service. The Board of Supervisors, on November 18, 2009, ultimately granted the residence access to the water service. Through the Board's deliberations, it was noted that other properties exist that utilize the public water service but are located outside the SWSA. The Board suggested that it was appropriate to establish a list of properties that are outside of the SWSA but are connected to public water. Staff will also work on establishing a list of properties located outside the SWSA, not utilizing the water service but with water lines existing on their properties. These lists could then be considered at a future Board meeting for adoption as an exception to the SWSA, formalizing their policy rights to utilize the water service. At the annual Planning Commission Retreat, this project was placed on the agenda. Unfortunately, the weather prohibited the item from receiving a thorough discussion; the item is now being presented to the Planning Commission as a discussion item. For this Planning Commission discussion, staff will present the Stephenson area findings, and seek discussion as to the appropriateness of proceeding to gain an exemption to the SWSA for the water service. It is our intention to use the Stephenson community as a prototype to the process and, as appropriate, to extend the effort to other portions of the County where exemptions to the SWSA policy may be appropriate reflective of past actions. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, V;rginia 22661-5000 Planning Commission Re: Extension of Water Service April 20, 2010 Page 2 Identification of Issue There are a number of locations where public water lines have extended beyond the boundaries of the SWSA. Staff has mapped the existing water lines in relation to the SWSA to visually identify these non-SWSA compliant areas (see Map). These water lines were extended prior to the County's adoption of a SWSA, and review of files does not indicate whether the Board ever granted an exception or grandfathered the use of the line. A second map provides a close-up of the Stephenson area with the properties containing water lines identified. Potential Reasons for Discrepancy with SWSA Through discussion with individuals with historical knowledge of some of the questionable areas, we have learned that at various times in history water lines were extended to provide potable water to small lot subdivisions. Often the water line extension was necessary so that potable water could be provided to residential areas that were experiencing fecal coli form in their wells. Costs of the infrastructure improvement were offset by low/no interest loans that would be repaid by the new water users in the served areas. Our research shows that not all property owners opted to connect to the water; which supports why not all properties on a given street are connected to the water service. It should be noted that many, if not all, of the water line extensions occurred prior to the County adopting the service area boundary referred to as the SWSA in the early 1990s. Stephenson Area Study For the purpose of this presentation, staff will offer an overview of the number of lots within the Stephenson area that are connected to water, as well as those properties with water lines but are not connected. Neither has been granted water access by the more recent SWSA policy. The streets that appear to have water lines and will be further discussed: Stephenson Road Old Charlestown Road Jordan Springs Road Morrison Road Gun Club Road November 18, 2009 Board meeting minutes REQUEST TO EXTEND WATER SERVICE OUTSIDE OF THE SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA (SWSA), RONALD HOWSER PROPERTY IN STEPHENSON - APPROVED Planning Director Eric Lawrence appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised that staff received a request to enable an existing residence to gain access to a public water line located within their front yard. The residence is located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is by policy not permitted to access this public water. Director Lawrence noted this request to tap into the existing water line of the property can be sponsored by a board member and this particular application has board member sponsorship. Chairman Shickle stated this request troubles him because there is no record of the other properties getting permission to connect to this service outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area. Supervisor DeHaven stated the fact that these lines are here at all has to do with water concerns in the area. Chairman Shickle went on to say if a record exists then this one could be added, but if there is no record then they all should be added. Supervisor Fisher advised the Sanitation Authority made an offer to the current property owner, but she declined. Supervisor DeHaven stated if the Board is protecting policies it has been implementing then he understands that. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the resolution granting the extension of water service outside of the SWSA to serve the existing residence at 344 Gun Club Road and that staff expand this resolution to include other properties and bring it back when they are ready to address other propel flies. expanded, ; «t to ; „ l , a„ o - on the safne t e WHEREAS, Mr. Ronald Howser, property owner, wishes to connect his existing two bedroom residence at 344 Gun Club Road, identified by Property Identification Number 44-A-197, to the public water system; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has maintained a water line on the subject property and provided water service to 13 residences adjacent to the subject property, since prior to 1992; and WHEREAS, the request for extension of water service would only serve the existing two bedroom residence located at 344 Gun Club Road; and WHEREAS, this extension of water service outside of the SWSA request was sponsored and presented to the Board of Supervisors by the Stonewall Magisterial District Supervisor on this day; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors authorizes the extension of water service outside of the SWSA to serve the existing residence at 344 Gun Club Road. Passed this 18th day of November, 2009 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Stephenson ,area Parcels - Water Sewer line —N � water line Parcels - Sewer 4M Parcels - Water C.Urban Development Area SWSA _ ,_, Future Rt 37 Bypass <:-) TownandCityBoundary 107 Map Geatetl by Fretl mk —ty Dept d Planning & pe�elppment water 8 Sewer tlala u I— 0.5 7 2 Miles Fretlerlck Caunry fianilation Dhlncl fOTNKent 6t, 6uRe 202. Wincbener. V/22601 Water Lines &Parcels Adjacent -Outside of SWSA apa may nal ne upbtlace. 500-665-5651 F -- Sewer line -\i waterline Parcels - Sewer 4M Parcels - Water 10 Urban Development Area r SWSA — Future Rt 37 Bypass O TownandCityBoundary Note: Water&Sewer data is tram Map K m St, Fredee , Geunty Oept of Pbpnirg 8 Devebpma�R 0 0.5 1 2 M IeS Frederick County Sanlla4on Oistnct 10]NKemSf, Suite 202, WincMsfer. VA 22501 Water Lines & Parcels Adjacent - Outside of SWSA 500-fiG5-5651 antl may not De up b tlate. Parcels - Water water line 4 Parcels -water C> Urban Development Area SWSAFuture Rt 37 Bypass TownandCityBoundai re1-kdbyb,Fnd. wak,xsawa�aam �: r,om .`°°°°"°ap`°"^^ °- Water & Sewer Lines & Parcels Adjacent Outside of SWSA ° ° �s 2 Mees � N Nenl S', Su0a 202. WncM1esler. VA22001 - � � I j and mat nal ba up to dak. 500 -fifi5 -5651 1- Parcels - Water water line 4 Parcels -water C> Urban Development Area SWSAFuture Rt 37 Bypass TownandCityBoundai re1-kdbyb,Fnd. wak,xsawa�aam �: r,om .`°°°°"°ap`°"^^ °- Water & Sewer Lines & Parcels Adjacent Outside of SWSA ° ° �s 2 Mees � N Nenl S', Su0a 202. WncM1esler. VA22001 - � � I j and mat nal ba up to dak. 500 -fifi5 -5651 L r ' Parcels - Water water line 4 Parcels -water C> Urban Development Area SWSAFuture Rt 37 Bypass TownandCityBoundai re1-kdbyb,Fnd. wak,xsawa�aam �: r,om .`°°°°"°ap`°"^^ °- Water & Sewer Lines & Parcels Adjacent Outside of SWSA ° ° �s 2 Mees � N Nenl S', Su0a 202. WncM1esler. VA22001 - � � I j and mat nal ba up to dak. 500 -fifi5 -5651