Loading...
PC 02-18-09 Meeting AgendaAGENDA F-' Z -C FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia February 18, 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) December 17, 2008 and January 7, 2009 Minutes........................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (nn tahl 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC 14EARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #01-09 for AT&T and Wesley Ilelsley, submitted by Dewberry, for a 120 foot Commercial Telecommunications Facility. This property is located at 2042 Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 43-A- 130 and 43-A-132 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (B) 6) 2009-20110 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County Departments and Agencies. The Plan is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. If adopted, the CIP is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (C) PUBLIC MEETING 7) Waiver Request of John Scully, IV, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, of the Code of Frederick County, Subdivision of Land, Chapter 144, Article V Design Standards, §144-17 Streets, (G) (1), Cul-de-sac, to allow cul-de-sac length of approximately 1,580 feet, 580 feet more than the ordinance -required maximum length of 1,000 feet. The property is located at the northern end of Glendobbin Lane (Route 1337), 0.2 miles north of Glendobbin Road (Route 673), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 42-A-262. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (D) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 8) Ordinance Amendment — New Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) District. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to add a new zoning district. Mrs. Perkins .....- - .................................................................. (E) FILE COPY 9) Ordinance Amendment — Veterinary Clinics in the B1 (Neighborhood Business) District. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance which would add Veterinary Clinics as a permitted use in the Bl Zoning District. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (F) 10) Other �� 0 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTYPLA�NTNINTG COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick Co�wri ; Administration B,:ilding at 107 Norah Kent Street t in Winchester, Virginia on December 17, 2008. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison. ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; and Cordell Watt, Back Creek District. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO OR -ER &i ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Kriz moved to adopt the December 17, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda for this evening's meeting. This motion. was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the November 5, 2008 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Sanitation Authority (SA) —12/16/08 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the SA was provided with reports from their assessors evaluating the SA's operations. He said overall, the evaluation was good; however, there were a few areas where improvements were suggested. Commissioner Unger said rainfall for the month of November was 1.8 inches, which is down slightly. Water usage was also down at approximately 4.5 million gallons per day; plants are Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 17, 2008 Do WA Page 2389 -2 - functioning well. He said DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) is cracking down on the way sewage is being released into streams to the Chesapeake Bay and by 2010 their regulations will be suicter. Consequently, the SA is looking at some things that may have to be changed to come into conformance. Natural Resources Committee Commissioner Kriz reported that the Natural Resources Committee sent out their report to several technical reviewers and hopes to have those comments back by the end of the month_ Rural Areas Workshop Chairman Wilmot reported there will be a public meeting on the Board's recommendations on January 15, 2008. Econor is Development Commission (EDC) —12/05/08 Mtg. Commissioner Kerr reported that the EDC had a brief meeting at the Museum of the Shenandoah r'alley before the Cluster Group Holiday Luncheon. He said the main topic of discussion was the anticipated budget cuts from Frederick County; he said the EDC is not immune in this budget process. 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 #11-08 of Willow Run, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to revise proffers associated with Rezoning #21-06, which resulted in the rezoning of 359.97 acres to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, with proffers, for commercial land uses and up to 1,390 residential units. The proffer revisions generally propose modifications to the transportation program previously approved by the County. The properties are located east of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621), north of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), south and west of the City of Winchester. These properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 53 -A -90,53-A-91, 53-A-92, 53 -A -92A, 53 -A -92B, 53 -A -94,53-3-A, and 63 -A -2A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Frederick County Planning Commission N iinutes of December 17, 2008 Page 2390 -3 - Action — Recommended Approval Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Willow Run project was approved back in 2007 and resulted in the rezoning of 359.97 acres to R4 (Residentail Planned Community) District with proffers for corn inercial land uses and up to 1,390 residential units. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant is requesting a modification to the approved rezoning. He said a key component of the original rezoning request for this property was the proffer to fully fund and construct the new Route 37/ Jubal Early Drive Interchange northbound and southbound on and off ramps utilizing roundabout design and using the existing bridge structure. Mr. Ruddy said this was and continues to be a significant public improvement that addresses the transportation needs of the proposed development and the broader community. Mr. Ruddy stated the applicant is requesting to amend their approved proffer statement to allow an extension of the time to begin and complete the proposed new Route 37 interchange improvements at Jubal Early Drive. Specifically, Proffer D-5 has been revised to reflect the requested extension. He explained that currently, the applicant's commitment is to cer: -nience construction of the new interchange within 24 months of the final non -appealable rezoning approval, which is March 28, 2009, and complete construction within 60 months, which would be March 28, 2012, or by the issuance of the 600'b building permit. Mr. Ruddy stated that the applicant's proposal is to commence construction of the new interchange within the 2012 calendar year and complete construction within the 2015 calendar year or completed no later than the issuance of the 600'h building permit. He pointed out this is a delay of approximately three -and -one-half years from the original deadline or five and one-half years from the date of original rezoning. Mr. Ruddy stated this is a relatively straight forward and simple modification to this very large project; however, in essence, the net result is a deferment of three -and -one- half years from the original rezoning for the timing of the construction of the interchange at Jubal Early Drive. Mr. Ruddy continued, stating that a section of this specific proffer, D5, contains a provision for providing the right-of-way necessary to complete the improvc���ents to the Route 37/ Juba! Early Interchange. This specific element of the proffer has been satisfied to VDOT's satisfaction and may be removed from the proffer statement, if necessary. He added that the right-of-way is in place to achieve the construction of this improvement; on January 18, 2007, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the break in access on Reute 37 to allow construction of this new interchange. Commissioner Kriz asked if there were any changes regarding the aquatic center. Mr. Ruddy replied it is basically a timing issue with the proffered aquatic center, which also had a five-year time frame attached. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has modified the timing to begin five years from the date of the potential approval of this rezoning. He said the five-year window is maintained for the aquatic center; however, it has been extended an additional two years, the same as the request for the interchange improvements. It was also noted that the five -acre area reserved for the aquatic center would not be accessible until Jubal Early Drive is constructed. Commissioner Thomas commented that the original rezoning had a number of proffers with timings attached and he had questions if all of those had been extended the same amount of time as the interchange construction. Commissioner Thomas also had questions regarding the possible impact the delay in the interchange construction might have on the overall traffic plan and whether the timing mechanism pinpointing the 600`h building permit would still be appropriate in terms of interim traffic growth. The County's transportation planner, John A. Bishop, was available to answer questions. He said additional modeling was not required and neither VDOT nor the County Staff had additional concerns regarding the interim traffic. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 17, 2008 Page 2391 -4 - Mr. Evan A_ Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, stated that due to economic conditions, there had not been any development activity at the Willow Run project: As a result, a modification to the timing mechanism for the construction of the interchange was felt to be necessary. Mr. Wyatt said VDOT sought assurances for two issues and both of those have been met. One was the dedication of right-of-way necessary to complete the improvemeE is to the Route 37/ Jubal Early Interchange and the second was the proffer commitment for the construction of the interchange. Mr. Wyatt said the timing mechanism for the 2012 start was acceptable by VDOT. Members of the Commission supported the application because VDOT was satisfied with the revisions, there were no changes in the road layout of the project, there was no increase in density, the project represented a significant contribution to the County's regional transportation needs once completed, and the current circumstances surrounding the unforeseen economic landscape. Based on the points aforementioned, Commissioner Manuel made a motion to approve the rezoning. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #11-08 of Willow Run, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to revise proffers associated with Rezoning #21-06, which resulted in the rezoning of 359.97 acres to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, with proffers, for commercial land uses and up to 1,390 residential units. The proffer revisions generally propose modifications to the transportation program previously approved by the County. (Note: Commissioners Mohn, Watt, and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning Application #12-08 of Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates (PHR&A), to rezone 3.1 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for commercial uses. The properties are located at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Berryville Pike (Route 7) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659), adjacent to Dairy Corner Place. The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 54F -1 -9,54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 54F -3 -Al, and 54F -3-A2. Tabled for 45 Days at the Applicant's Request Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the property is within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) and is designated as an area of commercial land use by the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan and the Route 7 Land Use Plan. Mr. Ruddy pointed out that corridor appearance issues and site access issues are very important in this proposal. He noted that access to the site is proposed via two entrances: the primary access is proposed via Valley Mill Road, directly across from the existing Dowell J. Howard access, and a second entrance is designated on Dairy Corner Place, a frontage road paralleling Route 7. He said the applicant's proffer identifies a 15,000 square -foot pharmacy and, in addition, up to 10,000 square -feet of office space would be permitted with the rezoning request. Mr. Ruddy said the TIA (traffic impact analysis) was based upon the proposed uses. He added that many of the issues associated with the request are long and short-term transportation issues. Frederick County Planning Commission rage LSyL Minutes of December 17, 2008 lip p N N V 7 -5— Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, displayed a graphic illustrating the 1998 VDOT plan for this area, pointing out two areas of hatching with a note indicating the traffic signal will be removed and u.e point of access between Valley Mill Road and Route 7 would be closed_ Mr. Bishop stated that Frederick County has consistently tried to adhere to VDOT's 1998 Plan since it was adopted ten years ago. He said the County's most recent update of the Eastern Road Plan, in November 2006, shows the realignment of Valley Mill Road, which aligns with Gateway Cerner, to be uie new access point to Route 1 f oin, Valley Mill Road. Mr. Bishop stated that the Walgreens site development proposal has created strong concerns for the long- term viability of the site as this transportation plan is implemented. He stated that VDO T's 1998 Plan also indicates the removal of the Dairy Corner Place access while the 220 Seafood restaurant access remains. He noted that the applicant shares property boundaries with the 220 Seafood restaurant. He pointed out traffic conflicts and safety issues with traffic coming out onto Dairy Comer Place from this development via the applicant's proposed right -m, right -out on Dairy Corner Place, vehicles coming out to the access from 220 Seafood, and traffic entering the 220 Seafood site from Berryville Pike. Mr. Bishop said a sigpi —cant amount of analysis has been done by the applicant to point out why their proffer is sufficient; however, at this time, the staff does not necessarily agree that it is sufficient_ Mr. Bishop referred to another pharmacy application approved by the Board of Supervisors in the Sunnyside area; he said the value of the improvements proposed is roughly equivalent between the two sites, even though the traffic situations are entirely different. Mr. Bishop pointed out the difference between the two sites was that one applicant was imposing traffic on a roadway system that had a higher level of congestion, while the other was imposing traffic on a roadway system in relatively good condition. He also noted that the Comprehensive Policy Plan advises not to impose more traffic on situations where there are congested roadways. Cominissioner Unger asked Mr. Bishop what the applicant could do differently to make the transportation work better. Mr. Bishop said he was not necessarily opposed to the double lefts proposed by the applicant; however, he did believe the dollar amount of the proffer was lower than it should be. Mr. Bishop said he had safety concerns with how the applicant is tying into the 220 Seafood entrance between Dairy Corner Place and Route 7. He spoke about the traffic conflicts with vehicles entering and exiting the 220 Seafood site, vehicles exiting the project site from Dairy Corner Place, and vehicles coming off Route 7 at a higher rate of speed. Commissioner Kriz inquired if there had to be two entrances onto the property. Mr. Bishop replied no; he said staff has been discussing this with the applicant and VDOT. Mr. Bishop said staff is not against two entrances, depending on how the inter -parcel is done; the staff is opposed the second entrance being on Dairy Comer Lane. If the applicant was to come up with a better solution in conjunction with the owners of the 220 Seafood restaurant site or with the Burns property on the other side, staff would not necessarily have an issue. Commissioner Thomas commented that it would almost require a reconstruction of Dairy Comer Place east of their intersection to Martin Drive to make this work and Mr. Bishop agreed. Commissioner Ruckman commented that the plan shows a proposed inter -parcel connection towards the Burns property; in the long run this could be considered a second means of access to the site. Commissioner Oates asked if the process to close down Dairy Comer Place had already been initiated and how long would it take. Mr. Bishop said the process does not take long; however, there are a few single-family residences that access the roadway. Commissioner Unger raised the issue of the monetary transportation proffer and staff's comment that it may not be sufficient compared to other similar sites. Commissioner Unger asked how the applicant knows when they've contributed an appropriate amount, if they are not provided guidance on what is appropriate. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 17, 2008 Page 2393 Q -C Commissioner Thomas commented that traffic from this site should only come out on Route 7 at a signalized intersection. Mr. Ronald Mislowski, with PHR&A (Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates), the design and engineering firm representing this rezoning application, introduced himself and Mr. Patrick Sowers, PHR&A, and Mr. Bob Stackowitz and Mr. Gene Cunningham of Redleaf Development, the developers of this site. Mr. Mislowski said there are three existing residences on this site with driveways on Dairy Comer Lane. He said three acres of RP land under an urban design could support 11-12 houses and entrances on Valley Mill Road and Dairy Corner Lane with a quarter million dollar impact to the County. Mr_ Mislowski said the proffers include a ten -foot right-of-way dedication along Valley Mill Road, transportation improvements to provide an additional turn lane at the Route 7 intersection, and a dedicated left -turn lane for traffic going east -bound on Valley Mill to enter the site. Additionally proffered, as part of the site plan, any improvements that DOT determines are necessary at the Martin Drive right -in, right -out will be accomplished. Language is also included in the proffer that the applicant ;understands the long-term plans of VDOT and the County may impact Dairy Corner Lane and their entrance may be modified. He said the applicant further understands that VDOT has the right to close an entrance it deems is unsafe. Mr. Mislowski said they are certainly aware of all the conditions of the 1998 I-81 Plan. He commented that any improvements made by the applicant at the interchange may possibly be removed when the 1-81 Plan is commenced in this area_ Mr. Mislowski suggested that the implementation of VDOT's I-81 Plan was fairly far off and he believed the developer should make work what is available now. Mr_ Mislowski continued, stating that the applicant has not proffered a concept plan for this site. He said while Walgreens has reviewed and approved the concept plan, construction would not start for another six to seven months at best and unforeseen changes to the site may occur; for example, Walgreens' building sizes are changing and the parking could get re -arranged- He said they cannot provide the Planning Department with substantial conformance language because they simply don't know how the site will lay out. He said they know where the entrances and the hiker/biker trail v ll be and they are able to proffer those_ Mr. Mislowski next talked about the applicant's TIA (transportation impact analysis). He said they ret with VDOT and scoped the site. He said they were conservative on estimating square footages for the TIA, so there will be room for adjustment if things change during the plan development process, and they have been very conservative on their estimates for the development of the site. Mr. Mislows'xi pointed cut that the TIA measures three conditions of traffic and he proceeded to explain all of the traffic scenarios and corresponding levels of service to the Commission. Mr. Mislowski said as part of their proffer package, they have made a commitment to install the additional left -turn lane for north -bound Valley Mill Road. With this additional left - turn lane on Valley Mill Road, the LOS (Level of Service) improves from the existing LOS "F" to a LOS "D." He added the LOS is based on the average delay of all the vehicles that go through an intersection; a Level of Service "D" means that each car has an average delay of 35-55 seconds. Therefore, during the PM -peak hour, at full build -out, and assuming all the growth projections to 2015 are correct, the average delay for vehicles traveling along Valley Mill Road will be 35-55 seconds. Mr. Mislowski next addressed the comments about the applicant's cash proffer. Tie said VDOT did not have any comments on the transportation improvements, nor did they have any comments on the widening of the road or turn lanes and VDOT simply advised the applicant to make a cash proffer. Mr. Mislowski said the Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically states that proffers should be based on the applicant's proportional share of the impact. He explained they referred to their TIA and for each of the conditions of traffic, they calculated the growth volumes. On Route 7, the background traffic increase is 4,770 trips and the applicant's increase in trips is 115 trips. He said that proportion of trips is the same on Route 7, the northbound off -ramp, and for Valley Mill Road. He next explained their methodology in arriving at the percentages and the cost estimates. Mr. Mislowski next provided the Commission with the cost estimates for each of their improvements. He said the total value of the proffers recommended by the TIA is $60,000. He said their total proffer package is $101,000 and, therefore, they're exceeding what the Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends they should be proffering for their Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 17, 2008 Page 2394 -7 - proportional share of the impact. Mr. Mislowski said he understands if the comment from staff and VDOT is that the monetary contribution is not sufficient; however, he believed the applicant should be advised on what is wrong wi: h their methodology* calculating the amount, based on conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and their T1A. Mr. Mislowski also made comments on street trees, a materials pallet, and Martin Drive. He said they are going to proffer a reserve area for an inter -parcel connector, if the adjoining site develops and the county asks them to provide an inter -parcel connector to the access, a reserved easement area will be available. He also commented that the applicant plans to close the Dairy Corner Place entrance. Regarding the question ofwhether two entrances were necessary for this site, Mr. Mislowski stated that Walgreens requires the second entrance; if they don't have the second entrance, Walgreens will not go onto this property. Regarding the anticipated closing of the Dairy Corner Place entrance, Commissioner Oates referred to Proffer 1.3; he asked Mr. Mislowski if he would have any objections to adding the word, "temporary," where it states, "... as well as one entrance onto Dairy Corner Place," labeling this as a temporary entrance. Also, Commissioner Oates asked about Proffer 1.12; he understood it to mean the applicant agrees to a modification if Dairy Comer's right-of-way is used as an improvement to Route 7 and not simply closed. He said it implied that the applicant would be looking to the State or someone else to provide access out of that area of the site onto Route 7. Commissioner Oates preferred the language to state, "...closure of the entrance by VDOT." Mr. Mislowski said he understood the concern and he pointed out the language specifically says "modification" which could mean closure_ Mr. Mislowski said he could not provide a blanket agreement that the entrance is temporary or that the entrance will be closed because Walgreens would not agree to that. Mr. Mislowski said they understood VDOT could modify that entrance to whatever degree they want and, if the entrance is modified with some alternate access to Martin Drive over their reserved easement area, then the County is still provided access to the right -in, right -out on Route 7 via Martin Drive. Commissioner Oates said it was not across this particular side of the site and be continued to have concerns with the lanViage of the proffer, particularly with the word, "modification." Commissioner Oates suggested the applicant state, "modification and/or closure." Commissioner Oates was concerned the applicant would object, at some future time, to closing the entrance on Route 7 in that area because of language agreed to in the proffer. Mr. Mislowski said he could not agree to make that particular change in the proffer at this time. Commissioner Thomas said he did not have a problem with Walgreens use of this site; however, he could not support the project with an entrance on Dairy Corner Place. He was not opposed to the two entrances in and out of the site, as long as it didn't include putting any traffic on Dairy Corner Place. Commissioner Thomas advised the applicant to work with surrounding property owners for a practical and usable access on Martin Drive or another access through other property to Martin Drive. Commissioner Thomas said the proposal was inconsistent with the County's future transportation plans. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons carne forward to speak: Mr. James Stillwell, a resident at 423 Highbanks Road in Stephenson, was opposed to the rezoning because he was concerned about the viewshed of corridors entering the City of Winchester. Mr. Stillwell wanted to see viewshed standards established and how the County is going to deal with the entrances into historic Winchester. He said his comments were more broad-based than simply the two exits and entrances into the proposed site. Mr. Stillwell said this is one of the first rezoning applications along the Route 7 corridor; there is a shopping center across at a higher elevation that doesn't expose the parking and blacktop. He said as this corridor begins to develop, the County needed to consider standards and planning, the type ofhighway, the size of buffers, and architectural controls. He said it was time to stop building ugly developments and he urged the Commission to vote "no" on this rezoning. Mr. Anthony Zorello came forward to speak on behalf of his mother and father. Mr. Zorello said his family owns a commercial property at 153 Dairy Corner Place and they wanted to know how this rezoning would affect them because their property is currently on the market for sale. Deputy Director -Transportation, Mr. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 17, 2008 Page 2395 John Bishop, stated that the Zorello's property is located near the ice cream stand on the other portion of Dairy Corner Place, across Valley -Mill. Mr_ Bishop said this application will not impact the Zorello's property. No one else wished to speak and the Chairman Wilmot closed the public conuiient portion of the hearing. Mr. Mislowski said Dairy Corner Place is a State road and the applicant is proposing to close an access on Valley Mill Road onto Dairy Corner Place, which will significantly decrease the trips on Dairy Corner Place. Furthermore, the applicant has proffered to make whatever improvements VDOT deems are necessary at Dairy Corner Place, Martin Drive, and Route 7. He believed the applicant has agreed to accomplish what will be needed to improve the conditions on Dairy Corner Place at least until the County or VDOT makes further changes. Mr. Mislowski pointed out that a residential subdivision on this site could create 11 or 12 entrances on Dairy Corner Place and Valley Mill Road. Commissioner Kriz said he could not support this rezoning with the entrance on Dairy Corner Place because of safety concerns. In addition, he said the applicant remarked about a proposed easement, but it is not shown on the plan. Commissioner Kriz felt the proffers had not been completely finalized at this point in time. Comnussioner Thomas stated that the applicant's proposal is inconsistent with the County's long-range transportation planning. He said if the County is inconsistent with its long-range planning, the County will never achieve its goals. Responding to the citizen's comments on the appearance of entrances into the City of Winchester, Commissioner Thomas said the County has already accomplished a considerable amount of work on corridor appearance and existing ordinances cover many of the concerns raised. He said the County needed to be consistent with the long-range transportation plan, however, and channel traffic into areas where it can be better accommodated. He said the entrance on Dairy Corner Place is not consistent and it will be closed in the future, whether it is in six months or six years. Commissioner Thomas said he could not support the rezoning with two entrances. Commissioner Kerr referred to the entrance on Martin Drive and stated that the applicants had proffered to make any improvements VDOT deemed necessary. He asked the VDOT representative what improvements were considered for the Martin Drive entrance. The VDOT representative said there could possibly be a turn lane going in or a taper going out. He said the distance between Route 7 and the throat of the entrance has to be appropriate; he said VDOT will want to be sure there's enough room for both an entrance and exit. Mr. Mislowsky said he could not revise the language in the proffer or agree to eliminate the second entrance without first consulting with the principals at Walgreens and determine if they will accept an alternative or work out an arrangement with the adjoining property owners. Mr. Mislowsky requested that the rezoning application be tabled for 45 days to provide time to consult with his client. Commissioner Kerr made a motion to accept the applicant's request to table the rezoning application for 45 days in order to provide additional time to address issues. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table Rezoning Application 412-08 of Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates (PHR&A) for 45 days. This rezoning application is to rezone 3.1 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for commercial uses. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 17, 2008 Page 2396 (Note: Commissioners Mohn, Watt, and Ours were absent from the meeting.) STEPHENS CITY JOINT LANs; USE PLAN An amendment to the 2007 CoMpreh_e_n_sive Policy Plan, Chapter 6, Land Use, to update the Stephens City Joint Land Use Plan. The Stephens City Joint Land Use Plan Update provides a new orientation to the land use designations of the plan, integrates land use and transportation, and further addresses community infrastructure needs. This plan continues to cover the area encompassed by the Joint Annexation Agreement and further implements the agreement. Action - Recommended Approval Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, presented the Stephens City Joint Land Use Plan Update, which is an amendment to the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 6, Land Use, to update the Stephens City Joint Land Use Plan. Mr_ Ruddy explained that a key component of the update is the reinforcement of the need to adequately address the infrastructure and community facility components of the Joint Land Use Plan, the respective Comprehensive Policy Plans, and the Joint Annexation Agreement between the Town of Stephens City and Frederick County. He said the plan clearly states it is essential to ensure that the necessary infrastructure and community facilities are provided in a timely and coordil-lated manner. Further, any development shall fully mitigate the impacts associated with their requests and shall further the goals of the plan. Mr. Ruddy said the Frederick County and Town of Stephens City Joint Land Use Committee met on Thursday, October 23, 2008 and the Joint Land Use Committee unanimously recommended approval of the update. At the Board of Supervisors' meeting on November 12, 2008, the Board provided direction to the Planning Staff to proceed with an amendment to the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 6, to update the Stephens City Joint Land Use Plan. Commissioner Oates commented that the mixed use and the residential use are specifically separated in the Stephens City Joint Land Use Plan, while Frederick County has been allowing a mixing ofthose uses, if the property is within the SWSA and the UDA. Mr. Ruddy agreed the plan was somewhat more detailed than in Frederick County's Urban Center or Neighborhood Village, but the Town had specific ideas about the balance of uses desired and, therefore, the Committee felt the prescriptive land use was more advantageous towards the Town's future goals. Commissioner Thomas said the Committee had raised the issue of an access or a future crossing of the railroad on the southern end. While viewing the plan, he said he did not see any potential to go towards the railway and areas west of the railroad. Mr. Ruddy said the plan does not preclude that future access. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, stated he thought the proposed plan may be too specific and defined. Because this was a joint land use plan associated with an annexation agreement, he was concerned it may become too inflexible for the future. More specifically, he raised the issue of some conflicting language within the plan that he wanted to point out for the record. I Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 17, 2008 Page 2397 -10 - Mr. Wyatt thought the language in the section dealing with, development of commercial, office, or industrial land use were good statements supporting the economic development potential and the economic visibility of the Town of Stephens Ciiy. However, he did have concerns about the Conservation/ Open Space section of the plan in t=>>'.ich ±he lang��age requires a 200 -foot wide strip in front of *?:e commercial. He noted that when t1rP County recently considered the amendments to the Route 50 West Plan, there was a similar desire for some green area, landscaping, and a hiker/biker trail along the roaadway in front of buildings. Mr. Wyatt said he did not disagree with that requirement; however, he said the determination made on Route 50 West was that 50 feet was a sufficient distance to accomplish the green area. He believed the 200 -foot green strip, particularly in this area, seemed to be extremely excessive. Mr. Wyatt said he comparod some land valuations for commercial properties that sold in the Kernstown area, and if a 100 -foot strip was taken off the table for this, there would be over $1,000,000 in land valuation available, not to mention the additional economic development potential. Mr. Wyatt reiterated that his two primary comments on the plan were: 1) The Plan seems to be very specific and rigid; and 2) The 200 -foot green strip along Route 11, particularly in the area where the new interchange location is supposed to be, seemed to be very excessive. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Ruddy pointed out that the one area where this land use plan may have a new orientation from where it may have been in the past is the Town's desire to preserve the appearance, distance, and character of the Route 11 corridor. He said this was a very important component to the Town and will continue to be so. Referring to the mixed use off ce/industrial in this location, he said there is a new orientation from access coming off of I-81 onto the western by-pass into this area and it's a very key gateway into that part of the community. Mr. Ruddy said these are the general areas envisioned for a strong economic presence, a build -in character, and representative of what the Town and the community wants to see develop there as opposed to the Route 11 area where the Town was looking for more of a historical corridor. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the Stephens City Joint Land Use Plan Update. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed. BE iT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an amendment to the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 6, Land Use, to update the Stephens City Joint Land Use Plan. The Stephens City Joint Land use Plan Update provides a new orientation to the land use designations of the plan, integrates land use and transportation, and further addresses community infrastructure needs. This plan continues to cover the area encompassed by the Joint Annexation Agreement and fiirther implements this agreement. CLARKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Chairman Wilmot introduced Mr. Cliff Nelson, a member of the Clarke County Planning Commission, who was in the audience of the Planning Commission and working towards his certification. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 17, 2008 Page 2398 ADJCiuiViVI I ,NT Upon motion made by Commissioner iris and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. by a unanimous vote_ Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2399 Minutes of December 17, 2008 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANiv'ING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on January 7, 2009. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p -m. Commissioner Kriz moved to adopt the January 7, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda for this evening's meeting with the combination of Items 9 and 10, Rezoning and Master Development Plan of Governors Hill, for consideration together. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. ELECTION OF OFFICERS, MEETING SCHEDULE, COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS. AND ADOPTION OF BYLAWS FOR 2009 The Secretary to the Planning Commission, Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, presided over the election of the Chair and Vice Chair for 2009. Election of June M. Wilmot, Chairman for 2009 Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Chairman for the 2009 calendar year. The nomination of Ms. June M. Wilmot for Chairman was made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. A motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Chairman. Frederick County Planning Commission @@AFTPage 2400 Minutes of January 7, 2009 -2 - BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Ms. June M. Wilmot as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2009. Election of Roger L Thomas, Vice Chairman for 2009 Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Vice Chairman for the 2009 calendar year. The nomination of Mr. Roger L. Thomas was made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Vice Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unarriiriious vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Roger L. Thomas as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2009. Election of Eric R Lawrence, Secretary for 2009 Chairman Wilmot declared nominations open for Secretary of the Planning Commission. The nomination of Mr. Eric R. Lawrence was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Corm-rrissioner Ours. Motion was :Wade by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Secretary. BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Eric R. Lawrence as Secretary of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2009. MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2009 Planning Commission and Committees Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have their regular monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. to be held in the Board of Supervisors' meeting room in the Frederick County Administration Building. In addition, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee shall meet the second Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m. m the first floor conference room; and the Development Review and Regulations Committee on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January7, 2009 Do I Page 2401 A Committee Assignments for 2009 Regarding committee assignments for the calendar year of 2009, Ch-mr-man Wilmot asked the Planning Commission members to remain in their current committee assignments until she had the opportunity to communicate with everyone individually and determine if everyone is satisfied with their particular role. Chairman Wilmot next announced the following h ?isons: Transportation Committee, Commissioner Kriz with Commissioner Oates as his alternate; Historic Resources Advisory Board, Commissioner Oates with Commissioner Kriz as his alternate; Economic Development Commsssion, Commissioner Kerr; Sanitation Authority, Commissioner Unger; Winchester Planning Commission, Commissioner Ours; Conservation Easement Authority, Commissioner Watt; and Development Impact Model, Commissioner Manuel and Commissioner Thomas. Bylaws for 2009 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously adopt the Planning Commission's Bylaws for the calendar year of 2009. MINU'T'ES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the November 19, 2008 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee —12/29/08 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee discussed three items: 1) setting of meeting dates for the upcoming year; 2) an update of the Six -Year Road Plan and the 80% loss of revenue from the State; 3) a presentation of the MPO's transit study detailing bus routes, trails, and park -n -ride lots; the committee offered comments; however, they decided to review it and make a recommendation at their next meeting. 10 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January7, 2009 Page 2402 -4 - Announcement - Rural Areas Meeting Rescheduled Chairman Wilmot announced that the Rural Areas Work Group public meeting that was scheduled for January 15 has been rescheduled for January 27, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors' meeting room. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chainnan 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 #14-08 of Sovereign Village to revise proffers associated with Rezoning #15-99, Section titled, "Recreation Center," and applicable to a 3.03 -acre parcel. The proffer revisions propose modifications to the Sovereign Village Recreation Center. The property is located at the southwestern corner of the intersection of Rossmann and Farmington Boulevards. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 65H -13A -26A in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Revised Proffers Planning Director, Eric R_ Lawrence, reported this is a proffer revision applicable solely to the recreation center which was previously proffered for the Channing Drive development in 1999. Mr. Lawrence said over the past few years there has been discussion over the recreation facility, particularly when it would be built and what it would constitute. He said earlier this year, concern was raised by the residents of Sovereign Village that what the developer had proposed did not meet their expectation. Mr. Lawrence noted that in late 2009, the Board of Supervisors asked the HOA (Home Owners Association) and the developers to work something out. Mr. Lawrence was pleased to report the Sovereign Village HOA and the developer, Manning & Ross, are supporting the proposed proffer revision. Mr. Lawrence stated when the proffer was adopted in 1999, it called for the recreation center to have a 3,000 square -foot recreation facility with a pool. He said approximately one -and -a -half years ago, the School Board began construction on the 12a' elementary school in the vicinity of the proposed recreation center. A component of the elementary school contains facilities, such as a community room and a fitness center, which are available outside of the school day for the community to use. He said the belief was with the school having available community facilities, the 3,000 square -foot facility may not necessarily be as important for this Channuig Drive area. Mr. Lawrence said the proffer revision eliminates the 3,000 square -foot requirement for a building and offers a 30'X50' swimming pool with bath houses and registration, check-in area, storage area, and picnic tables. He said a preliminary site plan has been submitted and the HOA has endorsed the proffer revision. Mr. Lawrence added that by MDP (master development plan) requirements, the facility has to be constructed by July 9, 2009; the HOA has suggested a July 4, 2009 closing date, which the developer has agreed to. There is some additional information in this particular proffer to guarantee the facility is open by July 4, 2009, so the neighborhood can have a July 4`h celebration. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January7, 2009 Page 2403 -5 - Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came,: and to speak: Mrs. Barbara Lewis, President of the SVHOA (Sovereign Village Home Owners Association), said the SVHOA is quite satisfied with the revised proffer. Mrs. Lewis said the swimming pool is not the 30'X80' pool they initially sought, but that size pool would have required $60,000 a season to operate, $24,000 to insure, and 500 memberships to generate the income. Needless to say, the Sovereign Village Home Owners could not have handled that burden. Mrs. Lewis said the SVHOA is grateful to Mr. Doran, Mr. Hott, and Mr. Robertson of the Parks & Recreation Department for taking another look at the situation and sharing their findings with the homeowners. She said they will now begetting a pool which is reasonable for their community, both in terms of costs and numbers. In addition, the SVHOA was willing to forego the recreation center for economic reasons as well; it would have to be staffed and maintained year -around to be of any use_ She said the home owners will be happy to use the recreational facilities in the new neighborhood school instead. Mrs. Lewis thanked the developer, Manning & Ross, the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Department, the Parks & Recreation Department; and the residents for their roles in working out ibis amicable solution- Mr. olution_ Mr. Lee Toffers, a resident of Sovereign Village, asked if showers were required to be installed in the bath houses for swimming pools of a certain size. Mr. Lawrence said the developer specifically proffered toilets, sinks, changing areas; the showers have not been proffered to be included. Mr. Lawrence said he checked with the Building Official and showers are not a requirement of the County or the State Health Code. Commissioner Thomas commented that the swimming pool is still too small for this size community and he thought it should be 36-40 feet by 75 feet. He said the proposed pool is a non-standard size and all the equipment purchased for it will have to be specially fabricated. Commissioner Kerr was satisfied with the proposal if the SVHOA was happy with it. Commissioner Kerr made a motion to recommend approval of the proffer revisions. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application #14-08 of Sovereign Village to revise proffers associated with Rezoning 415-99, the Section titled, "Recreation Center," and applicable to a 3.03 -acre parcel. The proffer revisions propose modifications to the Sovereign Village Recreation Center. The majority vote was as follows: vac 'mn nUr A un�nvAT ): �ygohr ue. Triplett ur. Ours Wilmot Oates Ruclanar Manuel Ambrogf Watt, Unger NO: Thomas Rezoning Application #13-08 of 1932-1958 Senseny Road, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 3.93 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers for a commercial project that may include a pharmacy. The properties are located in the southeastern quadrant of the intersection at Senseny Road (Route 657) and Greenwood Road (Route 656). These properties are further identified by P.I.N.s 55-A-196, 65A-2-1, 65A -2 -1 -2,65A -2-1-3,65A-2-1-4, and 65A - Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January7, 2009 Page 2404 M � 2-1-5 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval_ with Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported this particular rezeni.ng application is somewhat different than the one considered by the Commission a couple years ago, primarily because the application includes several additional parcels, moving east along Senseny Road, and those parcels provide the property with frontage which aligns with the recently constructed signalized intersection of Orrick Commons and Senseny Road. Mr_ Ruddy said the site is located within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) and the land use is appropriate in this particular location. He said significant changes regarding the transportation include the provision of a full commercial entrance at the existing traffic signal at Orrick Commons and a restricted right -in only entrance to the west of this signalized intersection. Additionally, the application has modified the entrance on Greenwood Road to be a right -in, right -out only and is further controlled with a median within the Greenwood Road location_ Mr. Ruddy said the primary concern with the previous application was the potential for stacking on Greenwood Road, making a left-hand or westbound movement onto Senseny Road, and the concern was with this being a full entrance, the stacking could potentially create a problem with vehicles trying to make a left turn movement into the commercial property_ He said with the additional controls at the Greenwood Road intersection and a full commercial entrance at the Orrick Commons intersection, the outstanding concerns with the original application have been addressed. In summary, Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has provided a GDP (generalized development plan), which identifies improvements within the right-of-way of Senseny and Greenwood Roads. It also identifies the development of the site and the location of the pharmacy. He noted that the pharmacy is limited to 13,225 square feet with the potential for up to 30,000 square feet of commercial land uses. He said the applicant has also proffered an additional $25,000 for transportation improvements which may be used in the Senseny Road and Greenwood Road corridor areas; the applicant has proffered a $5,000 contribution for fire and rescue purposes; and the applicant has agreed to provide a monument on the site commemorating the Greenwood School. Mr. Ruddy said the rezoning application is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, particularly with the long-range transportation elements of the plan. Mr. John Lewis with Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., representing the project, said this application was very similar to the project that came before the Commission about one year ago, however, with the addition of four properties, they have drastically improved the transportation problems. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Robert W. Russell, a resident at 109 Greenwood Avenue, had concerns about the kinds of commercial uses that were planned behind his home. He was also concerned about water runoff onto his property and the increased traffic on Greenwood Road. Mr. Michael C. Dorgan, a resident at 1968 Senseny Road, said the diagram he received from Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. showed a pharmacy, a Citibank, and a restaurant_ Mr. Dorgan said the only use addressed by the Commission this evening was the pharmacy; he asked about the status of the other two uses. He also inquired about the type of buffer proposed between the shopping center and the residential houses. Ms. Shelly Gochenour, a resident at 113 Greenwood Avenue, was concerned about the safety of neighborhood children and privacy for the adjoining residences. Ms. Gochenour was also concerned about the possibility of a restaurant dumpster near her home. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January7, 2009 Page 2405 -7 - Ms. Kathy S. Kerns, a resident at 918 Greenwood Road, said her home had frontage on Greenwood Road, across the street from the proposed pharmacy. Ms. Kerns said the heavy traffic on Greenwood Road made it hazardous to cross the road to get to her mailbox and it was difficult exiting her driveway both left and right. She said the proposed median presented a concern because she was uncertain how far the median would extend down Greenwood Road and possibly obstruct her driveway. She also had questions about the type of lighting proposed for the site, vehicle lights shining into her home, the hours of operation, and the exterior appearance of the pharmacy building. Ms. Kerns was opposed to a two-story pharmacy structure because all of the surrounding residences were one story. She commented that the rezoning sign had fallen over before Christmas. In addition, Ms_ Kerns questioned why her district representative on the Planning Commission had abstained from voting on this application the previous time it came before the Commission. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. In response to Ms. Kathy Ko s' questions on why her district representative had abstained during the previous consideration of a rezoning for this site, Commissioner Mohn said he understood Mrs_ Kerns' confusion, but his participation in the first public hearing occurred prior to his knowledge that a company affiliated with his prior employer was representing the contract purchaser/applicant. Commissioner Mohn said as he was aware of this relationship when the application returned to the Commission, he opted to remove himself from further discussion or action on the item due to a potential conflict of interest. He further noted that he had changed employers since the initial rezoning was considered by the Commission and therefore, was no longer constrained by a potential conflict of interest. As such, Commissioner Mohn said he would participate in the current public hearing this evening. In response to the adjoining property owners' concerns and questions, Mr. Lewis stated the informational package that was sent to the adjoining property owners included a conceptual plan showing a pharmacy and two other potential uses. Mr. Lewis said the pharmacy has been proffered; negotiations are currently taking place with a bank, and the only use that could possibly fit on the remainder of the parcel would be a small restaurant or a small retail building. Regarding the property owner's concern about storm water runoff, Mr. Levs�s said the storm water management must be properly designed to meet County and State regulations so there is no runoff to the adjacent parcels. In order to improve traffic flow, they have added lanes, signalization, and pedestrian crossing facilities; the applicant is also executing the County's Eastern Road Plan as far as Senseny Road being a major collector and Greenwood Road being a minor collector. Mr. Lewis said there will be a 50 -foot building buffer along the rear of the properties, as well as a 25 -foot landscaped buffer which will contain a six-foot high opaque fence and a significant amount of landscaping extending from Greenwood Road to Senseny Road. He anticipated this buffer and screening will minimize the impacts to the adjoining property owners. Mr. Lewis said dark -sky compliant pole lights will be used and they will submit a photometric plan showing there will be no off-site spillage of lighting. Regarding Ms. Kerns' concern about the median, Mr. Lewis said the median will be designed to prevent left turns going southbound on Greenwood Road into the site; the median will stop as far south as possible to allow Ms. Kerns the ability to go northbound. Mr. Lewis added that the pharmacy structure will be a masonry building with drivet accents; the hours of operation is typically 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; however, this is a market-driven qualification. The pharmacy will want the ability to switch to 24-hour operation, if the market demands, and is typical for all of the pharmacies in the area. Conunissioner Oates said that one of the citizens was concerned about the possibility of a car wash going on this site. Commissioner Oates asked about the possibility of the applicant eliminating uses that would be either noisy or a nuisance to the neighbors. Mr. Lewis said he didn't think it would be a problem to eliminate some uses. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January7, 2009 Page 2406 Commissioner Unger said he was satisfied with what the applicant has done for this site. Commissioner Unger said he would be concerned if Ms. Kerns could not turn left out of her driveway and, hopeally, the applicant can accommodate her. Mr. Lewis believed this could be accomplished. Commissioner Mohn made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the inclusion of the applicant's agreement to eliminate car washes, in particular. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kerr and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application 413-08 of 1932-1958 Senseny Road, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 3.93 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers for a commercial project on this site which includes a pharmacy and the elimination of any car wash use. Rezoning #15-08 of Adams Commercial Center, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to revise proffers associated with Rezoning 902-05 for 28.10 acres of land, zoned B3 (Industrial Transition). This revision is intended to remove the previously proffered uses on the site. The property is located north of the City of Winchester, fronting on the west side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), opposite the intersection with Stephenson Road (Route 664). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 44-A-75 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that with this proffer revision, the applicant is requesting to revise the existing proffered conditions relating to the permitted uses for the property. Specifically, the proffers from Rezoning #02-05 limited the uses on the site to office, building materials and lumber stores, wholesale, warehouse, and self-service storage facilities. The proffer also limited the site to 555,000 square feet. Ms. Perkins said the revised proffer lists certain uses that will be prohibited on the site, but it removes those uses that could only be built on the site. She said the revision also eliminates the square -footage cap and modifies the vehicle trips per day proffer. The revised proffer now also accounts for the construction of a ten -foot asphalt path along Route 11, the frontage of the site. Conunissioner Thomas inquired what the biggest differences were between the new and previous proffers, particularly the largest vehicle generation uses_ Ms. Perkins responded that what they tried to achieve with the list of uses proffered out are some of the higher trip generation uses; for example, amusement and recreational services and restaurants. She said there are still some B3 uses, but they are not high -traffic generators. The vehicle cap remains at 4,603 trips. Commissioner Thomas asked for the maximum allowable square footage build out for this site. Ms. Perkins said it would depend on the use and what the trip generation would be. She said a low trip generation would allow a higher square footage; for example, a warehouse or self - storage. Commissioner Thomas commented there was no characterization of trips, such as vehicles versus tractor trailers. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was representing the Adams Commercial Center. Mr. Wyatt said when this property was rezoned to B3 (Industrial Transition) four years ago, a GDP (generalized development plan) was proffered with the rezoning. He said the GDP showed land bay bubbles identified with specific uses, such as office, self-service storage, etc. He said this was mistakenly done with the assumption the applicant could mix and match uses inside the project site. Mr. Wyatt said they started with the GDP to eliminate the various land bay bubbles. He said, in addition, the property owner had different parties interested in the site that were not the five specific uses originally intended, although they were fairly low traffic Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of 7anuary7, 2009 Page 2407 ME generators. Mr. Wyatt said he discussed this with the Planning Staff and the solution arrived at was instead of just eliminating the land bay bubbles, the applicant could proffer out specific B3 uses that were high traffic generators and provide more flexibility to the site. Furthermore, he said when the original rezoning was done, the traffic impacts were based on about 4,600 vehicle trips and this hasn't changed; he said three land bays from the GDP have been sold to separate owners and site plans have already been approved_ With this proffer, the applicant has reduced the 4,600 vehicle trips to account for what was on those approved site plans, in order to provide them with an allocation of the 4,600 trips should they choose to expand, and the remaining trips were allocated to the portion that has not been site planned at this time. Mr. Wyatt continued, stating the Planning Staff had asked the applicant to consider the provision of a ten -foot hiker/biker trail and the applicant agreed it was an appropriate addition to the proffer. Another suggestion made was to provide an opportunity for this property to access Yard Master Court on the M 1 property immediately to the south. Mr. Wyatt said the applicant has included provisions for a 50 -foot right-of-way reservation strip and he read the language guiding that reservation strip, as follows: "The applicant hereby proffers to reserve a 50 -foot wide strip of iandbetween Yard Master Court and Tax Pareel 44-1-D, the adjoining property, to allow for the construction of a future public street connection by others. The general location of this reservation area shall be provided on the GDP, however, it is recognized that the location can be shifted without the need for conditional zoning approval. All costs associated with establishing the future public street shall be borne by the owner of Tax Parcel 44-1-D or by others in the application." Mr. Wyatt said that as part of this rezoning consideration, the applicant would be willing to add the exhibit to the GDP as well as the proffered language he read. Commissioner Unger inquired if the property owner to the south would have to purchase the right-of-way or if it was available for their use. Mr. Wyatt said the property would be there for their availability, but they would need to have it platted, designed, and constructed. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Ruckman believed the applicant had addressed the issues of concern. Commissioner Ruckman said the original application was fairly restrictive and even though this revision has opened up the uses somewhat, the applicant has still proffered out quite a few of the high -traffic uses for the site. He was pleased to see the easement to the south for the right-of-way and the applicant's provision of a ten -foot - wide bicycle path along the front of the property. Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the revised proffers and GDP offered by the applicant and the addition of the 50 -foot reservation strip, with corresponding language read by the applicant, to be included within the proffer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ruckman and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application # 15-08 of Adams Commercial Center, consisting of 28.10 acres of land, zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) submitted by Greenway Engineering, with the revised proffers and GDP (generalized development plan) offered by the applicant and the addition of a 50 -foot reservation strip with the following associated language: "The applicant hereby proffers to reserve a 50 -foot wide strip of land between Yard Master Court and Tax Parcel 44-1-D, the adjoining property, to allow for the construction of a future public street connection by others. The general location of this reservation area shall be provided on the GDP, however, it is recognized that the location can be shifted without the need for conditional zoning approval. All costs associated with establishing the future public street shall be borne by the owner of Tax Parcel 44-1-D or by others in the application." Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January7, 2009 Page 2408 -10 - Rezoning Application #10-08 for Governors Hill, submitted by PHR-&A (Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc.), to rezone 39.7 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, with proffers, and 238.3 acres from the R4 District to the R4 District with revised proffers associated with Rezoning #11-05. The properties are located approximately one mile east of I-81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50East), across from Sulphur Sp: ing Road (Route 655) and The Ravens subdivision. The properties are further identified with P i.N.s 64-A-83, 64 -A -83A, 64 -A -84,64 -A- 85, 4 -A -84,64-A85, 64-A-86, and 64-A-87 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. This rezoning application is to be considered together with the following public meeting: Master Development Plan 908-08 for Governors Hill, submitted by PHR&A (Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc.), for mixed use commercial/residential. The properties are located approximately one mile east of I-81 on the south side of P.Iillwood Pike (Route SOEast), across from Sulphur Siring Road (Route 655) and The Ravens subdivision. The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 64-A-83, 64- A -83A, 64-A-84, 64 -A -85,64-A-86, and 64-A-87 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Senior Planner Candice E. Perkins reported the Governors Hill application includes both a rezoning and a MDP (master development plan). Ms. Perkins said the rezoning is for 39.7 acres to be rezoned from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District with proffers, as well as the application for the balance of the development, the 238.3 acres, zoned R4, with revised proffers. In total, the request ccnsists of 278 acres intended for mixed use; with this development, there would be 161 acres of commercial use and 550 residential units. Ms. Perkins pointed out that the 550 residential units are not new; they were approved with the previous rezoning application in 2005. She said this new application would only add land area to the development, as well as revise the transportation proffers for the development. Ms. Perkins said the proffers contain a proffered MDP, as well as proffered design and development standards. She noted that included within the design standards are two requests for modifications that are consistent with the previous rezoning application. The first modification is related to the mixture of housing types and the second is for the acreage of commercial land contained within the development. She explained that these two modifications are exactly the same as those included in approved Rezoning Application # 11-05, but due to the RA application, they will have to be re -approved to pertain to the whole development_ Ms. Perkins stated that overall, many of the proffers contained within the rezoning application are consistent with Rezoning Application # 11-05, but there have been changes. She next turned the presentation over to Mr. John Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation, to review the transportation aspects of the rezoning application. Mr. John Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation, presented a slide of the Eastern Road Plan to explain how this plan implements a Board of Supervisors' requested change involving the extension of Coverstone Drive to Inverlee Way, how it allows for a scaling back of VDOT-funded improvements to Sulphur Springs Road, which may potentially free up some funding for other locations, and how it allows for previously approved revenue sharing funds at the intersection of Inverlee Way and Route 50 to be reallocated to other projects. Mr. Bishop next reviewed a few areas of concern, which included: 1) the scaling back of commitment on the design of relocated Route 522 by placing a time deadline that did not exist in the original proffers without a value compensation; 2) the lack of access management on the proffered section of Coverstone Drive, particularly, the current graphics depict entrance spacing of approximately 800 feet which is insufficient for the long-range purpose of this roadway; 3) the expansion of developable square footage should be tied to roadway function and not just trip counts; 4) the lack of full funding for improvements at the intersection of Costello and Prince Frederick; 5) no trigger for participation in the Victory intersection; the proffer could be improved by adding Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January7, 2009 Page 2409 -11- flexibility; and 6) coordination at Sulphur Springs. Mr. Ronald Mislowsky, with PHR&A (Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc.), introduced hiw.self and Mr. Patrick Sowers and Mr. Michael Glickman of PHR&A, and also, Mr. John Conrad, who was representing Governors Hill Development, LLC and Carpers Valley Development, LLC. Mr. Mislowsky provided his comments on each of the issues raised by Mr. Bishop. Commissioner Kriz requested clarification on two proffer revisions. Mr. Mislowsky said the applicant agrees to revising the proffer so the cost for the Coverstone Drive design is treated the same way as the cost for signalization is treated, which is if the county doesn't request it by 2018, the cost of the design would go to the county for transportation improvements. Regarding Proffer 15.12, Mr. Mislowsky said VDOT would approve the estimated costs_ Mr. Bishop stated that it appeared the concessions made by Mr. Mislowsky deal with most of the issues. He said he did not necessarily agree that it's not appropriate to take another look at the impacts once 1.3 million square feet of development is reached, regardless of the trip count, because as the TIA is developed, the applicant is making a guess as to the number of trips that will take place. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Ms. Serena (Renny) R Manuel, the Executive Director of Winchester Regional Airport, said the only comment the Airport Authority had in regards to the rezoning request and the changed MDP was to change the language under Environment, Section 14; Subsection 14.3. As a part of the 2005 zonir:g approval by the Board of Supervisors, the applicant had proffered to include language to establish an avigation easement over the entire property. The way in which the language is currently written, states that the Airport and the applicant shall mutually agree in regards to the language_ Ms_ Manuel said in her letter of October, 2008, she requested that the language of that particular proffer be changed to say that the applicant shall convey to the Winchester Regional Airport Authority an avigation easement to provide further protection for airport operations and she had attached a deed easement and restrictions, which is a standard form used by the applicant and the Airport Authority on prior land transactions. Ms. Manuel stated that she noticed in the updated package that proffer has not been changed. She said since October 2008, the two parties have still not arrived at a mutual agreement on the language for the avigation easement. In order to protect the current and future operations and growth of the Winchester Regional Airport, she requested the Commission consider implementing the airport's comment letter into the application as a condition on the recommendation for approval. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Thomas remarked that the intersection of Prince Frederick and Coverstone Drive was not discussed. He asked Mr. Bishop if he had any concerns regarding the functioning of that particular intersection. Mr. Bishop felt it could become an issue over time, but it would not be until the extension and Route 522 is completed. He expected the signalization of that intersection would be done at that time, likely by someone else. Commissioner Oates asked Mr. Mislowsky to respond on the avigation easement issue and Mr. Bishop's final comment. Mr. Mislowsky said that Ms. Manuel was correct in that previously, the language proposed by the airport was done, but it was for county -owned properties. Mr. Mislowsky said that what they are looking at now is applying the same easement to properties that are to be sold to homeowners and will be sent to banks. He said the lenders have to review and accept the language. He said it was the opinion of the applicant's attorney that the language is too convoluted. Mr. Mislowsky said both the applicant's attorney and the airport's Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2410 Minutes of January7, 2009 � PD attorney have been working on the language so that it is satisfactory to both sides and from the applicant's point of view, an agreement can be reached. With regard to PYu. i3ishop's concern that if the applicant gets to 1.3 million square fPPt and have not yet exceeded the 45,000 trips per day, then at that point, the applicant would agree to an update of the TIA to see what impact the increased area would have. Mr. Mislowsky believed it should be handled like a 527 request, where the TIA is done and is provided as information to the county and VDOT for their plamvng. Conunissioner Thomas believed the transportation plan was improved over the previous version. He said it has the potential to be a large development and has the potential to be a great source of tax revenue for the county, if the commercial is fully built out. Cornmissioner Thomas believed the concerns could be worked out. Commissioner Kriz was satisfied with the change in proffers, however, the Commission needed to make sure the airport is protected. Commissioner Manuel supported the Inverlee/ Coverstone connectivity because it provided a much safer alternative to the Sulphur Springs connection. He believed in moving forward to avoid unsafe intersections, such as the Route 522 South and Clydesdale and also at Route 522 North and Cross Roads Grocery. Commissioner Manuel commented that the Commission needed to move forward to having Channing Drive as the major collector and to take the onus off of Sulphur Springs Road. Commissioner Manuel made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning # 10-08 and MBF 408-08 of Governors Hill with the two proposed waivers, Section 165-71, Mixture of Housing Types, and Section 165-72.13, Commercial and Industrial Areas, and also including: the applicant's proffer that an amount equal to the cost of designing the 800 feet of Coverstone Road will be turned over to the County if not used by 2018; the acceptance of the applicant's proffer to concede changes to proffer 15-12; the acceptance of the applicant's proffer to do a 527 Application adjustment; and the completion of the avigation easement prior to the first building permit. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #10-08 for Governors Hill, submitted by PHR&A (Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc.), to rezone 39.7 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, with proffers, and 238.3 acres from the R4 District to the R4 District -A th revised proffers, together with Master Development Plan #08-08 for mixed use commercial/residential with two proposed waivers, Section 165-71, Mixture of Housing Types, and Section 165-72.D, Commercial and Industrial Areas, and also including: the applicant's proffer that an amount equal to the cost of designing the 800 feet of Coverstone Road will be turned over to the County if not used by 2018; the acceptance of the applicant's proffer to concede changes to Proffer 15-12, the acceptance of the applicant's proffer to do a 527 Application adjustment; and the completion of the avigation easement prior to the first building permit. PUBLIC MEETING Request by Jaynes and Linda Michael for a waiver of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design Standards, Section 31, Rural Subdivisions (C)(3), Minor Rural Subdivisions, to enable division of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. The property is located approximately 2,901 feet east of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) on Fawcett Run Lane. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 72 -A -29G in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January7, 2009 Page 2411 -13 - Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mart_ R. Cheran, reported That the requested waiver would only apply to the creation of the two lots as depicted on the attached plat from Christopher Furstenau, dated January 29, 2008, Mr. Cheran pointed out that Lot 1 is the resulting parent tract and Lot 3 is the new lot. He explained that Mrs. Linda Michael, the applicant has stated the reason for the waiver request is to provide relief from a 50 -foot right-of-way; the parent parcel is currently served by a 30 -foot right-of-way. He said the applicant is seeking a waiver from the minimum width requirement for a shared private driveway; the minimum right-of-way width for a shared private driveway is 50 feet. Mr. Cheran noted that letters have been included in the agenda packet from property owners adjoining the proposed driveway access who declined to grant the requested easement. Commissioner Thomas inquired what would prevent Lot 1, consisting of 11.164 acres, from being subdivided further as a family subdivision, especially if fine property was sold. He questioned whether a waiver restriction could be placed on the lot to prevent further subdivision. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mrs. Linda Michael, the property owner and applicant, stated that she and her husband own the entire 16 acres. She explained that the electric company, Allegheny Power/TRAIL, is purchasing the 11.164 acres with their existing home and this will provide her and her husband the financial ability to construct a retirement home on the subdivided five acres close to their daughter. Mrs_ Michael said they constructed the 30 - foot road in 1987 when they purchased the property from Mr. Thomas Scully, Sr. She said her neighbors are in favor of them staying at this location; however, they have signed letters choosing not to have the right-of-way increased to 50 feet because of the financial reasons of giving up their land_ She said the neighbors have fences and this is all rural land. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Kriz said that since the majority of the land is going to the power company, he didn't have any problems with it; however, he supported placing restrictions on future subdivisions of this type to prevent additional subdivision of the same parcel. Commissioner Unger made a motion to recommend approval of the subdivision waiver request. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Request by James and Linda Michael for a waiver of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design Standards, Section 31, Rural Subdivisions (C)(3), Minor Rural Subdivisions, to enable division of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. Appeal by Matthew Carroll and Boger Carroll of the Zoning and Subdivision Administrator's Decision to allow direct vehicle access to a major or arterial road. This appeal is submitted by Michael E. Briel, Esquire, for a waiver exception of Article V, Design Standards, Section 144-17 Streets, B(1) Street Layout, of the Code of Frederick County, Subdivision of Land. The property is located at 115 Winterberry Court in the Oakdale Crossing subdivision. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 54I-2-65 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of Januarv7, 2009 Page 2412 -14 - Action — Zoning and Subdivision Administrator's Decision Upheld Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, repos � that the applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning and Subdivision Administrator regarding the interpretation of Chapter 144, Section 17B(1) of the Frederick County Code, Subdivision of Land. Mr. Cheran explained this section of the Code does not allow for residential lots to have direct access to major collector roads. He said the applicant was cited for construction of a private driveway entrance directly onto a major collector road, Senseny Road, Route 657; this private driveway is located within an 80 -foot road efficiency buffer, which is depicted on the approved TviLt (master development plan) for Oakdale Crossing. Mr. Cheran said this property currently has an approved access entrance to a local road, Winterberry Court. Mr. Cheran said the private driveway should not be allowed, as the property has access to Winterberry Court. He said the staff is recommending that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors affirm the decision of the Zoning and Subdivision Administrator in the administration of this section- of ectionof the Code of Frederick County. Michael E. Briel, Esquire, was present on behalf of Mathew Carroll and Roger Carroll, the property owners. Mr. Briel provided the Commission with some history of the site. He stated that the only way to access the garage on the basement level is through the driveway in the back. Mr. Briel said his clients are present today in response to being cited for a code violation of residential streets. Mr. Briel remarked this is a driveway and not a street and, furthermore, the driveway was approved by VDOT. He said there was no possible way this driveway could be used for through traffic. In addition, he said the specific ordinance cited deals with new residential lots and this lot was platted in 1990, which is hardly a new lot. Mr. Briel said his clients purchased this property knowing a violation existed, but now his clients are being cited for a violation on a different code section and they believe it does not apply to them. Mr. Briel stated that the Carrolls do not violate the specific code section cited because their driveway is not a throughway, it is not a road, and this is not a new subdivision. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Kevin Lee, an eight-year resident at 103 Winterberry Court, said the Carroll's house was the most recent one built on this street and has four stories. He said the house has a driveway for the two -car garage along with the basement garage capable of storing eight or ten cars. Mr. Lee said the neighborhood residents understood it was against VDOT regulations to construct a driveway onto Senseny Road. He said the builder knew the Senseny Road driveway was in violation and part of the reason why this house never sold was because it was in violation. Mr. Lee said when the house was finally sold, the driveway opening to Senseny Road was closed off with a fence and trees were planted against the back, including one in the middle of the driveway. He said that within a couple weeks, the fence over the driveway was taken down and the tree was removed. Mr. Lee pointed out Crestleigh Drive, the turn -out lane for Oakdale Crossing. He said where this driveway intersects with Senseny Road is where motorists start to pull off Senseny Road to enter Oakdale. Mr. Lee said every time he drives through there, he is worried about someone pulling out of that driveway; he said it was very dangerous. Mr. Lee said there was never supposed to have been a bottom story; he said that floor was supposed to have been the foundation for the house, but the builder decided to make space for an auto -museum instead. Commissioner Thomas referred the staff to the garage in front of the house with access to Winterberry Court. Commissioner Thomas asked if the owners had access to this garage in front of the house and whether it had garage doors and parking space for vehicles. Mr. Cheran replied yes. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January7, 2009 Page 2413 Commissioner Mohn commented that this section of the Code, Chapter 144, Section 1713(1), is quite clear and has no ambiguity. He said he drives by this site every day and has asked the staff on numerous occasions how this violation ocucirred. Commissioner Mohn said he was glad things were moving toward some form of resolution. He believed it :?s appropriate to uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision in this case. Comnssioner Ainbrogi stated this site was located on a down -hill curve with Oakridge to the west and the entrance to Oakdale Crossing just to the east. He said site distance along the road was somewhat impeded by embankments. In addition, he said the traffic moves quite fast and the road was heavily traveled. Comrrussioner Ambrogi believed it was too hazardous to have this entrance onto Senseny Road. Commissioner Ambrogi made a motion to uphold the Zoning and Subdivision Administrator's decision on this issue. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and was unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend that the Zoning and Subdivision Administrator's decision be upheld on the appeal of Michael E. Briel, Esquire, on behalf of Matthew Carroll and Roger Carroll. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Conunissioner Kriz and seconded by Con nissioner Ours, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission_ Minutes of January7, 2009DO N A Page 2414 W LI C� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #01-09 AT&T AND WESLEY HELSLEY Staff Report for the Planning Commission ® Prepared: February 2, 2009 3 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Planning Commission: 02/18/09 Board of Supervisors: 03/11/09 Action Pending Pending EXECUTIVE SUMARY: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to enable the construction of a 120 -foot lattice type commercial telecommunication facility. Staff would note that the proposed site does not qualify for a lattice -type facility; if a CUP for this site is granted, it is required to be of monopole -type construction. Additionally, the site is within the Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) designation for historic areas within the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP), which further discourages uses that distract from the historical nature of the area. Staff believes the proposed tower would be better placed on an adjacent commercially or industrially zoned site, which is more removed from the residential and historic areas of the DSA. Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers. 3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of abandonment of operation. 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the CUP will be deemed invalid. Page 2 Conditional Use Permit #01-09 AT&T and Wesley Helsley February 3, 2009 LOCATION: This property is located at 2042 Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-130 and 43-A-132 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential South: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Church East: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: This application is for a 120 -foot Commercial Telecommunications Facility. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: Existing private entrance is inadequate for proposed use. Therefore, we cannot support a conditional use permit for this property until the existing entrance is improved to meet VDOT Standards. Any performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire and Rescue: Plan approval recommended. Inspections Department: Structure shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, use group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of The International Building Code 2003. The structure is required to comply with Chap 15 & 16 of the IBC 2006 for structural load, as well as Section 3108 for Towers. The tower shall be located and equipped with step bolts and ladders so as to provide ready access for inspection purposes. The tower shall not cross or encroach upon any street or other public space, or encroach upon any privately owned property without written consent of the owner of the encroached -upon property. (See Page 3 Conditional Use Permit #01-09 AT&T and Wesley Helsley February 3, 2009 3108.2, Location and Access) Special instructions per Chap 17 IBC 2006 apply to this structure. Plans submitted for review shall be sealed by a Virginia Registered Design Professional. Winchester Regional Airport: In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2294, and the Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Proposed Construction, FAA Form 7460-1, applicant is required to be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration with a copy forwarded to this office for review and comment. Upon completion of the aeronautical study by the FAA, a copy must be forwarded to this office for final review comment. Any temporary construction equipment exceeding the overall height of the proposed structure including all appurtenances will require filing of a separate 7460-1 form with the FAA before construction begins and requires a separate review by the Airport Authority. Applicant is required to file with the Virginia Department of Aviation. Applicant should send a copy of the FAA 7460-1 form and a quadrangle map showing the proposed tower location. Final comment on behalf of the Airport Authority will be withheld pending a review of the Determination Study completed by the Federal Aviation Administration and comments from the Virginia Department of Aviation. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, published by the National Park Service, shows that this site is located in the core area of the Second Battle of Winchester and the study area of Third Winchester. While this property is located within an area indentified as having lost integrity, the area directly behind this site is identified as core area for the Second Battle of Winchester that has retained its integrity. The Northeast Land Use Plan of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan shows the area where this proposed telecommunications tower is located as a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA). The DSA designation is meant to ensure that historical features, as well as existing residential clusters, are protected from future development proposals. In addition to these concerns, the HRAB noted that the home located at 2042 Martinsburg Pike was built in 1947. As it is older than fifty years in age, the structure should be documented and a DHR survey should be completed. HRAB members also discussed the home's value as a part of the DSA. Ultimately, the HRAB was concerned about the visual impact of the tower on the core battlefield area and felt that the tower, which is proposed to serve the FEMA development across the street, should be located on the roof of the FEMA building or on the FEMA site. It was the Board's expressed priority that the applicants first make a serious and genuine effort to locate the tower on the FEMA site where existing trees and development would make the tower less visible from the battlefield. Page 4 Conditional Use Permit #01-09 AT&T and Wesley Helsley February 3, 2009 Planning and Zoning: Comprehensive Policy Plan: The 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County provides guidance when considering land use actions. This proposed commercial telecommunication facility is located within the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) as indicated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County. The NELUP component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) located adjacent and surrounding this site. The objectives of NELUP, as related to Developmentally Sensitive Areas, are to identify appropriate locations to protect potentially significant historic resources as identified by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey, and to ensure the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviews all land development proposals which impacts the identified DSA. The general surrounding area of this proposed site contains sites of significant historical importance which include the Hackwood property, established residential areas, and the Milburn Road corridor. These two sites are less than 1 1/2 miles from this proposed commercial telecommunication facility which may have a negative scenic impact on the aforementioned properties. Furthermore, the subject property where this proposed commercial telecommunication facility will be located is adjacent to the Second Battle of Winchester and the study area of Third Winchester, as indicated in the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County. Frederick County has traditionally set a higher expectation for land use actions with regards to properties located adjacent to DSA's. These performance standards are to ensure that scenic areas and properties of significant historic values are not negatively impacted. Staff would note this CUP may not be consistent with the goals of the 2007 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; specifically land use goals identified and established by the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). Careful consideration of this Conditional Use Permit may be warranted in maintaining the goals set forth in the NELUP plan. Zoning Ordinance: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for commercial telecommunication facilities in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The zoning ordinance requires that all proposed telecommunication facilities shall be of a monopole type if located adjacent to identified historic sites. Commercial telecommunication facilities may be subject to additional performance standards in order to promote orderly economic development and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic values. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires an applicant to provide confirmation that an attempt to collocate on an existing telecommunication facility, and possible co -location structures, in the proposed service area was made. The applicant has provided an inventory of existing telecommunication facilities and possible co -location structures in this area, but did not produce adequate documentation that those existing facilities were unsuitable for the proposed use. Page 5 Conditional Use Permit #01-09 AT&T and Wesley Helsley February 3, 2009 This proposed telecommunication facility will be positioned on property located in close vicinity of the 150 acre industrially and commercially zoned Rutherford Farm development, the development of which includes a multistory office building and commercial center. This development may provide satisfactory coverage for this applicant and future co -location opportunities in this area of Frederick County. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 02/18/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is a request to seek approval for the construction of a 120 -foot lattice type commercial telecommunication facility. Staff would note that the proposed site does not qualify for a lattice -type facility; if a CUP for this site is granted, it is required to be of monopole -type construction. Additionally, the site is within the Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) designation for historic areas within the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP), which further discourages uses that distract from the historical natural of the area. Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP: 2. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers. 3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of abandonment of operation. 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the CUP will be deemed invalid. 41 S. ♦ fit„ s ♦ ` Mc ♦ ` 4.,. 0 ' •�'t` sy c, ;r. `. e. N 0 125 250 WE I 1 S I 500 Feet AT&T - Wesley 14, e1sley 4�cK CpG2 CTP # 01 — 09 a PIN: 43-A- 130; 43-A- 132 Case Planner: Mark Future Rt37 Bypass Zoning M2 (Industrial, General District) pp ® CUP0109_ATT_Wesley_Helsley_012609 BI (Business, Neighborhood District) 4W MHI (Mobile Home Community District) Buildings B2 (Business, General Diarist) IM MS (Medical Support District) k, D Urban DecclopmentArea liftl B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) R! (Residential Planned Community District) SWSA 4IM" EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) 40 HE (Higher Education District) (;._tel RA (Rural Arca District) MI (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residential Performance District) Submittal Dead1j.4-ne I& C P/f-' jvv�eting BOS Mee'cing APPLICATION FOR CONDI-JIG,�,,AL USE PEPMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA (The. aPPlicant if the owner Vo -her NAME: ADDDRESS: IZFI 1-5 13 0 AT64 V TELEPHONE 00 176 2. -Please list all. owners, occupants (adult individua!A a> «e -J-1 as any entities OCCLpyo- ng the properity), or par;..c-3--Z'.n the -Li-iterest Of the property, The property -is located at: (0 ease crive exact d-Jkrec;-ona include the te.n rouiu -and -mber Of your road or street) 4. The property has a road frontage of —!OW feet and a depth of 5-792 - teet and =14;i'ists of acres. ;Tease be exact) 5. The property is ovined by evidenced by deed from recorded., 13&7ZVV TP—i e- —�Io: -� s 0 W —n,_ r J in deed book no. or page —, as recorded in the record: of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 5 Tax (Parcel) Identificatiol, (I.D,)!4oa Magisterial District Cur -rent Zoning *< 43-A-150 -ATOT-) 1"5T 0?0006084 10-f I A `5Z L E Y f/ 14F L-6 L e V- A L41- IN6r. 050r i Zof�-175; r. AYtjoining rope lJ . GSA. ZONING North East South R. The type tai` rise pniposed is (,consult Arith the Planning Dept., bcfbrc Completing) 9. it is Proposed that the fnilw: ving buildings Neill he constructed: I'U- The are all of tiie individuals, firms_ or corporations av\ninprope rl}, adjaccn" to both, shies and rear and in front 01, (across street from) the property wher& the t'equweed use will be conducted. (Continud on back ifmt cessary. ) These people will be notifted by mail of this application: NAME,ELM W ON ADDRESS I'Rtli'ERTY ID4 11-d"" "" 12 , VA NAME M6 -KK --a14 IZIDVAto 9144 er--> PRO141 i Ty 16F,' NAME 6� ADDRESS, "t1Co5 _ PROPERTY IU# ` €"► ^� 11 l PROPERTY ID PROF'ER'1`Y IDP -4 WIA1094F572PF,, NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY IL Please use this page for your sketch of thic property. Show Proposed and/or existiag S' rUC`tUreS on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 55E oRA pvlAjCs 12, Additional coinments, if any- C--�_ I (vvc)} the t idersiped. do hereby respeethtlly make application end petitlon tho govming body of Frt dem-k County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application_ I tinderst id that the Sig tr issued to me when tills applicattoll is submitte-d lutist be plaixd at the fireat property lute._ at, least seven (;7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained, sed as to be visible- until after the Board of upervism! public hearing Your application fol- a Cram!itional ltsr Permit atbtltr izes azar' nmembet of tl.w�. Frederick County Planning Commission, on, Bard of Supervisor, or Planning and Developuretri Depadjuent to insree, i ouv ivopet�i( vrhere. the profused use will tie Signatum of Applicar 471 T (:� 1) 0xNmers' Mail ng Qdress _. li/ A,7- T tt7 __. JVJ USE CODA: RENEWAL DATE: Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: n Nnir-co.frederick.i a.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 j Facsimile 540-665-6395 Phone 540-665-5651 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (Vise) (Name) ��. / ,�i s� /� l j% (Phone) _ � r 2S'I- gallo Address �' (Address) G�<�e .4 % �'� �2%� .. �e�% the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property') conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. on Page , and is described as a-6 �'4 Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) C/ ✓isI (Phone) (Address) -03 ,Lee; -L To act as my true and lawful attorney -in- act for and in my (i and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file described Property, including: lir) name, place, and stead with full power planning applications for my (our) above Rezoning (including proffers) v% Conditional Use Permit Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision _ Site Plan Variance or Appeal Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall bane the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of , 200_, Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/County of , To -wit: 1, _ , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of , 200 My Commission Expires: Notary Public Revised 3/17/08 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) t /l / l 1 G� iL C �� (Phone) (Address) � C t�if/A l% I�� AJC - the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 0500Zl, 77S on Page , and is described as Parcel'T�%i Lot: ! `Block: Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and! appoint: (Name) (��i S % %� LU/,AJ/, e:Z (Phone) (Address) 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: Rezoning (including proffers) Conditional Use Permit _ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan Variance or Appeal Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment 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. t Cts In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set mx(ouA hand and seal this / day of !,,'j'tem�� , 200 e , Signature(s) State of Virginia, Jfo; �• , To--%vit: 1, U Zn r -,e, S -6 l , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the pe on(s) who si ed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me Ans acknowledge me before me in th jurisdiction aforesaid this i 1 day of'�,� , 200 . My Commission Expires: Public �— RLIANNE STANLEY Revised 3/17/08 NOTARY IDD # 184188 NOTARY PUBWC FMyMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MMISSIONN EXPIRES JULY 31. 2010 a t M December 30, 2008 County of Frederick Winchester, VA Robert R. Ericksen, PE, CCIM T: 908 234-8819 One AT&T Way e-mail: rericksen@att.com Room 1A113A Bedminster, NJ 07921 Re: Statement of need for data transmission mast in Winchester, VA. Dear Officials of Frederick County: AT&T is requesting permission to construct a 120' free standing class 3 galvanized steel lattice tower in support a of a long haul line sight radio communications route. The tower design will support the radio route, plus have cellular and first responder capabilities. The required site for this communications tower is adjacent to AT&T's existing communications building at 2032 Martinsburg Pike, Winchester, VA. AT&T has chosen this location because of the existence of a network access point (POP). Construction of this route will primarily serve our federal customers location at Mt. Weather, VA in support of mission critical customer network applications. AT&T contracted with Comsearch to survey existing structures within a one mile radius of our required access point and evaluate the ability of these structures to support 6 foot diameter and 5 foot diameter microwave dishes. This survey report is included with our application package. None of the existing structures can support these dishes at the required height. Due to the size and weight of the microwave dish antennas, a lattice tower is deerried the best means of support at this tower height. Monopole tower requirements would be of unusually large diameter (6'±) and would be a stronger impact visually than lattice. The applicant requests consideration of this factor, in the request to locate the tower on their site AT&T intends to continuously use the facility and tower. AT&T shall be responsible for removal within 90 days of receipt of notice from the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. Removal includes the removal of the tower, all tower and fence footers, underground cables and support buildings. if the tower is not removed within the ninety -day period, the County will remove the facility and a lien may be placed to recover expenses. Sincerely, AT&T Corp By: Y Name: Robert R. Ericksen I ' I I PH A; -A-129 UGNT t EX 1 STggy 19LUAMO6om2fi,7A ' IN 77i RP I/SE•. RF.SIDENnAt ID:ClNC ZONE ^ / I I EX. GARAGE I o I1/, 1 / \pit" ( 15' I _ _ VIA c3-A- it\r��r\Ir j30 <� _- �s'f`�� 4 ORIVEWA\ .77P. ::7,x. �\, \fias'BRL �����iIC\\\ t s,�� / 4, nc —678- 11\`vl�kRip l�\f\ EX. +J I ./'l \_NED- L �\ \ 7 1 may` EX. 1 STORY �X73• \ 9.0 K BLDG r ��etoc HR�� EX. I STORYj' _ 4�(/ it^3 N C Ci3' 1 � 0 t iX PAVED DRIVEWAY � \ BtOCK BLOI r- 120.0' X. PkR H G 16' HEICN SP CE ff-681.02 I 1 >15 A PROX. LOCATI N 120' C MMUNP _r .55 ( / 120' FAL I h EX. 2 STORY P/N 43-A-732 I DAECLING W M£USSA HELSU:Y--HAUL & µ£$LEY NELSU:Y, SR. ZONE- RP USE RES/D£N77At ' 19700 Janelia Farms Blvd Ashburn, VA 20147 COMSEA R CH` 703-726-5500 Analysis of Communication Towers in the Vicinity of the Proposed AT&T Corporation Microwave Tower in Winchester, Virginia Comsearch was contracted by AT&T Corporation to identify all commercial communication facilities within a 1.0 mile search radius of their proposed 120' height telecommunications tower to be located at an existing AT&T facility on Route 11, Martinsburg Pike, in Winchester, Virginia. The purpose of this study is to provide the analysis required by the local Zoning Ordinances to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed telecommunication tower. Comsearch performed a database search from multiple sources including the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Universal Licensing System (ULS) and Antenna Structure Registration (ASR), a database of the top ten tower owners in the United States, and the Comsearch databases of all microwave and land mobile radio (LMR) commercial telecommunications systems licensed for operation in the United States. The database search determined that there were 4 commercial communication facilities registered within a 1.0 mile radius of the proposed AT&T tower. Table 1 identifies the communication facilities and lists their pertinent parameters including service, frequency band, FCC Call Sign, latitude and longitude, antenna height and licensee, Figure 1 shows the location of these communication facilities with respect to the proposed AT&T tower. Table 1 Commercial Communication Facilities within 1.0 Mile of the Proposed AT&T Tower Frequency FCC Call Antenna ID Service Band Sign Latitude Longitude Height m Licensee 1 Land Mobile 152 MHz KNGB739 39-12-58 78-08-28 24 A E JOHNSON INC Microwave 2 Site 956 MHz WEF653 39-13-20 78-07-57 9.14 H H OMPS, INC SHIRLEY WELL 3 Land Mobile 31 MHz WNGE496 39-14-00 78-06-57 29 DRILLING INC 460-470 4 Land Mobile MHz WPFR957 39-12-45 78-08-29 23 PACTIV CORP Figure 1 Commercial Communication Facilities in Database within 1.0 Mile of the Proposed AT&T Tower In addition to the database search identified above, Comsearch also performed a physical site visit to document the identified communication facilities and to determine if any other commercial communication facilities are present that were not identified in the database search. The on-site evaluation also focused on the area within a 1.0 mile search radius of the proposed AT&T facility. The results of the on-site physical visit are contained in Figures 2 — 5 for the database identified facilities. Figures 6 and 7 provide documentation for two additional facilities determined during the on-site visit and Figure 8 indicates the location of these additional communication facilities with respect to the proposed AT&T tower.. Notes are provided with each figure identifying the type of tower and a determination concerning the viability of the existing facility to support the proposed AT&T communication requirements. This determination is based on a number of criteria including 1) the ability of the tower to adequately support the proposed 6' microwave antenna, 2) the sufficient height of the existing tower to support the planned AT&T microwave link, and 3) proximity to the AT&T facility where the required communication must terminate. The results of this analysis determined that there are no existing commercial communications facilities present within a 1.0 mile radius of the proposed AT&T 120' height tower that will support the requirements of AT&T. The proposed AT&T tower is required to support a highly reliable point-to-point microwave path between the AT&T facility and a location on Mount Weather, which is in excess of 16 miles away in a direction of approximately 132 degrees from true north. The proposed tower will be required to support at minimum a 6' solid parabolic antenna. None of the identified existing communication facilities will meet the stringent requirements of AT&T. tin 'i '�` r- VA Site: ID 1 Coordinates: 39113'0.4" N, 78° 8'28.4" W Tower Height: 64' AGL Guyed Owner/Licensee: AE Johnson, Inc. Notes: This site is located behind an Exxon gas station at the intersection of US - 11 and Welltown Road. This tower will not support the proposed AT&T microwave antenna requirements. Figure 2 — Database Site ID 1 Site: ID 2 Coordinates: 39° 13' 20.4" N, 780 7' 57" W Tower Height: N/A Owner/Licensee: HH Omps, Inc. Notes: No tower or communication facilities are at this location. It is assumed that the facility has been deactivated and is no longer in operation. Figure 3 — Database Site ID 2 Site: ID 3 Coordinates: 39° 13' 59.1" N, 78° 6' 59.0" W Tower Height: 105' AGL Guyed Owner/Licensee: Shirley Well Drilling Notes: This site is located behind Shirley Well Drilling Company off of US -11. This facility will not support the proposed AT&T microwave antenna requirements. Figure 4 — Database Site ID 3 Site: ID 4 Coordinates: 39° 12' 45.4" N, 78° 8' 29.0" W Tower Height: NIA Owner/Licensee: Pactiv Corp. Notes: Site coordinates are located within private property of Pactiv Corporation behind loading dock located southeast of main entrance. No tower is present at this location and this facility will not support the proposed AT&T microwave antenna requirements. Figure 5 — Database Site ID 4 Site: Power Line Cellular Array Coordinates: 390 13'6.4" N, 78° 8'25.2" W Tower Height: 125' AGL Owner/Licensee: Unknown Notes: This is a cellular base station site positioned on a high power transmission pole located at the end of Mercedes Drive in Winchester, VA. This facility will not support the proposed AT&T microwave antenna requirements. Figure 6 — Additional Telecommunication Facility Found During Site Visit Site: Land Mobile Antenna Coordinates: 39° 13' 59.1" N, 78° 7' 38.6" W Tower Height: 110' AGL self support Owner/Licensee: Unknown Notes: Site is located behind Agri Court in Winchester, VA. This facility will not support the proposed AT&T microwave antenna requirements. Figure 7 - Additional Telecommunication Facility Found During Site Visit Figure 8 Additional Commercial Communication Facilities Identified in On -Site Visit Within 1.0 Mile of the Proposed AT&T Tower '_7 :� • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director DATE: February 3, 2009 RE: Public Hearing: 2009-2010 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) o The 2009-2010 Capital improvements Plan (CIP) is scheduled for a Planning Commission Public Hearing on February 18, 2009. The CIP was previously considered at the following meetings: • Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) - November 10, 2008 The CPPC agreed that the CIP requests were in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and forwarded the draft document out of the Executive Committee for Planning Commission discussion. • Planning Commission - December 3, 2008 The Planning Commission considered the CIP as a discussion item and the consensus of the Commission was that the projects proposed within the CIP were in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. • Board of Supervisors — January 28, 2009 The Board considered the CIP as a discussion item and directed Staff to schedule public hearings for the 2009-2010 CIP. The discussion was thorough and reflective of the current economic environment. The discussion resulted in the inclusion of an additional project which establishes a capital expenditure fund for the purpose of addressing general government capital expenditures that may fall below the established $100,000 departmental threshold. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 v Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Planning Commission Public Hearing: 2009-2010 CIP February 3, 2008 Page 2 In addition, the Board endorsed a significant modification to a project submitted by the Winchester Regional Airport, the Taxiway relocation project, in an effort to advance this project and to take advantage of potential Federal funding. In light of a similar potential opportunity and some discussion during the Board' meeting, Staff has included a proposed modification to the Route 37 project within the Transportation Section of the CIP. This request now includes the project in its entirety, engineering through construction, and is consistent with current project description and values being used by VDOT. Please find attached with this agenda item: a draft copy of the proposed 2009-2010 CIP, which includes three maps illustrating the known locations of the CIP requests and a summary of all of the project requests. If adopted, the CIP and included maps will ultimately become a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, satisfying the review requirement of Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, which states that no public facility shall be constructed unless said facility is a "feature shown" within a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. The CIP is presented as a public hearing. A recommendation to forward to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding this information. Attachments MTR/bad CAPITA: IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY 2004-2010 P4TRODUCTION Section 15.22239 of the Code of Virginia assigns the responsibility for preparation of plans for capital outlays to the local Planning Commissions. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) consists of a schedule for major capital expenditures for the county for the ensuing five years. The CIP is updated annually. Projects are removed from the plans as they are completed or as priorities change. The plan is intended to assist the Board of Supervisors in preparation of the county budget. In addition to determining priorities for capital expenditures, the county must also ensure that projects contained within the CIP conform to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, the projects are reviewed with considerations regarding health, safety, and the general welfare of the public. When the CIP is adopted, it becomes a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as a capital facilities planning document, not for requesting funding allocations. Once adopted, project priorities may change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is projected. Transportation projects are included in the CLP for a third year. The 2007-2008 CIP included transportation projects for the first time. The reason for this change was that state code now allows for transportation projects to appear in the CIP. The addition of transportation projects to the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be independently undertaking these projects. Funding projects will continue to come from a combination of state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing. PROJECT RECOMl�,'IENDATIONS Pr ederick County Public Schools The Public Schools top piiority remains a new transportation facility. This project involves the site acquisition, approximately 50 acres, and development of a new transportation facility for the public school system. The site will house administration, driver tra;n�ng areas, driver and staff meeting areas, mechanical service and repair bays, inspection bay, wash bay, and fueling bays. In an effort to maintain educational facilities that will handle the growing student population, the construction of two new elementary schools is recommended within the UDA (Urban Development Area). A new high school and a new middle school have also been requested in anticipation of the future demand of a growing student population. A number of school renovations and relocations are proposed, several of which are aimed at accommodating an all day Kindergarten program. The Elementary School renovations have been updated to reflect the phased construction of these improvements projects. This year's CIP continues to include a request to renovate and expand the current administration building on Amherst Street. In recognition of the current construction of the first phase of this expansion, this request has been modified to include the 2nd and 3rd Phases of this project. Parks & Recreation The indoor aquatic facility continues to be proposed as the top priority of the Parks and Recreation Department for the fourth year in a row. Phase II of the Bike Trail project in the Sherando area is included the plan. The Parks and Recreation Department has proposed to acquire land in both the eastern and western portions of the county for the development of future regional park system. Both land acquisitions call for 150-200 acres of land to accommodate the recreational needs of the growing population. The majority of the recommended projects are planned for the county's two regional parks (Sherando & Clearbrook). Nine projects are planned for Sherando Park: upgrade of baseball lighting, upgrade pool amenities, a soccer complex, maintenance compound and office, skateboard park, parking and multi-purpose fields with trail development, a softball complex, picnic area with a shelter, and an access road with parking and trails. The soccer complex has increased in priority in recognition of a partnership opportunity with a co-sponsored organization, BRYSA. There are currently five projects planned for the Clearbrook Park which include, upgrade of baseball lighting, upgrading pool. amenities, a new open play area, a tennis/basketball complex, and shelter with an area for stage seating. The upgrade of pool amenities at the swimming pools at both parks will include the addition of water slides and a spray ground. 2 Handley Regional Library The Handley Regional Library continues to recommend four projects, consistent with their 2008-2009 request. The library's top pnorlty is a parking lot expansion as well as improvements to sidewalk access at the Bowman Library. The parking lot expansion would accommodate 121 more parking than what is currently available. The library wishes to extend the sidewalks to serve residents traveling from the east to Lakeside Drive. The three remaining projects request that funding be provided for new library branches throughout the county which include the areas of Gainesboro, Senseny/Greenwood Road, and Route 522 South, with the latter two being located within the UDA (Urban Development Area). Transportation Committee This isthe third year the Transportation Committee is providing project requests for the CIP. Virginia State Code allows for transportation projects to be included within a locality's CIP. Funding for transportation project requests will likely come from developers and revenue sharing. Implementation of transportation projects does not take away funding for generalized road improvements. The Transportation Committee has requested funding for twelve projects. The twelve requests include projects that entail widening of major roads; key extensions of roads that help provide better networks, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and the addition of turn lanes at current unsafe intersections. The relocation of the Senseny Road bicycle and pedestrian improvements and the Eastern Road Plan are the only addition to this year's CIP Winchester Regional Airport The Airport component of the CIP has been modified to be more consistent with the capital planning requirements of the Virginia Department of Aviation. While more projects are included in this CIP than in previous years, several requests represent different phases of construction of these capital improvements. Several of the Airport requests were carried forward from previous years including the request to renovate the terminal building, the request to construct a new airfield maintenance building, a request to upgrade the airfield lighting system to enhance safety for aircraft use of the facility, and two additional requests which were new last year which address the rehabilitation of Runway 14/42 and a new north side Taxi way Connector. In addition to the two previous requests to acquire additional parcels along Bufflick Road this year's CIP includes the acquisition of additional parcels along Bufflick Road which are required to meet noise abatement requirements and will facilitate the proposed expansion of the airport facility. 3 Funding for airport projects is derived through a complex formula where the federal and state governments contribute a majority of the funding, with Frederick County and the other jurisdictions providing the remaining funding. Countv Administration (including Fire and Rescue) The structure of the County Administration section of the CIP has been modified to better reflect the enhancements to the Fire, and Rescue component of the CIP which were included last year. This year's CIP also reflects the input provided by the County's Volunteer Fire and Rescue Companies. This is in an effort to further establish the connection between the CIP and the acceptance of proffered contributions made to mitigate the impacts of development projects. The capital requests of the individual Fire and Rescue Companies have been added as a component of this year's CIP. Modifications to two of the County's refuse convenience sites continue to be a Public Works priority. The first request is that the current Gainesboro facility be moved. A fenced, accessible two -acre site will be constructed along North Frederick Pike in close proximity to the existing site on Old Gainesboro Road. This project will require several months to complete and include fencing, earthwork, a retaining wall, electric, lighting, paving and landscaping. The other request is for the expansion/relocation of the Gore Refuse Site to allow for a trash compactor, which will reduce operational costs, by compacting trash before it reaches the landfill. Fire & Rescue has requested the relocation of two current fire stations in order to operate more efficiently. The top project for the County Administration's Fire and Rescue component is the creation of Fire & Rescue Station #22 in the vicinity of Route 277, with the ability to provide an annex facility for other county related offices. The collaboration of this project with other community users and a land use planning effort was a key element of the Route 277 Land Use Plan. Fire and Rescue has added a project which provides for the capital apparatus needs of this facility. Two new projects for Fire and Rescue are the creation of Station #23, a new facility located in the vicinity of Crosspointe and a Fire & Rescue Regional Training Center. Such a Regional Public Safety Training Center potentially consisting of an administrative building, multi -story burn building, multi -story training tower, vehicle driving range, shooting range, and numerous other training props. This project will incorporate emergency medical services, fire, hazardous materials, rescue, law enforcement, industrial, and educational institutions located within the region. 4 TAB�EOFr-LATENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 1 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... • ........... 2 Frederick County Public Schools...................................................2 Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ............................2 Handley Regional Library-------------------------------------------------------- 3 Transportation Committee.......................................................... 3 Winchester Regional Airport ....................................................... 3 County Administration .. . . ................... . ..... • . - .. - ...........................4 2009-2010 CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP .................................................. 5 2009-2010 COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP........... 7 2009-2010 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS MAP ....................... . . . ... . ...... 9 2009-2010 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TABLE ...... . .................11 CIP TABLE EXPLANATIONS............................................................17 PROJECTFUNDING .................................................• --...,_...............17 PROJECTDESCRIPTIONS ...................................... ..... I... I................ 18 Frederick County Public Schools ............. . ............................... . .....18 Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ............................22 Handley Regional Library .......................... . . . ..............................27 Transportation Committee...........................................................29 Winchester Regional Airport ....................................................... 33 County Administration.............................................................. 38 Fireand Rescue ................................................... . .. . .. . . ... 39 Individual Fire & Rescue Company Requests ........................... •42 2009-2010 (;apita! Improvements ;Specific or Approximate Locations 4W Parks and Recreation 1 Sherando Park 2 Clearbrook Park 3 Future Western Parkland 4 Future Eastern Parkland County Administration I Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation 2 Gare Convenience Site Expansion 3 Annex Facility / Fire & Rescue Station 4 Round Hill Fire Station Relocation 5 Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation 6 Fire & Rescue Station 23 A009 - 2010 seder ,County Airport Library 1 Bowman Library - Parking Lot and Sidewalk Addition 7 2 Northern Frederick County Library Branch f 3 Library Branch - Senseny & Greenwood - 4 Library Branch - R1 522 South r. i � 4 r f SOS i r,. N .:. 4 / W E t:.. S Note: Coated by Frederick County Department or Plannlne & Development Map represents the Capital Improvmnnt Requests submitted by various county departments. 0 12,500 25,000 50,000 75,000 Gatti, ar s�.>�ia�:arQr�.,�s-�:�:nrvak.�.4r 0 2 4 Peet a 12 Miles P dh Existing Elementary Schools Existing High Schools Existing Middle Schools C:11, New School Location Altematives �° Urban Development Area SWSA Map Created by Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development 11106!08 :r I Replacement FCMS 2009-2010 New School L c J"Ofis Capital lnroveents Plan r1 so ; 7- is El.. School I 01, y #5 Middle School so n4 Elem School .���'" i 2 #4 High School i/ 7 ti A � f i i Sri f. rN+•' �. l�. __-.._•_ _ Pr N WsE 0 1 2 4 Miles i l � School Locations Are Most Appropriate Within the UDA QO aJ 4 @' ,f Mp/gy 4.� 5 a HIL( RD I—"---. _R0UN0H(LLRD Z_. a 37 V ao Q y= GDP 11 Stephens .ityr i� �siTfHq<C n--'4 HESS C / RD J.- K'DODg/N -\" RD 49 t SAINT CLAIR RD Dgr'gCAgRQ -iso y R0p j'Iti.. �.+' e tee° qw, DRUCETOWN RD f •J y CVfNDDBBMRD �q0 r✓. 37 h C � Ov RRIE RD 7 YMILL RD ,yj VALLE o� O f�� 9 2009 - 2010 Capital Improvement P[ar. ` r Trarsporteticr Projects RO CONTINUE RT37 PLANNING ENGINEERING WORK i 1-81 EXIT 307 RELOCATION 50 1. WARRIOR DR EXTENSION #%40 '3 TO NEW EXIT 307 _ P_ Rp CHANNING DRK'ANNIiy �a! EXTENSION TO RT 50 — �-, RT11 N OF W;NC WIDENING TO VN UNE MEL RD i BRUCETOVVN RDMOaEVVELL RD ALIGNMENTAND INTERSECTION SENSENY RD rr4W � WIDENING Qo EAST TEVIS EXTENSION TO RDWAY RUSSELL 150 V81 wF INVERLEE WAY; CONNECTION FROM RT50 TO SENSENY RD t s o FOX DR, INSTALL RT }}r Frodenci uou,ft Dept of TURN LANE ONTO RT522 R.—,q € Develop—I W7 NKent 51t 0%.* RENAISSANCE DR } Winchee+er, VA 2260. } www CCI FREDERICK VA US t Novemba, 06, 2008 Senseny Rd Bike & % J Pedestrian Improvements 9 County Total Project Department Priority Count Contribution Per Fiscal Year Contributions Notes Costs 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013 - Projects 2009-2010 2.011 2012 2013 2014 Public Schools Transportatfon Facility 4,800,000 10,500,000 3,220,000 $18,220,000, $18,220,000 Bass Hoover Elementary Kindergarten Renovation 464,000 636,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Replacement Frederick Middle 1,700.000 500,000, 22,500,000 9,292,000= $33,992,000 $33.992,000 Robert E Aylor Renovation 600,000 7,.375,000 7,725,000 3,375,000 2,925,000 $22,000,000 $22,000,000 Fourth High Sohool 6,000,000 1.500,000, 1,8,000"000 19.500,000 10.150,000 $65,250,0001556,260,000 . s' 1 56,260,000- Apple Pie Ridge Elementary Phase 2 Renovation TBD TBD PCPS Office Expansion Ph 243 500,000: 4,700,000 9,81;0-,0QQ $14,51=0,000 $1'4'5f0'000 James Wood High School Renov. TBD TBD :Bass Hoover Elementary Phase 2 Renovation TIBDI TS Fifth Middle School 2,250,000 1,000,000 3,829,000 $33,992,000 D $33,992,000 filem entary School # 13 1,125,000 700'*000 6,000,000 $23,200,000, t7 $.23,200,000, Elementary School #14 1,125,000 $23,200,000 D $23,200,000 Parks & Recreation �indoorAquatic Facility 15,163,0005 11,63,000, - 1, $1,511,63 1 1000 Clearbrook & Sherando Baseball Field Lighting 1,252,498 $1,252,498 1 1 $1,252,498 Park Land Western Fred, Co. 3;367j720 $3,367,728. 4367,726 Park Land Eastern Fred. Co. 4,490,510 10 $4,490,510 $4,490,510 . . Oke Trail (Phase 11) 462,6100 $462,600; $4,62,600 Clearbrook & Sherando Water Slide/Spray Ground 1,251,208 1 $1,251,208 $1,251,208 Sherando Soccer!Multl Use Fields 1.121,998 $1;121,968 $1,121,998 Sherando Maintenance Compound 374,310 $374,310 $374,310 Clearbrook Open Play Areas 478,565 $478,565 $478,565 Sherando Access Road w/Parking/Trails 1,540,626 $1,540,626 $1,540,626 Sherando Lake/Trans/Parking-2 Fields 1,360,610 $1,360,610 $1 Sherando Skateboard Park 513,089 $513,089 IZ6016fo' $513 . 1 089 Sherando Softball Complex 671,0621 $671,062 $671,062 Clearbrook Tennis/Basketball Complex 526,355 $526,355 $526,355 Sherando Picnic Areas 804,243 $804j243 $804,243 Clearbrook Shelter Stage 508,402 $508,402 $508,402 Multi -Generational Center 81602,605 $8,802,6.05 $8,802,605 Regional Library ,Bowman Parking Lot/Sidewalk 258,028 $48,028 $258,028 Gainesboro Branch 202,516 1,989,180 $2,191,696 $2,191,696 Serisenytdreenwood Branch NIA NEAI Route 522 Branch N/A l I N/Al County Total Project Department Priority Count Contribution Per Fiscal Year Contributions Notes Costs 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013 - Projects 2009-2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Transportation 'Route 37 Engineering 300,000,000 $300,000,000 E $3001000,900 1-81 Exit 307 Relocation $60,000,000 E $60,000,000 Warrior Drive Extension $23,200,060 E $23,200,000 Channing Drive Extension $20,600,000 E $20,600,000 Widening of Route 11 North $47,800,000 E $47,800,009, Brucetown/Hopewell Realign. $3,000,000 E $3,000,000 Senseny Road Widening $22,800,000 E $22-8001000 East Tevis Street Extension $2,600,000 E $2,600,000 1nverlee Way Fox Drive $250,000 E $250,000 Rennaisance Drive $2,000,000 Senseny Road Pike & Ped 150,000 150,000 150,000 1,550,000 $2,000,000 E $2,000,000 Revenue Sh? aring. 500,000 500,000 500,000: 600,000, 500.000 $5,0001000 a $3,000,000, Eastern Road Plan Improvements TBD TBD Winchester Airport Rehab R/W14/32, Upgrade Airfield D4 430,000 $8,600 A,81 $430,000 Land Acquisition, Lot 50 325,000 $65,000 A $325,000 Rehab RNV14132, Upgrade Airfield Construction 4,000,000 $80,000, A,B $4,000,000 N Side TM Connector Construction 1,250,000 $25,000 A $1,250,000 TaxlWay Reloc Project (Ph. MI) 11,860,000 12,500,000 $237,666 A,B $24,350,000 Land Acquisition, Lots 51, 52 35,000 550,000 $117,000 A $585,000 Design Terminal Building Renovation 300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Construct Terminal Building Renovation 3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Replace HVAC Terminal Building 330,0100 $330,000 $330,000, Renovate Interior Terminal Building 150,000 $75,000 $150,000 Airfield Maintenance Building 330,000 250,000 $234,70 ,A $ 80100Q Land Acquisition, Lots 47,47A,48 35,000 735,000 $154,000 A $7701000' ;,Land Acquisition, Lots 54,68 36.000 585,0001 $124'boo 666, Land Acquisition, Lots 64,65 35,000 $124,000 A,D $620,000 Land Acquisition, Lots 66,67 36,0001 $85,000 $124,000 A $620,000 County Total Project Department Priority Co nty Contribution Per Fiscal Year Contributions Notes Costs 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013 - Projects 2009-2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 County Administration Relocation of Gainesboro Site 462,500 $462:500 $462,500 Relocation/Expansion Gore Site 50,000 385,500 $435,500 $435,500 General Government Capital Expe 200,00.0 200,000 200.,000 200,000 200,000 $1,000,000 E $1;000,000 Fire & Rescue Erre & Rescue Station #22 (277) 400,000 1,100,000 1,600,000. $3,100;.000 Fire & Rescue Station #22 (277) Apparatus 100,000 700,000 $800,000 $800,000 Station #15 (Bound Hill) Relocation I $4.60$,16Q $4,i30�,1et3; Station #13 (Clearbrook) Relocation 3,240,000 $3,240,000 $3,240,000 nation # 23 (Crosspointe) New Facility 50,gtio l oo,000 1,00.0,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000; Regional Training Center I 75,0001 1,250,000 10,000,000 6,500,000 $1,075,000 D $29,075,000 Fire & Rescue Capital tqUipment 200,0061 200,0001 200,000 200,000 200,000. $1,00(,00b E X$1,000,000 See following Fire & Rescue Company Capital Equipment Requests Total 7-T $861,704, 293, Fire & Rescue Company Capital Equipment Requests Technical Rescue Equipment for Stephens City Fire &Rescue $10$,000$105,000' Groundwater Reduction Project for Greenwood Vol Fite & fescue Co. $0,,000 Ambulance Replacement Project for Greenwood Vol, Fire & Rescue Co. $1i7,i700 Pumper/Tanker for Middletown Vol, Fire & Rescue Co. $552,OOtJ $552.,000' Ambulance for Middletown Vol, Fire & Rescuer Co, $200,000 $200,000 North Mtn. Fire & Rescue Station Modification $32,000 $32,000; North Mtn Fire & Rescue Station Medic Unit Ace ulsistion $159,000 $159,DOfi= A= Partial funding from VA Dept. of Aviation NIA= Not Available B= Partial funding from FAA TBD= To be Determined C= Partial funding from private donations D= Funding goes beyond displayed 5 years E= Partial funding anticipated through development & revenue sources LA Total $1,248,000 THE CIP TABLE CONTENT DESCRIPTIONS The Capital hnprovements Plan table, on the previous pages, contains a list of the capital r improvement projects proposed for the ensuing five years. A description or the information in this table is explained below. Department PriorFby- The priority rating assigned by each agency or department for their requested projects. Project Description- The name of the capital improvement projects. Country Contribution- The estimated. dollar value that -will be contributed for each project. This value is listed by individual fiscal years and by total contributions over the five-year period. The total contribution column, located to the right of the fiscal year columns, does not include debt service projections. Notes- Indicates the footnotes that apply to additional funding sources for particular projects. Total Project Costs- The cost for each project, including county allocations and other funding sources. PROJECT FUNDING The projects included in the 2009-2010 Capital Improvements Plan have a total project cost to the county of $529,554;293primarily over the next five years. • School projects are funded through a combination of loans from the Virginia Public School Authority and the Virginia Literary Fund. • Funding for Parks and Recreation Department projects will come from the unreserved fund balance of the County. The Parks and Recreation Commission will actively seek grants and private sources of funding for projects not funded by the county. • Airport projects will be funded by contributions from the federal, state, and local governments. The local portion may include contributions from Frederick, Clarke, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties, and the City of Winchester. • The inclusion of transportation projects to the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be independently undertaking these projects. Funding projects will continue to come from a combination of state and federal funds, developer contributions, andrevenuesharing. 17 Frederick County ]Public Schools Proiect Priority Dist Psn—�r� �TOn rm Transportation Facility Description: This project involves the site acquisition, approximately 50 acres, and development of a new transportation facility for the public school system. The site will house administration, driver training areas, driver and staff meeting areas, mechanical service and repair bays, inspection bay, wash bay, and fueling bays. Capital Cost: $18,220,000 Justification: The current transportation site has outgrown the current facilities and there is not suf�cient area to expand. The increase in student membership, coupled with stringent laws and regulations that govern the operation and maintenance of school transportation vehicles, requires a much larger and upgraded transportation facility. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 24 months. PRIORITY 2 * Bass Hoover Elementary School Renovations Description: Currently, Bass -Hoover serves grades R-5. The building is in good condition, but several major issues reed to be addressed. These items will be addressed in two phases. This project represents the first phase. A building addition will be needed in this phase to address the implementation of a full-day kindergarten program in the fall of 2009. In the second phase, a renovation of the remaining facility will be completed. Several of the major issues to be addressed in this renovation include open classroom space, ADA compliance, energy conservation, security, and upgrades of fire alarm, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems. Capital Cost: $1,100,000 Justification: These renovations are needed to a number of areas to insure economic and efficient operation of the schools for years to come and to accommodate a full day kindergarten program. Construction Schedule: Begin Construction FY 09-10 PRIORITY 3 Replacement of Frederick County Middle School Description: The replacement of Frederick County Middle School will have a program capacity of 850 students and serve grades 6-8. The project location has been requested in the western portion of Frederick County between Route 50 West and Route 522 North in the area of Hayfield Road. It will contain approximately 166,000 square feet of floor area and be located on approximately 35 acres. Capital Cost: $33,992,000 Justification: With the need for renovations at the current school to major mechanical systems, items dealing with ADA compliance, increasing membership, location of the 18 facility, concern for best building configuration for the delivery of instruction, and the connectivity to other depar-mient projects. Construction Schedule. Construction will take 36 months. P><'1ORITY 4 Robert F. Aylor Middle School Renovation Description: This project involves renovations of the current facility. Major areas to be included in the project are additional classroom space and storage space; a complete replacement of fire alarm and communication systems, plus roof replacement; upgrade of electrical and plumbing; and complete replacement of mechanical systems. Capital Cost: $22,000,000 Justification: Robert B. Aylor Middle School is soon to be 37 years of age and renovations are needed to a number of different areas to ensure economic and efficient operation of the school for years to come. Construction Schedule: 48 Months PRIORITY 5 Fourth High School Description: This project consists of the development of a fourth high school serving grades 9-12 with a program capacity of 1,250 students. Tile project location has yet to be determined, but will have a floor area of approximately 242,000 square feet and is to be located on approximately 80 acres of land. Capital Cost: $55,250,000 Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment in the school division over the next five years. It is anticipated that student enrollment will increase at all levels. Student enrollment in the high schools by the fall of 2012 is projected to be 4,257. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 48 months PRIORITY 6* Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School Renovations Description: Currently, the building serves grades K-5. The building is in good condition; however, several major areas need to be addressed. These items will be addressed in two phases. The first phase, kindergarten renovation, was completed this summer. In the second phase, a renovation of the remaining facility will be completed. Several of the major issues to be addressed in this renovation include open classroom space, ADA compliance, energy conservation, security, and upgrades of fire alarm, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems. Capital Cost: $TBD 19 Justification: Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School is over 30 years old and renovation is needed to a number of areas to ensure the economical and efficient operations of the school for years to come. Construction Schedule: Begin Construction FY 11-12 PIZTORITY '? Frederick County Administrative Office Expansion Description: The facility contains 20,592 square feet, which does not include the 5,000 square foot Annex that is currently being constructed or the seven modular units that have been added to help address the need for additional space. The expansion will address the need for office and meeting space, will take advantage of advances in technology, and will provide mechanical, plumbing and electrical wiring to code. Capital Cost: $14,510,000 Justification: The administrative offices will serve 110 current staff housed in the present Frederick County Public Schools Administration building. Construction Schedule: 24 Months PRIORITY 8 James Wood High School Renovation Description: This project involves renovations of the existing facility. Major areas to be included in the project include increased electrical service and distribution to support technology; technology cabling, hardware, and its installation; upgrade of plumbing and mechanical systems; and modification of instructional areas to support instructional delivery. Capital Cost: $TBD Justification: Updating the facility will assist the school division in meeting the community needs for the citizens and high school student in the James Wood High School attendance zone. Construction Schedule: July 2012 PRIORITY 9* Bass Hoover Elementary School Renovations Description: Currently, the building serves grades K-5. The building is in good condition; however, several major areas need to be addressed. These items will be addressed in two phases. In this second phase, a renovation of the remaining facility will be completed. Several of the major issues to be addressed in this renovation include open classroom space, ADA compliance, energy conservation, security, and upgrades of fire alarm, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems. Capital Cost: $TBD 20 Justification: Bass Hoover Elementary School is over 30 years old and renovation is needed to a number of areas to ensure the economical and efficient operations of the school for years to come. Construction Schedule: Begin Construction FY 11-12,36 months PRIORITY 10 Fifth Middle School Description: This project consists of the development of a new middle school serving grades 6-8 with a capacity of 850 students. The project location has yet to be determined but will have a moor area of approximately 166,000 square feet and will be located on approximately 35 acres of land. Capital Cost: $33,992,000 Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment in the school division over the next seven years. It is anticipated that student enrollment will increase at all levels. A projection using cohort migration shows enrollment in the middle schools by the fall of 2015 to be 3,460. Based on this projection, it will be necessary to construct the fifth middle school in Frederick County to open in that time frame. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 48 months. PRJORIT_Y1 1 Elementary School 413 Description: This is a single -story elementary school with a floor area of approximately 100,000 square feet located on 15 acres. The facility will be designed to accommodate a student membership of 750. The outdoor facilities will include three pods of grade -level appropriate playground equipment, one asphalt play area, one softball field, and a physical education field. This facility will meet or exceed all Virginia Department of Education's new construction requirements for K-5 elementary schools. Capital Cost: $23,200,000 Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrolhnent in the school division over the next six years. It is anticipated that student enrollment will increase at all levels. A projection using cohort migration shows enrollment in the elementary schools by the fall of 2014 to be 6,627. Based on this projection, implementation of full-day kindergarten, and renovations at Apple Pie Ridge and Bass - Hoover Elementary Schools, it will be necessary to construct the 13th elementary school in Frederick County to open in that time frame. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 36 months. 21 PRIORITY 12 Elementary Seh oo? 914 Description: This is a single -story elementary school with a floor area of approximately 100,000 square feet located on 15 acres. The facility will be designed to accommodate a student membership of 750. The outdoor facilities will include three pods of grade -level appropriate playground equipment, one asphalt play area, one softball field, and a physical education field. This facility will meet or exceed all Virginia Department of Education new construction requirements for K-5 elementary schools. Capital Cost: $23,200,000 Justification: Significant residential grow*?i in Frederick County is expected to resume once the economy recovers, with the result that school enrollment is expected to exceed program capacity in FY 2019-20. Construction Schedule: Construction will take 36 months. Parks & Recreation Department Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Indoor Aquatic Facility Description: 111-1111s facility would house a leisure and competitive lap swimming pool with an office, storage and locker rooms. This facility should be located on property owned or proffered to the County and would utilize approximately 8-12 acres with parking. Capital Cost: $15,163,000 Justification: There are no indoor public pools in Frederick County. By constructing the indoor pool, it would permit the department to meet citizen programming demands, provide an instructional facility, as well as provide the area with a facility that would attract new businesses to the community. This facility would be available to all area residents. The construction of this project will provide a facility to offer year round recreational programming for the residents of Frederick County and provide a facility for competitive scholastic programs. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10. PRIORITY 2 Baseball Field Lighting Upgrade Description: This project involves upgrading the lighting at both Clearbrook and Sherando Parks Baseball Facilities. The upgrade would involve the removal of the existing fixtures and wooden poles and their replacement with fixtures that meet Little League International Standards on all little league fields. Capital Cost: $1,252,498 22 Justification: This project will provide recreational opportunities for the Clearbrook Park and Sherando Park service area which includes all county residents. Park visitation at the two district Parks exceeds 425,000 annually and is Bowing. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 PRIORITY 3 Park Land — Western Frederick County Description: Parkland acquisition in the western portion of the county. Capital Cost: $3,367,728 Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county population. This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick- County rederickCounty service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The location of this project would provide parkland to create more accessible recreational facilities to residents in western Frederick County. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 PRIORITY 4 Park Land - Eastern Frederick Couu-ty Description: Parkland acquisition in the eastern portion of the county. Capital Cost: $4,490,510 Justifcation: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county population. The park would be located in the primary growth center of Frederick County. This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick County service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11. PRIORITY 5 Bike Trail Phase II - Sherando Park Description: 10' bike/pedestrian trail at Sherando Park, north side of Route 277, and running from the existing trail, parallel to Warrior Drive, and joining with the trail at the Old Dominion Greens Subdivision. The design and engineering has been completed for this project. Capital Cost: $462,600 Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park service area and the entire Frederick County Community. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11. 23 PRIORITY 6 Swim—ming Pool Improvements – Sherando/IClearbrook DescripE o n: This project consists of removing the diving boards and installing two water slides at both Sherando and Clearbrook Park. The upgrade Nvould also include the addition of a spray ground with 10-12 features at each pool. Capital Cost: $1,251,208 Justification: This project is expected to increase pool attendance by 30 percent while providing recreational opportunities for both the Sherando and Clearbrook Park service areas. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11. PRIORITY 7 Soccer Complex- Sherando Park Description: This project includes the development of one soccer field (artificial grass); access paths; restrooms; concession; one picnic shelter; a plaza; landscaping; and lighting (one field). Capital Cost: $1,121,998 Justification: This facility will serve the entire county population and will be utilized by the Frederick County School System. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 PRIORITY 8 Maintenance Compound and Office – Sherando Park Description: This project involves the construction of a 1,200 square -foot office and a 4,000 square -foot storage shed for operation at Sherando Park. Capital Cost: $374,310 Justification: This facility will enable the County to maintain equipment and facilities in a more responsible and effective manner. The additional responsibility to maintain the outdoor facilities at Sherando High School, Robinson Learning Center, Armel Elementary, Orchard View Elementary, Bass Hoover Elementary, Middletown Elementary, R.E. Aylor Middle, Admiral Byrd Middle, and Evendale Elementary, increases the need for more storage, maintenance, and office space. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12 PRIORITY 9 Open Play Area – Clearbrook Description: This project includes development of a picnic shelter; six horseshoe pits; a volleyball court; croquet turf, shuffleboard; parking; refurbishing the existing concession 24 stand; landscaping (14 shade trees); peripheral work; and renovations to existing shelters, restrooms, access paths, and parking areas on the south side of the late. Capital Cost: $478,565 Justification: These facilities will provide recreational oppo_tun ties for the Clearbrook Park Service Area which will lessen the disparity between the number of passive recreational areas needed to meet the minimum standards for this service area. Clearbrook Park offers the best location for this development. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12. PRIORITY 10 Access Road with Parking and Trails- Sherando Park T ____ Le�cnption: This project involves the development of an entrance and 1,800 linear feet of access roadway from Warrior Drive; a 100 space parking area; and 2.8 miles of trails. Capital Cost: $1,540,626 Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service area. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY I 1-12_ PRsORITY 11 Lake, Parking, and Trail Development with two Multi-purpose Fields Description: This project involves the development of a 12 acre lake; 1.5 mile trail system around the lake; 800 linear feet of access roadway; lighted parking lot with 125 spaces; and development of two irrigated 70x120 yard multi-purpose fields. Capital Cost: $1,360,610 Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service area. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12. PRIORITY 12 Skateboard Park - Sherando Park Description: This project recommends the development of a skateboard bowl; a half pipe; an open skate area; vehicle parking; an access road; fencing; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $513,089 25 Justification: This facility will enable the County to provide a recreational facility that has been identified in the County Comprehensive Plan for recreational facility development. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13. PRIORITY 13 Softball Complex- Sherando Park Description: This project includes two softball fields; an access road; parking spaces; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $671,062 Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for the entire county population, as well as the Frederick County School System. Presently, there are ten softball and baseball fields within the county's regional park system. Eight of the existing fields must serve a dual purpose of facilitating youth baseball, as well as adult softball programs. With the increased usage of these fields, it has become increasingly difficult to facilitate these programs. This project is needed in order for the Parks and Recreation Department to accommodate the existing demand for youth baseball and adult softball programs. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13 PRIORITY 14 TerinisBasketball Complex- Clearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of four tennis courts; two basketball courts; a shelter; access pati ns; parking; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $526,355 Justification: These facilities will be available to all county residents. Currently, there are no tennis courts or basketball courts in the Clearbrook Park Service Area. Clearbrook Park is utilized by over 180,000 visitors annually; therefore, these facilities are needed. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13 PRIORITY 15 Picnic Area- Sherando Park Description: This project includes a restroom/concession area; four picnic shelters; playground area; access paths; parking; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $804,243 Justification: These facilities would be used by the residents of Sherando Park service area. This area of the county is growing and is deficient in passive recreational opportunities. This development is needed to reduce the gap between the number of existing facilities and the minimum standards for the Sherando Park service area and southeastern Frederick County. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 13-14 26 PRIORITY 16 Shelter/Stage Seating- Clearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of a shelter with a performance stage; refurbishing existing restrooms and access paths; and renovations to the take. Capital Cost: $508,402 Justification: This facility would be used by the entire county population. Presently, there are no facilities to accommodate cultural programs within the county's park system. This project is needed to provide a facility for cultural activities. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 13-14 PRIORITY 17 Multi -Generational Community Center Description: The project involves building a 44,000 square foot facility that would contain an indoor track and at least two basketball courts. The court area would be designed to be used by indoor soccer, baseball, softball, wrestling, volleyball, tennis and badminton. The area could also be used for special events. Additionally, the project would house a fitness center, multi-purpose rooms, office, storage, and locker rooms. Capital Cost: $8,802,605 Justification: This facility would give the Parks and Recreation Department the ability to offer year round recreational programming to the residents of Frederick County. The department can no longer meet the programming and facility needs of the County residents. Construction Schedule: FY 13-14 Handley Regional Library Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension Description: This proposal is to expand the parking lot on the Lakeside Drive side of the library from 101 to 221 parking spaces, and to provide a sidewalk that will extend approximately 400 to 500 feet beyond the sidewalk that now borders the parking lot to connect to the sidewalk on Lakeside Drive. Capital Cost: $258,028 Justification: The parking lot expansion is needed to relieve overcrowding and to acconunodate library patrons. The sidewalk is necessary to provide safe access for pedestrians to the library. Planning consideration for alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle connectivity should also be considered. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 27 PRIORITY 2 Northern Frederick County — Gainesboro Library Branch Description: Construction of a 7,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. branch library. Initial parking should be for at least 50 vehicles. The proposed location would be on Rt. 522 in the Gainesboro district, but this could change depending on patterns of library use in the next 3 to 4 years and on whether donated land could be located. The acquisition of the land of 3 to 4 acres would be in fiscal year 2008/2009. There is discussion as a possible reuse of the old Gainesboro School as a library branch, but this is a decision to be made by the Board of Supervisors after further study. Capital Cost: $2,191,696 Justification: Now that the Bowman Library is completed, the residents of Gainesboro district comprise the largest population group that is the most distance from a librar=y within the regional system. The Library will provide materials and programming for patrons from toddlers to senior citizens. It will provide recreational and educational materials. It will be a prime source for homework help since it will be open nights and on weekends when school libraries are closed. The library will supply computer access for word processing and other office applications and for Internet usage. There will be a meeting room in which area groups can meet. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11/12 PRIORITY 3 Frederick County Library Branch — Senseny/Greenwood Description: Construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. branch library with expansion possible to 15,000 square feet. Initial parking should be for up to 100 vehicles. The proposed location is yet to be determined and is dependent on future development. The first step of the project would be the acquisition of the land of 5 to 8 acres. Capital Cost: NIA Justification: A library in this area would meet the needs of Frederick County citizens by reducing traffic into Winchester. Parents and other library users will use the library more often if they do not have to come downtown to Handley Library. This area also lacks a community center; a library with a meeting room could help fill this need. The Library will provide materials and programming for patrons from toddlers to senior citizens. It will provide recreational and educational materials. It will be a prime source for homework help since it will be open nights and on weekends when school libraries are closed. The library will supply computer access for word processing and other office applications and for Internet usage. There will be a meeting room of 425 square feet in which area groups can meet. Construction Schedule: TBD 28 PRIORITY 4 Frederick County Library Branch- Route 522 South Description: Construction of a 7,000 sq. ft. branch library with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet. Initial parking should be for up to 35 vehicles. The proposed location is yet to be determined and is dependent on future development. The first step of the project would be the acquisition of the land of 3 to 4 acres. Capital Cost: N/A Justification: This population group is not close to a library in the regional system. This area also lacks a community center that a library with meeting room could help fill this need. The Library will provide materials and programming for patrons from toddlers to senior citizens. It will provide recreational and educational materials. It will be a prime source for homework help since it will be open nights and on :weekends when school libraries are closed. The library will supply computer access for word processing and other office applications and for Internet usage. There will be a meeting room of 425 square feet in which area groups can meet. Construction Schedule: TBD Transportation Committee Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Planning, Engineering, Right of Way and Construction Work for Route 37 Description: This project would be to continue work on the Eastern Route 37 extension. More specifically, to update the Environmental Impact Statement to the point of a new Record of Decision and to update the 1992 design plans to address the current alignment, engineering guidelines, and possible interchange improvements. In addition, this allows for advanced engineering, right of way purchase and construction. Capital Cost: $300,000,000 + Justification: This project moves the County closer to completion of a transportation improvement that would benefit the entire county and surrounding localities. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 2 Interstate 81, Exit 307 Relocation Description: Construct a relocated Exit 307 interchange. Capital Cost: $60,000,000 Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion in many areas of the County and address coming development to the surrounding areas. Construction Schedule: TBD al PRIORITY 3 Warrior Drive Extension Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Route 277 where `w arrior Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south and west to intersect with I-81 at the location of the relocated Exat 307 interchange. Capital Cost: $23,200,000 Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion in the Southern Frederick area and address development to the surrounding areas. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 4 Channing Drive Extension Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road where Channing Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south to intersect with Route 50 East at Independence Drive. Capital Cost: $20;600,000 Justification: This project has been identified in the Eastern Road Plan, and will address congestion in Eastern Frederick County and address development to the surrounding areas. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 5 Widening of Route 11 North to the West Virginia State Line Description: Improve Route 11 to a divided 4 and 6 -lane facility as detailed in the Eastern Road Plan. Capital Cost: $47,800,000 Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion over a large area of the County and address development to the surrounding area. This ing public by reducing congestion and improving project improves the safety for the travel the flow of traffic. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 6 Brucetown Road/Hopewell Road Alignment and Intersection Improvements Description: Realign. Brucetown Road to meet Hopewell Road at Route 11. Improvements to this intersection will address comprehensive planned development's traffic generation in the area. Capital Cost: $3,000,000 30 Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on the Route 11 corridor. The location is identified by joint planning efforts between the county and VDOT. Construction Schedule: TDD PRIORITY 7 Senseny Road Widening Description: Widen Senseny Road to a 4 -lane divided roadway. This project is not dependent upon, but is being coordinated with the implementation of Route 37, Channing Drive, and development in the area. Capital Cost: $22,800,000 Justification: This is a transportation ii��provement that will have significant impact on Eastern Frederick County. This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY S East Tevis Street Extension Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Route 522 and going west approximately 0.2 guiles to connect to the road network being constructed by the Russell 150 development. Capital Cost: $2,600,000 Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion in many areas of the County and address development to the surrounding area. The location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the county, VDOT, and the developer. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 9 Inverlee Way Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road and going south to Route 50 East. This project is being planned in conjunction with improvements to Senseny Road and surrounding development. Capital Cost: $10,200,000 Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion and provide an additional needed link between Senseny Road and Route 50 East. Construction Schedule: TBD 31 PRIORITY 10 Fox Drive Description: Add additional turning lane(s) to Fox Drive where it intersects with Route 522 North. Capital Cost: $250,000 Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at this intersection. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 11 Renaissance Drive Description: Construct a connector road between Route 11 and Shady Elm Drive. Capital Cost: $2,000,000 Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at key points along Route 11 and Apple Valley Dr.. This project is identified in Secondary Road Improvements Plan. Construction Schedule: TBD PRIORITY 12 Revenue Sharing Description: Plan to prepare for fixture revenue sharing applications. Capital Cost: $3,000,000 Justification: This project is intended to prepare the col-mty for future revenue sharing applications that may or may not include developer contributions. Construction Schedule: NIA PRIORITY 13 Senseny Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Description: This project will construct bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Senseny Road from Greenwood Road to the 1-81 crossover. Capital Cost: $2,000,000 Justification: This project will improve pedestrian safety along a corridor surrounded by residential development and centered upon the Senseny Road Elementary School. Construction Schedule: N/A 32 PRIORITY 14 Freder=cz County Eastern Road Nan Description: This project is intended to address all of the planned transportation improvements in the County Comprehensive Plan, Easter^ Road Plan that are not noted individually above. Capital Cost: TBD Justification: This project prepares the county for future development by addressing the projects needed to support that development in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Construction Schedule: N/A Winchester Regional Airport Project Priority ]List PRIORITY 1 Rehab R/W 14/32, Upgrade Airfield Lighting Design Description: Design of Runway Rehab and Lighting Upgrade. Capital Cost: $430,000 Local Cost: $8,600 Justification: This design project involves the rehabilitation of runway 14-32 to renew the life of the existing pavement. Also included is an upgrade to the runway lighting comprised of new high intensity runway lights and the installation of a new four box PAPI, which provides a greater accuracy for pilots on final approach to the runway. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 PRIORITY 2 Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcel 50 Description: Acquisition of parcel located along Bufflick Road. Property is included in the 20 Year Master Plan. Capital Cost: $325,000 Local Cost: $65,000 the identified Justification: This project is necessary as fied parcels are located within the Airport's FAR Part 77 primary surface and/or approach surface. In addition, several of the residential parcels are located inside the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The FAA considers residential use within the noise contour non -compatible with airport operations. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 33 PRIORITY 3 Rehab R/W 14/32, Upgrade Airfield Lighting Construction Description: Cons action of Runway Rehab and Lighting Upgrade. Capital Cost: $4,000,000 Local Cost: $80,000 Justiufatioii: This construction project involves the rehabilitation of runway 14-32 to renew the life of the existing pavement. Also included is an upgrade to the runway lighting comprised of new high intensity runway lights and the installation of a new four box PAPI, which provides a greater accuracy for pilots on final approach to the runway. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 PRIORITY 4 North Side Taxiway Connector — Construction Description: A new taxiway connector on the north side of the airport is proposed to increase access to the runway and as part of an overall airport improvement to improve capacity. Capital Cost: $1,250,000 Local Cost: $25,000 Justification: The construction of the north side taxiway will allow for an increase in the number of based aircraft, in business traffic, and additional hanger space for the airport to lease out. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 PRIORITY 5 Taxiway A Relocation — Phase I c& II Design and Construction Description: The relocation of Taxiway A is part of the overall Airport upgrade to meet safety design standards for a Group III airport. This relocation will improve the serviceability and safety of the Airport in regards to ground operations for larger aircraft. Due to the complex task of relocating the entire taxiway, the project has been broken down into two phases — Phase I will begin at the 32 approach end and continue to the terminal building midfield. Phase H will continue from the terminal building to the approach end of runway 14. Capital Cost: $24,350,000 Local Cost: $237,000 Justification: The relocation of Taxiway A is necessary to increase the Airport's ability to accommodate larger aircraft. This project also will improve the serviceability of the Airport in regards to ground traffic. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 34 PRIORJTY 6 Lang Acquisition — Buftlick Road — PaF cels 51, & 52 Description: The Wi<rchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire Parcels 51 and 52 on Bufflick Road. These parcels are critical because a portion of each is located within the airport primary surface, and the structures on the property are located closest to the runway. Capital Cost: $585,000 Local Cost: $117,000 Justification: Parcels 51 and 52 lie within the runway's primary surface at the Winchester Regional Airport. Structures on the property are also located closed to the runway. The airport has completed all preliminary efforts (i.e. appraisal, surveys, EDDA, etc.) and has made its initial offer along with negotiations and will act to complete this transaction to ultimately improve safety conditions at the airport_ Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 PRIORITY 7 Terminal Building Renovation, Design Phase Description: The Winchester Regional Airport proposes a complete renovation of the terminal building_ This renovation includes interior work (including floor layout), exterior work (including new windows and walls), and mechanical and electrical system replacement. Capital Cost: $300,000 Local Cost: $300,000 Justification: There are currently 130 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional _A_irport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will use the general aviation terminal building on a regular basis. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 PRIORITY 8 Terminal Building Renovation, Phase I Construction (Exterior) Description: This project proposes complete renovation of the terminal building. Phase I of this renovation involves all exterior work, including new windows and walls, and all other items pertaining to the stability of the building. Capital Cost: $3,000,000 Local Cost: $3,000,000 Justification: There are currently 130 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will use the general aviation terminal building on a regular basis. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12 35 PRIORIT �7 9 Terminal Building Renovation, Phase II Construction (Systems) Description: The Winchester Regional Airport proposes a complete renovation of the terminal building. This portion of the renovation includes the installation of new mechanical and electrical syste��,s along with a new HVAC system. Capital Cost: $330,000 Local Cost: $330,000 Justification: There are currently 130 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will use the general aviation terminal building on a regular basis. Constr-tion Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13 PRIORITY 10 Terminal Building Renovation, Phase III Construction (Interior) Description: The Winchester Regional Airport proposes a complete renovation of the terminal building. This portion of the renovation includes interior work and furnishings for the new terminal building. Capital Cost: $150,000 Local Cost: $150,000 Justification: There are currently 130 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional Airport. The owners and passengers of these aircraft will use the general aviation terminal building on a regular basis. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13 PRIORITY 11 Airfield Maintenance Building Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to design an airfield maintenance equipment storage facility and site. This project includes site grading, all building materials, and connection to all necessary utilities. Capital Cost: $580,000 Local Cost: $234,750 Justification: Airfield maintenance equipment is currently stored in an old barn or outside at several locations around the airport. Having equipment spread out creates manpower challenges, and having equipment stored outside accelerates the aging of the equipment. The consolidation of the airport maintenance equipment under one roof will help to improve maintenance storage conditions. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 36 PRIORITY 12 Land Acquisition - llrifflick Read - Parcels 47, 47A, & 48 Descriptiow The Winchester Regio_�al Air -port Authority proposes to acquire Par cls 47, 47A and 48 on Bufflick Road. These parcels are critical because a portion of each is located within the airport primary surface, and the structures on the property are located closest to the runway. Capital Cost: $770,000 Local Cost: $154,000 Justification: Parcels 47 and 47A lie within the runway's primary surface at the Winchester Regional Airport. Structures on the property are also located closed to the runway. The airport has completed all preliminary efforts (i.e. appraisal, surveys, EDDA, etc.) and has made its initial offer along with ne,,otiations and will act to complete this transaction to ultimately improve safety conditions at the airport. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12 PRIORITY 13 Land Acquisition - Bufflick Road - Parcels 54 and 68 Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire two additional parcels on Bufflick Road identified on the Airport property map as Parcels 54 and 68. These parcels are critical because a portion of each is located within the airport primary surface, and the structures on the property are located closest to the runway. Capital Cost: $620,000 Local Cost: $124,000 Justification: The two additional parcels on Bufflick Road lie within the runway's primary surface at the Winchester Regional Airport. Structures ori the property are also located closed to the runway. The airport has completed all preliminary efforts (i.e. appraisal, surveys, EDDA, etc.) and has made its initial offer along with negotiations and will act to complete this transaction to ultimately improve safety conditions at the airport. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13 PRIORITY 14 Land Acquisition - Bufflick Road - Parcels 64 and 65 Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire two additional parcels on Bufflick Road identified on the Airport property map as Parcels 64 and 65. These parcels are critical because a portion of each is located within the airport primary surface, and the structures on the property are located closest to the runway. Capital Cost: $620,000 Local Cost: $124,000 Justification: The two additional parcels on Bufflick Road lie within the runway's ional Airport. Structures on the property are also primary surface at the Winchester Reg located closed to the runway. The airport has completed all preliminary efforts (i.e. 37 appraisal, surveys, EDDA, etc.) and has made its initial offer along with negotiations and will act to complete this transaction to ultimately improve safety conditions at the airport. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15 PRIORITY 15 Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 66 and 67 Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire two additional parcels on Bufflick Road identified on the Airport property map as Parcels 66 and 67. These parcels are critical because a portion of each is located within the airport primary surface, and the structures on the property are located closest to the runway. Capital Cost: $620,000 Local Cost: $124,000 Justification: The two additional parcels on Bufflick Road lie within the runway's primary surface at the Winchester Regional Airport. Structures on the property are also located closed to the runway. The airport has completed all preliminary efforts (i.e. appraisal, surveys, EDDA, etc.) and has made its initial offer along with negotiations and will act to complete this transaction to ultimately improve safety conditions at the airport. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 13-14 County Administration Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation Description: The relocation of the Gainesboro citizens' convenience site to property located within the Gainesboro community is planned for the 09/10 fiscal year. Remaining design work will be completed during the current fiscal year. A fenced, accessible two - acre site will be constructed along North Frederick. Pike in close proximity to the existing site on Old Gainesboro Road. This project will require several months to complete and include fencing, earthwork, a retaining wall, electric, lighting, paving and landscaping. Capital Cost: $462,500 Justification: Approximately 4,000 residents are served by the Gainesboro facility. The refuse site serves a wide geographic area from Gainesboro westward to the Cross Junction, Whitacre and Reynolds Store communities. Construction Schedule: Start in FY 09-10 PRIORITY 2 Gore Refuse Site Relocation/Expansion Description: The project will expand refuse collection capacity at Gore by installing a surplus trash compactor. With the relocation of the Gainesboro site and purchase of new equipment, there will be an available compactor. Installation of a compactor at Gore will 38 drive down collection costs at the site where trash is now collected in 10 8 -yard boxes. In order to accomplish this, and account for improved traffic flow and the construction of necessary concrete walls, the site will be expanded onto an adjoining parcel already owned by the county. Capital Cost: $435,500 Justification: This project would also provide much-needed capacity during heavy flow tunes such as weekends and holidays. All 10 containers now on site fill to capacity during Saturday afternoons and during the Sunday shift when up to 189 vehicles visit the facility. A40 -yard roil -off is placed at the site during the Christmas holidays to provide for increased trash generation. An upgraded site would meet the future solid waste demands of a growing community. Construction Schedule: Start in FY 10-11 County Administratiou Continued• Fire & Rescue Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Fire & Rescue Station 422 / Annex Facilities (Route 277) Description: Construct a two bay Fire and Rescue Station with satellite Sheriff s office and County office space for treasure, commissioner of the revenue, and BOS office .with meeting room. The station will be located in the area of Fairfax Pike east of White Oak Road to provide service for the heavy growth area east of Stephens City. An approximate three -acre site will be needed to accommodate this facility. The fire station will be approximately a 10,000 sq ft facility to house an engine and ambulance. This facility is specifically identified in the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land _ Use Plan approved itn 2008. Capital Cost: $3,100,000 Justification: The development of satellite offices along major transportation networks and in areas of dense population will provide ease of access for citizens and will improve services to the county. The County continues to experience .a significant rate of growth; therefore, it is important to provide services within these areas instead of requiring citizens to confront congestion, limited parking, and accessibility in the City of Winchester. This facility would facilitate the implement the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Plan approved in 2008. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 PRIORITY 2 Fire & Rescue Station 422 / Apparatus (Route 277) Description: Purchase one (1) custom pumper equipped and one (1) custom Type I Advanced Life Support (A.L.S.) capable ambulance equipped to be assigned to Fire and Rescue Station 22. Capital Cost: $800,000 39 Justification: This fire and rescue apparatus will be assigned to Fire and Rescue Station 22 located on Fairfax Pike East in the Stephens City area of Frederick County. The pumper , Till be built to N.F.P.A. 1901 specifications and equipped with all of the re'1-7 -d and necessary equipment to function as a Class A Pumper. The ambulance will be built to the Federal KKK-A-1822E specifications and equipped with all of the required and necessary equipment to function as an Advanced Life Support ambulance. This fire and rescue apparatus is needed due to the fact that the Fire and Rescue Department currently awns one (1) pumper and one (1) ladder truck that are twenty (20) plus years of age and already assigned to other functions. The currently owned fire and rescue apparatus would not endure the demands placed on it while being assigned to a high call volume station. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 PRIORITY 3 Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station (#15) Relocation Description: This project includes the relocation and building of a 22,000 square foot facility to accommodate ten or more pieces of emergency equipment and to house living and sleeping areas for staff. A community center of approximately 10,000 square feet, with a capacity of 400 people, is also planned; it would be used for fundraising events and other activities. The project would reed a parcel of three to five acres. Capital Cost: $4,608,160 Justification: The existing facility serving the Round Hill area is 50+ years old and not large enough to accommodate the equipment needed to serve the commercial growth in the Round Hill community. This community includes approximately 9,000 households, two schools, and the Winchester Medical Center. Construction Schedule: To be determined PRIORITY 4 CIearbrook Fire Station (#13) Relocation Description: At the present time the Clear Brook Vol. Fire & Rescue has outgrown the existing building with the equipment on hand, the call volume, the staffing of 24 hour personnel and the traffic at the existing location. We are proposing a new facility to be located on Rt. 11 either North or South of Brucetown Road. The building is to be six (6) drive through bays, administration, eating and sleeping facilities along with a dining hall. The estimated size of the structure is to be approximately 28,000 square feet. This upgrade of the facility will help to provide the needed space for Fire and EMS services for the community of Clear Brook. Capital Cost: $3,240,000 Justification: This project calls for Fire Station #13 to be relocated to an area that has a much safer exit/entrance way. This project will also accommodate the growth in Northeastern Frederick County. The Rt. 11 site also allows for possible growth, if required. Construction Schedule: To be determined 40 PRIORITY 5 Fire Rescue Station #�3 / New Facili y "Crosspoiute; Description: This project consists of a 10,000 square foot fire station to accommodate 4 pieces of emergency equipment, and to house living and sleeping areas for staff. This project could also include satellite offices for the Frederick County Sheriff's Office, Treasurers Office, and Commissioner of Revenue as well as a meeting room for County Supervisor meetings with their constituents with an additional 2000 square feet of building area. A two and 1/2 acre parcel should be sufficient for building, parking and amenities for approximately 20 to 30 persons. The project is located at Crosspointe Center at the end of current R07 South, an area of proposed high density residential development, and cort-Anercial development. Capital Cost: $3,000,000 Justification: The proposed location at the South end of Route 37 provides for quick and easy access to Interstate 81 North and South at the 310 Exit. Access and response on Rt. 37 will be greatly enhanced from I81 to Route 50 West in the Northbound Lane. Currently Stephens City and Round Hill Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company's serve the area. This location also provides easy access to Rt. 11 and the Kernstown area along with access to Middle Road and Subdivisions of Brookneil, Stonebrook, and Jacksons Woods. These subdivisions have large single family homes in an area of Frederick County outside of the UDA. Water supplies are scarce in these areas and a rapid response from this proposed facility will likely reduce property damage from fire and response times for Medical Emergencies. Major collector roads such as Tasker Road and Warrior Drive along with the proposed extension of Rt. 37 and new roadways in the development will provide quick access to additional homes and businesses in areas including Front Royal Pike, Papermill Road. These roadway construction efforts will provide for an increased level of quality emergency service to the citizens in this entire area. Constriction Schedule: To be determined. PRIORITY 6 Fire & Rescue Regional Training Center Description: Construct a Regional Public Safety Training Center potentially consisting of an administrative building, multi -story burn building, multi -story training tower, vehicle driving range, shooting range, and numerous other training props. This project will incorporate emergency medical services, fire, hazardous materials, rescue, law enforcement, industrial, and educational institutions located in Clarke County, Frederick County, Shenandoah County, Warren County, Winchester City, State Agencies, Federal Agencies, and potentially jurisdictions within the State of West Virginia. Capital Cost: $29,075,000 Justification: This project will serve the rapidly growing Northern Shenandoah Valley. One of the main requirements for this project is the aging facilities currently being utilized by Winchester and Frederick County as well as Shenandoah County and the lack of facilities in the other jurisdictions. The need for modern facilities and props to train 41 emergency responders and industrial personnel for response to incidents is becoming more apparent everyday with the increased diversified population, increased number and type of residential complexes, increased number and type of commercial complexes, increased industrial complexes, increased training requirements of emergency services personnel, and mandated requirements for governments throughout the region. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 PRIORI'T'Y 7 Capital Equipment Fire & Rescue — Vehicles & Equipment Description: This new project consists of a revolving fund in the amount of $1,000,000 for the benefit of Fire and Rescue Services. It is the intention of this capital expenditure furid to be for the purpose of purchasing additional and replacement capital equipment fire and rescue vehicles and equipment. It was determined that the inclusion of such a project would be beneficial in ensuring that this significant capital expense is identified in the County's capital planning and budget process. This project is primarily for the benefit of the individual Volunteer Fire and Rescue Companies. Please see below for the individual Fire and Rescue Company Capital Equipment Requests which have been added to the CIP in no particular order. Capital Cost: $1,000,000 Justification: The inclusion of this capital expenditure fund for the purpose of purchasing additional and replacement capital equipment fire and rescue vehicles and equipment will enable the County to meet the requirements of the Code of Virginia with regards to the collection and disbursement of cash proffers accepted on behalf of the fire and rescue companies. Construction Schedule: N/A Coun y Administration Continued. Individual Fire & Rescue Company Capital Equipment Requests. Stephens City Vol. Fire & Rescue Company Technical Rescue Equipment Acquisition Project Cost: $105,000 Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Company Groundwater Reduction Project Project Cost: $50,000 Ambulance Replacement Project Project Cost: $150,000 Middletown Vol. Fire & Rescue Company Pumper/Tanker Acquisition Project Cost: $552,000 Ambulance Replacement Project Cost: $200,000 42 North Mountain Vol. Fire & Rescue Company North Mountain Fire & Rescue Station Modi kation Project Cost: $32,000 Medic Unit Acquisition Project Cost: $159,000 43 C� • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator ` RE: Waiver Request — John Scully, IV DATE: January 29, 2009 FAX: 540/665-6395 On behalf of John Scully, IV, Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, is requesting a waiver of Article V Design Standards, § 144-17 Streets, (G) (1), Cul-de-sac, of the Code of Frederick County, Chapter 144 Subdivision of Land, to allow cul-de-sac length of approximately 1,580 feet, 850 feet more than the Zoning Ordinance maximum length of 1,000 feet. The property is located at the northern end of Glendobbin Lane (Route 1337), 0.2 miles north of Glendobbin Road (Route 673), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 42-A-262. Chapter 144 Section 17 (G) (1), of the Code of Frederick County specifies that: Cul-de-sac permanently designed as such, shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) feet in length. 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 no more than twenty five (25) lots. The turnaround provided shall have a right a -way radius of not less than fifty (50) feet and a paved radius of not less than forty-five (45) feet. Loop streets are preferred to cul-de-sac, where possible. The proposed roadway named Glendobbin Lane has exceeded the cul-de-sac length requirement of 1,000 feet as allowed by the Code of Frederick County. The applicant believes that the proposed layout is in keeping with rural area configuration which had been originally planned for Glendobbin Hills. Additionally, a new intersection street (Lupton Court) is proposed at a location that would provide for a second turnaround site in emergency situations. The configuration of the proposed lots has taken into account the terrain and drainage in providing for suitable building and drainfield sites. Staff has reviewed the subdivision preliminary sketch plan of Glendobbin Hills Section V and determined that there are no extreme topography constraints. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this waiver request. Staff also believes that creating a loop street from Lupton Court and extending it west to existing Quaker Lane would resolve this cul-de-sac waiver request. A recommendation from the Planning Commission is requested. MRC/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Cul-de-sac Waiver a4�°K cpG2� John Scully IV PIN: 42 - A - 262 N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet W �i I t I I �� CH R093 123 9E0. FRd I, g L4VO.,y,yE }f m O z '43 113x5-, ` DONOVAViomN ati : y. 42 A 356 '•t"4 KSS LC �. �N r �. LOW i. J1, r . XPA abt]3 �2 fER GREG t- 0 0 42 AA! N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet W �i I t I I �� CH R093 123 9E0. FRd I, g L4VO.,y,yE }f m O z '43 113x5-, ` DONOVAViomN : r . XPA abt]3 �2 fER GREG t- 0 0 i t w Case Planner: Mark Future Rt37 Bypass Zoning M2 (Industrial, General District) C3Waiver_JohnScully_012609 BI (Business, Neighborhood District) 7 MHI (Mobile Home Community District) > Buildings B2 (Business, General Distrist) ' MS (Medical Support District) /ew e ms 0 Urban Development Area �"` B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) SWSA EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) IM, Rq (Residential Recreational Community District) HE (Higher Education District) p '11 RA (Rural Area District) MI (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residential Performance District) t. , 1 ((>) I --- ,•fnhnscmJy - . .i ::('.'7'; I, )6 Ai -i 1. Applicant: [ OITNTV of FuRn'PRTrw Department of Planning and Development 107 Norm Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 WAIVER/EXCEPTIONS REQUEST APPLICATION Name; Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors Address: 560 North Loudoun Street 2. Property owner (if different than above): Telephone: 540/667-0468 Name: John S. Scully, TV Telephone: 540/667-0323 Address: 575 Seldon :Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 3. Contact person (if other than above): Name: Scot W. Marsh, L.S. Telephone: 540/667-0468 4. Waiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): SEF ATTACHED SHEET 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): The northern end of VA Sec. Route 1337 (Glendobbin Lane), 0.2 miles north of VA Sec. Route 673 (Glendobbin Road). 6. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 42-A-262 Magisterial District: Stonewall 7. Property zoning and current use: Zoned: Current Use: Agricultural District 8. Attachments: Adjoining -Property Owners List X Existing/recorded and Proposed Plats OFFICE USE(JNLY Fee: S506enclosed 1 Receipt ;# % 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 frontof (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application. NAME Berry, Wayne J., TT Address 199 Glendobbin Lane Winchester VA 22603 Property ID # 42-23-4-3 Schneider, Harold F. and Suzanne J. `address 259 Glendobbin Road, Winchester} VA 22603 property ID # 42 -A -262D 1 Strosnider, Gary R. and Doris S. Address 206 Quaker Lane Winchester VA 22603 Property ID # 42-9-10 Scully, John S., TV Address P.O. Box 2368 Winchester VA 22604 Property ID # 42-A-263 KSS, LC Address 2368 Winchester VA 22604 Property ID # Beach, Robert L. and Lavonne H. Address 226 Glendobbin Lane, Winchester:, VA 22603 Property ID # '43-17-3-6 Donovan, John Address 214 Glendobbin Lane, Winchester, VA 22603 Property ID # 43-17-3-5 Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property 1D # - Page 2- 0:U.and Use ApplicationMpplication potmOwaiver request form.wpd WAIVER EXCEPTIONS REQUEST Glendobbin Hills, Section 5 Preliminary Sketch Plan 4. Waiver Request Details: The purpose of this waiver request is to allow for a greater length of cul-de-sac street of Glendobbin Lane, a portion of which is currently a state -maintained road designated as Virginia Secondary Route 1337. Existing Glendobbin Lane currently serves existing 5 -acre lots in Glendobbin Hills, Sections 2, 3 and 4, and has an existing temporary turn around area at Lots 5 and 6. This temporary turn around easement was created with the subdivision plat of Glendobbin Hills, Section 3 (see attached recorded plat). This waiver is requested to provide for an additional 580 -foot extension to Glendobbin Lane, which is proposed to have a permanent state -maintained cul-de-sac as shown on the attached preliminary sketch plan. The proposed lots in Glendobbin Hills, Section 5 that will have frontage on Glendobbin Lane have been created with a roadway frontage that greatly exceeds the minimum 200 -foot frontage requirement for RA preservation lot subdivisions. We believe that this lot layout is in keeping with the rural area configuration that had been originally planned for Glendobbin Hills. Additionally, a new intersecting street (Lupton Court) is proposed at a location that would provide for a second turn around site in emergency situations. The configuration of the proposed lots has taken into account the terrain and drainage in providing for suitable building and drainfield sites. The preliminary planning of this subdivision did review other alternatives to allow for intersecting streets at the 1000 -foot interval; however, the existing Glendobbin Lane and temporary cul-de-sac exceeds 1000 feet and the placement of the new intersection was designed at a position that would be most suitable for the topographic and drainage features. This proposed roadway also provides for residential lots that are significantly larger than two acres, which is in keeping with the existing Glendobbin Hills, Sections 2, 3 and 4. Consideration and approval of this waiver request for the extension of Glendobbin Lane is greatly appreciated. f= Lo M7. PA mI MLE�AN &W AQ9GLL7MM .we AL7@S 0 Qu sw IF LOW 10 20, . ..... . - . ..... . LINKS) ACRES nr Al' - 2.091 LUF 9 tar 11 4� ACRES 0 ,OMfar 7 RU ow sw -6 -Gap 0 pRa tzu WE filu Sir pW 4J�� TACH :.,A P, hat or LOT a zom raysLor VLM Lor 5 2XM7 ACRES -. ji HILLS PLY IT-TNJ {t ENSEC" 'A' 5 0 —4 GE IM AICAC70 F. a KNUMN far. OMAM7T 1,CT J MAO, m SI ALlff3 .. :L M 4_ GLENVOIRIA, HILLS s"', 0A 4 182 I �I • - ,%egt 2 e 3 n aG Q 2 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD. INC. A' 740 15 52 ll!< POST i a poi, LOT 6 �z w N �.�OI AC. W � ao a3 ail "6 iAl j' LOT 4 � � / N 730 02' 50"W f ter 7.O 8 2 AC. �'� Ul J 20 C4%00LO e 5 -o o 0- r" 5.000 AC. o N ep N� N Z � J .02 E — 7&0.30' o S 73 _ � O \ iD $ T3'0250 @-62 7- 4,t0 in U) _ LOT 2 LOT 3 is I N 5.186 AC. A o� 5.000 AC. •� �' wti Q 0 tD 0� � - z •%w Ntar 0 CV w 44, � S 730 02' g®» E— �2n.1�3' N z z 310.83 I t S 7P02'5eE 0_ -o° o LOT I LOT 2 LOT 0 t p , 5.275 AC. z o r _ d SECTION e TWO Ui ti ti ra j w a f.vT30 s en Lon p, c t° 7 TitOhl Os d Sr4oCzCEY t - A a BOX 34A MT FALLS RT ejp^ S WWOeST1`ti , VA 22801 ;LICENSE) No. 1 �z 1271 cli [ybD SURVO 54x.42 �95�� ep ESCR�Fr��p3 Stal=l Dist., Frederick Co.. Va. Curve Data A No i' . 2w• kttg. aa. 1986 an Sheet 3 I I I I L PRESERVATION LOT 12 /17.159 ACRES 'NO FUTURE DIVISION OF THIS DESIGNATED RURAL PRESERVATION / ' I / F 3' TRACT SHALL BE PERMITTED PER SECTION 165-540 ! ! OR 563. PG 575 GLENDOBBIN HILLS I t /D/r LIl a L V 2.680 /{ORES \ \ ''/'s``\` , • �:�.. B . PROPOSED }. LOT 70 I ®D®®/EGRESS - LOT IJ PROPOSED WEZL S/7� -`r PIN 4<" -9 -JO -1 j i I GARY R& DOWS S S7ROSAWER ! ! OR 563. PG 575 GLENDOBBIN HILLS Z.IV£.' RA USE'--RZ06`177AL_..- ' '•,! "--... LOT 8 L p.T o ,, LO ALYIES 2.680 ACRES r }. LOT 70 I HELL 577E - LOT IJ I 4.003 ACRES PRL / LOT 8 "- -''1 - D G1 �r ml � z Po �O m :o ZSo Ri Lor 7 } I I LOT -YJ-'. O LOT 6 1 ` 1 ! 1 LOT 14 I LOT 5 1 }-�----- r- 1 ! 1 LOT 15 tOT 4 S 1 i LOT J 1 11 LOT 16 '91 0 _---� IOU BRL GLENDOBBIN HILLS DATE: LOT 8 m 2.680 ACRES r O PROPOSED I HELL 577E - 45 BRL "40': 45- BRL . � O — PROPOSED �.............. WEYL S77E LOT6 2.680 ACRES !!! LOT 5 1 2.680 ACRES eRr 1 PIN 42-A-2620 HAROLD F. & SUZANNE d SCHNEIDER 7N5T. 030028537 •ZONE.- RA r--'-' "USE RESLDENRAL 19.1 ACRES O ')YELL S/lE 100_BRL � 100' BP.L LOT 10 �.�.. 2.680 ACRES 1 1 100' BRL �!` �• LOT `.. 2.681 ACRES. i m T I � D>F I PROPOSED wELLosrrE 1 1 45�, �PROPOSED i O WELL _97t'% LOT 4 IA 4.004 ACRES ,11 I I A -4 —J 50 BRL--L' -' PLN 42-2J-4-3 I ' - WAYNE ✓. BERRY, N LNST 050012947 ' ZONED.' RA USE, RESIDENRAL LOT J 5.1 ACRES I 1 I i I LOT 2 CL END 0881N H I t L S 5 E C 7/ON R I I I PW 43-17-3-6 ' ! ROBERT L. & lAVONN£ H BEAL%/ l0 IG 1797 DB 8 40 ONfO: RP RES1D£NRAL 5 ACR£5 LEGEND: -)-♦\ LOT 6 DRE- BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE I �------- ---- DIF -PROPOSED GRAINFIELD SITE 1 II_ "(- PIN 42-A-262 m I ;` OWNER: JOHN S. SCULLY, N X I.17-3-5 575 SELOON DRIVE PIN 43- WINCHESTER, VA 22601 fpL{N DON1706 PHONE: (540) 662-0323 I 2 INST. OSCN117069 ZONING: RA ZONED' RP CURRENT USE: AGRICULTURAL 1 I LOT 5 US£ Rf5/OENDAL PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL RURAL PRESERVATION 1W{Z1 GL£NDO88'N HICLS 3 ,- S £ C AREA SUMMARY TOTAL AREA = 42.898 ACRES -1 �Im 1 _ _ ALLOWED DENSITY =8 LOTS (2 ACRE MINIMUM) _ LOTS PROPOSED = 8 (LOT4 THROUGH LOT 11) RURAL PRESERVATION (40%) LOT= 17.159 ACRES REQUIRED 17.159 ACRES PROVIDED (LOT 12) AREA IN FuW DEDICATION =1.651 ACRES 1. �yTA OF v - .''.Im _ - _ -- _-.�.--- _ -.., _.. .._. MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:p�'� 7�2 FRONT SETBACK FROM EXISTING R/W = 60' i l w l FRONT SETBACK FROM NEW RAN = 45' U Y ly SETBACK FROM SIDEYARD = 15' S. W. Marsh SETBACK FROM REAR YARD = 40' lie. Na. 001843 I SETBACK FROM ADJACENT PARCEL OF 6 AC. OR LESS = 50' I SETBACK FROM ADJACENT PARCEL OF GREATER THAN 6 AC. = 109 ( p I ! ! 44'0 3UAyE�o � I 1 I I NOTES: 1. BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED ON DEEDS AND PLATS OF RECORD. I ! 2. CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FROM AERIAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING AS PUBLISHED BY FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA- 3. IRGINIA3. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING PER FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 165-36A IS ONE STREET TREE FOR EVERY FORTY (40) FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE OR TEN(10) ORNAMENTAL TREES PER DWELLING UNIT; HOWEVER, CREDITS 1 MAY BE GIVEN FOR EXISTING TREES DEPENDING ON THE SPECIES AND CALIPER PER SECTION 165-36C. THE SUBJECT ! 1 SITE CONTAINS A MATURE STAND OF HARDWOOD TREES SUITABLE FOR LANDSCAPE CREDITS PENDING SITE 1 I 1 INSPECTION BY FREDERICK COUNTY. GL END 0 8 8 1 N HILIC5 SECT/ON 1 1 1 t 1 ! 11 1 I 100 0 100 200 SCALE: 1" = 100' CONTOUR INTERVAL = 10' 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 www_marshandlegge.com PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN DRAWING NO. OF ID3583 GLENDOBBIN HILLS DATE: SECTION 5 NOVEMBER 20, 21 'lD3583-PSP_& STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ..1 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA LOT 11 I I 4.003 ACRES PRL / WLZ D G1 �r ml � z Po �O m M ZSo Ri RLBRLB PW 43-17-3-6 ' ! ROBERT L. & lAVONN£ H BEAL%/ l0 IG 1797 DB 8 40 ONfO: RP RES1D£NRAL 5 ACR£5 LEGEND: -)-♦\ LOT 6 DRE- BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE I �------- ---- DIF -PROPOSED GRAINFIELD SITE 1 II_ "(- PIN 42-A-262 m I ;` OWNER: JOHN S. SCULLY, N X I.17-3-5 575 SELOON DRIVE PIN 43- WINCHESTER, VA 22601 fpL{N DON1706 PHONE: (540) 662-0323 I 2 INST. OSCN117069 ZONING: RA ZONED' RP CURRENT USE: AGRICULTURAL 1 I LOT 5 US£ Rf5/OENDAL PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL RURAL PRESERVATION 1W{Z1 GL£NDO88'N HICLS 3 ,- S £ C AREA SUMMARY TOTAL AREA = 42.898 ACRES -1 �Im 1 _ _ ALLOWED DENSITY =8 LOTS (2 ACRE MINIMUM) _ LOTS PROPOSED = 8 (LOT4 THROUGH LOT 11) RURAL PRESERVATION (40%) LOT= 17.159 ACRES REQUIRED 17.159 ACRES PROVIDED (LOT 12) AREA IN FuW DEDICATION =1.651 ACRES 1. �yTA OF v - .''.Im _ - _ -- _-.�.--- _ -.., _.. .._. MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:p�'� 7�2 FRONT SETBACK FROM EXISTING R/W = 60' i l w l FRONT SETBACK FROM NEW RAN = 45' U Y ly SETBACK FROM SIDEYARD = 15' S. W. Marsh SETBACK FROM REAR YARD = 40' lie. Na. 001843 I SETBACK FROM ADJACENT PARCEL OF 6 AC. OR LESS = 50' I SETBACK FROM ADJACENT PARCEL OF GREATER THAN 6 AC. = 109 ( p I ! ! 44'0 3UAyE�o � I 1 I I NOTES: 1. BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED ON DEEDS AND PLATS OF RECORD. I ! 2. CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FROM AERIAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING AS PUBLISHED BY FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA- 3. IRGINIA3. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING PER FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 165-36A IS ONE STREET TREE FOR EVERY FORTY (40) FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE OR TEN(10) ORNAMENTAL TREES PER DWELLING UNIT; HOWEVER, CREDITS 1 MAY BE GIVEN FOR EXISTING TREES DEPENDING ON THE SPECIES AND CALIPER PER SECTION 165-36C. THE SUBJECT ! 1 SITE CONTAINS A MATURE STAND OF HARDWOOD TREES SUITABLE FOR LANDSCAPE CREDITS PENDING SITE 1 I 1 INSPECTION BY FREDERICK COUNTY. GL END 0 8 8 1 N HILIC5 SECT/ON 1 1 1 t 1 ! 11 1 I 100 0 100 200 SCALE: 1" = 100' CONTOUR INTERVAL = 10' 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 www_marshandlegge.com PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAN DRAWING NO. OF ID3583 GLENDOBBIN HILLS DATE: SECTION 5 NOVEMBER 20, 21 'lD3583-PSP_& STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT SHEET FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DECEMBER 29. 2008 C �7 MIEMORANDUM COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 i To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner Subject: Planning Commission Discussion - New Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) District Date: January 30, 2009 In February of -2 007 the Board of Supervisors adopted the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study. Subsequently, the first ordinance to implement the UDA Study was adopted in June of 2008. The adopted TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood Design -Business) Overlay District is an overlay that can be utilized on parcels zoned B I (Neighborhood Business) or B2 (Business General) that are less than twenty acres. The Board of Supervisors then adopted the Route 277 Triangle and ilrban Center Land Use Plan on August 13, 2008. This new land use plan designates areas for urban centers and neighborhood villages, and where a larger TND ordinance would be needed. As stated in the plan, the effort has identified opportunities to create new communities, integrate land use and transportation choices and address community infrastructure needs. The land use plan contains an urban center that is envisioned to be an intensive, walkable urban area that is well integrated ..i h the surrounding community. The urban center is envisioned to be based on the principles of New Urbanism and Traditional Neighborhood Design. With the adoption of the UDA Study and the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center .Land .use Plan, a .second, larger ordinance is needed to implement these goals. Therefore, a new district has been drafted that is termed the Traditional Neighborhood Design (INI D) District. This new TND district (Attachment ##1) would be applicable to parcels located in the Urban Development Area (UDA) served by public tivater and sewer systems. However, this district is specifically targeted to designate urban centers and neighborhood villages as designated by the Comprehensive Policy Plan, Features of traditional r.eighborhocod design include: Mix and integration of a variety of uses -Mix and diversity of ho using opportunities Increased density in an urban form Connectivity High quality architecture and urban design Smart transportation Walkability' Traditional neighborhood structure. Sustainabil43l and environmental quality Integrated community facilities Community focal points Enhanced design and Banning 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 TND District — Planning Commission January 30, 2009 Page 2 Some of the requirements of the proposed TND District include: • Master Development Plari designed to be submitted with the rdzoning; • Design Guidelines Manuel designed to be submitted with the rezoning; • Permitted uses include all uses permitted in the B 1, B2 and RP District (conditional uses specified), modified housing types permitted; • Mixture of housing types required; • Minimum and maximum gross residential density; • Minimum percentages and mixes of uses required; • Defined community center (mix of commercial, residential, civic, institutional uses) required; • Central plazas and squares required; • Shallow (maximum) front setbacks; • Parking behind the buildings; • Over shop housing required; • Separate parking requirements; • Greater variety of allowed sign types; • Minimum FAR and higher building heights; and • Street circulation and layout requirements. The DRRC discussed this draft ordinance on September 30, 2008, October 23, 2008 and January 22, 2009. The text was modified based on the September and October discussions and was ultimately endorsed by the DRRC at the January meeting and recommended that the draft ordinance be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The attached documents show the proposed TND District ordinance, as well as proposed definitions that correspond to the ordinance. This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Once consensus is reached on the ordinance, it will be formatted in a style consistent with the existing ordinance. Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance - Proposed TND District Requirements and Definitions CEP/bad DRAFT Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) January 2009 Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) ATTACHMIENT 1 Intent. The purpose of the Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) is to allow development of compatible mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented, activity centers containing a mix and integration of uses, including business, retail, residential, cultural, educational, and other public and private uses in areas consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to create livable communities. This district is meant to allow the implementation of the urban centers and neighborhood village concepts of the Comprehensive Plan. Specif c objectives of this district include: 1. Nonresidential uses, civic uses and open spaces mixed with diverse residential land uses. The TND should feature a variety of housing choices, high quality retail, community facilities as focal points and employment opportunities all connected by a connected by an attractive, efficient, multimodal transportation center. Within a TND development, dwellings, shops, and workplaces should generally be located in close proximity to each other. 2. Generally rectilinear patterns of streets and blocks. 3. A hierarchy of public and/or private streets, with facilities for automotive vehicles, public transit, bicycles and pedestrians. 4. Well configured squares, greens, landscaped streets, and parks woven into the pattern of the town center and dedicated to collective social activity, recreation, and visual enjoyment. 5. Civic buildings for assembly, or for other civic purposes, that act as landmarks, symbols, and activity center for community identity. 6. On -street parking and centralized parking facilities to collectively support principal uses in the Community Center. Existing environmental features are to be preserved and integrated into the plan of development. The major land uses are to be linked by way of pedestrian linkages, trails and greenways that tie together the businesses, residences and open spaces into accessible patterns of development. The pedestrian -oriented nature of the district should be emphasized by the building scale and design, building orientation to the street, block sizes, pedestrian -oriented uses and pedestrian -friendly streetscapes. District boundaries. Properties that are included within the Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) shall be delineated on the Official Zoning Map for Frederick County. This map shall be maintained and updated by the Frederick County Zoning Administrator. Rezoning Procedure and Establishment of District. The process to create a TND District consists of two parts: rezoning the property to TND, and, as a proffered component of the rezoning process, approval of a Master Development Plan and a Design Guidelines Manual. The Master Development Plan shall be in accordance with article DRAFT Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) January 2009 XVIII of this chapter and section (see belc.v) of this section. The Design Guidelines Manual will govern the site-specific design features associated with the project throughout its development. An area to be rezoned to the Traditional Neighborhood Development District shall contain no fewer than 20 acres and shall be located along an arterial or major collector roadway with capacity to handle the traffic generated. Contiguous additions of a mi_nLmum of five (5) acres shall be allowed to an existing TND District if the applicant demonstrates that the addition is integrated with the district that was previously approved. This district must be located in areas within the Urban Development Area (UDA) served by public water and sewer systems and shall be applicable throughout the UDA, but specifically targeted to designated urban centers and neighborhood villages as designated by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Master Development Plan. In addition to the requirements of Article XVIII of this chapter the following items shall be shown in the Master Development Plan in a map and/or textual form. 1) The Master Development Plan (MDP) shall exhibit a compact pattern of development that efficiently facilitates interconnection between the commercial uses, residential uses, and public/civic/institutional uses, which serves to unify the entire project; 2) The primary commercial land uses shall be concentrated at the major intersections depicted on the MDP; 3) The maximum non-residential square footage by use type and function; 4) The maximum residential densities and the maximum number of residential units for individual land use categories and mixed use categories, delineating at least three housing types; 5) The designation and design of public and private roadways including alleys; 6) The designation of all residential and non-residential blocks and the maximum height in each block. 7) Density by block and overall density; 8) Sidewalk and pedestrian path locations. Design Guidelines Manual. The Design Guidelines Manual shall address the following components of the built environment within a proposed TND District: 1) Types of residential structures utilized within the TND project and side and rear setbacks for each structure; 2 DRAFT Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) January 2009 2) The form, massing, and proportions of structures; 3) Vertical separation between streets and single-farnii; residential uses; 4) Architectural styles; 5) Front porches for single-family residential uses; 6) Materials, colors and textures; 7) Roof form and pitch; 8) Architectural elements and ornamentation; 9) Fagade treatments, including windows and door openings; 10) Landscape treatments; 11) Sidewalk and pathway treatments and other pedestrian amenities; 12) Preservation of historic structures, sites, and archeological sites identified by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and those designated by the county; 13) Signage. Phasing. The developer/subdivider is permitted to construct the TND project in phases or section as long as: 1) All phases are indicated on the master development plan. 2) Essential streets and entrances to the TND project shall be provided with the initial phase of the development. 3) No more than 60 percent of residential building permits shall be released until building permits are released and uses are under construction for at least 50 percent of the land area designated for non-residential development. The Board of Supervisors may approve alternative phasing at the time of rezoning. Permitted Uses. All uses permitted in the TND District are those allowed in the following districts subject to other restrictions imposed by this section: RP Residential Performance District BI Neighborhood Business District B2 Business General District K DRAFT Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) January 2009 Conditional Uses. The following uses and associated signs are permitted with a conditional use permit provided that it is demonstrated that the use can meet the intent of the TND District: Conditional Uses Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Car Washes 7542 Self-service storage facilities - Drive throughs/Drive-in lanes associated with any permitted use - Outdoor Storage and Display Cottage Occupations, as defined Modifications to permitted housing types. The applicant may request as part of an application for rezoning to the TND District that a modification to the permitted residential housing types be allowed. The applicant may introduce new housing types as part of the Design Guidelines Manual. The Design Guidelines Manual shall specify the proposed housing types and define all lot requirements and setbacks. The Board of Supervisors may approve or disapprove such request, in whole or in part, following review by the Planning Commission. Mixture of housing types required. TND projects should incorporate as many categories of residential uses as possible, but at least three separate categories of residential uses shall be provided. Residential categories include but are not limited to: single family attached, single family detached and multifamily uses. No more than 25% of the area designated for residential uses in the TND project shall consist of single family detached residences. Site Plan and Subdivision Design Plans. Based on the approval of the Rezoning, Master Development Plan and Design Manual for a TND Development, the applicant may file for site plan review/approval or subdivision plan review/approval. Development Standards. A. Minimum Use Percentages. A TND Development shall have the following minimum percentages of permitted uses. These percentages shall not be modified. rd DRAFT Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) January 2009 1) Commercial Uses. At least 50% of the of the land area of the development shall be devoted to commercial uses in areas designated as an Urban Center in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In areas designed as a neighborhood village, at least 25% of the land area of the district shall be devoted to commercial uses. Over the shop housing shall not be counted towards the minimum commercial percentage required and shall not count against the residential density of the development. 2) Residential Use. At least 10% of the land area of the development shall be devoted to residential uses, not to include over shop housing. 3) Public/Civic/Institutional Uses. At least 5% of the land area of the development shall be devoted to Public/Civic/Institutional uses. A 10% reduction for the minimum commercial area shall be permitted in TND projects that provide public/civic/institutional uses such as but not limited to schools, libraries and fire and rescue facilities, not to include open space. 4) Public Parks and Open Space. At least 20% of the gross land area of the TND development shall be devoted to public parks and/or open space for the common use and enjoyment of residents, visitors and employees within the TND. B. Mix of Uses in Project Design. To achieve the compact design necessary to make the TND fully pedestrian oriented, residential and non-residential land uses must be sufficiently mixed horizontally across the project and vertically within the buildings. At least 40% of the total square footage of the ground floor building area within the commercial areas of the TND development shall be dedicated to over shop housing. The total ground floor area of all commercial buildings shall be the combined total ground floor area of all commercial buildings contained within the development or single MDP, not for each individual building. C. Commercial Uses. Except as may be approved at time of zoning or for government buildings, no individual building shall exceed 15,000 square feet in ground floor area until buildings are under construction for the minimum percentage of ground floor building square footage with over shop housing. Once building construction has started for the minimum area of buildings with over shop housing, there shall be no minimum individual building floor area. D. Community Center. TND Districts are required to have a defined community center. A community center of a TND project shall consist of a mix of commercial, residential in the form of over shop housing, civic or institutional uses and open space uses. The Community Center of a TND development should be organized so that Community Center is within approximately %4 mile from the residential blocks of the development. E. Common Open Space. A minimum of 85 percent of the residential units within the TND project shall be within 1/4 mile of an improved common open space such as a park or plaza having a minimum area of 20,000 square feet that includes, at a minimum, improvements such as benches, activity areas, and landscaping. No more than 50% of the required open space shall be located in environmental features or areas designated as green infrastructuTe as identified by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. 5 DRAFT Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) January 2009 F. Central Plaza or Square. A formally designed center plaza or square that is located within the Community Center shall be provided and shall be a minimum of 40,000 square feet in area. Central plazas or squares located in designated neighborhood villages shall be a minimum of 20,000 square feet in area. At least one side of the plaza shall adjoin a road. The plaza shall include public amenities, such as ponds, fountains, public areas, plant beds, benches, drinking fountains, clock pedestals and the like. Buildings that adjoin the plaza shall be a minimum of two (2) stories. G. Principal Building Entrance. The principal entrance of buildings located in the commercial areas of the development shall be oriented towards the street or adjacent plazas, greens, parks, squares or pedestrian passageways. H. Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways. Continuous sidewalks shall be provided along both sides of all streets within the district excluding alleys. Sidewalks located along primary commercial building entrances utilized for the general public shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet wide. All other sidewalks shall be a minimum of five (5) feet wide. I. Trails. All planned bike trails as identified in the Comprehensive Plan shall be provided along any road within the district. Trails shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and have a paved surface. J. Recreational Facilities. One recreational unit as outlined in §165-64B, or equivalent recreational facility shall be provided for each 30 dwelling units, excluding over the shop housing. The facilities shall be in a configuration and location that is easily accessible to the dwelling units that they are designed to serve. The design and amount of facilities shall be approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the Director of Planning and the Department of Parks and Recreation. A recreational unit is designed to meet the recreational needs of 30 dwelling units. The units may be broken into smaller units or added together to meet the needs of the planned community. K. Parking. A TND project shall have the following parking requirements: 1) Within the Community Center and all mixed use commercial areas, all parking lots are required to be located at the rear or side of a building. 2) A parking lot or garage may not be adjacent to or opposite street intersections. 3) In the mixed-use areas, a commercial use must provide one parking space for every 500 square feet of gross building area. 4) Parking lots or garages within the commercial areas of the TND project must provide at least one bicycle parking space for every ten motor vehicle parking spaces. 5) Parking lot landscaping shall be required per §165-27. on DRAFT Traditionad Neighborhood Development District (TND) January 2009 6) Single family residential structures are required to have two off street parking spaces per dwelling unit. Multi -family uses and over shop housing must provide one parking space for the first bedroom and 0.5 parking spaces for each additional bedroom. 7) The Zoning Administrator may allow some variation in the standards br required parking based on detailed parking demand studies provided by the applicant. Such studies should be based on an accurate analysis of the parking demands of actual similar uses. L. On -Street parking. On -street parking can be counted towards meeting the required parking required in this section, provided such parking is located within 400 feet of the subject principal use. M. Property Owners Association. All phases of the TND project shall be included under a single property association according to the requirements of §165-34 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. N. Signage. 1) The following requirements shall apply to commercial signage in the TND district: a) Projecting signs. Signs which project from the face of the building shall be permitted subject to the following: i. Maximum sign area shall be six (6) square feet on any side of the building. ii. Distance from the lower edge of the signboard to the ground shall be eight (8) feet or greater. iii. Height of the top edge of the signboard shall not exceed the height of the wall from which it projects for single story buildings, or the height of the sill or bottom of any second story window for multi- story buildings. iv. Distance from the building to the signboard shall not exceed six (6) inches. v. Width of the signboard shall not exceed three (3) feet. b) Awning signs. Where awnings are provided over windows or doors, awning signage is permitted with the following provisions: ii. Maximum eight (8) square feet of signage area on an awning. iii. No backlit awnings are allowed. 7 DRAFT Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) January 2069 C) Wall -mounted signs shall be permitted to encompass 1.5 square feet for every 1.0 linear feet of building frontage, provided that the total area of the wall -mounted sign does not exceed 150 square feet. The height of wall -mounted signs shall not exceed 18 feet above the ground. d) Freestanding business signs shall not exceed 50 square feet in area. Freestanding business signs shall not exceed 12 feet in height. 2) All other signs regulations shall be as required in §165-30 of this chapter. General regulations. A. Size. No minimum lot size is required. B. Residential density. Maximum gross residential density shall be 16 units per acre. In no case shall the residential density in any residential land bay be less than four units per acre. Over the shop housing shall not count towards the maximum gross residential density. C. Dimensional and intensity requirements. The following dimensional and intensity requirements shall be applicable for all development within the TND district: TND District Requirements Minimum front yard setback on 30 Primary and arterial highways (feet) Minimum front yard setback on Collector or minor streets (feet) No Minimum Maximum front yard setback on 25 Collector or minor (local) streets (feet) Side yard setbacks (feet) - Rear yard setbacks (feet) - Minimum Floor area to lot area ratio (FAR) 0.4 Maximum Floor area to lot area ratio (FAR) 2.0 Building Height (Feet) ,.1 DRAFT Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) January 2009 Use Limitations A. Buffering and Screening. 1) No loading areas or refuge collections areas shall be located closer than 100 feet from any residential district or use. No parking areas shall be located closer than 50 feet any residential district or use. 2) All parcels within the TND District which adjoin parcels that are utilized for agricultural activities shall provide the following buffers: a. A one -hundred foot buffer adjacent to a parcel whose primary use is agriculture. Agricultural land use shall be considered to be any parcel zoned RA (Rural Areas) District whose primary use is not residential or orchard. A twenty -foot landscaped easement, measured from the adjoining property line, shall be provided which contains a single row of evergreen trees on ten -foot centers that are a minimum of four feet at the time of planting and an earth berm that is three feet in height and constructed on a 3:1 slope. Parking and maneuvering areas may be established within the remainder of the buffer area, provided that all requirements of § 165-27E(11), Parking lot landscaping, are met. b. A two -hundred -foot buffer adjacent to a parcel whose primary use is orchard. A forty -foot landscaped easement, measured from the adjoining property line, shall be provided which contains a double row of evergreen trees on ten -foot centers that are a minimum of four feet at the time of planting and an earth berm that is six feet in height and constructed on a 3:1 slope. Parking and maneuvering areas may be established within the remainder of the buffer area, provided that all requirements of § 165-27E(11), Parking lot landscaping, are met. 3) Loading areas and refuse collection areas shall be landscaped, screened and buffered from view as seen from adjoining streets and residential areas. Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with §165-27. 4) Buffers and screening between housing types and commercial development internal to the Traditional Neighborhood Design District shall not be required. 5) Buffering and screening requirements shall be provided as required in § 165-37 of this chapter for the zoning district that corresponds to the use being buffered and/or screened. Any residential dwelling units located above commercial floor space shall be treated as commercial floor space solely for the purpose of buffers and screening requirements. Zoning district buffers shall not be required along any existing road right-of-ways which border the development. 6) Road efficiency buffers shall be provided accordingly as specified in §165-37 of this chapter. 0 DRAFT Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) January 2009 '_• ��-..-n..�,-_-•�r_:.�..r... � _..VAS' 'L-- •3 B. Street Trees and Residential Landscaping. 1) One street tree shall be provided for every 30 feet of street frontage. Street trees shall be planted no more than 10 feet from rights of way. Acceptable trees shall be based on the list of street trees included in §165-36B of this chapter. Street trees shall be a minimum of three inch caliper at the time of planting. 2) Landscaping on residential lots, excluding over shop housing, shall conform with §165-36. Motor Vehicle Access and Circulation. A. Motor Vehicle Circulation. Motor vehicle circulation shall be designed to promote pedestrian circulation and bicycle activity. Streets within the TND shall include traffic calming elements to encourage slow moving traffic speeds such as "queuing streets", curb extensions, traffic circles, parallel and angled on -street parking and medians, as determined by the County Transportation Planner. B. Street Layout. Development in the TND District shall maintain a street grid pattem of generally parallel interconnecting streets with no cul-de-sacs except as may be approved during the review of the Master Development Plan due to topographic or site design constraints. Driveways to individual residential lots shall be prohibited along all roads identified as arterial or collector roadways. C. Street Orientation. The orientation of streets should enhance the visual impact of common open space and prominent buildings, create lots that facilitate passive solar design, and minimize street gradients. 10 DRAFT Traditional Neighborhood Development District (MD) January 2009 ARTICLE XXII Definitions §165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Amended 11-13-1991] Alley — a public or private way permanently reserved as a secondary means of access to abutting residential property. Alleys may also provide delivery access to commercial properties. Block — a unit of land bounded by streets or by a combination of streets and public land, railroad right-of-way, waterways, or any other barrier to the continuity of development. Community Center — An area of more intense uses consisting of a mix of commercial, residential in the form of over shop housing, civic or institutional uses and open space uses. TND developments should be designed so that residential blocks are within approximately 1/4 miles from the Community Center. Neighborhood Village — Compact centers that focus and complement surrounding neighborhoods; they are walkable and designed at human scale and are supported by existing and planned road networks. Over shop housing — Residential units in upper stories of commercial and office structures. Over shop housing shall not court towards the required density of any development but shall count towards any minimum FAR. Traditional Neighborhood — A compact, mixed-use neighborhood where residential, commercial and civic buildings are within close proximity to each other. Urban Center — Areas larger than neighborhood villages and are envisioned to be a more intensive, walkable urban area with a larger commercial core, higher densities, and be designed around some form of public space or focal point. Urban Center should be located in close proximity to major transportation infrastructure. 11 i C J • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development s q 540/665-5651 l�'1E.1.�O�°``�'� NDUM[ M[ FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission Froin: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner,: Subject: Discussion— Veterinary Clinics in the BI Zoning District Date: January 29, 2009 Frederick County has received a request to add Veterinary Clinics as a permitted use in the BI (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District. Currently the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows veterinary offices as a permitted use in the B2 (Business General; and the B33 (Industrial Transition) Zoning Districts and as a conditional use m the RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance) Zoning Districts. Staff has prepared an ordinance revision that would add "Veterinary Services for Animal Specialties" (SIC 0742) to the BI Zoning District uses. This ordinance revision is intended to only allow: animal and pet hospitals, Veterinarians for bets and Veterinary services. This proposed ordinance excludes any type of livestock services and requires that all animals and activities be kept within the enclosed primary structure. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on January 22, 2009. The DRRC. had minor changes to tl e wording of the proposed text and ultimately reconunended it be sent to the Manning Commi&�jorr for discussion. This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. , Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance Revision (§165-37D). 2. letter requesting the addition of Veterinary, Clinics in the BI Zoning District 3. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Croup — 0742 CEPrbad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ATTACHMENT 1 ARTICLE X Business and Industrial Zoning Districts § 165-82. District use regulations. The following tables describe the business and industrial zoning districts in Frederick County, the intent of those districts and the uses allowed in each district. Standard Industrial classification numbers are provided for particular uses to assist the Zoning Administrator in classifying uses. Determining whether a particular use should be classified under a particular category remains subject to interpretation on the part of the Zoning Administrator. A. Neighborhood Business District. The intent of this district is to provide small business areas to serve the daily household needs of surrounding residential neighborhoods. Uses allowed primarily consist of limited retailing and personal service uses. Business uses in this district should be small in size and should not produce substantial vehicle traffic in excess of what is usual in the residential neighborhoods. [Amended 4-10-19911 Standard Industrial Classification Bl Allowed Uses (SIC) Veterinary Services for Animal Specialties 0742 with all activities and animals kept within a fully enclosed primary structure Food stores 54 Apparel and accessory stores 56 Drugstores 591 Miscellaneous shopping goods stores 594 Finance, insurance and real estate offices - Personal services, except the following: 72 Industrial launderers 7217 Funeral homes and crematories 726 Car washes 7452 Videotape rental 784 Medical offices 801, 802, 803 and 804 Child day-care services 835 Civic, social and fraternal organizations 864 Public buildings - Public utility distribution facilities - Business signs - Signs allowed in § 165-30B [Amended 2-13-20081 - Freestanding building entrance signs [Added 2-13-2008] - Electronic Message signs [Added 2-13-20081 Multi -tenant complex signs [Amended 2-13-20081 - Residential uses which are accessory to allowed - business uses ATTACHMENT 1 Parks - Churches - Restaurants [Added 12-9-19921 5012 Art dealers, art supplies and art framing - [Added 4-24-1995] Fire stations, companies and rescue squads - [Added 10-27-19991 Tobacco stores [Added 1-110-2001] 5993 Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping - [Added 1-10-20011 Health clubs no larger than 10,000 square feet 7991 [Added 2-22-20061 Gary J. Konkel 694 Federal Street Paris, VA 20130 NOV 3 2003 Oct 30, 2008 Ms. Candice E. reruns, AICP Frederick County Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Ms. Perkins: I have been referred to you by Eric Lawrence and I have discussed this issue with Messer's Lemieux and Kerr. My name is Gary Konkel and I am an agent with Long and Foster Real Estate in Middleburg. I have been working with a client for several years who is interested in purchasing a commercial property for use as a veterinary clinic for a small animal practice. We have experienced difficulty in finding a suitable location because of the small number of B-2 zoned properties in our desired location. I understand that your Comprehensive Plan assumes that the districts east of Winchester bordered by Rt. 7 and Rt. 50 are intended to be primarily residential areas. In researching the Frederick County zoning ordinance I have come to believe that the B-1 zone should include veterinary offices as a permitted use and would respectfully request that you consider amending your zoning ordinance accordingly. I understand the reluctance to make zoning changes based on any single individuals need and I agree with that position. However, I believe there is a strong rationale for making such a change for the consistency of your ordinance and to better serve the needs of Frederick County citizens. My rationale follows: The purpose of the B 1 zoning district is: "B I Neighborhood Business District. The intent of this district is to provide small business areas to serve the daily household needs of surrounding residential neighborhoods. Uses allowed primarily consist of limited retailing and personal service uses. Business uses in this district should be small in size and should not produce substantial vehicle traffic in excess of what is usual in the residential neighbor; odds. [Amended 4-10-1991]" Small Animal Veterinary Clinics are a business use that is a non intrusive, quiet, and low traffic volume operation that provides a valuable service to residential property owners. Unlike kennels, vet clinics do not introduce significant noise. In fact, they are similar to private residences having dogs for pets. They do not create nuisance factors for neighboring residences. Small Animal Vet Practices meet the intent of the B-1 district. Vet Clinics are similar to a medical building which is a permitted use within the district. It is a personal service business that meets the daily household needs of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Vet Clinics are typically small in size and would not produce substantial vehicle traffic in excess of what is usual in the residential neighborhoods. There is an increasing need for Vet Clinic locations that are located near intensive residential areas. Because they are a non intrusive use, they can be placed near residential areas and provide greater convenience and reduce travel time and expenses for clinic patrons. There seems to be little rationale for requiring that Vet Clinics to be located in areas with intensive business uses. They are not serviced by large delivery trucks. They do not create large volumes of traffic and do not require a lot of parking because clientele are schedule for appointment. Vet Clinics do not create excessive waste or use unusual amounts of water or sewer capacity. Vet Clinics are a use permitted by a Conditional Use Permit in the RP zoning district. That would lead one to believe that county planners recognize that Vet Clinics can exist even within residential neighborhoods_ Granted that conditions may be placed on the use, but it doesn't seem to make sense that Vet Clinics can be approved in RP Gary J. Konkel 694 Federal Street Paris, VA 20130 districts and not B 1 districts. It appears to be a more logically cGn.sistent policy to permit the use in a more restricted Business district than in a residential district. I would be happy to meet with you to further discuss this issue. Please let me know of a time that is convenient. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Gary . Konkel 540.592.9008 540.272.6685 32 Industry Group Industry No. No. 672 STANDARD INDUSTRaAL CLASSIFICATION CROP SMVICES—Con. 0722 Crop Harvesi;,,g, Primarily by Machine—Con. Berries, machine harvesting of Clopping and sHo filling Nutsw machine harvesting of Combiniag ag-* ulturalPenn t% machine of Cotton, machine harvesting of Sugar beets, machine harvesting of Fruits marhinP—_-', U22� of s°gturane machine harvesting of Grain, machine harvesting of Threshing service Ray mow& rakinghaling, and chop• Vegetables, machine harvesting of ping 0723 Crop Preparation Services for Market, Except Cotton Ginning Establishments primarily engaged in performing services on crops, subse- quent to their harvest, with the intent of preparing them for market or fur- ther processing. Establishments primarily engaged in baying farm products for resale to other .than the general public for household cc;✓Isumption and which also prepare them for market or further processing are classified in Wholesale Trade. Establishments primarily engaged in stemming and redry- ing tobacco are classified in Manufacturing, Industry 2141. $can cleaiung Corn shelling Cotton seed delinting Drying of corn, rice, hay, fruits, and vegetables Flax decorticating and retting Fruit premoling, not in cannaction with transportation Fruit vacuum cooling Grain cleaning Grain fumigation Mosgrinding, custom ginning 0724 Cotton Ginning Nut hulling and shelling Packaging i� or farm -dried fruits Peanut shelling. custom Potato curing Seed cleaning ,�Liug. grading, and necking of fruits and vegetables Sweet potat a curing Tobacco grading Vegetable Precoohng, not in connection with transportation Vegetable vacuum 000iing Establishments Primarily engaged in gmning cotton. Cotton ginning. Cotton pickers Gins, cotton: operation of 074 VETERINARY Sl�RVICES 0741 Veterinary Services for Livestock Establishments of licensed practitioners primarily engaged in the actice of veterinary medicine, dentistry, or surgery, for cattle, hogs, prsheep, goats, and Poultry. Establishments of licensed practitioners primarily engaged in treating all other animals are classified in Industry 0742. Animal hospitals for Hvestnek _Veterinarians for &vestock Veterinary services for livestock � 0742 . Veterinary Services for------�_ . �--------�`- - r - , Animal Specialties .Establishments of licensed practitioners primarily engaged in the practice of y..., veterinary medicine, dentistry, or surgery, for animal specialties. Animal spe- cialties include horses, bees, fish, fur -bearing animals, rabbits, dogs, cats, and other pets and birds, except Poultry. Establishments of licensed practitioners Primarily engaged in veterinary medicine for cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, and Poultry are classified in Industry 0741. Animal hospitals fot? Pets and othermimn Veterinary -I hospitals nary services for pets and other Pet hospitals aurical specialties ). Veterinarians for Pets and other animal specialties Oi