Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 12-02-09 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia December 2, 2009 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) October 7, 2009 and October 21, 2009 Minutes..............................................................(A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Part 401 - RA (Rural Areas) District; Article II, Part 204 - Additional Regulations for Specific Uses; Article I, Part 101 — Definitions and Word Usage; and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article II, Definitions; and Article V, Design Standards. The 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. e 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. • 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. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (B) 6) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 161 Sewage Disposal Systems, Water and Sewers — Revisions and updates to the Frederick County Code relating to sewage systems and wastewater discharge. 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. Mrs. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (C) PUBLIC MEETING 7) Rezoning #07-09 of the Burns Property — Valley Mill Road, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 1.26 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (General Business), 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, in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 54- A -112Q, 54 -A -112D and 54 -A -112P. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (D) 8) 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 (Route 837), approximately 0.1 miles northwest of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Ebert Road, in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 44 -A -12A. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (E) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 9) Proposed Ordinance Amendment — Addition of Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) standards to Chapter 165 Zoning. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (F) 10) Proposed Ordinance Amendment — Revisions to the Historic Area Overlay (HA) District Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (G) 11) Planning Commission Bylaws Mr. Lawrence ............................... 12) Other ........................................................................ (U) r� � � 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 October 7, 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; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mobn, Red Bud District; Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison. ABSENT: Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District S'T'AFF 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; Dana M. Johnston, Zoning inspector; and Renee' S. Arlott :, Clerk CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Upon motion made by Planning Commission unanimously adopted the October 7, 2009, agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the August 19, 2009 meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the September 2, 2009 meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2541 Minutes of October 7, 2009 0 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee - 9/28/09 Mtg. -- --- — Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee had five items for discussion, as follows: 1) Valley Connector Support Request —the. Transportation Committee approved the revision request for a letter of support; 2) Update on the Double Church Road Truck Restriction — Warren County had no objection to Frederick County pursuing the restriction; 3) Enhancement Grant Application for the Senseny Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Path — the Transportation Committee endorsed the application; 4) Tevis Street Extension — Transportation Committee will continue to pursue developing the portion from Route 522 to Russell 150, regardless of when the bridge will be built, 5) VDOT provided an update on bridge work occurring within the next year. Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRQ — 9/24/09 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that DRRC discussed revisions to Chapter 165, Zoning, for the addition of a TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ordinance in accordance vv-ith the recently adopted Rural Areas Study. Commissioner Unger explained that landowners in the county may sell their development rights to property owners in the UDA (Urban Development Area). He said the committee is striving to keep the ordinance simple, realizing this has not been done much throughout Virginia. Commissioner Unger said the county is leading in the State with initiating this type of ordinance; he said hopefully, this will help to preserve land throughout Frederick County. Commissioner Unger said the DRRC also discussed permitted uses within the OM (Office Manufacturing Park) District and the Ml (Industrial Limited) District. He said the committee is discussing allowing food processors within those districts. Economic Development Commission (EDC) —10/02/09 Mtg. Commissioner Madagan reported that Mr. Gene Schultz from the Virginia Employment Commission spoke about current trends in the labor force and mixed signals for our area. He said Mr. Schultz reported that while unemployment is down slightly to 7.5% in August, the length of time persons are on unemployment has increased slightly. Commissioner Madagan reported that Mr. Patrick Barker of the EDC provided an overview of recent client activity and indicated the EDC is on par for as much or more activity than last year. Commissioner Madagan said Mr. Barker provided second quarter results for the local Cost of Living Index compared to the national average and other localities in Virginia. He said Mr. Barker also reported that Winchester and Frederick County continue to remain very competitive with the Northern Virginia area, as well as other regional areas that have a similar unemployment rate. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 7, 2009 Page 2542 Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) — 09/24/09 Mtg. Commissioner Triplett reported that Mr. Joe Wilder with Frederick County Public Works was available to discuss the new Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations and it appears Frederick County will need to develop a program for regulating stormwater. Commissioner_ Triplett said that because of the new regulations, there are concerns that development may encroach beyond the County's IUDA ,Urban Dcvelopment Area). He said the CEA also discussed some fund-raising activities. 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 Rezoning Application #07-09 of the Burns Property on Valley Mill Road, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., to rezone 1.26 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial uses. The properties are located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659) and Martin Drive. The properties are identified with P.I.N.s 54-A-1120, 54 -A -112D, and 54 -A -112P in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 45 Days Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the three parcels making up the rezoning request are located within the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area), the UDA (Urban Development Area), and are covered by the Route 7 Lane Use Plan. He said a GDP (Generalized Development Plan) has been provided calling for 12,000 square feet of commercial land uses on B2 (Business General) property with proffers. Mr. Ruddy said in general, the B2 land use proposed conforms to the Eastern Frederick County Long -Range Land Use Plan; however, the impacts associated with the rezoning request have not been fully mitigated by the applicant. hi particular, he reported that transportation improvements have not been provided that would improve or achieve an acceptable level of service at the adjacent intersection of Route 7 and Route 659 (Valley Mill Road). Additional corridor street enhancement elements such as landscaping should be provided In addition, the ten -foot hiker/biker trail should be extended across these properties frontage with Valley Mill Road. In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy reiterated the following outstanding issues: I) off-site transportation impacts to Valley Mill Road and to the Valley Mill Road intersection at Route 7 have not yet been resolved; 2) the timing of the installation of improvements by others may not be in place in relation to this project, but are necessary for this project to achieve an acceptable level of service; 3) the trail and sidewalk improvements across property frontages have not been continued; 4) the access for eastbound Valley Mill traffic to Martin Drive has not yet been resolved; and, 5) additional landscaping and buffering should be provided. Frederick County Planning Coninussion Minutes of October 7, 2009 Page 2543 -4 - Mr_ Patrick Sowers with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. was present to represent this rezoning application. Mr. Sowers proceeded to address the five outstanding issues raised by the staff. Beginning with the off-site transportation impacts, Mr- Sowers said the TIA indicates an additional lane is needed. along the Valley Mill Road frontage at the Route 7 intersection; he said this was proffered as part of the WalgreensM airy - - Corner Place rezoning application. Mr. Sowers said this applicant is willing to tie the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for this property to those improvements proffered by Walgreens/Dairy Corner Place in order to insure this project will not put additional traffic on the roadway without it being mitigated by road improvements. In addition, Mr. Sowers said the applicant has proffered there will be no direct access onto Valley Mill Road, thus eliminating further conflict points along Valley Mill Road. He said the applicant is also proffering not only a taper for a turn lane onto Martin Drive, but an expansion of Valley Mill Road across the property frontage. He said constructing this expansion will allow the applicant to: 1) tie into the improvements proffered as part of the Walgreens property; and 2) it will enable the applicant to sufficiently expand the width of Valley Mill Road to provide a left -tum lane that will go into Dowell I Circle. Mr. Sowers stated that this left - turn lane was seen as a need during consideration of the Walgreens application. Mr. Sowers noted that the other issue raised by the staff was the access to the site for east -bound Valley Mill Road. He said they have pushed the entrance as far back on Martin Drive as possible to insure there is no conflict between vehicles entering and exiting the site at the Martin Drive/Valley Mill Road intersection_ Mr_ Sowers next addressed the buffering and screening for the adjacent RP -zoned property across Martin Drive; he said the property is in residential use and the applicant is required to have the equivalent Category B Zoning District Buffer plantings across the Martin Drive frontage, consisting of three trees per ten linear feet. Mr. Sowers said the buffering and screening along the Martin Drive frontage will be substantial. In addition, he said they are extending the landscaping proffered as part of the Walgreens project along Valley iviill Road, 50 feet on center, and across the frontage to Martin Drive. Regarding the hikerlbiker trail across the property's frontage, Mr. Sowers said the recent ordinance adoption requires a sidewalk; however, the applicant would be willing to extend the trail system in lieu of that portion of sidewalk along the property's frontage. He said the applicant will maintain a portion of the off- site ffsite sidewalk previously proffered- Commissioner roffered Commissioner Kriz stated that according to the Commission's policies, this application should be postponed for 45 days because of the change in proffers. Commissioner Unger asked if the entrances for the Walgreens site would tie into this site, providing an alternative access for this project. Mr. Sowers replied that Walgreens will have a private commercial street through their site to Route 7, at the existing 220 Seafood entrance. Mr. Sowers said part of the Walgreens proffer package included an inter -parcel connector in this vicinity, which will connect with the inter - parcel connector shown on the Burns plan. He said traffic will have the ability to enter and exit through Martin Drive as well as through this inter -parcel access. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern about impacts to the six residences across the street from this project, along Martins Drive. Commissioner Thomas said the taper lane will not serve to mitigate impacts and headlights from exiting traffic will shine into the residences across the street. He commented that the applicant is putting a heavy commercial use in a residential area and the applicant is changing the character of the seven -to -eight houses in the area. Mr. Sowers described the landscaping to buffer those residential properties. Mr. Sowers commented that the long-term plan is for commercial use in this area. There was some discussion among the Commission and the applicant about the best location for the entrance on Martin Drive. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 7, 2009 Page 2544 Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak_ Mr. Robert (Bob) Ganse stated that he and his wife used to own the 220 Seafood Restaurant and are part owners of 38 acres in this area. Mr. Ganse said his wife's parents built the houses on Martin Drive in - - 1943; he said Martin Drive is a 25 -foot wide country lane with no curbing or cul-de-sac. -Additionally, Mr. Ganse had concerns about his ability to use the access roads planned for the Walgreens site. Mr. Ganse said if he and his wife choose to develop their 38 acres, he was concerned his property would not be able to access Route 7 or Valley Mill Road. Mr. Ron Mislowsky, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., said the access issue raised by Mr. Ganse was brought to their attention late this afternoon. Mr. Mislowsky said that in working with the attorneys representing all of the property owners, it was determined there is an existing easement over the access road to the 220 Seafood property and this ea.-ement gives Mr_ Ganse the right to use the access road Mr. Mislowsky said he spoke with the attorney for Walgreens and was assured that Mr. Ganse would have access by means of the easement shown on the plat_ Mr. Mislowsky said they are continuing to work with the attorneys to get all the easements where they need to be on the plat. Planning Commissioners discussed with Mr. Mislowsky what would happen at the Burns site entrance if the Walgreens project failed to develop. Commissioner Oates commented about encouraging traffic through the Walgreens site to access the Burns' site with lef -tum movements; he suggested signage to promote this access. Mr. Ruddy suggested that perhaps some coordination with this project and the adjacent project on one joint entrance sign would be appropriate. Mr. Ruddy commented about what could be done to facilitate using the entrance that was set up with the Walgreens project_ Commissioner Kriz asked about a possible scenario where the Walgreens project fell through and the Burns project was approved; he asked if the Burns applicant had agreed to construct the road and the improvements that were proffered by Walgreens all the way to Route 7. Mr. Ruddy said no, that is not what they are proffering presently; however, the applicant has suggested that they may potentially do that if the Walgreens project does not develop. Commissioner Mahn said he supported this rezoning application in general, as far as the land use and its transition, because of the intent pursuant to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. However, he believed the issue of integrating the improvements associated with this proposal and those provided with the Walgreens program will need to be seen specifically. Commissioner Mohn said he was somewhat concerned about the mechanics of how all that will work out; he said one project does seem to be dependent on the other. He suggested that a tabling would provide some time for everyone to study the new proffers and for the applicant to incorporate the changes that have been discussed. Commissioner Mohn made a motion to table Rezoning Application #07-09 of The Burns Property/Valley Mill Road for 45 days. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and was unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table Rezoning Application 907-09 of the Burns Property on Valley Mill Road, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., to rezone 1.26 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial uses, for 45 days. (Note: Commissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 7, 2009 Page 2545 Z. SENSENY ROAD ENHANCEMENT GRANT APPLICATION Consideration of an Application for Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Enhancement Grant Funds for Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths Along Senseny Road in the Vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. Action — Recommended Approval Deputy Director Transportation, John A. Bishop, reported that the County staff is undertaking the annual process of applying for Enhancement Grant funds. Mr. Bishop said Enhancement Grants are federal funds that are awarded by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on an annual basis for improvements to bicycle and pedestrian transportation. He said this is Frederick County's fourth year of applying and trying to amass funds to install pedestrian and bicycle improvements along the Senseny Road corridor in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. Mr. Bishop noted teat Frederick County was awarded $140,000 in 2006 and $250,000 in 2007; however, last year's application was not successful_ Mr. Bishop said the proposed project would add paved multi -use paths to the northern and southern sides of Senseny Road, between i-81 and the Orrick Commons project. The project would also include improvements to the crossovers of roadways traversed by the paths and an additional crossover of Senseny Road at Senseny Road Elementary School. Mr. Bishop said the project would serve as an important cornerstone for a future pedestrian and bicycle system extending further east along Senseny Road and into the City of Winchester. Mr. Bishop stated that the Transportation Committee considered this proposal at their September 28, 2009 meeting and unanimously recommended approval_ Mr. Bishop said the Transportation Committee is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend that staff proceed to apply for Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Enhancement Grant Funds for bicycle and pedestrian paths along Senseny Road in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. (Note: Commissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Conditional Use Permit #05-09 for Roger Jenkins for a public garage without body repair at 190 Boggess Lane. This property is identified with P.I.N. 41-10-9 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. (This item was tabled from the 8/19/09 meeting.) Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 7, 2009 Page 2546 -7 - Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, reported that the Planning Commission tabled this CUP (conditional use permit) for 45 days at their August 19, 2009, meeting to allow time for the property owners along Boggess Lane to work out a road maintenance agreement for Boggess Lane, a private road. Mr. Cheran reported that the proposed use, a public garage without body repair, would take place in a structure approximately 4,800 square feet in size on a 77 -acre parcel owned by Roger Jenkins. He noted that the property is not within any Frederick County land use study. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions which were compiled with input from property owners along Boggess Lane. After hearing the proposed conditions, Commissioner Oates suggested locations for the speed limit sign, the watch for children sign, and the private residence sign so they would be visually more effective. Commissioner Madagan asked who would be responsible for installing and maintaining the signs mentioned. Mr. Cheran said he would like to refer the question to the applicant and the neighbors who had the road maintenance agreement drawn up. Chairman Wilmot announced that although the public hearing for this proposed conditional use permit was held at the August 19, 2009, the Planning Commission would take public comments h-rm anyone who wished to speak. The following person came forward: Ms. Diane Michael, property owner at 241 Boggess Lane, said she was happy to report that the property owners along Boggess Lane have a road maintenance agreement, signed and recorded, and she provided copies to the Commission. Ms. Michael requested that the Planning Commission include the recommended conditions relating to the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with no work on Sundays; the posting of a 15 -mph speed limit sign, a Watch for Children sign, and the Private Residence/ No Trespassing sign. She commented about the safety of the neighborhood children and the narrow road with blind spots. In response to Commissioner Madagan's question about who would maintain the signs, Ms. Michael said she would like the signs to be metal and to be maintained by Mr. Jenkins. Ms. Michael was concerned about how Mr. Jenkins' business would impact the value of her -property and her neighbors' properties. No other public comments were made and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Unger recommended that after the signs are initially installed, that the maintenance and sign replacement costs be taken out of the dues collected through the road maintenance agreement. Commissioner Mohn said from the County's perspective, the requirements for the signs are a condition of Mr. Jenkins' CUP and the CUP is Mr. Jenkins' responsibility. Commissioner Mohn believed the initial sign installation will be Mr. Jenkins' obligation and afterward, the property owners should work out a payment method for maintenance or replacement of the signs. Commissioner Kriz made a motion to recommend approval of CUP #05-09 of Roger Jenkins with the conditions as recommended by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #05-09 for Roger Jenkins for a public garage without body repair at 190 Boggess Lane with the following conditions: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2547 Minutes of October 7, 2009 0 0 t1 r 7 All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The applicant will be limited to repairing only five vehicles on site at any tune. 3. Vehicles awaiting repair shall be screened by an opaque fence. 4. Operation is limited to the applicant; no employees. All repair activities shall occur entirely within the enclosed structure_ 6. The applicant shall apply for and install an approved septic system within three years of the approval date of this conditional use permit_ 7. This conditional use permit shall be void and will be revoked, if Condition #6 is not implemented. Any proposed business sign shall conform to the cottage occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four square -feet in size and five feet in height. 9. The hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a -m_ to 6:00 p -m. and no repair activities will take place on Sundays. 10. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit. 11. A 15 -mph speed limit sign shall be posted on Boggess Lane approximately 500 feet from the entrance. A "Watch for Children" sign shall be posted at the entrance of Boggess Lane. 12_ A "Private ResidenceNo Trespassing" sign shall be posted at Mr. Jenkins' entrance. (Note: Commissioner Buckman was absent from the meeting.) Request of Linda Brewer/Ruby Springs, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. for a waiver of the requirements of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design standards, Section 144-17, Streets (G)(1), Cul-de-sac, to allow a cul-de-sac length of approximately 1,086 feet, which is 86 feet greater than the allowed length of 1,000 feet. The property is located northeast of Red Bud Road (Rt. 661),1,300 feet west of its intersection with Morgan Mill Road. The property is identified with P.I.N. 55 -A -128C in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Approved Zoning Inspector, Dana Johnston, reported that PHR&A (Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates) is requesting a waiver, on behalf of Ms. Linda K_ Timbrook-Brewer, to allow a cul-de-sac length of approximately 1,086 feet, which is 86 feet greater than the maximum length permitted by the ordinance of 1,000 feet. Mr. Johnston staged that the proposed cul-de-sac would serve six lots proposed as part Of the viral subdivision, Ruby Springs, as well as an existing lot. He noted that the proposed street design allows for a single roadway within the development, thereby allowing for a greater amount of area within the rural preservation tract and minimizing Frederick County Planning Conunission Page 2548 Minutes of October 7, 2009 D j(1► F impervious surface area from roadways. Mr. Johnston stated that as this proposed waiver will not create safety issues and will promote preservation of open space and the environment using a larger preservation tract and less impervious surface area, the staff is recommending approval of the waiver request. Mr. Patrick Sowers with PER&A was available to represent the applicant. Chairman Wilmot called for any public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting_ No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Planning Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve the request by Linda K Timbrook-Brewer/Ruby Springs, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. for a waiver of the requirements of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design. standards, Section 144-17, Streets (G)(1), Cul-de-sac, to allow a cul-de-sac length of approximately 1,086 feet, which is 86 feet greater than the allowed length of 1,000 feet_ ,Note: Commissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting.) COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion of Proposed Revisions to Frederick County Code, Chapter 165 (Zoning Ordinance), Article VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 605 OM (Office Manufacturing Park) VistricL Revisions to the OM District include additional uses and revised design standards. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that Frederick County has received a formal request to revise portions of the OM (Office Manufacturing) Park Zoning District, particularly for the addition of a number of uses, as well as modification to the floor to area ratio (FAR) and the height maximums in the district. She said specifically, the request is to add various manufacturing uses, office uses, and service uses, along with revisions to the height allowances for office buildings from 60 feet to 90 feet and 70 feet for automobile parking structures. An additional request was received to allow a height exemption for automated storage facilities and to increase the FAR from 1.0 to 2.0_ Ms. Perkins reported that this amendment request was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on September 24, 2009. She said the DRRC discussed the intent of the OM Park District and believed the district should continue to accommodate office, research and development, and minimal impact industrial uses that could be compatible with the other uses in the park. She said the DRRC reviewed each of the uses requested by the applicant. First discussed was the requested food manufacturing uses, which were originally excluded from the OM Park when it was initially developed. Ultimately, the DRRC felt that the impacts of those uses, such as heavy traffic and odor, would not be cohesive with other uses that would be pei�mitted in the OM Park and believed those uses should be excluded. Ms. Perkins said the DRRC also recognized that such uses are currently permitted in the M 1 and M2 Districts and were more suited to those districts. She said the DRRC was satisfied with many of the other requested uses, but felt that certain financial uses, such as banks, still belonged in the secondary or accessory use portion of the district. Frederick County Planning Commissionn Page 2549 Minutes of October 7, 2009 ►� f�E � -10 - Ms. Perkins said Attachment #3, which was mailed to the Planning Commission after the agendas had already been mailed, is the revised OM Park District endorsed by the DRRC and forwarded to the Planning Commission for further discussion_ Ms. Perkins stated that all comments received from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Oates said this issue was thoroughly discussed by the committee. He said that except for the food items, the applicant received just about everything they had asked for. Other Commissioners believed the amendments provided for a better ordinance_ No action was needed by the Commission at this time. OTHER Planning Director, Eric R Lawrence, reported that the time is approaching when the Planning f :ommission reviews and renews its Bylaws. Mr. Lawrence said if anyone has suggestions or clarifications to the Bylaws, please contact the staff. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2550 Minutes of October 7, 2009 MEETING MINUTES FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on October 21, 2009. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Brian Madagan, Opetpjon 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; Charles E_ Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon 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 Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the October 21, 2009, agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Mohn, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the September 16, 2009 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Sanitation Authority - 10/20/09 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the water table was discussed and determ-ined to -he good with no immediate problems; sufficient rainfall has kept water usage down. Commissioner Unger provided the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2551 Minutes of October 21, 2009 1 R .4 V 7 production rates for the various plants. He said the Parkins Mill plant was doing well and is expected to be finished at the end of the month. Work is ongoing to increase production at the Clearbrook plant by about a million gallons per day. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) —10/20/09 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported the HRAB discussed the rezoning application for Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park; the project consists of 271 acres located in the Stonewall District and the applicant is requesting rezoning to M1 from RA_ Commissioner Oates said the HRAB recommended the following: 1) an increase to the allowed height of M I and an increase to the FAR would not be appropriate; 2) less intensive uses should be placed at the northern portion of the project, in the vicinity of core battlefield areas; 3) more intensive uses in regards to noise, odor, and traffic should be proffered out; 4) parking lots should be located in the interior of the park, rather than the outer perimeter near battlefields, scenic byways, and residences; 5) provide for increased setbacks on the outer perimeter; 6) a Phase I archeological survey should be conducted based on core battlefield areas and historic homes; a Phase 11 survey should be performed, if warranted from Phase I findings; 7) increased buffers along battlefields, scenic byways, and residential properties should be applied and, where practical, use of natural vegetation_ 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 peak PUBLIC HEARING ---------. -__ - _ -_ --- Rezoning Application #12-07 of Opequon Crossing, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. (PHR&A), to rezone 70.15 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers, for up to 325 single-family attached and detached residential units. The property is located south of the existing terminus of Eddy's Lane (Route 820), approximately 2,500 feet south of Route 7 and 1,650 feet west of Opequon Creek. The property is further identified by P.I.N. 55-A-210 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this application seeks to rezone 70.15 acres from RA to RP for up to 325 single-family attached and detached housing units. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has proffered no more than 170 single-family attached dwelling units, which is 4.6 units per acre. He said the applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP), which identifies the location of a recreational facility and specifies that no building permits will be issued until the spine road is constructed to the southern property line. The applicant has also proffered to construct a small portion of the east -west collector road. Mr. Ruddy said that since the timing of transportation improvements by others has been resolved with the Frederick County Planning Commission rage»� Minutes of October 21, 2009 -3 - applicant's proffer that no building permits would be issued until the spine road was completed, only three unresolved issues remain: transportation improvements, trail and sidewalk improvements, and a design and definition of the recreational facility. Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, said there was a significant change in the monetary transportation proffer for this application submission as compared to the package submitted in 2007. Mr. Bishop said the applicant is proffering $1,000 per single-family attached dwelling and $2,000 per single- family detached dwelling, while the previous version had proffered $3,000 and $5,000 respectively. Mr. Bishop said the total amount of cash proffered is significantly less with this application than the previous one. Further, it was less than what the applicant had provided for Parks and Recreation. Mr. Bishop said that although the adjoining Haggerty project contains a similar number of units, there is a significant difference in the level of commitment based on the amount of the cash proffer and the extent of transportation improvements constructed Mr. Bishop next discussed some of the transportation issues_ He said that eastbound traffic ftOm this project will be forced to use Route 7 or access Valley Mill Road via a single -lane bridge through a historic farm; be said the traffic impacts will not solely be at this location, but will be felt at I-81 and all the way down to the entrance to the Gateway shopping center along Route 7. Mr. Bishop noted that negotiations for an alternate access through Fieldstone were not successful. He next pointed out a problem with the language in proffer paragraph 9.4 in whicli the applicant specifies an 80 -foot right-of-way limitation for Eddy's Lane to the eastern property line. The proffer states the 80 -foot right of --way may increase to 100 feet, to be determined by VDOT; however, it should instead state that the width will be determined by Frederick County. He said comments received from VDOT state, "...additional right-of-way is needed on the East-West collector roadway at any intersection requiring right -tum lanes. A UD -4 with right -turn lanes, without sidewalk, requires a minimum of 100 feet of right-of-way." In addition, Mr. Bishop said language is needed for public access to the trail system; otherwise, a Homeowners Association (HOA) could decide its trail system was private and elect not tie into the community trail system_ Mr. Patrick Sowers with PHR&A, was representing this application. Mr_ Sowers said the Haggerty project was rezoned in 2007 and Opequon Crossing builds offwhat the Haggerty project started. Mr. Sowers addressed a number of issues that were raised in the staffs report. 1) HRAB — Mr. Sowers said all comments from the HRAB have been addressed, which included a change of the project name; a year -around screen adjacent to Valley Mill Farm consisting of a double row of evergreen trees along with the existing substantial screen; a documentation of the Adams House and existing structures before demolition. 2) Traffic Generation — Mr. Sowers said the estimated traffic generated for this project has decreased from 3,000 tpd to 2,65 8 tpd according to a formal scoping with VDOT. 3) TIA Scope — Mr. Sowers said the intersections required to be scoped are determined by VDOT and not the applicant_ He said three intersections were scoped and the intersection of Haggerty and the Spine Road connection was determined to be a LOS `B_" 4) Typical Section East-West Collector — Mr. Sowers said the applicant has proffered to build two lanes of the ultimate four -lane divided cross section of the East-West Collector from point A to B as indicated on the GDP; and, from point B to C, they will provide a reservation area for the ultimate right-of-way necessary to make the connection to Valley Mill Road. He said the language states the ultimate width is 80 feet and, if VDOT requires additional right-of- way, up to 100 feet can be provided. Mr. Sowers said the proffer language will be modified to include the county in this determination. 5) Road Efficiency Buffer — Mr. Sowers stated that requirements in the zoning ordinance for the road efficiency buffer between the residential units and the major collector roadway will be followed; he said there is no modified road efficiency buffer within the proffer. Mr, Cowers said this or ie-ct provides the right -riff -ways for 0l now mads and for the Pact -west collector in accordance with the Eastern Road Plan; it provides inter -parcel connectors to adjoining properties; and it provides a secondary access through Eddy's Lane. Mr. Sowers said the applicant's failed pursuit of a connection through Fieldstone was not a result of a lack of cooperation, but was due to the Fieldstone developers Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2553 Minutes of October 21, 2009 0 F having already sold units to homeowners with the understanding this would not be a through street. He said the developers of Fieldstone have already installed half of their infrastructure and many of their residential lots have already been marketed and sold as a private development. Mr. Sowers said this project is providing a complete pedestrian sidewalk system within the development per ordinance requirements, as well as a trail system. In conclusion, Mr. Sowers stated that this project is located within the SWSA and the UDA, and is Comprehensively Planned for residential development; he said that the project mitigates all impacts per the impact model and it operates with a LOS `B" in addition to providing $480,000 for infrastructure. He added that the spine road must be completed before any building permits are issued Mr. Sowers stated that asking this applicant to make off- site road improvements when they are operating at a LOS `B" per the TIA, did not seem to be in keeping with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. 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 Ruckman asked if the spine road would stay in place after Route 37 is constructed through this area. Mr. Sowers replied that Route 37 would sever the spine road connection to the south, but it would become an underpass for the east -west connector. It was noted that approximately 750 feet of the spine road would transition to become two lanes of Route 37. Commissioner Oates was interested in the applicant lining up the inter -parcel connection shown on the plan in Opequon Crossing with that shown in Fieldstone. Commissioner Mohn commented that this project was probably not ideal from a Comprehensive Policy Plan perspective. He said he was sensitive to the long-range transportation and infras'-_ucture needs in this area, although he thought some of those expectations exceed what can reasonably be expected from this particular project. He thought the applicant had made efforts to address these needs. Commissioner Mohn believed this exercise highlighted the need for a transportation model that could equitably show what a specific project is responsible for regarding off-site and cash contributions. He said that although the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan for land use, he was disappointed the monetary numbers were reduced with- this application. Commissioner Pvffohn made a motion to approve Rezoning Application #12-07 of Opequon Crossing with proffers. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application #12-07 of Opequon Crossing, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. (PHR&A), to rezone 70.15 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers, for up to 325 single-family attached and detached residential units. The majority vote was as follows: YES (REC. APPROVAL): Mohn, Triplett, Kriz, Madagan, Wilmot, Ruckman, Manuel, Ambrogi, Crosen, Unger NO: Oates rl�?crw ComTM.issioner Thomas .vas absent from the meeting.' Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2554 Minutes of October 21, 2009 MR& V -5 - Rezoning Application #05-09 of Haggerty Commercial, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. (PHR&A), to rezone 4.0 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B1 (Neighborhood Business) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The property is located along the east side of proposed Haggerty Boulevard, approximately 2,000 feet south of the intersection of proposed Haggerty Boulevard and Route 7. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 55-A-212 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this application is to rezone 4.0 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B I (Neighborhood Business) with proffers for commercial use. Mr. Ruddy reported that the property is within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). He said the Eastern Frederick County Long -Range Land Use map designates this general area for residential land uses and not for commercial development; therefore, this request is not in conformance with the Eastern Frederick County Long -Range Land Use Plan. He noted that the residential land use designation was supported by the Board of Supervisors' approval of the original Haggerty development, which was approved in 2005 and revised in 2007. The Haggerty rezoning application indicated this land would be part ofthe open space for the communi'vy and was shown as open space on the GDP and MDP, which was approved in October of2007_ He said this area of open space was designated in recognition of the significant environmental character of the area and as an enhanced area of buffer from the adjacent Opequon Wastewater Treatment Facility. Furthermore, he said the Parks and Recreation Department has recommended that this area be retained for a public park. Consequentially, the proposed use is not consistent with the previously proffered and approved GDP and the approved MDP for the open space area associated with the application's residential uses. Mr. Ruddy said this site is proposed to be accessed via one commercial entrance on Haggerty Boulevard. He said the applicant should consider eliminating the proposed commercial entrance as shown on the GDP and providing a joint entrance to the area of the park/open space that aligns with the relocated Valley M ll Road (future east -west collector). Mr. Ruddy said the commercial rezoning does not address corridor appearance; he said the applicant should consider providing additional landscaping along Haggerty Boulevard and enhanced design standards that would implement the goal of developing an attractive addition to the commercial corridors of the county. Commissioner Kriz inquired if there was enough open space available that the applicant could still meet the minimum requirements for open space. Mr. Ruddy replied the applicant could meet the requirements for open space; however, the character of the Haggerty rezoning request was such that there was a significant amount of environmental features and open space adjacent to the Opequon Creek and that was a desirable feature to support the residential development, iii addition to providing a busier between the residential land uses and the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Facility. In consideration of the land use map and the residential designation, Commissioner Mohn asked how the staff would apply the UDA policies to this type of proposal where in an otherwise exclusively residential area, there is an opportunity to provide a small neighborhood commercial area that seems to promote the goals of walk ability and integration of uses so that persons are not forced to travel by vehicle to other locations. Commissioner Mohn asked if this request may facilitate the attainment of some of those objectives. Mr. Ruddy replied that the commercial located internally to Channing Drive and the elementary school probably provides the neighborhood commercial to a greater extent. He said this particular commercial request will be very close to the Haggerty homes and potentially, the Opequon homes, but perhaps it is located more to take advantage of the commuter traffic heading towards Route 7 on a daily basis rather than the neighborhood side. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 21, 2009 Mp7l Page 2555 Mr. Patrick Sowers with PHR&A was present on behalf of the applicant. W. Sowers said that during the original Haggerty rezoning, there were two land bays shown for the residential areas and there was another gray hatched area designated as open space. Mr. Sowers said the idea emerged to put in a small scale neighborhood commercial user in the vicinity to provide goods and services to those residents living in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Sowers said that when they processed the MDP, they labeled, "Required Open Space — 30%" and "Residual Open Space —12 acres." He said the application before the Commission is to modify four acres of the existing Haggerty proffer in order to allow this neighborhood commercial use. He said the justification for this is to limit the number of people that need to drive out to Route 7 and all the way up to 1-81 at Winchester Gateway for goods and services. The simple way to provide that is through a small scale neighborhood commercial user and that is what the applicant is providing_ Furthermore, there is a pedestrian trail system that links across into the Twin Lakes area, Senseny Glen, and Sovereign Village and those areas could access this through the trail system without getting into a vehicle. Mr. Sowers said they have proffereAi street trees along the front at 50 feet on center, high-end masonry materials, and conformance to general elevation. Mr. Sowers continued, stating that they met with the Parks and Recreation Building and Grounds Committee originally with the concept of tying this to the Opequon Crossing application; however, that was not pursued. He said outside of the rezoning process, however, they wanted to state for the record that the applicant does intend on offering to the County this residual 34 acres, should they so choose to take it. Mr. Sowers said that is why they have proffered to provide a minimum of ten parking spaces to provide access to that future park facility. Commissioner Oates preferred to see the entrance to the commercial area lineup with the future east -west collector to minimize entrances along the spine road In addition, Commissioner Oates questioned why no uses were proffered out of the request, if this area is truly intended to be neighborhood commercial. Mr. Sowers replied that if the entrance was lined up, they would have to build the road through open space and there would not be direct site access to the commercial user. He said it was their intention to move the entrance as far away as they could from the east -west collector, while still having direct access to the user. Regarding Commissioner Oates' comment on proffering out uses, Mr. Sowers said that since this was a B 1 zoning for neighborhood commercial, rather than a typical B2, they believed there wasn't a real need to proffer out uses. He said they are not intending to pull trips off Route 7 to use this site. Mr. Sowers said they met with VDOT to scope this intersection as well, but it was determined that a TIA did not need to be conducted because traffic was an internal capture. Commissioner Ruckman asked if the northeast property line of the proposed rezoning area would be directly adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant property. Mr. Sowers pointed out the original Haggerty proper y bo•.i dart'; he said in -,N—u.-king out the boundaiy lice adjiiSulicrit to creme the right-oi way for the Haggerty spine road, this portion was given to the FWSA (Frederick -Winchester Service Area) to increase their buffer distance. He pointed out the FWSA, their buffer, the neighborhood commercial, and then the open space area before the residential. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Kriz commented that the UDA Study has shed a different perspective on having this commercial area available to create a neighborhood community than before the UDA Study was done. Commissioner Mohn added that he viewed this as a more balanx-1 project or providing more dimension to the project and use opportunities; it provides something for all the residential uses that will be located in this area. So while not clearly identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan for commercial use, he believed it advanced the UDA policies. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2556 Minutes of October 21, 2009 9 W IA V V -7 - Commissioner Mohn made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Application #08-09 for Haggerty Commercial with proffers_ This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and was passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application #05-09 of Haggerty Commercial, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. (PHR&A), to rezone 4.0 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B1 (Neighborhood Business) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The majority vote was as follows.- YES ollows: YES (REC. APPROVAL): Mohn, Triplett, Kriz, Madagan, Wilmot, Ruckman, Manuel, Ambrogi, Crosen, Unger NO: Oates (Note: Commissioner Thomas was absent from the meeting_) PUBLIC MEETING Subdivision Request #04-09 of Bonnie Triplett, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to create two lots consisting of 2.0 acres and 4.157 acres for a family division at 1065 Airport Road. The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 144-24B of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance to allow a 4.157 -acre parcel to be created with a road frontage less than 250 feet and a lot area less than five acres for both parcels. The property is located on the north side of Airport Road (Route 645) and is further identified by P.I.N. 64-A-174 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, reported that the property is zoned RA (Rural Areas) District and the land use is residential. Mr. Cheran reported that the request is for subdivision of 6.157 acres into two parcels consisting of 2.0 acres and 4.157 acres to settle a trust for the applicant. He said two dwellings are located on this property and the subdivision will allow these dwellings to stand on separate tax parcels. He noted that the parcels are located outside of the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) and the proposed future Route 37 Bypass is planned to cross this property. Mr. Cheran said the applicant has also requested a waiver from Section 144-24B of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance which addresses lot size, lot area, and density in the RA Zoning District. He said the waiver will allow a 4.157 -acre parcel to be created with a road frontage less than 250 feet. In addition, two parcels will be created with a lot area less than five acres and with a density less than one dwelling unit per five acres. Mr. Cheran said the staff is seeking three actions from the Planning Commission, as follows: 1) a recommendation regarding the reduction of public road frontage less than 250 feet for the 4.157 -acre parcel; 2) a recommendation regarding administrative approval authority for lots less than five acres in area and with a density less than one dwelling unit per five acres; ani, 3) a raux— ,endatiion regarding admin-istrative approval authority for a two -lot subdivision. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2557 Minutes of October 21, 2009 © W &A. V Y t Commissioner Oates observed there was no right-of-way dedication on the 30 -foot prescriptive easement; he said the county code requires a 25 -foot dedication for subdivisions. Also, he said with Route 37 crossing these lots, the plats should show the future location of Route 37. Mr. Cheran agreed that a 25 -foot right- of-way dedication was required. Mr. Cheran read a note on the plat disclosing the possibility of future right-of- way acquisition for the proposed Route 37 Eastern Bypass_ Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was present to represent the Triplett Trust Mr. Wyatt said Mr. Triplett has passed away and Mrs. Triplett is in the process of settling the trust for the various family members. In working with their tax attorneys, they determined a need to provide properties to various family members. He said there is a 6.15 -acre parcel with two dwellings; one existed when they purchased the property and the other was constructed in the early 70s. Mr. Wyatt said he didn't understand how the house and property got permitted at that time; however, today there is a lot which is legally nonconforming with two residential uses. Mr. Wyatt said that they are attempting to make at least one of the homes in conformity with current ordinance standards and in doing so, they created the two -acre family lot and with the residual parcel, and they were able to keep a 50 -foot building restriction line, which is also in conformity with current ordinance standards_ He said where they fall short is in the size of the residual lot and the frontage requirement. Mr. Wyatt added that the disclosure note read by Mr. Cheran regarding the future Route 37 Bypass will be placed on the final plats, along with the 25 -foot roadway dedication. Commissioner Unger asked if there would be easements on the drainfields and Mr. Wyatt replied yes, they were on the plat. Commissioner Oates inquired if Miss Henry realized she could not sell this land for a number of years according to the family subdivision requirements and Mr. Wyatt replied yes. Commissioner Manuel inquired if the applicant realized that the future path of Route 37 is goes through this tract of land and Mr. Wyatt replied yes. Chairman Wilmot called for anyone in the audience who would like to make comments_ No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Manuel and seconded by Mr. Ambrogi, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision Request #04-09 of Bonnie Triplett, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to create two lots consisting of 2.0 acres and 4.157 acres, for a family division at 1065 Airport Road, with a waiver of Section 144-24B of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance which would allow a reduction of the 250 -foot required public road frontage on a 4.157 -acre parcel; the granting of administrative approval authority for lots less than five acres in area and with a density of less than one dwelling unit per five acres; and the granting of administrative approval authority for a two -lot subdivision. (Note: Commissioner Thomas was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2558 Minutes of October 21, 2009 0 A (',1 P COMMISSION DISCUSSION COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLANAM ENDMENT—SEWERAN D WATER SERVICE AUTHORITY (SWSA) EXPANSION FOR THE ROCK HARBOR GOLF COURSE. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that on September 14, 2009, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Executive Committee endorsed a draft amendment to the Round Hill Land Use Plan known as the Rock Harbor Amendment to the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Mr. Ruddy said that through the 2009 Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment process, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors endorsed the evaluation of an amendment to the Comprehensive Policy Plan to include the property known as the Rock Harbor Golf Course. He explained that the amendment has two primary goals — first, to establish a new area of land use that would specifically promote the recreational attributes of this area in conjunction with the open spaces associated with the existing Rock Harbor Golf Course; and second, to create a well-designed Conference Facility and Commercial Center with an orientation to the golf course and future Route 37 interchange_ He said the goals of the amendment seek to enable the development of land uses which will provide economic development, tourism, and entertainment benefits to the community and to Frederick County, and further promote the Rock Harbor Golf Course. Mr. Ruddy said the result of this proposed amendment would be the addition of approximately 260 acres into the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the addition of a new land use designation, a Recreation and Conference Commercial Community, which promotes a balance oflanduses with the recreational component as the primary laud use, supported by conference facilities, lodging, commercial activities, and a limited amount of accessory membership residential opportunities. Mr. Ruddy next reviewed and discussed with the Commission the components of the Rock Harbor Amendment to the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan, which included Guiding Principles, Land Use with a specific Balance of Land Uses, Community Facilities, Design, Transportation, and Implementation_ Mr_ Ruddy had an additional item to be discussed with this request. Mr. Ruddy said a letter has been received from an adjacent property owner with a request to include approximately five acres into the consideration of this Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment. He said the intent is to use the property in a manner compatible with the Rock Harbor Golf Course, as a recreational commercial use. Commissioner Mobn felt this amendment process had proceeded well; and, in particular, he was pleased the applicant has been open to the process and hearing the committee's ideas as it moves along. Commissioner Mohn said the whole idea behind this is to ensure that the project is successful and that it comes together well. Commissioner Mohn encouraged some additional thought into the question of flexibility with the Balance of Land Uses_ He said he was not as much concerned with the overall breakdown of uses, but at this point, tying some of the pieces together, for example, tying the conference facility and its minimum size to the initiation of some of the residential membership opportunities. He could see where the residential memberships may have some value, perhaps in advance of the conference facility, but not to the exclusion of the conference facility and the commercial, in support of the recreational element, the golf course. He said the committee talked about the 500 -person capacity being a threshold, but he could see this as another area to proceed cautiously with the Comprehensive Policy Plan so there is flexibility in developing the ordinance to implement this. He said another aspect from the committee's perspective was the recommended path in adopting this amendment and moving forward with the creation of an ordinance that would be specific to this type of use and area; however, it was suggested that it may be preferable to get into the mechanics of the minimums and maximums later. He said the only other key element was the issue of the trail and to ensure the County will get the connectivity, west to _east and north to south, and to provide some flexibility on how that is accomplished. Frederick County Planning Commission N Minutes of October 21, 2009 D �p ��, Page 2559 -10 - Commissioner Oates stated that the committee put as much work into this as there could be at this point in time. He thought the next step should be to let it be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and get their comments. Chairman Wilmot commented that a conference facility also has hotel rooms. Mr. Ruddy agreed and added that water and sewer use and land use go hand-in-hand and there may be opportunities for some creative things with wastewater, not just for this site, but for the area. He noted that the short-term limitations and mechanics will need to be dealt with. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority's (FCSA) Engineer -Director, Uwe E. Weindel, P.E., was available at the meeting at the request of the CPPC. Mr. Weindel spoke with the Planning Commission about this SWSA expansion opportunity and the long-term planning necessary to provide water and waste water resources within the UDA and SWSA. He said the FCSA continues to move forward with their effort to provide these resources. Mr. Weindel also provided an overview of some of the short term infrastructure issues that needed to be addressed by development in this area of the County in support of future development projects. Mr. Weindel said the key component to development of this area is Willow Run; he said without it, access to water and sewer for the ultimate development of the Round Hill area, including Silver Lake, the Rock Harbor project, and the existing community, would be problematic. In addition, be said the infrastructure in this area should be appropriately sized to handle the future growth_ Ivies. Weindel said the treatment capacity is available, but the conveyance of wastewater from the projects to the plant is an issue that will rced to be addressed. Willow Run will need to be enlarged or sized correctly_ Mr. Weindel advised all parties of interest to meet together to determine the goals and what provisions will need to be made in order to serve what is necessary to continue development of the area for additional future growth- Regarding rowth Regarding the addition of the Kelley Robinson request, Commissioner Kriz said that if the request stays within the intent stated, recreational commercial use, it should be included with this amendment. The Planning Commission believed that ultimately, this land use plan and request was a positive one that fit well in this area. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) ORDINANCE Planning Director, Eric R Lawrence, reported that earlier this year, Frederick County adopted the Rural Areas Policy which contained efforts to preserve the rural landscape, to preserve property owners' rights, and to recognized the impacts of development in the rural areas and the demands for services. Mr. Lawrence stated that one of the recommendations was to establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program. He explained that TDRs establish an opportunity for the agricultural land owners to capture their land value without selling their land; it also promotes a continuation of the agricultural activities and land preservation. He said the TDR redirects the demand for public service to more appropriate areas where services may be more efficiently provided. The TDRs also establishes an opportunity for the land developers to acquire residential density rights without going through the traditional rezoning process. Mr. Lawrence said the draft ordinance has been provided to the Commission in the agenda packet. He proceeded to do a brief overview of how it would be applied in Frederick County, detailing the Sending Properties, the Receiving Properties, the Certification Process, and the Transfer Process. He noted that according to the State Code and the draft ordinance amendment, the sending areas and the receiving areas will need to be identified within the Comprehensive Policy Plan; he displayed the draft map showing the sending and receiving areas. Mr. Lawrence explained the certification process for the sending properties and the Transfer of Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 21, 2009 Page 2560 0 0 a P Development Rights Certificate outlining how many density rights the property may transfer. Commissioner Kriz asked who would give the final approval for the Letter of Intent and the Transfer of Development Rights Certificate. Mr. Lawrence said according to the ordinance, the Planning Department would oversee the program and approval would be an administrative process. Commissioner Kriz also inquired what would be available to the sending property, if the UDA would be expanded to include the sending property. Mr. Lawrence said the property owner would not get another opportunity to develop; he said the State Code states that once development rights are sold through a TDR, the property cannot be developed. Commissioner Ruckman asked about the use of proffers with the TDR Program Mr. Lawrence said the TDRs avoid the expected proffers from the developer. He said it will bean incentive for the development community to look at the TDR Program, because not only do they avoid going through the rezoning process, with its time and uncertainty, they do not have the proffer expectation. Members of the Commission inquired about transportation improvements. Some remarked that the County stands to lose some of the transportation proffers, either in terms of construction or money, depending on the volume and scale, or with strategically located in -fill sites. They inquired about the extent to which that may have been quantified for comparison, recognizing that in the rural areas, there is no opportunity to receive transportation proffers. Mr. Lawrence replied that there is still an obligation through the current process and ordinances to address transportation impacts immediately adjacent to the site; however, the developer could avoid the cash per unit requirement. Mr. Lawrence said that with the rural areas discussions, the concern was raised that transportation impacts in the rural areas were not being mitigated- So, with the consideration of the TBR Program, the idea that transportation impacts could be somewhat mitigated, not from a dollars aspect, but if those houses were transferred out of the rural community, traffic congestion is slowed down that otherwise would show up on the rural roads unsuitable for traffic_ Commissioner Oates was concerned there was a possibility that development rights could be given to properties with environmental features that would have previously rendered them unsuitable for development. He was concerned about whether the typical 20 -lot subdivision might turn out to be much larger because the developer wouldn't be required to meet the impacts of development. He thought there should be some type of TIA required and some mechanism to force a developer to incorporate public trails and inter -parcel connections. He also questioned the profitability for the sending properties, if they have to get surveyors or environmentalists involved_ Mr. Lawrence said there is an economic decision to be made. He said he didn't expect a transfer right to be as valuable as a true build on your own, but the difference is that the owner gets to keep his land and with it the viewshed or the agricultural opportunity. Mr. Lawrence said this is just another option for property owners. Some questions arose about the possibility of a landowner who might not receive the true frill value of the property. Mr. Lawrence emphasized that the TDR Program is a voluntary program; he said it is a private financial transaction between property owners and they will need to come to agreement on a price. Mr. Lawrence said it will be important to simplify the program structure. Referring to the map, Commissioner Triplett mentioned that a number of sending properties are already in land use; he asked if the TDR Program would change the tax rate on those properties. Mr. Lawrence said according to the Commissioner of Revenue's office, if a property doesn't have development rights, assessed value is reduced; however if the property is in land use, it already has a minimal assessed value. Mr. Lawrence said if the property is kept in land use, it probably doesn't drastically affect tax obligations for real estate tax. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 21, 2009 Page 2561 -12 - There was an additional comment made about the absence of TNDs (Traditional Neighborhod Design). Mr. Lawrence stated that the TND component will be included after the TND ordinance is adopted. Mr. Lawrence stated that stag' will forward all of the comments frown the DRRC and the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration and direction. ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote_ No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. by a Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2562 Minutes of October 21, 2009 r COUNTY of FREDERIC �T g Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM EMOR FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner NP Subject: Public Hearing— Rural Area (RA) District Revisions Date: November 18, 2009 On April 22, 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation as a policy component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. This report contained recommendations from the Rural Areas Subcommittee, which was a group created by the Board of Supervisors. The Subcommittee was charged with identifying growth and development trends and related issues in the rural areas of the County, gathering ideas to address those issues and forwarding a recommendation for resolution to the Board of Supervisors. One of the recommendations contained within the report was to: • Implement enhancements to the existing Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision requirements. o Maintain a minimum lot size of two acres. o Increase the preservation lot (cluster set-aside lot) from 40 percent of the parent tract to a minimum 60 percent of the parent tract. o Removal of the density exception for the rural preservation lot. This agenda item is the first to implement some of the recommendations contained within the Rural Areas Report. Specifically, this ordinance amendment addresses the changes to the rural preservation subdivision requirements contained within Article IV of the Zoning Ordinance and Articles II and V of the Subdivision Ordinance. This item is presented for public hearing. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. The proposed Rural Areas (RA) changes are scheduled for public hearing at the Board of Supervisors' December 9, 2009 meeting. This draft amendment proposes the following: • Rural preservation tract be counted towards the permitted residential density of the parent tract. • Increase the rural preservation tract requirement from forty percent to sixty percent. • Reduced lot width for rural preservation lots and exemption for rural preservation lots from the maximum depth requirements. • Elimination of agricultural lots from the RA District. • Permitted RA uses - addition of animal husbandry and farm wineries, removal of cottage occupation signs. • Conditional RA uses — addition of Off -premise farm markets; Petting farms; Bed and Breakfasts; Country clubs (with or without banquet facilities); Welding Businesses; and Cottage occupation signs. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Frederick County Planning Commission Re: Rural Area (RA) District Revisions Page 2 November 18, 2009 • Additional standards for farm wineries, and welding businesses. ® Revisions to the cul-de-sac length requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance. • New definitions that correspond to the new permitted/conditional uses DRRC Discussion The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on August 27, 2009. The DRRC requested minor changes to the draft ordinance amendment and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. Planning Commission Discussion The Planning Commission discussed this item at their September 16, 2009 meeting. Commissioners were concerned that if the rural preservation lot is removed from the density exception it would discourage use of the preservation option over the five acre lot option and that the rural preservation option should be incentivized as much as possible. Commissioners also believed that the increase in the preservation tract size from 40 percent to 60 percent was too high and that while 40 percent was low, 60 percent may be too high. A suggestion of 50 percent for the preservation was discussed. It was noted that the draft ordinance was designed to implement the adopted Rural Areas Report and Recommendations. The recommendations contained within the report were presented and discussed at various community meetings in 2008 as well as public hearings to adopt the report in 2009. Board of Supervisors Discussion The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their October 14, 2009 meeting. The Board expressed concern over some of the permitted and conditional uses and ultimately requested that commercial stables, equestrian facilities, and commercial riding facilities as a conditional use be removed from the draft; changes will be discussed at a later time. The Board also requested clarification on other uses which was sent out as a separate mailing. With the removal of the specified conditional use item, the Board of Supervisors sent the item forward for public hearing. Implementation of Ordinance Changes If approved by the Board of Supervisors, these changes to Chapter 165 and 144 are proposed to be implemented immediately. The revisions to the RA (Rural Areas) District have been discussed for more than a year and, therefore, no grace period is being proposed. Only properties that have recorded the final plat for a 40% rural preservation tract will be vested. All other properties must adhere to the new standards as of the adoption date of the ordinance revisions. The attached document shows the existing Ordinance with proposed additions shown in bold italics and deletions shown with a strikethrough. This item is presented for discussion. This item is presented for public hearing. 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 shown with a strikethrough (Article N of the Zoning Ordinance and Articles H and V of the Subdivision Ordinance). CEP/bad Chapter 165, ZONING ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 401— RA Rural Areas District § 165-401.01. Purpose and intent. DRRC Discussed: August 27,200-9 PC Discussed: September 16, 2009 BOS Discussed: October 14, 2009 A. The purpose of the rural area regulations is to preserve large, open parcels of land, tree cover, scenic views, sensitive environmental areas and prime agricultural and locally significant soils. The regulations provide for a variation in lot size, at a density not to exceed one unit per five acres. The varying lot size is permitted in order to facilitate designs that blend in with the existing landscape and preserve some larger tracts of undeveloped land in order to maintain the rural character of the County, as well as provide a choice to home buyers. B. The regulations are intended to reduce environmental impacts, such as soil erosion, by requiring development which is sensitive to the existing features of the natural terrain and by reducing the amount of clearing needed for roads. Diversity and originally in lot layout are encouraged in order to achieve the best possible relationship between the development and the land. Individual lots and streets should be designed to minimize alteration of the natural site features, relate positively to surrounding properties and protect the views from surrounding areas. It is intended that by allowing flexibility in the subdivision design, while at the same time requiring that environmental concerns be addressed, a more attractive, environmentally sound and economically viable development will result. § 165-401.02. Permitted uses. Structures and land shall be used for one of the following uses.- A. ses: A. Agriculture, farming, dairies, animal husba;,dn, and forestry. B. Orchards, horticulture and the production of nursery stock and products. C. Single-family dwellings. D. Mobile homes. E. Schools (without residential component). F. Public parks and playgrounds. G. Churches. H. Home occupations as defined). I. Natural conservation areas. J. Winchester Airport. K. Group homes C1{ l IITIL1- 1 1 10/16/2009 L. Fire stations, companies and rescue squads. M. Frederick County sanitary landfill_ N. Commercial and institutional cemeteries with or without funeral homes or cemetery office complexes. O. Post offices. P. Radio and television towers and their accessory buildings Q- Public utility generating, booster or relay stations, transformer substations, transmission lines and towers, pipes, meters and other facilities, railroad facilities and sewer and water facilities and lines owned by public utilities, railroad companies or public agencies. R. Required off-street parking. S. Oil and natural gas exploration, provided that the following requirements are met: (1) All requirements of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and all applicable federal, state and local regulations shall be met. (2) A site plan shall be reviewed and approved meeting all requirements of the Frederick County Code. (3) Approval of the site plan and use shall be for 90 days, with subsequent renewals being approved by the Planning Commission_ (4) In order to begin extraction of the resources, a rezoning to the EM Extractive Manufacturing Zoning District will be required. T. Museums, parks or historic sites used for educational or historic preservation purposes_ U. Business signs. V. Signs allowed in § 165-201.068. W. Cottage eeeupatien . W. Accessory uses. X. Poultry farms and hatcheries and egg production. Y. Fish hatcheries and fish production. Z. Hog farming. It shall be unlawful for any person to have or maintain or to permit to be erected, in the County, any hog pen that is located closer than 200 feet to a residence or an adjoining property that is used for human habitation. AA. Local government services office. BB. Residential subdivision identification signs. 2 11+ +1Zt-+IIYI LIV t 1 10/16/2009 CC. Farm Wineries § 165-401.03. Conditional uses. The following uses of structures and land shall be allowed only if a conditional use permit has been granted for the use: A. (Reserved)!_ Bed and Breakfasts. B. {� T Country clubs, with or without banquet facilities. C. rRe sev+eQ;zI Manufacture or sale of feed and other farm supplies and equipment. D. Fruit packing plants. E M .,++f -„-+.+r„ or sale of feed and other farm supplies and equipme�* Off -premise farm markets. F. Off -premises wayside stands. G. Country general stores. H. Service stations. I. Antique shops. J. Restaurants. K. Kennels. L. Petting farms. M. Television or radio stations. M: N. Motels. N- O. Auction houses. 0, P. Campgrounds, tourist camps, recreation areas and resorts. Q. Commercial outdoor recreation, athletic or park facilities. $ R. Nationally chartered fraternal lodges or civic clubs, social centers and their related facilities. R-. S. Sawmills and planing mills, Type B. S- T. Ambulance services. T—.U. Retailing or wholesaling of nursery stock and related products. 3 10/16/2009 U-. V Landscape contracting businesses. VL. W. Public garages without body repair, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) All repair work shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure. (2) All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened from the view of surrounding properties by an opaque fence or screen at least five feet in height. This fence or screen shall be adequately maintained. X. Public garages with body repair, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) All repair work shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure. (2) All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened from the view of surrounding properties by an opaque fence or screen at least five six feet in height. This fence or screen shall be adequately maintained. Y. Sand, shale and clay mining, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) All mining shall be above the mean, existing grade level of a parcel of land. (2) All mining operations shall meet all applicable requirements of state and federal agencies. (3) Such mining operations shall meet the landscaping and screening requirements, supplementary regulations, height, area and bulk regulations and site plan requirements contained in the EM Extractive Manufacturing District regulations. Y: Z. Cottage occupations (as defined. AA. Cottage occupation signs. BB. Veterinary office, clinic or hospital, including livestock services. AA- CC. Day-care facilities DD. Humanitarian aid organizational office. CC. EE. Schools (with residential component). F1= Fruit and vegetable stands (SIC 5431). €E_ GG. Blacksmith shops (SIC 7699). €€. HH. Farriers (SIC 7699). IL Horseshoeing (SIC 7699). #WJJ. Taxidermists (SIC 7699). 4 t [ 1!-1 i..111VIL1Y 1 1 10/16/2009 KK. Welding repair (SIC 7692). § 165-401.04. Permitted residential density; exception. A. The maximum density permitted on any parcel or group of parcels shall not exceed the equivalent of one unit per five acres as determined by the size of the parent tract as it existed on the date Of -RdOptiOR f this sectieR. December 11, 1991. B. Exception to permitted density. On lots containing between seven and ten -acres which were lots of record prior to the as tion of this aFticle December 11, 1991, lots of two or more acres may be created despite the density limit of one unit per five acres, provided that they meet the requirements of § 165-401.0613 of this chapter. subd;ViSiA_.R._'; 1-1fili-ARg FUFal preservation lots, the fOFty peFCeRt parcel shall Ret count against the. permitted density 9f the parent traet. § 165-401.06. Permitted lot sizes. The following types of lots shall be permitted: A. Traditional five acre lots. On any parcel, lots of five acres in size or greater shall be permitted. B. Family division lots. On any parcel which contained seven acres or more prior to the adoption of this a,«cI& December 11, 1991, lots as small as two acres may be created, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) Lots are conveyed to members of the immediate family of the owner of record of the parent tract_ (2) Only one such lot shall be permitted per immediate family member. (3) One parcel of at least five acres in size shall remain intact following the division. (4) The creation of all such lots shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Frederick County Subdivision Chapter and § 15.2-2244 of the Code of Virginia_ D, C_ Rural preservation lots. (1) Within the RA Rural Areas District, lots as small as two acres shall be permitted on tracts over 20 acres in size, subject to the following: (a.) Fofty Sixty percent or more of the parent tract shall remain intact as a contiguous parcel (Rural Preservation Tract). (b.) This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot. (c.) No future division of this designated Rural Preservation Tract shall be permitted. (2) Exception to the Rural Preservation Tract. In cases where excessive topography or other natural features of a site create a situation where a higher quality subdivision design, resulting in less physical 9 n� Y nVY nrY�e• 1 -i 10/16/2009 and/or visual disruption could be achieved by allowing two residual parcels to be created, the Planning Commission may permit the 40% 50% to be made up of two parcels_ § 165-401.08. Minimum width; maximum depth. A. Minimum width. hP ')nG4ee-t—V,-4-he fFeRt setback, with the exception of lots fFF)RtiRg On the tUrRaF-RURd Of a Glul de sac, which shall have a Minirn-UM %yidth At rpthack A -f 1-0-0- feet- The rninimurn -vidth fer- all other lets shall be 250 feet at the 21-5 M 1) Minimum width for rural preservation lots: a) Lots fronting on roads proposed for dedication: 50 feet at the front setback line. b) Lots fronting on the turnaround of a cul-de-sac for roads proposed for dedication: 80 feet at the front setback line. c) Lots fronting on existing state roads: 250 feet at the front setback line. 2) Minimum width for all other lots: 250 feet at the front setback line. Maximum depth.The Fnaxi.rnurn depth of any lot shall not exceed four timess itr i setback line. 1) Within subdivisions utilizing rural preservation lots the sixty -percent parcel (Rural Preservation Tract) shall be exempt from the maximum depth requirement. 2) Depth/Width Ratio at the front setback line: 5:1 maximum. G DRRC Discussed: August 27, 2009 PC Discussed: September 16, 2009 BOS Discussed: October 14, 2009 Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses § 165-204.22. Farm Wineries. Farm Wineries in the RA (Rural Areas) District, shall meet the following requirements: A. The following shall be considered by -right accessory uses at farm wineries: (1) The production and harvesting of fruit and other agricultural products; (2) The manufacturing of wine; (3) The storage and sale of wine produced by the winery, including retail sales direct sales and shipment as well as wholesaling; (4) The provision for on-site winery tours; (5) The incidental retail of wine -related items; and (6) Wine tasting. B. Special events shall be permitted only on form wineries of ten acres or longer. Special events for the purposes of this section shall include but are not limited to meetings conferences dinners and wedding receptions. Any event at which more than 150 people are anticipated will require a festival permit. C_ A site plan in accordance with the requirements of Article Vlll shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County. § 165-204.23. Welding Repair (SIC 7692). A. Welding repair operations in the RA (Rural Areas) District, shall meet the following requirements: (1) Hours of operation shall not exceed 7:00am-7:00pm, Monday -Saturday. (2) Total building area shall not exceed 7,500 square feet. (3) All outdoor storage or repair areas shall be screened by a six foot board -on -board fence evergreen screen or berm. (4) The Planning Commission may require buffer and screening elements and/or distance when deemed necessary to protect existing adjacent uses. B. A site plan in accordance with the requirements of Article Vlll shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County. 7 DRRC Discussed: August 27, 20U9 PC Discussed. September 15, 2009 BOS Discussed: October 14, 2009 ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Part 101— General Provisions § 165-101.02. Definitions and word usage. BED AND BREAKFAST— An owner or operator -occupied single-family detached dwelling unit which contains no more than one (1) kitchen and ten (10) or fewer quest rooms which are occupied for sleeping purposes by quests, other than temporary personal guests of a family in a dwelling unit, for compensation with or without meals. A Bed and Breakfast may include banquet/event facilities for private parties as an accessory use. COUNTRY CLUB — A land area and buildings containing recreational facilities, club house and usual accessory uses, primarily open to members and their quests for a membership fee or daily fee, may include but are not limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, golf courses, stables and riding facilities. FARMERS MARKET — Retail of fresh fruit and vegetables, and other food and related items, horticultural products and livestock at a facility with space occupied by one or several different tenants on a short term or daily basis; may be indoor or outdoor, this term does not include wayside stands, roadside stands or wayside markets. FARM WiNERY— An establishment (i) located on a farm in the Commonwealth with a producing vineyard orchard, or similar growing area and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine that contains not more than 18 percent alcohol by volume or (ii) located in the Commonwealth with a producing vineyard, orchard, or similar growing area or agreements for purchasing grapes or other fruits from agricultural growers within the Commonwealth, and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine that contains not more than 18 percent alcohol by volume. A minimum of 51 percent of the fresh fruits or agricultural products used at the winery for the production of wine shall be grown or produced on the farm and no more than 25 percent of the fruits, fruit juices or other agricultural products may be grown outside of the Commonwealth. Accessory uses shall include wine tasting rooms, accessory food sales related to wine tasting, and the sale of wines produced on site. DRRC Discussed: August 27, 2009 PC Discussed: September 16, 2009 BOS Discussed. October 14, 2009 Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land ARTICLE Et Definitions § 144-2. Definitions and word usage. SUBDIVISION, MAJOR RURAL — Any subdivision resulting in the cumulative total of four or more traditional five acre lots, family division lots, agricultural 1 or rural preservation lots from a single parcel in the RA Rural Area District_ SUBDIVISION, MINOR RURAL — Any subdivision resulting in the cumulative total of three or fewer traditional five acre lots, family division lots, -,ricin' Fal lots or rural preservation lots from a single parcel in the RA Rural Area District. Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land ARTICLE V Design Standards § 144.17. Streets. G. Culs-de-sac_ (1) Cuis-de-sac, permanently designed as such, shall not exceed 1,000 feet in length unless required by the Virginia Department of Transportation standards for connectivity. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement in cases where extreme topography or other factors make it impractical. In no case shall the street -serve more than 25 lots. The turnaround provided shall have a right-of-way radius of not less than 50 feet and a paved radius of not less than 45 feet. Loop streets are preferred to culs-de-sac, where possible. (2) Any street dead -ended for access to an adjoining property or because of approved stage development, which is over 200 feet in length, shall be provided with a temporary, all- weather, fifty -foot turnaround_ The plan shall note that the land outside of the normal street right-of-way shall revert to the adjoining landowners whenever the street is continued. Temporary culs-de-sac used to accommodate approved phasing or to provide access to adjoining properties shall not be restricted in length to the one - thousand -foot requirement for culs-de-sac. The length of temporary cuts -de -sac shall not exceed the length specified by the phasing plan on an approved master development plan. § 144.31. Rural subdivisions. The requirements of this section shall apply to all subdivisions of land zoned RA (Rural Areas) under Article IV of Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code. B. Major rural subdivisions. (1) Any subdivision which results in a cumulative total of more than three lots being divided from a single parent parcel within the RA (Rural Areas) Zone shall be considered a major rural subdivision. Lots described in § 165-401.068, Family division lots; and § 65 9 10/16/2009 401.06G, Agricultural let`, of Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, shall not count toward this three -lot limit. Prior to review and approval of final plats for such divisions, a preliminary sketch plan must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. (2) Access. All roads serving lots within a major rural subdivision shall be built to the T, ertiar�-Subdivision Street Acceptance Standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation and dedicated to Frederick County for eventual acceptance into the state secondary road system_ C. Minor rural subdivisions. (1) The division of the following types of lots are permitted under the regulations for minor rural subdivision: (a) Lots described by § 165-401.066, Family division ^gricultural lots, of Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code. 0 10 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Plannimg and Development MEMORANDUM M 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner Subject: Public Hearing— Health System/Sewage Disposal Ordinance (Chapter 161) Date: November 18, 2009 On April 22, 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation as a policy component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. This report contained recommendations from the Rural Areas Subcommittee, which was a group created by the Board of Supervisors. The Subcommittee was charged with identifying growth and development trends and related issues in the rural areas of the County, gathering ideas to address those issues and forwarding a recommendation for resolution to the Board of Supervisors. One of the recommendations contained within the report was to revise the health system requirements. This item is presented for public hearing. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed amendment is sought. The proposed Rural Areas (RA) changes are scheduled for public hearing at the Board of Supervisors' December 9, 2009 meeting. The report recommended the following enhancements to the existing health system requirements applicable to on-site private residential health systems: • Increase the reserve drainfield area to 100 percent. The current regulations require a 50 percent reserve area, which does not enable a homeowner to fully replace a failed health system. • Continue to allow .health systems that meet the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) General Approval requirements. Prohibit health systems that are permitted through the Provisional and Experimental Approval process. • Prohibit the use of Discharge Health Systems, and require Board of Supervisors approval for Pump -and -Haul permits. • Support Operation and Maintenance Requirements for alternative health systems. Staff has prepared a revision to Chapter 161 (Sewage Disposal Systems, Water and Sewers) to address the recommendations contained in the Rural Areas Report, as well as to update various portions of the Chapter. These draft changes have been reviewed by the Health Department on various occasions and they are satisfied with the proposed changes. Proposed changes are as follows: • Complete revision of Article I (Septic Tanks) o Broken up into two articles; new purpose section and definitions section created and placed in Article 1. o Revised section regarding when a permit is required by the Health Department. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 s Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Frederick County Planning Commission Re: Health System/Sewage Disposal Ordinance Page 2 November 18, 2009 o Requirements of onsite sewage systems Prohibits the use of conditional approvals, discharging systems, and requires a 100% reserve drainfield area. o License Requirements — New section would require anyone installing or repairing systems or hauling sewage to obtain an Installation License or Septic Haulers Permit from Frederick County. o Permanent pump and haul systems — New section that states that the Board of Supervisors may issue pump and haul permits based on specific criteria, and requires that these systems be inspected. o Replacement or repair of onsite systems — Requires property owners within 300 feet of a public or private sewer system to connect to that system when their system ceases to operate in a sanitary manner or requires major alterations. o Maintenance requirements for alternative onsite sewage systems — New section that requires maintenance for alternative systems. New requirement for agreements to be executed between the property owner and the Health Department (that must be recorded). This section outlines inspection requirements, requirements that the inspection reports be provided to the Health Department, modification procedures and a noncompliance statement. 0 Revision to the Violations and Penalties Section (Article III) o New Article VI and titled Enforcement, Violations and Penalties. o Institutes civil penalties for violations of the maintenance requirements for alternative systems. It should also be noted that the State of Virginia is currently reviewing proposed Alternative Onsite Sewage (AOSS) Emergency Regulations (E Regs) for Operations and Maintenance (O&M). These draft regulations contain standards relating to the installation, performance and maintenance of alternative systems. It should be noted that Frederick County's draft revisions to Chapter 161 are compliant with the draft E Regs. DRRC Discussion The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on August 27, 2009. The DRRC requested minor changes to the draft chapter and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Since the DRRC meeting, the chapter has been revised to address the DRRC comments as well as minor revisions requested by the Health Department. Planning Commission Discussion The Planning Commission discussed this item at their September 16, 2009 meeting. Commissioners discussed the provisions for requiring property owners with failing systems to connect to public sewer systems if they are within 300 feet of the public system. Staff explained that a provision was added that allowed the Board of Supervisors to waive this requirement when connection is not possible. Commissioners were concerned over the reserve drainfield increase from 50 percent to 100 percent and how it would affect existing lots. Staff informed the Commission that existing lots that did not have an approved system would have to conform to the new standards. Commissioners also briefly discussed the civil penalties included in the proposed ordinance amendment. Board of Supervisors Discussion The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their October 14, 2009 meeting and approved it to be sent to public hearing. Frederick County Planning Commission Re: Health System/Sewage Disposal Ordinance Page 3 November 18, 2009 implementation of Ordinance Changes If approved by the Board of Supervisors, the changes to Chapter 161 are proposed to be implemented immediately. The revisions to the septic ordinance have been discussed for more than a year and, therefore, no grace period is being proposed. Only properties that have already had soil work submitted to the Health Department for review will be vested. All other properties must adhere to the new standards as of the adoption date of the ordinance revisions. In regards to the proposed license requirements and pump and haul regulations, if this ordinance is adopted, all operators, septic haulers and owners of properties operating with pump and haul systems will be informed of the new requirements. If adopted, additional steps that would be necessary to implement this ordinance would include the creation of a fee schedule with the Health Department and an amendment to the Local Government Agreement with the Health Department. This item is presented for public hearing. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions. Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold italics and deletions shown with a strikethrough (Chapter 161). CEP/bad DRAFT REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 161 PC Discussed 9/16/2009 BOS Discussed 10/14/2009 Chapter 161 Sewage Disposal Systems,Beiatef and Sewers Arti,Io I Part 101 — General Provisions § 161-101.01 Purpose and Intent. § 161-101.02 Definitions. ARTICLE 11 Part 201 - Onsite Sewage Systems § 161-201.01 Applicability. § 161-201.02 Health Department Approval, permit required. § 161-201.03 Requirements of onsite sewage systems. § 161-201.04 License Requirements. § 161-201.05 Permanent pump and haul systems. § 161-201.06 Disposition of materials removed during cleaning. § 161-201.07 Replacement or Repair of Onsite Systems within 300 Feet of a Sanitary Sewer. § 161-201.08 Inspections. § 161-201.09 Corrections. 161-201.10 Maintenance Requirements for Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems § 161-201.11 §161 1. AppFeval §161 2. Disposition §163: 2 PeFFnit Fees. ARTICLE= SeptirzTasks required prier to . of Fnater-ials remeved during dea r r -e d for installation n ARTICLE 111 Part 301 - Wastewater Discharge Fi1� § 161-301.01 Purpose. §1� § 161-301.02 Discharge into sanitary sewer. §161 T. § 161-301.03 Disposition of wastewater from plumbing fixtures. ARTICLE IV Part 401 - Violations and Penalties § 161-401.01 Maintenance of Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems civil penalties 06-1 9-. § 161-401.02 Violations and Penalties. 1 Article 1 Part 101 -General Provisions § 161-101.01 Purpose and intent. DRAFT REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 161 PC Discussed 911612009 BOS Discussed 1011412009 Frederick County is deemed to have fragile hydrogeology and to have the potential for depletion and contamination of water sources and the potential for hazards to public health safety and welfare as a result. For the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the general public there is imposed upon all wells and onsite sewage systems constructed or installed the standards as set forth hereafter in this chapter. Pursuant to these goals, the Board of Supervisors hereby exercises its power, as granted by § 15.2-2157 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) to regulate onsite sewage systems. To the extent permitted by state law, if any provision of this chapter conflicts with any other provision of state or local law, the more stringent provision shall apply. § 161-101.02 Definitions Definitions of terms contained in this chapter shall be those given in the Virginia State Board of Health Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations, 12 Virginia Administrative Code Agency 5 Chapter 610 (12 VAC 5-610-10 et seg.) and the Virginia State Board of Health Alternative Discharging Sewage Treatment Requlations for Individual Single Family Dwellings, 12 Virginia Administrative Code Agency 5, Chapter 640 (12 VAC 5-640-10 et seg.). The following definitions shall apply for additional terms contained in this chapter. ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGING SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM OR DISCHARGING SYSTEM- Anv device or system which results in a point source discharge of treated sewage for which the Health Department or the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality may issue a permit authorizing construction and operation when such system is regulated by the State Water Control Board pursuant to a general Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued for an individual single family dwelling or a multifamily dwelling with flows less than or equal to 1,000 gallons per day. Such system is designed to treat sewage from a residential source and dispose of the effluent by discharging it to an all weather stream, an intermittent stream, a dry ditch, or other location. ALTERNATIVE ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEM OR ALTERNATIVE ONSITE SYSTEM - A treatment works that is not a conventional onsite sewage system and does not result in a point source discharge. ALTERNATIVE ONSITE SOIL EVALUATOR (ROSE) - A person licensed by the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) to evaluate soils and soil properties in relationship to the effect of these properties on the use and management of these soils as the locations for conventional and alternative onsite sewage systems, to certify in accordance with applicable state regulations and local ordinances hat sites are suitable for conventional and alternative onsite sewage systems and to design conventional and alternative onsite sewage systems suitable for the soils. DRAFT REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 161 PC Discussed 9/16/2009 BOS Discussed 10/14/2009 CONVENTIONAL ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM - A treatment works consisting of one ormore sepitc tnks with gravity pumped, or siphoned conveyance to a gravity distributed subsurface drain field. HEALTH DEPARTMENT- The Virginia Department of Health (Frederick County Office) and its authorized employees and agents. ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM - Any treatment works design for the storage, treatment, disposal discharge or reclamation of sewage or combinations of sewage and industrial wastes, other than through use of a sanitary sewer system. PUMP AND HAUL SYSTEM - Any device or system in which a sewage holding tank is pumped out on a regular basis and the raw sewage is transported by motor vehicle by a contractor having a valid sewage handlina permit to an authorized treatment plant. The term "pump and haul" includes all facilities and appurtenances necessary to collect and store the sewage for handling by a contractor having a valid sewage handling permit. TREATMENT WORKS - Any device or system used in the storage, treatment, disposal, discharge, or reclamation of sewage or combinations of sewage and industrial wastes, including but not limited to pumping power, and other equipment and appurtenances septic tanks and any works including land that are or will be (i) an integral part of the treatment process or (ii) used for ultimate disposal of residues or effluents resulting from such treatment. DRAFT REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 161 ARTICLE 11 Part 201 - Onsite Sewage Systems § 161-201.01 Applicability PC Discussed 9/16/2009 BOS Discussed 10/14/2009 A. The requirements of this article shall apply to any property where an onsite sewage system is installed or proposed to be installed, except that the repair of a previously permitted sewage disposal system or the replacement of an existing well when performed under a valid repair/replacement permit issued by the Health Department shall be exempt from this article. B. The requirements of this article shall apply to all new sewage disposal systems which are permitted or approved, whether through a construction permit issued by the Frederick County Health Department or through a certification letter issued by the Health Department after the effective date of this article and shall also apply to physical additions or expansions to existing sewage disposal systems. C. Building contractors, plumbers, or any person making installation and/or repairs to existing installations, shall be responsible to the owners of lots for compliance with this article. § 161-201.02 Health Department approval, permit required. A. It shall be unlawful to use, to allow to be used, to rent or lease for use any onsite sewage system to which this article applies unless and until onsite sewage system is approved and permitted by the Health Department and the construction shall comply with the requirements of this article. B. No person shall install, construct, alter, repair or extend, or cause to be installed constructed altered, repaired or extended, any onsite sewage system in the County without first applying for and obtaining a valid permit therefore in the name of a specific person or for a specific location. Permits for installation, construction, alteration, repair or extension of onsite sewage systems shall be issued by the Health Department. In addition, no person shall materially change renovate, alter or remodel any structure served by an onsite sewage system unless and until such is done in accordance with a valid health permit or under written approval of the Health Department stating such will not cause an increased loading on the sewage system. C. If upon any inspection, the Health Department shall find any violation of the provisions of a permit issued pursuant to an application filed as provided in this section, the Department shall direct the person to whom the permit was issued to make the necessary corrections within a reasonable time. D. A permit issued as provided in this section may be revoked for failure of the holder to comply satisfactorily with this Chapter. § 161-201.03 Requirements of onsite sewage systems. A. Onsite sewage systems shall be located only where approved by the Health Department. DRAFT REV15IONS TO CHAPTER 161 PC Discussed 9/16/2009 BOS Discussed 10/14/2009 B. Conditional permits shall not be issued for new construction applications submitted after the date of adoption of this section unless specifically authorized by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. C The use of alternative onsite discharging sewage treatment systems (discharging systems) shall not be permitted for new residential applications submitted after the date of adoption of this section. Approvals issued prior to the adoption of this section may be honored. D All structures constructed after the date of adoption of this section and served by onsite sewage systems shall have a one -hundred -percent reserve drainfield in addition to a primary drainfield, which reserve drainfield shall have the some disposal requirements as the primary drainfield areas. All requirements pertaining to drainfields shall be as established by regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. § 161-201.04 License requirements. A. Installation License No person shall install repair or contract to install or repair individual onsite sewage systems or parts thereof without first obtaining an installation license from Frederick County and the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR). B. Septic Haulers Permit No person shall engage in the business of cleaning septic tanks, settling tanks and/or vaults designed to hold or retain solids and/or liquids in conjunction with any onsite sewage system by whatever name called without first obtaining a Septic Haulers Permit from the Health Department and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The septic tanks haulers permit shall be issued by the Health Department upon written application and payment of a permit fee provided that the applicant gives evidence that he can comply with the following requirements: 1) Equipment requirements: a) The tank into which sewage is pumped or delivered and carried is to be fully watertight; b) All inlets and outlets to such tanks shall be fully enclosed and provided watertight valves, c) Suction and discharge hoses shall be watertight and provisions shall be made for carrying such hoses in a manner that will prevent any spillage or leakage; d) All exposed surface shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition by frequent washing, e) The name and address of the person owning or operating such equipment and the Lord Fairfax Health District hauling permit number shall be painted on the vehicle in letters at least four inches high so as to be visible from either side of the vehicle; and f) A copy of the Septic Haulers Permit shall be carried in the glove compartment of each vehicle operated. 2) Inspections Any person or company engaging in the business of cleaning septic tanks, settling tanks and/or vaults designed to hold or retain solids and,/or liquids in conjunction with any onsite sewage disposal system must be inspected, including all vehicles annually by the Health Department. DRAFT REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 161 PC Discussed 9/16/2009 BOS Discussed 10/14/2009 § 161-201.05 Permanent pump and haul systems A. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors, after receiving a written statement from the Health Department, may approve a permanent pump and haul system permit for increments of three years if all the following criteria is met: 1. The structure to be served is one of the following: a. An existing occupied dwelling that has no indoor plumbing and is converting to indoor plumbing, or where an existinq onsite sewage system has failed b. An existing occupied structure used as a place of worship; c. An existing occupied school structure; or d. An existing occupied commercial structure, and 2. The Health Department has rejected an application for an onsite sewage system otherwise permitted under this chapter, or an off-site system; 3. All other options for a sewage system (i.e. off-site easement) have been pursued and found unsatisfactory as evidenced by a denial letter issued by the Health Department and/or documentation that a neighboring property owner is uncooperative in giving an easement;. 4. There shall be no additional bedrooms or bathrooms added to the dwelling or structure as a result of the permitting of a permanent pump and haul system • and 5. For residential dwellings, for at least one continuous year the applicant has been the owner and full-time resident of the dwelling to be served. B. Upon making application and paying an application fee to Frederick CountV for a permanent pump and haul system permit the system owner shall sign a statement giving permission to the employees of Frederick County and the Health Department to conduct routine field inspections of the system to ensure proper maintenance. C. Onsite inspections shall be conducted every three years by the Health Department to ensure that all properties with pump and haul system permits are in compliance with all state and local regulations. D. The property owner shall submit annual invoices of pump out every year to the Health Department. E. Pump and haul system requirements. Pump and haul systems shall meet the following specifications: 1. Pump and haul tanks are to be 1500 gallon or greater tanks with watertight access risers on both tanks extending to the ground surface. 2. The second tank is to be fitted with an auto -visual alar:, float finder the access riser and set to activate when the second tank is one-half full. 3. All connections are to be wired inside the dwelling and not in a crawl space or other area which is not accessible. DRAFT REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 161 PC Discussed 9/16/2009 BOS Discussed? 0/14/2009 4. The tanks and risers must be sealed by the contractor to assure that they are watertight to prevent any infiltration. § 161-201.06 Disposition of materials removed during cleaning. Any person who cleans any septic tank shall dispose of the sludge and materials removed from such septic tank by depositing such sludge and material in an approved Water Reclamation Facility. § 161-201.07 Replacement or repair of onsite systems within 300 feet of a sanitary sewer. Should an existing sewage system cease to operate in a sanitary manner or should alternations be required to provide safe and adequate treatment and the building or structure to be served is within 300 feet of an approved public or private sewer, the property owner shall connect to the sewer. If the connection cannot be reasonably obtained the Board of Supervisors may authorize alterations to the existing sewage system through a waiver. 6161-201.08 Inspections The Health Department may inspect any and all onsite sewage disposal systems maintained at all premises in the County for the purpose of determining if such system is being operated and maintained in a sanitary manner. Such inspection shall be done at reasonable times and, whenever practical in the company of the owner or occupant of the premises. In addition the Health Department or his authorized agent shall make such inspections as may be deemed necessary during the construction of any onsite sewage disposal system installed in the County to determine compliance with the requirements of this chapter. No person shall use allow to be used or cause to be used any system until after the Health Department, Professional Engineer or ROSE has inspected and approved the same in writing. No part of any system shall be covered until it has been inspected and approved by the Health Department, Professional Engineer or ROSE, and any such part which has been covered prior to inspection shall be uncovered for inspection. 6161-201.09 Corrections if upon inspection the Health Department shall find any violation of this chapter or the provisions of any permit and/or licenses issued under this chapter, the Department shall direct the owner or person to whom the permit and/or license was issued by written notice, to make the necessary corrections within such reasonable period of time specified. § 161-201.10 Maintenance requirements for alternative onsite sewage systems Any alternative sewage system permitted under the provisions of this chapter must comply with the following conditions and requirements: A. The installation and operation of any alternative onsite sewage system must be approved by the Health Department as compliant with this section and the applicable regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. DRAFT REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 161 PC Discussed 9/16/2009 BOS Discussed 10/14/2009 B. Prior to the issuance of an operation permit for any alternative onsite sewage system an agreement, in a form approved by the Health Department has been signed and recorded by the property owner in the land records of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County. Such agreement shall, at a minimum: 1_ Provide notice, including, without limitation, to subsequent owners of the orooert that the property is served by an alternative onsite sewage system The propertv owner's obligations under such agreement shall run with the land and bind the property owner, and the property owner's heirs personal representatives successors and assigns. Said agreement shall be transferred with the title to the property upon the sale or transfer of the land that is the subject of the permit. 2. Impose installation, operation and maintenance conditions determined by the Health Department or the Board of Supervisors, as applicable based on the maintenance requirements of such system, including without limitation a requirement for a maintenance contract, C. .The property owner annually by the anniversary date of such aqreement or as specified by the Code of Virginia shall procure an inspection to ensure such system continues to operate as designed and in accordance with this section and such agreement. Said inspection shall be ,performed by an individual who is licensed or certified as being qualified to operate monitor, and maintain an alternative onsite sewage system. D. The property owner shall establish a contractual relationship with an approved operator for the maintenance of such system and shall provide the operator's name and license number to the Health Department. The property owner shall maintain such relationship with an approved operator at all times as lona as the alternative onsite sewage system is in operation E. The property owner shall have inspections performed on the alternative onsite sewage system as required by the maintenance contract and the Health Department. The Property owner shall also annually, within thirty (30) days of the anniversary date of the recorded agreement or such longer period as may be permitted by the Health Department file with the Health Department a copy of the inspection report, in a form approved by the Health Department and repair or replace such system, as necessary, to correct any deficiencies identified in the inspection report in compliance with this section and the applicable regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. F. The property owner shall keep at the property a copy of the operation and maintenance lop Provided by the designated operator, said log shall be provided to any future owner of the property. G. The property owner shall obtain approval of any modifications alterations and expansions of such system that have been certified by a professional engineer from the Health Department DRAFT REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 161 PC Discussed 9/16/2009 BOS Discussed 10/14/2009 H. In the event of the failure of such system, as determined by the operator or Health Department the repair or replacement of such system shall be subject to the applicable requiations of the Virginia Department of health or the State Water Control Board. The Health Department shall be permitted to enter the property to inspect such system and to determine whether such system is installed, operated and maintained in accordance with this section and such agreement. 1. Failure to comply with the provisions of this section are violations of this ordinance subject to the penalties and other remedies provided herein. § 161-201.11 Fees. The County shall establish set and charge such fees as it deems necessary and reasonable to defray the cost of permits licenses and/or inspections as are required to be issued andlor conducted under this chapter. DRAFT REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 161 PC Discussed 9/16/2009 BOS Discussed 10/14/2009 §161 1. §161-:12. Approval Fequir-ed proor to 1 � . 11111"SWUMM 21-21 10 DRAFT REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 161 PC Discussed 9/16/2009 BOS Discussed 10/14/2009 applicant,Q PeFmit mssuanee. Upon the filiRg ef an application as Provided *R Subsection B, the permit applied feF vAll be issued te the applicant, at ne cost te the if the applicant appeaFs to the Health Officer to be qualified to engage in such buli aRRually and may be revoked feF failuFe of the holder to Gemply satisfaetep� with this ARTICLE III Part 301 - Wastewater Discharge [Amended 9-26-1990) §!6! 5. 161-301.01 Purpose. The purpose of this Article is to regulate, limit and restrict discharge to the sanitary sewer system of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and thereby protect such sanitary sewer system and the wastewater treatment facilities of the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority and the health of the citizens of Frederick County. §3:1-6-161-301.02 Discharge into sanitary sewer. No person shall discharge into the sanitary sewer system or sewer's tributary to the sanitary sewer system of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority or to the trunk lines and treatment plants of the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, except in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and Frederick -Winchester Service Authority regulating, limiting and restricting such discharge. §!61 7. 161-301.03 Disposition of wastewater from plumbing fixtures. It shall be unlawful for any person to allow the wastewater from any sink, bathtub or any other plumbing fixtures of any nature to run or drain onto the surface of the ground. All such wastewater shall be discharged into a drain tile and stone ditch and pit, as directed by the Health Department. 11 DRAFT REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 161 PC Discussed 9/16/2009 BOS Discussed 10/14/2009 ARTICLE VI Part 401 - Enforcement, Violations and Penalties 161-401.01 Maintenance of alternative onsite sewage systems, civil penalties. A. In accordance with § 15.2-2157 of the Code of Virginia, the owner of property on which is located an alternative onsite sewage system is subject to civil penalties for violations of Section 161- 201.10 of this Code, as follows: 1. Failure to procure an annual inspection report in accordance with Section 161-201.10C - $100 for an initial summons and $150 for each additional summons. 2. Failure to provide an annual inspection report in accordance with Section 161-201.10D - $100 for an initial summons and $150 for each additional summons. 3. Failure to establish or maintain a relationship with an approved operator or provide the operator's name and license number to the Health Department in accordance with Section 161-201.10E- $100 for an initial summons and $150 for each additional summons. 4. Failure to keep at the property a copy of the operation and maintenance log provided by the designated operator in accordance with 161-201.10E $100 for an initial summons and $150 for each additional summons. S. Failure to obtain the approval the Health Department for any modification alteration of expansion of such system in accordance with Section 161-201.10G - $100 for an initial summons and $150 for each additional summons. 6. Failure to repair or replace a failing system in accordance with Section 161-201.1014- $100 for an initial summons and $150 for each additional summons. Each day during which the violation is found to have existed _shall constitute a separate offense. However, specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts shall not be charged more frequently than once in any 10 -day period, and a series of specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts shall not result in civil penalties exceeding a total of $3.000. If the violation is not abated after the imposition of the maximum fine, the locality may pursue other remedies. as provided by law. Designation of these particular ordinance violations for a civil penalty are in lieu of criminal penalties, except for any violation that contributes to or is likely to contribute to the pollution of public or private water supplies or the contraction or spread of infectious, contagious, and dangerous diseases. The Health Department may issue a civil summons ticket as provided by law for a scheduled violation. Any person summoned or issued a ticket for a scheduled violation may make an appearance in person or in writing by mail to the Treasurer of Frederick County Virginia prior to 12 DRAFT REVISiONS TO CHAPTER 161 PC Discussed 9/16/2009 SOS Discussed 10/14/2009 the date fixed for trial in court. Any person so appearing may enter a waiver of trial, admit liability and pay the civil penalty established for the offense charged. If a person charged with a scheduled violation does not elect to enter a waiver of trial and admit liability, the violation shall be tried in the general district court in the same manner and with the same right of appeal as provided for by law. In any trial for a scheduled violation, the locality shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the liability of the alleged violator. An admission of liability or finding of liability under this section shall not be deemed an admission at a criminal proceeding. B. In addition to the enforcement of the penalties provided in this section, the Health Department may brina a civil action for injunction, abatement or any other legal or equitable remedy to prevent enioin, abate or remove a violation of the provisions of this ordinance or any agreement under Section 165-401.02. §161 17. 161-401.02 Violations and penalties. A. Any person -G+, user, firm or corporation, whether a principal, agent, employee or otherwise, who violates or causes or permits the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or who is found to have violated any .order of the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority or who has willfully or negligently failed to comply with any provisions of this Chapter or the orders, rules, regulations and permits issued hereunder shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to maximum fine of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) or by imprisonment for not more than twelve (12) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for each offense. S. In addition to the penalties provided herein, reasonable attorney's fees, court reporter's fees and other expenses of litigation by appropriate suit at law against the person found to have violated this chapter or the orders, rules, regulations and permits issued hereunder may be recovered. C. If the violation is found to be willful or deliberate or is continued beyond a reasonable time allowed by the Health Department for corrections, each day such violation shall continue shall be considered a separate offense. 13 REZONING APPLICATION #07-09 BURNS PROPERTY — VALLEY MILL ROAD Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: November 16, 2009 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 10/07/09 Tabled by PC 12/02/09 Pending Board of Supervisors: 01/13/10 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 1.26 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for Commercial Uses. LOCATION: The properties are located in the northwest corner of the intersection with Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and Martin Drive. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, STAFF UPDATE AND CONCLUSION FOR THE 12/02/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, Staff has been evaluating the status of Martin Drive, the key access point to this proposed commercial project. It has been determined that Martin Drive is not a State Road. VDOT does not and will not maintain this street. Previous comments regarding improving this access point to current VDOT standards and efforts that gained VDOT's approval of a commercial entrance and upgrade to a portion of Martin Drive are therefore invalid. Given the existing conditions of Martin Drive and the surrounding residential land uses, it would appear unlikely to be able to be improved sufficient to meet current VDOT standards. In addition, the current ownership and status of Martin Drive has not been clearly demonstrated. With this in mind, the Applicant has revaluated their approach to accessing this commercial project. The Applicant has provided a modified Proffer Statement dated November 16, 2009. In summary: ® 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. Further, that access to Martin Drive shall be prohibited at this time. • The Applicant has proffered that all improvements to Valley Mill Road, proffered either by this project or the adjacent Walgreens — Dairy Corner Place project, must be completed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. ® The Applicant has continued the 10' hiker biker trail across this properties 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. Rezoning #07-09 — Burns Property — Valley Mill Road November 16, 2009 Page 2 In general, the B2 land use proposed conforms to the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. However, the impacts associated with this rezoning request, including those to the adjacent residential uses and the transportation network, have not been fully mitigated by the applicant. In particular, transportation improvements have not been provided that would improve or achieve an acceptable level of service at the adjacent intersection of Route 7 and Route 659. Additional monetary contributions aimed at mitigating the impacts of this project have not been provided and a value comparable to the eliminated improvements to Martin Drive has not been offset. Following the puhlic meeting, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would he appropriate. The applicant should he prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Manning Commission. Rezoning 407-09 — Burns Property — Valley Mill Road November 16, 2009 Page 3 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to tTze Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 10/07/09 Tabled by PC 12/02/09 Pending Board of Supervisors: 01/13/10 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 1.26 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for Office and Retail Uses. LOCATION: The properties are located in the northwest corner of the intersection with Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and Martin Drive. McAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 54-A-1 12Q, 54-A-1 12D and 54-A-1 12P PROPERTY ZONING: RP (Residential Performance) District PRESENT USE: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: B2 (Business General) RP (Residential Performance) South: RP (Residential Performance) East: RP (Residential Performance) West: B2 (Business General) Use: Commercial (220 Seafood) Residential Use: Dowell J. Howard Use: Residential Use: Vacant/Commercial Rezoning #07-09 — Burns Property — Valley Mill Road November 16, 2009 Page,41 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Frederick County Transportation: Comments incorporated into report. Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this properly appears to have a significant measurable impact on Route 659. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers in the Burns Property — Valley Mill Road rezoning application dated August 18, 2009 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manuel, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspections fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to Impact Analysis, page 1: Expand the discussion to include the disposition of the three single family dwellings. The dwellings appear to have been constructed prior to 1978 and will require asbestos inspections prior to receipt of demolition permits. 2. Refer to Access and Transportation, page l: Expand the discussion to include the interparcel connection referenced in the Walgreen's rezoning application. Also, discuss the impact on Martin Drive and the need for upgrades if this road is used for ingress -egress. 3. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply, page 2: It appears that the existing dwellings are served by public water. However, the existence of public sewer along Martin Drive is questionable. Verify with specific references to existing sewer lines that public sewer service is available within the rezoning boundaries. 4. Storage Drainage: Add a section to discuss stormwater management. We recommend that consideration be given to a regional facility that will serve the Burns' property as well as the Walgreens' site. 5. Refer to the Proffer Statement, Site Development, paragraph 1.2: Expand the reference to the one entrance on Martin Drive to include required improvements to upgrade Martin Drive to accommodate the Virginia Department of Transportation's requirements. Department of Inspections: No comments at this time. Comments shall be made at site plan submittal phase. Sanitation Authority: Sewer and water are available to the site. There is adequate sewer and water capacity to serve this site. Service Authority: No comments. Health Department: As long as no wells or septic systems are impacted either on property or neighboring properties, no objections. Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Rezoning #07-09 — Burns Property— Valley Mill Road November 16, 2009 Page 5 Historic Resources Advisory Board: It appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the I IRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify a core battlefield within this area, the site's existing condition is such that there is little remaining value to any preservation effort. GIS: No comments. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning will not have impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Public Schools: We have reviewed the Bums Rezoning application, and are concerned about the increase in traffic volume that this change of use will generate. It is already difficult for school buses to turn left out of the Dowell .I. Howard Center, and we expect that this commercial use, with an entrance onto Martin Drive, will increase that difficulty. We see this issue being more related to traffic volume than to stacking at the Valley Mill/Berry-ville Turnpike intersection. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated November 24, 2008, from Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. PlanninLy Department: Please see attached Memo dated December 11, 2008from Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning map (USGS Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the three parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning as R2 (Residential Limited) District. On February 14, 1990, the R-2 District zoning classification was modified to RP (Residential Performance), during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The property is within the UDA and S WSA and is designated as an area of commercial land use by the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. The property is located in the area covered by the Route 7 Corridor Plan. Rezoning #07-09 — Burns Property — Valley Mill Road November 16, 2009 Page 6 The business corridor expectations of the Comprehensive Plan should be recognized. Even though this project is not located directly on Route 7, particular effort should be made to provide for enhanced design of the project to facilitate improved corridor appearance along Valley Mill Road. Transportation This application must address the transportation components of the County's Comprehensive Plan, including the Eastern Road Plan. Route 7 is identified as an urban six -lane divided facility. Valley Mill Road is identified as an improved major collector road with an urban four lane divided typical section. It must also be recognized that the County's Eastern Road Plan calls for the ultimate relocation of Valley Mill Road to a point east of its current location, to align with Getty Lane, the entrance to Winchester Gateway. This future improvement, in addition to previous plans associated with improvements to the Interstate 81, Exit 31 S, call for the closure of the intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7. Site Access Site Access is proposed to be provided from one primary location, via Martin Drive. No additional entrances will be permitted on Valley Mill Road. A secondary indirect access point is proposed to be provided via an inter parcel connection to the recently rezoned Walgreens — Dairy Comer property to the west. With the anticipated redevelopment that may occur on the properties to the west of this rezoning, additional opportunities may exist for inter parcel connectivity through the adjacent property and on to the connecting driveway proffered by the Walgreens — Dairy Comer property. Pedestrian accommodations should be provided in a coordinated manner internal to the project, to and along Valley Mill Road, and along Martin Avenue. Presently, a bike path along Valley Mill Road has not been provided. The original preliminary application provided a 10' hiker biker trail across the property's frontage to connect Martin Drive with the proffered 10' hiker biker trail which was proffered with the Walgreens — Dairy Corner rezoning. This improvement should be reinstated into the application. It would be appropriate for this application to provide for sidewalk improvements along the Martin Drive frontage. The Applicant has sought to address the broader pedestrian needs of this area by providing pedestrian connectivity across the Dowell J Howard property's frontage. This approach would provide additional access and circulation opportunities for the adjacent residents, school users, and patrons of the commercial uses. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, mature woodlands, floodplain or wetlands on the parcels which are identified in this application. An evaluation of the existing mature trees on the property should be completed to determine if any can be incorporated into the design of the project, or avoided by site development. Rezoning #07-09 — Burns Property — Valley Mill Road November 16, 2009 Page 7 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Based upon the scenario described in the Applicant's TM, the TLA describes improvements that are necessary to achieve an acceptable level of service. Not all of these improvements will be in place and none of the improvements are being provided with this application. Tile recently approved Walgreens - Dairy Corner Rezoning request has provided several improvements at the intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7. 171e timing j the completion of these improvements in relation to this rezoning is very important. Development of this site should not occur until the improvements proffered by the adjacent property are implemented It is evident that this project would further deteriorate the level of service at the exiting intersections in the vicinity of this site most specifically the intersections of Route 7 with I-81 and Valley Mill Road. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that new development does not deteriorate the level of service at intersections or roads. It seeks to ensure that it maintains or improves the level of service at impacted roads or intersections. Please understand that an acceptable level of service to Frederick County, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is a level of service C. It would appear as though even with the suggested improvements to the approach to the Valley Mill/Route 7 intersection, only a level of service D is being achieved at this leg of the intersection. The Applicant has continued the additional improvements on Valley Mill Road in the vicinity of this site in a manner that is consistent with the adjacent properties. In addition, this project is proposing to incorporate into their improvements the left turn lane into the Dowell J. Howard entrance. The provision of this offsetting left turn on Valley Mill Road at the School's entrance would sufficiently allow vehicle storage for those vehicles and school buses accessing Dowell J. Howard. The Applicant has also proposed improvements to Martin Drive which currently does not meet minimum VDOT standards. The proposed improvements appear to be the minimal necessary to meet current standards. A left turn lane is not provided from Valley Mill Road into Martin Drive. It may be desirable to encourage the eastbound traffic utilizing this site to use the entrance proffered with the Walgreens — Dairy Corner application where a protected left turn exists. This could be approached through several methods including a combined signage package with the adjacent property which could share the principle sign for projects and include directional signage. A bike path along Valley Mill Road has not been provided. A 10' hiker biker trail across the property's frontage to connect Martin Drive with the profferedl0' hiker biker trail which was proffered with the Walgreens — Dairy Corner rezoning should be reinstated into the application. It would also be appropriate for this application to provide for sidewalk improvements along the Martin Drive frontage. The proposed pedestrian improvements in Rezoning #07-09 — Burns Property — Valley MiII Road November 16, 2009 Page 8 conjunction with the Frederick County Public School's property are beneficial and desirable and should be worked out to the satisfaction of the School's. On recent rezonings, other projects have contributed additional funding for transportation improvements in the general area of their requests. This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County in addition to the specific improvements they may be proposing. Such an approach should be considered with this request. B. Design Standards The application does include minimal architectural_ language, written in an attempt to address the appearance of the buildings. However, this is the limit of the design elements and does not fully address the corridor appearance goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, it would be beneficial to tailor an approach to the buffer and screening of these properties in addition to those requirements that would be required by ordinance. The adjacent residential properties across Martin Drive should be recognized. This application has provided for additional street tree planting along the properties' road frontage with Valley Mill Road Additional street trees along Martin Drive should be considered as should how this would fat in with the required buffer landscape screening. C. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services. However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application's effort to address the impacts to community facilities is limited to a $2,000.00 contribution to Frederick County; $1,000.00 for Fire and Rescue purposes and $1,000.00 for Sheriff's purposes. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated December 5, 2008 with latest revision September 10, 2009 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a very basic Generalized Development Plan (GDP dated July 27, 2009 and revised through September 10, 2009) for the site. The GDP shows a full entrance on Martin Drive and improvements on Valley Mill Road. The location of a potential location for inter parcel connections is also shown on the GDP. It also shows the proposed pedestrian improvements on the Dowell J. Howard property. The Generalized Development Plan accompanying the Proffer Statement could be enhanced to address some of the comments identified in the staff report. The GDP is used to identify the general location of the additional street trees. Rezoning #07-09 - Bums Property — Valley Mill Road November 16, 2009 Page 9 B) Land Use The Applicant has stated that they intend to develop the property with up to 12,000 square feet of commercial land uses on the property. The Applicant has restricted the Average Daily Trips (ADT) for this site to 1,516 Average Daily Trips. This generally remains consistent with the TIA. C) Site Design Building construction materials have been limited to using one or a combination of, cast stone, stone, brick, architectural block, dry vit or stucco. Additionally, any dumpster pad screening shall be constructed of the same materials. Street trees planted a minimum of 50' on center have been proposed. This should be extended on Martin Drive. D) Transportation The applicant has proffered one site entrance on Martin Drive as shown on the ODP. A location has been identified for an inter parcel connection in the southwest corner of the site. Improvements to Valley Mill Road across the properties frontage including improvements to accommodate a left turn lane into Dowell J. Howard are provided, as is the dedication of any necessary right-of-way needed to make the improvements. Improvements to Martin Drive to meet current minimum standards are proposed. Said improvements should include a sidewalk. The Applicant has not proffered a monetary contribution for future transportation improvements within the general vicinity of the property. Other recent projects have taken this approach to address the off-site impacts of their project. E) Community Facilities The applicant has proffered a $2,000.00 contribution to Frederick County; $1,000.00 for Fire and Rescue purposes and $1,000.00 for Sheriff's purposes. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 10/07/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: In general, the B2 land use proposed conforms to the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. However, the impacts associated with this rezoning request have not been fully mitigated by the applicant. In particular, transportation improvements have not been provided that would improve or achieve an acceptable level of service at the adjacent intersection Route 7 and Route 659. Additional corridor street enhancement elements such as landscaping should be provided. In addition, the 10' hiker biker trail should be extended across this properties frontage with Valley Mill Road. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 10/07/09 MEETING: In response to the outstanding issues raised by the staff, the applicant proposed revisions to their proffers which included the following_ 1) tie the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for this project Rezoning 907-09 — Buns Property Valley Mill Road November 16, 2009 Page 10 to road improvements proffered by Walgreens; specifically, an additional lane along the Valley Mill Road frontage at the Route 7 intersection; 2) no direct access onto Valley Mill Road, thereby eliminating additional conflict points along Valley Mill Road; and 3) provision of a taper for a turn lane onto Martin Drive, as well as an expansion of Valley Mill Road across the property frontage, which will allow the applicant to tie into the improvements provided by Walgreens and enable the width expansion of Valley Mill Road to construct a left -turn lane into Dowell J. Circle. In order to provide a safe access into the site for east -bound Valley Mill Road traffic, the project entrance on Martin Drive was pushed back as far as possible to minimize any conflict between vehicles entering and exiting the site at the Martin Drive/Valley Mill Road intersection. Regarding the buffering and screening, the applicant stated that landscaping along the Martin Drive frontage will be substantial with a Category B Zoning District buffer consisting of three trees per ten linear feet, and the screening along Valley Mill Road will be an extension of that proffered as part of the Walgreens project, with street trees 50 feet on center. In lieu of the sidewalk along the property's frontage, the applicant offered to extend the trail system and to maintain a portion of the off-site sidewalk. One person spoke during the public comment portion of the hearing; he was the previous owner of the 220 Seafood Restaurant and was currently a part owner of approximately 38 acres in this vicinity. He was concerned about access for his property to Route 7, as well as Valley Mill Road, in the event he decided to develop his property. He asked about his ability to access the roads planned for the Walgreens site. Commission members had questions for the applicant about whether the entrances to the Walgreens site would tie into the Bums property and they encouraged the movement of traffic through the Walgreens site to access the Burns' project with left -turn movements. A joint entrance sib was suggested. The Commission also discussed with the applicant the impacts to the six residences across the street along Martin Drive. Commission members supported the rezoning application in general, as far as the land use and its transition, based on the Comprehensive Policy Plan. However, they felt the issue of successfully integrating the improvements associated with this proposal and those provided with the Walgreens program remained to be seen. The Commission decided that tabling this rezoning for 45 days would provide some time for everyone to study the applicant's revised proffers and for the applicant to incorporate all the changes that were discussed. The vote to table was unanimous. (Note: Commissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting.) Following the public meeting, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers Surveyors- Planners. Landscape Architects. CORPORATE: Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Chantilly Charlottesville Fredericksburg Harrisonburg Leesburg Newport News Norfolk Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES: Chantilly Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Allentown T 540.667.2139 F 540-6650493 1 17 East Piccadlily Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 16 November 2009 Mr. Michael Ruddy, AIC' Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 N Kent St, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Burns Property — Valley Mill Road Rezoning Application; Revised Proffer Statement —11/16/09 Dear Mike, Please find attached an executed version of a revised proffer statement dated November 16, 2009 for the Burns Property — Valley Mill Road rezoning application. The revisions to the proffer statement since the application was presented to the Planning Commission on October 7, 2009 are as follows: 1. All Valley Mill Road improvements provided by the approved Walgreens - Dairy Corner Place rezoning application located adjacent to the Burns Property must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any structure on the Burns Property. These improvements includes the turn lanes for Valley Mill Road at the Route 7 intersection and ensures that Valley Mill Road will accommodate any traffic generated by the site. 2. Per the commitment made at the October 21 Planning Commission meeting, the proffer statement now includes a trail across the Property frontage with Valley Mill Road. This will extend the trail proffered by the adjacent Walgreens site. 3. Per the commitment made at the October 21 Planning Commission meeting, the proffer statement also includes a sidewalk along the Property frontage with Valley Mill Road. 4. In keeping with our discussions regarding the unclear ownership of existing Martin Drive, we have revised the proffer statement to utilize the interparcel connection to the Walgreens site as the primary means of access to the Property. Access to Martin drive would only be permitted under two scenarios: (1) When Martin Drive is accepted by Frederick County for public road purposes, or (2) At such time that all properties along Martin Drive are zoned for commercial uses. Under either scenario, the location of the entrance, the improvements to Martin Drive and Valley Mill Road, and the right of way necessary to make the connection would be subject to Frederick County and VDOT approval. We feel this approach ensures that, should the circumstances allow the Martin Drive connection to occur, the connection and associated improvements are completed to the satisfaction of the County and VDOT. 5. To help ensure the proffered off site sidewalk across the frontage of Dowell j Howard is constructed in a timely fashion, the proffer statement has been revised to require the 10' right of way dedication necessary for the construction of the sidewalk to be dedicated by Frederick County Schools within 180 days of the Date of Final Rezoning. This approach also ensures that the Applicant would be able to construct the sidewalk prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per the proffer statement. 6. The Generalized Development Plan has been revised in accordance with the revised Proffer Statement. P + If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to call me at (540) 667-2139. Sincerely, PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES Patrick R- Sowers, AICP Enclosure of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Patrick Sowers FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP � Deputy Director -- RE: Initial Comments — Burns Rezoning Application DATE: December 11, 2008 The following points are offered regarding the Burns Commercial Rezoning Application. This is a request to rezone 1.26 acres from RA to B2 with Proffers. Please consider the comments as you continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. The comments reiterate the input that has previously been provided on this request. Please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments are adequately addressed. T nnrl T TcP The property is located in the general area covered by the Route 7 Corridor Plan. The property is within the UDA and SWSA and is generally designated in an area of commercial land use. The business corridor expectations of the Comprehensive Plan should be recognized, even though this site does not have visibility on Route 7, and should be applied along Valley Mill Road. General. Particular effort should be made to provide for enhanced design of the project to facilitate improved corridor appearance along Valley Mill Road. Landscaping, lighting, and building layout and form should be carefully planned to ensure that this is achieved. An approach may include locating the buildings on the property to the front of the site, Valley Mill Road, and 'Limiting the amount of parking in front of the buildings in favor of providing more parking internal to the sight. Address the buffer and screening of adjacent residential properties including those across Martin Drive. A sensitive approach to this that is tailored and builds upon the County's current requirements may be warranted. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601_-5000 Initial Comments — Burns Rezoning Application December 11, 2008 Page 2 Transportation. This application proposes a lane improvement to Valley Mill Road but no improvements to Martin Drive, and no participation in recognition of the impacts to the overall transportation network. In particular, the TIA modeled intersection of Valley Mill Road/1-91/Route 7. The long range transportation planning efforts in this area focus attention on a relocated connection of Valiey Mill Road with fZoute 7 at Getty Lane. This application should recognize the long range transportation planning efforts in this area, and should focus on the entrance to Martin Drive, Martin Drive, Valley Mill Road, and an enhanced interparcel connection to the adjacent properties, and potentially back down to Route 7 via Martin Drive. More detail should be provided regarding Martin Drive and its intersection with Valley Mill Road. Martin Drive is an existing State Road that does not meet current street standards. Consideration should be given to improving Martin Drive to a public street standard that meets all current standards. In general, this Application fails to provide for any substantial transportation improvements and does not address the transportation impacts associated with this request. Staff had previously commented in our review of the adjacent properties' request that the application is encouraged to think beyond just providing a simple connection to the adjacent parking lot. The adjacent property, currently under review for a rezoning, should be considered in relationship to this one for the purpose of access and improvements to Martin Drive, including a potential internal connection back down to Route 7. It is evident that this project would further deteriorate the level of service at the exiting intersections in the vicinity of this site, most specifically the intersections of Route 7 with I-81 and Valley Mill Road. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that new development does not deteriorate the level of service at intersections or roads. It seeks to ensure that it maintains or improves the level of service at impacted roads or intersections. Please understand that an acceptable level of service to Frederick County, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is a level of service C. Based upon the above scenario, the TIA describes improvements that are necessary to achieve an acceptable level of service. None of these improvements will be in place or guaranteed to be provided prior to the development of this site. Initial Comments — Berns Rezoning Application December 11, 2008 Page 3 Pedestrian accommaodations should be provided in a coordinated manner internal to the project, to and along Valley Avenue, and Martin Drive. On recent rezonings, other projects have contributed additional funding for transportation improvements in the general area of their requests. This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County in addition to the specific improvements they may be proposing_ Such an approach should be considered with this request relative with the scale of this request. Proffer Statement. A Generalized Development Plan has not been provided with this application. A GDP accompanying the Proffer Statement could be used to address some of the comments identified. Any proffered limitations should be directly related to the analysis provided in the Impact Analysis, in particular, the TIA. The application proffers 12,000 square feet of unlimited commercial land uses. The TIA models a 3,500 square foot fast food restaurant with drive through. This discrepancy should be considered when evaluating the impacts of this request and the proffer statement. This proffer statement provides for a 12,000 square foot commercial development. The monetary contributions aimed to offset the impact of development should be carefully evaluated to ensure they are relative to the proposed development. The proffer statement must be signed by the owner/owners of the property. Once again; please ensure that all review agency comments are adequately addressed. Attachments MTRlbad Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners- Landscape Architect!; - 11 September 2009 Mr. Michael Ruddy Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 N Kent St, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Burns Property —Valley Mill Road Rezoning Application; Response to Comments P RA H_ Dear Mike, To accompany the application submission for the Burns Property — Valley Mill CORPORATE: Road rezoning, I have provided below a response to all comments made by review Chantilly agencies. Dur responses are as follows: VIRGINIA OFFICES_ Chantillyj�jgnnirr �t)7d.Dezelomerzt,/Mike Ruddy, AICD) Charlottesville Fredericksburg 1. The property is located in the general area covered by the Route 7 Corridor Plan. The Harrisonburg property is within the UDA and SWISA and is generally designated in an area of Leesburg commercial land use. The business corridor expectations of the Comprehensive Plan should Newport News be recogni.Zed, even though this site does not have visihility on Route 7, and should be applied Norfolk Winchester along Valley Mill Road. Woodbridge The proposed B2 rezoning is in accordance with the business corridor LABORATORIES' Chantilly expectation. Fredericksburg OFFICES: 7� 2. 1 -articular effort should be made to provide for enhanced design of the prJect to facilitate MARYLAND Baltimore improved corridor appearance along Valley Mill Road. Landscaping, lighting, and building Columbia layout and -form should be carefully planned to ensure that this is achieved. An approach Frederik may include locating buildings on the properly to the front of the site, Valley Mill Road, and Germantown limiting the amount of parking ' front of the buildings in favor of providing oreparking Hollywood internal to the site. Hunt Volley Williamsport The Applicant has proffered street trees along theValleyMill Road frontage of PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: the Property. As an end user has yet to be identified and the site is limited in Allentown size, the Applicant has not proffered a layout plan but has instead proffered a T 540.667.2139 materials design palette to ensure that any building constructed on the F 540.665.0493 Property will be aesthetically pleas' ng - 1 17 East Piccadilly Street Suife 200 Winchester, VA ?` 22601 i SEP 2009 • l � L j 3. Address the bacffer and screening of adjacent residential properties including those across Martin Drive. A sensitive approach to this that is tailored and builds aeon the County s current requirements may be warranted We feel the proffered building design materials ensure that the building will not have detrimental impacts to the neighboring properties. Additionally, the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance will require a minimum 50 foot buffer between the Property and the residential lot located to the north. 4. This application proposes a lane improvement to Valley Mill Road but no improvements to +AA Martin Drive, and no participation in recognition of the impacts to the overall transportation network. In particular, the TLA modeled intersection of Valley Mill Road/I-81 /Route 7. The revised proffer statement provides for the widening of Martin Drive. Additionally, the revised proffer statement provides for widening of Valley MSR Road across the Property frontage necessary to provide a left turn lane on Valley Mill Road to access Dowell J Circle. Improvements to Valley Mill Road at the intersection with Route 7 necessary to accommodate background traffic and traffic generated by the site will be implemented as part of the recently approved rezoning application for the adjacent Walgreens parcel. S. The long range transportation planning oris in this area focus attention on a relocated connection of Valhi Mill Road with Route 7 at Getty Lane. The proposed rezoning would not impact the ability to implement t_he long range transportation plan for Valley Mill Road and Getty Lane. The proposed transportation proffers aim at addressing the impacts of the subject 1.26 acre rezoning. 6. This application should recognztie the long range transportation planning eorts in this area, and should focus on the entrance to Martin Drive, Valley Mill Road, and an enhanced interpareel connection to the adjacent properties, and potentially back down to Route 7 via Marlin Drive. More detail should be provided regarding Martin Drive and its intersection wth Valley Mill Road_ Martin Drive is an existing State Road that does not meet current street standards Consideration should be given to improving Martin Drive to a patblzc str-eet standard that meets all current standards. The revised proffer statement improves the Valley Mill Road frontage of the Property while proposing no direct access to Valley Mill Road. The proffer statement also provides for the improvement of existing Martin Drive to State standards. Additionally, the proposed entrance on Martin Drive has been located as far away from the `Jalleyl�Jliil Road iritersection as possible to ensure no conflicts between vehicles entering/exiting the site and traffic on Martin Drive. Lastly, the interparcel connection proposed for the Property will allow access to and from the adjacent Walgreens parcel and the future connector road from Valley NO to Martin Drive/Route 7 planned as part of the adjacent parcel. 7. In general, this Application fails to provide for any substantial transportation improvements and does not address the transportation impacts associated with this request_ We feel the revised proffer statement adequately mitigates the transportation impacts associated with the rezoning_ Improvements to Valley Mill Road and Martin Drive will provide for a safer traffic system for existing traffic as well. 8. staff had previoury conrnnented in our review of the adjacent properties' request that the + application is encouraged to think beyond just providing a simple connection to the adjacent parking lot The adjacent property, currently under review for a re.Zoning, should be considered in relationshp to this one for the purpose of access and improvements to Martin Drive, including a potential internal connection back down to Route 7. The adjacent rezoning was approved with an internal connection back down to Route 7 and the proposed interparcel connection aligns with the planned connection for the adjacent property. 9. It is evident that this project would farther deteriorate the level of service at the existing intersections in the vuinity of the site, most specifically the intersection of Route 7 with I-81 and Valley Mill Road. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that new development does not deteriorate the level of service at intersections or roads It seeks to ensure that it maintains or inapr over the level of service at impacted roads or intersections_ Please understand that an acceptable level of service to Frederick County, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is a level of service C Background traffic alone requires the same improvements at the intersection of Route 7/Valley Mill Road/I-81 ramps. The improvements to Valley Mill Road will be accommodated by development of the adjacent property. The Applicant has focused on improvements to Valley Mill Road and Martin Drive across the Property frontage. The Valley Mill Road improvements include the addition of a left turn lane that will provide a safer movement for vehicles that turn onto Dowell J Circle. The Applicant has focused the transportation proffers on Martin Drive and Valley All Road as these are the two most impacted roadways_ For reference, vehicle trips generated by the rezoning on Route 7 represent just 0.4% of the total build -out traffic. 3 10. Based upon the above scenario, the T7A describes improvements that are necessary to achieve an acceptable level of service. None of these improvements will be in place orguaranteed to be prrovided prior to development of this site. Plans for improvements to Valley MR Road associated with the adjacent Property are proceeding currently. Background traffic analysis indicates that the improvements required for Route 7 and the I-81 off ramp are not created by the proposed rezoning. As traffic generated by the rezoning would be only 0.4% of the build -out traffic on Route 7 and only 1.2% of the trips on the 1-81 off ramp, we feel the proffer package mitigates the impacts of the rezoning - PI IR 11. Pedestrzarz accommodations should be provided in a coordinated manner internal to the prJect, to and along L ally Mill Load, and Martin Drive. The revised proffer statement provides for the construction of an off-site sidewalk across the full property frontage of the Dowell J Howard property located across Valley Mill Road. This off site sidewalk will connect from Dowell J Grcle to the existing sidewalk located along the south side of Valley MR as depicted on the GDP. 12. On recent rezonings, other pr jects have contributed additional funding for transportation improverzzerrts in the general area of their requests This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County in addition to the specific improvements they may be proposing. Such an approach should be considered with this request relative to the scale of this request The Applicant has chosen to focus on built improvements in place of a monetary contribution. VDOT has approved this approach for the proposed rezoning. 13. A Generalized Development Plan has not been provided with this application. A GDP accompanying the Proffer Statement could be used to address some of the comments identified A detailed GDP has been provided with the revised Proffer Statement. 14. Any proffered limitations should be directly related to the analysis provided in the impart analysis, in particular, the TLA. The revised proffer statement limits development to the maximum trip count that was studied as part of the TIA. By proffer, no site plan could be approved for the Property if the use exceeds the maximum trip count of 1,516. 4 15. The application proffers 92,000 square feet of unlimited commercial land uses. The TIA models a 3,500 square foot fast food restaurant with drive tbrough. T his discrepancy should be considered when evaluating the impacts of this request and the proffer statement.. As stated in the response to comment 14 above, development of the property is limited to a maximum trip count. This ensures that the property is developed in conformance with the TIA and allows flexibility in square footage should a low traffic generating user such as office choose to locate on the site. + 16_ The proffer statement provides fora 92,000 square foot commercial development. The Pti-monetary contributions azzzied to offset the impact of development should be care/ulyevaluated to ensure they are relative to the proposed development. The proposed monetary proffers for sheriffs office and fire and safety purposes of $1,000/each are in keeping with the recently approved rezoning for the adjacent property which wass more than 3 times larger than this proposed rezoning_ It is important to note that the rezoning itself would create a positive fiscal impact from tax revenues associated with the commercial use of the Property. 17. The proffer statement mast be signed by the owner/owners of the proper>>_ A notarized signature has been provided on the proffer statement by the property owner. 18. Once again, please ensure that all review agency comments are adequately addressed.. Acknowledged. ViTini�tDe1�`z`irti�ae�zt o Tr<r�zs�io�t�ttio Z (Lloyd Ingram) 1. VDOT is sati f ed that the transportation proffers offered in the Burns Property — Tlalley Mill road Ketioning Application dated August 98, 2009 address transportation concerns associated witb this request Acknowledged. TP &chester.Regzo7, d, flir�ort (Serena K Manuel) On behalf of the lVinchesier regional Airport, we have reviewed the referenced rezoning proposal and determined that the proposal will not impact operations at the T-VinchesterAirport. Acknowledged. ,ffistoric li'esars>ces fldv1sar-goard (Amber Powers) Upon review of the proposed retiorrirrg, it appears that the proposal does not signicant# impact historic resour-ces and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the re.Zoning application by the HRA_B. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there aro no signicant historic structures located on the property nor are there any possible histan'c districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that while the National Park Seance Study of the Civil 41ar Sites irr the Shenandoah Valley does identify core battlefield within this area, the site's existing condition is such that thea is little remaining value to any preservation ffort . Acknowledged. -RA Frederick Corsa 14LW e (Roderick Williams) 1. Proffer 1.1 -- Staff should be aware that the TLA accompanying the proposed Proffer Statement assumes development of the site `io include a 3,500 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru ; (ITA, p- 1), but that the Proffer only excludes development of the site with building floor area exceeding 12, 000 square feet.. The proffer statement has been revised to limit development to a maXimum of 1,516 vehicle trips as modeled in the TTA for a 3,500 square foot fast-food restaurant. 2. Proffer 1.3 —The Proffer does Trot indicate when the interparcel connector for access to and from the area located west o}the subject properties will be provided. The area located west of the subject properties is currenty honed RP; would interparcel access be provided to the adjacent propery(ies) as currently honed RP or would interparcel access ony occur on rezoning of the adjacent property(ies)? The inter -parcel connection would be provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the Property. Rezoning of the adjacent properties for B2 uses was approved by Frederick County on August 12, 2009 as RZ 03-09. 3. Proffer 1.4 — The Proffer provides for the design and construction of an additional lane for Valley Mill Road across the f ontage of the subject properties (the word `Troperxy" in the second litre of the Proffer is misspelled and this should be corrected), but does not provide for the dedication o. f any additional right of way. Staff should determine whether such construction Zs feasible given the current width of the right of way. Per revised proffer 1.5, any needed right of Way would be determined at time of site plan and dedicated by the Applicant. m 4. The second and third pages of the proposed Proffer Statement contain a header that reads 'Walgreens — Dairy Corner Place"_ The header should be changed to refer the correct Addressed by revised proffer statement. 5. By way of a general observation, staff should be aware that the 1 L4 indicates that there are no `planned" bac � ground developments located in the vicinity of the subject properties (TIA, p. 7) Staff will need to ascertain the auziray of this assumption. HIA The TIA was prepared in accordance with the scoping session held with VDOT. A growth rate was applied to existing traffic to determine background traffic :volumes. 6. The County's GIS mapping shows a VDOT right-of-vay, which apjpears to be of appro�zrnaiely 20 feet in width, bisecting tax mob parcel 54 A-112fl, one o{the properties that is the subject of the proposed retioning This right-of-way is tax map parcel 54 A - 112B in the County's records. The status of this itht-of-zvay may need to he resolved in conjunction with the proposed re.Zoning. A survey performed by PHR+A depicts the boundaries for the three parcels totaling 1.26 acres. There is no 20 foot right of way encumbering parcel 54-A 112Q, only a sewer easement. 7. Item 7 of the proposed KeZoning Application needs to include fax map parcels 54FA-30 and 54 -F -3 A 1 as adjoiners These adjoiners have been added to the application. Frederu k Qgzzty De att177eRt O1P,-Zbl c Works (Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P. E.) 1. Refer to Impact Analysis, page 1: Expand the discussion to include the disposition of the three (3) single famiydwcllzngs_ The dwellings appear to have been constructed prior to 1.978 and will require asbestos inspections prior to receipt of demolition permits The impact statement has been revised accordingly. 2. Kier to Access and Transportation, page 1: Expand the discussion to include the interparcel connection referenced in the Wlalgreen s rezoning application. Also, discuss the impact on Martin Drive and the need for a pgrades if this road is used for ingress/egress. The impact statement has been revised accordingly. 7 3. Selvage Conveyance and lVater Supply, Mage 2. It appear r That the e�zslir�g dwellings a? -e served by public water. However, the existence of public sewer along Martin Drive is questionable. Verify will) specific references to existing seiner lines that public sewer service is available with the rnoning boundaries. A field survey conducted by PHR+A located the 8" sewer line that is located within Martin Drive adjacent to the Property. This sewer line gravity feeds north behind the 220 Seafood Restaurant where it connects with the Abrams Creek Interceptor. 4. Storni Drainage_ Add a section to discuss sto,-mwater management_ We recommend that ihRAconsideration be given to a regional facility that will serve the Burin Property as well as the Walgreens site. Tile impact statement has been revised accordingly. j. Refer to the Proffer Statement, Site Development, paragraph 1.2: Expand the reference to the one entrance on Martin Drive to include required improvements to upgrade Martin Drive to accommodate the Virginia Department of Transportation's requirements Proffer 1.9 of the revised Proffer Statement addresses this comment. Frederick Count Fite Afa,,2;-lha1 Jeffry PJ eal) Plan approval recommended Acknowledged. Frederick County Sanitation flzL_ arzty (John Whitacre) Sewer and Wlater are available to this site. There is adequate sewer and water capacity to serve this site. Acknowledged. Frederick - W,--)7cJJ' esterHealtl Department As long as no wells or septic ystems are impacted either on properly or neigbboring properties; no objections. Acknowledged. Frederick Conrlt I3e �trtinent o fl'�rrks �ndRecre�rtion 1(12aiyhew Hott) No comment. Acknowledged. Frederick WigchesterService nesse Moffett) No Comments. + Acknowledged. Frederick Cog_ig-zrzs�iections (John Trenary) No comment required at this time. Comments shall be made at site plan submittal phase. Acknowledged. Frederick Count ., Pmblac Schools (Hayne Lee) We have reviewed the Bums Reoning application, and are concerned about the increase in traffic volume that this change of use will generate. It is already di�icult for school buses to turn left out of the Dowellj- Howard Center, and we expect that this commercial use, with an entrance onto Marlin Drive, will increase that difficulty. 1Fe see this issue being related mon to traffic volume than to stacking at the Valley Milll Berryville Turnpike intersection. The Applicant is providing frontage improvements to Valley Mill Road to address traffic impacts of the development. Additionally, the interparcel connection to the Walgreens tract will allow for access to Valley Mill. Road and Route 7 without sending traffic across the Dowell J. Howard Center entrance or exit. I hope that these responses aid in the review of the application by Frederick County Staff as well as the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to call me at (540) 667-2139. Sincerely, PATTON HARRIS RUST & C)CIATES Patrick R Sowers, AIC' 0 Mike Ruddy - From: Wayne Lee [Leew@frederick.k12.va.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 10:57 AM To: Mike Ruddy Cc: Al Orndorff Subject: Burns Property Rezoning Mike, Please accept the following statement: I am writing as a member of staff of Frederick County Public Schools. FCPS staff was approached by the applicant with a request to place a trail or sidewalk along the front of the Dowell 3. Howard Center property. After some discussion with the applicant's engineer, a mutually agreeable solution to the trail was reached. FCPS staff is supportive of the idea of placing a trail in the public right-of-way along the entire frontage of the Dowell 3. Howard Center. Final decisions about the trail and dedication of right-of-way rest with the School Board. We do note County Planning staff's comment that pedestrian facilities should be located across the Burns Property frontage and connect to the proffered Walgreens trail. We defer to their opinion as to what the proper solution to pedestrian circulation in the area should be. We still hold previously stated concerns about traffic congestion on Valley Mill Road. We think that the eventual solution to our concerns lies in the Eastern Road Plan. In the near term, the applicant's proposal, when combined with the Walgreens - Dairy Corner Place road improvements, will partially address those concerns. The remaining concern is the increased difficulty in turning left out of Dowell J. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Wayne Kenneth Wayne Lee, Jr. CZA Coordinator of Planning and Development Frederick County Public Schools 1415 Amherst Street P. 0. Box 3508 Winchester, VA 22604-2546 leew(@frederick.k12.va.us (office) 540-662-3889 x88249 (fax) 540-662-4237 (cell) 540-533-3745 1 Mike Ruddy_ From: Mike Ruddy Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:13 AM To: 'Patrick R. Sowers' Subject: Burns Rezoning Hi Patrick, Rod has reviewed your revised proffers submitted yesterday and has offered the following comments. Rod has recommended some language changes, so as to make clear that the County is in no way changing the obligations of the Walgreens property and that the County is not making any commitment with respect to acceptance of Martin Drive. Below are his additions in bold underline and his deletions in bold strikethrough. Thanks. Mike. 1.5 Primary means of access to the Property shall be provided by an inter -parcel connection to and from the area located west of the Property in the general location depicted on the GDP. Said connection shall provide access to the Property via Valley Mill Road through the adjoining property and shall align with the interparcel connector provided per Proffer 1.4 for RZ #03-09, "Walgreens — Dairy Corner Place" as approved by Frederick County on August 12, 2009. The interparcel connection shall be installed prior to the issuance of a building ep rmit for any building constructed on the Property. (See 1 on GDP) Nothing herein shall obligate the County or any person to provide such access or to make arrangements or assist in providing such access. The Applicant acknowledges that, until access to Martin Drive can be achieved pursuant to Proffer 1.6, the Property would not be capable of use for anv ourrnoseT— constituting a change from its current use. 1.6 Access to Martin Drive from the Property shall be prohibited until such time that Martin Drive is accepted by Frederick County for public road purposes or until all properties located along Martin Drive are zoned for commercial use. The location of any future access to Martin Drive and any improvements and/or right of way necessary for Martin Drive and Valley Mill Road to make said connection shall be subject to review and approval by Frederick County and VDOT. Nothing herein shall obligate the County to accept Martin Drive for public road purposes prior to or upon VDOT indicating that Martin Drive meets applicable VDOT standards for acceptance into the state secondary road system and that VDOT will accept Martin Drive into the state secondary road system. Burns Propei Malley Mill Rd REZ # 07 - 09 Rezoning Request Current Zoning RP to B2 Office &t Retail Use PIN: 54 -A - 112Q, 112D, 112P W C q((FY .71 'd 1 t \`• / —BERRYVILLE .PIKE- r.BERjYVILLE PIKE- [�,l�Yii�L�64 TIi 1' amay,���ra. rr ��•. ��I Ji'.L 1.0. �� � lE."CJ LY`9.'�. ter' W-1wm, 'iE}�'ll f frf & 4if C�1Gi.`�dG>i %.bum,� Burns Propei Malley Mill Rd REZ # 07 - 09 Rezoning Request Current Zoning RP to B2 Office &t Retail Use PIN: 54 -A - 112Q, 112D, 112P W C q((FY .71 1 t \`• / —BERRYVILLE .PIKE- r.BERjYVILLE PIKE- Winahester,V -•.��......++.... +..a uuuy m*�Ruture Rt37Bypass ZURing 63(Buxlness,Industrial Trnn�ifivn Dixfricl)�M1II (Induxtrial, Ligh[Dixfricf) AIS (AI+Micel Buppvrt DufHcf) �_>RA (RmvlAren Uixirict) REZ0709_BurnsProperty_ValleyMillRtl_091609 B3(Baxinexs, NeighUvrhvvd Disliict)Q&'rEAT (Exiracfiae M1lanutvcfu�ing DistriR) RII (Industrial, General District) RJ(Residenfial Planned Community Disfriat) RP(Residenfial Performance Dixtricl) ,G8 �DG2 Urban Uerelu Arnv B2 Baxinc.s, Cenei�i Dufrisf K _� pmenf ( ) �7 }IE (FligherEdmzlion Dixtricf) �AftfF(AfoLBe flume C'ammunitylluUicr)t�RS(Residevfial Recrna(ionalCvmmunity District) W N{� =':;.:7 SWSA yI W,�E 0 25 50 100 Feet b S I`Jl..r L o., i nt-}i {F q((FY (C 26 TIi ` -•.��......++.... +..a uuuy m*�Ruture Rt37Bypass ZURing 63(Buxlness,Industrial Trnn�ifivn Dixfricl)�M1II (Induxtrial, Ligh[Dixfricf) AIS (AI+Micel Buppvrt DufHcf) �_>RA (RmvlAren Uixirict) REZ0709_BurnsProperty_ValleyMillRtl_091609 B3(Baxinexs, NeighUvrhvvd Disliict)Q&'rEAT (Exiracfiae M1lanutvcfu�ing DistriR) RII (Industrial, General District) RJ(Residenfial Planned Community Disfriat) RP(Residenfial Performance Dixtricl) ,G8 �DG2 Urban Uerelu Arnv B2 Baxinc.s, Cenei�i Dufrisf K _� pmenf ( ) �7 }IE (FligherEdmzlion Dixtricf) �AftfF(AfoLBe flume C'ammunitylluUicr)t�RS(Residevfial Recrna(ionalCvmmunity District) W N{� =':;.:7 SWSA yI W,�E 0 25 50 100 Feet b S I`Jl..r L o., i nt-}i {F PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ # 1) '7 — Cq Residential Performance (RP) to Business General (B2) PROPERTY: 1.26 acre +/-; Tax Map Parcels 54 -A -112Q, 54 -A -112D, and 54 -A -112P (the "Property') RECORD OWNER: David M. & Svedana M. Burns APPLICANT: David M. & Svetlana M. Burns PROJECT NAME: Burns Property— Valley Mill Road ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: September 4, 2008 REVISION DATE(S): December 5, 2008; August 18, 2009; September 10, 2009; November 16, 2009 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property'), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced B2 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant'), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board') decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Burns Property — Valley Mill Road" dated July 27, 2009 revised November 16, 2009 (the "GDP'. 1. Site Development 1.1 The Property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the GDP. 1.2 Development of the Property shall not exceed a total of 12,000 square feet of building floor area and shall be limited to a maximum of 1,516 Average Daily Trips (ADT). It is understood that pass -by and all other reductions, as permitted by VDOT, may be applied to arrive at the maximum ADT yield of 1,516. The ADT shall be determined using the latest edition of the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual and shall be depicted on any future site plans for the Property. No site plan shall be approved for the Property if the proposed use generates an ADT count that exceeds 1,516. 1.3 No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any building constructed on the Property until such time that all road improvements for Valley Mill Road provided by RZ #03-09, "Walgreens — Dairy Corner Place" as approved by Frederick County on August 12, 2009 are completed. Proffer Statement Burns Property — Valley Mill Road 1.44 Direct Access to Valley Mill Road from the Property shall be prohibited. 1.5 Primary means of access to the Property shall be provided by an inter -parcel connection to and from the area located west of the Property in the general location depicted on the GDP. Said connection shall provide access to the Property via Valley Mill Road through the adjoining property and shall align with the interparcel connector provided per Proffer 1.4 for RZ #03-09, "Walgreens — Dairy• Corner Place" as approved by Frederick County on August 12, 2009_ The interparcel connection shall be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building constructed on the Property. (See 1 on GDP) Nothing herein shall obligate the County to provide such access or to make arrangements or assist in providing such access. The Applicant acknowledges that, until access to the Property is provided to Valley Mill Road via the interparcel connection pursuant to Proffer 1.5, the Property would not be capable of use for any purpose constituting a change from its current use_ 1.6 Access to Martin Drive from the Property shall be prohibited until such time that Martin Drive is accepted by Frederick County for public road purposes or until all properties located along Martin Drive are zoned for commercial use. The location of any future access to Martin Drive and any improvements and/or right of way necessary for Martin Drive and Valley Mill Road to make said connection shall be subject to review and approval by Frederick County and VDOT_ Nothing herein shall obligate the County to accept Martin Drive for public road purposes prior to or upon VDOT indicating that Martin Drive has been constructed to meet, or surety is provided sufficient to cover the construction cost of those improvements required to meet, applicable VDOT standards for acceptance into the state secondary road system_ 1.7 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the Property, the Applicant shall construct a sidewalk along the Property frontage with Martin Drive_ 1.8 The Applicant shall design and construct an additional lane for Valley Mill Road across the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the Property. The Applicant shall dedicate all right of way necessary for said improvement as determined at the time of site plan. (See 2 on GDP) 1.9 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the Property, the Applicant shall provide a left turn lane for Valley Mill Road, subject to VDOT review and approval, at the intersection of Dowell J Circle as depicted on the GDP. (See 3 on GDP) 1.10 The Applicant shall provide street trees planted a maximum of 50' on center across the Property frontage with Valley Mill Road as depicted on the GDP prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the Property. (See 4 on GDP) 1.11 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the Property, the Applicant shall construct a 10' asphalt trail in conformance with VDOT standards across the Property frontage with Valley Mill Road as depicted on the GDP. (See 5 on GDP) 1.12 If an additional 10' of right of way for Valley Mill Road is dedicated by Frederick County Public Schools across the frontage of the Dowell J Howard Center property (TM 54-A-114) within 180 days of the Date of Final Rezoning (DFR), the Applicant shall construct a sidewalk as shown on the GDP along the South side of Valley Mill Road along the full frontage of the Dowell J Howard property to connect with the existing sidewalk located on the South side of Valley Mill Road prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the Property. (See 6 on GDP) Page 2 of 4 Proffer Statement Bunts Property — Valley Mill Road 2. Design Standards 2.1 Any building constructed on the Property shall be constructed using one or a combination of the following: cast stone, stone, brick, architectural block, dry -6t or stucco. Additionally, _— _. ___— dumpster pad screen walls shall be constructed of the same masonry material(s) used for building construction_ 3. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to Frederick County for fire and rescue purposes_ Said contribution shall be made prior to issuance of a building permit for the Property. 3.2 The Applicant shall contribute the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to Frederick County for Sheriffs Office purposes_ Said contribution shall be made prior to issuance of a building permit for the Property. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Page 3 of 4 Proffer Statement Respectfully submitted, David M. Burns By: / Date: %) 1 l — I STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: Burns Property — Valley Mill Road The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ft` ',�tY'�- , 2009, by Myconumsion qVires _� 1?i s � ' `3� Notary Public cam= 16 7 rt74 Svetlana BurrW By t �� �. Date: 111,16 STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2009, byEv-it—tiava My commission exires Notary Public Page 4 of 4 �%b 0<9 II Ion to sting sidewalk (Op"T( ✓ 2 0 0cj f 00 0 6 �� \ ZLB X69 5 10' Aspholt a-! 4 ` EE EE \ % / f / Fxlstmg f/ Proposed: Prop A Int'—Pa PROJECT ` . \ i f ,;�� , �'• SITE Tstlntin T�d12Q' \ ` j Fx' g RA \ / - -- if t a4s�N\ J-) 103 Cal Is r G\�G� A11--� �. �O r \ aR,4PH/C SC,4LE m 5 O 30 60 f YN FeEr J : a .TO fi. w L T >- N N i o m w, c a w r14 J W }.._ " Z LJ � Z O Ld __I 0 I_!J EX. VALL MILL RD. VARIES x ,S uoim AoeTr BE E16u g Po:anmt VOOT — _–� SAW CUT EDGE PROVIDE TACK COAT ,5' sM 9 5 BYG (OR PATCH ETUSTING DEPTH) DE *MATCH M CROSS SLOPE (i' 2i -B AGGREGATE LAYERS To EXTEND I. BEYOND EI%;< OF PAVEMENT. SECTION A -A ROAD WIDENING SECT70N MTS 6 �� \ ZLB X69 5 10' Aspholt a-! 4 ` EE EE \ % / f / Fxlstmg f/ Proposed: Prop A Int'—Pa PROJECT ` . \ i f ,;�� , �'• SITE Tstlntin T�d12Q' \ ` j Fx' g RA \ / - -- if t a4s�N\ J-) 103 Cal Is r G\�G� A11--� �. �O r \ aR,4PH/C SC,4LE m 5 O 30 60 f YN FeEr J : a .TO fi. w L T >- N N i o m w, c a w r14 J W }.._ " Z LJ � Z O Ld __I 0 I_!J BURNS PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT September 2009 The Burns Property (the "Property') ��is�� ideally located for commercial uses. The Property, identified by Frederick- Cern t�r recorl s �S Tax Map Parcels 54_A_112�, 54 Ar112D, and 54A -112P consists of approximately 1.3 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Valley Mill Road and Martin Drive (See Figure 1). The subject site is currently zoned RP (Residential Performance) and currently used for three single family detached homes. This application seeks to rezone the Property to the B2 (General Business) District. An asbestos inspection may be required for the existing homes prior to issuance of a demolition permits. The site is located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County. SURROUNDING PROPE RTIE S As depicted by Figure 1, the properties located adjacent to the site are single family homes and vacant property on RP zoning as well as the 220 Seafood Restaurant site which is zoned B2. T. AND T 7SF The subject acreage is located within the study boundary of the Route 7 East Corridor Land Use Plan however this plan only shows the existing zoning rather than the planned use for the Property. The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan identifies the Property with a business designation. As such, rezoning the site to allow for B2 uses, would be in accordance with the land use as planned by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION The property would be served by an entrance on Martin Drive, as such no entrances on Valley Mill Road will be constructed as part of the development of this Property. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) entitled "A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns - Valley Mill Road," was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. The TIA analyzes the impacts developing the site with a 3,500 square foot fast food restaurant as a "worst case" traffic generation scenario. The TIA indicates that background traffic will degrade the Level of Service (LOS) for the subject area intersections below a LOS C. To accommodate background traffic the TIA proposes the following improvements: 1. Route 7/Valley Mill Road/I-81 ramps: • Additional westbound thru lane on Route 7 (proffered by adjoining property) • Additional northbound left turn lane on Valley Mill Road • Additional southbound left turn lane on the NB I-81 off ramp. Impact Analysis Statement - Burns Property 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS FIGURE 1 BURNS PROPERTY SCALE: 1 " = 100' DATE: 7/1/08 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers, Surveyors_ Planners. Landscape Architects. East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 PH Winchester, 3g ina22601 01RA540.667.211399 T F 540.665.0493 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS FIGURE 1 BURNS PROPERTY SCALE: 1 " = 100' DATE: 7/1/08 Ml` Map Features •� Hnurdary I m Map Hwrdar; rLm r 11knily Ce -dare Gp-'.'lash rqh -n rn Nmial Cnrr—w ti -1rm H�IW- C6 L�hrrF'�irdr •=sh�nrua ;' •:3ar�-r 4ti{�-r titi:rrirlr. �'-.ma Jrban Dr tial-pnrnt Ar -a Rvadu'Tran &purlalron R i•ruro i �7 t+ruq 3�xai N.li •wc r -6,1w RLe.1-Ja Lim zitriec Pi PtutxstixJ RuJiv a7 . ` RailmarJe. Cil"'Tuwus m1do FENDm) <lelahene ony ra51 +:'It4iICl Afgrlcultural ❑Istrlcts 'n itAri ^)11 rr1 �i :Ra'nrJ.: C-1, tn%h 4th :9,L -N ich 7n 41nrJ E:1 (Basi tr;s, Neik-dx ihuuJ Gish id) R'• iFlin;1 iti{., CrAnA'Af Dwrrt: - [33 (dusi u , Irxhrsrrial r in:,it an Cish-ir17 Mal 1EAhacli�-4 �raau'ra:.miuk Ctwliiu{I I IC 9 Iighcr Cdur..;Ai-n Dix -re-', M' 'IrrJ.i:%ltiil, _k1h. D"i tid) td_` 9ni-jsir6l, Cxm-nral Disire, MH1 ?bMila Fouw Guu iuu•ti.c MshW tdS F,1c r. i;al Sr:r, rc s Gis1ric`- R51Resumllel, 9ecrarA)ral ornnxmlh� DIalrl:l:r RA',Rl.mIAr-.an D mra,' Rr :RE-scler:bslr-3rioingI,ee DOWN. Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects, 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester Virgina2?601 RA PH T 54D.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 s WINCHESTER GATE!04A _ • 4L r F�° V _ •� M11 r TD ' PROJECT AREA ZONING MAP I FIGURE 2 BURNS PROPERTY DATE: 7/1/08 The TIA indicates that the development of the site combined with background traffic would necessitate the same transportation improvements needed with background traffic alone. The Applicant has proffered to prohibit direct access to Valley Mill Road and to widen Valley Mill Road in order to provide a left turn lane at Valley Mill's intersection with Dowell J Circle. Additionally, the Applicant has proffered to improve existing Martin Drive from the intersection with Valley Mill Road to the project entrance which has been located as far from Valley Mill Road as possible to ensure there are no conflicts resulting from traffic entering and exiting the site. The Applicant has also proffered to provide an inter -parcel connection to properties located west of the site. This connection aligns with the inter -parcel connection that was proffered as part of the adjoining Walgreens -Dairy Corner Place site which was recently rezoned for commercial uses. To facilitate a better pedestrian network in the vicinity of the site, the Applicant has proffered to construct an off-site sidewalk across the full frontage of the Dowell J. Howard Center property located across Valley Mill Road from the Property. This sidewalk would connect with the existing sidewalk located on the south side of Valley Mill Road. This improvement is shown on the Generalized Development Plan. ENVIRONMENT The Property does not contain any areas of stream channels or steep slopes. The site has a low elevation of approximately 650 feet and a high elevation of approximately 670 feet. There is an existing drainage swale that runs north to south on the Western edge of the Property. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Vuginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall upon the border between the Frederick Poplimento- Oaklet soil associations. The predominant soil types on the site are Berks Channery Silt Loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes (map symbol 1B) and Weikert Berks Channery Silt Loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes (map symbol 41D) as shown on map sheet number 30 of the survey. The site would not be characterized as prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Flood plain data for the subject parcels is delineated on the Flood Insurance Study Map for Frederick County prepared by the US. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Panel # 510063-0115B, effective date July 17, 1978. The entire site is located in Flood Zone C, which denotes areas of minimal flooding outside of the 100 -year flood plain. Existing drainage from the site flows from south to north, ultimately to a drainage swale located on the adjoining property to the west/northwest. Any stormwater management facilities will be designed to meet or exceed the state regulations. Per stormwater management regulations, post developiment Brows will not exceed pre -development levels. As such, development of the site will not negatively impact nearby drainage facilities or adjoining properties. Impact Analysis Statement — Burns Property 2 L �p '9Q 54F-1 nA SHDENIA R ZONED: A USE: R TIA Y l ss9 4-A-114 FREDERICK C . PCH ZONED. P USE: VOCATIONAL Ol Pa Ii ton Harris Rust & Associa,es,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street Suite200 .+. Winchester, Virginia 72G01 14p,411 T 540.667.2139 JL JL F 540.665.0493 WC 54 A-11 ZONE . 54—A-112 USE: REST SPENCE 54—A-1 12J SPENCE ZONED: RA USE: RESIDED ZONED: RA USE: RESIDENTIAL] EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY FIGURE 3 BURNS PROPERTY SCALE: 1 = 100' DATE: 7/1/08 SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY Access to public water and sewer is available via connection to existing lines adjacent to the site along the Valley Mill Road frontage. An 8 inch sewer line is available at the site and along Martin Drive. Assuming 12,000 square feet of commercial space (proffered maximum), the site would generate 2,400 gallons per day of sewer flows with approximately equivalent water usage assuming a rate of 200 GPD/ 1,000 square feet. SOLID WASTE Assuming 12,000 square feet of commercial space, the site would generate 300 pounds of solid waste per day assuming a rate of 25 lbs/1,000 square feet. Solid waste would be transferred to the Frederick County Landfill for disposal. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The subject site does not include any historic structures as identified by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. Pursuant to the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, the subject site is located within the core battlefield area of the Third Battle of Winchester (Opequon), however the subject acreage is already identified as lost integrity due to development in proximity to the site. As such, the application will have no impact to the existing integrity of battlefield resources. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The proposed commercial rezoning will have a positive impact on the Frederick County tax base. The positive fiscal impact is augmented bythe fact that the proposed rezoning is replacing RP zoned property currently used for single family houses with commercial uses. In recognition of services provided for Fire and Rescue and Sheriff's Office purposes, the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $1,000 for Sheriff's office purposes and $1,000 for Fire and Rescue services. hnpact Analysis Statement — Burns Property 3 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Burns s Valley bill Load Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: David Burns 1675 Fort Braddock Court Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architect. �, 10212 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007 PT�7, A Williamsport, Maryland 21795 . 301.223.4010 F 301223.6831 September 4, 2008 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Burns - Valley Mill Road development to be located along the east of Valley Mill Road (VA Route 659), north of Martin Lane, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed development is to include a 3,500 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru. Access will be provided via Martin Lane located along the east side of the Valley Mill Road. The proposed development will be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2010. Analyses are provided for existing, 2010 background and 2010 build -out year conditions. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Burns - Valley Mill Road development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Burns - Valley Mill Road development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Burns - Valley Mill Road development, • Distribution and assignment of the Burns - Valley Mill Road development -generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of Synchro 7 for existing and future conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Bums — Valley Mill Road PH l� Project Number: 15877-1-0 J September 4, 2008 Page 1 No Scale -ZRhtce it' Fretlemk Ave. r� circhain qae Kin�w'Ih w� Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Burns - Valley Mill Road, in Frederick County, VA A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns — Valley Mill Road PH'�-�+-A Project Number: 15877-]-0 September 4, 2008 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted weekday A,' IVPM and Saturday mid-day peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/1-81 SB Ramps, Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/1-81 NB Ramps/Valley Mill Road, Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/Martin Lane, Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/Gateway Drive, Valley Mill Road/Dairy Corner Place and Valley Mill Road/Martin Lane. In order to determine the ADT (Average Daily Trips) along the study area roadway links, "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 7.7% was utilized based upon the published Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2006 traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing weekday and Saturday ADT as well as weekday AM/PM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour levels of service. Existing condition analysis is based upon VDOT signal timing. PHR+A has provided Table 1 to show the existing weekday AM/PM and Saturday mid-day peak hour levels of service and 95`h percentile back of queue for each lane group. All traffic count data and Synchro level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of the report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns — Valley Mill Road Project Number: 15877-1-0 H September 4, 2008 PPage 3 Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns — Valley Mill Road Project Number: 15877-1-0 A+ September 4, 2008 PH Page 4 r� No Scale �e 4 G°W,Na9 2 d Orae O 1,y94° � Ywo e P A Kc 4 7290 � �off�am ° `e4 � 6°6 6490 7 J O 1` Z 35260 VW CO �1 253fiU 3200 19°`� I"`0 S 21 rn a.� 1°lam dJ�r l�+ y�ll�Qa SIT r a° ti a 6 104 c 434(523)1513] 778(8 o m 229(4U1)[283) �Yzr77(J 103)[7075 )8 0P5921\ 7 4S 4(1g15(a16j21111�\ -Okj 11M 17C ,-11(28)[421 i624(88 7 {}♦ 7 114](239)174.+ � � 113 )(178)861 �%-229(401)12833� 810](9)981 �%I [802)(10 [2787(361)160�1276711377� 6](1 - N � 5 G 10930 1� ro(Ovi o �s .f` J eia�e (22)(5)3 ►� o G 121(0)1 3. r, ✓ 930JJlJJ 6 Iry 'TJIdB t6)(8)1'�11 w 61 �v Weekday ADT m Saturday ADT PT TP+ A AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour] Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns — Valley Mill Road Project Number: 15877-1-0 A+ September 4, 2008 PH Page 4 —_� No Scale �e 4a SEE S� C a�cwa9 2� Oci�c o 7 ,a�aQ OiSR A iye 4 � ge 3 2 Cotner elac. G [ �f� SITE ctia� 6 j Signalized 2 � Signalized 3 Unsignalized 4 Signalized 5 Unsignaliud n' Intersection E 2 Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection e z LOS= D(C)[C1 LOS= D(mlDI Right l./Out Only 9 LOS-- QQ[B1 I J w a O O t5 7 D(A)ICI aC(D)lDl C� �� 7 �, B(B)(Bt*. 7 7 place <jcJ Q [C](B)Ba� [C1(C)C= �� 3 Y tB1lBl 6 Unsignaliud Intersection �yJ r * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement M' AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour] Channelized Right turn -lane with 'STOP' condition Channelized Right turn -lane with 'YIELD' condition NOTE: Analysis is based upon VDOT Signal Timing Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH A Tra{{Ic Impact Analyris of Burns — mber: Mill Road R+AProject Number: 15877-1-0 September 4, 2008 Page 5 Table 1 Burns - Valley Mill Road Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95%) Results Fvictina (`nnditinnc Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SaturdayPeak Hour Lane Group/ Approach EB/L LOS C Back of Queue 126.0B LOS Back of Queue 123.0 LOS B Back of Queue 95.0 Route 7 & 1-81 SB Ramps/Shoney's Entrance Signalized EB/T EB/TR B 224.0 B 414.0 C 307.0 EB LOS B B C WB/L D 25.0 A 25.0 B 25.0 WB/T-Lane I E WB/T-1 me 2 395.0 A 54.0 C 234.0 WB/R A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 WB LOS D A C NB/LT D 28.0 E 75.0 D 63.0 NB/R C 1 25-0 C 36.0 C 25.0 NB LOS D D D SB/L F 449.0 F 387.0 E 303.0 SB/LT F 440.0 F 385-0 E 311.0 SB/R A 1 25.0 A 25.0 A 25-0 SB LOS F F E Overall LOS D C C Route 7 & 1-81 NB Ramps/Valley Mill Road Signalized EB/L C 59.0 E 188.0 D 109-0 EB/T-Cane 1 D EB/T-Lane 2 352.0 C 357.0 C 271.0 EB/R A 66.0 A 113.0 A 280 EB LOS C C C WB/L C 29.0 C 41.0 B 25.0 WB/r-D 418.0 E 746.0 E WB/T-1 ane 2 608.0 WB/R A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 WB LOS C D D NB/L F 464.0 F 540.0 E 371.0 NB/rR D 273.0 E 1 245.0 D 1 165.0 NB LOS E F E SB/L E364.0 E 445.0 E 298.0 SB/L.T E 356.0 E 454.0 D 1 297.0 SB/R A 250 A 25.0 A 25-0 SB LOS D E D Overall LOS D D D Route 7 &Martin Lane Unsignalized EB/T EB/TR WB/T-Lane 1 WB/T-Lane 2 NB/R - - - - - - Route 7& Gateway Drive Signalized EB/L-Lane 1 EB/L Lane 2 D 56.0 D 1 2270 C 208.0 EB/T-Lane 1 B 671.0A 213.0 A EB/T Lane 2 33.0 EB LOS C B B WB/LU D 35.0 E 28.0 D 38.0 WB/r-Lane I B WB/T-Lane2 313.0 C 615.0 C 449.0 1 WB/R A 25.0 A 66.0 A 44.0 WB LOS B C C SB/LLLane 1 D SB/L Lane 2 46.0 D 106.0 D 87.0 SB/R-Lane 1 A SB/R-Lane 2 26.0 A 48.0 A 43.0 SB LOS C C B Overall LOS C C B Valley Mill Road & Dairy Comer Place Unsignalized EB/LTR C 25.0 C 25.0 C 1 25.0 WB/LTR B 25.0 B 25.0 B 25.0 NB/L A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/TR SB/LTR A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 Valley Mill Road & Martin. Lane Unsignalized WB/LR B 25.0 B 25.0 B 25.0 NB/TR - - - - SB/LT A 25.0 A 1 25.0 1 A 1 25.0 Minimum queue length assumed to be 25 feet EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound L: Left, T:Tbm, R: Right A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns - Valley Mill Road Project Number: 15877-1-0 September 4, 2008 Page 6 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to determine the 2010 background traffic conditions, PHR+A grew the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) using a rate of 6% per year through Year 2010. There are no "planned" background developments located in the vicinity of the site. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background weekday and Saturday ADT as well as weekday AMIPM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour levels of service. Table 2 is provided to show the 95'h percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during 2010 background conditions. Synchro levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns — malleo Mill Road Project Number: 15877-1-0 P R+AH September 4, 2008 Page 7 ri fi 'V" Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns —Valley Mill Road Project Number: 15877-1-0 PH + September 4, 2008 Page 8 J No Scale 4� ��� S� 2 � ate,Hay GD1.ve 10150 �Q � 51�a A o �g510 ke 4 8170 1p � 6 10 A 7290 $ 7 3 1 2 39620 orneT Qlae 2r 28510 37507 5 paay o 230 S.... / 1080 Abb G J aif�, y , �j ,c oSITE ao. 6 11710 Z 3 4 c *4„ru488(SRR)1576] 4�R761980)1R741 o 0 N z �.�257(4$1)131R] z' E-895(1240)112081 161q\\g611�4A\/y951 11A911 112401 '� A3L ApAll 4✓ Vf�>s 07A[� 1 J�� 111(28)1421 f-27(99)19❑ 7 �� 7 �1N �%►►► 7 7 [196)(269)196 s� [753](200)47 [910](1042)1102 [910](1042)1]02 �� 1669 � [904](1141)726 [26](17)6 �� - [312](405)180�� t,4-i0154[0Al3)°/b .� [7V(A3I]. 5 6 12280 c It0�ll2)[31 0(0)[37 1 it Da� ,x [221(5)3n", ! rr6�Jlr'�a- 00 1 1 i r, •- 61(8) �y P ✓ N✓ 90 VON I/ y 814 '1%IiR lvj i a J Saturday ADD nT TP+n AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour] ri fi 'V" Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns —Valley Mill Road Project Number: 15877-1-0 PH + September 4, 2008 Page 8 No Unsignalized Inter_acrtinn i ] fi2 d 77nn�� O �I Signalized intersecfion N LOS=C(C)[C] �ABHA1 2.Signalized = E_ Intersection 9t LOS=D(E)[E] O m Q t7 z ~D(D)[El V*lcxc)c 3 Unsignahzed Intersection Righlin/Out Only pp 4 Signalized intersection LOS=A(B)[BI < 4..0X0,40G n C1 $ Unsignahzed Intersection 4 Q Da' Cornc* �} {� [C](C)C.-* d � p 0 lA1lA)1` Signalized "Suggested lnterreetion Improvements" LOS= C( )ICI WB - i Thru - £ SB - 1 Left a No Improvements z c c �] No Improvements No Improvements No Improvements Required � Required Required Required q � 1 [B](c,c�MY o n 0 Denotes Improvements * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour] Channelized Right turn -lane with 'STOP' condition Channelized Right turn -lane with 'YIELD' condition Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH A Trak Impact Analysis oP Burns —Valley Mill Road Project Number: 15877-1-0 RASeptember 4, 2008 Page 9 Table 2 Burns - Valley Mill Road Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results vntn n r L 9L.nd C.vuliti-Q (W/ assumed Improvements) Intersection Traffic Control __a_ _ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Dour SaturdayPectic Hou. Lane Group/ Back of Back of Back of Approach LOS Queue LOS Queue LOS Queue Route 7 & I-81 SB Ramps/Shoney's Entrance Signalized EB/L E 213.0 E 272.0 D 157.0 FBIr C 282.0 C 492.0 C EB/TR 345.0 EB LOS C C C WB/L B 25.0 B 25.0 A 25.0 WB/T-Lane I B WB/1r-Lane 2 124.0 B 130.0 A 68.0 WB/R A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 A WB LOS A B NB/LT D 1 26.0 260.0 D 57.0 NB/R B 25.0 B 30.0 B 25.0 NB LOS C D D SB/L: 1 376.0 E 293.0 F 265.0 SB/LT E 388.0 E 286.0 E 270.0 SB/R A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 SB LOS D D D Overall LOS C C C Route 7 & 1-81 NB Ramps/Valley Mill Road Signalized EB/L E 109.0 E 199.0 D 158.0 EB/r-Lane 1 C 566-0 C EB/r-Lane 2 512.0 C 336.0 EB/R A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 EB LOS C C B WB/L D 37.0 E 107.0 D 78.0 WB/T-Lane 1 C 260.0 D 424.0 B 250.0 A "WBLOS 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 C C B NB/L-Lane 1 D NB/L-lane 2 165.0 D 161.0 D 137.0 NB/TR E 1 277.0 ll 1 216.0 F 214.0 NB LOS D D D SB/L-lane 1 E 295.0 E SB/L-Lane 2 254.0 D 227.0 SB/T D 76.0 D 183.0 D 97.0 SB/R A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 SB LOS D D D Overall LOS C C C Route 7 & Martin Lane Unsignalized EBIT Bff R -Lane 1 r -Lane 2 - - �WB/ NB/R Route 7 & Gateway Drive Signalized EB/L-Lane 1 EB/L-Lane 2 C 57.0 C 105.0 C 148.0 EBfr-Lane 1 A 30.0 A 25.0 A EB/T-Lane 2 25.0 EB LOS A A A WB/LU D 34.0 D 25-0 D 35.0 WB/T-[ane 1 A WB/T-Lane 2 229.0 B 495.0 C 447.0 WB/R A 25.0 A 30.0 A 32.0 WB LOS A B C SB/L-Lane 1 D SB/L-Lane 2 50.0 D 91.0 D 84.0 SB/R- Lane 1 B SB/R-Lane 2 :29.0 B 47.0 A 44.0 SB LOS C C C Overall LOS A B B Valley Mill Road & Dairy Comer Place UnsignahzedB/L /LTR C 25A C 25.0 C 25.0 /LTR B 25.0 B 25 0 B 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 A RNBITR 25.0 A 250 A 25.0 A 25.0 /LTR A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 Valley Mill Road & Martin Lane UnsignalizedNBITR WB/LR B 25.0 B 25.0 C 25.0 - - - - LSB/LT - I A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 PH"A Minimum queue length assumed to he 25 feet EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound L: Left, T:Thm, R: Right A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns - Valley Mill Road Project Number: 15877-1-0 September 4, 2008 Page 10 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 3 is provided to summarize the total trip generation associated with the proposed development. Table 3 Burns - Valley Mill Road Trip Generation Summary ITE Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT In Sat Peak Hour Out Total ADT 934 Fast Food w/ DT 3,500 SF 95 91 186 63 58 121 1,736 106 102 207 2.527 Sub -Total 95 91 186 63 58 121 1,736 106 102 207 2,527 Parr -by Trips 401 37 37 74 24 24 48 695 41 41 83 1,011 Total "New" Tripsl 58 54 112 39 34 73 1 1,042 64 60 124 1,516 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 5 to assign the proposed Bums - Valley Avenue development trips (Table 3) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the development -generated AM/PM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Burns - Valley Mill Road assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure S shows the 2010 build -out weekday and Saturday ADT as well as weekday AM/PM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour levels of service. Table 4 shows the 95th percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during 2010 build- out conditions. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Trak Impact Analysis of Burns — ValleyMill Road Project Nummbbeer::15877-1-0 RASeptember 4, 2008 PHPage 1 No Scale Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis o1 Burns — valley Mill Koaa Project Number: 15877-1-0 PH + September 4, 2008 Page 12 No Scale e F o w,y S� G.dte ptavc O O 7 4 455 152 O11R A �e 4 • 1; �g 15ti —� .it11e4 114 - t14 6e� 7 'Q55 1 265 P�ycc 1 2 Cornet 7% o � � o SITE 6 %-11(7)t121ai 119 .�. + 19(12)1211 4-19(42A-211 *001g11 7 �1'11121i191 36(24)I40] 7 7 2) [22]p4)zu4►-21)(-1z}lf..�► �. 7 Ik (53](32)17--% 5 6 2338 ,_J K ✓ y� T1 T Saturday All1' J IJT TP+/ A \ AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour] Figure 7 Development -Generated Trips Assignment A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns — Valley Mill Road RA Project Number. 15877-1-0 PH September 4, 2008 Page 13 ,I No Scale 2�e �y4 O � 10302 o1l�atnQ e� 4 349 8284740 4 eCry„l`ee 1p $ yr - 7 40 2 39885 Cornet Q1aee 29041 t Qa47' 38 y6 1080 ♦�9a dri o SITE �a ao• �a 6 11710 1 3 4 iz A a o 63 1481 4 i _ 6l i�498(594)[5881 y "714 X111 ;,,n ♦ 895(992)[9001 497a Jm� 10g6(1481d-11(2S)[421 1618111 � 11�i 7 [152](200)97�%� �l [9 [8901(1030)1084 7 [890](1030)1084 �� [14g'f1(1� X13)°01 1 [26](17)6 [365](437)228 �� 2�. 17)(813 / _�7 ,J 11pg9�(1Z Jr (1 7 14618 I`�l(2)[31 �o5b`'S1 r.o(ol[p1 rQrrrr �~ � �L 6J2�r` 6•� lM i Pince � O� [221(5)3 [61(S)l�ti A .ni �� "7r1g391 o M,L � 1 T ASaturday ADT AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour] Figure S 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns — Valley Mill Road Project Number: er 4, 2 08 Pt4RA September 4, 2014 Page 14 r r No,' Umignac ad Intersectinn ] Signalized 2Signalized 3 Unsignalized 4 Signalized $ Unsignalized A Intersection a c "LOS= C(C)ICI 0 0 H 8 Intersection LOS=D(R)(DJ o Intersection Right ln/Out Only Intersection LOS= B(B)[B] Intersection c� n =B(A)[A] o 41—C(D)ID] 4— 7 rt ��BCB1tB� Ll }p� dl lI� %BIB)LC7` C b Comcr � V .� I Da' xlDl(C>c �� cxc)c� n tCl(C)C= 21 Stgnahzed "Suggested Intel tion Improvements" IAS= C(C)(C] WB - I Th— NB - 1 Left - n SB - 1 Lett No Improvements e z � No Improvements No Improvements No Improvements Required; 17-2 Bl Required Required Required 1 �� _Jr )IV [C1(CIC -,1 d 0 Denotes Improvements Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour] Channelized Right turn -lane with 'STOP' condition A Channelized Right turn -lane with 'YIELD' condition Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns – Valley Mill Road PHP +� Project Number: er4,21-0 September 4, 2008 Page 15 Table 4 Burns - Valley Mill Road Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95%) Results �nin rz..aa_...,t ennditinnc (w/ acsnmed Improvements) Intersection TrafficyV Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Lane Group/ Back of Back of Back of Approach LOS Queue LOS Queue LOS Queue Route 7 & 1-81 SB Ramps/Shoney's Entrance Signalized g EBT D 208.0 D 269.0 D 175.0 ES, C 293.0 C 492.0 C EBfFR 345.0 EB LOS C C C W B/L B 25.G A 25.0 A 25.0 WBfr-lane I C WB/T-lane 2 270.0 B 148.0 B 165.0 WB/R A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 WB LOS B A A NB/LT D 26.0 D 59.0 D 55.0 NB/R B 25.0 B 31.0 B 25.0 NB LOS C D C SB/L E 384.0 E 301.0 E 294.0 SB/LT 395.0 E 296.0 E E 301.0 SB/R A 1 25.0 A 25.0 A 1 25.0 SB LOS D D D Overall LOS C C C Route 7 & I-81 NB Ramps/Valley Mill Road Signalized EB/L E 115.0 E 198.0 E 155.0 EB/I'-Lane I C EBfr-Ian, 2 540.0 C 498.0 C 386.0 EB/R A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 EB LOS C C C WB/L E 85.0 F 148.0 D 111.0 WB/f-Lane 1 WBfr-Lane 2 B W Bfr-Lane 3 202.0 C 403.0 C 264.0 WB/R A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 WB LOS B C B NB/L-Lane 1 C NB/L-Lane 2 164.0 D 169.0 D 154.0 NBfrR E 340.0 E 1 254.0 D 229.0 NB LOS D D D SB/L-Lane 1 E 295.0 D 245.0 E SBam 11-4 e 2 228.0 SB/T E 106.0 E 212.0 D 106.0 SB/R A 250 A 25.0 A 25.0 SB LOS D D D Overall LOS C C C Route 7 & Martin Lane Unsignalized EBfr - WB/r-Lane 1 WVWF-Lane 2 - NB/R - - Route 7 & Gateway Drive Signalized EB/L-Lane 1 EB/L-Lane 2 C 46.0 C 110.0 C 124.0 EB/r-Lane I A 70.0 A 25.0 A EB/T-Lane 2 25.0 EB LOS A A A WB/LU D 34.0 D 25.0 D 34.0 Wllfr-Lane 1 B 321.0 C 505.0 C WBfr-Lane 2 ;;[310 426.0 V1'B/R A 25.0 A A 27.0 WB LOS B B B SB/L-Lane 1 D SB/L-Lane 2 44.0 D 89.0 D 84.0 SB/R-Lane 1 A SB/R-Lane 2 26.0 A 47.0 B 44.0 SB LOS C C C Overall LOS B B B Valley Mill Road & Dairy Comer Place Unsignalized EB/LTR C 25.0 C 25.0 D 1 25.0 WB/LTR B 25.0 B 25.0 C 25.0 NB/L A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/rR A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 SB/LTR A 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 Valley Mill Road & Martin Lane Unsienalized y WB/LR B 25.0 B 25.0 B 25.0 NBfrR - - - SB/LT A 250 A 25.0 A 25.0 Minimum queue length assumed to be 25 feet EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound L: Left, T:Thm, R: Right A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns - Valley Mill Road Project Number: 15877-1-0 PH + September 4, 2008 Page 16 CONCLUSION Based upon Synchro analysis results, assuming the suggested improvements as shown in Figure 9, all the study area intersections associated with the proposed Bums - Valley Mill Road development will maintain acceptable level of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. The following describes the improvements suggested for each of the study area intersections to maintain acceptable levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions: • Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/1-81 NB RaWs/Valley Mill Road: This intersection will require a westbound through lane, a northbound left -turn lane and a southbound left - turn lane. {Suggested improvements are necessary without the proposed Bums - Valley Mill Road development to maintain levels of service "C". } NOTE: Funding source for the aforementioned improvements have yet to be identified. The applicant will work with VDOT/County to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle facilities adjacent to the site. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Burns — Valley Mill Road PHProject Number: 15877-1-0 September 4, 2008 Page 17 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To he completed hj, Planning Staf. Fee .Amount Paid S Zoning Amendment Number Date Received,eF%` PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date — s - The following information shall be provided by the applicant.- All pplicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicants: Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Telephone: (540) 667.213 Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: David M. & Svetlana M. Burns Telephone: Address: 1675 Fort Braddock Ct Winchester, VA 22601 3. Contact person(s) if other than above Name: Patrick Sowers w/PHRA Telephone: (540) 667.2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 1 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: David M. Burns Svetlana M. Burns 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property Residential Commercial 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED. 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The Property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Valley Mill Road and Martin Drive. In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number: 54 -A -112Q, 54 -A -112D, and 54 -A -112P. Districts Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service Red Bud Greenwood Greenwood High School: James Wood Middle School: JW Middle Elementary School: Redbud Run 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 1.26 RP B2 1.26 Total acres a to be rezoned 0 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home Townhome Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant 12. Signature: 6,000 6,000 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Flex - Warehouse Other (Pharmacy) I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. l Applicant(s) 44� ,c/s_ Date 3 Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2 n floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Eastside Holdings LLC P.O. Box 31 Property#: 54F -3-A1 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Frederick County School Board P.O. Box 3508 Property #: 54-A-114 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Edward Spence 115 Canyon Rd #: 54-A-1 12J Winchester, VA 22602 -Property Name: 220 Seafood Restaurant LLC 238 Hanging Tree Rd Property #: 54-A-1 12C Winchester, VA 22603 Name: Eastside Holdings LLC P.O. Box 31 #: 54F -3-A2 Winchester, VA 22604 -Property Name: Eastside Holdings LLC P.O. Box 31 Property #: 54F -A-30 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Edward Spence 115 Canyon Rd #: 54-A-1 12K Winchester, VA 22602 -Property Name: Edward Spence 115 Canyon Rd Property #: 54-A-1120 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: -Property#: Name: Property#: Name: -Property#: Name: Property#: Name: -Property#: Name: -Property #: 4 Special Limited Power of Attorney T County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.coJrederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) David M. & Svetlana M. Burns (Phone) (Address) 1675 Fort Braddock Ct Winchester VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument Numbers: 060019978, 060019772, and 060021192 and is described as Tax Map Parcel 54-A-1 12D. 54-A-1120, 54 -A -112P Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates (Phone) 540.667.2139 Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601 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 (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this �h� 4 day of , 200 Signature(s):y"' �'• State of Virginia, C�/C"=ty_of ,To -wit: SZFau i d r1l _ l8 vat ,✓ I, 1V1;Chlqe1 mognim tm a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally_ appeared before me a. has acknowledged he same before me ����y said this tf�day of '-, 200 . Commission Expires: F-661 . 918 J D_O 1 2— Votar Public' 67 q °714 g CD 0 N Cl) i l 1 Al' SECTION Tk'O a � I / COLDNLAL HEIGHTS �LFSG/V!SlON ° J SC,4LE 1 3a z J /J Lar TY J LOT 26 !/,3TZ � V l� iQ j I LUT 25 it brt LOT 28 ¢oo } es 1 6,5260 17159` 1 nn o LOr P9Ell PI a_s I LOT 24 4� 1/,942 3 q n 71 Y C1 ` P a j car 3a $ /9,p35 � yY It e f Sss'si'ii'F - zrtna'~' /� 1 i LOr 23 /i4,0/ 90.00 tlll"'/ \ I I LOT 3/ ` 13, P8O Z / Lor 32 � 1 i u f H M at TH j �, ngC' •�� ,G . #. CLU IFICA IE NO. L 54 1]-3 ja)465 5417-3 (4)162 a JP 60 YC f�0 LAND guy a -NET s or 4 i • J • SUBDIVISION REQUEST #05-09 �tcK oQ� w �a WINCHESTER METALS, INC. Staff Report for the Planning Commission w Prepared: November 18, 2009 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, zoning Administrator Reviewed Action Planning Commission 12/02/09 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/09/10 Pending LOCATION: The property is located on the southwest side of Ebert Road (Route 837), approximately 0.1 miles northwest of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Ebert Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall EX CU WE SUMMARY FOR 10/21/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant has requested a subdivision of 15.828 acres into two parcels of 5.7599 acres and 10.0677 acres for manufacturing use. Both parcels are zoned Ml (Light Industrial). Staff is seeking administrative approval authority regarding this subdivision request; therefore, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors subdivision request is desired Subdivision Request 405-09, Winchester Metals, Inc. November 18, 2009 Page 2 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. LOCATION: The property is located on the southwest side of Ebert Road (Route 837), approximately 0 miles northwest of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Ebert Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 44 -A -12A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: M -I (Industrial, Light) Land Use: Metal Recycling ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: M-1 (Industrial Light) South: M-1 (Industrial Light) East: RP (Residential Performance) West: M-1 (Industrial Light) Use: Self-service storage Use: Metal Recycling Use: Residential Use: Metal Recycling SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of 15.828 acres into two parcels of 5.7599 acres and 10.0677 acres for manufacturing use. REVIEW COMMENTS VDOT: This application for subdivision of this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 837, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Therefore, the plat is approved by this letter. Sanitation Authority: Show 20 foot water easement, private water line easement. Subdivision Request #05-09, Winchester Metals, Inc. November 18, 2009 Page 3 Staff Review: When Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967, this property was zoned M-1 (Industrial Light), and does not have an approved Master Development Plan (MDP). The MDP requirement was been waived for this proposed subdivision. This request is for subdivision of 15.828+/- acres into two (2) parcels of 5.7599+/- acres and 10.0677+/- acres. These parcels are located within the North East Land Use Plan and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), as indicated by the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick CountX The Subdivision Ordinance requires that land divisions in the M-1 (Industrial Light) Zoning District without an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval (Chapter 1 44-12-B). This proposed subdivision has met the requirements for a waiver from the MDP requirements, and has been granted a waiver of the MDP requirements. The design elements associated with the MDP have not been waived. Therefore, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review and action on this Subdivision request is necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 12/02/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff is seeking administrative approval authority; therefore, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the subdivision request is desired. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. '• r,Z Winchester Metal Inc. Subdivision Wavier SubWav # 05 - 09 Request ' Current Zoning � PIN: 44 - A - 12A Map67 7 I ,it��� roc s. N,,,' x \• ��� Y .r / . r ` Gocyo` r S _ r FA , J Apf • �' � A�tr • � • •. Fe�R ± �. � , � _ �� . �aQQ�r`° � ���\< � Jam_ �* .. ,R� �. � 1�° �•• '�, �. r /t`�% („oma r 1 ' � o� � C'\�lI' •'s, I fir, ��f �1, /M� - -„ • / Goc�,l tea`// 11 :•\�� \ a f ss. �Ui 65 ], ti 44 A •f SLAUGHtER F JUDITH • Y., �` f.77 • �i/ r��IX. 4��+�y`.r a •♦ .�4 •.a it `� `t l• v ., - (' C. A 4,1ks Case Planner: MChe-th - N . —t Future Rt37 Bypass +%i UrbanDevelopment Area �SUBWav0.509 Zoning ZONE Bi (Business, B2 (Busness, General D lust) HE (Higher Education D t t) IM83(Busness, I ndustria] Transtion District) Mt (Intlustra Light Dist I) Neighborhood Dist,M) ,W,, EM (E.hactve Manuf—turng D strct) M2 (Industna( General Dishcl) Y MH1 (Mobile H-11 C111tility M.W,t) `'. i MS(Medca) Supprt D't'() R4 (Res dental Planned Community District) ".F+%! R5 (Res dental Recreational Community District) RA(Rural Area Distrct) RP (Residential Performance Dlstdd) 41CK CGG 'yam N'E S property Lines 0 ' 500 1,000 1 I 2,000 Feet t Y (F \ r- i LiIVO"iJJ ..,. Iti�..70:'OU9 rn:��) 1012]/LGU� --2 4..<il f'ivl 1. Applicant: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street ! Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 WAIVER/EXCEPTI®NS REQUEST APPLICATION Name: / �iJfi l VotZS� Telephone: 6 C Address: %l'FZ;-T 2. Property owner (if different than above): Name:�l�,-�:1�/�C ���7%1L S 6'� Telephone:.��%C.% Address: 1?5 *WD /,10111 'C / 51-rl <- r 0/1 Z 2 6 -& -- 3. Contact person (if other than above): Name: LL'vs 1 L-� Telephone: 4. Waiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): `SCS e �7—% C 116TO 4/44/6W b'L- /i 5. Property Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): /lC rpg,- /�Y /S 4,0C/4 TF 0 cv,) 561L17//ID 0F {SAI stc— /PTf.. 83 % 1- /;%j.) 8 6) /J1f3TGLY C',l /ri/LN ,/MT14JJ�-S!` or 7HC CT/C;AJ nr L/SvEb&,-rC //6X1 Zri L5t3ok(� - ,)lkc) 41-`I) /oo/4 �. 6. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 44 - fi - I Z A Magisterial District: S—/0 AIJ-7 Li, AL. L 7. Property zoning and current use: Zoned: A / District Current Use: C 7rjl J,k/ - 8. Attachments: Adjoining Property Owners List �"� Existing/recorded and Proposed Plats OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $500 enclosed: Receipt #: /237 9. List of Adjoining Properties: The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the waiver or exception is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application. W1_ - Page 2- Address Z7Z Property ID # 44--,4-17 Address zz603 Property ID # ¢�_ Address 227y /✓1��271/�'S�L'l�C- PIK�'� 11,�fw'CI����"2,v�a ���;�?3 Property ID # 4-i 5 /4,5M K IV V k�' ' Address �Z (� `� i %Z IJIUTI-LS13 1r P/k , l�t/i�/�/f s7 � � , ✓f� zz� c. Property ID # p � d�-f�- 14 -- =��� � Address 2Z5� IXIJCTA, fIhX-/kGj IIPti�C/ft is 9zI tt� 2zE �'3 Property ID # 44 Address ZZ / 2Tf.�s6�'�C PiICC, 1t1IYG/f6�TE,F-, 164 Z- U-, 03 Property ID # Z1,4_14-16 2-Z-. /7I �'T .L� 5 t!G �L/kms Address jSZ <-51-Zy PLS/V%Z-- lAJAY, �57721TS/3'nCr- t//I zZ6% �.oper�, ID # ���, �/ ,/�� Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # - Page 2- August 13, 2009 P. Duane Brown, L.S. Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, PLC 560 North Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development f! t! RE: MDP (Master Developrinent Plan) Waiver Request Winchester Metals, Inc. y �1 Zolior District: l�il1 (LIbLYI Industrial l�StarlelY•all 11lagi5ierial D➢SiiCt Property Identification Number (PIN): 44 -A -12A Dear Duane: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 I am in receipt of your letter which requests a waiver to the requirement for a master development plan to enable the subdivision of parcel 44 -A -12A, which consists of 15.828 acres, into two separate parcels (exhibit plat dated 7/15/09); each parcel will have frontage on Ebert Road. The owner of this parcel is listed as Winchester Metals, Inc. Section 165-801.03 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance gives the Director of Planning and Development the ability to waive the requirement for a master development plan under certain conditions. The proposed development meets these conditions. It does not extend any existing or dedicated street or change the layout of any existing street; it does not propose any stoin-iwater management system designed to serve more than one lot; it is not an integral portion of a future development; it is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and, the development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, your request for a waiver to the master development plan requirement is appropriate in this situation. Please be advised that this waiver does not eliminate any applicable development and design requirements of the Frederick County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. In granting this MDP waiver, it is expected that the resulting subdivision plats properly address the Ebert Road right-of-way dedlcat'cli that is �-varra-nted as part of the currently undtr�n,,ay VDOT- Economic Development Access Funds Program improvements to Ebert Road. It is my understanding that Carroll Construction, through their agent Tim Painter, is coordinating the right- of-way assemblage process. Please coordinate with Mr. Painter to confirm that the necessary right- of-way has been provided along your property's frontage. 107 Forth Kent Street, Suite 202 ® Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 P. Duane Brown, L.S. RE: MDP Waiver for Winchester Metals, Inc. August 13, 2009 Prior to the subdivision of this property, the subdivision plats must be reviewed by Frederick County, including a public meeting for review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Please contact e if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development ERL/bad cc: Lloyd Ingram, VDOT-Edinburg Residency Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator SITEcHAR�ESTOWN ROAD VICINITY MAP Scale:1"=2000' APPROVED BY VIR INI EPAAT NT OF PRANSPORTATION DATE _RICK F COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY DATE FREDERICK COUNTY SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR DATE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF WINCHESTER METALS, INC-, AS APPEARS IN THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT, IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, AND TRUSTEES, IF ANY. ON BEHALF OF WINCHESTER METALS, INC- e 4 S e fPG NOTARY PUBLIC e v\111'3"° '\k STATE OF { r /o� O J c0 CITY/C-Bl3NT'f OF y 'n10 °°Q@etea+++++e THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME ON _L 0r BY (DATE) ON BEHALF OF WINCHESTER u METALS, INC. COMMISSION EXPIRES ON Q,, I-, ,3o3 zo 15 (NOTARY PUBLIC) 4(DATE) SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED IN THIS FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION IS THE LAND CONVEYED TO WINCHESTER METALS, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHARLES ZUCKERMAN & SONS), BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 14, 1975, SAID DEED RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA IN DEED BOOK 451 AT PAGE 657. FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF I� WINCHESTER METALS, INC. O Cl r 195 EBERT ROAD 0 a STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT o s Lic. No. 0/01197 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 'Ol /ev9 LgND SUR`rs DATE: 10/06/09 COVER SHEET SHEET 1 OF 2 Marsh & Legge Land Sudors, P.L.C. f'` 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET - WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 Q) Q) DRAWN BY: HH PHONE (540) 667-0468 - FAX (540) 667-0469 EMAIL office@marshandlegge-com DWG NAME: ID2738-MRS NOTES: 1 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED; THEREFORE, EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ONE TM 44-A-12 I ON THIS PLAT. --- ZUCKERMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. 2. BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS DB 310 -- PG 699 BASED ON AN ACTUAL FIELD RUN SURVEY COMPLETED ZONED: M2 USE: RECYCLING OPERATION ON SEPTEMBER 23 2008 3. ACCORDING TO FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NUMBER 51069CO250D, EFFECTIVE SEPT. 2, 2009, — — THE PROPERTY LIES IN ZONE A (NO BASE FLOOD ELEV,`47T RUN DETERMINED), SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS SUBJECT—� TO INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD AND IN ZONE X, AREA DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN_ LEGEND: CPF - CORNER POST FOUND IRF - IRON ROD FOUND IRS - IRON ROD SET IPF - IRON PIPE FOUND BRL - BLDG_ RESTRICTION LINE TM 44-A-18 TRUSTEES OF WESLEYAN METHODIST FELLOWSHIP CHURCH DB 596 - PG 462 ZONED: RP USE: RELIGIOUS Ex '50, (OB 592 ----- PC - WHIT A-16 /PF 182.1T� DB 269 -ACRE r- -/V 543.p. TMSPRY15 Z ONED'RP USE RES / LOT 164 DB 929 - PG 626 1 / 5.7599 ACRES ZONED: RP USE: RES / ZONED: M1 TNI 44-A-14USE: MANUFACTU STASIAK INSTR.020012758 iIV� / ZONED: RP USE: RES—fl T44144A-13 ad'/ HOBE l 11 D13 50S2 - pG / Il F 633 USE RESIDFNTI r l 1 / FB'�E coyTq< BUTCH R4q- -11 INST rNG�RU CABLE ! I I R 080000 ZONED; RP 254 USE: RESIDENTIAL i /1 20' WATER ESM -T t— 41—TS' BRL�I I HEREBY CREATED 11 / ±450' TO INTX. CPF U. S. ROUTE 11 200 0 200 ym� 1 INCH = 200 FEET N 564428' �;r 360 �-- /RF (- X25 BRL I L I� Z0NE I 10NE �I I REMAINDER OF ' PARENT TRACT I TM 44 -A -12A I ; LOT 2 i 10.0677 ACRES I " ZONED: Ml I USE: MANUFACTURING I I I� 6R� I' 28 I /RF N I O p ml iZ S 62170'06" E 685.05' (S5452E 89 EBERT ROAD - VA. SEC. ROUTE 837 50'R4V - DB 323 PG 320 FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF WINCHESTER METALS, INC. 195 EBERT ROAD STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: 10/06/09 1 SCALE: 1"=200' '50' INGRESS/EGRESS ESM'T HEREBY CREATED 1 20' WATER ESM'T EREBY CREATED 33 4) IRF CENTERLINE OF (43.0) 50'11E ESM'T L I=S28'00'W--88.3' L2=S32°00 E-76.5' L3=S62'00'E-1457' L4=S32 53 E -86J' o��ALTH OF p1 � � � 9 Lic. No. 001197 SHEET 2 OF 2 LAND SURN,6o� f� -_ Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. {`'' 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET - WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 PHONE (540) 667-0468 - FAX (540) 667-0469 EMAIL office@marshandlegge.com DRAWN BY: HH DWG NAME: ID2738-MRS COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Plann-ing, and. Development MEMORANDUM ,, yy 540/565-5551 1� 1E ,�T 1 it JT _ FAX: 540,1665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner eq Subject: Discussion— Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Standards Date: November 18, 2009 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. 107 North bent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-50610 Frederick County Planning Commission Re_ Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Standards Page 2 November 18, 2009 The attached documents show the existing ordinances with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and red italic for text added). This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold italics and deletions are shown with a strikethrough. 2. Adopted TIA Standards. CEP/bbd DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 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 2-0 Live 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 (TIA) which shall he prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning and Development in accordance with the ado ted Trak 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 ARTICLE VIII 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 Superr,isors. 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 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 hmpact Analysis with all site plan applications irn accordance with the adopted Traffic impact Analysis Standards. B.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 4=.6 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_ 1.1 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 �;--gbdivider shall submit twa-co-pies ®f theme d� deSigR plan, applicab! rials to the Subdivisien .A.&n.iRistrater fOF FevievF and cornment- at Ipast five copies of the final subdivisioR design plaR shall A. The subdivider shall submit two copies of the subdivision design plan, applicable fees, and all required subdivision application materials to the Subdivision Administrator for review and comment. 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. ®RRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 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 1. 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 ..ith the above agencies. A Ye -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 meeting. 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 Retails 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 VBOT, an unproved 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. 8. 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. :7 L C7 MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner COUNTY of FREDERICK I c ,artvneiit of Planning and Developme7t Subject: Discussion— RA Historic Area Overlay Zone Date: November 18, 2009 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 This Historic Area Overlay (HA) Zone was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in November of 1991. This district was intended to enhance and aid in the preservation and protection of historic resources in the County. The current overlay zone contains criteria for establishing districts (rezoning process), criteria for determining historic significance, general regulations (revisions to be approved by the HRAB, demolition, sale) and administration. The current overlay zone does not contain any design criteria for development or alterations and, therefore, any landscaping, parking and the like would have to follow the regulations of the underlying zoning district. In 1995 a set of guidelines for new construction within the overlay zone was presented to the Board of Supervisors. These guidelines were not approved because it was felt they were too specific and, to date, no other changes have been proposed to the HA Zone. Staff is now proposing revisions to the HA Zone to address certain design elements for new construction within the zone, as well as other minor updates and revisions. Specifically, the revisions and additions include: revisions to the general regulations, addition of guidelines for construction or alterations, and additions to the administration section. The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviewed this ordinance amendment at their September 15, 2009 meeting. The HRAB requested minor changes to the ordinance at the meeting. Those changes were made and sent out to the group, and the changes were then endorsed. The item was then 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 attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and red italic for text added). This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold italics and deletions are CEP/bad shown with a strikethrough. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 292 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5009 ARTICLE VII OVERLAY DISTRICTS Part 703 — HA Historic Area Overlay Zone § 165-703.01 Intent. DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 The HA Historic Area Overlay Zone is intended to protect, enhance and aid in the perpetuation of especially noteworthy examples or elements of Frederick County's cultural, social, economic, religious, political, agricultural, military, industrial or architectural history in order to: A. Foster civic pride and an appreciation for historic values. B. Maintain and improve property values by providing incentives for upkeep and rehabilitation. C. Protect and enhance the County's attractiveness to tourists and visitors. D. Provide for the education and general welfare of the people of the County. E. Encourage nomination of qualified historic properties to the state and national registers. § 165-703.02 Establishing overiay boundaries. HA Zones may be created by amending the Zoning Chapter as provided for in Article I of this chapter. Following a public hearing, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) may Initiate a proposal to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for amendments, including the establishment of HA Zones and the revision of existing HA Zones. A proposal for such amendment(s) may also be submitted by residents of an area that wish it to be designated as an historic area. A. The HRAB or applicant shall submit a report to support the proposed amendment. The report shall suggest the historic boundaries as well as describe the historic and/or architectural significance of the buildings, structures or sites to be protected, current planning affecting the area, present development trends and conditions in the area and the public objectives for preservation. B. A public hearing shall be held by the Board of Supervisors prior to adoption of a proposed zone. Notice shall be sent to all property owners within the boundaries of the proposed zone, indicating the time and place of the public hearing. The notice shall also state that residents may express their opposition to the proposed district in writing. The Board of Supervisors shall alter the boundaries of the proposed zone to exclude those property owners expressing opposition. C. Any area to be designated as an HA Zone shall in fact include landmarks, buildings, structures or sites determined to be of historical and/or architectural significance_ All stated recommendations of the HRAB which supplement or modify the general regulations of this article may be adopted by the Board of Supervisors and applied to the zone created. D. At the time an overlay zone is established, the Board of Supervisors may create an additional position and appoint a member to the HRAB_ The member appointed shall be the owner of property within the newly established zone and shall serve a term of two years. 1 DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 § 165-703.03 Criteria for determining historic significance. The significance of an historic area shall be based on cultural, architectural and historical factors and shall be documented in a written report, which shall include a discussion of the following: A. Architectural style. 1) Presence of distinguishing characteristics of a recognized style. 2) Significance of architectural design. 3) Scale and/or interrelationship of structures and/or environmental features. 4) Significant patterns of development. 5) Quality of workmanship. 6) Amount of surviving original material. 7) Original location and/or use. 8) Remaining outbuildings or dependencies. 9) Surrounding environment, gardens, landscaping and walks. 10) Overall aesthetic quality. 11) Original integrity of the structure and its details. B. Historic and/or cultural significance. 1) Association with historic person. 2) Association with historic events. 3) Work of leading architect or master craftsman. 4) Site or structure of cultural significance. C. Additional information. 1) A description of existing structures and uses likely to have an adverse effect on the character of the district, including those near and visually related to the district, with maps, photographs and other data indicating the reasons for such an effect. 2) A list of structures within the zone which notes which structures are contributing and which are not. Surviving building types and structures not historic in themselves but adding to the character of an historic area need to be looked at as potentially deserving preservation. 2 DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 3) An analysis of lands not occupied by structures, including lands near and visually related to the district. For public lands, ownership, use and location shall be indicated. For private lands, assessed valuation shall be added as well as existing zoning and planned land use. 4) Recommendations concerning supplemental regulations to be applied to the historic area under consideration for the purpose of preventing changes which are incompatible with the buildings, structures or sites to be preserved. Such regulations may include permitted and prohibited principal and accessory uses and structures, minimum lot and yard requirements, maximum lot coverage by all buildings, maximum height of structures, off-street parking and loading requirements, control of signs and exterior illumination and the control of significant exterior alterations to existing buildings. § 165-703.04 General regulations. Within the Historic Area Overlay Zone, these regulations shall apply: A. New construction, reconstruction and significant exterior alterations. No building or structure, including signs, shall be erected, reconstructed or substantially altered in exterior appearance unless the HRAB approves of the proposed activity's compatibility with the historic, cultural and/or architectural aspects of the zone and issues a certificate of appropriateness. All requests for constructions reconstruction and significant exterior alterations presented to the HRAB shall be in conformance with § 165-703.05, Guidelines Lor new construction and alterations. B. Matters to be considered in passing upon the appropriateness of construction, reconstruction or significant exterior alteration of buildings or structures by the HRAB. The HRAB shall not consider interior alterations and shall only impose restrictions for the purpose of preventing development incompatible with the historic aspects of the area. C. The HRAB shall consider the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the following in evaluating the appropriateness of architectural features: (1) The extent to which the proposed action will affect the overall character and continuity of the area. (2) Whether elements of the general design, such as scale, height and proportion of the proposed work are visually compatible with the surrounding area. (3) Whether the texture and materials proposed are compatible with existing structures in the area. D. Demolition. No contributing building or structure within any HA Zone shall be demolished or removed, until a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the HRAB. The demolition or removal of a noncontributing structure may be authorized by the Zoning Administrator. E. Matters to be considered in determining whether to grant a permit for razing or demolition. The HRAB shall consider any and all of the following criteria: 1) Is the historic resource of such architectural, cultural, or histarical interest that its removal would be detrimental to the public interest? 2) Could the building only be reproduced at great expense or difficulty due to its unique or unusual texture, material or design? 3 DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 3) Would demolition of the structure result in the loss of a significant historic place or resource in Frederick County? F. Offer for sale. The owner of a building, structure or site in a historic district shall, by right, be entitled to demolish the same, provided that: 1) The property owner has applied for a demolition permit. 2) The property owner has made a bona fide offer to sell the structure and land on which it is located to an individual or group which makes reasonable assurances that it will preserve the landmark. The property shall be offered at a price reasonably related to its fair market value as determined by an independent appraisal for the period established by the schedule below: Time Period (months) Asking Price 3 Less than $25,000 4 Between $25,000 and $40,000 5 Between $40,000 and $55,000 6 Between $55,000 and $75,000 7 Between $75,000 and $90,000 12 Over $90,000 G. Hazardous buildings or structures can be demolished without consideration by HRAB with written approval of the Zoning Administrator, stating the conditions which justify the demolition. H. Moving or relocation. No landmark, building or structure within a district shall be removed or relocated if the move would be detrimental to the public interest or the historic integrity of the structure unless approved by the HRAB. I. Uses permitted. Within the Historic Area Overlay Zone, general regulations and permitted uses shall be the same as provided within the respective underlying zoning districts except where such regulations are modified or amended by recommendation of the HRAB and adoption of the Board of Supervisors. J. Exceptions. Where the strict interpretation of these regulations creates an undue hardship, the HRAB may make recommendations for reasonable exemptive relief. §165-703.05. Guidelines for new construction or alterations. A New construction should speak of the historical era within the particular HA Overlay Zone and should not seek to replicate or reproduce existing features but complement the existing historic architecture and character. Franchise architecture should be avoided in HA Overlay Zones. All new construction should protect and preserve significant archeological resources The HRAB may use reasonable discretion in 4 DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 determining an applicant's degree of compliance, as long as a proposed design is consistent with the purpose and intent of the HA Zone. 6. New construction should maintain a height and scale which is compatible with adjacent buildings and other existing structures in the historic area. C Items such as mechanical equipment, meters transformers HVAC equip ment and dum sters should be visually screened from public view. D. Freestanding signage shall conform to the requirements of §165-201.06. Wall mounted signs shall be limited to twenty feet in height above grade and only one building mounted sign not to exceed fifth (50) square feet shall be permitted per building ace. E. Parking areas should be designed to maintain the integrity of an areas historic nature by minimizing the dominance of the automobile and reducing the visual impact of parking areas. Parking areas should be placed as to not deemphasize the main structures in the HA Overlay Zone. Parking areas_ within an HA Zone shall con orm to the parking space and landsg�qpinq requirements of § 165-202.01 but shall not be subject to the surface materials and curbs and gutters_ requirements. Parking areas within HA Zones shall be permitted to utilize brick pavers, reinforced gravel s stems or similar materials so long as a dust- ee environment is maintained. Parking surfaces_ comprised solely of un ortified grass areas are not acceptable. § 165-703 06 Administration. A. Zoning Administrator. The} Zoning Administrator shall not authorize a permit for any erection, reconstruction, significant exterior alteration, demolition or razing of a building, structure or site in the HA Historic Area Overlay Zone until the same has been approved and a certificate of appropriateness issued by the HRAB, following the procedures set forth below. B. Upon receipt of an application for such a permit in the Historic Area Overlay Zone, the Zoning Administrator shall follow the procedures below: 1) A copy of the application for such a permit, together with a copy of the site plan and the building plans and specifications filed by the applicant shall be forwarded to the HRAB. 2) A file of all such applications and related materials shall be maintained. C. Materials to be submitted for review. Twelve copies of all materials prepared in relation to the application shall be submitted by the applicant. The Zoning Administrator or the HRAB may require submission of any or all of the following: architectural plans, site plans, landscaping plans, design for proposed signs with appropriate detail as to character, proposed exterior lighting arrangements, elevations of all portions of structure with important relationships to public view (with indications as to visual construction materials, design of doors and windows and relationships to adjoining structures) and such other exhibits and reports as are necessary for these determinations. U. Fees. The Board of Supervisors shall establish a schedule of fees for the submission and review of an application for a certificate of appropriateness. DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 E. other approvals required. In any case in which an applicant's proposal also requires the approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals, approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be obtained prior to action by the HRAB. F. Action of the Historic Resources Advisory Board. The HRAB shall return, within 50 days after submission of the application, its decision concerning granting a certificate of appropriateness for the erection, reconstruction, significant exterior alteration, restoration, razing or demolition or relocation of all or part of any building within the HA Zone. The HRAB shall apply the following criteria for its evaluation of any application: a) Risk of substantial alteration of the exterior features of a historic resource. b) Compatibility in character and nature with the historic architectural or cultural features of the historic overlay district. c) Exterior architectural features including all signs. d) General design scale and arrangement. e) Texture and material. f) The relationship of the size design and siting of any new or reconstructed structure to the landscape of the district. (-I?l If the HRAB grants a certificate of appropriateness, it shall authorize the Zoning Administrator to issue a permit for the work specified in the application. If the HRAB disapproves the application, the reasons shall be stated in writing and forwarded to the applicant, and the Zoning Administrator shall disapprove the application for the required permit. The disapproval shall indicate what changes in the plans and specifications would enable the proposal to meet the conditions for protecting and preserving the historical character of the HA Zone. If the applicant determines that he will make the suggested changes, he shall so advise the HRAB in writing, which shall act accordingly. 2�1 In the case of disapproval, the application shall not be resubmitted for consideration until 12 months have elapsed from the date of disapproval unless the indicated changes in plans and specifications have been incorporated into the reapplication. The applicant may appeal the disapproval to the Board of Supervisors. s COUNTY of FRE, IDERICK MEMORANDUM Department of Planning and (Development 5401665-5651 Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Directo06-.'f FAX: 540/665-63095 SUBJECT: Discussion of the Planning Commission's Guiding Documents -- the Bylaws and the Roles and Responsibilities DATE: November 3, 2009 The guiding documents of the Planning Commission - the Bylaws and the Roles and Responsibilities - are reviewed each fall, revised as appropriate, and then adopted during the first meeting of the calendar year. The Planning Commission's Bylaws Working Group has completed their annual review of these guiding documents, and now present their revision recommendations to the Commission for consideration. Should the Commission concur with the suggested revisions, staff will place the revised Bylaws and the Roles and Responsiblities documents on the Commission's January 6, 2090 agenda for adoption. The recommended revisions are detailed below. The complete Bylaws (with revisions) and the Roles and Responsibilities documents are attached. Bylaws Working Group Recommendation • Update the Zoning Ordinance citations to reflect the recently adopted recodification (i.e. §165-10 is now 165-102.03) • Remove the word "earlier" from 8-3-11-1 in an attempt to clarify the adjournment procedure. See below. 8-3-11-1 In no case shall the Commission consider any new items after 10:30 P.M. and the meeting shall be adjourned by 11:00 P.M. In the instance that an item begun before 10:30P.M. has not been acted on by the 11:00 P.M. hour, the Commission may, by majority vote, lift the adjournment time until a recommendation has been made, or such ea. "te-T time, after 11:00 P.M., as the Commission may fix. Attachments ERL/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PLANNINta cDNA IISSION BYLAWS County of Frederick, Virginia Annual Review — Fall 2009 Version 102309 — Bylaws Working Group endorsed ARTICLE I - AUTHORIZATION 1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section 152-2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Frederick County Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission". ARTICLE II - PURPOSE 2-1 The primary purpose of the Commission is to advise the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and to carry out all duties and functions described by the Code of Virginia, as amended. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP 3-1 The membership of the Commission shall be determined by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as specified in Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County. 3-2 Within the first month of initial appointment, new Commissioner appointees shall: 1) participate in an orientation to familiarize themselves with the operations of the Department and the Commission, and 2) meet with planning staff representatives in an effort to review and better understand specific agenda items by no later than their second Planning Commission meeting. Page 2 Planning Commission Bylaws Fall 2009 Annual Review- Ver 102309 Bylaws Working Group endorsed ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS 4-1 Officers of the Commission shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The chairman and vice-chairman must be voting members of the Commission. The secretary shall be a member of the Commission or a county employee. 4-2 Selection 4-2-1 The officers shall be elected by the voting members of the Commission at the first meeting of the calendar year. 4-2-2 Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor. Elections of officers shall follow immediately. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire voting membership shall be declared elected. 4-3 Duties 4-3-1 The Chairman shall: 4-3-1-1 Preside at meetings. 4-3-1-2 Appoint corm-nittees. 4-3-1-3 Rule on procedural questions. A ruling on a procedural question by the chairman shall be subject to reversal by a two-thirds majority vote of the members present. 4-3-1-4 Report official communications. 4-3-1-5 Certify official documents involving the authority of the Commission. 4-3-1-6 Certify minutes as true and correct copies. 4-3-1-7 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission. 4-3-2 The Vice -Chairman shall: 4-3-2-1 Assume the full powers of the chairman in the absence or inability of the chairman to act. Page 3 Planning Commission Bylaws Fall 2009 Annual Review- Ver 102309 Bylaws Working Group endorsed 4-3-2-2 When acting as chair, the vice-chairman shall carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission Chairman. 4-3-3 The Secretary shall: 4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings. 4-3-3-2 Ensure that the minutes of all Commission meetings are recorded. 4-3-3-3 Notify members of all meetings. 4-3-3-4 Prepare agendas for all meetings. 4-3-3-5 Maintain files of all official Commission records and reports. Official records and reports may be purged in accordance with applicable state codes. 4-3-3-6 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public meetings. 4-3-3-7 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the Commission. 4-3-3-8 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and functions of the Commission. 4-4 Term of Office 4-4-1 Officers shall be elected for a one-year term or until a successor takes office. Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the Commission. In such cases, the newly elected officer shall serve only until the end of the calendar year or until a successor takes office. 4-5 Temporary Chairman 4-5-1 In the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from any meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members a temporary chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice- chairman. Page 4 Planning Commission Bylaws Fall 2009 Annual Review- Ver 102309 Bylaws Working Group endorsed ARTICLE V - COMMITTEES 5-1 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose. 5-2 In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose for each committee. 5-3 Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman and will serve for a term of one year. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or committee members on committee appointments. 5-4 Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or citizen volunteers. 5-5 The chairman and vice-chairman of the Planning Commission shall be ex -officio members of every committee. 5-6 The committees will elect a chairman and vice-chairman annually. These officers shall be current Commission members and should represent different Magisterial Districts, if possible. 5-7 The committees may operate as a committee of the whole or by executive committee with current and past Commission members serving as members of that committee. 5-8 The committees may establish standing subcommittees whose activities will be a specific annual responsibility of the parent committee. One executive committee member will serve as liaison to the standing subcommittee and will assist staff in managing its activities. Membership will be comprised of past Commission members and citizens. Membership will be appointed by the chairman of the Committee with concurrence by the Commission Chairman. 5-9 The committees may establish ad-hoc groups to assist in specific, carefully -defined tasks for a limited period of time. Important considerations for membership on the ad-hoc group are skills and experience necessary to assist in providing acceptable solutions. Membership will be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee with concurrence by the Commission Chairman. Page 5 Planning Commission Bylaws Fall 2009 Annual Review- Ver 102309 Bylaws Working Group endorsed ARTICLE VI — COMMISSION MEETINGS 6-1 At the first meeting of each calendar year, the Commission shall fix the date, time, and place of all its regular meetings for the ensuing calendar year, and shall fix the day on which a regular meeting shall be continued should the Chairman declare that weather or other conditions make it hazardous for members to attend. 6-2 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and publication by the secretary. 6-3 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days before the meeting. 6-4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for Closed Sessions held in accordance with the provision specified under Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 6-5 Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. A..RTICLE VII - VOTING 7-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or motion made unless a quorum is present. 7-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting. ARTICLE VIII - OPERATING RULES 8-1 Order of Business for a regular meeting 8-1-1 Call to Order. 8-1-2 Adoption of the Agenda. Page 6 Planning Commission Bylaws Fall 2009 Annual Review- Ver 102309 Bylaws Working Group endorsed 8-1-3 Consideration of Minutes. 8-1-4 Committee Reports. 8-1-5 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda. 8-1-6 Public Hearings. 8-1-7 Public Meetings. 8-1-8 Planning Commission Discussion. 8-1-9 Other. 8-1-10 Adjournment. 8-2 Minutes 8-2-1 The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting. The chairman and secretary shall sign all minutes following approval by the Commission certifying that the minutes are true and correct. Minutes made available to the public prior to formal approval by the Commission shall be clearly identified as a draft version of the meeting. 8-3 Procedures 8-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures. 8-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite recommendation is made. If a motion has been made and defeated, additional, different motions may be made concerning the item under consideration. 8-3-3 The initial motion on an agenda item shall be made by a member representing the application's Magisterial District. If both District representatives are absent or decline to make the initial motion, then any other Commissioner may act. 8-3-4 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures: Page 7 Planning Commission Bylaws Fall 2009 Annual Review- Ver 102309 Bylaws Working Group endorsed 8-3-4-1 Report by County Staff. 8-3-4-2 Presentation by Applicant. 8-3-4-3 Citizen Comment. 8-3-4-4 Applicant Response. 8-3-4-5 Staff Summary. 8-3-4-6 Discussion by Commission. 8-3-4-7 Motion and Action by Commission. 8-3-5 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the chairman may allow public comment. 8-3-6 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information after the staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-7 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting may be made part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the Commission and are to be kept on file by the secretary. Such items need not be made part of the published minutes. 8-3-8 Public Hearings 8-3-8-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which hearings are required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or by the Code of Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and notifications provided as required by the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended. 8-3-8-2 The Chairman may establish special rules for any public hearing at the beginning of said hearing. These rules may include limitations on the time of staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-8-3 In addition to those required by law, the Commission may hold public hearings on any matter which it deems to be in the public interest. In such Page 8 Planning Commission Bylaws Fall 2009 Annual Review- Ver 102309 Bylaws Working Group endorsed cases, the public hearings shall follow all procedures described for public hearing in these bylaws. 8-3-8-4 The 90 -day period (Section 165-10 165-102.03 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance) for the Planning Commission to make a rezoning recommendation to the Board will start at the date of the first completed public hearing 8-3-9 Tabiing 8-3-9-1 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to table agenda items 45 -days (less if reaching the limits of Section 165-1p 165-102.03 ) for any one of the following_ A) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended. B) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Frederick County. C) Insufficient information has been provided for the agenda item. D) Revised proffers have been received from the applicant within twenty-one (21) days of the advertised Planning Commission meeting. E) Issues or concerns that arise during formal discussion of the agenda item warrant additional information or study. F) The applicant provides the Frederick County Planning Department with a written request to table the agenda item. G) The Frederick County Planning Department is advised of an emergency situation that prevents attendance by the applicant. H) The applicant fails to appear at the meeting in which the application has been advertised to appear. 8-3-9-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from a scheduled Planning Commission meeting one time. The Planning Page 9 Planning Commission Bylaws Fall 2009 Annual Review- Ver 102309 Bylaws Working Group endorsed Commission shall table the application for a specific period of time to ensure that the requirements of Section 165 10 165=102.03 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are not exceeded unless the applicant requests a waiver from this requirement. In no case shall an application be tabled for more than 12 months from the time the complete application was received by the Zoning Administator or applicable staff. 8-3-9-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall be re -advertised for consideration by the Planning Commission once the following steps have been completed: A) The applicant has requested in writing that the agenda item be considered by the Planning Commission. B) The applicant has provided all required information to the Frederick County Planning Department which addresses all concerns of the Planning Commission. 8-3-10 Work sessions 8-3-10-1 The Commission may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of these bylaws shall not apply. 8-3-10-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. 8-3-10-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at least five days before the session. 8-3-10-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and discussion. 8-3-10-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session. 8-3-10-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required at a work session. 8-3-10-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all work sessions and the items discussed. Page 10 Planning Commission Bylaws Fall 2009 Annual Review- Ver 102309 Bylaws Working Group endorsed 8-3-11 Adjournment 8-3-11-1 In no case shall the Commission consider any new items after 10:30 P.M. and the meeting shall be adjourned by 11:00 P.M. In the instance that an item begun before 10:30P.M. has not been acted on by the 11:00 P.M. hour, the Commission may, by majority vote, lift the adjournment time until a recommendation has been made, or such eaflief time, after 11:00 P.M., as the Commission may fix. ARTICLE IX - AMENDMENTS 9-1 These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice at any time during the calendar year. 9-2 Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of these bylaws in November of each calendar year to ensure their accuracy. 9-3 At the first meeting of the calendar year, the By -Laws will be adopted. FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Adapted January 7, 2009 This document has been prepared to assist Frederick County Planning Commissioners in understanding what their role and responsibilities are in the myriad of activities that they accept as a member of the Planning Commission. This compilation is a companion document to the Commission's By -Laws. APPLICATION COMMUNICATIONS There are three primary sources of information gathered by and weighed by the Planning Commission in order to make quality planning recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. They are ex -parte communications, staff reports and public input. Ex -Parte Communications: Individual meetings between Commissioners and an applicant/developer regarding a specific application shall follow the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. During this discussion or at any other time prior to action taken by the Commission on the application, a Planning Commissioner should make no commitments or endorsements. Any new written materials provided by the applicant to any one Corru-nissioner shall be made available to all commissioners and staff by the applicant prior to the application appearing on the agenda. To not do so may result in the application being tabled at the Planning Commission public hearing. Staff Application Briefings/Work Sessions: Prior to the first public hearing being held, staff will hold a briefing for the Planning Commissioners, with an invitation extended to the Board of Supervisors to participate, regarding any application deemed sufficiently complicated / controversial to warrant detailed explanation. The purpose is to apprise the Commissioners regarding the details of the application, both those items that meet the ordinance and those that do not. This provides the opportunity for the Commissioners to have a common understanding of the application prior to the public hearing. The decision to hold a briefing on a specific application will be made jointly by the Director of Planning and the Chairman of the Planning Commission. In addition to complexity, the application shall be basically complete prior to scheduling the briefing. The Planning Commission may request a work session for an application which, after the first public hearing is concluded, is subsequently tabled. The purpose of the work session Page 2 Planning Commission. Roles and Responsibilities Adopted January 7, 2009 is to discuss amongst each other and with staff details of the application, any revised proffers provided or anticipated by the applicant, and other improvements which could be made to the application. For either a briefing or a work session: -The applicant should attend, but will not have an active role. The format of a Planning Commission work session as identified in paragraph 8- 3-10 of the Commission's By -Laws will be used. -In no case will the legal timeline for consideration before the Planning Commission be changed. Public Hearin eeting: Efficient and effective public hearings are an essential part of enabling the Commission to make reasoned recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Every attempt will be made to obtain focused and broad representation of opinion or information from the public. When possible, specific time limitations will not be used. However, both rules of order as well as time constraints most appropriate for the specific application will be implemented when there is either large interest in or controversy regarding an application. One constant during this process on both the part of the public, the applicant and the Commission itself is civility and respect for information offered or a differing opinion. Deviation from this behavior is unacceptable. COMMISSIONER DEVELOPMENT: Each Commissioner shall be committed to preparing for and keeping knowledge current in order to do the most effective job for the community. New initial appointees should strive to obtain Planning Commissioner certification from an acceptable training program within the first year of appointment. This training is supported by the Planning Department budget Further continuing education through many offerings should be pursued and will be supported by the Planning budget as possible. These opportunities should be shared amongst the number of Commissioners who are serving. Examples include CPEAV's Page 3 Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities Adopted January 7, 2009 annual meeting, other special offerings as well as the American Planning Association's readings and meetings. A library is maintained by the Pla ming office. COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE Commissioners are expected to participate in 80% of the regularly scheduled meetings per year. Members who cannot attend a meeting due to illness, business, and other governmental or family reasons should notify the Commission Chairman and/or staff Administrative Assistant prior to the scheduled meeting in order for the absence to be noted. It may affect quorum considerations. Especially essential is preparation and readiness for each of the Commission's meetings in order to use not only the Commission's but the staff's and public's time wisely. COMMISSION COM-AUTTEE ASSIGNMENTS: Appointments to a Commission committee or liaison assignments are made by the chairman and shared by the membership. Generally, they involve a once per month meeting. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Each Commissioner needs to be familiar with Commonwealth of Virginia information on conflict of interest. If a Commissioner is unsure if there is conflict, the County Attorney is the correct resource. Upon determination that there is or might be perceived to be a conflict, the Commissioner should state immediately after the agenda item is read that recusal action is necessary (with, preferably, stating the reason) then step down from the dais until the item is concluded. PUBLIC REPRESENTATION: Commissioners are citizens, too. If there is a public item that is of interest, the Commissioner should participate, but not identify themselves as members of the Frederick County Planning Commission unless acting in an official capacity and directed to do so. Implied endorsements by the Commission should be avoided.