PC 06-17-09 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
.lune 17, 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) April 15, 2009 Minutes and May 6, 2009 Minutes.......................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tai)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Rezoning #03-09 of Walgreens -Dairy Corner Place, submitted by Patton Harris Rust &
Associates, to rezone 3.1 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (General
Business) District and 0.9 acres from B2 to B2 District, totaling 4 acres to B2 (Business
General) 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, in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and are
identified by Property Identification Numbers 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 5417-
3 -Al, 54F -3-A2 and 54-A-1 12C.
Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B)
6) Ordinance Amendment — Legal Form and Recordation of Proffers. Revisions to the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (§165-13) to add requirements for the legal form of
proffer statements and that approved proffers be recorded.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (C)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
7) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Supplementary Use
Regulations, Subsection 26 Secondary or Accessory Uses. Revisions to the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance regarding secondary or accessory standards.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D)
8) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Supplementary Use
Regulations, Subsection 27 Off -Street Parking; Parking Lots. Revisions to the
Frederick County Ordinance regarding parking lot standards.
Mrs. Perkins ........ .............. (E)
FILE COPY
9) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 144 Subdivision of Land, Article V Design
Standards, Subsection 18 Sidewalks and pedestrian Walkways, Subsection 19
Streetlights, and Subsection 33 Commercial and Industrial Design Standard
Exemptions. Revisions to the Frederick County Ordinances regarding sidewalks,
pedestrian walkways and streetlights.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (F)
10) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Supplementary Use
Regulations, Subsection 36 Landscaping Requirements. Discussion on revisions to
the landscaping requirements in the RA (Rural Areas) District.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (G)
11) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Supplementary Use
Regulations, Subsection 37 Buffer and Screening Requirements. Discussion on
revisions to the buffer and screening requirements.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (H)
12) Ordinance Amendment —Chapter 165 Zoning, Article XXII Definitions. Discussion
regarding definition of attached dwellings.
Mrs. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (I)
13) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article X Business and Industrial
Zoning Districts, Subsection 82E. Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
to add SIC 208 (beverages) to the M1 District.
Mrs. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (J)
14) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning. Discussion regarding the
recodification of Chapter 165.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (K)
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on April 15, 2009.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon
District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall
District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz,
Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Greg L. Unger,
Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton,
Board of Supervisors Liaison.
ABSENT: H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee 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 ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairnian Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner T, iplett, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted the April 15, 2009 agenda for this evening's meeting.
INTRODUCTION OF BRIAN MADAGAN, NEWLY -APPOINTED OPEOUON DISTRICT
COMMISSIONER
Chairman Wilmot welcomed the newly -appointed Opequon District Commissioner, Mr. Brian
Madagan, to the Planning Commission.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 04/03/09 Mtg.
Connnissioner Kerr reported on two main topics of discussion by the EDC. The first was the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 15, 2009 @ M
Page 2452
-2 -
Small Business Development Center's Annual Report provided by Mr. Sirbaugh. Mr. Sirbaugh reported that
according to his statistics, he is busier than ever, not only with helping struggling businesses, but also with people
who want to start new businesses in the area_ Secondly, a presentation was made by Mr. Gene Shultz of the
Virginia Employment Commission. Mr. Shultz reported that the unemployment figures for this area are not as
bad as originally thought. His explanation was that nationally, all of the data is collected on the twelfth day of the
month and last month, all of the local manufacturing facilities had planned shut -do Ams. He said some facilities
shut down the same time every year, however, all of them hit that particular week. Mr. Shultz thought that once
this month's data is released, our area should be back down in the six percent range, which in today's economy is
not too bad.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's agenda
for this evening. No one cane forward to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #01-09 for AT&T and Wesley Helsley, submitted by Dewberry, for a 120 -foot
commercial telecommunications facility at 2042 Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11). This property is identified
with P.I.N.s 43-A-130 and 43-A-132 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval of Monopole Tower with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Ad-ni;,istrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that this conditional use
permit (CUP) application was tabled at the March 18, 2009, Planning Commission meeting for 28 days to give
the applicant the opportunity to revise the application with the suggestion of a monopole -type tower located closer
to the FEMA building where trees and buildings could visually shelter the tower and where it would not impact
the viewshed of historic battlefields. Mr. Cheran said that one of the issues discussed was the County's
requirement of a monopole tower versus a lattice -type tower. Mr. Cheran said the staff had responded that when
the telecommunications ordinance was adopted in the 1990s, it was concluded that the County preferred a
monopole tower in Urban Areas because it was believed a monopole would more easily blend into the viewshed.
Mr. Cheran added that a monopole tower is required by ordinance in the Urban Development Areas (UDA) and
on properties adjacent to historical sites. He said a lattice -type tower, therefore, would not be allowed as a use at
this site. Mr. Cheran continued, stating that the proposed tower location is within a DSA (Developmentally
Sensitive Area) and within the NELUP (Northeast Land Use Plan) of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He also
recalled from the March 18 meeting, the staff suggested that the nearby 150 -acre Rutherford Farm development,
zoned commercial and industrial, which is the site of the applicant's end user, FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Association), could provide a satisfactory location and coverage for the applicant and also provide
future co -location opportunities. Mr. Cheran read a list of five recommended conditions, should the Commission
find this use to be appropriate.
Commissioner Unger said he didn't disagree that the proposed location was not ideal; however,
he didn't understand how the County decided that a monopole was visually preferable to a lattice -type tower.
Frederick County Planning Commission k� rage L4Dj
Minutes of April 15; 2009 maDo Mi A k
ir U.
-3 -
Commissioner Thomas recalled back when the decision was made; he said there was public
involvement and a decided preference for the monopole tower because a lattice tower can accommodate more
dishes and other equipment and they become obviously visible. He said a monopole has limitations on the
amount of dishes it can hold. Cornnussioner Thomas said, in addition, less area is required for a monopole versus
a lattice tower; he said a monopole visually blends better into the background.
Chainnan Wilmot confirmed with the staff that the Planning Commission would be voting to
recommend approval or denial of a CUP and, furthermore, there is not a waiver involved that will allow a lattice -
type tower.
Mr. Stephen L. Pettler, Jr., attorney with the law firm of Harrison & Johnston, was representing
AT&T Corporation. Mr. Pettler introduced Mr. Robert Ericksen, Real Estate Manager v ith AT&T; and Mr. Les
I olisly of Co nSearch, consultant retained by AT&T. Mr. Pettler stated that Mr. Polisky was going to provide
the Conunission with information on why a lattice -type tower is requested here and «rhy it is industry practice to
use them for this type of installation. Mr. Pettler also introduced Mr. John Callow of PHR&A, who prepared the
illustrations for the viewshed issue; Ms. Christie Lowery with De-,vberry, who assembled the initial application;
and Mr. William Comnierford and Mr. Mark Grace, who were both AT&T representatives.
Mr. Pettler wanted to first address the issue of whether or not there is a waiver to allow the
Conunission to vote for a lattice -type structure to be constructed. Mr. Pettler said the zoning ordinance states that
the Plamung Commission may allow lattice -type construction for new teleconununications towers which are
located 1) outside of the urban development area; and 2) in areas not adjacent to properties identified as historic
sites. Mr. Pettler said this property is technically not adjacent to designated historical sites. He said the issue
raised was the viewshed impact of a tower at this location; however, the future path of Route 37, a structure that
will be 35 feet in height, will be interposed between any viewpoint from the Milburn corridor.
Mr. Pettler responded next to Commissioner Kriz's question about whether the HRAB issues
had been addressed. Mr. Pettler stated that AT&T sent a letter outlining what they did to try and locate the
facilities on top of the FEMA building on the Co-.Aperv,,00d property. Mr. Pettler said that the issues with placing
the tower on the FEMA building involved reinforcement of the building and penetration of the roof, he said the
landlord, Co«penvood, was not interested in altering their building. Mr. Pettler stated that after the HRAB
meeting, AT&T looked again at the Cowpenvood property to see if the tower could be placed anywhere on the
site; however, they couldn't achieve the county's requirement for a clear fall zone on the property.
Mr. Pettler said the Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically states this corridor is slated for
connnercial and industrial development; he said telecommunications facilities will be needed by the kind of
employers and businesses Frederick County will want to locate Within the County and in this corridor. He said for
this particular proposal, the location of Route 37 will make this site the correct location for this tower because
Route 37 will act as a buffer between the tower and the core battlefields. Using a Powerpoint presentation, Mr.
Pettler showed a conceptual illustration depicting the future Route 37, the proposed tower, and the viewshed from
the Milburn corridor.
Mr. Les Polisky, a principal engineer with ComSearch, said he has worked in the
telecommunications field for about 45 years. Mr. Pettler proceeded to ask a number of questions of Mr. Polisky
in order to clarify for the Commission why this site was chosen and why a lattice -type facility was needed. Mr.
Polisky stated that for antennas that are large in diameter, the open lattice -type structure is the normal installation
for microwave antennas because open lattice towers have a solid construction, eliminating any motion that may
throw off the narrow beans width of the antenna from its path line. Mr. Polisky said a monopole structure is good
for a cellular tower or for antennas that have broad beam widths; however, for antennas Nvith narrow beam widths,
which are those anteimas six -feet or greater in diameter, any slight motion over a path length of nine to 11 miles,
Frederick County Planning Commission(� D ri Page 2454
Minutes of April 15, 2009 1 f�f i � ).L8yj�
-4 -
would cause the beam to go off center.
Commissioner Thomas asked if a dish or an antenna was planned to be placed on the tower. Mr.
Polisky and the other representatives answered there would be two dishes, one at eight -feet in diameter and one at
ten -foot in diameter.
Commissioner Oates said a letter from AT&T, dated December 30, 2008, and a letter from
ComSearch, specifically stated the dishes would be five and six foot in diameter. Commissioner Oates asked why
the diameter of the dishes increased in size.
Mr. Robert Erickson, Real Estate Manager with AT&T, said the information in the letters was
correct at the time that he ,,ATote it; however, since that time, the engineers have refined their design_
Commissioner Ruckman and Commissioner Thomas, who were both familiar with structural
design, stated that a monopole tower can be designed to be rigid enough to meet the desired needs. Commissioner
Ruckman commented that the main reason for using a lattice tower is because it is more economical to build.
Commissioner Oates commented that the applicant's illustrations show a 120 -foot pole with the
dishes attached about 30 -feet do«a1 from the top of the pole. He asked if the pole really needed to be 120 feet,
since the dishes aren't attached that far up on the pole. Mr. Erickson said the pole is designed with an extra 15
feet on top for flexibility, in case something occurs between their site and the customer's site on Mt. Weather that
would interfere with the line of site signal. He said the extra height would allow them to move the parabolic dish
further up the tower if needed. Commissioner Oates said he would rather have the shorter pole constructed and
have the applicant come back before the Conunission if they needed a taller pole. Mr. Erickson stated this was a
"mission critical" service and if there is an interruption in the service for FEMA, a four-month CUP process to get
approval for increased elevation will not serve the customer.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the tower would have a ten -foot by ten -foot base and if it would
go straight up or be tapered. Mr. Erickson confirmed the ten -foot by ten -foot base and said there was some taper,
but not a lot.
Mr. Pettler returned to the podium for some final continents. Referring to staffs comment about
locating the tower somewhere in the Rutherford's Farm development, Mr. Pettler said the Rutherford's Farm
property is not fully developed and there are significant issues in trying to locate a pole on a parcel of property
that doesn't have a site plan attached to it because it would be restricting the owner's ability in the future to put a
user on the property. He said the other issue raised was that FEMA should have known when they went into the
building that they were going to need these telecommunication facilities and should have made some
accommodations for that; he said FEMA does not own the building and will be leasing the building. Additionally,
Mr. Pettier addressed the DSA concept in the Comprehensive Policy Plan; he believed the DSA was ambiguous in
definition and purpose, but there are references that provide some direction. He read Section 6, Page 113, in the
NELUP section of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, "... the DSA is a community and historical preservation area;
therefore, adjacent uses which may be incompatible should provide adequate buffers and screening and it is
intended to discourage any development along the Milburn Road corridor and to promote a higher standard of
development along the Martinsburg Pike corridor where residential clusters and public land uses dominate." Mr.
Pettler said that completely consistent with this direction is locating this facility where it would be clearly
screened from the battlefields area by the location of future Route 37. He said the uses for this piece of property
are limited; he said future Route 37 has been visually equated by some to a high-tension power Iine. In
conclusion, Mr. Pettler said his client's application is for a CUP for a lattice -type structure at the location
proposed; however, if the Planning Cominission were to make a condition of this permit that a monopole structure
must be constructed, his client has advised they would be willing to accept that condition as part of their permit.
Frederick County Planning Commission � # �, Page 2455
Minutes of April 15; 2009 D bt h
-5 -
He pointed out that the lattice -type structure is the pragmatic, industry standard to secure this type of antenna; he
said this structure fits within the Comprehensive Policy Plan, when viewed as a whole and Iong-range, and
aesthetically, is the right thing for this area. He referred to Section 165-48.613 of the zoning ordinance, which
allows the Planning Commission to permit a lattice structure for a new tower at this location.
Commissioner Kriz commented that no changes were made to this application since it was last
heard by the Planning Commission. He referred to the applicant's reference to "mission critical"
teleeonnmunications services and asked the applicant why prior discussions with all involved parties were not
undertaken prior to FEMA's commitment to this location. Mr. Kriz said when this was presented to the HRAB, it
was stated by the applicant that the tower would be for FEMA only and possibly, emergency services; now the
applicant is statu-ig there will be additional users on the tower. Commissioner Kriz said the HRAB had also
wanted the applicant to document the house, which was anticipated to be demolished.
Mr. Jett Dayo, representing AT&T, responded that AT&T is not contract !a1.1_y obligated to do
this tower with FEMA; however, FEMA needed some diversity other than Route 7 East. He said AT&T already
has some work with FEMA at Mt. Weather and when AT&T was looking into westerly access, this is where
AT&T's team came up with the concept of a diverse route from the Route 7 Corridor East.
Responding to Comimissioner Kriz's comment, Mr. Robert Erickson recalled that he was
informed at the HRAB meeting about the County's preference for co -location in order to reduce the number of
towers constructed throughout the county. Mr. Erickson said the applicant considered this subsequent to the
HRAB meeting and they felt they could acquiesce if the tower was on AT&T's site, but not if it was on top of the
FEMA building. Mr. Pettler interjected that a letter, dated February 12, 2009, was submitted by Mr. Erickson to
the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission agreeing to cooperate fully with documenting the house on the
property.
Coinnussioner Kerr inquired about the potential capacity of the lattice -type tower compared to a
monopole tower. Mr. Petter remarked that it is up to the County as far as allowing co -location for other service
providers or not. Regarding the capacity of the structure, Mr. Polisky said the flexibility on a lattice tower is
much greater for accommodating additional antennas. Commissioner Kerr said it was safe to assume then, the
County could eliminate several monopole structures by allowing a lattice -type structure.
Commissioner Thomas said there have been a number of references to "mission critical" with
this tower; he said the need to have communications as mission critical does not necessarily rely on having this
conununications tower at this particular location or so many feet from the FEMA building. Commissioner
Thomas said there are other ways to receive the communications such as installing fiber optic cable to a location
outside this area and making a line of sight microwave shot to Mt. Weather_ Commissioner Thomas asked if
AT&T was going to say this is the only way and the only location they can provide "mission critical"
conuimnication services for FEMA.
Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and
Chainnan Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Cheran returned to the podium to make some final connnents. He said the County's
ordinance requires structures to allow co -location to other providers. Mr. Cheran talked about a number of
possible co -location opportunities for the applicant in other areas, in addition to the Rutherford site and some
unused property next to the FEMA site.
Frederick County Planning Commission 03Page 2456
Minutes of April 15, 2009 ' IIT V
iJ
QM.
Commissioner Mohn said the staff's position is clear regarding a monopole versus a lattice -type
tower. He asked if the staff's position extended to the tower in its entirety, in other words, is this location
inappropriate for a tower, or is it simply an inappropriate place for a lattice -type tower. Mr. Cheran replied this is
an inappropriate location for a lattice -type tower. Commissioner Mohn asked Mr. Cheran if the applicant would
agree to forego a lattice -type tower and agree to a condition to construct only a monopole -type tower, would it
change the staff's position regarding allowing a tower at this location. Mr. Cheran replied that a monopole would
work.
Commissioner Kriz asked Mr_ Cheran if the ordinance requires all towers to be available for co -
location and Mr. Cheran replied yes. Commissioner Kriz asked if a statement would need to be supplied by the
Commission in order to restrict users only to the applicant, Frederick County Emergency Services and FEMA.
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence remarked that the ordinance doesn't state there must be co -location;
however, it has been the County's policy, and each time a tower CUP is issued, there is a condition that states the
tower must be available for co -location. Conunissioner Kriz said this is policy, not ordinance, so this tower could
be restricted only to FEMA use. Mr. Lawrence stated, ultimately, if there is support for a tower and the
Comimission wishes to eliminate the condition requiring the tower to be available for co -location, then that would
need to be a part of the Commission's recommendation.
Commissioner Unger was dismayed about some of the changes presented by the applicant this
evening; for example, the increased size of the dishes and the willingness to use a monopole tower.
Commissioner Unger thought a monopole would look unsightly and he compared it visually to a 120 -foot silo.
Conunissioner Unger questioned whether or not the applicant had investigated properties in the Rutherford Fann
development or some of the wetland areas. He didn't think this was the best location for any type of tower.
Chainnan Wilmot commented that if the owners of the Rutherford's Farm development had not
been approached about the potential of accommodating this tower on their site, it would seem it would be
reducing the opportunity to support further business that needs this type of infrastructure.
Commissioner Thomas said he was vie«Ving this as a potential precedent -setting action and if the
Commission ignores its ordinance requiring monopole towers in certain areas, then the Commission needs to
revise the ordinance_
Conunissioner Kerr also hoped the applicant had investigated any possibilities for a location
within the Rutherford Fann development. He thought the lattice tower was visually better than a monopole.
Commissioner Kerr said that with a lattice -type tower, there is the potential to eliminate a number of future towers
because of the ability for co -location. He said he would much rather see 20 dishes on this one tower than 15
monopoles impacting the landscape.
Conunissioner Mohn shared Conunissioner Kerr's perspective on not being too concerned about
whether a lattice or monopole is visually better than the other. He said he was more concerned about whether a
tower was appropriate at this location. He said he was sensitive to the viewshed concerns, but felt this site was
not necessarily inappropriate for tower. Conunissioner Mohn said he also agreed with Conunissioner Thomas
about being sensitive to the ordinance and signaling the Commission's intent. He said frankly, if the applicant is
willing to allow a condition that this will be a monopole -type structure, he would probably not object to the
application.
Conunissioner Gates commented that AT&T is just one particular provider with a site across the
road from FEMA; he said there are other providers that could supply FEMA with service. He noted there is
available land in Rutherford's Farm. He said this area is within a DSA and buildings in this commercially -zoned
area are limited to 35 feet in height under the B2 ordinance, not 120 feet, and this tower will stand out.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 15, 2009
Page 245 /
-7-
Con-ir iissioncr Oates did not believe this was an appropriate location for a tower.
Commissioner Oates made a motion to deny the CUP. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Ruclanan, but failed by the following tie vote:
YES (TO DENY): Unger, Watt, Ruckman, Oates, Thomas, Kriz
NO: Ambrogi, Madagan, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn, Wilmot
(Note: Commissioner Manuel was absent from the meeting.)
A new motion was .rade by Commissioner Mohn and seconded by Commissioner Triplett to
approve CUP 401-09 with the five conditions recommended by the staff and two additional conditions, 46,
requiring the constriction of a monopole -type tower and 47, the maximum diameter of any dish attached to the
tower will not exceed ten feet. Any larger size dish would require the applicant to apply for a new conditional use
permit. This motion was passed by a majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Conmlission does hereby recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit 401-09 for AT&T and Wesley Helsley, submitted by Dewberry, for a 120 -foot
commercial telecormnumcations facility at 2042 Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) with the following conditions:
All review agency corrunents and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless service providers.
3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County.
4.
The tower shall be remoN ed by the applicant or property omner within 12 months of abandonment of
operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within 12 months of the approval of this
conditional use permit, the permit will be deemed invalid.
6. Only a monopole -type tower is to be constructed on this site; no lattice -type tower is permitted.
7. The maaimuun diameter of any dish attached to the tower will not exceed ten feet. Any larger size dish
would require the applicant to apply for a new conditional use permit.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (APPROVE): Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Madagan, Thomas, Wilmot, Ambrogi
NO: Kriz, Oates, Rucklman, Watt, Unger
(Note: Commissioner Manuel was absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2458
Minutes of April 15, 2009 JJJ;,, JJJ
Rezoning 02-09 of The Bishop -Amari Property, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 2.77
acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for commercial use.
The property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) and Old
Charles Town Road (Rt. 761). This property is further identified with P.I.N. 44-A-43 in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 30 Days
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, stated that the land uses proposed in this rezoning
are generally consistent with the NELUP (Northeast Land Use Plan) and the commercial designation for this
intersection. He said the application provides a level of sensitivity to the identified DSAS (Developmentally
Sensitive Areas), addresses the appearance of the Route 11 corridor, and provides transportation improvements
adjacent to this site as generally identified for this corridor. Mr. Ruddy said the Commission should ensure that a
satisfactory level of expectation is met regarding: 1) site design consideration along the property's frontages,
including corridor appearance, access to the site, and median improvements; and, 2) appropriate value in the
transportation contributions which are aimed at addressing the transportation impacts of this project and the
necessary off-site transportation improvements.
Mr. Ruddy noted that the NELUP recognizes Route 11 as a four -lane urban divided road
improvement project and it recognizes Old Charles Town Road as an urban two-lane road section. The NELUP
discourages individual access points along Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). He said the applicant has proposed two
entrances on Route 11 North, both are right -in, right -out controlled. The full conunercial entrance would be
located on Old Charles Toxaii Road. He said pedestrian accommodations have been provided along Route 11 and
across Old Charles Town Road. Mr_ Ruddy said the applicant has proffered to limit the development of the site
to a maximum of 20,000 square feet of structural commercial development, which may include up to 5,000 square
feet of restaurant use. In addition, a maximum of 16 gasoline pumps may be developed on the property. Mr.
Ruddy said that a variety of improvements have been proffered to the property's road frontages and to the
signalization of the intersection of Old Charles Toni Road and Martinsburg Pike, including right-of-way
dedication.
In addition, Mr. Ruddy said that just north of this project is the intersection of Route 11 and
Hopewell Road; he noted that everyone is aware of the LOS (level of service) and configuration issues which
exist at this location. He pointed out that previous applications have addressed this issue by contributing a certain
monetary amount to assist in the improvement of that intersection. He said this application has also made a
similar effort; however, in the amount of $5,000, which is very clearly less than the amount provided by some of
the other recent projects. In a related transportation component, Mr. Ruddy spoke about the potential for the
applicant to provide additional median improvements within the right-of-ways. He said the ability has been
provided for that to occur in this location, should it be needed in the future; further consideration of those median
improvements should occur at this time with the initial phase of this development in order to achieve the ultimate
design of Route 11. He said the applicant has provided a raised median in a certain location to separate the right -
turn movement, and more of that would be appropriate. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has also made some
commitments to the building placement, a positive orientation with parking and travelways, building design,
construction materials, landscaping, and a plaza area with kiosk.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, xNq*tln Greenway Engineering, was representing the Bishop -Amari rezoning.
Mr. Wyatt discussed some of the challenges they encountered with the site, such as obtaining adequate water and
sewer service to the property and the transportation issues. He said they worked with property owners across the
street and the Easy Living Associates group to obtain adequate water and sewer service. Since they didn't have a
known user, VDOT required them to do the "worst-case" scenario when they scoped the traffic study, which is
about 10,000 tpd for the site. He said the traffic study shows a significant amount of traffic for a fairly small site.
Frederick County Planning Commission o Page 2459
M
Minutes of April 15, 2009 ;I I i'
Mr. Wyatt said the worse -case scenario would include eight pump stations with 16 fueling stations. Mr. Wyatt
described the transportation improvements that were planned; he said the transportation improvements are all
proffered elements and would occur in conjunction with the first site plan on this property. He said since Route
11 is planned to be an urban, four -lane divided highway, the applicant determined centerline, allowing for halfof
the ultimate section, which would consist of a 16 -foot median, two travel lanes going northbound, a continuous
right -turn lane, and a five-foot sidewalk. He said essentially, the applicant is putting ui a fairly significant amount
of pavement from the existing edge of pavement to allow for two separate travel lanes going north up Route 11,
as well as a continuous right -turn lane i ito their right -in entrance. He said this pavement, with striping, will be in
place when they develop the site and then, when Route 11 is improved in the future as it continues north, the
applicant's pavement section is already in place. Mr. Wyatt said the access is a "right -in, right -out only" design
with a significant median separator; however, if they found out after it was installed that people were still able to
make left turn movements in, the applicant proffered they would come back, if instructed by the County or
VDOT, and create a barricade for any left -tum movement.
Mr. Wyatt next addressed Old Charles To,,vn Road. He said the traffic study shows the existing
southbound single lane improved to a dual left -turn lane to get traffic onto Route 11. Mr. Wyatt said the
applicant will put in the pavement section necessary for this future dual left -tum lane, so if Route 11 is improved
and there is a second southbound lane, the pavement is already in place in front of the applicant's site. It was
noted that the applicant had proffered to put in the ultimate pavement section on both Route 761 and Route 11,
along the entire property frontage to accommodate the future needs of those two roads.
Additionally, in the interest of not having multiple entrances on Old Charles Town Road, Mr.
Wyatt said the applicant has proffered to provide and build an inter -parcel access drive, which would allow for
future connections_ He said the 25 -foot setback is for the required zoning district buffer between the two
properties, since the property is being rezoned to 132; and, he noted the road placement was not against the line.
Mr. Wyatt stated there is the potential to work out a shared entrance aligmnent with the adjoining property; and,
the applicant has the ability to shift the aligmnent, if necessary. He said all the adjoining properties to the north
and to the east will have the ability to access the road.
Mr. Wyatt next talked about his research for calculating the monetary contribution for the
Hopewell Road improvements. He said there was a wide range in the dollar amount contributed by the various
adjoining properties. Mr. Wyatt said the rezoning he was involved with, Easy Living, contributed $50,000 for
their 20 -acre site and he thought that seemed reasonable. Comparing the properties on an acreage basis, Mr.
Wyatt said he calculated $5,000.00 for the 2'h -acre Amari -Bishop property. Mr. Wyatt said he realized it was
not a substantial sum, but the applicant is installing a considerable amount of road improvements to meet the
future needs of the transportation system.
The final item Mr. Wyatt addressed was design. He said in order to protect the DSA to the
south, the applicant included building orientation in the proffers_ Mr. Wyatt said the buildings will be primarily
brick and gable -shingle roofing; but more importantly, the applicant has proffered for the roof lines to hide
mechanical equipment to protect the viewshed from the battlefields areas. He described the plaza area with an
informational kiosk, the building height limitations, and construction materials. Also included are low -light
fixtures for building lighting, gasoline fueling isles to be concealed by buildings in front, signage limitations
which are more restrictive than the recently -adopted County ordinance, and buffering and screening of parking
areas.
Mr. Wyatt concluded that these proffers attempt to address the transportation nnpacts and also
add design elements that protect the DSA to the South. He said the staff was seeking additional specificity on
screening materials and additional language will be added regarding the nunnber and size of plantings.
Frederick County Plamling Commission
Minutes of April 15, 2009
Page 2460
-10-
Connnissioner Oates asked Mr_ Wyatt if there was any discussion about a joint entrance and a
shared easement Vath the Cutshaw property, so a buffer -wouldn't be required. Connnissioner Oates commented
that it would gain the applicant about 25 feet or more by placing half the road on the Cutshaw's property.
Commissioner Oates said the applicant had mentioned that Parcels 47 and 42 would have an inter -parcel
connection through the access road out to Old Charles Town Road; he asked if something would be set up inside
the site that would prevent vehicles firom exiting the right -turn in, fight -turn out or, if traffic Will be able to an out
that way also. Mr. Wyatt said if vehicles entered into it, they obviously would have the ability to drive through
and take the right out onto Route 11. Mr. Wyatt said the proffer didn't specify there would be reciprocal ingress/
egress easements, but if that was something the Connmission was interested in, the applicant could include it.
Commissioner Oates said he was concerned about the amount of additional traffic that could start to use that
limited entrance on Route 11. Commissioner Oates also connnented about the applicant's method for arriving at
the monetary contribution by comparing acreage; he said the land doesn't have the impact on the road, but the
traffic does. Connnissioner Oates believed it would be more accurate to compare the site's traffic generation, not
the size of the parcel. Mr. Wyatt said he thought everyone recognized the need to help with the Hopewell Road
improvements, but he did not want to lose site of the fact that with this project in particular, the inunediate road
improvements around the site were important, so as the corridor grows in both directions, the pavement is already
in place and no one has to be coining back in after the project is developed, at least along the frontage.
Conunissioner Thomas asked for clarification on the nuinber of gasoline fueling points proffered
by the applicant. Mr. Wyatt said the proffer limits this property to 20,000 square feet of structural commercial,
of which 5,000 square feet is limited to restaurants, and 16 fuel pumps, which is consistent with the traffic study.
Mr. Wyatt said he could rewrite the proffer to state, "eight fueling stations, for a total of 16 pumps," for more
specificity.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak.
Connnissioner Ruckman expressed some concern over the monetary transportation proffer and
he thought it was a little on the light side for the amount of traffic this site will generate.
Commissioner Ruclonan made a motion to reconnnend denial of the rezoning. This motion was
seconded by Connnissioner Oates. Other Commission members asked if the applicant was going to be given the
opportunity to increase the monetary proffer by a tabling of the application. Conuiussioner Molnn commented
that this seemed to be negotiating a proffer value.
Mr. Wyatt said the reason lie didn't offer to be tabled was because he wasn't asked the question.
He said if the only element left to determine was a fair share for Hopewell Road, obviously, he would request a
tabling. Mr. Wyatt said lie thought the issue could be resolved quickly and that he could be back in front of the
Commission within 30 days.
Coimnissioner Thomas asked how the Commission will come up with a comparable, appropriate
method to calculate how much transportation impact needs to be mitigated. Mr. Bishop said it is not the staff's
position to provide a figure, but the staff is frilly available to work with the applicant and review any methodology
they present.
Connnissioner Ruckinan rescinded his previous motion for denial and Commissioner Oates
rescinded his second to the motion.
Connnissioner Ruclanan next made a motion to table this rezoning for 30 days, at the applicant's
request. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 15, 2009
Page 2461
-11 -
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanu-nously table for 30 days
Rezoning 402-09 of The Bishop-Arnari Property, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 2.77 acres from
RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for commercial use, in order to
provide time for the applicant to revise his proffer on the amount of monetary contribution towards the Hopewell
Road improvements.
(Note: Commissioner Manuel was absent from the meeting.)
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and
seconded by Commissioner Oates, the meeting adiourned at 9:15 p.m. by a unanimous vote_
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairnian
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
am
Frederick County Plamling Commission Page 2462
Minutes of April 15, 2009
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room„ of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on May 6, 2009,
PRESENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chainman/Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R
Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H.
Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District;
Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District, Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; and Roderick Williams, Legal
Counsel'.
ABSENT: June M_ Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; and Cordell
Watt, Back Creek District.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Plainer; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Vice Chairman Thomas called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Upon motion made by Cor_iinissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted the May 6, 2009 agenda for this evening's meeting.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Conunissioner Ruckman, the
Planning Corm ussion unanimously approved the minutes of the March 19, 2009 meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) — 04/23/09 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRC discussed the following: revised secondary
(accessory) use standards in the OM, M1, and M2 Zoning Districts; revisions to off-street parking and parking
lots pertaining to connmercial vehicle parking, surface materials, and curb and gutter; and revisions to the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Page 2463
Minutes of May 6, 2009
,
a
IT
-2 -
subdivision ordinance pertaining to sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, and streetlights.
Sanitation: Authority (SA) - 04/22/09 Mtg.
Connnissioner Unger reported that the SA gained about 186 new customers for the third quarter
and they are expecting about 200 for the year, ,vIuch is down considerably. He said rainfall for March was about
two inches, which is below average; both the Diehl and Anderson plants are working well with the Anderson plant
back up to full operation, however, the Parkins Mill Plant is below average; the City of Winchester has increased
their rates about 11 percent. Commissioner Unger also reported that the SA is considering changing the
standards for the plant at Lake Frederick, Crooked Run, when it reaches full capacity. He said Clarke County
received approval again this year to bring sewage to the County's plant on Route 7.
Transportation Committee — 04/27/09 Mtg.
Conunissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Connnittee discussed two items- I) TIA
(Transportation Impact Analysis) standards; Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, will be preparing
information for the next Transportation Conunittee meeting, as well as continuing dialogue with the Top of
Virginia Builders; and, 2) new secondary street acceptance requirements mandated by the General Assembly and
currently being implemented by VDOT. Commissioner Oates reported that although news media coverage
implies that Virginia will no longer allow cul-de-sacs, this is definitely not the case. Over the last few years,
many subdivisions are islands unto themselves with only one or two ways in or out. The new standards «Till seek
to inter -connect subdivisions much like towns and villages did up until the 1950s. There will probably be about
50% fewer cul-de-sacs in most designs.
NAICS Conversion Committee — 4/30/09 Mtg.
Conmiissioner Manuel reported that the NAICS Conversion Committee continues to meet, but
are nearing completion of their work. He said the committee is doing some fine tuning and clarifying some of the
language.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Vice Chairman Thomas called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's
agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak -
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of May 6, 2009
Page 2464
-3 -
PUBLIC HEARING
Revised Conditional Use Permit 902-09 for Leroy Harrison to enable a property ownership transfer of an
existing auto repair business at 8365 North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522). This property is identified with
P.I.N.s 11-A-52 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, reported that this property, currently
zoned RA (Rural Areas) District, is subject to the conditions of a CUP (conditional use permit) that was approved
by the Board of Supervisors for a public garage in August of 1982. Mr. Cheran said the garage has not been
operated, but has met all the conditional requirements of the CUP. He said the applicant is requesting to update
and amend the existing CUP by deleting the following conditions:
This is a one-year permit to be reviewed annually by the staff, the Plarming Commission, and the Board
of Supervisors.
2. If the use, occupancy, or ownership of the property changes, this conditional use pen -nit shall expire and
a new conditional use penult Will be required.
Entrance must be relocated as shoiwi.
Mr. Cheran stated that Conditions #I and #2 no longer apply in Frederick County. Mr. Cheran
said he spoke N84th VDOT about Condition #3 and the original entrance was relocated in accordance with the
conditions of the approved 1982 permit. Mr. Cheran next read the list of recommended conditions, should the
Commission fund this use to be appropriate.
Mr. Leroy H. Harrison, the applicant and owner of the property, said that due to the economic
dawn -turn, he wanted to operate the garage as a supplement to his income from his job at the Saturn dealership.
Mr. Harrison said he wanted to do a little work on the weekends.
Vice Chairman Thomas asked Mr. Harrison if he understood and agreed with all six conditions
associated with the CUP and Mr. Harrison replied that he did.
Vice Chairman called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak:
Mr. Jeremy Mills, an adjoining property owner, wanted to make sure he understood the six
conditions proposed for this CUP. Mr. Mills asked if the applicant would be required to get a new pen -nit for any
expansion of the use. He also asked for clarification on the condition that only five vehicles could be repaired at
any one time. Mr. Mills was concerned the proposed garage might negatively affect the value of his property. He
also asked what would constitute a violation on the property.
Vice Chairman Thomas noted that all repairs must take place within an enclosed structure, the
vehicles waiting for repair outside must be limited to five, and outside vehicles must be screened from view by an
opaque fence. Vice Chairman Thomas said a violation of the permit would be anything that is not consistent with
the conditions of the penult. He suggested to Mr. Mills that he speak with staff members after the hearing about
what would constitute a violation on this property.
Frederick County Planning Conunission
Minutes of May 6, 2009r
Do
Ina,J
Page 2465
id
-4 -
No other citizens wished to speak and Vice Chairman Thomas closed the public comment
portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Kriz made a motion to recommend approval of CUP 402-09 with the conditions
as reconnnended'by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Conunission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of revised Conditional Use Permit 402-09 for Leroy H. Harrison to enable a property ownership transfer
of an existing auto repair business at 8365 North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522) with the following conditions:
1_ . All review agency conunents and requirements shall be complied with at all tunes.
2. Outside storage limited to less than five vehicles and screened by an opaque fence_
3. Limited to the applicant and one employee.
4. All repair activities shall occur entirely within the enclosed structure.
5. The applicant will be limited to repairing only five vehicles at a time.
6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a neer conditional use permit.
(Note: Chairman Wilmot and Commissioners Kerr and Watt were absent from the meeting.)
An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article X (Business and
Industrial Zoning Districts), Subsection 82A, District Use Regulations. This amendment will add
veterinary clinics as a permitted use in the B1 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this ordinance amendment was initiated by a
formal request to allow veterinary clinics as a pennitted use ui the BI (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District.
Ms. Perkins said currently, the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows veterinary offices as a permitted use in
the B2 (Business General) and the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning Districts and as a conditional use in the RA
(Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Perfonnance) Districts. She said the staff has prepared an ordinance revision
that would add Veterinary Services for Animal Specialties (SIC 0742) to the B 1 Zoning District pennitted uses.
She said this ordinance revision is intended to only allow animal and pet hospitals, veterinarians for pets, and
veterinary services. She said it would exclude any type of livestock services and requires that all animals and
activities be kept within the enclosed primary structure.
Mr. Perkins stated that the Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their meeting on March
11, 2009, and had one minor revision concealing horses, which was included in the proposed amendment before
the Commission this evening. Ms. Perkins said the Board directed the staff to exclude horses from the animals
pennitted to be treated in the B 1 District. With that revision, she said the Board of Supervisors approved this
item to be sent to public hearing.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2466
Minutes of May 6, 2009 10
A F
-5—
Vice Chairman Thomas called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak.
Conunissioner Kriz grade a motion to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance
amendment concerning veterinary climes in the B 1 Zoning District. This motion was seconded by Commissioner
Mohn and was unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Coymyission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article X (Business and
Industrial Zoning Districts), Subsection 82A, District Use Regulations. This amendment will add veterinary
clinics as a permitted use in the B1 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District.
(Note: Chairman Wilmot and Commissioners Kerr and Watt were absent from the meeting.)
PUBLIC MEETIN
REVISIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S BYLAWS
Action — Unanimously Approved
Plamiing Director, Eric R Lawrence, reported that on March 18, 2009, the staff presented the
Plaimmg Connnission with a proposed Bylaws amendment which was reconunended by the Bylaws Work Group.
Mr. Lawrence stated that the proposed amendment establishes a time restriction for how long an application may
be tabled. He said the Planning Commission agreed the amendment was appropriate and authorized the staff to
initiate the 30 -day notice to change the Bylaws and to schedule the revisions for the Commission's consideration
to adopt at their meeting of May 6, 2009. This proposed amendment incorporates a time restriction for the length
of tabling.
Conunissioner linger asked how the amount of time will be tracked. Mr. LaIATence replied it is
12 months from when the application was submitted to the County and fees paid. He said when the application is
received, it is date-stamped and a file is created, so it will be simple to track.
Members of the Commission believed the amendment was consistent with what was discussed.
Commissioner Unger made a motion to approve this amendment to the Planning Commission's
Bylaws. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve revisions
to the Planning Conunission's Bylaws by incorporating a time restriction for how long an application may be
tabled, as follows:
8-3-9-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from a scheduled
Plaiming Commission meeting one time. The Planning Commission shall table the application
for a specific period of time to ensure that the requirements of Section 165-10 of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance are not exceeded unless the applicant requests a waiver froiii this
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2467
Minutes of May 6, 2009D
I
4
V
Q.
requirement. In no case shall an application be tabled for more than 12 months from the
time the complete application was received by the Zoning Administrator or applicable
staff.
(Note: Chainnan Wilmot and Commissioners Kerr and Watt were absent from the meeting.)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
RECORDATION OF PROFFERS
Senior Plamler, Candice E. Perkins, stated this item is a proposed text amendment regarding the
legal form and recordation of proffers. She said the zoning ordinance does not currently contain standards as to
how proffer statements should be written and also does not require they be recorded once accepted by the Board
of Supervisors. Ms. Perkins said the staff has prepared a revision to the ordinance that contains requirements for
the legal forin of proffer statements and a requirement that approved proffers be recorded with the Frederick
County Clerk of the Circuit Court.
Ms. Perkins stated that this item was presented to the DRRC (Development Review and
Regulations Conn►ittee) at their meeting of February 26, 2009, and the DRRC expressed concerns over proposed
title requirements that were included with the initial version. She said the proposed ordinance was revised to
remove the title requirements and the changes were then endorsed by the DRRC. She said the revised text
includes requirements for the legal form of proffer statements, as well as a requirement for the recordation of
proffers.
Commission members asked if this is done in other jurisdictions and Ms. Perkins replied that a
number of localities have this same requirement.
Conunissioners believed this was an excellent idea and the process would create a tracking
system for proffers.
Ms. Perkins said this item is being presented for discussion. She said comments and suggestions
from the Planning Commission will be fonvarded to the Board of Supervisors.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed. Upon motion made by Commissioner K.riz and
seconded by Con-mussioner Oates, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. LaviTence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission*I V 7
Page 2468
Minutes of May 6, 2009 U`
REZONING APPLICATION #03-09
WALGREENS-DAIRY CORNER PLACE
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: June 1, 2009
Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 06/17/09 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 07/22/09 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 3.1 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (General
Business) District and 0.9 acres from B2 to B2 District, for a total of 4 acres with proffers, for
commercial uses (pharmacy and office uses proffered).
LOCATION: 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.
Please note that this application is a new version of RZ12-08 which was previously heard by the
Planning Commission on December 17, 2008 and subsequently tabled for an unspecified period of
time based upon a request by the Applicant. The Applicant officially withdrew RZ12-08 to
proceed with RZ03-09 which supersedes the original application. This new application, RZ03-09,
is substantially different in that it includes additional property.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 06/17/09 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This application to rezone five entire parcels and a portion of an additional parcel, totaling 4 acres,
from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the B2 (Business General) District with proffers for
commercial land uses is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The following items which relate to the impacts associated with this request should be addressed to the
satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to making a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors.
• The application should demonstrate how it addresses off-site transportation impacts.
Presently, an acceptable Level of Service does not appear to be fully achieved at the
intersection of Valley Mill Road, Route 7, and Interstate 81. All proposed improvements are
immediately on or adjacent to the site. Additional consideration of improvements to Valley
Mill Road may be warranted as noted in the staff report.
• Additional corridor enhancement elements such as landscaping and distance should be
provided.
Rezoning #03-09 — Walgreens -Dairy Queen Place
June 1, 2008
Page 2
This report is prepared by the Frederick- County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 06/17/09 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 07/22/09 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 3.1 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (General
Business) District and 0.9 acres from B2 to B2 District, totaling 4 acres, with proffers, for commercial
uses (pharmacy and office uses proffered).
LOCATION: 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.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 54F -1 -9,54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 54F -3-A1, 54F -3-A2 and a
portion of 54 -A -112C.
PROPERTY ZONING: RP (Residential Performance) / B2 (Business General)
PRESENT USE: Residential/Vacant/Former Restaurant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: B2 (Business General)
South: RP (Residential Performance)
East: B2 (Business General)
RP (Residential Performance)
West: RP (Residential Performance)
B2 (Business General)
Use: Winchester Gateway Commercial
Use: Residential/Dowell J. Howard
Use: Commercial (220 Seafood)
Residential
Use: Residential
Residential
Rezoning #03-09 — Walgreens -Dairy Queen Place
June 1, 2008
Page 3
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dent. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this properly
appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 7 and Route 659. This route is the VDOT
roadway which has been considered as the access to the property. VDOT is satisfied that the
transportation proffers offered in the Walgreens -Dairy Corner Place rezoning revised application dated
May 6, 2009 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this
office will require a complete set of construction plan detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and
traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves
the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization
and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way
must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection
fee and surety bond coverage.
Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended.
Public Works Department: Refer to Land Use, page 1: Discuss the demolition of the three residential
dwellings and any appurtenant structures with a reference to proper abandoning of wells and/or
drainfields in accordance with health department requirements. Because of the anticipated age of the
existing dwellings (constructed prior to 1978), asbestos inspections will be required prior to demolition.
These inspections could be performed in conjunction with an overall environmental site assessment.
Refer to Access and Transportation, page 2: The existing intersection of Dairy Corner Place and the
entrance drive to the old 200 Restaurant site does not provide for safe left-hand turns onto Route 7.
Include required improvements at this location to accommodate ingress and egress traffic using Dairy
Corner Place to access the proposed Walgreens site. Any proposed improvements should also be
reflected in the proffer statement. Impact Analysis: Provide a detailed discussion of the site drainage
and proposed stormwater management improvements. Any stormwater management facilities must be
designed to meet or exceed the current BMP requirements specified by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation. The stormwater analysis should evaluate the need for improvements to
the culvert under the entrance to the 200 property. Consideration should be given to a regional
stormwater facility which will also accommodate storm drainage from the adjacent Burns' property.
Department of Inspections: No comments at this time. Comments shall be made at site plan
submittal.
Sanitation Authority: Sewer and water are available to this site. There is adequate sewer and water
capacity to serve this site.
Service Authority: No comments.
Health Department: No objections as long as no wells or septic systems are being impacted from
construction on neighboring properties.
Rezoning #03-09 — Walgreens -Dairy Corner Place
June 1, 2009
Page 4
Historic Resources Advisory Board: It appears that the proposal does not significantly impact
historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the
HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located
on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that while
the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does identify a core
battlefield within this area, the site's existing condition is such that there is little remaining value to any
preservation effort.
Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment.
Winchester RejZional Airport: It is determined that the proposal will not impact operations at the
Winchester Airport.
Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter date from Roderick B. Williams, County
Attorney.
Planning Department: Please see attached Memo dated November 20, 2008from Michael T. Ruddy,
AICP, Deputy Planning Director.
Planning & Zoninj4:
Site History
In 2002, the property for which this rezoning being requested was subject to rezoning
application RZ#06-02. This application was very similar to the current request in that it was
for a B2 (Business General) commercial zoning with proffers. The Planning Commission
recommended denial of this request at their 09/04/02 meeting. The Applicant subsequently
withdrew this request by letter dated September 19, 2002 prior to it being presented to the
Board of Supervisors. Transportation concerns appeared to be a significant issue at that time.
The original Frederick County Zoning map (USGS Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning
for the five parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning as R2 (Residential Limited) District.
On February 14, 1990, the R-2 District zoning classification was modified to RP (Residential
Performance), during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance.
The additional 0.9 acres that was added to this rezoning application is depicted on the original
Frederick County Zoning map (USGS Winchester Quadrangle) with the B2 (Business General)
District.
1) Comprehensive Policy Plan
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
Rezoning #03-09 — Walgreens -Dairy ween Place
June 1, 2008
Page 5
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1]
Land Use
The property is within the UDA and S WSA and is designated as an area of commercial land use
by the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. The property is located in the area
covered by the Route 7 Corridor Plan.
The business corridor expectations of the Comprehensive Plan should be recognized. Particular
effort should be made to provide for enhanced design of the project to facilitate improved
corridor appearance along Route 7.
Transportation
This application must address the transportation components of the County's Comprehensive
Plan, including the Eastern Road Plan. Route 7 is identified as an urban six -lane divided
facility. It must also be recognized that the County's Eastern Road Plan calls for the ultimate
relocation of Valley Mill Road to a point east of its current location, to align with Getty Lane,
the entrance to Winchester Gateway. This future improvement, in addition to previous plans
associated with improvements to the Interstate 81, Exit 315, call for the closure of the
intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7.
Access management of Route 7 is a significant consideration. An additional entrance onto
Dairy Corner Place, and ultimately Route 7 should be avoided. In addition, future
improvements to Route 7 and the I-81 interchange may need to use some part of the existing
VDOT right of way of Dairy Corner Place in the future. Placing additional improvements in
this right of way in support of the commercial development may compromise the ability to make
needed improvements in the future. To that end, this revised application does not propose an
additional commercial entrance on to Route 7 but rather uses the existing Martin Drive entrance
onto Route 7 currently providing access to the commercially zoned property that was formerly
the home of the 220 Seafood Restaurant.
Site Access and design.
Site Access is proposed to be provided from two locations. Primary access to the site is via
Valley Mill Road and a secondary access point is proposed to be provided from Route 7
(Berryville Pike) via a full and improved commercial entrance onto Route 7 at its existing
intersection with Martin Drive. This is the entrance to the former 220 Seafood property.
Please recognize that this revised application no longer proposes indirect access onto the site
via Dairy Corner Place. It was previously noted that the existing entrance at Martin Drive and
Dairy Place Corner was inadequate to support additional trips from this commercial
development. Further, the entrance at Martin Drive provided a significant point of conflict for
any additional commercial traffic. The revised access to the site, which includes an internal
access road connecting the sites two points of access, will provide a better approach to site
access and circulation and will improve an existing commercial entrance to current VDOT
Standards.
Rezoning #03-09 — Walgreens -Dairy Queen Place
June 1, 2008
Page 6
it is anticipated that redevelopment may occur on the prope pies to use east of this rezoning.
Therefore, inter -parcel connectivity should be accommodated to the adjacent property to the east
in addition to any provided to Martin Drive. The location of Martin Drive provides an
opportunity for an additional point of connectivity for the projects developing or redeveloping in
this particular area. A future connection from Martin Drive through the commercial properties
to the rear of this project to Route 7 should be evaluated and planned for. One point of inter
parcel connectivity has been addressed which would provide access to the Burns property.
Pedestrian accommodations should be provided in a coordinated manner internal to the project,
to and along Valley Mill Road, to Martin Avenue and to the Route 7 frontage, and along the
Route 7 frontage. Presently, only a bike path along Valley Mill Road is provided. It is suggested
that existing Dairy Corner Place could be used as a hiker biker trail. This has merit. However,
some additional modifications to the points where Dairy Place Corner intersects with Martin
Drive and Valley Mill Road may be necessary.
2) Site Suitability/Environment
The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site
development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, mature woodlands,
floodplain or wetlands on the parcels which are identified in this application. A more thorough
evaluation of the existing mature trees on the property should be completed to determine if any
can be incorporated into the design of the project, or avoided by site development. It would
appear as though a couple of mature trees exist in the front of the property and it would be
desirable to preserve such examples if possible in particular, along the Route 7 frontage.
3) Potential Impacts
A. Transportation
Based upon the scenario described in the Applicant's TLA, the TLA describes improvements
that are necessary to achieve an acceptable level ofservice. Not all of these improvements will
be in place and not all improvements are being provided
It is evident that this project would further deteriorate the level of service at the exiting
intersections in the vicinity of this site most specifically the intersections of Route 7 with I-81
and Valley Mill Road. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that new development does not
deteriorate the level of service at intersections or roads. It seeks to ensure that it maintains or
improves the level of service at impacted roads or intersections. Please understand that an
acceptable level of service to Frederick County, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is a
level of service C.
It would appear as though even with the suggested improvements to the approach to the Valley
Mill/Route 7 intersection, only a level of service D is being achieved at this leg of the
intersection.
Rezoning 903-09 — Walgreens -Dairy Queen Place
June 1, 2008
Page 7
The closure of Dairy Place Comer in the manner identified in the application, and potentially at
Martin Drive, should be achieved as part of the development of this site. The 5 year sunset
clause on this closure and the future impacts of constructing this improvement are not desirable.
It was noted previously that it would be desirable to provide for additional improvements on
Valley Mill Road in the vicinity of this site. This could be done in two ways: 1) by extending
the improvements back to existing Martin Drive, and 2) by providing an offsetting left turn on
Valley Mill Road at the projects entrance which would sufficiently allow vehicle storage for
those vehicles and school buses accessing Dowell J. Howard.
On recent rezonings, other projects have contributed additional funding for transportation
improvements in the general area of their requests. This has been done in recognition of the
need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County
in addition to the specific improvements they may be proposing. Such an approach was
originally considered with this request. It was previously stated that the applicant's proffered
$10,000 towards such improvements would not appear to be sufficient to accomplish any
significant improvement. In addition, the planned long range transportation improvements are
no closer to being designed, secured, and implemented. With this revised application, the
applicant has eliminated any monetary contribution aimed at mitigating the broader
transportation impacts of this request on the area transportation network.
Additional Remaining Frederick County Transportation Comments:
• Staffwould reiterate that the comprehensiveplan emphasizes that additional traffic shouldnot
be introduced to areas where it is not being mitigated. We would note that much of the
transportation being proffered would also be required at site plan even if this property was
already zoned in order to provide safe ingress and egress to theproperty given the traffic
stacking issues in the area.
• Staff would note that the significant concentration of attached housing nearby would indicate
an increased need for access to Route 7 for bicyclists and pedestrians trying to access shopping,
not to mention patrons of this site. We would recommend consideration of enhanced bicycle
and pedestrian amenities not only to your site, but also to Route 7.
• Finally, staff would continue to point out that the current proffer package for transportation
(including items noted in your analysis as being required for your commercial entrance) is
valued at roughly the equivalent of what was proffered for another recent pharmacy rezoning.
However, that rezoning was approximately 15, 000 square feet compared to this site 's proposed
25, 000 square feet and that rezoning was located in an area of much lower traffic congestion.
Rezoning #03-09 — Walgreens -Dairy Queen Place
June 1, 2008
Page 8
B. Design Standards
The application does not provide for the addition of an enhanced landscaping buffer area along
the properties frontage with Route 7. The application does include minimal architectural
language, written in an attempt to address the appearance of the buildings. However, this is the
limit of the design elements and does not fully address the corridor appearance goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. Given the adjacent residentially zoned properties to the east and west of
this site, it would be beneficial to tailor an approach to the buffer and screening of these
properties in addition to those requirements that would be required by ordinance. The proposed
placement of street trees could be further enhanced with additional plantings and distance.
D. Community Facilities
The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services.
However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on
community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application's effort
to address the impacts to community facilities is limited to a $2,000.00 contribution to Frederick
County; $1,000.00 for Fire and Rescue purposes and $1,000.00 for Sheriff's purposes.
4) Proffer Statement --- Dated September 4, 2005 with latest revision May 22, 2009
A) Generalized Development Plan
The applicant has proffered a very basic Generalized Development Plan (GDP dated
September 4, 2008 and revised through May 22, 2009) for the site.
The GDP shows a full entrance on Martin Drive and a full entrance on Valley Mill
Road. The internal access road connecting the two entrances is shown. The location of
a potential location for inter parcel connections is also shown on the GDP.
The Generalized Development Plan accompanying the Proffer Statement could be
enhanced to address some of the comments identified in the staff report. It may be
prudent to provide more specificity on important elements such as landscaping,
buffering, and site layout.
B) Land Use
The Applicant has stated that they intend to develop the property with up to 15,000
square feet of pharmacy use and up to 10,000 square feet of other B2 uses on the
property. The Applicant has restricted the other B2 uses to prohibit gasoline service
stations, convenience stores, and fast food restaurants. This generally remains consistent
with the TIA.
Rezoning #03-09 — Walgreens -Dairy Queen Place
June 1, 2008
Page 9
The applicant has not proffered any enhanced landscaping --long the site's road
frontages which would enhance the corridor appearance of the property and address
this goal of the Comprehensive Plan. Street trees have been identified on the GDP.
C) Transportation
The applicant has proffered two site entrances as shown on the GDP. A location has
been identified for an interparcel connection in the southeast corner of the site. Further,
the general location of the internal street connection is identified.
Improvements to the east side of Valley Mill Road across the properties frontage
including improvements to the north bound leg of the Valley Mill Road and Route 7
intersection are provided, as is the dedication of any necessary right-of-way needed to
make the improvements.
Ultimately, Valley Mill Road is planned to not connect with Route 7 in its current
location. Significant improvements in this location may further compromise the
ability to implement the long term improvements in this general area. Regardless, any
improvements to Valley Mill Road should fully recognize the existing streets and
entrances on the opposite side of the road, especially the entrance and exit to Dowell
J. Howard.
The Applicant has eliminated the proffered $10,000 contribution for future
transportation improvements within the general vicinity of the property.
Previously, it was stated that the applicant's proffered $10,000 towards such
improvements would not appear to be sufficient to accomplish any significant
improvement or address additional impacts that could be associated with this request.
In addition, the planned long range transportation improvements are no closer to
being designed, secured, and implemented. This comment remains valid.
The Applicant has proffered to close the existing access from Dairy Place Corner to
Valley Mill Road.
The Applicant has proffered to construct a ten foot asphalt hiker/biker trail along the
property frontage with Valley Mill Road. A similar improvement should be provided
along the Route 7/Dairy Corner Place frontage. Dairy Corner Place should be modified
if it is to be used as such a facility, particularly where it connects with Valley Mill and
Martin Drive.
D) Community Facilities
The applicant has proffered a $2,000.00 contribution to Frederick County; $1,000.00 for
Fire and Rescue purposes and $1,000.00 for Sheriff's purposes.
Rezoning #03-09 — Walgreens -Dairy Queen Place
June 1, 2008
Page 10
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06/17/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
• In general, the B2 land use proposed conforms to the Eastern Frederick County Long Range
Land Use Plan. However, elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should
be carefully evaluated as they do not fully address specific components of the Comprehensive
Plan, in particular the Route 7 Business Corridor Plan and the Eastern Road Plan. Particular
attention should be paid to the transportation impacts associated with this request and how this
application addresses the off-site impacts. Transportation impacts in the vicinity of this site
remain a problem and the long range transportation plans for this location are not fully
recognized. Additional corridor enhancement elements such as landscaping and distance should
be provided.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 12/17/08 MEETING:
Two citizens spoke during the public comment portion of the hearing. The first citizen was concerned
about the appearance of entrances into historic Winchester and believed standards dealing with
architectural design, roof styles, and types and sizes of buffers, etc., should be considered besides solely
transportation issues. The other citizen was concerned about how the proposed rezoning may affect a
commercial property on Dairy Corner Place that his family owned and was trying to sell.
The Planning Staff provided the background information and report. The County's Transportation
Planner reviewed VDOT's 1998 Transportation Plan for this area, which called for the removal of the
traffic signal on Route 7 and closure of the access point between Valley Mill and Route 7. He talked
about the County's most recent update of the Eastern Road Plan, dated November 2006, which showed
the realignment of Valley Mill with Gateway Center as the new access point to Route 7 from Valley
Mill Road. He also pointed out a potential traffic conflict at the shared entrance with the 220 Seafood
site. In addition, there were questions about the adequacy of the monetary proffer as compared with
another recently approved pharmacy in the County. Furthermore, it was noted that the Comprehensive
Policy Plan advises not to impose more traffic on situations where there are congested roadways.
Commission members questioned whether two entrances were necessary for this site. Staff was
primarily opposed to the second entrance on Dairy Corner Lane. They suggested the applicant work on
a better solution, possibly in conjunction with the owners of the 220 Seafood site or with the Burns
property on the other side.
The applicant reviewed their proffers with the Commission which included a ten -foot right-of-way
dedication along Valley Mill Road; an additional turn lane at the Route 7 intersection; a dedicated left -
turn lane for traffic going east -bound on Valley Mill into the site; and improvements required by VDOT
at the Martin Drive right -in, right -out. The applicant said he was quite familiar with VDOT's 1998 I-81
Plan; he said VDOT had suggested a cash proffer, rather than specific road improvements. The
applicant described the details of their methodology for calculating their cash proffer and believed the
amount of their proffer exceeded the amount recommended by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The
Rezoning #03-09 — Walgreens -Dairy Queen Place
June 1, 2008
Page 11
applicant stated if staff is suggesting their proffer was inadequate, the staff should provide direction on a
methodology to calculate the amount based on the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the TIA.
Members of the Commission stated they could not support the rezoning request with a proposed
entrance on Dairy Corner Place. Commissioners expressed concerns about safety with that entrance
and, in addition, it was inconsistent with the County's long-range planning. The VDOT representative
said VDOT pre e«ed the entrance off of Valley Mill Road. A member of the Commission also had
concerns with some of the terminology used in the language of the proffer statement and he spoke with
applicant about possible revisions.
The applicant 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. The applicant requested the rezoning
application be tabled for 45 days so that he could meet with the principals at Walgreens to determine if
they would accept only one entrance for this site or if the applicant could work out an agreement with
the adjoining property owners.
By a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission accepted the applicant's request to table consideration
for 45 days.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn, Watt, and Ours were absent from the meeting.)
Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to
the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately
address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
of FREDERICK
Department of Planni;,g and Development
0/665-5651
TO: Patrick Sowers
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director -- ---
RE: Initial Comments — Walgreens, Dairy Corner Rezoning Application
DATE: November 20, 2008
The following points are offered regarding the Walgreens, Dairy Corner Commercial
Rezoning Application. This is a request to rezone 3.1 acres from RA to B2 with Proffers.
Please consider the comments as you continue your work preparing the application for
submission to Frederick County. The comments reiterate the input that has previously
been provided on this request. Please ensure that these comments and all review agency
comments are adequately addressed.
Land Use.
The property is located in the area covered by the Route 7 Corridor Plan. The property is
within the UDA and SWSA and is designated as an area of commercial land use. The
business corridor expectations of the Comprehensive Plan should be recognized.
General.
Consider providing more design details, including the form of the layout of the site and
the building materials, which would implement the goal of developing an attractive
addition to the Route 7 corridor.
Particular effort should be made to provide for enhanced design of the project to facilitate
improved corridor appearance along Route 7. Landscaping, lighting, and building layout
and form should be carefully planned to ensure that this is achieved. Similar projects in
other developing areas of the community have attempted to address the corridor
appearance efforts of the County. Such an approach may include locating the buildings
on the property to the front of the site, Route 7 and Valley Mill Road, and limiting the
amount of parking in front of the buildings in favor of providing more parking internal to
the sight.
107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 ■ Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Initial Comments — Walgreens, Dairy Corner Rezoning Application
November 20, 2008
Page 2
Transportation.
This application should focus on the entrance to Valley Mill Road, Valley Mill Road, and
an enhanced interparcel connection to the adjacent properties, and potentially back down
to Route 7 via Martin Drive.
This application must address the transportation components of the County's
Comprehensive Plan, including the Eastern Road Plan. Route 7 is identified as an Urban
six -lane divided facility.
Access management of Route 7 is a significant consideration. An additional entrance
onto Dairy Corner Place, and ultimately Route 7 should be avoided. The existing
entrance at Martin Drive and Dairy Place Corner appears to be inadequate to support
additional trips from this commercial development. Further, the entrance at Martin Drive
provides a significant point of conflict for any additional commercial traffic.
In addition, future improvements to Route 7 and the I-81 interchange may need to use
some part of the existing oVDOT port of the commercialof way in the futre. Pdeveloprrient acing Imay
improvements in this right an support p
compromise the ability to make needed improvements in the future.
The function of the existing signal at Valley Mill Road and Route 7 should continue to be
Valley Mill Road should be promoted. Improvements to
enhanced and improvements to
the existing streets and entrances an the opposite
Valley Mill Road should fully recognize
side of the road, especially the entrance and exit to Dowell J. Howard.
It is anticipated that additional right-of-way and improvements may be necessary along
Valley Mill Road. Future right-of-way dedication should be based This man
the road
improvement plans as approved by VDOT and Frederick County. Y warrant a
greater amount of dedication than the proffered 10'.
More detail should be provided regarding Martin Avenue and its intersection with Valley
Mill Road. This intersection appears to be approximately 150' from this property. Martin
Avenue is an existing State Road that does not meet current street standards.
Consideration should be given to improving the frontage of Valley Mill Road and the
entrance to Martin Avenue to a public street standard that meets all current standards.
This application is encouraged to think beyond just providing a simple connection to the
adjacent parking lot. The adjacent property, currently under review for a rezoning,
should be considered in relationship to thus one for the purpose of access and
improvements to Valley Mill Roadand
Initial Comments — Walgreens, Dairy Corner Rezoning Application
Novernber 20, 2008
Page 3
It is anticipated that redevelopment may occur on the properties to the east of this
rezoning. Therefore, inter -parcel connectivity should be accom-nodated to the adjacent
property to the east in addition to any provided. to Martin Drive. The location of Martin
Drive provides an opportunity for an additional point of connectivity for the projects
developing or redeveloping in this particular area. A future connection from Martin
through the commercial properties to the rear of this project to Route 7 should be
evaluated and planned for.
It is evident that this project would further deteriorate the level of service at the exiting
intersections in the vicinity of this site most specifically the intersections of Route 7 with
I-81 and Valley Mill Road. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that new
development does not deteriorate the level of service at intersections or roads. It seeks to
ensure that it maintains or improves the level of service at impacted roads or
intersections. Please understand that an acceptable level of service to Frederick County,
as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is a level of service C.
On recent rezonings, other projects have contributed additional funding for transportation
improvements in the general area of their requests. This has been done in recognition of
the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of
the County in addition to the specific improvements they may be proposing. Such an
approach should be considered with this request relative with the scale of this request.
Pedestrian accommodations should be provided in a coordinated manner internal to the
project, to and along Valley Avenue, and Martin Avenue, to the Route 7 frontage, and
along the Route 7 frontage. Bike and pedestrian accommodations should be a
consideration across the Route 7/Dairy Corner frontage and across Valley Mill Road
intersection. This should be done at this time and in conjunction with your proffered
intersection improvements at this location.
Proffer Statement.
The Generalized Development Plan accompanying the Proffer Statement could be
enhanced to address some of the comments identified. It may be prudent to provide more
specificity on important elements. In addition, the Generalized Development Plan should
be specifically referenced in the proffers. Section 1 of the proffers may be the best place
to do this.
Any proffered limitations should be directly related to the analysis provided in the Impact
Analysis, in particular, the TIA.
Proffer 1.10 should be evaluated to reflect the desire not to have an entrance on Route 7
via Dairy Place and Martin Drive. Vehicular circulation should be via the signalized
intersection and interparcel connections.
Initial Comments —Walgreens, Dairy Corner Rezoning Application
November 20, 2008
Page 4
to the
A11 site and transportation improvements should beo 1m6}e ed P opfe� 1 9 appears o be he
Certificate of occupancy on the first building (Proffer
exception. In this case, all easements shall i be pan c an be provided.d prior to ite plan approval to
inure that the improvements shown on the s p
Monetary contributions to offset the impact of development
sho ld•3 be madehould Prior
revised
the
issuance of the first budding permit for the property.
accordingly.
ercial development which
This proffer statement provides fora 25,000 squared.The monot etary contributions aimed t
would include a pharmacy with drive up
offset the impact of development should be carefully evaluated to ensure they are relative
to the proposed development_
The proffer statement must be signed by the ownerlowners of the property.
Impact Analysis_
commercial,
square feet of
The application proffers 25,000 no further breakdownof the square footage of the uses
drive through window. There is
The TIA models a 15,000 square foot Pharmacyandt10,000 ssq he o feet ofnrequest andthe
uses. This should be considered when evaluating
proffer statement_
io, the TIA describes improvements that are necessary to
Based upon the above scenar
Not all of these improvements will be in place and
achieve an acceptable level of service.
not all improvements are being provided.
with your suggested improvements to the approach to the
It would appear as though even
Valley Mill/Route 7 intersection, only a level of service D is being achieved.
Other. property to determine if
I would suggest an evaluation of the existing mature trees on the ro erty
any can be incorporated into the design of the p rRout. Itfro would be desirable to preserve
such examples if possible in particular, g
Additional comments rovided bv Mr. John Risho AICP
Entrance
The issue of access on to Dairy Corner
t � feCognizes the attempts ane via the 220 dreduce the
continues to be a safety concern
impacts of this entrance through closconfiguration airy Corner a due Valley
to potential
conflicts
cannot support the entrance m its current
conflicts between the ultimate user of the 220 site and this site. A more long
Initial Comments — Walgreens, Dairy Corner Rezoning Application
November 20, 2008
Page 5
* term vision needs to be applied to the development of the automobile access to
this site that considers the County's Eastern Road Plan.
We would note that the significant concentration of attached housing nearby
would indicated an increased need for access to Route 7 for bicyclists and
pedestrians trying to access shopping, not to mention patrons of this site. We
would recommend consideration of enhanced bicycle and pedestrian amenities
not only to your site, but also to Route 7.
o In reviewing the materials sent to VDOT and copied to the County regarding pro -
rata shares for transportation, staff must point out that the comprehensive plan
emphasizes that additional traffic should not be introduced to areas where it is
not being mitigated. We would note that much of the transportation being
proffered would also be required at site pian even if this property was already
zoned in order to provide safe ingress and egress to the property given the traffic
stacking issues in the area.
• Finally, staff must point out that the current proffer package for transportation
(including items noted in your analysis as being required for your commercial
entrance) is valued at roughly the equivalent of what was proffered for another
recent pharmacy rezoning. However, that rezoning was approximately 15,000
square feet compared to this site's proposed 25,000 square feet and that
rezoning was located in an area of much lower traffic congestion.
Once again, please ensure that all review agency comments are adequately addressed.
Attachments
MTR/bad
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Roderick B. Williams
County Attorney
540/722-8383
Fax 540/667-0370
November 5, 2008 E-mail:
rwillia@co.freder1ck.va.us
VIA FACSIMILE (540-665-0493)
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Mr. Patrick Sowers
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Re: Walgreens — Dairy Corner Place — Proposed Rezoning Proffer Statement dated
September 4, 2008
Dear Patrick:
I have reviewed the above -referenced proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion -that
the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer
statement, subject to the following:
Proffer 1.1 — The proposed application materials are titled "Walgreens — Dairy Corner
Place" and refer to a 15,000 square foot pharmacy and 10,000 square feet of office space,
but the Proffers do not actually exclude any B2 uses, nor does the GDP identify any
particular structures contemplated for the Property, whether corresponding to pharmacy
and/or office space use or otherwise.
• Proffer 1.2 — The TIA refers on page 17 to the site entrance on Dairy Corner Place as
bP;Tng p I it Pntran(.-P_ btt the Proffers do not impose such a limitation.
• Proffer 1.3 — The Proffer does not indicate any specific triggering event for the
referenced inter -parcel connector, such as, at such time as the adjoining parcel(s)
becomes subject to a particular use or uses.
• Proffer 1.4 — The Proffer provides for the design and construction of the additional
northbound left turn lane on Valley Mill Road at the intersection with Route 7 and the
GDP indicates "10' R.O.W. DEDICATION" along Valley Mill Road as it borders the
Property, but the Proffer does not commit to make the indicated dedication.
• Proffer 1.5 —The Proffer does not state a time period, upon occurrence of approval by
Frederick County and VDOT, within which the Applicant will provide for the closure of
access from Dairy Corner Place to Valley Mill Road.
107 North Kent Street e Winchester, Virginia 22601
Mr. Patrick Sowers
November 5, 2008
Page 2
I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable
and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be
done by staff and the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
godckVBIiI616s
County Attorney
cc: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Development
REZ # 03 - 09
PIN: 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 54F -3-A1, 54F -A -A2, 54F -3-A2, 54 -`A -112C
4 Ax99C 54 tA•99¢,
'y!�it/ �! �/`7 j '.\ t. r,� ,�. i./i,� �—i — +_ l` �r, /k+�'.\�•`fr�_ \'/.-� —; ,l� \... �,i� �! ,�J \^II„ ��I� �\ ✓ J �
RG�lRr itlA.i _
� , �91�rr—�t, —�i1l4, t'.til4{t..l"1�f i1 ), �Etti1'ta I�'}lt II ){ \ +1 ii � =f;` f.matu,vorj,`. crlam'}�_�l,iv=i,�'?,iA'. r�� ��,// !r � � — %` {`.t�t13.i['•'!`._..`�,,I
Al aSc_aO�e R.�`r '/��'Qr+ ` y -=n.•-+. GR/� .%. t+ e���,t`' R `"�:tO'�,�9-�i`
>t1' .•.
.�
�
Tsie-E
VOL
tRcA c •/' 9" 1{9J
9N
b
W 54t,A«112
e-11-
BERRYVILLEPIKE=-
Winches 'hy�9T: sai s a i t iLl94 a tta
�z r
�5a4 61
-A �•BRO0(LAND
.WOODSTOCK LN iy�
,
'b^^aCTatstet
x
Planner:
l`a.`.n_n-
er. M^�-(kc.
e
Future Rt37 Bypass Zoning M2 (Industrial, General District)
Application BI (Business, Neighborhood District)
JMH] (Moble Humc Cammuty District)
\ @ Urban DevelopmentArea B2 (Business, General Dlstrist)� MS (Medical Support District) '
SWSA B3 (Business, Industrial Transition Dlstric) Ra (Residential Planned CommumDistrict)
• �� i� /te d,1 it,�i it y, .--- 41M EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) 4� R5 (Residential Recreational Community -District)
`tial t, tt, {fti ,-���qq,, RT (Higher Education District �j
�;f' x.l C g ) RA (Rural Area Distract)
/) MI (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residential Performance District)
N
0 100 200 400 Feet
PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ 03 -09
Residential Performance (RP) and Business General (B2) to Business
General (B2)
PROPERTY: 4.0 acre +/-; Tax Map Parcels 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A,
54F -3-A1, 54F -3-A-9, and portion of 54 -A -112C (the "Property")
RECORD OWNER: Eastside Holdings, LLC & 220 Seafood Restaurant LLC
APPLICANT: Eastside Holdings, LLC
PROJECT NAME: Walgreens — Dairy Corner Place
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: September 4, 2008
REVISION DATE(S): October 10, 2008; October 15, 2008; October 21, 2008;
October 22, 2008; November 5, 2008; November 6, 2008;
November 21, 2008; November 25, 2008; May 6, 2009;
May 22, 2009
The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property
("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which
shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above
referenced B2 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"),
these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are
contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which
is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County
Supervisors (the `Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court.
If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until
such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court
order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day
following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The term "Applicant" as referenced
herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in
these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized
Development Plan, Walgreens — Dairy Corner Place" dated September 4, 2008 revised May 22, 2009
(the "GDP").
1. Site Development
1.1 Development of the Property shall be limited to up to 15,000 square feet pharmacy
and up to 10,000 square feet of any other use permitted in the B2 zoning district,
excluding gasoline service stations, convenience stores, and fast food restaurants.
1.2 The Property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the GDP.
Proffer Statement
Walgreens — Daiiy Corner Place
1.3 Access to Tax Map Parcels 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 54F -3 -Al,
54F -3-A2 from Valley Mill Road shall be limited to one entrance in substantial
conformance with the location depicted on the GDP. (See 1 on the GDP)
1.4 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed Tax
Map Parcels 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 54F -3 -Al, 54F -3-A2, the
Applicant shall provide an inter -parcel connector for access to and from the area
located east of the Property in substantial conformance with the location depicted
on the GDP. (See 2 on the GDP)
1.5 The Applicant shall design and construct all improvements necessary to provide two
left turn lanes and a shared right/thru lane for northbound Valley Mill Road at the
intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7 as depicted on the GDP. Said
improvement shall be made prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any
building constructed on Tax Map Parcels 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A,
54F -3 -Al, 54F -3-A2 and shall be subject to review and approval by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT). (See 3 on the GDP)
1.6 The Applicant shall design and construct a left turn lane for the project entrance on
Valley Mill Road as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for any building constructed on Tax Map Parcels 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A,
54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 54F -3-A1, 54F -3-A2. Said design shall be subject to review
and approval by VDOT. (See 4 on the GDP)
1.7 If permitted by Frederick County and VDOT, the Applicant shall close the existing
access from Dairy Corner Place to Valley Mill Road and Martin Drive as depicted on
the GDP. The Applicant shall complete said road closure within 180 days of
receiving written notice from Frederick County and VDOT after issuance of a
building permit for Tax Map Parcels 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A,
54F -3 -Al, 54F -3-A2. In the event the Applicant does not receive written
notification from Frederick County and VDOT within 5 years from the date of final
rezoning to request the closure of said roadway, then the Applicant shall no longer
be responsible for said improvement. In the event of closure, said porton of Dairy
Corner Place shall be used as a hiker/ biker trail if permitted by VDOT and Frederick
County. Additionally, in the event of closure, the Applicant shall design the closure
to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access to Valley Mill Road and Martin Drive (See
5A and 5B on the GDP)
1.8 The Applicant shall dedicate 10 feet of right of way across the Property frontage
with Valley Mill Road prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building
constructed on Tax Map Parcels 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 54F -3-
A1, 54F -3-A2. (See 6 on GDP)
1.9 The Applicant shall construct a 10' asphalt hiker/biker trail to VDOT standards
along the Property frontage with Valley Mill Road concurrent with the road
improvements identified in Proffer 1.5. Said trail shall be connected to existing
Dairy Corner Place. (See 7 on GDP)
Page 2 of 5
Proffer Statement
rValgreens — Daisy Corner Place
1.10 Prior to site plan approval, the Applicant shall obtain any easements necessary to
provide adequate sight distance as required by VDOT.
1.11 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on Tax
Map Parcels 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 54F -3 -Al, 54F -3-A2, the
Applicant shall construct a private commercial roadway connecting the proposed
Valley Mill Road entrance to the existing Martin Drive intersection at Route 7 as
generally depicted on the GDP. The Applicant shall improve the intersection of
Martin Drive and Route 7 as required by VDOT for site plan approval prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on Tax Map
Parcels 5417-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 5417-3-A1, 54F -3-A2. (See 8 on
GDP)
2. Design Standards
2.1 Any structure erected on the Property shall be constructed using one or a
combination of the following : cast stone, stone, brick, architectural block, dry vit or
stucco. Additionally, dumpster pad screen walls shall be constructed of the same
masonry materials) used for building construction.
2.2 Site lighting shall utilize full cut-off luminaries.
Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development
3.1 The Applicant shall contribute the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to
Frederick County for fire and rescue purposes. Said contribution shall be made prior
to issuance of a building permit for Tax Map Parcels 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-
30, 54F -3-A, 54F -3-A1, 54F -3-A2.
3.2 The Applicant shall contribute the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to
Frederick County for Sheriff's Office purposes. Said contribution shall be made
prior to issuance of a building permit for Tax Map Parcels 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A,
54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 54F -3 -Al, 54F -3-A2.
4. E s c alator Claus e
4.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid
to Frederick County within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied
for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein.
Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the
Frederick County after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be
adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published
by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are
paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 30
months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to
the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -
compounded.
SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES
Page 3 of 5
Proffer Statement
Walgreens — Dairy Corner Place
SIGNATURES APT -EAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES
Respectfully submitted,
Eastside
By: LJ'*1
tib �
Date: 5
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
FREDERICK COUNT'?�', To wit:
The fgr�egoin instrurn, t was acknowledged before me this -Z day of Mea -4A
,
2009, by 1`tQ�c 41 -e_ C-wS
My commission expires J'A 311,
Notary Public
Page 4 of 5
Proffer Statement
Respectfully submitted,
220 Seafood Restaurant, LLC
By:
Date: : j�
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit:
Walgreens - Dairy Corner Place
The foregoing�instrume was acknowledged before me this '' day of
2009, by 0 f r, u --,C o -� S
i
My commission expires a oc-,q
Notary Public u j 14-
Page 5 of 5
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
117 East Piccadilly Street
R+A
Winchester, Virginia 22601
P -H
T 540.667.2139
F 540.665.0493
To:
Organ izationlCompany:
From:
Mike Ruddy, AICP
Frederick Count
Patrick Sowers, AIC' _
Date: May 22, 2009
Project Name/Subject: Walgreens - Dairy Corner Place Rezoning Application
PHR+A Project file Number: _15824-1-0
cc:
Memorandum
Please find attached the following revised application materials for the Walgreens - Dairy Corner Place Rezoning
Application:
1) Cover letter dated May 22, 2009 stating modifications
2) Notarized Proffer Statement dated May 22, 2009
3) GDP dated May 22, 2009 (full size version and 40 copies of an 11x17 version)
4) Notarized POA for 220 Seafood Restaurant LLC
5) Revised application including the 220 Seafood parcel and updated adjoiners
6) Deed and Plat for 220 Seafood Restaurant parcel (TM 54-A 112Q
7) Revised VDOT comment dated May 8, 2009
8) Tax receipt for TM 54-A 112C
If you have any questions or would like to discuss, please feel free to call me at (540) 667-2139.
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
May 22, 2009
kv1r. Michael Ruddy, Aim
Planning and Development
Frederick County, Virginia
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Walgreens - Dairy Corner Place Rezoning Application
� A
Dear Mike:
JL
Please find attached revised application materials for the Walgreens -Dairy Corner
Place rezoning application (R.Z 12-08) including a revised GDP and Proffer
CORPORATE:
Statement dated May 22, 2009. We have made several modifications to the proffer
chan„ily
package and GDP since the initial presentation to the Planning Commission at their
December 17, 2008 meeting to address concerns associated with the transportation
VIRGINIA OFFICES:
Chantilly
system proposed as part of the initial application. The Planning Comtr�ission
Charlottesville
expressed a desire to remove the proposed connection to Dairy Corner Place to
Fredericksburg
ensure that the intersection of Martin Drive and Dairy Comer Place does not
Harrisonburg
become an unsafe intersection.
Leesburg
Newport News
My client has entered into a contract with the adjacent property owner, 220 Seafood
Norfolk
Restaurant LLC, to purchase 0.9 acres of the existing B2 zoned parcel identified as
pester
Winchester
TM 54-A 112C which is located where Martin Drive/Dairy Comer Place/Route 7
WOO
intersect. The addition of this acreage has enabled my client to remove any
LABORATORIES:
connection to Dairy Corner Place and then improve upon the transportation concept
Chantilly
by proffering to construct a commercial roadway from the proposed entrance on
Frederlcksbura
V
Valley Mill Road as a through connection to the existing intersection of Martin Drive
MARYLAND OFFICES:
and Route 7. This improvement is shown on the revised GDP. The road
Baltimore
improvement triggers are tied to a certificate of occupancy on the 3.1 acres that
Columbia
Frederik
comprised the initial rezoning proposal. The newly added 0.9 acres of existing B2
German own
property has also been incorporated into the proffer to guarantee that the total site,
Hollywood
now 4.0 acres, will not exceed 15,000 square feet of pharmacy and 10,000 square feet
Hunt valley
of other B2 uses except for gas stations, convenience stores, and fast food
Williamsport
restaurants which have been proffered out as potential uses. The new floor area
PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE:
proffer differs slightly from the previous proffer in that the 10,000 square feet that is
Allentown
in addition to the pharmacy area is no longer limited to office uses which was the use
modeled in the TTA. This modification is justified by the fact that the application
T 540.667.21 39
F 540.665.0493
now includes an additional 0.9 acre of existing un -proffered B2 property. By adding
1 17 East Piccadilly street
this existing B2 area to the application and making it subject to the proffered floor
Suite 200
area and use conditions, we are effectively limiting the development and resulting
Winchester, VA
traffic generation possible for the area.
22601
Walgreens — Dairy Corner Place
May 22, 2009
Page 2 of 2
The constructed improvements proposed along the Valley Mill Road frontage remain
unchanged from the previous proffer and will address both project generated trips as
well as issues caused by existing traffic and background traffic on Valley Mill Road.
Additionally, the Applicant has now proffered to close Dairy Corner Place between
Martin Drive and Valley Mill Road. This will enable Dairy Comer Place to act as a
hiker/biker trail along the Route 7 road frontage. To compensate for some of the
additional expense associated with acquiring the adjacent 0.9 acres and constructing
the roadway from Valley Mill Road to the intersection of Martin Drive and Route 7,
the Applicant has removed the $10,000 proffer for transportation purposes.
We look forward to presenting these revised materials to the Planning Commission
at the June 17 meeting. Please feel free to contact me at (540) 667-2139 should you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Pattgn Harris Rust ,& Associates
t.,
Patrick R Sowers
Enclosure
Frederick County, Virginia
REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS
FOR
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF THE
WALGREENS - DAIRY CORNER PLACE
Red Bud Magisterial District
September 2008
Prepared by:
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Suite 200
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone: 540-667-2139 Fax: 540-665-0493
PH R+A
II.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
WALGREENS - DAIRY CORNER PLACE
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
November 2008
The Walgreens - Dairy Corner Place Property (the "Property") is ideally located for
commercial uses. The Property, identified by Frederick County records as Tax Map Parcels
54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 54F -3 -Al, and 54F -3-A2 consists of approximately
3.1 acres located along Valley Mill Road and Dairy Corner Place at the intersection of Valley
Mill Road and Route 7 at the I-81 interchange (See Figure 1). The subject site is currently
zoned RP (Residential Performance) and was previously used for three single family
detached homes. This application seeks to rezone the Property to the B2 (General Business)
District to allow for up to 10,000 square feet of office uses and a pharmacy up to 15,000
square feet in size. The site is located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA)
and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
As depicted by Figure 1, the properties located adjacent to the site are single family homes on
RP zoning as well as the 220 Seafood Restaurant site which is zoned B2. To the North of
the Property, across Route 7 is the Winchester Gateway shopping center zoned B2.
LAND USE
The subject acreage is located within the study boundary of the Route 7 East Corridor Land
Use Plan however this plan only shows the existing zoning rather than the planned use for
the Property. The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan identifies the
Property with a business designation. As such, rezoning the site to allow for B2 uses,
specifically a pharmacy site, would be in accordance with the land use as planned by the
Frederick County Comprehensive Plan.
ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION
The property would be served by an entrance on Valley Mill Road as well as an entrance on
Dairy Corner Place as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). A traffic
impact analysis (TIA) entitled "A Traffic Impact Analysis of Walgreens at Dairy Comer
Place," was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies
in the area as well as actual traffic counts. The TIA analyzes the impacts developing the site
with a 15,000 square foot pharmacy and 10,000 square feet of medical office type uses. The
TIA indicates that background traffic will degrade the Level of Service (LOS) for the subject
area intersections below a LOS C. To accommodate background traffic the TIA proposes
the following improvements:
1. Route 7/Valley Mill Road/I-81 ramps:
• Additional westbound thru lane on Route 7
Additional northbound left turn lane on Valley Mill Road
Additional southbound left turn lane on the NB I-81 off ramp.
Impact Analysis Statement — Walgreens — Dairy Corner Place
r]
, M 16
rOr
WINCHESTER
� �. GATEWAY.
lJ �
j.
V
PROJECT 44ro
AREA...,
ZONING MAP
WALGREENS
DAIRY CORNER PLACE
FIGURE 2
DATE: 7/1/08
J�rA
Map Features
County Boundary
y
C Tax Map Boundary
Communit, Centers
�"; ".. i• George Washington National Forest
C) Hamlets
'
Lakes/Ponds
Streams
f Sevier Water Service Area
r
Urban Development Area
Road s/Transportation
Interstates
A/ Primary Highways
Secondary Roads
Named Private Roads
f
Unnamed Private Roads
Proposed Route 37
Railroads
Cities/Towns
Middletown
Stephens City
Winchester
Agricultural Districts
Double Church
Refuge Church
South Frederick
Zoning
r Bi (Business, Neighborhood District)
62 (Business, General District)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)tir
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Services District)
R5 (Residential, Recreational Community District)
( RA (Rural Areas District)
f
F— RP (Residential Performance District)
Patton Harris Rust 8. Associates,pc
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape
Architects.
East Street.
Suite 200
irgina22601
er, Viri it
Winchester,
Winchester,
H
1
T 5a0.6s7�t3s
F 540.665.0493
r]
, M 16
rOr
WINCHESTER
� �. GATEWAY.
lJ �
j.
V
PROJECT 44ro
AREA...,
ZONING MAP
WALGREENS
DAIRY CORNER PLACE
FIGURE 2
DATE: 7/1/08
The TIA indicates that the development of the site combined with background traffic would
necessitate the same transportation improvements needed with background traffic alone.
The Applicant has proffered to construct an additional northbound left turn lane for Valley
Mill Road as part of the development of the Property. Additionally, the Applicant has
proffered to close the existing connection of Dairy Corner Place on the East side of Valley
Mill Road. The proximity of this entrance to Valley Mill Road's intersection with Route 7
can create issues with existing traffic volumes at this intersection. The proffered
transportation improvements would be needed regardless of whether or not this Property is
developed. To provide further mitigation for transportation impacts, the Applicant has
proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $10,000.00 for transportation
improvements within the vicinity of the site.
ENVIRONMENT
The Property does not contain any areas of stream channels or steep slopes. The site has a
low elevation of approximately 650 feet and a high elevation of approximately 675 feet.
There is an existing drainage swale that runs south to north on the Eastern edge of the
Property. Existing drainage from the site flows from south to north, ultimately to the
aforementioned drainage swale. Any stormwater management facilities will be designed to
meet or exceed the state regulations. Per stormwater management regulations, post
development flows will not exceed pre -development levels. As such, development of the
site will not negatively impact nearby drainage facilities, including the existing culvert located
at the entrance to the 220 Seafood site.
The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick Counter Virginia indicates that the
soils comprising the subject parcels fall upon the border between the Frederick Pophmento-
Oaklet soil associations. The predominant soil types on the site are Berks Channery Silt
Loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes (map symbol 1B) and Weikert Berks Channery Silt Loams, 15 to
25 percent slopes (map symbol 41D) as shown on map sheet number 30 of the survey. The
site would not be characterized as prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and
any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process.
Flood plain data for the subject parcels is delineated on the Flood Insurance Study Map for
Frederick County prepared by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Community Panel # 510063-0115B, effective date July 17, 1978. The entire site is located in
Flood Zone C, which denotes areas of minimal flooding outside of the 100 -year flood plain.
Development of the site will require the demolition of three existing single family residences
currently located on the site. Any wells or septic systems associated with these residences
will be abandoned in accordance with required Health Department regulations as part of the
development of the site.
Impact Analysis Statement- Walgreens -Dairy Corner Place
2
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY
Access to public water and sewer is available via connection to existing lines adjacent to the
site along the Valley Mill Road frontage.
Assuming 25,000 square feet of commercial space, the site would generate 5,000 gallons per
day of sewer flows with approximately equivalent water usage assuming a rate of 200
GPD/1,000 square feet.
SOLID WASTE
Assuming 25,000 square feet of commercial space, the site would generate 625 pounds of
solid waste per day assuming a rate of 25 lbs/1,000 square feet. Solid waste would be
transferred to the Frederick County Landfill for disposal.
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
The subject site does not include any historic structures as identified by the Frederick
County Rural Landmarks Survey. Pursuant to the National Park Service Study of Civil War
Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, the subject site is located within the core
battlefield area of the Third Battle of Winchester (Opequon), however the subject acreage is
already identified as lost integrity due to development in proximity to the site. As such, the
application will have no impact to the existing integrity of battlefield resources.
IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The proposed commercial rezoning will have a positive impact on the Frederick County tax
base. The positive fiscal impact is augmented by the fact that the proposed rezoning is
replacing RP zoned property which could be used for residential development with no
proffers to mitigate impacts. In recognition of services provided for Fire and Rescue and
the Sheriff's Office, the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $1,000 for
Sheriff's office purposes and $1,000 for Fire and Rescue services.
Impact Analysis Statement — Walgreens — Dairy Corner Place
A Traffic Tmnnrt Annlvcic of tl_P
Walgreens at Dalry Corner Place
Located in:
Frederick County, Virginia
Prepared for:
Red Leaf Development
P.O. Box 10655,
Towson, MD 21285
Prepared by:
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
10212 J. fGovernor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007 1, ) Y\
Williamsport, Maryland 21795
T 301.223.4010
F 301.223.6831
September 04, 2008
OVERVIEW
Report Summary
Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present
the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
development to be located along the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Valley Mill
Road/Dairy Corner Place, south of Route 7 (Berryville Pike), in Frederick County,
Virginia. The proposed development is to include 15,000 square feet of pharmacy and a
10,000 square foot medical office building. Access will be provided via a full access site -
driveway to be located along the east side of Valley Mill Road as well as a right in/right out
only site -driveway to be located along south side of Dairy Corner Place. The proposed
development will be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2010.
Analyses are provided for existing, 2010 background and 2010 build -out year. Figure 1 is
provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
development with respect to the surrounding roadway network.
Methodology
The traffic impacts accompanying the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow
document:
• Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of
impact,
• Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
development,
• Distribution and assignment of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place development -
generated trips onto the completed roadway network,
• Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of Synchro 7 for
existing and future conditions.
Pi4
A Traffic ImpactAnalvsis o{the WalxrProj at Num Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-1-0
September 04, 2008
Page 1
No Scale
f�
Sm 'ce st
%n
N4Qenc#,pre
f SITE
41
g"
1 71;11
Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place, in Frederick County, VA
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
PH � Project Number: 15824-1-0
September 04, 2008
Page 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PHR+A conducted weekday AM/PM and Saturday mid-day peak hour manual
turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/I-81 SB Ramps,
Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/I-81 NB Ramps/Valley Mill Road, Route 7 (Berryville
Pike)/Martin Lane, Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/Gateway Drive and Valley Mill Road/Dairy
Corner Place. In order to determine the ADT (Average Daily Trips) along the study area
roadway links, "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic
volumes) of 7.7% was utilized based upon the published Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) 2006 traffic count data.
Figure 2 shows the existing weekday and Saturday ADT as well as weekday
AM/PM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within
the study area. Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry and weekday AMIPM peak
hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour levels of service. Existing condition analysis is
based upon VDOT signal timing. PHR+A has provided Table 1 to show the existing
weekday AM/PM and Saturday mid-day peak hour levels of service and 95th percentile
back of queue for each lane group. All traffic count data and Synchro level of service
worksheets are included in the Appendix section of the report.
PH
J� A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Walxreens at Dairy Comer Place
JII Project Number: 15824-1-0
September 04, 2008
Page 3
I
r
No!
J
S c°
� � X434(523)[513)
(..778(869)[7771
r-11(28)[42]
j 7
[1741(239)174��
[8021(1057)645��
[26)(17)6—% G R N
cna^p
10930
j 4-1 0(0)[O1
J
1� rulOH11
�y
m �
o
a �� 229(401)[283]
z (r�797p103)pOS
1�24(88)[811
7
11351(178)86—.0
[8101(928)981--+
[278](361)160--y ^ N p
r J
G �
�ti050(35921��g391
7
,1,96}(139 ,0]1310
I
p
4Pdslrs
J �/,n�l3yyJ
W
4,009 -,%A
61 7
Saturday ADT
A AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour]
Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-1-0
PH + September 04, 2008
Page 4
i
No Scale
ago
�4
S� Gate zea I
d
0 7
att.Y
�o��R A e4e 4
-ip
m $em
m rn
Cat Ytac N
52 : �P
r
o�nti' SITE
% t'al yAfil/
Road
j Signalized 2 Signalized 3 Unsignalized �j Signalized $ Unsignali-d
Intersection a E Intersection lntersection Intersection Intersection
LOS= D(C)[C] d' LOS= D(D)[D] Right Wont Only LOS= C(L7[B]
10-p o e
=D(A)tC] O 4—C(D)lD1 '!� n C
�plk oai Com Y
r
IC)(B)B *[C]lC)C o
�— 44 r ICIO �r1
y ]C �► 7
a m
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour]
Channelized Right turn -lane with 'STOP' condition
TT /� Channelized Right turn -lane with 'YIELD' condition
NOTE: Analysis is based upon VDOT Signal Timing
Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-1-0
PH
J September 04, 2008
Page 5
Table 1
Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95%) Results
Rvictina Conditions
Intersection
Traffic
Coniroi
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak Hour
Lane Group/
Back of Back of Back of
Approach L^S Queue LOS Queue LOS Queue
Route 7 & I-81 SB
Ramps/Shoney's
Entrance
Signalized
EB/L
C126.0
13 1
123.0
B
95.0
EB/T B --t 224.0 B 414.0 C
EB/TR
307.0
EB LOS B B C
WB/L D
25.0 A
25.0 B
25.0
WB/f-Lane I E
WB/T-Lane 2
395.0 A
54.0 C
234.0
WB/R A
25.0 A
25.0 A
25.0
WB LOS D A C
NB/LT D 28.0 E
75.0 D
63.0
NB/R C 25.0 C
36.0 C
25.0
NB LOS D D D
SB/L F 449.0 F 387.0 E
303.0
SB/LT F 440.0 F 385.0 E
311.0
SII/R A 25.0 A 1 25.0 A 1
25.0
SB LOS F F E
Overall
LOS D C C
Route 7 & 1-81
NB Ramps/Valley
Mill Road
Signalized
EB/L
C
59.0
E
188.0
D
109.0
EB/T-Lane I D 352.0 C
EBJ T -Lane 2
357.0 C
271.0
EB/R A 66.0 A
113.0 A
28.0
EB LOS C C C
WB/L C
29.0 C
41.0 B
25.0
WB/I'-Lane I D
WB/T-Lane 2
418.0 E
746.0 E
608.0
WB/R A
25.0 A
25.0 A
25.0
WB LOS C D D
NBIL F
464.0 F
1 540.0 E
37 LO
NBfIR D
273.0 E
T 245.0 D
165.0
NB LOS E F E
SB/L E 364.0 E 445.0 E
298.0
SB/LT E 356.0 E 454.0 D
1
297.0
SB/R A 25.0 A 25.0 A
I
25.0
SB LOS E D
Overall
LOS D D D
Route 7 &
Gateway Drive
Signalized
EB/1-Lane 1
EB/1-Lane 2
D
56.0
D
227.0
C
208.0
EB/T-Lane 1 B
EB/T-Lane 2
671.0 A
213.0 A
33.0
EB LOS C B B
WB/LU D
35.0 E
28.0VA
38.0
WB/T-Lane 1 B
WB/T-Lane 2
313.0 C
615.0
449.0
WB/R A
25.0 A
66.0
44.0
WB LOS B C C
SB/L-Lane I D
SB/L-Lane 2
46.0 D
106.0 D
87.0
SB/R-Lane 1 A
SB/R-lane 2
26.0 A
48.0 A
43.0
SB LOS C C B
Overall
LOS C C B
Route 7 &Martin
Lane
Unsignalized
EB/T
E/TR
WBfI-lane I
WB/T-Lane 2
NB/R -
Valley Mill Road
& Dairy Comer
Place
Unsignalized
EB/LTR
C
25.0
C
25.0
C
25.0
WB/LTR B 25.0 B 25.0 B
25.0
NB/L A 25.0 A 25.0 A
25.0
NWI R
SB/LTR A 25.0 A 25.0 A
25.0
PH'ZA
Minimum queue length assumed to be 25 feet
EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound
L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-1-0
September 04, 2008
Page 6
2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
PHR+A grew the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) using a rate of 6%
per year through Year 2010. There are no "planned" background developments in the
vicinity of the site.
Figure 4 shows the 2010 background weekday and Saturday ADT as well as
weekday AM/PM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic volumes at key
locations throughout the study area. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2010 background
lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour levels of service.
Table 2 is provided to show the 95"' percentile back of queue and levels of service for each
lane group during 2010 background conditions. Synchro levels of service worksheets are
provided in the Appendix section of this report.
Pt4-
ATrak Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-1-0
R+A September 04, 2008
Page 7
Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions
PH
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-I-0
R+A September 04, 2008
Page 8
1
No Scale
�4
S�
2
C,aie`Na
D��ae
O
129��
10150
f
0�1�,y1nQ %
a510
eQ�e 4
8170
6 7290
�eR
7
0
28510 ,
39620
C�cnet ylac 6N. Tie ?.
37300
— At 5
�=
lose
o
SITE
7"
Valle ]gill Road
113b0
1
3
�j G
5 v m ��488(588)[576]
~876(980)[879]
O
m ��257(45p[318]
4-895(1240)f12081j8U1178
911161'[1
✓N
8 15611 8)12951
w
w £16S 1p78(1181
�Oo
•11(28)[421
.:
1 27(99)[91]
7
7
N 161811
7
7
[196](269)196��
[152](200)97e�
[910](1042)1102 ��
7)1669
[9041(1191)726
[26](17)6—., w
[312](40s) 180--% `c
114341C1541U1(yiU�1l 3
17218110
4541'
a o��
�� mom"
i3go1131
N lz2so
%�1(2)[31
reloHo]
U i1
y 41
rlc )[
�9a
Vyc
Dai Coma `t
w
5 3�� •
Devy \
1 21(11 ;
J2s� �♦
�S
[2
Saturday ADT
,TJ I� A
■—T T��1 /
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour]
Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions
PH
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-I-0
R+A September 04, 2008
Page 8
No
j
aIntersection
-El Signalized
2 Signalized
G R intersection
3 Unsigmlized
Intersection
Q Signalized
Intersection
$ Unsignalized
Intersection
C
e LOS= C(C)[C]
- LOS= D(E)[E]
Right In/Out Only
LOS= B(B)[C]
d
nn C
a —
B(A)JAI
„t
B(C)[D]
�
r>
nt ` 5 40,B000
9
Q
�1
e—
7
V
00-
�i ,
7
Da' C.
era«
A c_11,
7
lCl(C)C
[DI(E)C ■
i
y
�l
21 Signalized
Intersection
"Suggested
Impravemenk"
LOS-- C(C)[C]
WB -1 Th -
NB -1 Left
fi
�
SB-1Left
No ImprovementsB(c][l1)
a
No Improvements
No Improvements
No Improvements
Required
Required
Required
Required
Cyt
.a�
[r]tc)r�
�
e
e
2
ED Denotes Improvements
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour]
Channelized Right turn -lane with 'STOP' condition
,TJ A Channelized Right turn -lane with 'YIELD' condition
Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
Pi4
J� A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Walzreens at Dairy Corner Place
J Project Number: 15824-1-0
September 04, 2008
Page 9
Table 2
Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95%) Results
gni n n..,a..,r.,,,A.l f`.,,.:l:f:n.,c (eo/ -" mPd Tmnnrovernents)
Intersection
Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Perk Hour
Lane Group/
Back of Back of Back of
Approach LOS Oueue LOS Oneue LOS Queue
Route 7 & I-81 SB
Ramps/Shoney's
Entrance
Signalized
EB/L
E
244.0
E
366.0
D
204.0
EB/,r C 265.0 C 482.0 B
EB/TR
317.0
EB LOS C C C
WB/L B 25.0 B
25.0 A
25.0
WB/r-LaneI C 383.0 B
WB/T-Lane 2
220.0 A
119.0
WWR A 25.0 A
25-0 A
25.0
WB LOS B A A
NB/LT D
27.0 E
73.0 E
70.0
NB/R C
25.0 C
35.0 C
27.0
NB LOS C D D
SB/L E 444.0 E 285.0 E
382.0
SB/LT F 457.0 E 282.0 E
385.0
SB/R A 25.0 A 25.0 A
25.0
SB LOS D D D
Overall
LOS C C C
Route 7 & I-81
NB Ramps/Valley
Mill Road
Signalized
EB/L
E
111.0
E
227.0
F
221.0
EB/ -r -Lane 1
EBlf-Lane 2 D
EB/r-Lane 3
582.0 C
503.0 C
341.0
EB/R A
25.0 A
25.0 A
25.0
EB LOS C C C
WB/L D
31.0 E
94.0 D
91.0
WBtr-Lane 1
WB/r-Lane 2 C
WB/T-Lane 3
193.0 C
353.0 B
313.0
WB/R A
25.0 A
25.0 A
25.0
WB LOS B C B
NB/LLane 1
C
NB/L,Lane 2
148.0 E
174.0 D
144.0
NBrrR E
1 289.0 D
1 216.0 E
1 2200.
NB LOS D D D
SB/L.Lane 1 E 284.0 E 250.0 D
SB/1-Lane 2
206.0
SB/T D 85.0 D 174.0 D
96.0
SB/R A 25.0 A E 25.0 A
25.0
SB LOS D D D
Overall
LOS C C C
Route 7 &
Gateway Drive
Signalized
EB/LLane 1
EB/Llane2
D
65.0
D
155.0
C
187.0
EB/r-Lane 1 A
EB/r-Lane 2
151.0 A
206.0 A
202.0
EB LOS A A B
WB/LU E
38.0 E
27.0 E
43.0
WBfr-Lane1 B
WB/T-Lane 2
2880 C
566.0 D
730.0
WB/R A
25.0 A
40.0 A
68.0
erg LOS B B C
SB/L-Lane 1 D
SB/L-Lane 2
55.0 E
112.0 E
143.0
SB/R-Lane 11 B
SB/R-Lane 2
31.0 B
52.0 B
56.0
SB LOS I C C C
Overall
LOS B B C
Route 7 &Martins
Unsignalized
EBIT
EBUR -
WBfr-Lane 1Lane WBrp-Lane 2NB/REB/LTR
VB
Valley Pike &
Dairy Comer
Place
Unsignalized
C
25.0250
C
25.0
WB/LTR B 25.025.0 B
25.0
NB/L A 25.0 A 25.0 A
25.0
NB/TR A 25.0 A 25.0 P_
25.0
SB/LTR A 1 25.0 1 A 25.0 A
25.0
PHRn
Minimum queue length assumed to be 25 feet
EB = Eastbound WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound
L: Left, T:Thm, R: Right
A Traffic /pact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-1-0
September 04, 2008
Page 10
TRIP GENERATION
PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using
equations and rates provided in the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers'
(ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 3 is provided to summarize the total trip generation
associated with the proposed development.
Table 3
Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Trip Generation Summary
ITE
Code
Land Use Amoant
AM Peak Hoar
oat
Total
am
PM Peak Hour
oat
Total
ADT
Ia
Sat Peak Hour
oat
Total
ADT
720
MM/D-ol Office Bldg 10,000 SF
20
5
25
10
27
37
194
21
16
36
90
881
Pharmacy w/ DT 15,000 SF
23
17
40
63
66
129
1,322
59
59
118
1,322
Sub -Total
42
22
65
73
93
166
1,516
80
74
154
1,412
Pass -by Trips 40% (Code 881)
8
8
16
26
26
52
529
24
24
47
529
Total "New" Trips
34
14
49
47
67
115
987
56
51
107
883
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway
network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages
shown in Figure 6 to assign the proposed Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place development
trips (Table 3) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the
development -generated AMIPM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour trips and ADT
assignments.
2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS
The Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the
2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8
shows the 2010 build -out weekday and Saturday ADT as well as weekday AM/PM peak
hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study
area network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and weekday
AMIPM peak hour and Saturday mid-day peak hour levels of service. Table 4 shows the
95th percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during 2010 build-
out conditions. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix
section of this report.
PH
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-1-0
RSeptember 04, 2008
Page 11
I
No Scale
Office Pharmacy
Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
PH
� Project Number: 15824-1-0
September 04, 2008
Page 12
Figure 7 Development -Generated Trips Assignment
PH
J� A Trak Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
J Project Number: 15824-1-0
September 04, 2008
Page 13
No Scale
o4f¢
Sg
Ga�wa9
49
4
66 W
66 e��„e4iKe
$
7 6'71
]
230
Z
99
Con`ei p\ac 6
N.
p34
BOO
39 1
O
SITE
1
2
A
3
4
a
a
a
m
'
x.2(9)[71
4-4(19)[14]
m z ��
aaan.4(-13)[-12]
17(35)[36]
17A1
131X21 7
y 6
m��131z211z41
f
7
1�■ (p
1� 7
7
�� 11 r
[161(13)11
�y
-4
L-121(-13)► ■■
[36](33)20
N
J
Q2Z1(Za)6
5 6
7
toxx
o r'
7y1 G
'fie
Saturday ADT
/�
PT YR+/ \
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour)
Figure 7 Development -Generated Trips Assignment
PH
J� A Trak Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
J Project Number: 15824-1-0
September 04, 2008
Page 13
Figure 8 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions
AA Trac Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Place
Analysis of the Walgreens at Dai�Comer Place
PH
R+A
Project Number: 04, 2 08 September 04, 2008
Page 14
J
.A
No Scale
r4
4a
SAO
Gateda9
'2 Dlt�e
O
1y970
10799
atQ
°'
349'
8236
68 7356
$ether
7
°yam
8740 37645
3971 6
2 CotOet plat
�
Dao
r
SITE
all Mill Ro
11-160
uA o
490(597)[5831
oma". o
6;
o
243181
.571451
7)[1973
`16411
11g7
481
319 1
40)1
�091�880(1000)[8931
—11(28)[42]
44(133)[1261
7
\
61166 5
6811181
7
7
[196](269)196
��"� I
[152](200)97
[899j(1029)1098114241(1531o1(3)O�y
[920](1204)737
[26](17)6 •� p Y w
[349](438)200
U
� ��✓
171(8
$
5
6
7
�5 e 13368
a ..-
p rn N It1�112)[31
0101101
~� ll2)141
,`6�1 q1
l`g1`O.� c.y 6
��0(0)[11
D acVomec
ly !s �o ..
3�2
(6'�irs�a S,•
� �
Place
^�
11211jj3/'
J
Jas 'r�
�S�OJ(OJ
[22115)3 ✓
[2)(0)1
1451(41)
[61(8)191 ✓ o�
- r
TO��(�dJ
721
4
Saturday ADT
T T pI
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour]
Figure 8 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions
AA Trac Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Place
Analysis of the Walgreens at Dai�Comer Place
PH
R+A
Project Number: 04, 2 08 September 04, 2008
Page 14
I.
_A
Not
Intermien New 7' 1•)ets Ar boil •'t�e.r
Intersee�tYoB Intersection" IntersectionIntersecti
RigFd bAhtt
only
1� t�x•
1 _
a
Signalized
s Intersection
2
a
Signalized
Intersection
3 Unsignalized
Intersection
Q Signalized
Intersection
$ Unsignalized
Intersection
'a
0
m LOS= C(C)[B]o
0
LOS= D(END]
Right Wont Only
LOS= B(B)[C]
4
�tv
B(ANA)
hf m
z
L)
s
«�B(DNB1
7
�
✓ �B�)\Ci
G
♦�
_
[C)(E)Cn��
I
�AXA,pJ,
8 I
m m
No Improvements
RequiredBlr)[B7
jAL 1"
t�)(crc )1Y
n
� d
e
-f
Figure 9
No ImprovementsI No Improvements I No Improvements
Required Required Required
0 Denotes Improvements
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour]
CChannelized Right turn -lane with 'STOP' condition
Channelized Right turn -lane with 'YIELD' condition
2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
Pi4
A Trak Impact Analysis of the Walereens at Dairy Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-1-0
September 04, 2008
Page 15
Signalized
"Suggested
Intersection
Lnprovemenls"
LOS= Qm[C)
WB - I Thru
NB -1 Left
u'
E
a
SB - 1 LeFt
m m
No Improvements
RequiredBlr)[B7
jAL 1"
t�)(crc )1Y
n
� d
e
-f
Figure 9
No ImprovementsI No Improvements I No Improvements
Required Required Required
0 Denotes Improvements
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour]
CChannelized Right turn -lane with 'STOP' condition
Channelized Right turn -lane with 'YIELD' condition
2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
Pi4
A Trak Impact Analysis of the Walereens at Dairy Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-1-0
September 04, 2008
Page 15
Table 4
Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95%) Results
,min R..;ld-n..t Vnnditinns (wt assumed lmnrovements)
Intersection
Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak Hour
Lane Group/
Back of Back of Back of
App... LOS LOS LOS
Queue Queue Queue
Route 7 & 1-81 SB
Ramps/Shoney's
Entrance
Signalized
EB/L
E 1
267.0
E
376-0
C
158.0
EB/r C 306.0 C 491.0 B
EB/IR
325.0
EB LOS C C C
WB/L B
25.0 B 25.0 A
25.0
WB? -Lane I C
WB/r-Lane 2
377.0 B 241.0 A
170.0
W B/R A
25.0 A 25.0 A
25.0
WB LOS B A A
NB/LT E 32.0 E 1 73.0 E
70.0
NB/R C 22.0 C 35.0 C
27.0
NB LOS D D D
SB/L E 437.0 E 291.0 E
293.0
SB/LT E 448.0 E 286.0 E
295.0
SB/R A 25-0 A 25.0 A
25.0
SB LOS D D D
Overall
LOS C C B
Route 7 & I-81
NB Ramps/Valley
Mill Road
Signalized
EB/L
E
116.0
E
254.0
F
216.0
EB/r-Lane 1 C
EB/r-Lane 2
501.0 D 542.0 C
424.0
EB/R A
25.0 A 1 38.0 B
202.0
EB LOS C C C
WB/L D
55.0 E
160.0 D
130.0
WWW -Lane 1
WB/r-Lane2 B
-M-IT-Lane 3
154-0 C
351.0 B
272.0
WBS A
25.0 A
25.0 A
25.0
WB LOS B C B
NB/t-lane 1 C
NB/L-Lane 2
145.0 D
186.0 C
136.0
NBfrR E
1 310.0 E
1 257.0 E
228.0
NB LOS D D D
SB/L-Lane I E 295-0 E 260.0 D
SB/L-Lane 2
206.0
SB/r E 1 120.0 E 1 227.0 F 1
49.0
SB/R A 25.0 A 25.0 A
25.0
SB LOS D D D
Overall
LOS C C C
Route 7 &
Gateway Drive
Signalized
EBA- Lane 1
EB/L-Lane2
D
78.0
D
158.0
C
155.0
EBfr-Lane I A
EB/r-Lane 2
149.0 A
212.0 A
194.0
EB LOS A A A
WB/LU E 44.0 E
27.0 E
41.0
WB/r-Lane 1 B 360.0 C
WB/r-Lane 2
583.0 C
621.0
WB/R A 25.0 A
41.0 A
57.0
WB LOS B B C
SBIL-Cane 1 E
SB/Irlane 2
62.0 E
122.0 E
124.0
SB/R-Lane 1 B
SB/R-Lane 2
32-0 B
53.0 B
51.0
SB LOS C C C
Overall
LOS B B C
Route 7 & Martins
Lane
Unsignalized
EB/r
EB/rR - - - - -
-
WB/r-Lane l
WB/r-Lane 2
NB/R
Valley Pike &
Dairy Comer
Place
Unsignalized
EB/LTR
C
25.0
D
25.0
D
25.0
WB/LTR B 25.0 B 25.0
NB/L A 25.0 A 25.0
NB/TR A 25.0 A 25.0
SB/LTR A 25.0 A 25.0
Valley Mill Road
& Site-
Driveway#2
Unsignalized
WB/LR
B
25.0
B
25.0
NB/1R - -
]A25D
SB/LT A 25.0 A 25.0
Dairy Comer
&Site-
Right
eight OutrDriveway#]
EBfrRPlace
NB/R
PtjR+-A
Minimum queue length assumed to be 25 feet
EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound
L: Left, T:Thm, R: Right
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-1-0
September 04, 2008
Page 16
CONCLUSION
Based upon Synchro analysis results, assuming the suggested improvements as
shown in Figure 9, all the study area intersections associated with the proposed Walgreens
at Dairy Corner Place will maintain overall level of service "C" or better during 2010
build -out conditions. The following describes the improvements suggested for the study
area intersections to maintain acceptable levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build-
out conditions:
• Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/1-81 SB Ramps: No improvements are required.
• Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/1-81 NB Ramps/Valley Mill Road: This intersection will
require improvements of a westbound through lane, a northbound left -turn lane and a
southbound left -turn lane. (The aforementioned improvements are also necessary
without the proposed Walgreen at Dairy Corner Place development).
• Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/Martin Lane: No improvements are required.
• Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/Gateway Drive: No improvements are required.
• Dairy Corner Place/Site-Driveway #1: This is a new unsignalized right in/out only
intersection.
• Valley Mill Road/Site-Drivewav #2: This is a new unsignalized intersection.
NOTE: Funding source for the aforementioned improvements have yet to be identified.
The applicant will work with VDOT/County to accommodate pedestrian and
bicycle facilities adjacent to the site.
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Walgreens at Dairy Corner Place
Project Number: 15824-1-0
PH September 04, 2008
Page 17
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
To be completed bi' Planning,Staff
';Fe�`l�:nc?uit Paid
Zoning Amendilieni Nuirilber fc Received
_PQeDater -Bg_'
Dai r
The following information shall be provided by the applicant:
All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of
the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester.
1. Applicants:
Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Telephone: (540) 667.2139
Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester Virginia 22601
2. Property Owner (if different than above)
Name: Eastside Holdings LLC Telephone:
Address: P.O. Box 31
Winchester, VA 22604
Name: 220 Seafood Restaurant, LLC Telephone:
Address: 238 Hanging Tree Road
Winchester, VA 22603
3. Contact person(s) if other than above
Name: Patrick Sowers w/PHRA Telephone: (540) 667.2139
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location Map X Agency Comments X
Plat X Fees X
Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X
Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X
5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to
rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
Eastside Holdings LLC 220 Seafood Restaurant LLC
Red Leaf Development
6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential and Vacant
B) Proposed Use of the Property: Commercial
7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED.
8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance
from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers).
The Property is located at the southeast corner of the Intersection of Berryyille
Ave Rt 7 and Valley Mill Road and also adjacent to Dairy Corner Place.
In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the
applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the
planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning
District as described on page 9 of the application package.
9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number: 54F -1-9A, 5417-1-9, 54F -A-30,
54F -3-A, 54F -3 -Al, 54F -3-A2, and portion of 54-A-1 12C.
Districts
Magisterial:
Fire Service:
Rescue Service:
Red Bud
Greenwood
Greenwood
High School:
Middle School:
Elementary School:
James Wood
JW Middle
Redbud Run
10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested.
Acres
CurrentZoning Zonin Re uested
3.1
RP B2
0.9
132 132
4.0
Total acreage to be rezoned
11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed:
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family Home Townhome Multi -Family
Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms
Office
Retail
Restaurant
12. Signature:
10.000
Square Footage of Proposed Uses
Service Station
Manufacturing
Flex - Warehouse
Other (Pharmacy) 15,000
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick
County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site
inspection purposes.
I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front
property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of
Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the
hearing.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to
the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant(s) ---= -� - Date 3' =' `7
Adjoining Property Owners
Rezoning
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property
abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public
right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The
applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the
parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of
Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County
Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street.
Name
Address
Property Identification Number (PIN)
Name:
David and Svetlana Burns
1675 Fort Braddock Street
Property
#:
54-A-1 12Q, 54-A-1 12D AND 54-A-1 12P
Winchester, VA 22601
Name:
220 Seafood Restaurant, LLC
238 Hanging Tree Road
Property
#:
54-A-113
Winchester, VA 22603
Name:
Win, LLC
1100 Fifth Ave S, Ste 210
Property#:
54 -A -99E
Naples, FL 34102
Name:
Frederick County School Board
PO Box 3508
Property#:
54-A-114
Winchester, VA 22604
Name:
Ariosto and Maria Sorto
1 Country Club Drive
Property
#:
54F-1-7, 54F-1-3 and 54f-1-5
Leesburg, VA 20175
Name:
State Highway
PO Box 2249
Property
#:
54F -A -30A
Staunton, VA 24402
Name:
Willie and Angela Shoemaker
286 Huntersridge Drive
Property
#:
54F-1-8
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Betty Garrett
147 Dowell J. Circle
Property
#:
54F-1-6
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Winchester Land Holdings LLC
1625 Apple Blossom Dr
Property#:
54 -A -99L
Winchester, VA 22601
Name:
220 Seafood Restaurant, LLC
238 Hanging Tree Road
Property#:
54-A-1 12A
Winchester, VA 22603
Name:
Jack Johnson et als
115 Firelock Ct
Property
#:
54-5-10
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Barbara Ganse
238 Hanging Tree Road
54-A-111
Winchester, VA 22603
-Property#:
Name:
Bertha Sherman
217 Valley Mill Rd
Property#:
541-1-1
Winchester, VA 22602
Name:
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 2249
#:
54 -A -110A
Staunton, VA 24402
-Property
Name:
Bruce and Wanda Miller
1037 Front Royal Pike
Property
#:
54-A-1 12F
Winchester, VA 22602
4
Name:
CCD Capital Investments
P.O. Box 31
Property
#:
54-A-1 12G
Winchester, VA 22604
Name:
Harry Hamilton
113 Plainfield Dr
#:
54-A-1 12M
Winchester, VA 22602
-Property
Name:
Eric and Margo Lassiter
13974 Blazer Lane
Property#:
54-A-1 12N
Lovettsville, VA 20180
Name:
Eddie and Anita Farmer
1818 Valley Avenue
Property
#:
54-A-1120
Winchester, VA 22601
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us
Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia,
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We)
(Name) Eastside Holdings, LLC (Phone) 540.450.0142
(Address) P.O. Box 31, Winchester, VA 22601
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Instrument Number: 070018868 and is described as
Tax Map Parcel 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, 54F -3-A 1, 54F -3-A2 Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates (Phone) 540.667.2139
"ddress) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601
act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described
Property, including
X Rezoning (including proffers)
_ Conditional Use Permits
Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
Subdivision
Site Plan
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered
conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified.
In witness thereof, I we) ave ereto set my (our) hand and seal this _ � day of v ,-2w@ 02 60
Signature(s)
State of Vir isCity/ ounty of U `'U7 t 1V t th To -wit:
Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction
aforesaid, ce y that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personal appeared before me
and acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this �� day f �� 1200
06 P ' " 0( L /) ` My Commission Expires: /�
r
Maryublic
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederiek Planning Web Site: www.mftvderick.va.us
Department of Pinning & Development, County ofFrederick, Virginia,
107 North Kent Street, 'Wbz&ft er, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We)
(Name) 220 Seafood Restaurant LLC (Phone)
(Address) 238 Hanging Tree Rid, Winchester, VA 22603
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
Deed Book: 862 Page: 1248 and is described as
Tax Map Parcel 54-A-1 12C Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates (Phone) 540.667.2139
(Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester. Virgi aja 22601
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described
Property, including
X Rezoning (including proffers)
_ Conditional Use Permits
Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
_ Subdivision
Site Plan
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered
conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified.
In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this 7—Z day of Al 200_2L
Signatures)
State of Virginia, City/County of c�—r'e o Q r C �C ,To -wit
I _ c + CY e C r'� c� S a No 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 2- -2- day of _00—f- 2001 �l
�u—.�---� My Commission Expires: U ) f'
Notary Public
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
P"R 1 1t.
CORPORATE:
Chantilly
VIRGINIA OFFICES:
Chontilly
Charlottesville
Fredericksburg
Harrisonburg
Leesburg
Newport News
Norfolk
Winchester
Woodbridge
LABORATORIES:
Chanlilly
Fredericksburg
MARYLAND OFFICES:
Baltimore
Columbia
"Frederick
Germantown
Hollywood
Hunt Volley
Williamsport
PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE:
Allentown
T 540.667.2139
F 540.665.0493
1 17 East Piccadilly Street
Suite 200
Winchester, VA
22601
June 3, 2009
ivir. ivinchael Ruddy, tnlx
Planning and Development
Frederick County, Virginia
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
.RE: Walgreens -Dairy Corner Place Rezoning Application
Dear Mke:
With the recent addition of 0.9 acres and a modified transportation proffer, we
recognize that the initial Walgreens Dairy Comer Place rezoning application (RZ 12-
08) has changed substantially and will therefore be processed as a new application
(RZ 03-09). Due to the fact that RZ 03-09 now supersedes RZ 12-08, I would like
to request, on behalf of my client, to formally withdraw rezoning application 12-08
and proceed solelywith the new application.
Please feel free to contact me at (540) 667-2139 should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Patton HardRust Associ tes
Ir ��
Patrick R Sowers
t
Proposed
Entrance- �.
"&v,
pEpy'.A11 ���
-rz
/ i TM .11"F>
A1
-mgi RP -
Exfs
I
1, d ,
•}.
1 9
TM 54� ..
Foposed 02/P'roposed:
i
B2
•',' .'
i
/-
'•
V a Az
Existhq: RP
� Proposed 82
M 5 4F
Existing:19RPA �•.,l
}
, �'
I
oz
r �
3 M
y
-
t a assn Se ::RY
CORNER PL ASE
DAl _._..
— -- - _ BE CLOSED
rFi
I
ACCESS T0.
BE CLOSED
_.._
—
-
_, _.
—
VIRGINIA ROUTE 7 — BERRYVILLE PIKE
\ p CL nU
N n
Z 'U
O
>� O Q
K O O O
R J v
06
y C a t O O
T
m L
O �
X
\ Z
J
O CL
\ W
N Z
Q W
W 0
Z
J
Lde
W
0
t
W
U
K Z
o CL o�
o w s
z N�
i
ji 0 pw
m o
p �
o �
i
Do
O
Q O
+ N O
_ ' n
d O
wLLJ
a i
u, o
� - � GfT,4PH/CSC.4LE �
JO IS 0 JO 60 QQ
ckf
U
o
U ci
ci N
3
W
o � U � N
:7
i
•
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Depariment ef Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651
)FAX: 540/665-6395
i fii : Frederick Cvurty Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner r�
Subject: Public Hearing — Recordation of Proffers
Date: June 2, 2009
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not contain standards as to how proffer statements should
be written and does not require that proffers be recorded once accepted by the Board of
Supervisors. It was requested that staff develop an ordinance that addresses these items.
Specifically, the recordation requirement has been developed due to concerns expressed
regarding proffers not showing up when title searches are performed on properties. Staff has
prepared a revision to the ordinance that contains requirements for the legal form of proffer
statements and a requirement that approved proffers be recorded with the Frederick County
Clerk of the Circuit Court.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at
their meeting on February 26, 2009. The group endorsed revisions to the proposed changes in
March of 2009. The Planning Commission discussed this item at their meeting on May 6, 2009.
The Planning Commission supported the text amendment because it would aid in creating a
tracking system for proffers when properties are transferred. Staff would note that one comment
was received after the Planning Commission meeting regarding the ten day requirement to the
potential for a rezoning to be appealed. Staff would note that if a party were to appeal a
rezoning, they could provide the County with an injunction to delay the recordation. If the
rezoning was successfully appealed after the proffers had been recorded, a statement repealing
the proffer statement would then be recorded. The Board of Supervisors approved this item to
be sent to public hearing at their May 27, 2009 meeting.
The attached document shows the existing Ordinance with proposed additions shown in bold
italics. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text
amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachment: 1. Proposed Ordinance Revision (§165-13)
CEP/bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 e Winchester, Virginia 22661-5000
ARTICLE H
Amendments
[Amended 6-13-19901
§ 165-13. Conditional rezoning.
ATTACHMENT 1
The applicant for a rezoning may proffer in writing before the public hearing by the Board of
Supervisors conditions to be placed on the approval of the rezoning.
A.
C.
Procedures. Proffers shall be presented to the Planning Commission at the advertised public
hearing for the rezoning. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation on the
acceptance of the proffers and the rezoning to the Board of Supervisors following the
procedures described for amendments to this chapter. Final proffers shall be received in writing,
signed by the owner and applicant, at least five (5) days prior to the advertised hearing of the
Board of Supervisors.
Proffer Standards. The conditions proffered shall meet the following standards.
(1) The rezoning itself must give rise to the need for the conditions.
(2) Such conditions shall have a reasonable relation to the rezoning.
(3) All conditions shall be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
Types of proffers. The types of conditions proffered shall include but need not be
limited to the following:
(1) Limitation on the use of the land.
(2) Limitations on the type of housing provided.
(3) Limitations of the size or locations of buildings or structures.
(4) Limitations on the density or intensity of the use.
(5) Conditions on the appearance or maintenance of structures or uses.
(6) Conditions preventing smoke, odors, fumes, dust, noise, traffic congestion or
flooding.
(7) Conditions or limitations on the location and nature of entrances and
driveways.
(8) Conditions concerning the number, location and design of parking and
loading spaces.
(9) Landscaping provisions.
(10) Provisions concerning outdoor storage and processing.
(11) Building height limitations.
(12) Provisions for stormwater management and environmental protection.
(13) Preservation and protection provisions for trees, woodland, streams or other
natural features.
(14) On-site or off-site sewer or water improvements.
(15) On-site or off-site drainage improvements.
(16) On-site or off-site road, entrance or driveway improvements.
(17) A particular master development plan or plan features or site layout features.
(18) Preservation of historic structures and sites located on the land to be rezoned.
(19) Buffer, screening and separation features.
(20) Requirements concerning the phasing or timing of development.
(21) The dedication of land for planned roads or for facilities identified in the
Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan.
(22) The construction of planned roads or necessary road improvements.
(23) The construction of facilities identified in the Frederick County Capital
Improvements Plan.
(24) Cash contributions for road improvements or for planned facilities identified
in the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan.
(25) Other conditions used to lessen or mitigate the impacts identified in the
impact analysis.
D. Legal form of proffer statement.
(1) All proffers shall be in writing and shall be in a form suitable.for recordation in the
land records of Frederick County.
(2) The proffer statement shall define the owners of the subject property and shall be
signed by all parties involved
E. Recordation of Proffers. If the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approves proffered
conditions as part of a rezoning, the Zoning Administrator or County Attorney shall, within
ten (10) days of the Board's actions, present the written proffer to the Frederick County Clerk
of the Circuit Court for recordation.
F.B. Amendment of conditions. Once accepted and adopted by the Board of Supervisors,
such conditions may only be changed through the procedures required for ordinance
amendments as described by this section.
G. E --Enforcement of conditions. The Zoning Administrator shall keep records of all conditions
attached to rezonings, which shall be readily accessible to the public. The Zoning Map shall
show by appropriate symbol the existence of conditions accepted for rezonings. In addition, the
Zoning Administrator shall maintain a conditional zoning index which shall provide for ready
access to the conditions created. Failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the
issuance of building or occupancy permits. The Zoning Administrator shall enforce the
conditions attached to the rezoning using the following means:
(1) The ordering in writing of the remedy of any noncompliance with such
conditions.
(2) The bringing of legal action to ensure compliance with such conditions,
including injunction abatement or other appropriate actions.
(3) The requiring of a guaranty, satisfactory to the Board of Supervisors, in an
amount sufficient for the construction of any improvements required by the
conditions or a contract for the construction of such improvements. The
applicant's guaranty shall be reduced or released by the Zoning Administrator
upon the completion; in whole or in part, of such improvements.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
g� T Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM
n ORA D i�J �'�'7_ FAX: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner N?
Subject: Discussion— Revised Secondary Use Standards
Bate: June 1, 2009
In December 2008, revisions were approved to § 165-26 which addresses Secondary or Accessory
Use requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. This revision prohibited accessory retail in the M 1 and
M2 Zoning Districts. On April 8, 2009 the Board of Supervisors directed staff to take the revised
accessory use standards back to the DRRC for further review. Specifically, the Board wanted to see
accessory retailing added back into the industrial districts. Therefore, staff has prepared a revision to
§ 165-26 to allow for accessory retailing in the OM, M 1 and M2 Districts with the same conditions
placed on the B3 District. Accessory retailing would be restricted to no more than 15 percent of the
gross floor area and shall not exceed 2,000 square feet.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRQ at their
meeting on April 23, 2009. The DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to the
Planning Commission 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. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold italics and deletions are
CEP/bad
shown with a strikethrough.
107 Porth Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ATTACHMENT 1
§ 165-26. Secondary or Accessory uses. (Amended 8-9-1990; 6-9-1993; 12-10-20081
When permitted secondary or accessory uses that are normally or typically found in association
with the allowed primary use shall be allowed on the same parcel or lot as the primary use.
Secondary uses shall meet the requirements of this section as well as any particular standard
imposed on such use.
A. Agricultural accessory uses. The selling or processing of agricultural products
produced on the premises shall be considered to be accessory to an agricultural use.
On bona fide, operating farms, temporary or permanent housing for workers actively
working on the farm shall be an allowed accessory use.
B. Accessory dwellings. One accessory dwelling shall be allowed with any single-family
dwelling as long as the following conditions are met:
(1) The floor area of the accessory dwelling shall be no more than 25% of the gross
floor area of the primary residential structure on the lot.
(2) In the RP Residential Performance, MH1 Mobile Home Community and R4
Residential Planned Community Districts, accessory dwellings shall only be
allowed if they are attached to the primary residential structure.
(3) In no case shall a mobile home be allowed as an accessory dwelling in. the RP
Residential Performance District. R4 Residential Planned Community District
and R5 Residential Recreational Community District.
C. Dwellings in a business. One accessory dwelling shall be allowed with any business
or industrial use only so long as it is occupied by the owner of the business or
industry, an employee or a watchman.
D. Child day-care services. Child day-care services and facilities shall be allowed in the Ml
Light Industrial District as an accessory or secondary use to any allowed use or group of
allowed uses in an industrial park.
E. In no case shall a mobile home or temporary trailer be allowed as an accessory use,
unless it is used for temporary or permanent housing on a bona fide, operating farm.
F. Secondary or accessory uses in the Bl, B2, and B3, OM, M-1 and M2 Districts
The square footage or area occupied by secondary uses cumulatively shall not
exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the related principal use.
In the B3, OM, M-1 and M2 Districts no more than fifteen (15) percent of the gross
floor area of the principal use may be used for accessory retail sales and in no case
shall the accessory retailing component exceed 2,000 square feet. The square
footage devoted to accessory retail sales shall be included in calculating the 25
percent limit on secondary uses.
00.
-
�.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department p ent of Planning and Development
10 }}++ TT T Tom, qq 540/665-5651
E-WORA .� I .��1 FAX: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
Subject: Discussion — Off-street parking; parking lots (§ 165-27)
Date: June 1, 2009
i
Over the past year, staff has been informed of the desire to revise the parking standards currently
contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, it has been expressed that the current code
requires excessive parking, lacks ability for parking adjustments, doesn't include provisions for
low impact development and requires excessive curb and gutter. As a result of these concerns,
staff has been working on a complete revision of §165-27 of the County Code for off street
parking and parking lot requirements- The major proposed revisions include the following:
• Required Off -Street Parking Spaces — This portion has been revised to place the
standards in a table, as well as revisions to decrease some of the parking requirements
and add new types of uses.
• Changes in Use — This is a proposed new section that pertains to changes in use or
building/use expansions.
• Procedure for Adiustments to Parkine Requirements — This is a proposed expansion
of a section of the ordinance proposed for elimination (§ 165-27A(2)). This section would
allow the Zoning Administrator to reduce required parking spaces provided that the
applicant demonstrates that the reduction is warranted. The draft changes would also
require the property owner to enter into a covenant that would allow the Planning
Commission to require more spaces if the Zoning Administrator determines that the site
requires additional spaces.
• Parking for Mixed Uses and Loading Facilities. This is a proposed addition that would
allow mixed uses to share parking spaces and would allow the Zoning Administrator to
reduce spaces if it is determined that the peak parking requirement of the occupants
occurs at different times (either daily or seasonally), and the parking demand can be
provided on the premises.
• Captive Market. This is a proposed new section that would allow retail and restaurant
parking spaces to be reduced when it can be determined that some of the patronage can
walk from other uses (within 400 feet).
• Spaces Behind Buildings. This is a proposed new section that would place a percentage
cap on the spaces permitted to be located at the rear of a structure.
• Parking limit for certain commercial vehicles — This is a proposed revision to clarify
what types of commercial vehicles cannot be parked within a residential district (does not
apply to the RA District).
1.07 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Frederick County Planning Commission
Re: Parking and Parking Lots
Page 2
June 1, 2009
• Parking Lots — Surface Material — Proposed addition to allow surface material such as
reinforced grass systems, permeable paving systems, or other suitable materials for
overflow parking areas, low volume access ways in all Zoning Districts and for
agricultural uses in the RA (Rural Areas) District. Addition, would also allow parking
lots in the RA with ten or fewer spaces to utilize gravel.
• Parking Lots — Curb, gutter, and islands - Proposed addition to allow sites in the B3,
OM, Ml, and the M2 Districts to use header curb in areas where the use of gutters is not
necessary for stormwater management purposes. Also allows the Zoning Administrator
to eliminate curb and gutter and modify landscaped islands for parcels located inside of
the Sewer and Service Area when necessary to implement low impact development
design.
• Low Impact Design - Proposed addition to encourage low impact development and an
allowance for certain techniques to be counted towards greenspace requirements.
• Setbacks — Proposed revision to add loading spaces and travel ways (currently
interpreted this way) to the setback section. This change also proposes a ten foot setback
from all road right-of-ways for all districts, excluding M1/M2. In the M1/M2, the
setback is proposed to remain 25 feet from collector/arterial streets, but reduced to ten
feet from minor/local streets.
• Parking Space Size and Aisle requirements - Proposed revision and a consolidation of
two sections. There are currently separate parking space and aisle sections in the
ordinance. This revision would combine the two into one section and tables. This
revision also adds parallel parking space requirements.
• Definitions - Addition of a definition for commercial vehicles and construction
equipment.
The item was discussed by the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) on
multiple occasions due to the number of proposed changes to the ordinance. The DRRC
discussed the first set of changes at their meeting on February 26, 2009. The Committee
requested modifications to some of the sections and the changes were made and emailed to the
Committee in March. The second set of changes was discussed by the DRRC at their April 23,
2009 meeting. The Committee requested a few modifications that were made and emailed to the
group for endorsement. Ultimately, the DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be
sent to the Planning Commission for discussion.
The attached documents show the existing ordinances with the proposed changes supported by
the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and red italic for text added). This item is
presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in red italics and deletions are
shown with a strikethrough.
CEP/bad
DRAFT OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING LOTS REVISIONS 1 X1)09
ARTICLE IV
Supplementary Use Regulations
§ 165-27. Off-street parking; parking lots.
Off-street parking shall be provided on every lot or parcel on which any use is established
according to the requirements of this section. This section is intended to ensure that parking is
provided on the lots to be developed and to ensure that excess parking in public street rights-of-
way does not interfere with traffic.
A. Required parking spaces.
1) For certain residential uses, parking requirements are contained in the zoning
district regulations. In all other cases, parking spaces shall be provided with each
allowed use, on the lot containing the use, according to the following schedule
table:
REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES
USE
REQUIRED PARKING
Single-family dwellings and mobile homes
2
1 for each 3 seats
Churches
Schools, Elementary or Intermediate
1 c - eae ^ s,ff`s No fewer than one (1) space per
faculty and staff member and other full-time
employee, plus./our 4 spaces./or visitors
Schools, High School
No fewer than one (1) space per faculty and staff
member and other full-time employees; four (4)
spaces for visitors; one (1) for each 10 students
over driving age; one (1) for each 4 seats for
stadiums or auditoriums
Colleges and Universities
No fewer than one (1) space per faculty and staff
member and other full-time employee, plus a
sufficient number of spaces to accommodate the
anticipated number of students and visitors who
will drive to the institution at any one time.
Day care
1 per 5 children plus 1 per employee
Nursing homes, personal care, adult care residences
1 per 4 beds, plus 1 per employee on
and assisted living care facilities
primary shift
Amended 2-26-1997
Hospitals
1.8 per bed
Libraries, museums or galleries
1 per 400 square feet of floor area;
10 minimum
Fraternal lodges, civic clubs
1 per 250 square feet of floor area,
assembly area or recreation area
Rooming houses, boardinghouses, -and tourist
1perfeem
homes, and bed and breakfasts
2 per single family dwelling plus one per guest
room
DRAFT OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING LOTS REVISIONS I -to 09
Motels, hotels and lodges
1 per room, plus appropriate spaces for restaurants
and meeting rooms
Assembly halls and meeting rooms
1 per 3 seats
Funeral homes
1 per 4 seats; 30 minimum
Commercial cemeteries
25 minimum
Movie theaters
1 per 4 seats
Indoor recreation
1 per 450 200 square feet of floor area
Golf courses and driving ranges
3 per hole
Miniature goyand driving ranges
2 per tee for the first 36 tees, then I per tee
Campgrounds
1 per campsite
Restaurants
1 per 100 square feet of seating floor area
Fast-food or drive-in restaurants
1.4 per 100 square feet of seating floor area
Retail and personal services
1 per 200 square feet of retail floor area
Medical, dental, veterinarian offices and clinics
1 per 250 square feet of office area
General offices, ineluding banks
1 per 250 square feet of office floor area
Banks and banks with drive-in windows
1 per 400 squarefeet offloor area
Shopping Centers
(small strip -style centers)
6/1,000 sq. ft. of retail floor areas for centers with
up to 30,000 sq. ft.
511,000sq. ft. of retail floor area for centers
between 30,000 and 60,000 sq, ft,
Shopping Centers (Non Enclosed)
Large Integrated Shopping Centers
4/1,000 sq. ft. of retail floor area for centers
over 60,000 sq, t.
Shopping Centers (Mall -type centers)
3.5/1,000 sq. ft. of retail floor area for centers
with up to 400, 000 sq. ft.
3.8/1/000 sq. ft. of retail floor area for centers
over 400, 000 sq. ft.
Furniture and carpet stores; retail nurseries; farm
equipment and feed sales; boat, mobile home and
motor sales
1 per 400 square feet of enclosed floor area
plus 1 per 3,000 square feet of outside display area,
plus 2 spaces per service bay
Automobile service and service stations
3.2 per service bay plus required spaces for retail
or office areas
Self service storage
1 spaee pef 5,000
3 spaces at the office plus_ 1 space per em to ee
Wholesaling, warehouses, truck terminals,
construction storage, manufacturing, mining and
other industrial uses
}-per empleyee—l.5 spaces per employee plus any
required spaces for office or similar use, plus one
space for each company vehicles and piece of
equipment stored outdoors
(2) Interpretation. When a use is not specifically listed above, the Zoning
Administrator shall determine which of the above categories to use to determine
the spaces required, based on similarities between the characteristics of the uses.
When a use is not specifically listed above, the Zoning Administrator may also
use information provided by the applicant or other sources of information to
determine the number of spaces required. The Zoning Adininistffftef may allow
2
DRAFT OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING LOTS REVISIONS I ?Cfflo
(3) Change in use or expansion. Parking requirements for changes in use and/or
an expansion or enlargement of an existing structure and/or use shall be in
accordance with the following:
a) When there is a change in use (excluding shopping centers) to a use which
has the same or lesser parking requirement than the previous use, no
additional parking shall be required. When there is a change to a use which
has a greater parking requirement than the previous use, the minimum off-
street parking requirements in accordance with the provisions of this Article
shall be provided for the new use.
b) When an existing structure andlor use is expanded or enlarged, the
additional minimum off-street parking requirements in accordance with the
provisions of this Article shall be provided for the area of such expansion or
enlargement.
(4) Procedure for Adjustments to Parking Requirements.
a) Generally, the Planning Commission may approve a reduction in required
parking spaces. Applications for such a reduction shall be submitted to the
Planning Department in conjunction with a site plan and include the
following:
1) A parking demand analysis which substantiates the basis for a reduced
number of parking spaces.
2) A plan showing how the parking spaces will be provided on the site.
3) An executed covenant guaranteeing that the owner will provide the
additional spaces otherwise required, if the Planning Commission, upon
recommendation of the Zoning Administrator, after thorough
investigation by the Zoning Administrator of the actual utilization of
parking spaces at the building or complex, decides that the approved
reduction be modified or revoked. Said covenant shall.
i. Be executed by the owner of said lot or parcel of land and the
parties having beneficial use thereof,
ii. Be enforceable by the owner, the parties having beneficial use,
and their heirs, successors and assigns or both;
iii. Be enforceable against the owner, the parties having beneficial
use, and their heirs, successors and assigns or both; and
n. Be recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
3
DRAFT OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING LOTS REVISIONS 1 '211,109
4) The Zoning Administrator will review the above completed application
and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission may impose such additional conditions as are
deemed necessary to protect and assure compliance with the objectives
of this section.
b) Parking for Mixed Uses and Loading Facilities. In the case of mixed uses
(not qualifying as accessory) or two or more buildings upon a single lot or
unified parcel or upon contiguous parcels, the total requirements for
parking and loading facilities shall be the sum of the requirements of the
various uses computed separately. However, cumulative parking
requirements for mixed-use occupancies may be reduced where the Zoning
Administrator determines that the peak requirement of the several
occupancies occurs at different times (either daily or seasonally), and the
parking demand can be provided on the premises.
c) Captive Market. Parking requirements for retail and restaurant uses may
be reduced where the Zoning Administrator determines that some portion of
the patronage of these businesses comes from other uses (i.e., employees of
area offices patronizing restaurants) located within the same building or a
maximum walking distance of 400 feet.
(5)(3) In cases where mixed uses share the same parking area, the parking spaces
required shall equal the sum of the spaces required for the various uses. In
some cases, different uses will be contained in a single structure or site plan,
and in those cases, the spaces required shall equal the sum of the spaces for
each use.
(6)(4) When the above fequifemepAs fesult in a fequifement fbf a fractional spaee,
the p,,,.king spaees requrreua shall be the next highest whole r ,,.,b When the
calculation of parking spaces results in a fraction offive-tenths (0.5) or greater,
the next greatest whole number shall be used.
(7) In circumstances when no customer or public entrance or access is located at
the side or rear of a structure, no more than five percent (5%) of the required
spaces shall be located in the rear of buildings or uses.
(8)(5) When the required spaces are based on a number of employees, students, seats or
other factor that can vary over time, the spaces required shall be based on the
maximum possible number of employees, students, and attendees normally
present at any one time.
(9)(6) Parking spaces based on floor area shall be determined based on the gross total
floor area devoted to each separate use on the site.
0
DRAFT OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING LOTS REVISIONS 1 �QQ9
B. Shared parking. Required parking spaces may be located on a lot other than the lot
containing the use under the following circumstances:
(1) Parking for a use on a lot may be located on an abutting lot if the zoning of
the abutting lot is the same as the lot containing the use.
(2) When shared parking is provided on abutting lots, the total spaces provided
shall equal the sum of the number required for each use sharing the parking.
(3) When shared parking is provided on abutting lots, means of pedestrian access
shall be provided between each use sharing the parking and the parking area.
(4) When shared parking is provided on abutting lots, a lease, easement or other form
of agreement shall be executed among the property owners sharing the parking
assuring the use of the required parking spaces and assuring proper maintenance
of the parking area. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator for review and approval,
C. Parking limit for certain commercial vehicles.
1) Within the RP Residential Performance District, the R5 Residential Recreational
Community District, MHI Mobile Home Community District, or any residential
portion of the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, the TND (Traditional
Neighborhood Development) District or the MS (Medical Support) District the
parking of the following types of vehicles shall be prohibited:
a. tractor truck or tractor truck trailer
b. semitrailer
c. garbage, refuse or recycling trucks
d. towing and recovery vehicle
e. cement trucks
f. construction equipment (such as but not limited to bulldozers, backhoes,
bobcats etc.)
g. buses
h. dump truck
i. trucks with a total length of 25 feet or greater
j. any vehicle with three or more axles
k. any commercial vehicle as defined in Section 165-156 of this Code
DRAFT OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING LOTS REVISIONS I A()O()
2) Construction equipment. Construction equipment and construction -related vehicles shall
not be parked or stored in any residential community, or residential portion of a planned
community except during the tenure of construction, and only when being used for
construction purposes on or proximate to the lot where parked or stored Valid building
and/or site development permits and continuous pursuit of completion of the permitted
construction or development shall be required to demonstrate the existence of bona fide
construction activity.
3) Exceptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (i) any commercial
vehicle when taking on or discharging passengers or when temporarily parked
pursuant to the performance of work or service at a particular location or (ii) any
commercial vehicles (as defined) specifically permitted as part of a home or cottage
occupation.
&D. Parking lots. Parking spaces shared by more than one dwelling or use, required for any
use in the business or industrial zoning district or required for any institutional,
commercial or industrial use in any zoning district shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Surface materials. In the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential
Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District,
the MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the B1 Neighborhood Business District,
the B2 Business General District, the B3 Industrial Transition District, the OM
Office -Manufacturing Park District, the M1 Light Industrial District, the M2
Industrial General District andthe MS Medical Support District, TND (Traditional
Neighborhood Development) District, the RA (Rural Areas) District and the HE
(Higher Education) District, parking lots shall be paved with concrete, bituminous
concrete or similar materials. Such surface materials shall provide a durable, dust
and gravel -free, hard surface.
a. The Zoning Administrator may allow for the use of other hard -surface
materials for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area if
the site plan provides for effective stormwater management and efficient
maintenance. In such cases, parking lots shall be paved with a minimum of
double prime -and -seal treatment or an equivalent surface.
b. In the RA (Rural Areas) District parking lots with ten (10) or fewer spaces
shall be permitted to utilize gravel surfaces.
c. Reinforced grass systems, permeable paving systems, or other suitable
materials may be used for overflow parking areas, low volume access ways
in all Zoning Districts and for agricultural uses in the RA (Rural Areas)
District. Parking areas utilizing these materials shall have defined travel
aisles and designated parking bays. These materials shall only be utilized
with approval of the Frederick County Zoning Administrator and the
Director of Public Works.
G
DRAFT OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING LOTS REVISIONS 12009
For single-family attached and multi family
developments, required off-street parking spaces shall be demarcated by four (4)
inch durable white lines painted on the pavement or curb. Any other proposed
color and size will require approval of the Zoning Administrator. Full delineation
by 4" wide lines painted on the pavement the full width of or length of the parking
stall or parking spaces shall be required on commercial, office and industrial
developments. Where paved parking areas are not required, delineation of parking
spaces shall be by the use of individual wheel stops or other acceptable means for
each unpaved parking space. Signs and pavement markings shall be utilized, as
necessary, to ensure safe traffic movement and pedestrian access and to designate
handicapped parking spaces.
(3) Curbs and gutters. Concrete curbing and gutters shall be installed around the
perimeter of all parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4
Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational
Community District, the MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the B1
Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the TND
(Traditional Neighborhood Development) District, the MS (Medical Support)
District and the HE (Higher Education) District. In the B3 Industrial Transition
District, the OM Office Manufacturing Park District, the MI Light Industrial
District and the M2 Industrial General District the use of header curb shall be
permitted in areas where the use of gutters is not necessary for stormwater
management purposes. The --All curbing shall be a minimum of six inches in height.
All parking lots shall be included within an approved stormwater management plan.
The Zoning Administfater may allowfefthuse of eene-rete buil pe fs instead of
a. The Zoning Administrator may allow for the use of concrete bumpers
instead of curbing for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water
Service Area if the site plan provides for effective stormwater management
and efficient maintenance.
b. The Zoning Administrator may allow for the elimination of curb and gutter
for parcels located inside of the Sewer and Service Area when necessary to
implement low impact development design. This shall only be permitted
where practices such as bio -retention, infiltration trenches, and rain
gardens are used and only where it can be demonstrated that soil conditions
are favorable, or if an adequate under -drain is included in the design and
where approved by the Director of Public Works.
(4) Raised islands. Raised islands shall be installed at the ends of all parking bays
abutting an aisle or driveway in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4
Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational
Community District, the MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the B1
Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the B3 Industrial
Transition District, the OM Office -Manufacturing Park District, the M1 Light
7
DRAFT OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING LOTS REVISIONS 1 7� �G,
Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District, and -the MS Medical Support
District, the TND (Traditional Neighborhood Development) District and the HE
(Higher Education) District. The raised islands shall be bordered by a six inch
concrete or rolled asphalt curb. All islands shall be at least nine feet wide and shall
extend the length of the parking space or bay. The islands shall be landscaped with
grass, shrubs, or other vegetative materials.
a. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for raised islands for
parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and
gutter is not proposed.
b. The Zoning Administrator may approve modifications to the landscaped
islands for parcels located inside of the Sewer and Service Area when
necessary to implement low impact development design and where approved
by the Director of Public Works.
(5)Low Impact Development. Low impact development techniques are encouraged by
the County and should be incorporated into the design of individual developments
when deemed appropriate by the applicant after consultation with appropriate
county officials. Low impact design options such as rain gardens may be used to
satisfy the greenspace requirements for parking areas, such as landscaped islands
and minimum landscaped area.
-(56)Setbacks. All parking lots and loading spaces, and travelways, except for single
family detached and mobile home residential uses shall be set back as follows:
shall be leeated no closer than five feet ftem any prepei4y line, exeept in eases where
more than ene lot shafes the par -king let. in stieh eases, the pafking let sMl not -be
elesef than five feet ffeffi the pefimetef beundffy ef the lots sharing the par -king let�
in the N41 Light indtistfial Distfiet and N42 lndustr-W General Distfiet, parking lots
shall be leeated no elesef than 25 feet to an), read fight ef-wft�-.
a) At least ten (IO) feet from any street or road right-of-way.
b) At least five (5) feet from all other property lines, except in cases where more
than one lot shares the parking lot.
c) In the MI (Light Industrial) District and M2 (Industrial General) District,
parking lots shall be located no closer than l0 feet to any minor or local street
or road right-of-way and no closer than 25 feet to any collector or arterial street
or road right-of-way.
(67) Handicapped spaces. Handicapped parking and building or sidewalk accessibility
s-paees shall be provided in any parking lot aeeefdifig to the requirements in
accordance with the current addition of the of Virginia Uniform Statewide Building
Code (Y U r BC). Haildiea peck parld .. shall have a inn ..... m . idt1. of 12 feet.
pr-avided shall be as follows!
i
DRAFT OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING LOTS REVISIONS I " .00
Required
Handieapped Spaces
1
4
6
S
9
20% of total
(78) Entrance requirements. In no case shall a parking lot be approved which requires
that vehicles back from parking spaces onto public roads. All parking lots shall
be provided access to a public road using an entrance which meets all
requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Virginia Department of
Transportation. The width of driveways serving the parking lot shall not be less
than 24 feet for two-way traffic and 12 feet for one-way traffic. [Amended 6-9-
1993]
(99) Parking space size and aisle requirements.
a) Aceesrs to eaeh pafking spaee shall bepfevidea by an aisle with the
following widtht All parking spaces and aisles shall be provided in
accordance with tables 1.1 and 1.2.
TABLE 1.1
Minimum Off -Street
Parking Area Dimensions
Angle of
Width of
Depth of
Width of
Parking
Stall (feet)
Stall (feet)
Aisle
Degrees
(feet)
30
9.0
20.0
*12.0/**20.0
10.0
18.0
*12.0/**22.0
45
9.0
20.0
*15.0/**20.00
10.0
18.0
*15.0/**22.00
60
9.0
20.0
* 18.0/* *20.0
10.0
18.0
*18.0/**22.0
90
9.0
20.0
*22.0/**22.0
10.0
18.0
*22.0/**24.0
*One-way
"Two-way
9
DRAFT OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING LOTS REVISIONSIl
TABLE 1.2
Parallel Parking and Aisle Dimensions
Direction of
Width of Stall
Depth of Stall
Width of
Traffic
(Feet)
(Feet)
Aisle
(feet)
One-way aisle
9.0
22.0
12.0
(One -side
parking)
One-way aisle
9.0
22.0
15.0
(Two side
parking)
Two-way aisle
9.0
22.0
22.0
(Two -side
parkin )
(b) For other angles, the aisle width shall be the same as for the nearest angle
in the above table.
(910) Obstructions and structures. Parking lots shall be designed to permit each vehicle
to proceed to and from all unoccupied parking spaces without requiring the
moving of any other parked motor vehicle. Utility poles, light standards, trash
containers and similar structures shall not be permitted within any aisle or parking
space. Any structure located in a parking lot shall be surrounded on all sides
abutting spaces or aisles by a six-inch concrete curb. The structure shall be
separated from the curb by a distance of three feet.
(4-011) Drive-in lanes. Drive-in lanes shall be required for all drive-in or pickup
facilities. Drive-in lanes shall be designed to provide for a minimum width of
nine feet and a minimum stacking distance of 90 feet. Canopy supports and
raised concrete pads designed to support pneumatic tubes, automatic teller
machines and other structures shall not be located within the area required for
minimum drive-in lane widths. All drive-in lanes shall be clearly separated from
parking spaces, travel aisles, maneuvering areas and driveways. The Zoning
Administrator may reduce the minimum stacking distance of drive-in lanes for
retail uses with less than 150 square feet of floor area if it can be demonstrated
that the vehicular frequency for the use does not warrant multiple vehicle
stacking. [Amended 5-8-2002]
(4412) Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4
Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational
Community District, the MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the Bl
Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the B3
Industrial Transition District, the OM Office -Manufacturing Park District, the Ml
Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District, aPA-the MS Medical
Support District, the TND (Traditional Neighborhood Development) District
and the HE (Higher Education) District shall be landscaped to reduce the visual
impact of glare and headlights on adjoining properties and rights-of-way. Parking
10
DRAFT OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING LOTS REVISIONS
lots shall be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat. In the RA (Rural Areas)
District, parking lot landscaping shall not be required for parking lots with ten
(10) or fewer spaces. Landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the visual
expansiveness of parking lots. Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots
as follows:
a) Perimeter landscaping. The perimeter of all impervious areas shall be
landscaped with shade trees and other landscaping. One tree shall be provided
for every 2,000 square feet of impervious area for the first 100,000 square feet
of the entire site. One tree shall be provided for every 5,000 square feet of
in excess of the first e�100,000 square feet of the entire
site. Self-service storage facilities shall provide one tree per 10,000 square
feet of impervious area of the entire site, in addition to the trees required in
§ 165-44, Self -storage facilities. The majefity of these tfees shall be leeated
afetind pafking lots. e perimeter landscaping trees shall be reasonably
dispersed throughout the parking lot. A three -foot -high evergreen hedge,
fence, berm or wall shall be provided to prevent headlights from shining on
public rights -of -ways and adjoining properties. All perimeter landscaping
shall comply with the requirements of §165-36C, Plant selection, planting
procedure and maintenance.
b) Interior landscaping. A minimum of 5% of the interior portions of parking
lots shall be landscaped for the purpose of providing shade trees. Such
interior landscaping shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous
raised strips extending the length of a parking bay. Within the parking lot,
raised islands and landscaped areas should be uses to delineate traffic and
pedestrian circulation patterns. No less than one shade tree shall be provided
in the interior of the parking lot for each 10 parking spaces. The Zoning
Administrator may waive the requirement for interior landscaping for parcels
located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and gutter is
not proposed. The Zoning Administrator may approve alternative locations
for interior landscaping for parking lots used for truck parking, as well as
other parking lots, when it would improve the overall quality of the landscape
plan. All interior landscaping shall comply with the requirements of § 165-
36C, Plant selection, planting procedure and maintenance.
(4-213) Pedestrian access. Sidewalks shall be provided as necessary within parking lots
to protect pedestrians and promote the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians
and vehicles. In large parking lots, pedestrian walkways and crosswalks shall be
provided, marked by durable painted stripes and appropriate signs.
11
DRAFT OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING LOTS REVISIONS 12009
ARTICLE XXII
Definitions
§165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Amended ii-is-lyyi j
Commercial vehicle — Any vehicle (1) with a gross vehicle weight registered with the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles or any other state or government agency as twelve thousand
(12,000) pounds and greater and used for commercial purposes, or (2) any vehicle, regardless
of weight, licensed as a `for hire" vehicle, or any limousine or bus used as a common or
contract carrier vehicle. For purposes of this chapter, a "commercial vehicle" shall not be
deemed to include any of the following: police vehicle, emergency vehicle, commuter van,
motor home, camping trailer, boat trailer or similar recreational equipment used as a personal
property and not for hire or use as a school van or bus.
Construction equipment — Heavy equipment or vehicles of a type used primarily by the
construction industries. Such equipment may include, but is not limited to, bulldozers,
backhoes, cement trucks, concrete mixers, construction tractors, cranes, derricks, dredging
machinery, dump trucks, excavators, graders, hosts, pavers, power shovels, road construction
and maintenance machinery, scaffolds, tank trucks, trenching machines, and water well
drilling machinery.
12
:7
•
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior PlannerR
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
Subject: Discussion — Sidewalks, Pedestrian Walkways, Streetlights
Date: June 1, 2009
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
The requirement for sidewalks within Frederick County is covered under The Frederick County
Subdivision Ordinance §144-18 — Sidewalks and Pedestrian lf'alkm,ays. This portion of the
ordinance currently requires sidewalks with certain development activities. This section of the
subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks for the following:
A. Sidewalks shall be installed in the right-of-way and adjacent to the boundary of the right-of-
way of all proposed streets and shall contain adequate handicapped ramps at all intersections
at intervals acceptable to the Virginia Department of Transportation. There shall be a grass
strip between the street edge of the sidewalk and the curb face where sidewalks are required.
Sidewalks are required as follows:
Along both sides of all local streets in any subdivision containing one or
more lots of less than 15,000sf in size.
2. Along both sides of all collector and arterial streets.
This section of the ordinance has become problematic in some circumstances due to the fact that it
only requires sidewalks on proposed streets, not existing streets. Therefore, if a development
proposal (site plan for example) is submitted for a property on an existing street that would otherwise
require a sidewalk, they are not required to construct a sidewalk because the street is already in
existence.
Streetlights are required by §144-19 — Streetlights and contains similar language to §144-18
regarding the 15,000sf lot size requirement. This section of the subdivision ordinance requires
streetlights as follows:
Streetlights of adequate type and intensity shall be required to promote public health and safety in
any subdivision containing lots of less than 15,000 square feet in size. Streetlights shall be
provided at all intersections. The design proposal for streetlighting shall be approved by the
Subdivision Administrator. The Planning Commission may waive the requirement for
streetlights.
107 forth Kent Street, Suite 202 ® Winchester, Virginia 22601-5900
Re: Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter
and Street Ligbt Requirements
rage 2
June 1, 2009
The Subdivision Ordinance § 144.33 — Commercial and .industrial Design Standard Exemptions
currently provides exemptions for commercial and industrial properties for Curbs and Gutters (§144-
17L), Sidewalks and Pedestrian Walkways (§144-18) and Streetlights (§144-19). This exemption
allows commercial and industrial properties that are located on collector and arterial streets to not
provide sidewalks. Some examples of collector and arterial streets that have commercial and
industrial properties include Valley Pike, Martinsburg Pike, Front Royal Pike, Warrior Drive,
Channing Drive and Fairfax Pike. While some developments have proffered bicycle/pedestrian
facilities or sidewalks along their respective roadway, there are properties along these roadways that
do not have proffers and they should not be exempt from providing sidewalks on collector and
arterial roads.
Staff has prepared revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance to address the issues outlined above.
Specifically the revisions would address the following:
a §144-18. Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways. Revision to require sidewalks along
existing streets as well as proposed streets in any subdivision its the RP (Residential
Performance), R4 (Residential Planned Community), R5 (Residential Recreational Community)
Districts and residential areas in the TND (Traditional Neighborhood Development) and the MS
(Medical Support) Districts. Revision to require sidewalks along any collector or arterial streets
in any Zoning District. Other revisions include a requirement for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities when called for by the Comprehensive Plan.
§ 144.19. Streetlights. Revision to remove the lot size requirement of 15,000sf and
implement the requirement based on Zoning District.
® §144-33. Commercial and industrial design standard exemptions. Revision to remove
the sidewalks and pedestrian walkways exemption for commercial and industnal properties. This
revision would allow for § 144-18 to be implemented (sidewalks/bicycle paths on collector and
arterial streets). This would not require sidewalks on roads classified as local roads/streets.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their
meeting on April 23, 2009. The DRRC recommended approval of the changes and recommended it
be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion.
The attached documents show the existing ordinances with the proposed changes supported by the
DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is presented
for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold italics and deletions are
shown with a strikethrough.
CEP/bad
tAI i i IA�I-MVIMN 1 i
§144-18. Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways.
A. Sidewalks shall be installed in the right of way and adjacent to the boundary of the right of
way of all proposed and existing streets and shall contain adequate handicapped ramps at all
intersections at intervals acceptable to the Virginia Department of Transportation. There
shall be a minimum two foot wide grass strip between the street edge of the sidewalk and the
curb face where sidewalks are required. Sidewalks are required as follows:
I _ Along both sides of all local streets in any subdivision in the RP (Residential
Performance), R4 (Residential Planned Community), R5 (Residential
Recreational Community) Districts and residential areas in the TND
(Traditional Neighborhood Development) and the MS (Medical Support)
Districts ; any subdivision of i ;. none oF moFe lots of less than i c nnnsf;
2. Along both sides of all collector and arterial streets in any Zoning District.
B_ The Planning Commission may waive the sidewalk requirement along local streets when the
pedestrian walkways are provided that allow pedestrian access to each lot or use. Such
walkways must provide appropriate connections to pedestrian systems on adjoining
properties.
C_ All sidewalks and walkways shall be a minimum of four feet wide. Sidewalks shall conform
to VDOT standards. Alternative walkways shall be approved by the Planning Commission
and shall be constructed in a manner that is acceptable to the Subdivision Administrator.
D. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall be constructed along all roadways designated by the
Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. All bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall be
a minimum of ten feet in width and shall conform to VDOT standards.
§ 144.19. Strcetlights.
Streetlights of adequate type and intensity shall be required to promote public health and safety in
any subdivision in the RP (Residential Performance), R4 (Residential Planned Community), R5
(Residential Recreational Community) Districts and residential areas in the TND (Traditional
Neighborhood Development) and the MS (Medical Support) Districts. containing lots of loss than
15,000 square feet in si Streetlights shall be provided at all intersections. The design proposal for
streetlighting shall be approved by the Subdivision Administrator. The Planning Commission may
waive the requirement for streetlights.
§144-33. Commercial and industrial design standard exemptions.
All commercial and industrial subdivisions shall be exempt from the following sections of article V
of this chapter:
A. Section 144-17L, Curbs and gutters.
B. Section 144-19, Streetlights.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner to
Subject: Discussion— Landscaping Requirements in the RA District
Date: June 1, 2009
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
Staff has been directed to prepare a Zoning Ordinance amendment to remove the landscaping
requirements contained in §165-36 as it pertains to the RA (Rural Areas) District. Currently this
section of the Zoning Ordinance states that residential developments which require a preliminary
sketch plan must provide one of three types of landscaping (street trees, ornamental, or tree
preservation). If the street tree option is chosen, street trees must be provided for every 40 feet
of road frontage; if the ornamental option is chosen, ten ornamental trees must be provided per
lot; and the tree preservation option would require the rural subdivisions to create permanent
open space to protect the trees.
Staff has prepared a revision to §165-36 to remove the landscaping requirement from the RA
(Rural Areas) District. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations
Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on May 28, 2009. The DRRC was presented with an option
to reduce the street tree requirement in the RA District, but the Committee preferred to see the
requirements eliminated. The DRRC endorsed the removal of the requirement and
recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion.
The attached documents show the existing ordinances with the proposed changes supported by
the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is
presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold italics and deletions are
CEP/bad
shown with a strikethrough.
197 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ATTACHMENT 1
§ 165-36. Landscaping requirements. [Amended 4-23-20031
The requirements of this section are intended to enhance the appearance, environment and
general welfare of the citizens of Frederick County by providing minimum landscaping
standards and encouraging tree preservation for residential developments.
A. Residential developments. Residential developments which require a master
development plan, subdivision design plan, or site plan or pr-eli miry subdivision sk t �
plan -shall provide at least one of the three types of landscaping identified below.
(1) Street tree landscaping. Street tree landscaping shall require one street tree for every
40 feet of street frontage in a residential development, with the exception of a
frontage on roads which require a road efficiency buffer. Street trees shall be planted
no more than 20 feet from rights-of-way. Planting street trees on the property lines of
building lots should be avoided. Two or more street trees shall be planted on each
building lot. The Zoning Administrator may allow fewer than two street trees for an
individual building lot if topographical features, utilities, easements or the width of
the lot makes it impractical to do so. All street trees shall comply with the
requirements of § 165-36B, with the exception that street trees must be at least two -
and -one -half-inch caliper at the time of planting.
(2) Ornamental landscaping.
(a) Ornamental landscaping shall be provided for residential developments
based on the following index and matrix:
Required Landscaping Per Dwelling Unit
Lot Type Ornamental Shrubs Ornamental Trees
Index of lot Types
Lot Type
A
Description
Major R -u -a C'„1.. iNisio Tet
B
A C-
A 441 Preservation C bd Lot.
Single -Family Detached Rural Traditional
B D
Single -Family Detached Traditional
C E
Single -Family Detached Urban
D F
Single -Family Detached Cluster
E G
Single -Family Detached Zero Lot Line
F44
Single -Family Small Lot
G4
Duplex
H J
Multiplex
IK
Atrium House
JL
Weak -Link Townhouse
K M
Townhouse
L N
Garden Apartment
Required Landscaping Per Dwelling Unit
Lot Type Ornamental Shrubs Ornamental Trees
ATTACHMENT 1
A C
None
10 per 1 unit
B D
10 per 1 unit
5 per 1 unit
C £
10 per 1 unit
5 per 1 unit
D F
10 per 1 unit
5 per 1 unit
E G
10 per 1 unit
5 per 1 unit
F -H
15 per 1 unit
5 per 1 unit
G4
15 per 1 unit*
5 per 1 unit*
HI
3 per 3 units*
1 per 3 units*
IK
3 per 4 units*
1 per 4 units*
TL
6 per 5 units*
2 per 5 units*
KM
6 per 5 units*
2 per 5 units*
L I';
3 per 2 units*
1 per 2 units*
Note: *Required ornamental trees and shrubs are in addition to all trees
and shrubs elsewhere required in the Zoning Ordinance.
(b) Ornamental trees and shrubs shall comply with the requirements of § 165-
36$. The Zoning Administrator may allow some of the required
ornamental trees and ornamental shrubs to be planted in areas of common
open space so long as the intent of the section is met.
(3) Tree preservation landscaping. An area with a tree canopy coverage, of at least
25% of the entire site area, shall be preserved within dedicated open space. In no
case shall individual building lots be located within the open space. Canopy
coverage shall be calculated from the cumulative total of existing tree canopies.
Preserved trees shall be clustered together to maintain a contiguous canopy; and
shall be protected from construction activity. These areas of open space may be
counted towards the total required open space, as specified in § 165-63.
Residential developments which are not required to have open space by § 165-63
are not exempt from creating open space for the required canopy coverage. The
calculation of tree canopy shall be based on either the individual tree standards
of the "Manual of Wood Landscape Plants," written by Michael A. Dirr, or
through a comprehensive analysis of existing tree drip lines, conducted by a
Virginia certified engineer, land surveyor or landscape architect.
�7
:�
•
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Hanning and Development
540/665-5651
1V1EMORA DUFAX: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner C
Subject: Discussion— Buffer Requirements
Date: June 1, 2009
Buffer and screening requirements in Frederick County are contained in §165-37 of the Zoning
Ordinance. This section of the ordinance regulates the width and content of zoning district
buffers as well as where they are required and when they can be waived or modified. Staff has
encountered various issues regarding the buffer and screening requirements contained within this
section of the ordinance. Specifically, concerns regarding the content of the landscape screening
element and the ability for buffer modifications have been expressed.
Staff has prepared revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to address the issues outlined above.
Specifically the revisions would address the following:
§165-37 B, Screening, Landscape screening. The current requirement consists of three
trees per ten linear feet (2/3 evergreen trees and 1/3 deciduous trees). The evergreen trees
are planted at four feet in height and the deciduous trees at two inch caliper. This
requirement results in a buffer that is very dense and will only survive for a few years
until the trees become crowded. The proposed amendment would be to require 1/3
deciduous trees, 1/3 evergreen trees and 1/3 shrubs. The evergreen trees would be
planted at six feet in height, the deciduous trees would remain at two inch caliper and the
shrubs would be planted at eighteen inches in height.
• §165-37 D, Zoning District Buffers — B2/B3. Proposed revision to remove the zoning
district buffer requirement between the B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial
Transition) Districts.
• §165-37 D, Zoning District Buffers - Waivers. Revision of Subsection 6 to allow the
Zoning Administrator to waive any or all of the requirements for the zoning district
buffers on a particular site plan when all uses shown on the site plan are allowed in the
zoning district in which the development is occurring and in the adjoining zoning
districts.
• §165-37 D, Zoning District Buffers - Waivers. Addition of a provision to allow the
Zoning Administrator to waive, reduce or modify buffer yard requirements due to
topography.
o §165-37 — Other minor revisions to include references to the new OM (Office
Manufacturing Park) District.
107 North Kent Street, Smite 202 m Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Frederick County Planning Commission
Re: Buffer Requirements
Page 2
june 1, 2009
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at
their meeting on May 28, 2009. The DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to
the Planning Commission for discussion.
The attached documents show the existing ordinances with the proposed changes supported by
the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and red italic for text added). This item is
presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in red italics and deletions are
shown with a strikethrough.
CEP/bad
ATTACHMENT 1
§ 165-37. Buffer and screening requirements. [Amended 6-13-19901
It is the intent of the regulations of this section to encourage proper design of a site in order to
protect adjacent existing uses and to protect proposed uses within the site. Certain types of uses
must be buffered from other types in order to ensure a desirable living environment.
Additionally, appropriate distances must be maintained between commercial, industrial and
residential uses and roads.
A. Distance buffers. Distance buffers are based on the nature of an activity and the proximity to
an activity of a different nature. They are linear distances measured from property lines
inward. Part of the buffer must be inactive and part may be active. The inactive portion
begins at the adjoining property line, as shown in the example diagrams.
(1) Inactive distance buffer. This portion of a buffer area permits no activity except the
necessary utility functions provided by transmission lines, underground conduits, etc.
(2) Active distance buffer. This portion of a buffer area may not be encroached by a
building or other principal structure or activity. However, accessory activities, such as
parking, are permitted in this area. Active buffers shall not contain road rights-of-way.
stfuetufes in the same general vicinity;.
(3) Whenever proposed developments are adjacent to or within 1,000 feet of the boundaries
of existing uses, the Planning Commission may require increased or additional distance
buffers to separate different uses to achieve the intentions of this section.
B. Screening. Screening is designed to work with distance buffers to lessen the impact of noise
or visual interaction between adjacent activities. There are two levels of screening:
landscape screening and full screening. The higher the levels of screening provided, the
lower the level of distance buffer required. The example diagrams show how this works.
(1) Landscape screening. A landscape screen consists of a totally landscaped easement at
least 10 feet in depth; it is encouraged that the plantings to be spaced appropriately
within the inactive buffer. Within the easement, there shall be a minimum landscaping
density of three plants per 10 linear feet. The buffer shall consist of a combination of
1/3 deciduous trees, 1/3 evergreen trees and 1/3 shrubs. Deciduous trees shall be
planted at a minimum of 2" caliper, evergreen trees shall be a minimum of 6' in height
and shrubs shall be 18" in height at time of planting. , and they shall by at least fou
feet in height at planning and intended to feach a fainimum height of six feet at matufity,
Thefe shall be at least three speeies of plapAs, with the majefity being evefgfeefis and at
the ftmetions of the !andseape sefeen, the r-equifement may be waived by the Planning
(2) Full screen. A full screen provides all the elements of a landscape screen and also
includes a six -foot -high, opaque hedge, fence, wall, mound or berm. A 50 foot strip of
mature woodlands .,,,.will a s1fip of 50 feet may be allowed as a full screen. As with
1
MTN
(3) Wherever proposed developments are adjacent to existing uses, the Planning
Commission may require additional landscaping or landscaped easements to separate
different uses and to achieve the intentions of this section.
D. Zoning district buffers. Buffers shall be placed on land to be developed when it adjoins land
in certain zoning districts.
(1) Buffers shall be provided on the land to be developed according to the categories in
the following tables:
(a) Buffer categories:
(b) [Amended 9-12-2001] Buffer categories to be provided on land to be developed
according to the zoning of the adjoining land:
Zoning of Adjoining Land
Zoning of Land
To Be
Developed
RP
Distance Buffer Required
R5
MHl
Inactive
Active
Total
OM
Screening
(Minimum)
(Maximum)
MS
Category
A
Provided
Full sefeen
feet
feet
feet
A
A
T ^„dseape sereen
No screen
25
25
50
B
Full Screen
25
25
50
B
Landscape screen
75
25
100
B
No screen
150
50
200
C
Full screen
75
25
100
C
Landscape screen
150
50
200
C
No screen
350
50
400
(b) [Amended 9-12-2001] Buffer categories to be provided on land to be developed
according to the zoning of the adjoining land:
Zoning of Adjoining Land
Zoning of Land
To Be
Developed
RP
R4
R5
MHl
B1
B2
B3
OM
M1
M2
EM
MS
RP
-
-
-
-
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R4
-
-
-
-
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R5
-
-
-
-
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
MH1
C
C
C
-
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
C
B1
B
B
B
B
-
-
A
A
A
A
A
B
B2
B
B
B
B
-
-
A
A
A
A
A
B
B3
C
C
C
C
B
B
-
-
-
-
-
C
OM
C
C
C
C
B
B
-
-
-
-
-
C
M1
C
C
C
C
B
B
-
-
-
-
-
C
M2
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
-
-
C
EM
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
-
-
C
MS
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
-
2
(2) If a lot being developed is adjacent to developed land which would normally be
required to be provided with a buffer but which does not contain the buffer, the
required buffer shall be provided on the lot being developed. The buffer to be
provided shall be of the larger category required on either the lot being developed
or the adjacent land. Such buffer shall be in place of the buffer normally required
on the lot being developed. The buffer may include required setbacks or buffers
provided on the adjacent land.
(3) Whenever land is to be developed in the B1 (Neighborhood Business) or B2
(Business, General) Zoning District that is adjacent to land primarily used for
residential use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, a B Category buffer shall
be provided on the land to be developed. The Board of Supervisors may grant a
waiver to reduce the required buffer distance requirements with the consent of the
adjacent (affected) property owners. Should a waiver be granted by the Board of
Supervisors, the distance requirements of § 165-37D(1)(a) may be reduced,
provided the full screening requirements of this section are met. [Amended 3-9-
2005]
(4) Whenever land is to be developed in the B3, OM, M1 or M2 Zoning District that
is adjacent to land primarily used for residential purposes in the RA Rural Areas
Zoning District, a C Category buffer shall be provided on the land to be
developed.
(5) Whenever land is to be developed in the MS Zoning District that is adjacent to
land primarily used for residential purposes in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning
District, a C Category buffer shall be provided on the land to be developed.
Whenever land is to be developed in the MS Zoning District that is adjacent to all
other land zoned RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, the requirements for buffer
and screening shall be provided in accordance with § 165-102 of this chapter.
[Amended 9-12-200121
(6) The Planning Conunissio Zoning Administrator may waive any or all of the
requirements for the zoning district buffers on a particular site plan when all uses
shown on the site plan are allowed in the zoning district in which the development
is occurring and in the adjoining zoning districts.
(7) The Zoning Administrator may waive, reduce and/or modify buffer yard
requirements (distance and landscaping) if in his opinion the topography of the
lot providing the buffer yard and the lot being protected is such that the
required yard would not be effective. The buffer may also be modified to
maintain highway sight distances.
I �.
::-
3
(8) [Added 3-13-1996] Land proposed to be developed in the OM (Office -
Manufacturing Park), the M1 Light Industrial District and the M2 Industrial
General District may be permitted to have a reduced buffer distance that is
consistent with the required side or rear building setback line, provided that the
following requirements are met:
(a) The property to be developed with a reduced buffer distance is part of an
approved master planned industrial park.
(b) There are no primary or accessory uses within the reduced buffer distance
area, including driveways, access drives, outdoor storage areas, parking
areas, staging areas, loading areas and outdoor dumpster areas. All-weather
surface fire lanes necessary to meet the requirements of Chapter 90, Fire
Prevention, of the Code of Frederick County, Virginia, shall be exempt from
this performance standard.
(c) A full screen is required to be created within the reduced buffer distance
area which shall be comprised of a continuous earth berm that is six feet
higher in elevation than the highest elevation within the reduced buffer
distance area and a double row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of six
feet in height and planted a maximum of eight feet from center to center.
(9) Proposed developments required to provide buffers and screening as determined
by § 165-37D(1)(b) of this chapter may be permitted to establish a common
shared buffer and screening easement with the adjoining property. The common
shared buffer and screening easement shall include all components of a full screen
which shall be clearly indicated on a site design plan. A legal agreement signed
by all appropriate property owners shall be provided to the Department of
rd
Planning and Development and shall be maintained with the approved site design
plan. This agreement shall describe the location of the required buffer within each
property, the number and type of the plantings to be provided and a statement
regarding the maintenance responsibility for this easement. The required buffer
distance may be reduced by 50% for a common shared buffer easement if existing
vegetation achieves the functions of a full screen. [Amended 6-12-19961
(10) When a flex -tech development is split by a zoning district line, the Planning
Commission may allow for a reduction of the distance buffer and the relocation of
the screening requirements. Such modifications shall be allowed at the
Commission's discretion, provided that all of the following conditions are met:
[Added 2-11-19981
(a) The zoning district boundary line for which the modification is requested is
internal to the land contained within the master development plan.
(b) The required landscape screen is relocated to the perimeter of the flex -tech
development. This relocated, landscape screen shall contain the same
plantings that would have been required had the screen been placed along
the zoning district boundary line.
(11) Whenever land is to be developed in the B1, B2, B3, OM, M1 or M2 Zoning
Districts that is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way that has property zoned B1, B2,
B3, OM, M1 or M2 on the opposite side, Zoning District Buffers shall not be
required. In the event that residential uses are located on the opposite side of the
railroad right-of-way, Zoning District Buffer as required by §165-371) shall be
provided. In the event that a Zoning District Buffer is required the width of the
railroad right-of-way may be counted towards the required Zoning District Buffer
distance. [Added 12-10-20081
5
:7
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
Subject: Discussion— Definitions
Date: June 1, 2009
v
In reviewing the definitions in the Zoning Ordinance (§ 165-156), it has been determined that the
definitions of "dwelling" and "dwelling, attached" need to be revised. It is recommended that
the definition of a dwelling be expanded to state that a dwelling is a residential structure. It is
also recommended that the definition of an attached dwelling be updated to distinguish it mom
other housing types currently permitted in the Zoning Ordinance and how it is connected to other
units. Staff is proposing an ordinance amendment to clarify the definitions of "dwelling" and
"dwelling, attached" as follows:
DWELLING — A residential structure or portion thereof which is used exclusively for human
habitation.
E. DWELLING, ATTACHED — .^ dwelling attached to two of more dwellings ll ti common veftiea4
wall.. [Added X9-12 20011 A dwelling with two (2) or more single family dwelling units which
are generally joined together by an above grade common party wall extending from the lowest
floor to the roof or by a common floor -ceiling. A common floor -ceiling shall be the floor of
one unit that is shared with the ceiling of another unit in vertically stacked dwelling units.
Townhouse units may he attached by a garage or a connecting permanent architecturally
unified structure such as a breezeway, carport, or wall, which structures continue the design,
pattern and/or materials of the fa(ade from one (1) dwelling unit to another.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at
their meeting on May 28, 2009. The DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to
the Planning Commission for discussion. It should be noted that staff will be bringing revisions
to the individual housing types permitted in the RP (Residential Performance) District and the
remaining definitions at a later time.
The attached documents show the existing ordinances with the proposed changes supported by
the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is
presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold italics and deletions are
CEP/bad
shown with a strikethrough.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ARTICLE XXL
Definitions
§ 165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Amended 11-13-1991]
DWELLING — A residential structure or portion thereof which is used exclusively for human
habitation.
A. DWELLING, MULTIFAMILY — A structure arranged or designed to be occupied by two or
more households.
B.DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY — A structure, not including mobile homes, arranged or
designed to be occupied by one household.
C. DWELLING, DETACHED — A dwelling that is not attached to any other dwelling by any
means. [Added 9-12-2001]
C. DWELLING, SEMI-DETACHED — A dwelling attached to one or more dwellings by a common
vertical wall, with each dwelling located on a separate lot. [Added 9-12-2001]
E. DWELLING, ATTACHED — n d a"; ^rD altaehed to two ef moredwellings .i b eel
walls. fAdded-9-12 2" A dwelling with two (2) or more single family dwelling units which
are generally joined together by an above grade common party wall extending from the lowest
floor to the roof or by a common floor -ceiling. A common floor -ceiling shall be the floor of
one unit that is shared with the ceiling of another unit in vertically stacked dwelling units.
Townhouse units may be attached by a garage or a connecting permanent architecturally
unified structure such as a breezeway, carport, or wall, which structures continue the design,
pattern andlor materials of the facade from one (I) dwelling unit to another.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
Subject: Discussion— Beverages (SIC 208) in the M1 Zoning District
Date: June 1, 2009
Frederick County has received a request to add Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 208 to
the permitted uses in the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. SIC 208 includes the following
uses:
• Malt Beverages (2082)
• Malt (2083)
• Wines, Brandy, and Brandy Spirits (2084)
• Distilled and Blended Liquors (2085)
• Bottled and Canned Soft Drinks and Carbonated Waters (2086)
• Flavoring Extracts and Flavoring Syrups (2087)
The M1 District currently only allows SIC 2086 and 2087 as permitted uses and SIC 208 in it's
entirely is only permitted in the M2 (Industrial General) District. This proposed ordinance
amendment would allow SIC 208 as a permitted use in the M1 District.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at
their meeting on May 28, 2009. The DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to
the Planning Commission 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 (§165-82A).
2. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Group — 208
CEP/bad
107 North lent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
E. M1 -Light Industrial District. The intent of this district is to provide for a variety of light manufacturing,
commercial office and heavy commercial uses in well-planned industrial settings. Uses are allowed
which do not create noise, smoke, dust or other hazards. Uses are allowed which do not adversely affect
nearby residential or business areas. Such industrial areas shall be provided with safe and sufficient
access.
Standard Industrial
Beverages 208
Bottled and capmed soft drinks and carbonated wa
ter �nQ�
aA,e extfae4s-and flavoring s3�ps 2097
Miscellaneous food preparations and products, 209
excluding the following:
Canned and cured fish and seafood 2091
Fresh or frozen fish and seafood 2092
Textile mill products
Classification
Allowed Uses
(SIC)
Landscape and horticultural services
078
Offices and storage facilities for building construction
15, 16 and 17
contractors, heavy construction contractors and
241
special trade contractors
242
Manufacturing as follows:
-
Dairy products
202
Canned, frozen and preserved fruits, vegetables and
203
soup mixes
267
Bakery products
205
Sugar and confectionary products
206
Beverages 208
Bottled and capmed soft drinks and carbonated wa
ter �nQ�
aA,e extfae4s-and flavoring s3�ps 2097
Miscellaneous food preparations and products, 209
excluding the following:
Canned and cured fish and seafood 2091
Fresh or frozen fish and seafood 2092
Textile mill products
22
Apparel or other finished products made from fabrics
23
and similar material
Lumber and wood products, excluding the following:
24
Logging
241
Sawmills and planing mills
242
Wood preserving
2491
Furniture and fixtures
25
Paperboard containers and boxes
265
Converted paper and paperboard products, except
267
containers and boxes
Printing, publishing and allied industries
27
Drugs
283
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
30
Concrete block and brick and related products
3271
Fabricated metal products, excluding the following:
34
Coating, engraving and allied services
347
Ordinance and accessories
348
Industrial and commercial machinery and computer
35
equipment
Electronics and other electrical equipment and
36
components, excluding the following:
Storage batteries
3691
Primary batteries
3692
Transportation equipment
37
Measuring, analyzing and controlling instruments;
38
photographic, medical and optical goods, and
watches and clocks
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
39
Local and suburban transit and interurban highway
41
passenger transportation
X A ()+- - � �; , �,+ +,- ,, �r�, � 1+; ,,, and warehelasitng
1V1V LVl lllJl Sl_LL LMIDIS Ort-3{.1V11
42
Transportation by air
45
Transportation services
47
Communication facilities and offices, including
48
telephone, telegraph, radio, television and other
communications
Electric, gas and other utility facilities and offices and
49
trucking and warehousing [Amended 8-24-20041
Wholesale trade
-
Advertising specialties wholesale [Added 8-24-20041
5199
Restaurants
58
Linen supply [Added 8-24-2004]
7213
Dry-cleaning plants [Added 8-24-2004]
7216
Business services
73
Outdoor ad services [Added 8-24-20041
7389
Automobile recovery service [Added 8-24-2004]
7389
Automobile repossession service [Added 8-24-2004]
7389
Exhibits building of by contractors [Added 8-24-20041
7389
Filing of pressure containers (aerosol) [Added 8-24-2004]
7389
Gas systems contract conversion from manufactured
7389
to natural gas [Added 8-24-2004]
Produce weighting service [Added 8-24-20041
7389
Salvaging of damaged merchandise not engaged in sales
7389
[Added 8-24-20041
Scrap steel cutting [Added 8-24-20041
7389
Truck rental and leasing, without drivers [Added 2-7-19951
7513
Tire retreading [Added 5-13-19921
7534
Welding repair [Added 8-24-2004]
7692
Agricultural equipment repair [Added 8-24-20041
7699
Boiler cleaning and repair [Added 8-24-20041
7699
Cesspool cleaning [Added 8-24-20041
7699
Coppersmithing [Added 8-24-2004]
7699
Engine repair [Added 8-24-20041
7699
Farm machinery and tractor repair [Added 8-24-20041
7699
Industrial truck repair [Added 8-24-2004]
7699
Machinery cleaning [Added 8-24-20041
7699
Measuring and controlling instrument repair; mechanical
7699
[Added 8-24-20041
Meteorological instrument repair [Added 8-24-20041
7699
Precision instrument repair [Added 8-24-2004]
7699
Repair of optical instruments [Added 8-24-20041
7699
Repair of service station equipment [Added 8-24-2004]
7699
Scale repair service [Added 8-24-2004]
7699
Septic tank cleaning service [Added 8-24-20041
7699
Industry.
Group
No.
207
208
V
STANDARD INDUSTRLAL CLASSIFICATION
Industry
No.
FATS AND OILS—Con.
2079 Shortening, Table Oils, Margarine, and Other Edible Pats and Oils, Not
Elsewhere ClassWed
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing shortening, table oils,
margarine, and other edible fats and oils, not elsewhere classified. Establish-
ments primarily engaged in producing corn oil are classified in Industry 2046.
Baling and hying fats (shortening) Oil, vegetable winter stearin
Cottonseed cooling and salad oil Olive oil
Margarine ail, except — Peanut cooking and salad oil
Margarine, including imitation Shortenings, compound and vegetable
Margarine butter blend Soybean cooking and salad oil
Nut margarine Vegetable cooking and salad oils,
Oil, hydrogenated: edible except corn oil: refined
Oil, partially hydrogenated edible
BEVERAGES
2082 Malt Beverages
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing malt beverages. Estab-
lishments primarily engaged in bottling purchased malt beverages are classi-
fied in Industry 5181_
Ale Malt extract, liquors, and syrups
Beer (alcoholic beverage) Near beer
Breweries Porter (alcoholic beverage)
Brewers' gain Stout (alcoholic beverage)
Liquors, malt
2083
2084
2085
Malt
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing malt or malt byprod-
ucts from barley or other grains.
Malt byproducts Malthouses
blah barley, rye, -b t, and corn- Sprouts, made in malthouses
Wines, Brandy, and Brandy Spirits
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing wines, brandy, and
brandy spirits. This industry also includes bonded wine cellars which are er
gaged in blending vines. Establishments primarily bottling purchased wine,,
brandy, and brandy spirits, but which do not manufacture wines and brandy
are classified in Wholesale Trade, Industry 5182.
Brandy Wine coolers (beverages)
Brandy spirits Wines
Wine cellars, bonded.. engaged in blend-
ing wines
Distilled and Blended Liquors
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing alcoholic liquors by di_=
tillation, and in manufacturing cordials and alcoholic cocktails by blending
processes or by mixing liquors and other ingredients. Establishments primari
ly engaged in manufacturing industrial alcohol are classified in Industry 2860
and those only bottling purchased liquors are classified in Wholesale Trade
Industry 5182.
Applejack Ethyl alcohol for medicinal and bevel
Cocktails, alcoholic age purposes
CcrdiaLs. alcoholic Gin (alcoholic beverage)
Distillers' dried grains and solubles Grain alcohol for medicinal and bevel
Eggnog, alcoholic age purposes
K&NUFACPURING 81
Industry
Group Industry
No. No.
208 BEVERAGES—Con
2085 Distilled and Blended Liquors—Con.
Liquors distilled and blended --except Vodka
Ram�Y whiskey bourbon, rye, scotch type, and
Spirits, neutral, except fruit—for bever- corn
age purposes
2086 Bottled and Canned Soft Drinks and Carbonated Waters
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing soft drinks and carbon-
ated waters- Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing fruit and
vegetable juices are classified in Industry Group 203; those manufacturing
fruit syrups for flavoring are classified in Industry 20,97; and those manufac-
turing nonalcoholic cider are classified in Industry 2099_ Establishments pri-
marily engaged in bottling natural spring waters are classified in Wholesale
Trade, Industry 5149_
Beer, birch and root bottled or canned Lemonade: bottled, cane
Carbonated beverages, nonalcoholic - ed, or fresh
bottled or canned Mineral water, carbonated: bottled or
Drinks, fruit bottled, canned, or fresh canned
Ginger ale, bottled or canned Soft drinks, bottled or canned
Iced tea, bottled or canned Tea, iced- bottled or canned
Water, Pasteurized: bottled or canned
2087 Flavoring Extracts and Flavoring Syrups, Not Elsewhere Classified
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing flavoring extracts,
Syrups, powders, and related products, not elsewhere classified, for soda foun-
tain use Or for the manufacture of soft drinks, and colors for bakers' and con-
fectioners' use- Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing chocolate
syrup are classified in Industry 2066.
Beveragebases Flavoring Bitters (flavoring concentrates) ring concentrates
Burnt sugar (food color) Flavoring extracts, pastes, powders.
Cocktail mixes, nonalcoholic and syrups
Coffee flavorings and syrups Food colorings, except synthetic
colors far bakers' and confectioners' Food glace, for glazing foods
use except synthetic Fruit juices, concentrated: for fountain
Cordials, nonalcoholic use
Drink powders and concentrates Fruits, eTUshe& for soda fountain use
209 MISCELLANEOUS FOOD PREPARATIONS AND KINDRED PRODUCTS
2091 Canned and Cured Fish and Seafoods
Establishments primarily engaged in cooking and canning fish, shrimp, oys-
ters, clams, crabs, and other Seafoods, including soups; and those engaged in
smoking, salting, drying, or otherwise curing fish and other Seafoods for the
trade- Establishments primarily engaged in shucking and packing fresh oys-
ters in nonsealed containers, or in freezing or preparing fresh fish, are classi-
fied in Industry 2092.
Canned fish, cru—cea, and mollusks
Caviar, canned
Chowders, fish and seafood: canned
clam bouillon, broth, chowder, juice:
bottled or canned
Codfish: smoked, salted, dried, and
pickled
Crab meat, canned and aired
Finnan haddie (smoked haddock)
Fish and seafood Cakes: canned
Fish egg bait, canned
Fish, canned and cured
Fish: cured, dried, pickled, salted, and
smoked
Herring: smoked, salted, dried, and
pickled
Mackerel: smoked, salted, dried and
pickled
Oysters, canned and cured
Salmon: smoked, salted, dried, canned,
and pickled
Sardines, canned
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM 540/665-
FAX: 540/665- 63956395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner Cfi
Subject: Discussion— Chapter 165 Recodification
Date: June 1, 2009
Over the past few years, there have been numerous revisions to Chapter 165 — Zoning, and there
are additional larger revisions that are being proposed. These revisions have highlighted the
need to restructure the Zoning Ordinance so it can accommodate current and future proposed
changes. The current configuration of the Ordinance is that it begins with § 165-1 and ends with
§165-156; this numbering is problematic in that when sections are added to the ordinance, it
shifts the numbers in the remaining ordinance. This has resulted in various types of numbers
being utilized (see §165-48.1-48.11 and §165-131.1-131.8) to accommodate approved ordinance
revisions.
To address this issue, staff is proposing a recodification of Chapter 165 which will revise the
entire chapter. The revised format will include separate parts that could individually be
expanded when amendments are inserted into the chapter. With the proposed revision, certain
portions of the ordinance would be consolidated into other articles or moved to similar uses.
Specifically, the following is proposed:
• Definitions would be relocated to the beginning of the chapter.
• General Provisions, Amendments and Conditional Use Permits would be consolidated.
• Supplementary Use Regulations would be broken up into four parts.
• Agricultural and Residential Districts would be consolidated into one article.
• Planned Unit Developments would be consolidated into one article (would necessitate
relocating the MS District).
• Business and Industrial Districts would become one article and would include the HE and
EM Districts.
• The Overlay Districts would be combined into one article.
• Master Development and Site Plans would be combined into one article.
• Reserved sections have been included to accommodate proposed ordinance amendments.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at
their meeting on May 28, 2009. The DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to
the Planning Commission for discussion.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Frederick County Planning Commission
Re: Chapter 165
Page 2
June 1, 2009
This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning
Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Revised table of contents showing proposed format, combined sections
and relocated text.
2. Existing table of contents.
CEP/bad
Chapter 165
ZONING
ARTICLE I
Consideration; approval or
Article II
Landscaping requirements.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND
SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS,
CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS
PARKING, BUFFERS,
AND REGULATIONS FOR
requirements.
SPECIFIC USES
Conditions.
Part 101- General Provisions
165-103.04
Application and approval
Part 204 - Additional Regulations for Specific
Part 201- Supplementary
Use Regulations
165-101.01
Intent; purpose.
Fees.
165-101.02
Definitions & word usage.
165-201.01
Scope.
165-101.03
Headlines of sections.
165-201.02
Setback requirements.
165-101.04
Scope; applicability.
165-201.03
Height limitations; exceptions.
165-101.05
Zoning districts and zoning map.
165-201.04
Lot requirements.
165-101.06
Administration and interpretation.
165-201.05
Secondary or accessory uses.
165-101.07
Compliance required; required
165-201.06
Signs.
Campgrounds and tourist camps.
permits.
165-201.07
(Reserved)
165-101.08
Violations and penalties;
165-201.08
Protection of environmental
enforcement.
features.
165-101.09
Disclosure of ownership.
165-201.09
Stormwater management.
165-201.10
Outdoor storage and processing.
Part 102 -Amendments
165-201.11
Property owners' associations.
165-201.12
Nuisances.
165-102.01
Initiation.
165-201.13
Streets; Inter -parcel connectors.
165-102.02
Applications.
165-102.03
Planning Commission public
Part 202 - Off -Street Parking, Loading and
hearing.
Access
165-102.04
Board of Supervisors public
hearing.
165-202.01
Off-street parking; parking lots.
165-102.05
Impact analysis.
165-202.02
Loading areas.
165-102.06
Conditional rezoning.
165-202.03
Motor vehicle access.
Part 103 - Conditional Use Permits
Part 203 - Buffers and Landscaping
165-103.01
Consideration; approval or
165-203.01
Landscaping requirements.
disapproval.
165-203.02
Buffer and screening
165-103.02
Standards.
requirements.
165-103.03
Conditions.
165-103.04
Application and approval
Part 204 - Additional Regulations for Specific
procedures.
Uses
165-103.05
Fees.
165-103.06
Site plans.
165-204.01
Adult care residences, assisted
165-103.07
Changes in use.
living care facilities, and
165-103.08
Revocation.
convalescent or nursing homes.
165-204.02
Batting cages, commercial,
operated outdoors.
165-204.03
Campgrounds and tourist camps.
165-204.04
Car washes.
Chapter 165
ZONING
165-204.05
Electrical, hardware, plumbing and
165-401.08
Minimum width; maximum depth.
165-401.03
heating equipment businesses (SIC
165-401.09
Height restrictions.
165-501.05
506 and 507).
165-401.05
Minimum lot size.
165-204.06
Flex -tech uses.
Part 402 - RP Residential Performance District
165-204.07
Government services office.
165-204.08
Grocery and food stores.
165-402.01
Intent.
165-204.09
Humanitarian aid organizational
165-402.02
Permitted uses.
office.
165-402.03
Conditional uses.
165-204.10
Kennels.
165-402.04
Number of uses restricted.
165-204.11
Landfills, junkyards, trash disposal,
165-402.05
Gross density.
and inoperable vehicles.
165-402.06
Multifamily housing.
165-204.12
Motor vehicle service uses and
165-402.07
Open space requirements.
public garages.
165-402.08
Recreation facilities.
165-204.13
Restaurants.
165-402.09
Dimensional requirements.
165-204.14
Sewage treatment facilities.
165-402.10
Phased development.
165-204.15
Shooting ranges, outdoor.
165-204.16
Shopping centers, office parks and
Part 403 - MH1 Mobile Home Community
industrial parks.
District
165-204.17
Slaughterhouses and rendering
plants.
165-403.01
Intent.
165-204.18
Storage facilities, self-service.
165-403.02
Permitted uses.
165-204.19
Telecommunication facilities,
165-403.03
Conditional uses.
commercial.
165-403.04
Mobile home parks and
165-204.20
Trailers, temporary.
subdivisions.
165-204.21
Truck or fleet maintenance
facilities and truck rental and
ARTICLE V
leasing facilities, without drivers.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
ARTICLE 111
RESERVED
Part 301 - Reserved
ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Part 401- RA Rural Areas District
165-401.01
Purpose and intent.
165-401.02
Permitted uses.
165-401.03
Conditional uses.
165-401.04
Permitted residential density;
165-501.05
exception.
165-401.05
Minimum lot size.
165-401.06
Permitted lot sizes.
165-401.07
Setback requirements.
Part 501- R4 Residential Planned Community
District
165-501.01
Intent.
165-501.02
Rezoning procedure.
165-501.03
Permitted uses.
165-501.04
Conditional uses.
165-501.05
Mixture of housing types required.
165-501.06
Design requirements.
Part 502 - R5 Residential Recreational
Community District
165-502.01 Intent.
165-502.02 Master development plan.
165-502.03 Rezoning procedure.
165-502.04 Permitted uses.
165-502.05 Design requirements.
Chapter 165
Part 503 - Reserved
Part 504 - MS Medical Support District
165-504.01
Intent.
165-504.02
Permitted uses.
165-504.03
District area, floor -to -area ratios,
165-608.04
and residential gross densities.
165-504.04
Access regulations.
165-504.05
Structure and parking lot setback
165-608.07
requirements.
165-504.06
Height regulations.
165-504.07
Open space, landscaped area, and
buffer and screening regulations.
165-504.08
Sign regulations.
ARTICLE VI
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Part 601- Dimensional and Intensity
Requirements
165-601.01 Dimensional and intensity
requirements
165-601.02 Minimum landscaped area
Part 602 - Bi Neighborhood Business District
165-602.01 Intent.
165-602.02 Allowed Uses.
Part 603 - B2 Business General District
165-603.01 Intent.
165-603.02 Allowed Uses.
165-603.03 Conditional Uses.
Part 604 - B3 Industrial Transition District
165-604.01 Intent.
165-604.02 Allowed Uses.
Part 605 - OM Office -Manufacturing Park
District
ZONING
165-605.01
165-605.02
165-605.02
165-605.03
Intent.
Permitted Uses.
Secondary or Accessory Uses.
Design Requirements.
Part 606 - M1 Light Industrial District
165-606.01 Intent.
165-606.02 Allowed Uses.
Part 607 - M2 Industrial General District
165-607.01 Intent.
165-607.02 Allowed Uses.
Part 608 - EM Extractive Manufacturing
District
165-608.01
Intent.
165-608.02
Permitted uses.
165-608.03
Performance standards.
165-608.04
Landscaping.
165-608.05
Setback and yard requirements.
165-608.06
Height limitations.
165-608.07
Additional requirements.
Part 609 - HE Higher Education District
165-609.01
Intent.
165-609.02
Permitted uses.
165-609.03
Yard requirements.
165-609.04
Buffers and screening.
165-609.05
Height limitation.
ARTICLE VII
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Part 701- API Airport District
165-701.01
Intent.
165-701.02
Airport safety zones.
165-701.03
Height limitations.
165-701.04
Use restrictions.
165-701.05
Noise.
165-701.06
Nonconforming uses.
165-701.07
Appeals
Part 702 - FP Floodplain Districts
165-702.01.
Basis for delineation; overlay
165-703.02
concept.
165-702.02
Flood boundary and floodway
165-801.04
map.
165-702.03
District boundary changes.
165-702.04
Use limitations; required
approvals.
165-702.05
Floodway district development
165-801.08
prohibitions.
165-702.06
Existing structures.
165-702.07
Permitted uses.
165-702.08
Conditional uses.
165-702.09
Flood -fringe and approximated
165-801.11
Floodplain Districts.
165-702.10
Design criteria for utilities &
facilities.
165-702.11
Factors to be considered in
granting variances.
Part 703 - HA Historic Area Overlay Zone
165-703.01
Intent.
165-703.02
Establishing overlay boundaries.
165-703.03
Criteria for determining historic
165-801.04
significance.
165-703.04
General regulations.
165-703.05
Administration.
Part 704 - IA Interstate Area Overlay District
165-704.01 Intent.
Chapter 165
ZONING
165-704.02
165-704.03
165-704.04
165-704.05
District boundaries.
Establishment of boundaries.
Qualifying criteria.
District regulations.
Part 705-TNDB Traditional Neighborhood
Design -Business Overlay District
165-705.01 Intent.
165-705.02 District boundaries.
165-705.03 Establishment of districts.
165-705.04 Use, density, dimensional and
intensity regulations.
165-705.05 Off-street parking; parking lots.
165-705.06 Design standards.
165-705.07 Master Development Plan(MDP).
165-705.08 Signage.
ARTICLE VIII
DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVALS
Part 801- Master Development Plans
165-801.01
Intent.
165-801.02
When required.
165-801.03
Waivers.
165-801.04
Review conference.
165-801.05
Preapplication conference.
165-801.06
Preliminary master development
plan.
165-801.07
Final master development plan.
165-801.08
Changes to approved plans.
165-801.09
Preliminary master development
plan submission.
165-801.10
Contents of preliminary master
development plans.
165-801.11
Final master development plans.
165-801.12
Master development plan review
fees.
Part 802 - Site Plans
165-802.01 Activities requiring site plans.
165-802.02 Site plan applications; review.
165-801.03 Site plan contents.
165-801.04 Required improvements.
Chapter 165
ZONING
ARTICLE IX
NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES AND
SIGNS
Part 901— Nonconforming Uses, Structures
and Signs.
165-901.01
Continuation of pre-existing uses,
structures & signs.
165-901.02
Discontinuance.
165-901.03
Re-establishing discontinued
legally nonconforming use.
165-901.04
Expansions and modifications.
165-901.05
Legally nonconforming lots of
record.
165-901.06
Restoration or replacement.
ARTICLE X
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Part 1001— Board of Zoning Appeals
165-1001.01 Appointment; organization; terms.
165-1001.02 Powers & duties.
ARTICLE XI
BUFFER & SCREENING DIAGRAMS
Part 1101— Buffer & Screening Diagrams
165-1101.01 Buffer & Screening Diagrams.
Zoning Ordinance Supplements
Included 87, 88, 89, 9o, 91, 92,
and 93 Updated 2/15/09
Chapter 165
ZONING
165:1 02-15-2009
ARTICLE I
§ 165-19.
Site plans.
General Provisions
§ 165-20.
Changes in use.
§ 165-1.
Intent; purpose.
§ 165-21.
Revocation.
§ 165-2.
Scop. Applicability.
ARTICLE N
§ 165-3.
Zoning districts and Zoning
Supplementary
Use Regulations
Map.
§ 16S-4.
Administration and
§ 165-22.
Scope.
interpretation.
§ 165-23.
Setback requirements.
§ 16S-5.
Compliance required;
§ 165-24.
height limitations;
required permits.
exceptions. .
§ 165-6.
Violations and penalties;
§ 165-25.
Lot requirements.
enforcement
§ 165-26.
Secondary or accessory uses.
§ 165-7.
Disclosure of ownership.
§ 165-27.
Off-street parking; parking
lots.
ARTICLE II
Amendments
§ 165-28.
Le,Gg areas.
§ 165-29.
Motor vehicle access.
§ 165-8.
Initiation.
3 _
,
§ 165-9.
Applications.
§ 165-31.
Protection of environmental
§ 165-10.
Planning Commission public
features.
hearing.
§ 165-32.
Siormwater management.
§ 165-11.
Board of Supervisors public
§ 155-33.
Outdoor storage and
bearing.
processing.
§ 165-12.
Impact analyses.
§ 165-34.
Property owners'
§ 165-13.
Conditional rezoning.
associations.
§ 165-35.
Nuisances.
ARTICLE III
§ 165-36.
Landscaping requirements.
Conditional Use Permits
§ 165-37.
Buffer and screening
§ 165-14.
Consideration; approval or
requirements.
disapproval.
§ 165-38.
Shopping centers, office
parks and industrial parks.
§ 165-15.
Standards.
§ 165-39.
Campgrounds and tourist
§ 165-16.
Conditions.
camps.
§ 165-17.
Application and approval
§ 165-40.
Outdoor shooting ranges.
procedures.
§ 16541.
Kennels.
§ 165-18.
Fees.
165:1 02-15-2009
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
§ 165-42.
Operation of
§ 165-53.
slaughterhouses and
§ 165-54.
rendering plants.
§ 165-43.
Motor vehicle service uses
§ 165-56-
and public garages.
165-44.
Self-service storage facilities.
§ 16055-45.
11'emporary trailers.
§ 165-46.
Sewage treatment facilities.
§ 165-47.
Landfills, junkyards, trash
§ 165-66.
disposal and inoperable
vehicles.
§ 165-48.
Car washes.
§ 165-48.1.
Restaurants.
§ 165-48.2.
Truck or fleet maintenance
facilities and truck rental
and leasing facilities,
without drivers.
§ 165-48.3.
Electrical, hardware,
plumbing and heating
equipment businesses (SIC
506 and 507)..
§ 1.65-48.4.
Commercial batting cages
operated outdoors.
§ 165-48.5.
Adult care residences,
assisted Eving care facilities
aid convalescent or nursing
homes.
§ 165-48.6.
Commercial
telecommunication facilities.
§ 165-48.7.
Flex -tech uses.
§ 165-48.8.
Humanitarian aid
organizational office.
§ 165-48.9.
Streets: Inter -parcel
connectors.
§ 165-48.10.
Government services office.
§ 165-48.11.
Grocery and food stores.
ARTICLE V
RA Rural Areas District
§ 165-49. Purpose and intent.
§ 165-50. Permitted uses.
§ 165-51. Conditional uses.
§ 165-52. Permitted residential
ARTICLE Vi
RP Residential Performance District
§ 165-58.
density; exception.
§ 165-53.
Minimum lot size.
§ 165-54.
Permitted lot sizes.
§ 165-55.
Setback requirements.
§ 165-56-
Minimum width; maximum
§ 165-62.1.
depth.
§ 165-57.
Height restriction.
ARTICLE Vi
RP Residential Performance District
§ 165-58.
Intent.
§ 165-59.
Permitted uses.
§ 165-60.
Conditional uses.
§ 165-61.
Number of uses restricted.
§ 165-62.
Gross density.
§ 165-62.1.
Multifamily housing.
§ 165-63.
Open space requirements.
§ 165-64.
Recreation facilities.
§ 165-65.
Dimensional requirements.
§ 165-66.
Phased development.
ARTICLE VII
R4 Residential Planned Community
District
§ 165-67.
Intent.
§ 165-68.
Rezoning procedure.
§ 165-69.
Permitted uses.
§ 165-70.
Conditional uses.
§ 165-71.
Mixture of housing types
required.
§ 165-72.
Design requirements.
165.2
02 -IS -2009
ZONING
165:3 08-15-2008
ARTICLE VIII
§ 165-92.
Permitted uses.'
R5 Residential Recreational Community.
Yard requirements.
District
§ 165-94.
Buffers and screening.
§ 165-73.
Intent.
§ 165-95.
Height limitations.
§ 165-74.
Master development plan.
§ 165-75.
Rezoning procedure.
ARTICLE XIII
MS (Medical
Support) District
§ 165-76.
Permitted uses.
§ 165-77.
Design requirements.
§ 165-96.
Intent.
§ 165-97.
Permitted uses.
ARTICLE IX
§ 165-98.
District area, floor -to -area
MH1 Mobile Home Community District
ration and residential gross
densities.
§ 165-78.
Intent.
§ 165-99.
Access regulations.
§ 165-79.
Permitted uses.
§ 165-100.
Structure and parking lot
§ 165-80.
Conditional uses.
setback regulations.
§ 165-81.
Mobile home parks and
§ 165-101.
Height regulations.
subdivisions.
§ 165-102.
Open space, landscaped
area, and buffer and
ARTICLE X
screening regulations.
Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
§ 165-103.
Sign regulations.
§ 165-82.
District use regulations.
§ 165-83.
Dimensional and intensity
ARTICLE XIV
requirements.
APl Airport District
§ 165-104.
Intent_
ARTICLE XI
EM Extractive Manufacturing District
§ 165-105.
Airport safety zones.
§ 165-106.
Height limitations.
§ 165-84.
Intent.
§ 165-107.
Use restrictions.
§ 165-85.
Permitted uses.
§ 165-108.
Noise.
§ 165-86.
Performance standards.
§ 165-109.
Nonconforming uses.
§ 165-87.
Landscaping.
§ 165-110.
Appeals.
§ 165-88.
Setback and yard
requirements.
ARTICLE XV
§ 165-89.
Height limitations.
FP Floodplain_ Districts
§ 165-90.
Additional requirements.
§ 165-111.
Basis for delineation;
overlay concept.
ARTICLE XII
HE Higher Education District
§ 165-112.
Flood Boundary and
Floodway Map.
§ 165-91.
Intent.
165:3 08-15-2008
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
§ 16S-113.
District boundary changes.
§ 165-114.
Use limitations; required
§ 165-134.
approvals.
§ 16S-115.
Floodway District
§ 165-136.
development prohibitions.
s 165-116.
Existing structures.
§ 165-117.
Permitted uses.
§ 165-118.
Conditional uses.
§ 165-119.
Flood -Fringe and
Approximated Floodplain
Districts.
§ 165-120.
Design criteria for utilities
and facilities.
§ 165-121.
Factors to be considered in
granting variances.
ARTICLE XVI
HA Historic Area Overlay Zone
§ 165-122. Intent.
§ 165-123. Establishing overlay
boundaries.
§ 165-124. Criteria for determining
historic significance.
§ 165-125. General regulations.
§ 165-126. Administration.
ARTICLE XVII
IA Interstate Area Overlay District
§ 165-127. Intent.
§ 165-128. District boundaries.
§ 165-129. Establishment of districts.
§ 165-130. Qualifying criteria.
§ 165-131. District regulations.
ARTICLE XVIIA
TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood
Design -Business) Overlay District
§ 165-131.1. intent.
§ 165-131.2. District boundaries.
§ 165-131.3. Establishment of districts.
§ 165-131.4. Use, density, dimensional
and intensity regulations.
§ 165-131.5. Off-street parking; parking
lots.
§ 165-131.6. Design standards.
§ 165-131.7. Master Development Plan
(MDP).
§ 165-131.8. Signage.
ARTICLE XVIII
Master Development Plan
§ 165-132.
Intent.
§ 165-133.
When required.
§ 165-134.
Waivers.
§ 165-135.
Review conference.
§ 165-136.
§ 165-137.
ARTICLE XVIIA
TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood
Design -Business) Overlay District
§ 165-131.1. intent.
§ 165-131.2. District boundaries.
§ 165-131.3. Establishment of districts.
§ 165-131.4. Use, density, dimensional
and intensity regulations.
§ 165-131.5. Off-street parking; parking
lots.
§ 165-131.6. Design standards.
§ 165-131.7. Master Development Plan
(MDP).
§ 165-131.8. Signage.
ARTICLE XVIII
Master Development Plan
§ 165-132.
Intent.
§ 165-133.
When required.
§ 165-134.
Waivers.
§ 165-135.
Review conference.
§ 165-136.
§ 165-137.
§ 165-138.
§ 165-139.
§ 165-140.
§ 165-141.
§ 165-142.
§ 165-143.
Preliminary master
Preapplication conference.
development plan.
Final master development
plan.
Changes to approved plans.
Preliminary master
development plan
submission.
Contents of preliminary
master development plans.
Final master development
plans.
Master development plan
review fees.
ARTICLE XIX
Site Plans
§ 165-144. Activities requiring site
plans.
165A 08 - 15 - 2008
ZONING
§ 165-145. Site plan applications;
review.
§ 165-146. Site plan contents.
§ 165-147. Required improvements.
ARTICLE XX
Nonconforming Uses, Structures and
Signs
§ 165-148. Continuation of preexisting
165:4.1 08-1S-2008
uses, structures, and signs.
§ 165-149.
Discontinuance.
§ 165-150.
Reestablishing discontinued
legally nonconforming use.
§ 165-151.
Expansion and
modifications.
§ 165-152.
Legally nonconforming lots
of record.
165:4.1 08-1S-2008
§ 165-1 ZONING § 165-2
§ 165-153. Restoration or replacement. ARTICLE XXII
Definitions
ARTICLE XXI
Board of Zoning Appeals § 165-156. Definitions and word usage.
Buffer and Screening
§ 165-154. Appointment; organization; Diagrams
terms.
§ 165-155. Powers and duties.
JUSTORY: Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick 2-14-1990
(Ch. 21 of the 1984 Frederick County Code). Amendments noted where applicable.]
Planning Commission — See Ch. 21.
Air pollution and open burning — See Ch. 45.
Animals and fowl — See Ch. 48.
Building construction — See Ch. 52.
Building maintenance — See Ch. 54.
Erosion and sediment control — See Ch. 79.
Fire prevention — See Ch. 90.
GENERAL REFERENCES
Junk dealers and pawnbrokers — See Ch. 104.
Massage parlors and health clubs — See Ch. 112.
Nuisances — See Ch. 122.
Solid waste — See Ch. 142.
Subdivision of land — See Ch. 144.
Swimming pools — See Ch. 152.
Water and sewers —See Ch. 161.
ARTICLE I
General Provisions
§ 165-1. Intent; purpose. [Amended 11-12-20031
This chapter is intended to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public and
the orderly development of Frederick County. This chapter is intended to accomplish the
purposes listed in § 15.2-2200 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. In addition, it is intended
that this chapter provide one means to achieve the goals set forth in the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan.
§ 165-2. Scope; applicability.
This chapter shall establish regulations concerning the use of land, the dimensions of lots and
uses and other supplementary development regulations to achieve the intentions of this
chapter. This chapter establishes districts throughout the County and regulations applicable to
each district.
A. In all districts established by this chapter, any new lot, use or structure shall be
constructed, developed and used only in accordance with the regulations specified in this
chapter.
B. In all districts, after the effective date of this chapter, any existing lot, use or structure
which is not in conformity with the regulations for the district in which it is located shall
be deemed as nonconforming and subject to the regulations of�Ae of this chapter.
[Amended 11-12-20031
165:5 06-15-2007