The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 05-20-09 Meeting AgendaAGENDA}-� FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia, May 20, 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 1, 2009 Minutes...................................................................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports...•.............................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #03-09 for Charles Hale and Ruth Hale, for a Country General Store. This property is located at 7517 Northwestern Pike (on the corner of Route 259 and 50), and is identified with Property Identification Number 27-A-47 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran.............................................................................................................•--•-..... (B) PUBLIC MEETING 6) 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 Uses. The property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charles Town Road (Route 761), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 44-A-43. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (C) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 7) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Supplementary Use Regulations. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to include outdoor lighting standards. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D) 8) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Secondary Street Acceptance. Mr. Bishop....................................................................................................................... (E) 9) Other 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 1, 2009. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, 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. Molnn, 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. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at TOO p.m. Upon motion made by Cormnissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the April 1, 2009 agenda for this evening's meeting. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION — RICHARD C. OURS Chairman Wilmot announced that Commissioner Richard "Rick" Ours, Opequon District Representative, will be leaving the Planning Commission after 14 years of service. A Resolution of Appreciation to Commissioner Ours from the Planning Commission was read by Commissioner Thomas and presented to Commissioner Ours. Commissioner Ours thanked the Planning Commission and stated how much he had enjoyed working with the Commission and being a part of the process of working with Frederick County. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2444 Minutes of April 1, 2009 MAI -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Community Facilities — 03/27/09 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the Community Facilities Group is moving ahead on rewriting their portion of the Comprehensive Policy Plan_ He said everyone involved is quite enthusiastic about being able to make contributions. Commissioner Kriz cominented that this particular committee is made up primarily of County employees vdio are a part of the Comprehensive Policy Plan process. Community Area flans Subcommittee — 03/20/09 Mtg. Connnissioner Mohn said this committee took another look at the Northeast Land Use Plan area maps and the staff is working on the text to accompany those maps_ He said the staff is making plans to present the documents to the conununity in the Spring. Transportation Committee— 3/23/09 Mtg. Connmissioner Kriz reported five items from the Transportation Committee. 1) MPO Transit Study - three of the service alternatives were placed in priority order: first, County -wide Demand Response; second, Improve Commuter Services; and third, Corridor Service to Middletown and Forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. 2) TIA Standards Update — further interaction with a committee of the Top of Virginia builders is encouraged with the hope of reaching a final resolution soon. 3) Transportation Module Update — to be reviewed annually; Planning Deputy Director -Transportation, John Bishop, will continue working on it, but considering the current state of the economy, it is not the highest priority. 4) The December meeting was moved to December 21, 2009. 5) A resolution was passed encouraging the Board of Supervisors to suggest VDOT relook at their priorities for budget cutting; in particular, the moving of the land development fictions from the Edinburg office to the Staunton office. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rural Areas Report and Recommendation. Consideration to adopt the report and recommendation of the Rural Areas Subcommittee as a policy component of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. This policy would apply to the rural areas of the County, and other additional policy directives to: enhance the Frederick County Planiiing Commission Minutes of April 1, 2009 Page 2445 -3 - agricultural economy; preserve the viewshed and rural landscape; preserve the community's rural character; and lessen the demands for County services. Some of the policy directives include the further enhancement of health system requirements and the establishment of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program. The recommended policy does not affect the existing residential density rights of property owners. Action — Recoimnended Approval Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, provided some history of the Rural Areas Report and Reconunendation. He reported that in response to increasing development pressures in the County's rural areas, which have intensified over the past decade, in July 2008, the Board of Supervisors created the Rural Areas Subcommittee. The subcominittee was charged with identifying growth and development trends and related issues in the rural areas of the county; gathering ideas to address those issues; and, forwarding a recommendation for resolution to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lawrence said the subcommittee reviewed State -enabling opportunities to manage rural areas growth; identified those opportunities that were not yet being fully utilized in Frederick County; held various community meetings to gather the citizens' thoughts on the rural areas; and drafted a list of "Preliminary Thoughts" for what the County could do to address the subcommittee's charge. He said that following a presentation of the "Preliminary Thoughts" at a public meeting and digestion of the public continents, the subcommittee finalized their recommendations as the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation. Mr. LaiNTence stated that the subcommittee offered further consideration regarding the citizen comments received during the "Preliminary Thoughts" public meeting on February 5, 2009. He said particular attention was given to: enabling lot sizes as small as one acre; expanding opportunities to enable community health systems beyond the Rural Comnnunity Centers; and maintaining the existing 50% reserve drainfield area requirement. After discussion, the subcommittee reaffirmed their support for the minimmn two -acre lot size as deemed necessary to accommodate an appropriately -sized health system. This decision also confirmed that the 100% reserve drainfield requirement was appropriate, as it would protect property owners' future needs for relocated drainfields in the event of a primary drainfield failure. Mr. Lawrence said that in terms of interest in expanding opportunities to utilize community health systems throughout the rural areas, the subcommittee firmly believed that such a move would enable development to occur in areas that previously had limited development opportunity because of environmental constraints, such as steep slopes, floodplain, wetlands, and generally poor soil conditions that are not conducive to private on-site health systems. He said that utilizing community health systems to introduce development in locations that are developmentally challenged, based on existing standards, would be contrary to the subcommittee's charge. Mr. Lawrence continued, stating that on February 19, 2009, the Rural Areas Subcorrmrittee forwarded their findings, the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation, and recommended that the Board of Supervisors consider 1) the adoption of the report as a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and 2) the implementation of the recommendations identified in the study. He said on March 11, 2009, the Board of Supervisors directed the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on this proposed policy for the rural areas and to return a reconunendation to the Board. Mr. Lawrence presented the report's Executive Summary, as well as the complete Rural Areas Report and Recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Lawrence explained in detail each of the subcommittee's recommendations, which encouraged the County to: 1) Implement enhancements to the existing health system requirements applicable to on-site private residential health systems; 2) Enable the use of Community health systems within defined Rural Community Centers; 3) Implement enhancements to the existing Rural Preservation Lot subdivision requirements; 4) Establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program; 5) Pursue state -enabling legislation that would allow the County to implement impact fees for new construction; and 6) strengthen opportunities that support and promote agriculture. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2446 Minutes of April 1, 2009 Do 411 ME Commissioner Kriz asked Mr_ Lawrence if he had any information on the General Assembly's consideration in July regarding the maintenance of septic systems. Mr. Lawrence replied legislation was adopted stating that as of July 1, 2009, local health departments would have to implement a Maintenance and Operation Program. Mr. Lawrence said local health depa u lent representatives have said they are resource challenged and do not have the funds or personnel; they are also waiting for the State to provide direction and rules. He said the RA Subcommittee felt that if the State does not implement the operation and maintenance of health system requirements, then the Comity should take the initiative to do so. Conunissioner Unger said the subcommittee is familiar with the TDRs, but has not gotten far enough into it to know how and where it will work. Commissioner Unger asked if the staff or subcommittee would be continuing work on TDRs in order to encourage people to utilize it ,Nben the time is right. Mr. Lawrence said ultimately, if the Board of Supervisors adopts the policy encouraging implementation of a TDR Program, then the staff and subcommittee will have to begin going through the task of writing an ordinance and identifying the sending and receiving areas. Mr. Lawrence explained the sending areas should pick up prime land, environmental land, and areas that should be preserved, while receiving areas should be identified within the Urban Development Area (UDA) on residentially -planned property still zoned agriculture, the new Urban Centers, and within the Rural Community Centers. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was any legislative progress on the impact fees for housing in rural areas or if this was still ANTithin the lobbying stage. Mr. Lawrence said it was discussed last year and it was hoped they would have something together before next year. Commissioner Thomas said he always liked the Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision concept_ He asked if this change would essentially kill that part of the ordinance because of the reduction in density with the rural preservation lot subdivision and it would be easier to just do five -acre lots again. Mr. Lawrence said he has heard mixed comments on that; he said the staff's perspective is the hope to develop a TDR Program and make it attractive so people will take this route. Commissioner Manuel asked how long it takes a rural land owner to get approved, from the time the staff receives a completed application with conceptual layouts, the survey, and health permits, until he is vested. Mr. Lawrence replied that if all the surveys and approved health certificates are submitted, then the applicant is ready to plat; he said once the property is plated, the applicant is vested. Commissioner Oates stated that under the current ordinance, when a client of his comes in with 20-30 acres or more, 90% of the time, be can show that client how a Rural Preservation Subdivision is to their advantage. However, under this new concept, going to 60% and doing away with the bonus lot, it's perhaps only 50% of the tone he could show them it would be to their advantage. He asked if anything could be done to encourage the cluster Rural Preservation Subdivision, such as pipe stem lots, reducing required road frontage, or something else in the design to shorten the road. Mr. Lawrence said that particular concept was not discussed at the policy level. Chairman Wimot next called for citizen comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. John D. Gavitt, Gainesboro District, Board Member of Preserve Frederick, said he was present to speak on behalf of Preserve Frederick. Mr. Gavitt read a statement of support for the recommendations of the Rural Areas Subconm_mittee from Preserve Frederick to the Planning Conunission, as follows: Frederick County Planning Commission Yage 244 Minutes of April 1, 2009 a°� -5– "Preserve Frederick would like to offer its strong supportto all the recommendations of the Rural Areas Subcommittee, as contained in their report. We would like to focus our statement on one recommendation in particular—a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program. Without a sustainable and far-reaching program in place, successes in preserving rural lands will remain small and fragmented. At the same time, it is clear that rural landowners should be compensated for giving up their development rights, except where there is a voluntary donation. For this reason, we believe that the most far-reaching initiative recommended by the subcommittee is to pursue a TDR Program. A properly planned and executed program will hopefully ensure that there will be a sustainable source of income available to pay landowners for giving up their development rights. To make this program attractive both to rural landowners and to developers, we recommend a standardized template for such transfer that is both clear and concise. In other words, a document that will ensure that the transfer of such rights from a `sending' to a `receiving' area can take place in a timely manner, and thus avoid the lengthy bureaucratic process required during the normal application process. `Time is money' to developers and thisv'ill create an important incentive for their participation in the program. There may be instances where landowners are not being paid the full appraised value of their development rights and, therefore, they may desire a tax-deductible donation for the unpaid balance. However, this will probably not be possible. Specific IRS requirements exist for a landowner to qualify for tax benefits resulting from a donation of a conservation or agricultural easement. Such requirements include the extinguishment of development rights and the protection of conservation values of the property. Even if the conservation values of a particular property are protected, a transfer of development rights is not an extinguishment and therefore, this particular requirement would not be met. In any case, we strongly recommend that any transfer of development rights be permanent in nature. There is little use in creating a vision for the county if important areas are opened up to potential development after a specific period of time. Concerning specific `sending' and `receiving' districts under a TDR program, we would ask that you consider the suggestions made in a December 2 memorandum to the subcommittee from a coalition of conservation organizations in this area, including Preserve Frederick, Potomac Conservancy, Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation, the Shenandoah Valley Network, and the Valley Conservation Council. These organizations recommended the creation of two primary sending districts in Frederick County: The Cedar Creek watershed and the Opequon watershed, which encompass some of the most critical natural_ and historic resources in Frederick County. Finally, a TDR Program should not eliminate the current Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) initiative in Frederick County. As grants and proffers for PDR become available, those funds should be used to protect important lands that a TDR may not reach. We believe that an appropriate blend of both programs is the best approach. Preserve Frederick would like to take this opportunity to again thank members of the subcommittee and the Department of Planning and Development for their hard work over the past several months. We believe that these recent positive steps to preserve important rural lands in Frederick County will benefit the quality of life for its future generations, whether living in its urban or rural areas." Mr. John Goode, Stonewall District, with a family farm in Gainesboro District, thanked the Cotrumission and members of the subcommittee for all their work on this project. Mr. Goode said this is a far superior proposal and approach compared to the draconian proposal offered last year. He said lie cannot reconcile the issue, however, about increasing the reserve area to 100%, while at the same time, being concerned about the use of community health systems. He said the increase in the reserve area to 100% sounds like a significant accomplishment for the environment, but there is no trigger to fix a failing system unless the owner sells his house and the prospective purchaser wants to have the system check. He said a person could live in the same house for 25-30 years with a failing system the entire time and it's not going to save the environment; on the other hand, the use of community health systems with the appropriate oversight is friendly to the environment. Mr. Goode believed three impacts of rural areas development would be better addressed by the plan if a lower minimum lot size was employed. The three impacts he was referring to -,,.,ere viewshed, agricultural use, and rural character. He said if development was contained on 20% of the land instead of 40%, viewshed would be better addressed. Frederick County Planning CommissionDo Minutes of April 1, 2009 t Page 2448 Q. With regard to agricultural use, clustering the houses leaves more agricultural land available and preserves the rural character of our community. He believed a lowerilin�nnurn lot size was far preferable to the two -acre minimum. Mr. Good believed Commissioner Thomas had an appropriate concern about the incentives people have; he said if a person is bumping up against the 40% limit and have not achieved their density goal, that person may give more thought to just utilizing the conventional five -acre division. Mr. Good thought the traditional five -acre subdivision has wasted a lot of land in Frederick County over the years; he said he was happy when, in 1991, the Board of Supervisors created the two -acre minimum as opposed to the five -acre minimum. He said it saved a lot of land over the years; he said an even further reduction in the minimum lot size will save even more land in the future. Mr. Good also raised the issue of the concern of the subcommittee that two acres would be needed to acconmiodate appropriate health systems; this didn't seem right to him when one could use off-site easements or potentially use community health systems in a larger project_ He pointed out that if someone wanted to make the lot bigger to accommodate an appropriate health system, they would still have the option to do that. Mr. Good believed people were too limited with the two -acre minimum as opposed to something less. Mr. Patrick Felling, Red Bud District, was representing the Potomac Conservancy. Mr. Felling commended the Rural Areas Subcommittee for their study of this issue and ways to save the valuable resources within the rural areas. He said the rural areas are important for agricultural production, and they contain watershed resources and other environmental benefits. Mr. Felling said he wanted to speak especially in support of two of the elements of the Rural Area Recominendations: the first, was the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs); he said there is a need to take a look at the resources of Frederick County and decide where the lands are that need to be saved and why, and what the criteria should be. He said the County also needs to decide what areas should be saved in perpetuity and how. Mr. Felling commended the County for taking up this issue and to favorably consider the reconnrnendations provided by the subcommittee. Mr. Felling also commended the County for efforts in the report to promote agriculture; he said this concentrated effort by the County will support this entire effort. Secondly, he spoke about the Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs) and thought this option should also be pursued. He said there are opportunities for purchases, as well as for donations, and these will also help to preserve rural areas and valuable lands. Mr. Felling said it will be a challenge to implement these tools well over the next few years, but he thought it would be worth it in the long term for the economic, agricultural, and environmental benefits to the County. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Thomas asked about the possibility of incorporating some flexibility in design standards, even possibly a sliding scale on the lot sizes offering a minimum lot size as low as 1'/� acres. He thought the county could achieve the same amount of lot density,�Nrith the Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision as with the five -acre lot subdivision. He suggested, as an example, of allowing the roads to be considered a part of the property, even though the roads would be turned over to the State. He felt there should be some way to look at the design standards, even if it was a 60-65,000 square -foot minimum lot size, to be able to get a comparable density with a rural subdivision and a five -acre lot, so that one is not more attractive over the other one. Commissioner Thomas believed more farmland could be preserved with rural preservation lots than the traditional five -acre lots. He said he would prefer moving into that direction and for the Board of Supervisors provide a little flexibility. He commented that in some cases, going down to 1'h acres would not be a bad thing, especially if there is a 100% set aside as a back-up for the sewage systems. Commissioner Mohn agreed with Commissioner Thomas' comments. Commissioner Mohn said the rural preservation lot option is truly the most desirable development option for rural residential development and everything should be done to incentivize that. He believed the biggest part was ensuring that a property owner or developer gets their full density. He said there should be some flexibility, within reason. Frederick County Planning Commission 0 j V T Fage 244V Minutes of April 1, 2009 [ �) �p01 r Conti iissioner Kriz said he agreed with the comments made by both Commissioner Thomas acid Commissioner Molui. Commissioner Kriz commented that research is rapidly moving ahead with septic systems and alternatives and he didn't see the necessity of going to 100% reserve area. He thought the health professionals were being extremely conservative Nvith their cominents on the reserve area. Commissioner Kriz was in favor of a smaller lot size. Commissioner Watt recalled the _first time this issue came before the Planning Commission in July 16, 2008; he said the room was full of people speaking against the proposal. He said that even though there was good turnout at the subcommittee meetings, he still had concerns about where this issue would end. Commissioner Watt thanked the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Richard Shickle, and the Board members for giving the residents in the rural areas the chance to make this proposal right. He said it was understood at the beginning of this study that it wasn't going to be possible to make everyone happy; but, everyone tried to do the best they could. Commissioner Watt comnnended the Planning Department; he said all the meetings were very well attended, participation was good, and whatever was asked of the Plamang Department, they had the information that was sought, or by the next meeting, they had what was requested. He said he was impressed by the way the Planning Department handled everything. Connnissioner Watt said he was pleased overall with the end result. Connnissioner Ruckman asked if the TDRs were a pennanent transfer or whether it was a temporary condition. Mr. Lawrence said the belief is that it should be permanent,- however, this is a policy issue that needs to be decided when developing the ordinance. Mr_ Lawrence said as the process goes through ordinance development, the answer to that question can be determined. Connnissioner Unger said the subconunittee had considerable discussion on smaller lots and it was not something that was pushed aside. He said he was in favor of smaller lots and he is still not against it; however, when the health department professionals advised a minimum of two acres to make drainfields work, it greatly influenced the subconmiittee's reconunendation. Commissioner Manuel said he hoped the county could fu -id a way to help corruuniiy centers that have failing health systems, such as Round Hill, Reliance, and Gainesboro. Connnissioner Kriz asked the staff to emphasize the Commission's points regarding the septic systems and smaller lot sizes when making the presentation to the Board. Connnissioner Ours made a motion to reconunend approval of the Rural Areas Report and Recommendations. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rural Areas Report and Recommendation as a policy component of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. This policy would apply to the rural areas of the County, and other additional policy directives to: enhance the agricultural economy; preserve the viewshed and rural landscape; preserve the community's rural character; and lessen the demands for County services. Some of the policy directives include the further enhancement of health system requirements and the establishment of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program. The recommended policy does not affect the existing residential density rights of property owners. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 1, 2009 Page 2450 ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R_ Lawrence, Secretary DF26)p�� Frederick County Planning Cormnission Yage L4� i Minutes of April 1, 2009 • • J 4�CK COG CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #03-09 CHARLES HALE AND RUTH HALE 4 Staff Report for the Planning Commission Y Prepared: May 5, 2009 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Planning Commission: 05/20/09 Board of Supervisors: 06/10/09 Action Pending Pending EXECUTIVE SUMARY: This is a request for a Country General Store with carry -out food prepared on site. No on-site fuel sales will be allowed with this Conditional Use Permit. Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the Conditional Use Permit: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. An engineered site plan shall be submitted and approved by Frederick County; and implemented prior to operating store activities on site. One (1) monument sign shall be allowed on the property; sign shall be limited to fifty (50) square feet in area. The sign shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. 4. No on-site vehicle fuel sales allowed. 5. No outdoor display of goods. 6. Carry -out food only no seating allowed for meals. 7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. Page 2 Conditional Use Permit ##03-09 Charles Hale and Ruth Hale May 5, 2009 LOCATION: This property is located at 7515 Northwestern Pike (Routes 259 and 50). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 27-A-47 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Land Use: Public Garage ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Agricultural Land Use: Commercial Land Use: Agricultural Land Use: Agricultural PROPOSED USE: This application is for a Country General Store with carry -out food prepared on site. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virzinia Department of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 259 and 50, the VDOT roadways which would provide access to the development. The existing entrances will have to be upgraded and/or closed to meet current commercial entrance standards per VDOT's "Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways ". Before the initial phase of development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing the commercial entrance design for review and approval. Upon VDOT plan approval, any required work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and required an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire and Rescue: Plan approval recommended. Inspections Department: Buildings shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 304-B, Business Use Group of the International Building Code/2003. Page 3 Conditional Use Permit #03-09 Charles Hale and Ruth Hale May 5, 2009 Other Code that applies is ICC/ANSI Al 17.1-03 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Proposed change of use from S-1 Storage to B -Business shall meet ANSI Accessibility to full extent but shall not exceed 20% of the total cost of renovations. ANSI accessible van parking shall be provided with unloading area. All required egress/ingress shall be Handicap Accessible. Service counters shall meet ANSI. A grease trap is existing and shall be located on site plan. One unisex ANSI accessible restroom shall be provided and shall be available for public use. Please note the requirements in Chapter 17 of BOCA for special inspection requirements on the type of structure (soils, concrete, etc.). Vi.-stinia Department of Environmental Quality: In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 USC §1251 et seq.), as amended, and pursuant to the State Water Control Law and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, owners of treatment works with domestic sewage discharges of a design flow of less than or equal to 1,000 gallons per day on a monthly average are authorized to discharge to surface waters with the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Virginia, except those waters specifically named in board regulations or policies that prohibit such discharges. The authorized discharge shall be in accordance with the cover page, Part I - Effluent Limitations, Monitoring Requirements and Special Conditions, and Part II -Conditions Applicable to All VPDES Permits, as set forth herein. Viminia Department of Health. Will review prior to operation. Planning and Zoning: A country general store is a permitted use in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This use will occur within a 1,560 square foot building. There will be no on-site vehicle fuel sales and outdoor display areas will not be permitted on the premises. Signage will be limited to one (1) freestanding monument sign; not to exceed fifty (50) square feet in area, and ten (ten) feet in height. An engineered site plan addressing all reviewing agency comments shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County, prior to country store activities. The subject property is not in an area where a small area land use study has been adopted by the County. Nevertheless, the proposed country general store is consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, land use goals for the rural areas of the county identify the importance of maintaining a rural character in areas outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA). Based on the limited scale of the applicant's proposed general store, it appears it would not have negative impacts on adjoining properties or detract from the rural character of the area. Page 4 Conditional Use Permit #03-09 Charles Hale and Ruth Hale May 5, 2009 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 05/20/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is a request for a Country General Store with carry -out food prepared on site. Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the Conditional Use Permit: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. An engineered site plan shall be submitted and approved by Frederick County; and implemented prior to operating store activities on site. 3. One (1) monument sign shall be allowed on the property; sign shall be limited to fifty (50) square feet in area. The sign shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. 4. No on-site vehicle fuel sales allowed. 5. No outdoor display of goods. 6. Carry -out food only no seating allowed for meals. 7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. 'harles Hale & Ruth Male - Country Store CUP # 03 - 09 U 'G 27 A 73 WHITACRECLAYA PIN: 27—A— 47 � ,e 27 A 74 i) . WHITACRE CLAY A l��fl \ V SELDON LYNDELE LIVING TRUST ty� ., ltty . 27 A 85 � \. 50 KERNS KENNETH W & ' so �� t �yoRTy C3 ti \�FSTF o =,�QRTy wEs 27 z RrY P/ a— A 47 - KF 27. ,{ H_ IF HARL ' S KERNS C 8 i 27 �Q £ ' %LE27 45 CHARCES F 27 A 49 MILLER GALE L R Y 5 27 A 44 HALE CHARLES R & RUTH A w ,Q\� 27 A 95 Case Planner: Mark �' 27 A 50 VOLLIAMSON TYLER y. = Future Rt37 Bypass Zoning M2 (Industrial, General District) NALD O&GFJQf.DINE L ®Application BI (Business, Neighborhood District) MH1(Mbbile Home Community District) Q� . Buildings B2 (Business, General DistrisQ MS (Medical Support District) CG vas t%-4 Urban Development Area ! B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) ' 'Rea SWSA tj EM (Estractit' e Manufacturing District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) _ HE (Higher Education District) ^) RA (Rural Arca District) N MI (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residential Performance District) W 0 900 200 400 Feet + . P i'vl Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the x owner other) NAME: Charles R. and Ruth A. Hale ADDRESS: 7517 Northwestern Pike, Gore, VA, 22637 TELEPHONE: (540) 858-3443 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Charles R. and Ruth A. Hale 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 7533 Northwestern Pike at the intersection of Route 50 and Route 259 4. The property has a road frontage of +/- 195' feet and a depth of +/-150' feet and consists of 2.54 acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by Charles R. and Ruth A. Hale as evidenced by deed from Charles E. Lockhart, Jr recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 569 on page 540 , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Tax (Parcel) Identification No. (P.I.N.) 27-(A)-47 Magisterial District Back Creek Current Zoning RA - previously used as a gas station with garage 7. Adjoining Property: USE North Agriculture East Agriculture South Commercial West Agriculture RA ZONING 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) "Little Quy's Place" - A cQuntry store with carry -out food prepared on-site This will not be a _ "sit-down" restaurant" and there will not be any public restrooms 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: Existim blszck gage will be remodeled 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME Charles R. & Ruth A. Hale PROPERTY ID# 27-(A)-44 and 27-(A)A6 NAME Gale L. Miller PROPERTY ID# 27-(A)-49 NAME Clay A. Whitacre PROPERTY ID# 27-(A)-74 NAME Lyndel E. Seldon, Living Trust PROPERTY ID# 27-(A)-75 NAME PROPERTY ID#_ NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS 7517 Northwestern Pike, Gore,VA ADDRESS 163 Hollow Rd, Gore, VA 22637 ADDRESS P.O. Box 25, Gore, VA 22637 ADDRESS P.O. Box 67, Highview, WV, 26808 ADDRESS ADDRESS 12. Additional comments, if any: This request is for a Country Store that will also serve food prepared on-site as well as an ice-cream window. There will not be any indoor seating nor public restrooms with this project. I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address 7517 Northwestern Pike, Gore, VA 22637 Owners' Telephone No. (540) 858-3443 TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: 27-(A)-49 t\\ GAEL A MILLER X080ED010448 ZON.• RA � USE AGRICULTURE IJO ACRES j z. \'/ X59 / / 1 L i CLAY A. WHITACRE D8 954, PG 1417 \ \ \ ZONED: RA -'\ USE: AGRICULTURE t22 ACRES SZ 27-(A)-75 LYNDEL E. SELDON, gogl \ LIVING TRUST X040021742 ZONED RA USE AGRICULTURE t25 ACRES tN- 410 "- i£UALDY BUIIDIH( .O ��`°, :'e' +.+'�L"R', / /` r 27-( -46 ,� CHARtES R. & RUTH A. HALE fi? \ ' / / / � k.#I. OB 335, PG 763 \' r .� l I J ( f ZONED: RA USE., THRIFT SHOP \, k15 ACRES ty C� • • REZONING APPLICATION 902-09 THE BISHOP-AMARI PROPERTY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: April 27, 2009 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 04/15/09 Tabled 30 Days 05/20/09 Pending Board of Supervisors: 06/10/09 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 2.77 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for Commercial Uses. LOCATION: The property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charles Town Road (Route 761). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 05/20/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Applicant provided the Planning Commission with an updated Proffer Statement dated April 27, 2009. This revised Proffer Statement includes several modifications, some of which were discussed during the Planning Commission meeting, and a couple which are aimed at further addressing the transportation impacts associated with this request. The Applicant's proffered monetary contribution aimed at mitigating transportation impacts at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads has increased from $5,000 to $10,000. The proffer has the potential to increase to $25,000 if a convenience Mart with gas pumps is developed on the property. The Road Improvement Exhibit submitted as part of the Proffer Statement has been modified to reflect a modified right in right out entrance on Martinsburg Pike. No additional median improvements are proposed at this time. The ability remains within the proffer to provide for additional left turn control measure on Martinsburg Pike at some point in the future should the designed entrance not be effective at prohibiting left turn movements into the property. The gasoline pump limitation has been clarified to state eight pumps with two fueling positions each (maximum of 16 fueling positions), as has the inter parcel access to the property to the east, which has been further clarified to provide access to Old Charlestown Road and to give the County control on future connectivity based upon the development of the adjacent Ml site. The Applicant has provided a detailed description of the quantity and location of the 'landscape screening and corridor enhancement buffering which will enhance the public street frontages of the property. Rezoning #02-09 - The Bishop -Amari Property April 27, 2009 Page 2 As stated previously, the land uses proposed in this rezoning are generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan and the commercial designation for this intersection. The application provides a level of sensitivity to the identified 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. The Applicant's revised the transportation proffer is described above. The Commission should determine if the Applicant has satisfactorily addressed impacts generated by this request and the concerns identified by the Commission during your April 15, 2009 meeting. The required public hearing for this application has been held. Therefore, a recommendation regarding this rezonin'. application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Rezoning #02-09 — The Bishop -Amari Property April 27, 2009 Page 3 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. PROPOSAL,: To rezone 2.77 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for Commercial Uses. LOCATION: The property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charles Town Road (Route 761). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 44-A-43 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District PRESENT USE: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) South: RA (Rural Area) East: M1 (Light Industrial) West: RA (Rural Area) M1 (Light Industrial) Use: Residential Use: Agriculture Use: Vacant Use: Residential / Vacant Residential Rezoning #02-09 — The Bishop -Amari Property April 27, 2009 Page 4 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dent. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11 and 761. These routes are the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Bishop -Amari Rezoning Application dated March 5, 2009 address 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: 1. Refer to Suitability of the Site: Expand the discussion to include a detailed description of the site with specific references to the existing dwellings, existing well locations, if applicable, and existing drainfields. Any wells and/or drainfields should be located on the aerial overview plan. Future designs should address the disposition of these items in accordance with Health Department criteria. 2. Refer to Other Environmental Features: This discussion should be expanded to include the fact that the site is underlain by karst limestone with the potential for sinkhole development. The existence of sinkholes should be included with the master development plans or site plan design, whichever occurs first. 3. Refer to Site Drainage: During the site plan design phase, it will be necessary to verify the adequacy of the drainage structures (culverts and ditches) associated with the intersection of Route 11 and Route 761. This evaluation shall be accomplished in conjunction with the analysis of the design of the onsite BMP facility. Department of Inspections: If existing structures have a change of use or are removed, a building permit is required. Change of Use from Residential to Commercial on existing structures shall comply with the 2006 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, The 2006 International Existing Building Code, and ICC/AMSI A117.1-03 for accessibility. Asbestos inspections shall be required for any demolitions and/or renovations. Sanitation Authority: There is a 10" water line along US 11 to a 16" water line along Old Charlestown Road. There is no sewer in this area. The sewer lines shown on the "Rezoning W&S Lines" drawing have not been installed. Service Authority: No comment. Health Department: No comments Rezoning #02-09 — The Bishop -Amari Property April 27, 2009 Page 5 Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 close in surfaces. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please see attached letter dated January 26, 2009, signed by Amber L. Powers, BRAB Staff. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated January 15, 2009 from Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. PlanninLy Department: Please see attached Memo dated December 31, 2008from Michael T Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director. Planning & Zoning: L) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted iii the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Pian The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The parcel comprising this rezoning application is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the site is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan. The Northeastern Frederick Land 1JTse Plan generally provides for commercial uses in the vicinity of this site and along Route 11, Martinsburg Pike. Further, the development of business and commercial land uses is encouraged at signalized road intersections. The Plan also recognizes the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA's) which are in the immediate vicinity of the site. The application of quality design standards for future development is also an objective of the Plan. Rezoning #02-09 — The Bishop -Amari Property April 27, 2009 Page 6 Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan includes this portion of the County. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for Martinsburg Pike to be improved to a four -lane facility and is further defined as an urban four -lane divided facility with a landscaped median. Old Charlestown Pike is identified with an urban two-lane designation. The Plan states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan designates Route 11 as a short-term designated route. Site Access The Northeast Land Use Plan states that individual access to industrial sites should be discouraged along Martinsburg Pike. This development has proffered one right -in right -out commercial entrance on Martinsburg Pike and a full commercial entrance to and from the property on Old Charlestown Road. Pedestrian accommodations have been provided along the road frontages of this project. 2) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. This area is also known for karst topography. The Frederick County Engineer has identified that a detailed geotechnical analysis will be needed as part of the master development plan or detailed site plan design. The Historic Resources Advisory Board has offered suggestions for this project which have been incorporated into the application. 3) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application assumed 20,000 square feet of commercial uses, including a restaurant, and a 16 pump gas station. The TIA indicates that Level of Service C conditions or better will be maintained on study roads and intersections with the proposed signalization of Old Charles Town Road and Route 11, for which the Stephenson Village project has proffered the construction. The applicant has proffered a variety of improvements to the properties road frontages and to the signalization of the intersection of Old Charlestown Road and Martinsburg Pike. This, and recent TIA's, have also demonstrated level of service and lane geometry issues at the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell Road, Route 672, in Clearbrook. The ultimate solution to this intersection has yet to be determined. Previous applications have participated in providing a solution to achieve acceptable levels of service at this intersection by providing a monetary contribution in various amounts that may be used to allow for the development of improvements in the general area of this intersection. Rezoning #02-09 — The Bishop -Amari Property April 27, 2009 Page 7 A monetary contribution has been proffered in the amount of $5,000 that may be applied to the above referenced intersection improvements at Martinsburg Pike and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads. The TIA modeled the intersection of Route 1 I and Route 761. This application provides for improvements to the intersection and to Route I 1 and Route 761 consistent with the TIA in all locations with the exception of the second north bound through lane at the northbound approach to the intersection of Route 11 and Route 761. A raised median of some sort should be considered on Route 11 directly across from the proposed right -in right -out entrance as part of the initial construction ofthis project. This would ensure that no left turns can be made into the site from south bound Route 11 such as is experienced in other locations within the County. It would further achieve the divided section called for in the Comprehensive Plan. It may be preferable for this application to also consider median separation of the east and west bound lanes of Route 761 and further delineate the left turn lane into the site. This would appear to be able to be accomplished without any additional right-of-way or pavement impacts and may also be more cost efficient. The provision of an additional area of raised median adjacent to the right turn lane from Route 761 to Route 11 is a good improvement to this intersection. The use of raised medians would further define the intersection, safely control turning movements, and significantly benefit pedestrians who may be more prevalent in this area in the future. B. Design Standards The project's location on a major corridor and adjacent to an area identified as a developmentally sensitive area warrants particular attention. This attention is provided in the application by a combination of proffered commitments aimed at designing the development of the site. These include a commitment to the building placement which provides that no parking spaces or travel aisles will be between all occupied structures and the public street frontages, and building height, lighting, roofline, and construction material standards. Further, commitments have been made regarding any future gasoline fueling islands, particularly their location which ensures they would also be located behind any occupied commercial structures. The Applicant has proposed to develop a plaza area 2,000 square feet in size adjacent to the occupied commercial structures and a historic information kiosk located on the plaza area which will be designed in consultation with the HRAB. The Historic Resources Advisory Board has been instrumental in working with the Applicant to appropriately address the interpretation of the historic resources of this area. Rezoning #02-09 — The Bishop -Amari Property April 27, 2009 Page 8 The signage must be consistent with current ordinance requirements. The Applicant has proposed additional landscape screening between the parking areas and public streets; this should be in addition to any required by Ordinance. The amount should be further defined. Buffer and screening must meet current ordinance requirements. In addition, the applicant has proposed additional evergreen screening adjacent to the property to the west. C. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on Fire and Rescue 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 makes an effort to address the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $0.10 per square foot of developed commercial structural area. Please recognize that this may generate up to $2,000 for fire and rescue services. Proffer Statement — Dated October 27, 2008; revised March 16, 2009 (Further Revised April 16, 2009. A) Land Use 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. A variety of land uses have been proffered out by the Applicant. B) Transportation The Applicant has proffered a variety of improvements to the property's road frontages and to the signalization of the intersection of Old Charlestown Road and Martinsburg Pike, including right-of-way dedication. Included as part of the proffer statement are exhibits that depict the proffered improvements. A right- in right -out entrance is proffered along Martinsburg Pike and a full commercial entrance along Old Charlestown Road. Interparcel parking lot access is proffered with the adjacent properties to the east and west. A monetary contribution has been proffered in the amount of $5,000 that may be applied to intersection improvements at Martinsburg Pike and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads. Rezoning #02-09 — The Bishop -Amari Property April 27, 2009 Page 9 C) Site Design The application provides several proffered commitments aimed at designing the development of the site including; a commitment to the building location, building height, lighting, roofline, and construction material standards. Further, commitments have been made regarding any future gasoline fueling islands, particularly their location. The Applicant has proposed to develop a plaza area 2,000 square feet in size adjacent to the occupied commercial structures and a historic information kiosk located on the plaza area. Additional landscaping and buffering is also proposed by the Applicant. D) Community Facilities The Applicant proffers a monetary contribution in an amount of $0.10 per square foot of developed commercial structural area. Please recognize that this may generate up to $2,000 for fire and rescue services. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR TITE 04/15/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land uses proposed in this rezoning are generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan and the commercial designation for this intersection. The application provides a level of sensitivity to the identified 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. The Commission should ensure that a satisfactory level of expectation has been met regarding 1) site design considerations along the properties frontages, and 2) sufficient value in the transportation contributions aimed at addressing the transportation impacts of this project and the necessary offsite transportation improvements. Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board o fupervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 4/15/09 MEETING: Commission members questioned the applicant about his method for arriving at the proffered monetary contribution towards transportation impacts, specifically, at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Hopewell and Bruce -town Road. The applicant had stated the monetary contribution was derived from a comparison of acreages of other projects in the vicinity which had also made transportation contributions. Commission members preferred the applicant use the site's traffic generation impact, rather than the size of the parcel, as a more accurate comparison to determine this particular project's contribution. Rezoning #02-09 — The Bishop -Amari Property April 27, 2009 Page 10 A member of the Commission asked if there had been discussion about doing a joint entrance and a shared easement with the Cutshaw's Ml parcel, which would eliminate the need for a buffer; he commented it would gain the applicant 25 feet or more by placing half the road on the adjoining Cutshaw property. It was also mentioned that Parcels 47 and 42 would have inter -parcel connection through the access road out to Old Charles Town Road; a member of the Commission asked if something would be set up inside the site to prevent vehicles from exiting through the right -turn in, right -turn out access. The applicant said the proffer didn't specify there would be reciprocal ingress/egress easements, but if that was something the Commission was interested in, the applicant could add it. Commission members asked for clarification on the number of gasoline fueling points that were proffered by the applicant. The applicant said it was not the intention to try to get additional pumps because he didn't think more would fit on the site. The applicant offered to rewrite the proffer to state, "eight fueling stations for a total of 16 pumps." No citizens came forward to speak during the public comment portion of the hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to table the rezoning application for 30 days, at the applicant's request, in order to provide enough time for the applicant to revise the proffers dealing with the monetary contribution, some of the design elements, and landscaping. (Note: Commissioner Manuel was absent from the meeting.) COUNTY of FREI ER!CK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Evan Wyatt, AICP FROM: Michael -T. Ruddy, !UCP Deputy Director RF: Initial Comments -- Bishop Amari Ptezoning App kation DATE: December 31, 2008 I he follo�Ning points are offered regarding the i3.sher l.anari Cin- ainercial Application. This is a request to rezone 2.77 acres frol l P_�. ?o B2 qui+.iz Proffer _ Ple;"." consider the con lnlents as you continue your lq orl- i r%t`'lr"-l14'; appfl:-:tiolt "Or subin scion to Fredrick County. In addition, p c;az_e ens ,ro: oiat these c.ontnaew+ and ate revie-w agency comments are adequately addressed. Land Use. The property is located in the general ar ca covered by the Route 11 i'.lort.r, Plan; and the Northeast Land Use Plan. The property is within the � r? SA and is gener;;lly designated in an area of commercial land use. The husinessC.-ridor e--ations o_ the Comprehensive Plan should be recognized and should be applied aiong Route I t and pote-Otiaily Charles "Town Roa:l. In addition, the adjacent rF�---A's'should be consid-red. Transp,ortation This application prop:)scs lane ;.aid it tersectior+ Jmlprcivc �:::�,rris ort Route 11 and Route 761. It may be prefera le for tliis app';cation to a sc c(-.;a,,"dct— mediad sepuratior. of tlx east and west bound lanes of Route 761 and fbi-ther de rn,•;Ae- the lex turn lan, U,.to the sire. This would appear to be abie io be accompt shed 11•ith;lut aw additional righ; of .v -a- or pavcmer_t impacts and nlw.-also be more Ao addjt anal area of raiser medianshould be considerer± adjace r v_ the rig 1. turd. route 76.1. to ROM,- 11. The use of raised rneci.a:._ns would further define ti,e i al.et::.�caiun, safely control `i0rrlillg; mover.;-nts, and significantly benefit pedestrians vvho may ).More Preva ent in arca in the :inure. 1117 North Kent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22691-5000 Initial Comments — Bishop Amari Rezoning Application December 31, 2008 Page 2 A raised median of some sort should also be considered on Route 11 directly across from the proposed right in right out entrance. This would ensure that no left turns can be made into the site from south bound Route I I such as`is experienced in other locations within the County. The proffered commitment to provide for inter -parcel connectivity to the adjacent parcels should be flexible in the location of access points for the adjacent property to the east. It may also be beneficial to identify who would be responsible for connecting the 25' distance between the access drive and the adjacent property. Alternately, a specific location could be determined at this time. This may be helpful with regards to the proffered landscape screen adjacent to this property line. In addition, the property to the east is presently zoned M1. It may benefit the applicant to design the inter -parcel connection to minimize any potential conflicts between commercial and industrial traffic. The TIA modeled the intersection of Route 11 and Route 761. This application provides for improvements to the intersection and to Route I I and Route 761 consistent with the TIA in all locations with the exception of the second north bound through lane at the northbound approach to the intersection of Route 11 and Route 761. The application should evaluate if sufficient right-of-way is available in this location to implement this improvement. Pedestrian accommodations should be further recognized and provided in a coordinated manner internal to the project, to and along Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road, and at the intersection of these roads. Proffer Statement. A Generalized Development Plan has not been provided with this application. A GDP accompanying the Proffer Statement could be used to .further clarify the proffered commitments and to address some of the comments identified. The Road Improvement Exhibit is mentioned in the proffers. However, this exhibit, and any GDP, should be specifically proffered in the statement. Additional landscaping in the area identified in proffer 10 is desirable. It should be clarified that this landscaping is in addition to any required landscaping provided to meet parking lot landscaping requirements. In addition, the amount of landscaping should be identified in an effort to avoid potential confusion during fi.�ture site development. To this end, the application may want to further define the butler areas adjacent to the public streets similar to the nearby Easy Living example. This may include distance of landscape area, distance of parking lot away from right-of-way, planting schedule etc. Initial Comments — Bishop Amari Rezoning Application December 31, 2008 Page 3 Previously, the Board of Supervisors has stated their preference for the developer to deal directly with the local volunteer companies on any direct monetary contribution for their benefit. Any contribution to the County should be designated to the County for fire and rescue purposes. The proffer statement must be signed by the owner/owners of the property. General Particular effort should be made to provide for enhanced design of the project to facilitate improved corridor appearance along Route 1 l and potentially.. Charles Town Road. In addition to working with the Applicant in the development of information that would be displayed in the kiosk, the HRAB should also be used to consider the design of the kiosk. Any additional recommendations of the HRAB should also be recognized. One of the existing buildings on the site, the smaller residence located closest to the intersection, is somewhat unique and could be utilized in the redevelopment of the site and could be reflected in the design of the site. The building inav provide an opportunity to reflect the areas architecture, could be utilized in conjunction with the proffered plaza area and historic kiosk, or could be a standalone commercial use such as an ice cream stand. The Applicant has proffered to utilize similar developer ent themes and constriction materials for all occupied structures. This should also 111cl1_1de any gasoline canopies. In addition, the Applicant could consider a theme that is representative ol- the site, area, and context of the location. The previously noted building may be one choice for guiding such a theme. 1 would suggest an evaluation of the existing mature trees on the property to determine if any cat, be incorporated into the design of the project. It would be desirable to preserve such examples if possible. Additional comments provided by Mr. John Bishop AICP 1. Access on Old Charlestown Road should be as far back from the intersection with Route 11 as possible. 2. Access on Route 11 should be designed in a manner that minimizes left turns such as a right in right out or possibly a right in right out with left in only. 3. Inter -parcel access would be provided. Due to the short distance of frontage and the need to keep this entrance as far north from the intersection of Route 11 and Old Charlestown Road as possible, median control will need to instituted on Route 11 to allow for the proposed entrance scenarios. Initial Comments — Bishop .`_marl Rezoning Appiication December 31, 2608 Pago 4 4. Right -of -quay and participation for improvements to Route 11 and Old Charlestown Road should be provided. 5. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations should be provided along Old Charlestown Road and sidewalks should be included along Route 11. Pending the rezoning it will also be important that liril<_ages for these modes are provided within the site. 6. Right turn lane is included on Old Charlestown Road where it intersects with Route 11. Consider a free flowing right turn lane with yield to through traffic. ?. Since two receiving lanes are proposed along the property frontage, consider marking the right turn line on Route 111 at Old Charlestown as a right and through. 8. These. may need to be some cooperation between this rezoning and the Snowden Bridge Development regarding the proffered signalization of Route I I and. Old Charlestown Road if that signal is not in the foreseeable future. Please clarify. 9. It should be rioted that the lane configuration depicted does not match the TIA analysis. Once again, please ensure that all review agency comments aie adequately addressed. Attachments MTR/dlw COUNTY of FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722-8383 Fax 340/667-0370 E-mail: rwillia - co.frederick.va.us January 15, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE — (540) 722-9528 — AND REGULAR MAID -- I ' A d -D Mr. LV`kxn L ,1 YULLl Ax%.i Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re: Rezoning Application, Parcel Number 44-A-43, Bishop -Amari Property — Proffer Statement dated October 27, 2008 Dear Evan: 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 A3 — Regarding proffered out uses, staff will want to review this list to determine whether the remaining allowed uses are appropriate for the Property. Also, staff will want to determine whether any further definition is appropriate for "Truck Stops", which are a subset of SIC 5541 (Gasoline Service Stations), including, for example, the types of goods and services offered at the establishment, how they are offered/marketed, and the facilities available at the estabiishmem. 2. Proffers B 1, B2, and B4 — The Proffer Statement should indicate, for Proffers B 1 and B2, that the Road Improvement Exhibit is attached. Also, for all three Proffers, a better -defined final completion date for the proffered improvements, such as, by the time of issuance of the first building permit or by the time of issuance of the occupancy permit, rather than "during the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property", would be appropriate. �. Proffers B5 and D — The phrase "at the time of building permit issuance for the first Site Plan approval on the Property (or similar phrase) may be somewhat ambiguous and cumbersome, in terms of defining a triggering event. It may be better simply to state it as "prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Property". 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP January 15, 2009 Page 2 4. Proffers section C generally — In several of the Proffers throughout this section, the term "occupied commercial structures" appears. I would suggest that the mere term "structures" is likely to suffice in most if not all instances. Otherwise, the basis for treating whatever structures that may be not "occupied" or not "commercial" differently is unclear. 5. Proffers C 1 and C 10 — The factual premise in Proffer C 10 (screening between parking areas and public streets) appears to be at odds with the restriction in Proffer C 1 (no parking between building frontages and public streets). It may be helpful if the Applicants clarified that they intend to provide the landscaping along the public streets even though Proffer C 1 prohibits parking between the building frontages and the public streets. Also, it would be appropriate for Proffer C 10 to state a deadline by which the screening is to be completed. 6. Proffers C2 and C3 — It would be appropriate for each of these two Proffers to state a deadline by which the items (plaza and kiosk) are to be completed. 7. Proffer C9 — Regarding freestanding business signs, some of the proffered height or size limitations may be the same as (or possibly less restrictive than) the limitations that already apply by ordinance. See County Code § 165-30(G) & (H). It may be best to clarify that the proffered limitations specifically refer to those signs that are subject to the general catch-all limitations of § 165-30(0)(7) & (H)(7). 8. The Proffer Statement and the Application will both, of course, require signatures from both owners or the submission of powers of attorney from both owners. 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 yours, Roderick B. Williams County Attorney cc: Ms. Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner, County of Frederick January 26, 2009 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway' Engineering i:i A 1 1 7 .nt.v i l' 0 Lai— «t`7nchvstcr `'A 22)6,02 COUNTY of 1FREDERICX Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX': 540/665-6395 RE: Bishop - Amari Application Requesting the Rezoning_ of 2.77 acres from RA to 132 for Commercial Use. Location: 2496 Martinsburg Pike, Winchester, v'_X Property Identification Number (PIN): 44 - A - 43 Current Zoning District: RA (Rural Area; Dear Mr. Wyatt: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting on January ' 3. 2009. The HRAB reviewed inforr ration a:Ssc ciated with the Frederick Countv Rural Landn:a_rks _Survey RQrt, the%irgini_a Departii.ent ..,f Hisloric Resources, as well as information provided by Dewb,=, Engineering. Historic Resources Advisory Board. Concerns The proposal seeks to rezone 2.77 acres of lend 1- orn RA (Rural 'Areas) District to the B2 (Business General) District `ioi Com. -r ercial uses. Tree property is located at 2456 Martinsburg Pike at the i , (;f�rseco on of Martinsburg Pix e (Route I]) and Old Charies Town Road ( Route 761). The Siud<-�.,_Cijl War Sites in the Sheoaxidoah Valle,, published by the National Park Service. k entities the Bishop -Amari Property as being iocated wi i fi.in the bounds of the Second Winchester Core Battief eld. The rrope.rty is adjacent to land that has retained ;tench of its historic integrity and As designated as a Development -Sensitive Area,- (including the M -Ckin r r��per<_y to the :iouth of Old Charles Tori Road) The Rural Latrdrnark_s Sua ,,eY• Report for ,'reslcricl� C-_Ounty, N'ir l::.,a identi zes four stnuctitres %ithir tlir immediate area oi'the subject site, one stnict;ue. is located on-site, and one on-site structure was recently demolished: S Aut —Ex 411a1i-pe 113#� r `i, 4) —ryas locate(' �)rt ire 11 r�i 11LI i3euii ucr•.ivlISale(. • fl6over, Burton House (#34-945 ) -located On. site -- -- • . ackson, Edgar House (#34-942) • My ason-Hoover Houise (434-943) 107 North Keni Street, Suite 202 ® Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Bishop - Amari Application Requesting the Rezoning of 2.77 acres from RA to B2 for Commercial Use January 26, 2009 Page 2 The Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any of these structures as potentially significant, nor do any of the structures qualify for the national or state register of historic places. The applicant -has attempted to address the impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding area in the proffer statement: • Maximum of 20,000sf of commercial structure area (excluding gasoline pumps). Maximum of 5,000sf of restaurant area (part of the 20,000sf). Certain uses are prohibited on the site: communication facilities, truck stops, hotels/motels, organization hotels and lodging, car washes, miscellaneous repair services, motion picture mac. ; ' ' .,._ r'Q �n� ' p} �*' !' F rli•`r.'c+. � a , ca ,+ ,d rerrat7an oPC�,irk's L%}ar^ =r� ��n,y��,. ,7.i �0r� , _no r_�n c,. 1^_ �--=F nl , adult retail. s All buildings shall be oriented towards Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road. • The site will have a 2,000sf plaza. • The applicant will develop a kiosk that will be located on the plaza area, which will be utilized as an information center for historic features within the community. The applicants will work with the HRAB in the development of the information displayed. The proffers indicate that the site may be developed as a gas station with up to 16 pumps, all of which would be positioned away from the road so as to not be visible. The Historic Resources Advisory Board members raised several concerns during their discussion of this application, including: • Limiting Corporate Architecture and limiting designs to the use of local materials and styles: The Board expressed their desire to see stronger language in the proffers ensuring that locally prevalent architectural materials and styles would be used for the buildings. Members included a request that the applicant consider restricting construction to framed buildings rather than cement. The Board also specifically discussed their concerns regarding the potential construction of trademarked commercial structures that would disrupt the visual integrity of the ' ,!_1 -0,i.-,d;ng area. • Location of the informational kiosk and plaza: Members expressed their desire to see the plaza located directly across from the McCann property rather than on the corner of Old Charles Town Road and Martinsburg Pike. This would provide a more welcoming location for pedestrians. In order to shield the potential gas pumps towards the rear of the property, the Board recommended that the plaza include a landscape screen or opaque fence. • Members expressed their desire that the applicant include proffers not to build a drive-throul;h restaurant, as such a layout would be aesffieftally detrimental to the battlefield area, just as visible gas pumps woLcld be detrimental. • Kiosk design: Board members discussed possible kiosk designs and agreed to be included in the review of the final kiosk design during site plan approval. Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Bishop - Amari Application Requesting the Rezoning of 2.77 acres from R4 to B2 for Commercial Use January 26, 2009 Page 3 After reviewing this information and the applicant's materials and proposals, the Historic Resource Advisory Board voted unanimously to support the. Bishop -Amari Rezoning Application, provided that the proffers include the following: 1. Proffer language guiding / restricting the materials and architectural styles to be allowed within the project. .,�..la1ZYe�'�:.aL„�L L�j..` L�`r. 1,.5 Llil art sl �:Ute11-d11G111EAi1 =�a, rll. tall. LGZa LLu cu 1tv51 1 ge 1. ixltt, 11 characteristic of traditional, local architecture. 3. Include di-We-thru's in the proffered list of excluded uses. 4. Assure that., in addition to requiring that buildings be located im-mediately alongside (.he roadway, structures will have permeable surface (both doors and windows) along at least rhe first floor. In addition to these recommendations, members also ackrlowleda4d their agreement with the proffer language outlining the design and installation of a historic information kiosk. Hoard members were open to and pleased with the applicant's request that HRAB metrlbers he involved in. reviewing and approving the final kiosk's content and design. Please E ontact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely, ',J Amber Powe rs it X13 - rail ALP/bad cc: Rhoda Ki'iz, HaRAB Chair KEEN _ A ENGINEERING, mc. 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 March 18, 2009 Frederick County Planning Department Attn: Mike Ruddy, Deputy Director 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Bishop -Amari Martinsburg Pike Commercial Property Rezoning — Review Agency Comment Response Letter Dear Mike: As requested, I have prepared a comment response letter to identify the various matters considered by the Applicant during the review agency comment period for the referenced rezoning. I have incorporated information in response to each review agency item within this letter to assist you with this matter. Please note the following: VDOT Comment — March 12, 2009 Our team has been working with VDOT throughout calendar year 2008 to determine all issues necessary to mitigate the impacts associated with this project. We have conducted multiple meetings with the VDOT review team, including field meetings along the Martinsburg Pike corridor to determine appropriate geometric design parameters and improvements to existing conditions including the provision of a second thru lane and continuous right turn lane on Martinsburg Pike, a future left turn lane, a free flowing right turn lane and raised median on Old Charles Town Road. Additionally, an inter -parcel access drive, 5 -foot wide pedestrian sidewalks, and right-of-way dedication satisfactory for the future development on an urban four -lane divided road section on Martinsburg Pike has been provided. This effort has resulted in a positive comment from VDOT for the build out of this property. FCSA Comment — November 11 2008 Our team has been working with the FCSA Engineer to discuss various matters to ensure that water and sewer demands are met for this project. A 16 -inch water line adjoins this site, which has adequate volume and pressure for the proposed commercial development. The proposed commercial development has been modeled for sewer demand and the property owners have worked with the Easy Living Associates property owners to obtain permission to extend sanitary sewer from this site to their approved pump station, which Engineers Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 Project 49285/EAW www.greenwayeng.com will direct effluent to the existing sewer force main. The FCSA Engineer noted that the sewer lines shown on the Water and Sewer Lines Map were inaccurate; therefore, this map has been amended to reflect current conditions. FWSA Comment — November 17, 2008 The proposal for public sewer service will direct effluent to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Facility. FWSA has provided an approved comment for this rezoning request. Building Inspections Comment — November 21, 2008 A paragraph entitled Existing Conditions has been incorporated into the March 16, 2009 Impact Analysis Statement to acknowledge the Building Inspections comments pertaining to necessary inspections and permits prior to the demolition of existing structures on the subject properties by the Applicant. Public Works Comment — January 27, 2009 Item 1 — The Impact Analysis Statement has been revised to address the disposition of drain fields and well serving the existing residential structures when the site is developed for commercial land use. Item 2 — The Impact Analysis Statement has been revised to expand on soil types to identify the underlain karst geology and to identify that geotechnical analysis will be required to determine the existence of features and mitigation of those features prior to the development of the site for commercial land use. Item 3 — The Impact Analysis Statement has been revised to ensure that existing drainage structures are analyzed to verify their adequacy to accommodate the storm water management design during the Site Development Planreview process. Winchester Regional Airport Comment — February 3, 2009 The Executive Director of the Winchester Regional Airport has identified that there are no impacts and has provided an approved comment for the rezoning request. Fire and Rescue Comment — November 17, 2008 The Assistant Fire Marshal has provided an approved comment for the rezoning request. Project 4928S/EAW 2 Clear Brook Volunteer Fire and Rescue Comment A complete rezoning application packet was provided to the Clear Brook Fire Chief on November 10, 2008. Greenway Engineering has been unsuccessful in efforts to obtain formal comments from this review agency. The Planning Department has determined that it is appropriate to proceed with this rezoning application based on the approved comment received from the County Assistant Fire Marshal. Historic Resources Advisory Board Comment — January 26 2009 The HRAB recommended that the Applicant proffer language guiding materials and architectural styles that reflect local architecture in the area of the project, prevent corporate trademarks, exclude drive-thrus and orient buildings along Old Charles Town Road that include doors and windows on the first floor of structures facing the roadway. The Applicants' proffer statement provides design standards that attempt to address several of these recommendations as follows: Proffer C(1) requires building placement along Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road and prohibits parking lots and travel aisles between these structures on the public streets. This proffer is intended to ensure that the viewshed from Old Charles Town Road is oriented towards structures. The prohibition of parking lots and travel aisles between these structures on the public streets will ensure that drive-thrus are not visible from the viewshed along Old Charles Town, but does not specifically prohibit drive-thru development if creative design can accomplish this. Proffer C(5) restricts building materials and requires that these materials are utilized on all building walls and roof systems. Greenway Engineering conducted an inventory of all existing land uses on Martinsburg Pike between Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Exit 323 to determine local architecture of the area. This analysis determined that the primary building materials for the majority of residential, church, government (post office) and commercial land uses were brick walls and shingled gabled roofs; however, the commercial rooflines were predominately flat with parapet walls. Additionally, heavy commercial land uses were predominately metal building or concrete block, which have been prohibited by the proffer statement. Therefore, the building materials proffered are consistent with existing local architecture within the geographic area of the County. There is not a proposed commercial user at this time; therefore, it is not practical to proffer specifics such as door and window treatments at this time. Proffer C(6) and C(8) are provided to address the screening of mechanical equipment and gasoline canopies to ensure that the viewshed from Old Charles Town Road is protected. Proffer C(9) is provided to further reduce signage from the recently adopted County sign ordinance_ This new ordinance was determined appropriate by the County and the Project 4928S/EAW 3 business community; therefore, further restrictions to signage should be viewed as a positive design commitment by the property owners. Proffer C(3) is provided to assist in recognizing the local history of the area, as well as other community information that will be beneficial to travelers and residents of the community. Greenway Engineering has worked with the HRAB Chair to determine the appropriate design standards for this kiosk. Countv Attomev Comment — January 15. 2009 Item 1 — The Planning Department does not recommend the restriction of additional commercial land uses above those proffered by the property owners. Item 2 — The proffer statement has been modified to incorporate the revisions recommended by the County Attorney. These revisions are reflected in Proffer Sections B(1), B(3), and B(6) of the March 16, 2009 Proffer Statement. Item 3 — The proffer statement has been modified to incorporate the revisions recommended by the County Attorney. These revisions are reflected in Proffer Sections B(7), and D of the March 16, 2009 Proffer Statement. Item 4 — The proffer statement references occupied commercial structures to differentiate commercial structures from structures that could potentially accommodate gasoline canopies and gasoline pumps. Item 5 — The proffer statement provides landscaping in addition to the required parking lot landscaping should this be necessary to screen parking lots from the public street, as well as additional landscaping between the inter -parcel access drive and tax parcel 44- (A)-42. This is only a 2.7± acre site; therefore, the landscaping features will be provided on the Site Plan for the future commercial development. The installation of the landscaping associated with the inter -parcel access drive will be identified on this site plan as a requirement and will be installed following the development of the inter -parcel access drive to ensure the viability of the landscaping materials. The County will require site improvements to be bonded; therefore, the County is protected and has assurance that this landscaping will be provided. Item 6 — The proffer statement has been modified to incorporate the revisions recommended by the County Attorney. These revisions are reflected in Proffer Sections C(2) and C(3) of the March 16, 2009 Proffer Statement. Item 7 — The proffered signage requirements is Proffer Section C(9) are more restrictive than those provided in Section 165-30(G) and 165-30-(H) of the Frederick County Code. Project 4928S/EAW 4 Item 8 — This Proffer Statement and the Special Limited Power of Attorney documents have been signed by the property owner and notarized. The Rezoning Application has been signed by the property owner and Greenway Engineering as the applicant. County Transportation Planner Comment — December 31. 2009 Item 1 — The proffered Road Improvement Exhibit dated March 16, 2009 establishes the commercial entrance on Old Charles Town Road at the eastern most portion of the subject property as permitted by the County Code. Item 2 - The proffered Road Improvement Exhibit dated March 16, 2009 establishes a right-in/right-out access only on Martinsburg Pike and does not allow for left turn movements at this access point. Item 3 — The proffered Road Improvement Exhibit dated March 16, 2009 establishes an inter -parcel access drive. Section B(5) of the Proffer Statement further describes this improvement to ensure construction and accessibility from adjoining properties. Additionally, Section B(2) of the Proffer Statement provides assurance for median control on Martinsburg Pike if deemed necessary by VDOT and the County. This language is acceptable to the Planning Department. Item 4 — The proffered Right of Way Dedication Exhibit dated March 16, 2009 establishes right-of-way necessary to accommodate the planned improvements to Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road, which has been determined to be acceptable to VDOT. Item 5 - The proffered Road Improvement Exhibit dated March 16, 2009 establishes five- foot sidewalks along Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road. The planned bicycle and pedestrian facility along Martinsburg Pike will be located on the west side of the corridor. Item 6 - The proffered Road Improvement Exhibit dated March 16, 2009 establishes a free flowing right turn lane on Old Charles Town Road, as well as a raised median at the intersection with Martinsburg Pike. Item 7 - The proffered Road Improvement Exhibit dated March 16, 2009 identifies that the proposed lane striping plan will be approved by VDOT. Item 8 — The Bishop -Amari property is providing a significant amount of road improvements to accommodate the future needs identified by VDOT and the County at great expense to the project. This 2.7± acre project site cannot sustain the additional burden of funding traffic signalization that is already proffered by the Snowden Bridge project. VDOT has the authority to execute the traffic signal agreement for the traffic signalization proffered by Snowden Bridge and have this improvement installed should warrants exist in advance of impacts created by the Snowden Bridge project. Project 4928S/EAW 5 Item 9 - The Bishop -Amari property is providing a significant amount of road improvements to accommodate the future needs identified by VDOT and the County at great expense to the project. The only recommended improvement that has not been proffered by this project involves the second northbound travel lane on Martinsburg Pike to the south of the intersection with Old Charles Town Road. The 2.7± acre project site cannot sustain the additional costs associated with the second northbound travel lane that is south of the project site. County Planner Comments — December 31, 2008 Land Use The business corridor expectations of the Comprehensive Plan have been met through the transportation improvements provided by the 2.7± acre project site. Extensive design standards have been proffered to mitigate impacts to the DSA located on the south side of Old Charles Town Road, Transportation Item 1 - The proffered Road Improvement Exhibit dated March 16, 2009 establishes a free flowing right turn lane on Old Charles Town Road, as well as a raised median at the intersection with Martinsburg Pike. Additionally, Section B(2) of the Proffer Statement provides assurance for median control on Martinsburg Pike if deemed necessary by VDOT and the County. This language is acceptable to the Planning Department. Item 2 - The proffered Road Improvement Exhibit dated March 16, 2009 establishes a right-in/right-out access only on Martinsburg Pike and does not allow for left turn movements at this access point. Additionally, Section B(2) of the Proffer Statement provides assurance for median control on Martinsburg Pike if deemed necessary by VDOT and the County. This language is acceptable to the Planning Department. Item 3 — The proffered Road Improvement Exhibit dated March 16, 2009 establishes an inter -parcel access drive. Section B(5) of the Proffer Statement further describes this improvement to ensure construction and accessibility from adjoining properties. Item 4 - The Bishop -Amari property is providing a significant amount of road improvements to accommodate the future needs identified by VDOT and the County at great expense to the project. The only recommended improvement that has not been proffered by this project involves the second northbound travel lane on Martinsburg Pike to the south of the intersection with Old Charles Town Road. The 2.7± acre project site cannot sustain the additional costs associated with the second northbound travel lane that is south of the project site. Item 5 - The proffered Road Improvement Exhibit dated March 16, 2009 establishes five- foot sidewalks along Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road. Project 4928S/EAW 6 Proffer Statement Item 1 — The Applicant has proffered a Road Improvement Exhibit dated March 16, 2009, which provides for the major infrastructure commitments associated with the development of the 2.7± acre project site. There is not a know commercial user at this time; therefore, the only additional information that could be gleaned from a GDP is the general location of parking lot area and building area. The proffer statement commits to building placement along the public roads and prohibits parking lots and travel aisles between these building and the public streets. Therefore, the ultimate design of this project site should be acceptable at this level of the process. Item 2 — Additional detail regarding landscaping has been provided in the proffer statement. Item 3 — The proffer statement has been revised to direct the proposed monetary contributions to the County and specifies that these will be for the purpose of County Fire and Rescue services. Item 4 - This Proffer Statement and the Special Limited Power of Attorney documents have been signed by the property owner and notarized. The Rezoning Application has been signed by the property owner and Greenway Engineering as the applicant. General Item 1 - The Proffer Statement provides extensive design controls for structural materials, rooflines, screening of gasoline canopies, lighting and signage that have been proposed to mitigate viewshed impacts, particularly along Old Charles Town Road. Item 2 — Greenway Engineering has worked with the HRAB Chair to determine the appropriate design of the historic information kiosk, which has been incorporated into Proffer Section C(3). Item 3 - The older existing residence on the subject site will be demolished when this site is developed commercially. The location of this structure is in conflict with the future development of the property and the age and construction of the structure does not lend itself towards rehabilitation and relocation within the project site. Item 4 — Consideration will be given to develop the canopy of the gasoline pumps with similar materials used in the occupied structure rooflines if gasoline pumps are realized on the project site and this meets all applicable development codes. Item 5 — The few mature trees located on the 2.7± acre site are situated centrally to the site and will be removed as they will be in conflict with required parking and travel aisle areas associated with the commercial development. Project 49285/EAW 7 I hope that this comprehensive comment response letter for all review agency comments is beneficial in explaining the information that has been incorporated into this project, as well as the reasons for exclusion of some of these matters. It should be apparent that the Applicants have made a significant effort in incorporating the majority of these suggestions into the development information and development program that will provide high standards for a small commercial site that will mitigate viewshed impacts to the DSA area located on the south side of Old Charles Town Road. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this information, or if I may provide you with any additional information at this time. Sincerely, EvanWyatt, AICPA Greenway Engineering Cc: Greg Bishop Tom Amari Review Agencies Project 4928S/EAW 8 GREENWAY ENGINEERING. me. i 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Founded in 1971 November 17, 2008 McKee & Butler, P.L.C. Attn: Ed Yost 112 South Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Bishop/Amari Sewer Easement and Pump Station Access Dear Ed: I appreciate your willingness to continue to meet with me and discuss the information pertaining to the Bishop/Amari Property Sanitary Sewer Study prepared by our firm. As you know, Greg Bishop and Tom Amari own a 2.7 -acre parcel (tax parcel 44-((A))-43) at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road across from the Easy Living Mobile Home Park and the Westfield Business Park. The owners are interested in rezoning this property as a commercial corner and will need to provide public sewer to the property. The purpose of this letter is to request a confirmation signature from the Easy Living Associates Group indicating that you are in agreement to grant a utility easement across your property for the purpose of extending a sewer line from tax parcel 44-((A))43 that will connect to the future pump station designed on your property. The owners of the Bishop/Amari property recognize that this easement would be established solely for tax parcel 44-((A))-43 and that they are not entitled to have others join into this project. Additionally, the owners of the Bishop/Amari property recognize that your confirmation signature is to agree to grant this easement once all applicable terms are negotiated. On behalf of the owners of the Bishop/Amari property, I would like to thank you for working with us on this development proposal. Please contact me if you have any questions, or when the signed letter is available and we will pick it up. Sincerely, Evan�att, AICP Greenway Engineering (�3' 1 Z11q10 Cb Easy Living Asso es Signature Date Easy Living Associates' signature above confirms that the information in this letter is accurate. Engineers Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 Project #4906 www.greenwayeng.com ReZoning - Bishop & Amari Property Rezoning # 02 - 09 PIN: 44-A-43 EASY d .N AISOC `7 44EL I I 44 A '46, OTSHIRLEY PROM TU LLC At "140 0 100 200 400 Feet 9 MBESCC rc, Caw Phinner t fike FtAtirs Rt37 Bypass Zoning Arplic3tion El NeIghbol hood D141 M) mut mowk 140uw commord- ix*ki) Buildings (BRI'dww Gellval THAI I'M) AM NIS ( wk -41 Sapport TX,4rkl) Mmi 1*vAO1,um1t.%iea 4m B3 (FuM— huhl't, W Trattwtiml Diql M) R4 nt"Witbli Pluillw(I r4g1jef) S 1N S.k 401 E1% f (F Nil actlw 1% latum.w1u, to., rAft Jr. 1) ILA arm"MI Rperfttmm ( YmutnurdlY ))i,#M) 4m fa (Hw1w Lulacgum) DMI't) P-1jR%o,W-u-Dl,ftjco 4ft hit ouut*w. Light nwrkt) RP (RnkUW)*l Niftmwwee Diwkt) i Foz,nded in 1971 / JN RR " NWAY ENGINEERING, me. 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 April 27, 2009 Frederick County Pla.-ming Department Attn: Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: RZ #02-09 Bishop -Amari Property Proffer Statement Amendments Dear Mike: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information identifying the revisions that have been prepared for the referenced rezoning application based on comments received during the April 15, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing. Proffer Statement Information (Page 1) The rezoning application number (RZ #02-09) and the proffer revision date (April 16, 2009) has been provided. Section A — Land Use Restrictions (Page 2) Item 2 has been revised to clarify that if the site is developed to include a convenience store with gasoline pumps, it will be limited to 8 pumps resulting in a maximum of 16 fueling positions. Section B — Transportation Enhancements (Page 2-4) Item 1 has been revised to provide for the new date for the Road Improvement Exhibit (April 16, 2009). Item 3 has been revised to provide for the new date for the Road Improvement Exhibit (April 16, 2009). Item 5 has been revised to specify that the inter -parcel parking access drive easement for adjoining properties will be limited to provide access to Old Charles Town Road (Route 761). Engineers Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 File #4906/EAW 1 4-27-09 www.greenwayeng.com Item 5 has also been revised to provide Frederick County with the option of determining if tax parcel 44-((A))-42 is entitled to connect to the inter -parcel parking access drive based on the future site plan to is submitted for that property. Item 6 has been revised to clarify at what point in the development process the right-of- way dedication will occur. This language was created through collaboration with Matt Smith, VDOT Assistant Resident Engineer. Item 6 has also been revised to provide for the new date for the Right-of-way Dedication Exhibit (April 16, 2009). Item 7 has been revised to increase the monetary contribution assistance towards the future Brucetown Road/Hopewell Road project. The monetary contribution has been increased to $10,000 with an increase to $25,000 if the site is developed to include a convenience store with gas pumps, as this land use accounts for 80% of the projected traffic volume generated by this site. Section C — Site Design Controls (Page 4-6) Item 2 has been revised to clarify when the plaza area will be constructed, as well as the responsible party for maintenance of this improvement. Item 3 has been revised to clarify when the kiosk will be constructed, as well as the responsible party for maintenance of this improvement. Item 10 has been revised to provide specifications for the landscaping enhancements that will be utilized to mitigate parking lot viewsheds from the public streets. Please find attached the revised proffer statement for the May 20, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, as well as a copy of the proffer statement that identifies these revisions with bold and italic text for your review. I would appreciate it if you would include this letter as part of the information that will be provided to the Planning Commission members for their agenda. Please contact me if you need any additional information at this time. Sincerely, r EvanWyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering Cc: Rod Williams, Frederick County Attorney File #4906/EAW 2 4-27-09 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised Apri; 16, 2009 BISHOP-AMARI PROPERTY PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ #02-09 Rural Areas District (RA) to Business General District (B2) PROPERTY: 2.77 acres± Tax Parcel #44-((A))-43 (here -in after the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Gregory A. Bishop and Thomas Amari APPLICANT: Gregory A. Bishop and Thomas Amari (here -in after the "Applicants") PROJECT NAME: Bishop -Amari Property ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: October 27, 2008 REVISION DATE: April 16, 2009 Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicants hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #02-09 for the rezoning of 2.77± -acres from the Rural Areas (RA) District to establish 2.77± - acres of B-2, Business General District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicants and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this Applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The Property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Gregory A. Bishop and Thomas Amari, being all of Tax Map Parcel 44-((A))-43, and further described by Boundary Survey Plat prepared by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., dated May 24, 2006 (see attached Boundary Survey Plat), and by Deed recorded as Instrument #080005787 in the Frederick County Clerk of Courts Office. File #4906/EAW Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised April 16, 2009 PROFFER STATEMENT A.) Land Use Restrictions 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit commercial structure development to a maximum of 20,000 square feet within the Property. It is recognized that gasoline canopies and gasoline pumps are excluded from the 20,000 square feet total identified in this section. 2_ The Applicants hereby proffer to limit restaurant land use to 5,000 square feet of the maximum 20,000 square feet identified in Section A(1) of the proffer statement, and to limit gasoline pumps to a maximum of 8 pumps with two fueling positions each (maximum of 16 fueling positions) to ensure consistency with the traffic impact analysis prepared for this rezoning application. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the following land uses within the Property: Communication Facilities SIC 48 Truck Stops SIC 5541 Hotels and Motels SIC 701 Organization Hotels and Lodging SIC 704 Car Washes SIC 7542 Miscellaneous Repair Services SIC 76 Motion Picture Theaters SIC 7832 Amusement and Recreation Services Operated Indoors SIC 79 Golf Driving Ranges and Miniature Golf Courses SIC 7999 Adult Retail No SIC Indicated B.) Transportation Enhancements 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to improve the Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) corridor along the frontage of the Property to implement the future planned urban four -lane divided typical section. This proffered improvement includes widening of the existing northbound travel lane to include a second thru lane, a separate continuous right -turn lane, curb and gutter, and sidewalk along the entire frontage of the Property. The proffered improvements along the Martinsburg Pike frontage of the Property are depicted on the attached Bishop -Amari Property Road Improvement Exhibit prepared by Greenway Engineering, dated April 16, 2009. The Applicants proffer to construct, or cause for the construction of this improvement prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property. The striping plan indicated on this attached proffered exhibit shall be determined by VDOT during review of the first Site Plan for the property to ensure safe and efficient traffic movement on the Martinsburg Pike corridor. File #4906/EAW 2 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised April 16, 2009 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to restrict access to the Property along the Martinsburg Pike frontage to one right -in and right -out entrance only. The right - in and right -out access shall be designed to prohibit left turn movements into the Property, which shall require approval by VDOT and Frederick County. The Applicants proffer to construct, or cause for the construction of this improvement prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property. Additionally, the Applicants agree to provide for left turn control measures on Martinsburg Pike at this entrance after construction if VDOT determines that the installed right -in and right -out entrance design does not adequately prohibit left turn movements into the Property. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to improve Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) along the frontage of the Property. This proffered improvement includes widening of the existing westbound travel lane to include a second future left turn lane, a separate continuous free-flowing right turn lane, a raised concrete median near the Martinsburg Pike intersection to separate the left turn lane and the free- flowing right turn lane, curb and gutter, and sidewalk along the entire frontage of the Property. The proffered improvements along the Old Charles Town Road frontage of the Property are depicted on the attached Bishop -Amari Property Road Improvement Exhibit prepared by Greenway Engineering, dated April 16, 2009. The Applicants proffer to construct, or cause for the construction of this improvement prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property. The striping plan indicated on this attached proffered exhibit shall be determined by VDOT during review of the first Site Plan for the property to ensure safe and efficient traffic movement on the Old Charles Town Road corridor. 4. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the number of entrances to the Property that intersect Old Charlestown Road (Route 761) to provide for one full commercial entrance that is designed to provide for separated left and right turn lanes exiting the Property. 5. The Applicants hereby proffer to provide for an inter -parcel parking lot access drive located a minimum of 25 feet from the eastern Property line to allow for access to tax map parcel 44-((A))-42 and tax map parcel 44-((A))-47. The Applicants proffer to construct, or cause for the construction of this improvement prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property. Additionally, the Applicants will provide the County with a copy of the recorded deed of easement document allowing reciprocal ingress/egress to Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) for these properties, as well as the maintenance agreement for the inter -parcel lot access drive as a condition of final Site Plan approval. It is recognized that the location of this inter -parcel parking lot access drive can be relocated to allow for a shared agreement between the Property and tax parcel 44-((A))-42 without the File #4906/EAW 3 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised April 16, 2009 need for conditional zoning approval, provided that the relocation provides for inter -parcel access to tax parcel 44-((A))-47 along with ingress/egress documents determined to be acceptable to Frederick County. Furthermore, it is recognized that Frederick County can determine that tax parcel 44-((A))-42 is not entitled to establish a connection to the inter -parcel parking lot access drive if a Site Plan is submitted for that parcel that proposes a land use whose traffic generation is determined to be incompatible with the Property. 6. The Applicants hereby proffer to dedicate right-of-way to the Commonwealth of Virginia on the Property sufficient to accommodate the transportation improvements specified in Section B(1) and Section B(3) of this proffer statement. Said right-of-way dedication shall be provided to the Commonwealth of Virginia prior to the issuance of the VDOT Land Use Permit necessary to construct these improvements. The proffered variable right-of-way dedication on the Property is depicted on the attached Bishop -Amari Property Right Of Way Dedication Exhibit prepared by Greenway Engineering, dated April 16, 2009. 7. The Applicants hereby proffer to provide a monetary contribution of $10,000.00 that may be applied towards right-of-way acquisition, engineering, or construction costs to allow for the development of intersection improvements at Martinsburg Pike with Hopewell Road (Route 672) and Brucetown Road (Route 672). This monetary contribution shall be increased to a total of $25,000.00 if a convenience mart with gas pumps is developed on the Property. This monetary contribution will be made to Frederick County prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property and may be utilized by Frederick County as local match funding for any applicable transportation improvement or enhancement application associated with the development of intersection improvements at Martinsburg Pike with Hopewell Road (Route 672) and Brucetown Road (Route 672). C.) Site Design Controls 1. Building Placement. The Applicants hereby proffer to orient all occupied commercial structures along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11) and Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 761) and to prohibit parking spaces and travels aisles between all occupied commercial structure frontages and adjoining public streets. 2. Plaza Area. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop a plaza area that will be a minimum of 2,000 square feet and will be constructed adjacent to occupied commercial structures. The plaza area will be constructed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit File #4906/EAW 4 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised April 16, 2009 associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property. The plaza area will be maintained by the commercial property owners. 3. Historic Information Kiosk. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop a kiosk that will be located on the plaza area, which will be constructed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property and utilized as an information center for historic features within the community and other community information. The kiosk will be a minimum of eight feet in height with a canopy cover and will provide for a message center that is a minimum of 24 square feet in area. The Applicants will work with the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) in the development of historic information that will be displayed in the kiosk. The kiosk area will be maintained by the commercial property owners. 4. Building Height. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit all structures to a maximum of thirty (30) feet in height. 5. Construction Materials. The Applicants hereby proffer to utilize similar development themes and similar construction materials on all walls and roofs for all occupied commercial structures. The principal construction materials shall be limited to brick, stone, artificial stone, simulated stucco, cementous siding, wood, glass, standing seam metal, dimensional shingles, or false roof systems. 6. Rooflines. The Applicants hereby proffer that all occupied commercial structures shall be designed with roof systems that are designed to screen mechanical equipment from view of adjoining public streets. 7. Building Lighting. The Applicants hereby proffer to restrict lighting along adjoining public streets to building mounted lighting fixtures and ground lighting fixtures. Additionally, the applicant further proffers to restrict pole mounted lighting fixtures within the parking lot area to a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet in height and will design all pole mounted lighting fixtures to be hooded to ensure that parking lot lighting is directed downward. File #4906/EAW 5 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised April 16, 2009 8. Gasoline Fueling Islands. The Applicants hereby proffer to restrict the placement of any gasoline fueling islands and canopies so they are located behind occupied commercial structures. Additionally, the Applicants proffer that the gasoline iaeling island canopy will be at a height lower than the roofline of the occupied commercial structures located along Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 761) to mitigate viewshed impacts from the property located on the south side of Old Charles Town Road. 9. Signage. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the number of freestanding business signs to one sign along each public street frontage. Additionally, the Applicants proffer to limit the freestanding business signs to a maximum of 12 feet in height and a maximum of 75 square feet. 10. Buffers and Screening. The Applicants hereby proffer to provide landscape screening to mitigate the viewshed between parking areas and public streets, and to enhance the public street frontage of the Property. Landscape screening between parking areas and public streets shall include deciduous trees that are a minimum 2 -inch caliper and evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height with the total number of plantings based on three trees per ten linear foot of parking lot frontage. Landscaping between occupied commercial structures and public streets shall include deciduous trees that are a minimum 2 -inch caliper with the total number of plantings based on one tree per 40 linear feet of occupied commercial structural frontage. All landscaping shall be oriented not to impact required sight distance at the commercial entrances on public streets. Additionally, the Applicants proffer to develop a landscape screen between the inter -parcel parking lot access drive and tax map parcel 44-((A))-42. This landscape screen shall consist of a single row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height at planting and are planted on 10 -foot centers. It is recognized that this landscape screen can be relocated to the west side of the inter -parcel parking lot access drive to accommodate a shared agreement with tax map parcel 44-((A))-42 as allowed in Section B(5) of the proffer statement. D.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The Applicant hereby proffers to provide a monetary contribution of $0.10 per square foot of developed commercial structural area for County Fire and Rescue services. The monetary contribution shall be made payable to Frederick County at the time of issuance of the building permit for any commercial structural area developed on the Property. File #4906/EAW 6 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised April 16, 2009 E.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants and owners. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By:" Commonwealth of Virginia, Date: Cite •.^ ,, zO Count f �I�P��vi ;�G To Wit: r n' 0 i 0: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this210�" day of 2009by -�UV �►GiS Avyw-y` 1 "fill ill l 1 tt My Commission Expires Fe_lo 2-cl 2-012— Re, r� By:.. Commonw c' ?�14 f Virginia, G Ci /Co� fd�s i c�c- To Wit: Notary Public Date: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Zd- day of �: r3 • �\NIE•1t��C3�=: tiPJO` .•'�O IN 2061 by —C temp~-i..i A - &-5kop _ Notary Public My Commission Expires Feb . 2-q, 2-012— 91�1 i 5iYCL%i&'q -4 ZGtb l o (c;, File 40906/EAW Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Aman Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised April 16, 2009 BISHOP-AMARI PROPERTY PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ #02-09 Rural Areas District (RA) to Business General District (132) PROPERTY: 2.77 acres± Tax Parcel #44-((A))-43 (here -in after the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Gregory A. Bishop and Thomas Amari APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE: Preliminary Matters Gregory A. Bishop and Thomas Amari (here -in after the "Applicants") Bishop -Amari Property October 27, 2008 M.,reh 16,-2 April 16, 2009 Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicants hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #02-09 for the rezoning of 2.77± -acres from the Rural Areas (RA) District to establish 2.77± - acres of B-2, Business General District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicants and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this Applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The Property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Gregory A. Bishop and Thomas Amari, being all of Tax Map Parcel 44-((A))-43, and further described by Boundary Survey Plat prepared by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., dated May 24, 2006 (see attached Boundary Survey Plat), and by Deed recorded as Instrument #080005787 in the Frederick County Clerk of Courts Office. File #4906/EAW Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised Aprii i 6, 2009 PROFFER STATEMENT A.) Land Use Restrictions The Applicants hereby proffer to limit commercial structure development to a maximum of 20,000 square feet within the Property. It is recognized that gasoline canopies and gasoline pumps are excluded from the 20,000 square feet total identified in this section. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit restaurant land use to 5,000 square feet of the maximum 20,000 square feet identified in Section A(1) of the proffer statement, and to limit gasoline pumps to a maximum of 44-puiRps 8 pumps with two fueling positions each (maximum of 16 fueling positions) to ensure consistency with the traffic impact analysis prepared for this rezoning application. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the following land uses within the Property: Communication Facilities SIC 48 Truck Stops SIC 5541 Hotels and Motels SIC 701 Organization Hotels and Lodging SIC 704 Car Washes SIC 7542 Miscellaneous Repair Services SIC 76 Motion Picture Theaters SIC 7832 Amusement and Recreation Services Operated Indoors SIC 79 Golf Driving Ranges and Miniature Golf Courses SIC 7999 Adult Retail No SIC Indicated B.) Transportation Enhancements 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to improve the Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) corridor along the frontage of the Property to implement the future planned urban four -lane divided typical section. This proffered improvement includes widening of the existing northbound travel lane to include a second thru lane, a separate continuous right -turn lane, curb and gutter, and sidewalk along the entire frontage of the Property. The proffered improvements along the Martinsburg Pike frontage of the Property are depicted on the attached Bishop -Amari Property Road Improvement Exhibit prepared by Greenway Engineering, dated Mar -eh 16, 2809 April 16, 2009. The Applicants proffer to construct, or cause for the construction of this improvement prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property. The striping plan indicated on this attached proffered exhibit shall be determined by VDOT during review of the first Site Plan for the property to ensure safe and efficient traffic movement on the Martinsburg Pike corridor. File #4906/EAW 2 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised April 16, 2009 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to restrict access to the Property along the Martinsburg Pike frontage to one right -in and right -out entrance only. The right - in and right -out access shall be designed to prohibit left turn movements into the Property, which shall require approval by VDOT and Frederick County. The Applicants proffer to construct, or cause for the construction of this improvement prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property. Additionally, the Applicants agree to provide for left turn control measures on Martinsburg Pike at this entrance after construction if VDOT determines that the installed right -in and right -out entrance design does not adequately prohibit left turn movements into the Property. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to improve Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) along the frontage of the Property. This proffered improvement includes widening of the existing westbound travel lane to include a second future left turn lane, a separate continuous free-flowing right turn lane, a raised concrete median near the Martinsburg Pike intersection to separate the left turn lane and the free- flowing right turn lane, curb and gutter, and sidewalk along the entire frontage of the Property. The proffered improvements along the Old Charles Town Road frontage of the Property are depicted on the attached Bishop -Amari Property Road Improvement Exhibit prepared by Greenway Engineering, dated Mar -eh 24)99 April 16, 2009. The Applicants proffer to construct, or cause for the construction of this improvement prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property. The striping plan indicated on this attached proffered exhibit shall be determined by VDOT during review of the first Site Plan for the property to ensure safe and efficient traffic movement on the Old Charles Town Road corridor. 4. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the number of entrances to the Property that intersect Old Charlestown Road (Route 761) to provide for one full commercial entrance that is designed to provide for separated left and right turn lanes exiting the Property. 5. The Applicants hereby proffer to provide for an inter -parcel parking lot access drive located a minimum of 25 feet from the eastern Property line to allow for access to tax map parcel 44-((A))-42 and tax map parcel 44-((A))-47. The Applicants proffer to construct, or cause for the construction of this improvement prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property. Additionally, the Applicants will provide the County with a copy of the recorded deed of easement document allowing reciprocal ingress/egress to Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) for these properties, as well as the maintenance agreement for the inter parcel lot access drive as a condition of final Site Plan approval. It is recognized that the location of this inter -parcel parking lot access drive can be relocated to allow for a shared agreement between the Property and tax parcel 44-((A))-42 without the need for conditional zoning approval, provided that the relocation provides for File #4906/EAW 3 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised April 16, 2009 inter -parcel access to tax parcel 44-((A))-47 along with ingress/egress documents determined to be acceptable to Frederick County. Furthermore, it is recognized that Frederick County can determine that tax parcel 44-((A))-42 is not entitled to establish a connection to the inter parcel parking lot access drive if a Site Plan is submitted for that parcel that proposes a land use whose traffic generation is determined to be incompatible with the Property. 6. The Applicants hereby proffer to dedicate right-of-way to the Commonwealth of Virginia on the Property sufficient to accommodate the transportation improvements specified in Section B(1) and Section B(3) of this proffer statement. Said right-of-way dedication shall be provided to the Commonwealth of Virginia prior to the issuance of the VDOT Land Use Permit necessary to construct these improvements. The proffered variable right-of-way dedication on the Property is depicted on the attached Bishop -Amari Property Right Of Way Dedication Exhibit prepared by Greenway Engineering, dated Mare 1cri z6, April 16, 2009. 7. The Applicants hereby proffer to provide a monetary contribution of $5,000.00 $10,000.00 that may be applied towards right-of-way acquisition, engineering, or construction costs to allow for the development of intersection improvements at Martinsburg Pike with Hopewell Road (Route 672) and Brucetown Road (Route 672). This monetary contribution shall be increased to a total of $25,000.00 if a convenience mart with gas pumps is developed on the Property. This monetary contribution will be made to Frederick County prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property and may be utilized by Frederick County as local match funding for any applicable transportation improvement or enhancement application associated with the development of intersection improvements at Martinsburg Pike with Hopewell Road (Route 672) and Brucetown Road (Route 672). C.) Site Design Controls 1. Building Placement. The Applicants hereby proffer to orient all occupied commercial structures along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11) and Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 761) and to prohibit parking spaces and travels aisles between all occupied commercial structure frontages and adjoining public streets. 2. Plaza Area. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop a plaza area that will be a minimum of 2,000 square feet and will be constructed adjacent to occupied commercial structures. The plaza area will be constructed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development du -:,, Fhe level o^ :en of the first Site Plan File #4906/EAW 4 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised April 16, 2009 approved for the Property. The plaza area will be maintained by the commercial property owners. 3. Historic Information Kiosk. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop a kiosk that will be located on the plaza area, which will be constructed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit associated with the development of the first Site Plan approved for the Property and utilized as an information center for historic features within the community and other community information. The kiosk will be a minimum of eight feet in height with a canopy cover and will provide for a message center that is a minimum of 24 square feet in area. The Applicants will work with the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) in the development of historic information that will be displayed in the kiosk. The kiosk area will be maintained by the commercial property owners. 4. Building Height. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit all structures to a maximum of thirty (30) feet in height. 5. Construction Materials. The Applicants hereby proffer to utilize similar development themes and similar construction materials on all walls and roofs for all occupied commercial structures. The principal construction materials shall be limited to brick, stone, artificial stone, simulated stucco, cementous siding, wood, glass, standing seam metal, dimensional shingles, or false roof systems. 6. Rooflines. The Applicants hereby proffer that all occupied commercial structures shall be designed with roof systems that are designed to screen mechanical equipment from view of adjoining public streets. 7. Building Lighting. The Applicants hereby proffer to restrict lighting along adjoining public streets to building mounted lighting fixtures and ground lighting fixtures. Additionally, the applicant further proffers to restrict pole mounted lighting fixtures within the parking lot area to a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet in height and will design all pole mounted lighting fixtures to be hooded to ensure that parking lot lighting is directed downward. File #4906/EAW 5 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised April 16, 2009 8. Gasoline Fueling Islands. The Applicants hereby proffer to restrict the placement of any gasoline fueling islands and canopies so they are located behind occupied commercial structures. Additionally, the Applicants proffer that the gasoline fueling island canopy will be at a height lower than the roofline of the occupied commercial structures located along Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 761) to mitigate viewshed impacts from the property located on the south side of Old Charles Town Road. 9. Signage. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the number of freestanding business signs to one sign along each public street frontage. Additionally, the Applicants proffer to limit the freestanding business signs to a maximum of 12 feet in height and a maximum of 75 square feet. 10. Buffers and Screening. The Applicants hereby proffer to provide landscape screening to mitigate the viewshed between parking areas and public streets, and to enhance the public street frontage of the Property. This ' dr a shall eonsist of_–a oo "in"t"o' of required sight distanee at the eommefeial entf—es i „hl; streets. Landscape screening between parking areas and public streets shall include deciduous trees that are a minimum 2 -inch caliper and evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height with the total number of plantings based on three trees per ten linear foot of parking lot frontage. Landscaping between occupied commercial structures and public streets shall include deciduous trees that are a minimum 2 -inch caliper with the total number of plantings based on one tree per 40 linear feet of occupied commercial structural frontage. All landscaping shall be oriented not to impact required sight distance at the commercial entrances on public streets. Additionally, the Applicants proffer to develop a landscape screen between the inter -parcel parking lot access drive and tax map parcel 44-((A))-42. This landscape screen shall consist of a single row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height at planting and are planted on 10 -foot centers. It is recognized that this landscape screen can be relocated to the west side of the inter -parcel parking lot access drive to accommodate a shared agreement with tax map parcel 44-((A))-42 as allowed in Section B(5) of the proffer statement. D.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The Applicant hereby proffers to provide a monetary contribution of $0.10 per square foot of developed commercial structural area for County Fire and Rescue services. The File #4906/EAW 6 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 5, 2009 Revised March 16, 2009 Revised April 16, 20009, monetary contribution shall be made payable to Frederick County at the time of issuance of the building permit for any commercial structural area developed on the Property. E.? Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants and owners. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of To Wit: Date: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20_ by My Commission Expires By: Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of To Wit: Notary Public Date: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20_ by File #4906/EA W 7 IMPACT ANALYSIS STA t _r MENT "BISHOP - AMA I P A PE Y REZONING Frederick County, Virginia Stonewall Magisterial District 'fax Parcel # 44-A-43 Aggregate Area Of 2.77± acres October 27, 2008 Revised March 16, 2009 Current Owner: Gregory Bishop Thomas Amari Contact Person: Evan A. Wyatt, AICD Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 16, 2009 BISHOP-AMARI PROPERTY REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact to Frederick County by the proffered rezoning of a 2.77± acre parcel owned by Gregory Bishop and Thomas Amari, identified as tax parcel 44-A-43. The current zoning of the 2.77± acre parcel is RA, Rural Areas District. The Applicants propose to rezone this parcel to establish 2.77± acres of B-2, Business General District to allow for the development of commercial land use within the subject property. Basic Information: Location: East side of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11) and north side of Old Charles Town Road (VA Route 761) Magisterial District: Stonewall District Property ID Numbers: 44-A-43 Current Zoning: RA, Rural Areas District Current Use: Residential Proposed Zoning: B-2, Business General District Total Rezoning Area: 2.77± acres Proposed Build Out 20,000 square feet maximum commercial land use COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN Sewer and Water Service Area The 2.77± acre subject property is currently located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); therefore, the rezoning of this property for commercial land use is appropriate based on current policy. File #4906/EAW 2 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 16, 2009 Northeast Land Use Plan The 2.77± acre subject property is a component of the Northeast Land Use Plan. This land use plan recommends the development of business and commercial land uses along the Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) corridor. Specifically, the Northeast Land Use Plan recommends new commercial business development as a future land use at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road. The language guiding land development within this plan states that the development of business and commercial land use is encouraged at designated signalized road intersections and further encourages business and commercial uses to provide inter -parcel connectors to enhance accessibility between uses and reduce disruptions to primary and secondary road systems. The subject property is located at a planned signalized road intersection that has been proffered to be installed by the Snowden Bridge project. Additionally, the Applicants' Proffer Statement provides for the construction of an inter -parcel access drive along the eastern property line to allow for access to tax map parcel 44-((A))-42 and tax map parcel 44-((A))-47. Therefore, the proposed commercial rezoning is consistent with the policies guiding future land use development within this area of the County. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Floodplains The 2.77± acre subject property is located on FEMA NFIP Map #510063-0105 B. This map delineates the subject property as a Category C — Area of Minimal Flooding. The FEMA NFIP map identifies floodplain areas associated with Hiatt Run, located on the south side of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761); therefore, the subject site is not impacted by floodplain area. (Please refer to the Environmental Features Map Exhibit.) Wetlands The 2.77± acre subject property does not contain wetland areas as demonstrated on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map, as well as information from the Frederick County GIS Database. No evidence of wetlands features and vegetation is present on the property; therefore, the subject site is not impacted by wetland areas. (Please refer to the Environmental Features Map Exhibit.) Steep Slopes The 2.77± acre subject property is predominately a level site with slopes ranging from 2 to 7 percent; therefore, the subject site is not impacted by areas of steep slope. (Please refer to the Environmental Features Map Exhibit.) File #4906/EAW 3 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 16, 2009 Woodlands The 2.77± acre subject property contains several mature hardwood trees located in the proximity of the existing residential structures; however, the property does not contain areas of mature woodlands. The existing vegetation will be removed during construction of the commercial development; however, the site will be replanted to accommodate parking lot landscaping and buffer and screening landscaping. Soil Types The Soil Survey of Frederick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service was consulted to determine soil types contained in this tract. The subject site contains the following soil types: 39B — Swimley Silt Loam: 2-7% slope The Swimley Silt Loam soil type located within the 2.77± acre subject property is classified as prime farmland soil. The soil type on this property is suitable for commercial development and has moderate shrink -swell potential. The soil's characteristics are similar to the soil type found on developed properties north of the subject site. Additionally, the project site is underlain by karst geology, which has the potential for sinkhole development. The property owners will ensure that geotechnical analysis is conducted on the subject property during construction of the commercial development to determine if sinkholes exist. If this is the case, the geotechnical engineers will work with the County Engineer to ensure that these features are adequately mitigated. Other Environmental Features The 2.77± acre subject property does not contain areas of lakes, ponds or natural storm water retention areas as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. There are no environmental features present that create development constraints for the proposed commercial land use on this site. Existing Conditions The 2.77± acre subject property has two residential structures that are currently rented by the property owners. Both residential structures will be removed when the subject property is developed commercially. The property owners will ensure that all necessary inspections (including asbestos) are conducted, and that all required permits are obtained from the County prior to the removal of these structures. The existing drain fields and wells that are utilized by the two residential structures will not be utilized when the File #4906/EAW 4 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 16, 2009 subject property is developed commercially. The elimination of the drain fields and closure of the wells will be accomplished in conjunction with applicable Health Department requirements when the subject property is developed commercially. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: Zoned RA, Rural Areas District Use: Residential South: Zoned RA, Rural Areas District Use: Unimproved East: Zoned: M-1, Light Industrial District Use: Unimproved West: Zoned: RA, Rural Areas District Use: Unimproved Zoned: M- 1, Light Industrial District Heavy Commercial TRANSPORTATION The 2.77± acre subject site has approximately 440' of frontage along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11) and approximately 450' of frontage along Old Charles Town Road (Route 761). A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the rezoning application by PHR&A dated October 15, 2008. The TIA modeling assumes a full commercial entrance along Old Charles Town Road and a right-in/right-out commercial entrance along Martinsburg Pike. The TIA provides information pertaining to existing lane geometry and levels of service at the intersections, accounts for background traffic associated with other planned projects, includes an average annual traffic increase on Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road, and accounts for a mix of commercial development on the 2.77± acre site including retail, restaurant and convenience store with gasoline pumps. The TIA utilizes traffic volumes from the 7a' Edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report for this site along with a growth rate of two percent (2%) compounded annually and vehicle trips relating to future developments including Rutherford Crossing, FEMA, Snowden Bridge, Semples, North Stephenson and the Adams Commercial Center to calculate the 2010 build out conditions. The TIA demonstrates that the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road will operate at a deficient level of service assuming background traffic impacts. The TIA further identifies that the 2.77± acre site will generate 6,524 vehicle trips per day at total build out in addition to the background traffic volumes. The TIA identifies proffered improvements associated with the Snowden Bridge development, which include traffic signalization at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike File #4906/EAW 5 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 16, 2009 and Old Charles Town Road, a northbound right turn lane on Martinsburg Pike, and a separated right and left turn lane on Old Charles Town Road. The TIA demonstrates that these proffered improvements result in a deficient level of service at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road during the PM peak hour and suggests that the provision of an additional northbound through lane on Martinsburg Pike is needed to bring the intersection to an acceptable level of service. The TIA demonstrates that the additional traffic associated with the development of the 2.77± acre site further decreases the level of service at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road during the AM peak hour. The TIA recommends that in addition to the northbound through lane on Martinsburg Pike, there will need to be a dual left turn lane on Old Charles Town Road to facilitate turning movements onto Martinsburg Pike when the network is fully developed and the background development projects are constructed. The Applicants have considered the impacts associated with the rezoning of the 2.77±- acre .77±acre site as demonstrated by the October 15, 2008 TIA. The Applicants have prepared a proffer statement that is intended to address their impacts, as well as assist with impacts created by background development projects. The proffer statement provides for the widening of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) to include new pavement for a second northbound thru lane along the entire property frontage and a continuous right - turn lane from the intersection of Old Charles Town Road to the right-in/right-out entrance; the widening of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) to provide new pavement for a future second left -turn lane at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and a continuous free flowing right -turn lane along the entire property frontage and raised median control at the Martinsburg Pike intersection; the provision of an inter -parcel parking lot access drive to support ingress and egress to adjoining parcels; the provision of 5 -foot wide sidewalks along Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road; right-of-way dedication to VDOT sufficient to accommodate the planned urban four -lane divided typical section on Martinsburg Pike and the planned urban collector typical section on Old Charles Town Road; and a monetary contribution for future improvements associated with the realignment of Hopewell Road and Brucetown Road (Route 672) that can be utilized as matching funds by the County. The Applicants' proffer statement commits to the implementation of these improvements in conjunction with the first site plan approved for the 2.77± acre site; therefore, this proposal mitigates transportation impacts associated with this request and assists in the mitigation of transportation impacts created primarily by background traffic generation through the Martinsburg Pike corridor. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The 2.77± acre subject property is located within the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) developed an 8 -inch sewer force main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad to provide sewer transmission from this area of the County to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility (OWRF) located on Berryville Pike (U.S. Route 7). The 2.77± acre subject property will be designed to direct sewage flows to an approved sewer pump station that File #4906/EAW 6 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 16, 2009 will be developed on the Easy Living Mobile Home Park property, which will flow to the 8 -inch sewer force main. The Applicants have worked with these property owners on an agreement to allow for sewer line easements within the Westfield Business Park and Easy Living Mobile Home Park properties to access the approved sewer pump station. The Applicants have not defined a specific use for the 2.77± acre subject property. Therefore, based on comparable discharge patterns, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that 500 gallons/day per acre is a reasonable guide for estimating the sewer impact for this commercial site. Q = 500 gallons/day/acre Q = 500 gpd x 2.77 acres Q = 1,385 gpd The proposed commercial center is estimated to add 1,385 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility (OWRF). The design capacity of the treatment plant is 8.4 million gallons per day (MGD) during summer months and 16.0 MGD during winter months. Approximately 6.8 MGD of this capacity is currently being utilized at the OWRF; therefore, the build -out of 2.77± acre subject property would require approximately 0.08% of the available capacity at this facility. This information demonstrates that the 2.77± acre subject property can be developed with adequate sewer service. WATER SUPPLY The 2.77± acre subject property is located within the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area. (SWSA). The development of the Snowden Bridge Subdivision has established a new 16 -inch water line that follows Old Charles Town Road along the frontage of the subject property. This new water line was adequately sized to provide for transmission and pressure needed to serve land uses within the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area. The Applicants have not defined a specific use for the 2.77± acre subject property. Therefore, based on existing water consumption patterns, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that 1,000 gallons/day per acre is a reasonable to consider for the water impact analysis for this commercial site. Q = 1000 gallons/day/acre Q=1000gpd x 2.77 acres Q = 2,770 gpd The proposed uses will utilize an estimated 2,770 gallons of water per day. The Northern Water Treatment Plant provides 2.0 million gallons per day of potable water from the former Global Chemstone Quarry as one of the water sources contributing to the public File #4906/EAW 7 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 16, 2009 water system within the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area. The projected water usage for the build -out of the subject property would require approximately 0.14% of the available capacity at this facility; therefore, this information demonstrates that adequate water capacity is available for this development. SITE DRAINAGE The 2.77± acre subject site gently slopes from the east to west towards the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) and Old Charles Town Road (Route 761). There is approximately five feet to topographic relief on site; therefore, it is anticipated that storm water management will be designed within the southwestern portion of the subject site, which will then be channelized into the drainage system along Old Charles Town Road. Specific measures to accommodate stormwater quantity and quality will be address during the Site Development Plan design process to verify the adequacy of existing drainage structures and to ensure that there are not negative impacts to surrounding properties. SOLID WASTE IDISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual commercial consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of structural area (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4t' Edition). The following figures show the increase in the average annual volume based on a maximum development of 20,000 square feet of commercial land use: AVV = 5.4 cu. Yd_ Per 1,000 sq. ft. commercial AAV = 5.4 cu. Yd. x 20.0 AAV =108.0 cu. Yd. at build out, or 75.6 tons at build out The Municipal Solid Waste area of the regional Landfill has a current remaining capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The maximum development of the commercial center will generate approximately 75.6 tons of solid waste annually on average. This represents a 0.037% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill, which currently average 200,000 tons per year; therefore, this information demonstrates that the Regional Landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate the solid waste impacts associated with this proposal. Solid waste produced by the proposed commercial development will be routed to the Regional Landfill by a commercial waste hauler; therefore, the County will receive tipping fees associated with this land use to mitigate this impact. File #4906/EAW 8 Greenway Engineering October 27, 2008 Bishop -Amari Rezoning Revised March 16, 2009 HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The 2.77± acre site does not contain structures deemed to be historically significant, nor are there potentially significant structures adjacent to the subject property. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies Kenilworth (#34-113) approximately 3/4 mile north of the subject property Woodburn (#34-102) approximately 1/2 mile southwest of the subject property. Neither of these structures are visible from the subject property; therefore, the development of this property will not negatively impact these structures or their viewsheds. The entire 2.77± acre subject property is located within the identified core battlefield area of Second Winchester-Stephenson's Depot. The National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley identifies this portion of the core battlefield area as "retained integrity"; however, it should be noted that there are two residents that have been developed on the subject property. The Applicants have prepared a proffer statement, which includes a section entitled Site Design Controls to mitigate potential impacts to the Second Winchester-Stephenson's Depot viewshed on the south side of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761). This section of the proffer statement includes the orientation of all occupied commercial structures along the frontage of Old Charles Town Road; the prohibition of parking spaces and travel aisles in front of the occupied commercial structures; the placement of gasoline canopies behind the occupied commercial structures; the reduction of permitted structural heights and outdoor lighting fixtures; the screening of roof -mounted mechanical equipment; and the reduction of permitted sign height and sign size. Additionally, the proffer statement commits to the placement of an information kiosk on the plaza for the development that will provide historic information as deemed appropriate by the County's Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB). Design standards for the information kiosk have been provided based on recommendations from the HRAB Chair to ensure that this structure is beneficial to travelers and residents of the community. Therefore, the Applicants' proffer statement provides measures to mitigate viewshed impacts to this portion of the core battlefield area. OTHER IMPACTS The rezoning and commercial development of the 2.77± acre subject property is not anticipated to negatively impact public services and will provide economic development revenue that will benefit the County. However, the Applicants' proffer statement provides a monetary contribution to Frederick County for general fire and rescue services to further mitigate impacts associated with this project. No additional impacts to County capital facilities or services are anticipated by this economic development project. File #4906/EAW 9 C'E's M 41, Val Features cel, Route 11 North 0 Z - LU CI) -J Cr D- < H 0 _j C- C— < < 1 --LU LU O< F - :E CL D 0 �7 0 U T - car U) OD LU 640 645 630 630 635 s El' 0 � U) LU Ir F-- < — Ui 635 640 Cmm c U) — 0 W Legend w :3 ti -i Bishop -Amari Parcel D 0 CD Li LL < a_- Lu , >: (0 (D Parcel Boundaries w z _j j2� U) D Streams C) 6� < 0 N w z w (D < 0 C) Lakes & Ponds n - F r Cr 0 -i _j U EE 6 CJ Wetlands 2i < 5; < 3: ww w 0 CT Floodplain d- 0 ED z 0 LL Y 5 Foot Contours Cn U) CO di -- — - �.�. / m 6i o -j < C) (D (D a- < OU) N J LU 0 � C/) s Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, April 2008 Data [IN Yy� Feet 600 300 0 600 1,200 Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, April 2008 Data; FCSA 2006 l Z, Water and Sewer Lines Bishop -Amari Parcel, Route 11 North cy. z { 4 U1 LAS UZ uI .; p U) W J Z W kX J U 2 Q 0 W 0-0 W� Z p C/)Q T i ,! W� Q � '.3 Q W `_ �V iI w } m U o Z � Q z LU w W _Z ❑ C'3 0 \ J Q > 0 U w CC } o \� •, Z �: W rn W Z 111 � j o } \ Q rr Z w o J v — W J a :. Q Legend Q o \ �— ¢ Www z ` Bishop -Amari Parcel p 0 U- 9 z CO T - Parcel Boundaries U) w w -- - - 0° Q Q A Historic Features 77 Data Source: Frederick County, Va- GIS Department, April 2008 Data 1:1) I LU W 0 Legena (D < 0 zQ LL, Parcel Boundaries LL 0 0 AS o < I Fw_ Bishop -Amari Parcel 00D_ ::) A0 T rr U) T Civil War Battlefields Stephensons Depot 41 Landmarks 34-102 Woodburn Feet 34 -703 Helm -McCann Property 600 300 0 600 1,200 34-950 Milburn Chapel & Cemetary - ----- 34w-950 1 14C -7 T: 77 Data Source: Frederick County, Va- GIS Department, April 2008 Data 1:1) I LU W 0 (D < 0 zQ LL, Z LL 0 0 < 7> W (r < I Fw_ T 0 [-- 00D_ ::) U) T rr U) T CD A Traffic Impact Analysis of Bishop -Amari Parcels (Route 11/01el Charlestown Road) Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Mr. Thomas Amari 285 Baggess Lane, Winchester, VA 22603 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Eng neers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 10212 Governor Lane Boulevard Suite 1007 1 Williamsport, Maryland 21795 T 301.223-4010 • F 301 .223.6868 31 October 15, 2008 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Bishop -Amari Parcels located along the east side of Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike), north of Old Charlestown Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is comprised of 15,000 square feet of specialty retail, a 16 -pumps gas station with convenience mart and a 5,000 square foot high -turnover restaurant. Access is to be provided via a right in/right out only site -driveway located along the east side of Route 11 and a full -access site -driveway located along the north side of Old Charlestown Road. The proposed development will be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Bishop -Amari Parcels with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The scope of study provided in this report is based upon a scoping session with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)/Frederick County staff on March 13, 2007. The traffic impacts accompanying Bishop -Amari Parcels 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, a Calculation of trip generation for the Bishop -Amari Parcels, • Distribution and assignment of the Bishop -Amari Parcels generated trips onto the study area road network, Analysis of capacity and level of service using SYNCHRO for existing and future conditions. A Trak Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels + October 15, 2008 )L 1 1� `--I Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page l No Scale ..F -7k oe ■. ` '1411, Ra StepneRSo2 4 � SITES. Of a= 4F .� eel r "'Wr/p$ rte, 4+7'.__.� r—•--...� .. OId � �� r � � ��!n„g,igtY �•pa y� lr I; f r' Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Bishop -Amari Farceis, in Frederick County, VA PH A Traffic LnPact Analysis of the Bishop Amari Parcels October 15, 2008Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of US Route 11/Old Charlestown Road. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using an assumed "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10%. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and SYNCHRO levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PHR+A has provided Table 1 to show the 95th percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during existing conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels October 15, 2008 PRAH Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 3 No Scale Figure 2 PR+AH AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels October 15, 2008 Project Number: 15256-1 -0 Page 4 PH RA A Traffic Impact Analysis of the 15tshop-Amari Parcels October 15, 2008 Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 5 Table 1 Bishop -Amari Parcels (Route 11/0ld Charlestown Road) Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95%) Results Existing Conditions * Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right Minimum queue length is assumed to be 25 feet A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels P9R+A October 15, 2008 Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 6 TrafficLane AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Back of Back of Intersection Group/ LOS LOS Approach roach pp Queue Q Queue WB/LR C 57.0 D 58.0 Route 11 & Old Charlestown NB/Tr` Unsignalized SB/L A 25.0 A 25.0 Road SB/T - -__L_- - * Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right Minimum queue length is assumed to be 25 feet A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels P9R+A October 15, 2008 Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 6 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes (Figure 2) along Route 11 and Old Charlestown Road using a growth rate of two percent (2%) per year through Year 2010. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the proposed development were included. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided 'fable 2 to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2010 "other developments". Figure A is provided in the Appendix section of the report to show the location of each of the background developments. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. SYNCHRO levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. PHR+A has provided Table 3 to show the 95th percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during 2010 background conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels POctober 15, 2008 17PA Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 7 Table 2 2010 "Other" Developments Trim Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Rutherford Crossing 130 Industrial Park 215,000 SF 152 33 186 44 164 208 1,814 862 Home Impr. Superstore 117,000 SF 76 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 814 Specialty Retail 187,147 SF 139 89 228 207 264 471 8,044 932 H -T Restaurant 5,000 SF 30 28 58 33 21 55 636 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,500 SF 122 117 239 81 75 156 2,233 932 H -T Restaurant 4,800 SF 29 27 55 32 20 52 610 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 40 83 48 31 19 915 912 Drive-in Bank 4,100 SF 28 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 Total 725 485 1,210 1,031 1,165 2,197 26,652 Other Developments 730 FEMA 350 employees 190 24 214 86 191 277 2,713 812 Building/Lumber Store 15,000 SF 26 13 39 33 37 70 639 Total 216 37 253 119 228 347 3,352 Stephenson Village * 210 Single -Family Detached 429 units 77 232 310 255 144 399 4,290 220 Apartment 240 units 20 103 123 100 49 149 1,573 230 Townhouse/Condo 390 units 26 125 150 127 62 189 3,393 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 266 units 29 51 80 78 44 123 1,064 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 72 units 3 2 5 4 3 7 251 Total 155 513 667 564 302 866 10,570 Sempeles Property ** 130 Industrial Park 898,425 SF 459 101 559 154 580 734 5,204 820 Retail 73,500 SF 79 51 130 245 266 511 5,559 Total 538 152 689 399 846 1,245 10,763 North Stephenson (Omps Property) 110 Light Industrial 800,000 SF 752 103 855 118 863 981 5,874 Total 752 103 855 118 863 981 5,874 Adams Commercial 150 Warehousing 120,000 SF 78 17 95 19 57 75 792 151 Self -Service Storage 140,000 SF 12 9 21 18 17 35 334 710 Office 120,000 SF 191 26 217 36 177 213 1,535 812 Building/Lumber Store 25,000 SF 44 21 65 59 67 126 1,024 860 Wholesale Market 150,000 SF 41 34 75 14 17 32 1,010 Total 1 366 107 473 1 146 334 481 4,695 * Assumed Phase 1 build -out for Year 2010 ** Assumed 75% build -out for Year 2010 PH R+A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels October 15, 2008 Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 8 PH RA A Traffic Impacl Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels October 15, 2008 Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 9 No Scale Signalized "Proffered (by others) ftnalized "None -Proffered :Intm"tlon- Improvements" pnlersntion Suggested 11 LOS=C(P) Signalization LOS=C(C) Improvements" WB, NIS - I Right N - I Thr, ha��'s 4 het Rr�r�,o"Al '�� r� or SITE Q' r 11 oJd c ��espo wn Road AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Two-way Left turn lane �T ,r -P+/ \ * Denotes critical unsignalized movement Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels October 15, 2008 R+A Project Number: 15256-1-0 PHPage 10 Table 3 Bishop -Amari Parcels (Route 11/01d Charlestown Road) Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 2010 Background Conditions (w/ suggested improvements) Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound L: Left, T:Thm, R: Right Minimum queue length is assumed to be 25 feet A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels 008 RA October 15, -1-0 PH Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page I 1 I Lane AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Control Group/ Approach LOS Back of Queue LOS Back of Queue WB/L E 324.0 D 212.0 WB/R A 71.0 A 48.0 WB LOS D C NB/T B 146`0 C 521.0 Route 1 l & Old Charlestown Signalized NB/T NB/R A 25.0 A 48.0 Road NB LOS B C SB/L A 41.0 D 239.0 SB/T D 957.0 B 482.0 SB LOS C C o Overall LOS C C Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound L: Left, T:Thm, R: Right Minimum queue length is assumed to be 25 feet A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels 008 RA October 15, -1-0 PH Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page I 1 TRIP GENERATION The total trips produced by and attracted to the site were established using the 71b Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (17 F) Trip Generation Report, Table 4 is provided to summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed Bishop -Amari Parcels development. Table 4 Proposed Development: Bishop -Amari Parcels (Route 11/Old Charlestown Road) Trip Generation summary Code Land Use Amount In AIM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 814 Specialty Retail 15,000 SF 31 20 50 25 32 57 679 853 Conven. Mart w\pumps 16 pumps 137 137 275 154 154 308 8,682 932 H -T Restaurant 5,000 SF 30 28 58 33 21 55 636 Sub -total 198 185 382 212 207 420 9,997 40% Pass -by (Code 853) 55 55 110 62 62 123 3,473 Total "New" Trips 143 130 273 151 146 297 6,524 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Bishop -Amari Parcels trips (Table 4) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 show the corresponding development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Bishop -Amari Parcels assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 show the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 9 show the corresponding 2010 build- out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. Tables 5a and 5b are provided to show the 95th percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during 2010 build -out conditions to achieve the recommended levels of service "C" and "D", respectively. All SYNCHRO levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels October 15, 2008 P -Hp' -A Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 12 i No Scale 1"N --I Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages PHRn A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels October 15, 2008 Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 13 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hou 1102= IS ERM A Trak Impact Analysis of the Bishop Amari Parcels October -0 008 Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 14 No Scale Figure 8 PHiin AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels October 15, 2008 Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 15 .n No Scale Slgnnhzetl Intersection Improvements" IO4_D(F) signalization WB, NB - I Right j11 t%, :1 SigtuBzed "Non -Proffered Iuterseetion Suggested LOS=i(C't Improvements" NB - I Thru �� Gf `rCh "To achieve LOS C" "To achieve LOS W AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Two-way Left turn lane Denotes Turn -lane per VDOT requirement * Denotes critical unsignalized movement Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Alban: Parcels PH 1525October 2 Project Number: 5b--11-0 Page 16 Table 5a Bishop -Amari Parcels (Route 11/01d Charlestown Road) Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95%) Results ,)min ni aia „t Conditions (w/ suggested improvements for recommended LOS -'C') 1s SLnllell L> IGGL V G1111;1G L.0 UgU. EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right Minimum queue length is assumed to be 25 feet A Trak Impact Analysis of the Bishop-Alnari Parcels 008 RA October 2 -1-0PH Project Number: 15256-] -0 Page 17 Lane AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Traffic ControlGroup/ Approach LOS Back of Queue LOS Back of Queue s WB/L D 187.0 D 146.0 WB/L WB/R A 70.0 A 52.0 WB LOS C_ C NBA NB/T NB/R A A 133.0 25.0 D A 563.0 71.0 Route 11 & Old Charlestown Road Signalized (For LOS "C") NB LOS A C SB/L B152.0 D 328.0 SB/T C 1172.0 B 364.0 SB LOS C C Overall LOS �C C EB/LT A 25.0 A 25.0 Old Charlestown Rd & Site- Unsignalized Wl3fM - - - - Drive #1 SB/LR B 25.0 B 25.0 WB/R - - - - NB/T Unsignalized Route 11 &Site -Drive #2 Right In/Out NB/R _ SB/T - - .. - - aL 1s SLnllell L> IGGL V G1111;1G L.0 UgU. EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right Minimum queue length is assumed to be 25 feet A Trak Impact Analysis of the Bishop-Alnari Parcels 008 RA October 2 -1-0PH Project Number: 15256-] -0 Page 17 Table 5b Bishop -Amari Parcels (Route 11/01d Charlestown Load) Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95%) Results 2010 Build -out Conditions (w/ suggested improvements for recommended LOS - 'D') * Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right Minimum queue length is assumed to be 25 feet PHP A Trak Impact Analysis o{the Bishop Lobe r1 Parcels October ] 5, -0 008 Project Number: 15256-1 -0 Page 18 Lane AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hoer Intersection Traffic Control Group/ Approach LOS Back of Queue LOS Back of Queue WB/L F 500.0 E 377.0 WB/R A 68.0 B 92.0 WB LOS D Route 11 & Old Charlestown Road Signalized (For LOS ("D") NB/T NB/T NB/R A A _ 143.0 25.0 _D E A _ 587.0 72.0 NB LOS A D SB/L B 169.0 E 1 351.0 SB/T D 1216.0 B 427.0 SB LOS C Overall LOS _D C D Old Charlestown Rd & Site- Drive #1 Unsignalized EB/LT A 25.0 A 25.0 WB/TR - - - - SB/LR B 25.0 B 25.0 WB/R - - - - Route 11 & Site -Drive #2 Unsignalized Right In/Out NB/T NB/R * Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right Minimum queue length is assumed to be 25 feet PHP A Trak Impact Analysis o{the Bishop Lobe r1 Parcels October ] 5, -0 008 Project Number: 15256-1 -0 Page 18 TURN -LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS In order to determine the right -turn lane requirement along Route 11 during future (2010) traffic conditions at the study area intersections, right -turn lane warrant analyses was completed as per "VDOT Road Design Manual: Guideline for Right Turn Treatment". Accordingly, a northbound right -turn lane will be warranted along Route 11 at the intersection of Route 11/Site-Driveway #2 during 2010 build -out conditions. The aforementioned reference is provided in the Appendix section of this report. Existing + Proposed Development Traffic Conditions For informational purposes, PHR+A has provided analysis for the existing + proposed development -generated traffic conditions to observe the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the study area network. Based upon Synchro analysis results, assuming the proffered (by others) improvements, all the study area intersections will maintain overall levels of service "B" or better. Figure B is provided in the Appendix section of the report to show the ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes. Figure.0 shows the corresponding existing + proposed development AM/PM peak hour levels of service in the Appendix section of the report. The following reiterates the off-site roadway improvements recommended for each of the study area intersections: ® Route 11/Old Charlestown Road: In order to achieve levels of service "C" or better, this intersection will require traffic signalization, a northbound right -turn lane and a westbound right -turn lane during 2010 build -out conditions. All of the aforementioned improvements are proffered by others at this intersection. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels PHW+ October 15, 2008 Project Number: 15256-1-0 Page 19 CONCLUSION Based upon Synchro analysis results, assuming the proffered improvements (by others) as well as non -proffered improvements (suggested) shown in Figure 9; all the study area intersections will maintain levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. The following describes the off-site roadway improvements recommended for the intersection of Route 11/Old Charlestown Road: ➢ Proffered Improvements (by others): - signalization - one westbound right -turn lane - one northbound right -turn lane In addition to the aforementioned proffered improvements, the following non -proffered improvements are suggested at the intersection of Route 11/Old Charlestown Road to maintain levels of service "D" and "C", respectively. ➢ Non -Proffered (Suggested) Improvements (to achieve LOS =: - one northbound through lane 9 Non -Proffered (Suggested) Improvements (to achieve LOS =: - one westbound left -turn lane NOTE: Funding source for the aforementioned non -proffered improvements have yet to be identified. The bicycle facility is planned for the west side of Route 11 and will not be accommodated adjacent to the site. However, the Proffer Statement provides a monetary contribution towards improvements associated with the Hopewell Road and Brucetown Road realignment. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Bishop -Amari Parcels R+A October 15, 2008 Project Number: 15256-1-0 PHPage 20 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed bv Planning Staff. �a Fee Amount Pad /, Zoning Amendment Number_ Date Receive 31 � o0 � PC Hearing Date -i , BOS Hearing Date ,. 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. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-6816 Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different from above) Name: Gregory Bishop & Thomas Amari Telephone: 540 974-1175 Address: 285 Boggess Lane, Winchester, VA 22603 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt, AICP Telephone: 540-662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map ® Agency Comments Plat ® Fees Deed to Property ® Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid ® Proffer Statement 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: Gregory Bishop Thomas Amari S. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential B) Proposed Use of the Property: Commercial 6. Adjoining Property: Please refer to attached Adjoining Property Owner Map and Table. PARCLL� LR USE ZONING 44-((A))-5 Commercial RA District 44-((A))-40 Unimproved p RA District 44-((A))-42 Unimproved M1 District 44-((A))-46 Commercial & Residential M1 District 44-((A))-47 Residential RA District 44B-((1))-1 Unimproved B2 District 44B-((1))-2 Residential B2 District 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11) and Old Charles Town Road (Route 761). Information to be Submitted for CaDital Facilities hnDact Model 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 or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Numbers 44-A-43 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service Stonewall Clear Brook Clear Brook Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School James Wood James Wood Stonewall 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 2.77± RA District B2 District 2.77± 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 homes: N/A Townhome: N/A Multi -Family N/A Non -Residential Lots: N/A Mobile Home: N/A Hotel Rooms: N/A Office: Retail: Restaurant: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station: Manufacturing: Warehouse: Other See Note Note: The Applicants' Proffer Statement limits occupied commercial development to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, of which no more than 5,000 square feet can be in restaurant land use. 12. Signature: 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 bet of my (our) knowledge. Applicant (s) : Date: ' icy u Date: Owner (s): N R.syf 44 A 5 /A JUIHing Property Owners Map Bishop-P.rn,,ari Parcel, Route 11 Forth i I /! Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIs Department, April 2008 Data Q [7 44 A 40 Legend Bishop -Amari Parcel J Adjoining Properties Parcel Boundaries } I W U cc a- < < z07>— LU LLIz Q� QLL O� Q o �w�,- T- o W Z Z Q W LU a -F— 0& 000 SO - 0 v—J r Q a m Q� o ccfc U) EC I-- U) z U) 44 A 42 z -J 0 Q > / °CzEr- oW�a) i Legend Bishop -Amari Parcel J Adjoining Properties Parcel Boundaries } I W U cc a- < < z07>— LU LLIz Q� QLL O� Q o �w�,- T- o W Z Z Q W LU a -F— 0& 000 SO - 0 v—J r Q a m Q� o ccfc } I W U W a- < < z07>— Q� QLL O� Q o �w�,- T- o W Z Z Q W a -F— 0& 000 SO - 0 v—J Er Q a m Q� W -� a -F— m O z Q U Q� o l U) EC I-- U) z U) z -J 0 Q > / °CzEr- oW�a) / t j Uow(Dofr z� U): o t r Q N d O :�iIr rr Y Q z Q W m Q z w p w G) a_ O -3 z0 tr o C r O p F— co f — r Cn Q CO w m w / o U) Bishop -Amari Parcel, Route 11 North Adjoining Property Owners Listing File 4906 Tax Map Number Owner Mailing Address City & State ZIP Deed Book Page lInstrument Yr. Instrument No. 44 A 42 CUTSHAW ENTERPRISES LC PO BOX 805 MORGANTON NC 28680 0 12004 20302 44B 1 2 EASY LIVING ASSOCIATES 2489-3 MARTINSBURG PIKE STEPHENSON VA 22656 626 810 10 0 44 A 5 SHIRLEY ALLEN L ETALS 2455 MARTINSBURG PIKE STEPHENSON VA 22656 0 2006 18222 44B 1 1 DT SHIRLEY PROPERTIES LLC 2455 MARTINSBURG PIKE STEPHENSON VA 22656 0 2006 19976 44 A 46 DT SHIRLEY PROPERTIES LLC 2455 MARTINSBURG PIKE ST EPHENSON VA 22656 0 2006 19976 44 A 47 CAMPBELL BEVERLY L & GARLAND L SR 114 WINDING RIDGE LN WINCHESTER VA 22603 965 1252 0 0 44 A 40 SLAUGHTER JUDITH MCCANN & MARSHALL ELLEN L TRUSTEES 562 MILBURN RD WINCHESTER VA 066d-1 10 2001 12943 3-16-09 Source: Frederick County GIS, March 2009 1 of 1 Location and Zoning Map ' Bishop -Amari Parcel, Route 11 North I s \ u. 0 ate. j Q) Winchester7� � Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, April 2008 Data F/7 = r, Feet i� 600 000 0 600 1,200 Legend Bishop -Amari Parcel Parcel Boundaries Zoning B2 (Business, General Distrist) L B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) ( 9 M1 Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) LL J W 0 U= U-1 o 0 Z D- 0 zO_O O a �z T W Q < Q W CE Z W O 00Y 11 U m O J z U-1 o ext = 0 0 o z m g w z ,r r Q�z� <w �� o� z Q N o z 0 w� 0, w z N o T z 5 o ON Z (D 0 Q Y 0 L Z 0 U LJ w x Q Q<LU Jr IL Q ozw� w J 0 � t0 �� CO r m di < Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, April 2008 Data, Aerial Photos from March 2UUb Special Linlated Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virgirtia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.vams Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Phone 540-665-5651 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Thomas Amari (Phone) (540) 974-1175 (Address) 285 Boggess Lane 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 Instrument No. 080005787 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 44 Lot: 43 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering, Inc. (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 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 application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Variance or Appeal ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set "our) hand and seal this 2401 day of, 200�� Signature(s) State of Virginia,Vt;ity/ ounty)Df i; edey lC: To -wit: 1, jD OOC L He'650, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person( �' signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me an ac r oovledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this Zc� day of r f 200 . My Commission Expires: G�b, 2-,1, 2.o)Z_ Notary Public Registration #: Xha 10 (,o Revised 3/17108 11 i Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning c& Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Phone 540-665-5651 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Gregory A. Bishop (Phone) (540) 974-1175 (Address) 285 Boggess Lane 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 Instrument No. 080005787 on Page - , and is described as Parcel: 44 Lot: 43 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering, Inc. ('Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 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 application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ T Conditional Use Permit ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Variance or Appeal ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof have hereto set Signature(�).�z� U hand and seal this a*' day of A' -L, 200. 9 of Virginia, City ount f �i�6e_t Gk- To -wit: I, D& -0- (-• He-( a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person # ^ 4. i, signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me 116 , ac o ledged the same before mein the jurisdiction.aforesaid this i -h clayofAM,200. My Commission Expires: Eeh - 2-0, Zal 2— Notary Public Registration #: 2-6i 6 t0 to Revised 3/17/08 $j Special ]Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.eo.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Vacsimile 540-665-6395 Phone 540-665-5651 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Thomas Amari (Phone) (540) 974-1175 (Address) 285 Boggess Lane 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 Instrument No. 080005787 on Page- _ -__ —and is described as Parcel: 44 Lot: 43 Block: A_ Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering, Inc. (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 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 application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Variance or Appeal ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this 00 day of 200 a rit' f n ri Signatures) �� i_s"'` Wit)•�! _ `� • O a � . i-i�ed eel c� State of Virginia, Cit /County f To -wit: `Z ; 1,6v10C-I-- • MC66-, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the perso ho' 40 signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me an Q ac ledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this 2-64k day of Mawh200'1 Vel` Ce My Commission Expires: L 7� ZG I Z Notary Public Registration #: Zct Revised 3/17/08 �v DWELLING ----------- Q" 'i a GRAVEL DRIVEWAY "W1P wC• PIN 44-A-47 W EALY L k GARLAND L CAIIPOELL, SR. D6 695 PC 1252 P/N 44-A-43 2.7760 ACRES 9 / VEL E�CE REAINANIS RS REIANANTS : ' OF FENCE 10 .17'=� OF FENCE 149.87. N 5j-4924" W 60.53'22 W ----------------. /RS *�------'-- -------- cl ---------------- ---------------------------- A.-- E ROUTE 761 VA. SEC. TO �/N ROAD OLD CHA L js DB 433 PG 521) VARIABLE WD TH R W � LEGEND IRS - IRON ROD SET BRL - BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE WC - WELL CAP WLP - WOODEN LIGHT POLE FH - FIRE HYDRANT —x-- FENCE LINE g- WM UTILITY POLE - -- OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE GRAPHIC SCALE 100 0 50 100 200 1 Inch - 100 n. LINE TABLE LIN£ BEAR/NC Ll IN 057879 E140.56' ��/� T�c CURVE TABLE i V / L J.- NO. RAO/U ARC TAN BEARING ICHORD DELTA F. NO 7777E REPORT FURNISHED. Cl 1116.20'115J.08 68J, N 4929:36' W1152. 1274 97" 2. PROPERTY IDEN77RCA77ON No. 44—A-43 3 EASEMEN73 MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON 7H/S PLAT. 4. BOUNDARY INFORMA770N SHOWN HEREON IS BASED UPON AN ACTUAL FIELD RUN SURVEY COMPLE7ED ON APRIL 26, 2006 AND ORIENTED TO A PLAT OF SURVEY EN777LE0 PLAT OF A SURVEY MADE FOR THE HEIRSOF GEORGE ✓. VA SON" DA7ED JUNE 21, 1974, PERFORMED BY C. H. KIRKLA NO, C.L.S AND RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 438 AT PACE 597. TH OF BOUNDARY SURREY Dr OF THE LAND OF pcl GREGOR Y A. BISHOP AND 2-1 f THOMAS AMARI 9 2456 MAR77NSBURG PIKE s STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 0. 001""1�P7 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA /p� MAY 24, 2006 t9'LD SIJR`1Eio4 ID 7682-BDS DAF MARSH & L WIN HESTER, VIRG N60 NORIIAS22601 J Land Surveyors, P.L.C. PHONE 540 667-0468 FAX 540) 667-0469 ,I `4 CORNER POST PW 44-A-42 CUTSHAW ENTERPRISES, L.C. INSTR. P40020302 1a b EbSRNG DWELLING 456 r n A 1Ll / VEL E�CE REAINANIS RS REIANANTS : ' OF FENCE 10 .17'=� OF FENCE 149.87. N 5j-4924" W 60.53'22 W ----------------. /RS *�------'-- -------- cl ---------------- ---------------------------- A.-- E ROUTE 761 VA. SEC. TO �/N ROAD OLD CHA L js DB 433 PG 521) VARIABLE WD TH R W � LEGEND IRS - IRON ROD SET BRL - BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE WC - WELL CAP WLP - WOODEN LIGHT POLE FH - FIRE HYDRANT —x-- FENCE LINE g- WM UTILITY POLE - -- OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE GRAPHIC SCALE 100 0 50 100 200 1 Inch - 100 n. LINE TABLE LIN£ BEAR/NC Ll IN 057879 E140.56' ��/� T�c CURVE TABLE i V / L J.- NO. RAO/U ARC TAN BEARING ICHORD DELTA F. NO 7777E REPORT FURNISHED. Cl 1116.20'115J.08 68J, N 4929:36' W1152. 1274 97" 2. PROPERTY IDEN77RCA77ON No. 44—A-43 3 EASEMEN73 MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON 7H/S PLAT. 4. BOUNDARY INFORMA770N SHOWN HEREON IS BASED UPON AN ACTUAL FIELD RUN SURVEY COMPLE7ED ON APRIL 26, 2006 AND ORIENTED TO A PLAT OF SURVEY EN777LE0 PLAT OF A SURVEY MADE FOR THE HEIRSOF GEORGE ✓. VA SON" DA7ED JUNE 21, 1974, PERFORMED BY C. H. KIRKLA NO, C.L.S AND RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 438 AT PACE 597. TH OF BOUNDARY SURREY Dr OF THE LAND OF pcl GREGOR Y A. BISHOP AND 2-1 f THOMAS AMARI 9 2456 MAR77NSBURG PIKE s STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 0. 001""1�P7 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA /p� MAY 24, 2006 t9'LD SIJR`1Eio4 ID 7682-BDS DAF MARSH & L WIN HESTER, VIRG N60 NORIIAS22601 J Land Surveyors, P.L.C. PHONE 540 667-0468 FAX 540) 667-0469 0 0 MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner COUNTY of FREA DERICK Department of ?Ikamning and Deveiopment Subject: Planning Commission Discussion — Outdoor Lighting Date: May 5, 2009 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Outdoor lighting in Frederick County has become an issue over the past few years due to the fact that the Zoning Ordinance contains no standards to regulate their intensity or placement. The only requirement currently is that lighting doesn't create a nuisance due to glare. The Nuisance element of the ordinance (§ 165-35) states that "outdoor lighting shall be arranged to deflect glare away from adjoining properties and public streets. Sources of lighting on a lot shall be hooded or controlled to prevent glare beyond the lot line". While this nuisance ordinance may have been sufficient in the past, with the rate of development the County has seen, this vague ordinance is not adequate. Over the past few years, staff has encountered multiple new developments consisting of office buildings, shopping centers and industrial sites that have had excessive lighting and have thus resulted in complaints about the lighting sources, levels and height of the fixtures. Therefore, staff has created draft lighting standards to help address these issues. The draft standards include elements that will apply to all outdoor lighting as well as portions that apply to nonresidential uses (commercial/industrial, etc.), as well as multifamily uses. New definitions that correspond to the lighting standards are included as well. It should be noted that this proposed ordinance will not require additional lighting to be provided; it places thresholds on the maximum amount of lighting permitted on a site. The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) first considered this item at their June 2008 meeting. At the June meeting, the Commission had a few comments regarding the text and wanted to discuss the proposed amendment at the next meeting. After this meeting, the proposed ordinance was revised to address DRRC concerns as well as comments provided by the County Attorney. The DRRC discussed the proposed ordinance again at their August 28, 2008 meeting. The Planning Commission discussed this item on October 15, 2008 and was supportive of the amendment. The Board of Supervisors then discussed this item at their October 22, 2008 meeting. The Board expressed concerns over lighting sources and the basis for proposed lighting levels, issues regarding canopy lighting as well as concerns over whether the Sheriffs Department was comfortable with this ordinance. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors requested that the draft ordinance be sent back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virgoni,- 22691-5000 Page 2 Frederick County Planning Commission Re: Outdoor Lighting Discussion May 5, 2009 Since the Board of Supervisors discussion, there have been some changes to the proposed standards. The ordinance was revised to be in conformance with the standards outlined by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), as recommended by a lighting engineer. The IESNA is the recognized authority on outdoor lighting. Primarily, this change resulted in the reduction of the high security lighting maximum levels from 30 to 20 foot-candles. It should be noted that the remaining lighting levels in the draft ordinance were consistent with the IESNA standards. The canopy lighting portion was revised to require that light sources be completely screened from public rights-of-way or adjacent properties as requested by a Board of Supervisors Comment. This ordinance has also been reviewed by a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Planner from Henrico County. CPTED deals with aspects of crime preventions such as adequate nighttime lighting. This ordinance was also provided to the Airport Authority who agreed that lighting such as strobes, searchlights and lasers should be prohibited. With this proposed ordinance, it should be noted that enforcement will be handled by the Planning Department. The attached documents show the proposed outdoor lighting ordinance as well as proposed definitions that correspond to the ordinance. This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachment: 1. Proposed Ordinance and Definitions. CEP/bad Draft - Outdoor Lighting Standards - May 2009 Outdoor Lighting Standards. The purpose and intent of this section is to establish outdoor lighting standards that reduce the impacts of glare, light trespass and overlighting; promote safety and security; and encourage energy conservation. A. Application and General Provisions. 1. Except as provided in F of this Section, these standards shall apply to the installation of new outdoor lighting fixtures or the replacement of existing fixtures. Replacement of a fixture shall mean a change of fixture type or change to the �� ounting height or location of the fixture. Routine lighting fixture maintenance, such as changing lamps or light bulbs, ballast, starter, photo control, housing, lenses and other similar components, shall not constitute replacement and shall be permitted provided such changes do not result in a higher lumen output_ B. General Outdoor Lighting Standards. 1. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed, shielded, aimed, located and maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent properties or roadways_ Parking lot fixtures and light fixtures on buildings shall be full cut-off fixtures_ Within residential developments the Zoning Administrator may approve alternate parking lot fixtures so long as the intent of the ordinance is met. 2. Flashing, revolving, or intermittent exterior lighting visible from any property line or street shall be prohibited_ Nigh intensity beams, such as, but not limited to, outdoor searchlights, lasers or strobe lights shall be prohibited. 3. Light fixtures, including mounting base, shall not be more than twenty-five (25) feet in height above finished grade unless the Zoning Administrator determines that an increase in height, not to exceed ten (10) additional feet, would reduce the total number of light fixtures for the site and still meet the intent of the Ordinance. On land in the M1 (Light Industrial) and M2 (Industrial General) and EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning Districts that is contained within an approved master development plan, the Zoning Administrator may allow light fixtures to exceed 35 feet in height if additional security is required, provided that the site is not adjacent to property used for residential or agricultural uses. In no case shall light fixtures in the M1, M2 and EM Districts exceed 45 feet in height. On properties zoned RA (Rural Areas) primarily used for agricultural or residential uses, light fixtures shall not be mounted more than thirty-five (35) feet in height above the finished grade. 1 Draft - Outdoor Lighting Standards - May 2009 4. Light fixtures shall be placed outside of the paved areas of a site. Lighting fixtures shall be placed within landscaped islands or in the perimeter green space of the site. 5. Building mounted or wall pack lighting fixtures shall not be mounted more than twenty- five (25) feet above the finished grade of the building. These fixtures shall be shielded (cutoff) so that the light source (lamp) is not visible from off-site. Non -cutoff wall pack lighting fixtures shall not be permitted. 6. Except for internally illuminated signs, the use of lighting fixtures, which are enclosed in clear or translucent white, off-white or yellow casing, shall not be permitted on the roofs of buildings or on the sides of canopies. 7. All lighting shall be oriented not to direct glare or excessive illumination onto streets in a manner that may distract or interfere with the vision of drivers on such streets. 8. Lighting used to illuminate flags, statues, signs or any other objects mounted on a pole, pedestal or platform, spotlighting or floodlighting used for architectural or landscape purposes, shall consist of full cut-off or directionally shielded lighting fixtures that are aimed and controlled so that the directed light shall be substantially confined to the object intended to be illuminated. Directional control shields shall be used where necessary to limit stray light. C. Photometric Plan Requirements 1. A Photometric Lighting Plan shall be submitted and approved in conjunction with any site plan required by Article XIX or Subdivision Design Plan as required by Chapter 144 of the Frederick County Code. Photometric plan submitted with site plans shall be current (less than 30 days old) and must be certified by the National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions (NCQLP), or a Virginia licensed professional engineer, architect, landscape architect or land surveyor. 2. All such required plans shall include the following_ a) Plans indicating the location on the premises of all lighting fixtures, both proposed and already existing on the site, including a schematic layout of proposed outdoor lighting fixture locations that demonstrate adequate intensities and uniformity, and the light coverage resulting from the proposed lighting layout. b) Description of all lighting fixtures, both proposed and existing, which shall include but are not limited to catalog cuts and illustrations by manufactures that describe the equipment, including, lamp types, wattage and initial lumen outputs, glare control devices, lamps, proposed placement of all fixtures, including engineering detail of fixtures, manufacturer, model and installation of same. PA Draft - Outdoor Lighting Standards - May 2009 c) Photometric data, such as that furnished by manufactures, or similar showing the angle cut-off light emissions and glare -control devices. d) Mounting height of all fixtures. D. Outdoor Lighting Standards for Nonresidential Uses. 1. The average maintained lighting levels for nonresidential uses shall not exceed the following standards: a) Five (5) foot-candles for parking lot and other areas. b) Ten (10) foot-candles along fronts of buildings and along main drive aisles. c) Twenty (20) foot-candles for high security areas, such as, but not limited to teller machines (ATM's), motor vehicle display areas and vehicle fuel station canopies, but not including parking lots. 2. Light fixtures under fuel station canopies or any other canopy shall consist of full cut-off lighting fixtures where the light source is either completely flush or recessed within the underside of the canopy. The portions of the canopy not included in the sign area shall not be illuminated. All canopy lighting shall be recessed sufficiently so as to ensure that no light source is visible from or causes glare on public rights-of-way or adjacent property. 3. Lighting levels shall not exceed 0.2 foot-candles at any common property line with property zoned, used as or planned for residential or agricultural uses_ In addition all light poles shall be equipped with supplemental opaque shielding on the residential property side of the lighting fixture to reduce glare caused by direct light source exposure. 4. Lighting levels shall not exceed 5.0 foot-candles at any common property line with property zoned or used for commercial or industrial uses. 5. Lighting levels shall not exceed 5.0 foot-candles at any edge of a property line adjacent to a street or road right-of-way. E. Outdoor Lighting Standards for Multifamily Uses and Residential Parking Lots. 1. The average maintained lighting levels for multifamily developments shall not exceed the following: a) 0.5 foot -candies at property line boundaries_ b) Ten (10) foot-candles at buildings, parking lots and other areas. 3 Draft - Outdoor Lighting Standards - May 2009 c) Five (5) foot-candles at any edge of a property line adjacent to a street or road right- of-way d) 0.2 foot-candles at any common property line with property zoned, used or planned for residential or agricultural uses. F. Exemptions from Lighting Ordinance. 1. Lighting fixtures and standards required by the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administrations, or other federal or state agencies, to include street lights within the public right -of -:.ray. 2. Outdoor lighting fixtures required by law enforcement, fire and rescue, the Virginia Department of Transportation or other emergency response agencies to perform emergency or construction repair work, or to perform nighttime road construction on major thoroughfares. 3. Security lighting controlled and activated by motion sensor devices. 4. Temporary lighting for holiday decorative purposes, civic activities, fairs or carnivals, provided that the light is temporary. 4 Draft - Outdoor Lighting Standards - May 2009 ARTICLE XXII Definitions §165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Amended 11-13-1991] Foot -Candle — A measure of light failing on a surface. One (1) foot-candle is equal to the amount of light generated by one (1) candle shining on one (1) square foot surface located one (1) foot away. Foot- candle measurements shall be made with a photometric light meter with a specified horizontal orientation. Foot -Candle (Average Maintained) — The average of a number of points of foot-candle calculations or foot-candle readings in a given area which have been adjusted to account for maintenance which includes luminaire dirt depreciation and lamp lumen depreciation. Glare - The sensation produced by a bright source within the visual field that is sufficiently brighter than the level to which the eyes are adapted to cause annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. The magnitude of glare depends on such factors as the size, position, brightness of the source, and on the brightness level to which the eyes are adapted. Lighting Fixture — A complete lighting unit consisting of the lamp, lens, optical reflector, housing and an electrical components necessary for ignition and control of the lamp, which may include a ballast, starter and/or photo control. Lighting Fixture, Directionally Shielded — A lighting fixture which emits a light distribution where some light is emitted at or above a horizontal plan located at the bottom of a fixture. Such fixtures may contain visors, louvers, or other types of shields or lenses which are designed to direct light onto a target area and to minimize stray light. Lighting fixture, full cut-off A lighting fixture from which zero (0) percent of its light output is emitted at or above ninety (90) degrees from horizontal (a horizontal plane drawn through the bottom of the light fixture) and no more than ten (10) percent above eighty (80) degrees from the horizontal. Light fixture, recessed canop— An outdoor lighting fixture recessed into a canopy ceiling so that the light source is either completely flush or recessed within the underside of the canopy. Light Trespass — Unwanted light going beyond the property line and spilling over onto the adjacent or neighboring property. It can also represent the direct light (glare) that reduces a person's vision or ability to see. Maintained Lighting Level — A level of illumination which results when the initial output of the lamp is reduced by certain light loss factors. Such light loss factors typically include lamp depreciation and dirt accumulation on lenses and other light fixtures components. For the purpose of this Chapter, the maintained lighting level shall represent an average foot-candle level measured over a specified area. 5 C TO: FROM: RE: DATE: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM Planning Commission John A. Bishop AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation..., Secondary Street Acceptance Standards May 5, 2009 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Recently, there has been much discussion regarding VDOT's new Secondary Street Acceptance Standards. Staff has been following and commenting on the standards since the first version was released back in 2007. In addition, staff recently attended a VDOT training done as part of the `roll out' of the new standards. Staff will be making a presentation on the new standards and will give particular focus to the issue of acceptability of roundabouts. In preparation for the presentation you will find the attached summary of the secondary street acceptance requirements. Finally, the Transportation Committee is in the process of reviewing the finalized standards and will be making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on any actions to consider taking in order to reduce negative impacts of the new regulations to Frederick County and its citizens. JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Surarnary 0i' Secondary Street Acceptance fiegLn_re ,yen ts What is SSAR? The Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR) are the rules that govern the development of streets for acceptance by VDOT for perpetual public maintenance. The regulations are a result of legislation introduced at the request of Governor Kaine and unanimously adopted by the General Assembly during the 2007 session. The most significant aspect of the revised regulation is that it introduces a change in public policy regarding the design and function a street must meet in order to be added to the state system. In essence, the regulation revises the public-private partnership between the Commonwealth and the development community. The Commonwealth agrees to maintain streets built by developers and accepted by counties to the benefit and marketability of their developments. In exchange, the developer must build streets that connect with the surrounding transportation network in a manner that enhances the capacity of the overall transportation network and accommodates pedestrians, while also minimizing the environmental impacts of stormwater runoff by reducing the street widths allowing the use of low impact development techniques. This is a significant departure from the previous policy of accepting any street that served three or more homes and was built in conformance with state design and construction standards without regards to the impact on the overall transportation network. In addition to this policy change, the new regulation also updates the inspection and surety processes and fees in an effort to streamline the process and better align costs. What are the policy goals of the SSAR? These changes were initiated to address a number of problems with the previous street acceptance process. First, the public funds available to support transportation are not adequate to meet the ongoing demands being placed on the system by isolated insufficiently connected roadway networks. The previous acceptance requirements created an unsustainable cycle of street development and acceptance into the state system without consideration of the overall public benefit provided by these streets. The new regulations work to provide a more sustainable balance by ensuring that streets accepted into the state's highway system are designed in a manner that better supports the function and efficiency of the transportation system as a whole. The primary ingredient in the new approach is the interconnection of local streets between developments. Developing streets that are well connected to the existing local network allows local trips to be made without placing unnecessary burdens on major roadways. Further, interconnected local street networks help facilitate multimodal trips that reduce the burden placed on all roadways. Consider the graphic on the following page that displays a representative development pattern prevalent today. Because streets in the developments do not connect, trips are forced to use the major roadway in order to make the frequent trips to adjoining neighborhoods, schools, or businesses. Failure to provide these direct connections ensures that the major roadways in the area carry a greater burden than would otherwise be necessary had these connections been provided. Overburdening Page 1 of 11 the major roadway may result in operational problems that would require costly improvements to intersections and/or the corridor as a whole. Additionally, the lack of direct connections presents a significant obstacle for pedestrians and bicyclists that are forced to follow indirect routes not well suited for pedestrian and bicycle travel. The aerial photo below shows the development pattern around a school in : southwest Virginia. Many of the streets end in cul-de-sacs that fail to connect adjoining fil�► •• % ' . neighborhoods to each other and also do not connect to the adjacent school. Even the local school trips are required to use the x "" • • , ' . major roadway. This roadway's primary • • purpose is to serve as a regional US route l•. ., connecting multiple regions of the state and to serve as a major connecting route within the greater urban area. The reliance on this •- roadway for local trips is unsustainable. The failure to include pedestrian and bicycle accommodations into the design of these streets coupled with the failure to connect local streets to one another act as major deterrents to multimodal transportation. This places an avoidable burden on the major roadway. i� G �Evdecedsde Lad I -At * 4LaJ IM Ilo 4 Only Road r • Ikt Cwvne �' �'' � Connecting to t: . .*� ;.• c-': Schaal In contrast, an interconnected network of streets provides for efficient trips within the neighborhood and more appropriately accommodates pedestrian, bicycle, and transit oriented trips. By providing an interconnected network of streets capable of accommodating local trips Page 2 of 11 on local streets, major roadways can be preserved for serving longer trips resulting in a more efficient transportation network. This improved efficiency reduces the need for costly roadway improvements such as signalization and lane widening. What benefits will these changes provide? The interconnection of these local streets disperses trips throughout the network allowing each street to carry a well distributed portion of the demand and preventing any of the residential streets from being overburdened. The interconnection of the local street network provides direct and alternate routes for motorists that disperses traffic throughout the system which enables the use of a narrower street design. The narrower streets results in a reduction of impervious surface area and stormwater runoff. Additionally, the narrower width helps manage vehicle speeds resulting in slower operating speeds. These reduced operating speeds are appropriate for residential and mixed use areas, and help address a major concern of many citizens — speeding on local streets. These narrower streets effectively provide built-in traffic calming that is more compatible with the neighborhood street environment. This translates into an improved quality of life in residential areas where slower speeds improve safety and support walking, biking, safety and enhanced community interaction. Increased connectivity of the local street network will allow revisions to VDOT's street design standards. The revised design standards allow for narrower streets than were allowed in the past. These narrower street widths will play a significant role in reducing vehicle speeds through neighborhoods. Additionally, these narrower roadways will reduce the amount of stormwater runoff. While the streets are narrower, they meet the nationally accepted AASHTO minimum design standards for the design of roadways. In addition to the benefits of increased efficiency and overall capacity of the transportation system, increased connectivity can have other benefits for local governments. These benefits include reduced local service costs, enhanced response times for emergency responders, and a redundant transportation network that is better positioned to respond to temporary detours and other emergency demands. A study of Charlotte -Mecklenburg County, North Carolina fire services compared the cost to serve areas with a connected street network with areas that did not have connected street networks. The study Page 3 of 11 concluded that a connected street network could reduce the cost of provide fire service and increase the area served by individual stations. In particular, the study found that the annualized life cycle costs per household for a fire station located in an area with a connectivity ratio of 1.3 was $206 while the same costs for another station located in an area with an index of 1.09 was $740. The connectivity ratio referenced in this study is calculated slightly different than the SSAR connectivity index values. How were these requirements developed? As noted above, this revised regulation was a result of a gubernatorial initiative to improve the coordination between transportation and land use in an effort to achieve a more sustainable and efficient transportation network. The 2007 General Assembly unanimously adopted Senate Bill 1811 that added § 33.1-70.3 to the Code of Virginia and directed the Commonwealth Transportation Board to create the SSAR to replace the previous Subdivision Street Requirements. The Code specifically includes three legislative goals for the SSAR to achieve. These goals are: 1. Ensuring the connectivity of road and pedestrian networks with the existing and future transportation network; 2. Minimizing stormwater runoff and impervious surface area; and, 3. Addressing performance bonding needs of new secondary streets and associated cost recovery fees. In achieving these goals, the new regulation will serve as a vital component in the planning, design and delivery of a street network that will promote livability, a more efficient transportation network and the creation of more transportation choices. To guide the development of the SSAR, the VDOT Commissioner formed a Technical Committee and the Secretary of Transportation formed an Implementation Advisory Committee. The Technical Committee was composed of staff from the Secretary's office and the Department of Transportation. The Implementation Advisory Committee was composed of representatives from local governments, developers, interested groups, associations, and private firms. In addition to working with these committees, input was received during 21 regional meetings and 10 meetings of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). Public benefit requirements — connectivity, pedestrian accommodation & public service In the past, streets have been accepted into the state system without consideration of the overall public benefit provided by the streets. The SSAR require streets to meet certain public benefit criteria to be considered for acceptance into the VDOT-maintained public street network. The previous standards required that each street serve a public purpose (e.g. serving a minimum of three dwellings units); however, it did not have the same level of expected public benefit. The new SSAR requires streets to also meet quantified connectivity requirements, be designed to accommodate pedestrians while continuing to a public purpose (e.g. serving three or more dwelling units). These requirements are collectively known as the public benefit requirements and they must be met in order for streets to be added to the state system. The specific requirements are graduated based on the location and density of the proposed development. Page 4 of 11 Under the SSAR, the streets within a development or phase of a development will generally be considered for acceptance as a single addition to the state system, or a "network addition." To be accepted for perpetual public maintenance, each network addition will need to provide: • Connectivity: new streets must connect to adjacent properties in multiple directions and must satisfy a quantified street connectivity index established for the area type being served. Pedestrian accommodations: new streets must provide appropriate pedestrian accommodation. The type of accommodation is dependent upon the density of the development being proposed. o Developments with lot sizes less than 1/2 acre or a floor area ratio > 0.4 require accommodations along both sides of the street. o Developments with lot sizes between 1/2 acre and 2 acres require pedestrian accommodation along one side of the street or within the development, such as a connecting trail system. o In both instances the accommodation may be a sidewalk, trail or other facility that provides equivalent pedestrian mobility. • Public service: new street networks must serve a sufficient number of homes, businesses, and/or overall traffic demand that classifies the streets as being public in nature. A more detailed description of each requirement follows. What is connectivity? The goal of the connectivity requirements is to ensure that the street networks of developments and phases of developments connect to existing communities and allow for future connections to adjacent property. These connections will create a more efficient transportation network. New streets must connect to adjacent properties in multiple directions. Additionally, in compact and suburban areas the overall network must satisfy a quantified street connectivity index value established for the area being served by the development. The connectivity index is defined as follows: # Connectivity Index of Street Segments = # of Intersections 4 _ c 7 Streets 4 Intersections 7/4 = 1.75 Streets Intersections The resulting value is a measure of the density of connections provided by a proposed network. The street network shown to the right has a connectivity index value of 1.75. This value is obtained by dividing the total number of street segments (denoted by the orange squares) by the total number of intersections (denoted by the blue dots). For the purposes of the connectivity index, cul-de-sacs are counted as intersections. While the SSAR will be consistently applied across the state, the regulation recognizes that the Commonwealth's density and development patterns are very diverse. Because of this, the Page 5 of 11 regulation does not take a "one size fits all" approach. The connectivity requirements are graduated based on the location of the proposed development. The state is divided into three area types: compact, suburban, and rural. The perimeter of these area types will be consistent with federal, regional, and local planning boundaries including the following: • Smoothed urbanized area • Smoothed urban cluster • Metropolitan planning organization study area • Urban development areas • Transfer of development rights receiving areas • Within two miles of a smoothed urban cluster, urban development area or transfer of development rights receiving area The regulation includes a process for local governments to work with VDOT to officially alter the perimeter of the area type when specific situations warrant such an action. The VDOT Commissioner, upon a resolution from the local governing body demonstrating good cause, may approve changes to the perimeter of the area type; however, approval of such modification requests is not assured and will be closely reviewed on an individual basis. See pages 16 and 17 in the regulation for more information on this issue. The state map below displays the approximate location of these area types: Legend" w� Compact Area Type' Suburban Area Type ! ! Rural Area Type 'The propos-tl araa apes may be —M.eY the Commissioner / ' —� +� 4 11 basetl upon a resolution tram the local governing hotly it tnE lantl rs / y-{ —�� _nerl for agn.rlMe. forestry sonservaGonarWlor open The requirement that new streets connect to adjacent properties in multiple directions applies to all area types while the connectivity index value requirement is dependant upon the area type in which the development is being proposed. The required values are as follows: Compact Area: Connectivity Index > 1.6 Suburban Area: Connectivity Index > 1.4 Rural Area: No Connectivity Index Requirement Page 6 of 11 The example network shown below is a typical subdivision pattern that might have been proposed under the 2005 Subdivision Street Requirements. The connectivity index of the proposed development can be calculated by: # of Street Segments 7 Connectivity Index = _ —1.16 # of Intersections 1 1 6 As shown in the graphic below, the resulting value is 1.16; therefore, the development would fail to meet the minimum required values in compact and suburban area types. Additionally, the proposed development plan fails to meet the requirements for connecting to adjacent properties in multiple directions. While the connection to the major street is considered as one such connection, no other connection is planned; therefore, it fails to meet this requirement. Under the new SSAR, this development could not be accepted into the state system. If one of the streets in the development was extended to connect with property adjoining the development, the number of intersections would be reduced by one and thus the resulting connectivity index value would increase to 1.4. This value meets the minimum connectivity index value required in suburban area types. Additionally, it satisfies the requirement that the development connect to adjoining properties in multiple directions. However, if this development was proposed in a compact area type, it would not meet the minimum connectivity index requirement for compact area types of 1.6. By connecting an additional street within the proposed network to an adjoining property the number of intersections is reduced to 4. This results in a revised connectivity index value of 1.75 which meets the requirement in both suburban and compact areas. Lastly, the network in the next figure has a connectivity index value of 1.6 which meets the index value requirements; however, it fails to meet the overall connectivity requirement because it does not connect streets Page 7 of 11 - 7 Streets 7 Streets 6 Intersections 5 Intersections 716=1.16 7l5=1.4 -- O Streets (, O Streets Intersections -. Intersections By connecting an additional street within the proposed network to an adjoining property the number of intersections is reduced to 4. This results in a revised connectivity index value of 1.75 which meets the requirement in both suburban and compact areas. Lastly, the network in the next figure has a connectivity index value of 1.6 which meets the index value requirements; however, it fails to meet the overall connectivity requirement because it does not connect streets Page 7 of 11 to adjoining properties in multiple directions. Street networks with one-way in and one-way out place a significant burden on the major street network and do not enhance the overall capacity of the transportation network. D " ® IZ O ® © J. LAG ❑ , r . 7 Streets 8 Streets ® 4 Intersections 735 Intersections 7/4 = 1.7S 8/5 = 1,6 �1 O Streets D Streets Intersections • Intersections The regulation recognizes that connectivity cannot always be achieved because of various physical constraints and special situations. To streamline the exceptions involving physical constraints, the regulation allows an automatic exception to address the following constraints: — Railroad tracks — Limited access highways — Navigable river or a standing body of water > 4 feet deep — Grades > 20% — Select government owned properties (see regulation) — Conservation easements accepted by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation Additionally, special exceptions may be authorized by the District Administrator for situations that require consideration on a case-by-case basis such as unique characteristics of a site including jurisdictional wetlands and cluster developments, or incompatible land use of adjoining property. It is important to note that the regulation specifically states that retail, office, and residential uses are considered to be compatible. The regulation requires developments to connect to existing stub outs. In the event that a development is not connected to an existing stub out that is maintained by VDOT and the local governing body approves the subdivision or development plan and requests that VDOT accept the corresponding secondary streets, there will be a financial consequence to the local government for this action. Page 8 of 11 In these situations, VDOT will add the future connection of this stub out as the Commissioner's top priority for expenditure of improvement funds for the locality's six-year plan for secondary roads. This provides the local government with the option of allowing the developer to construct a connection to the existing stub out or having the secondary road s allocations being used to construct the connection. j Providing connections between publicly maintained streets in neighboring developments is more cost ❑ effective and sustainable than relying solely on projects to widen major highways. What constitutes public service? 30 ❑ Streets Intersections To be considered for inclusion into VDOT's secondary street network, individual streets must meet one or more of the following criteria: o Serves three or more occupied units ® Serves a school or other similar facility open to public use Constitutes a missing link in the network Is a stub out street that facilitate future connections to adjoining properties Carries at least 100 VPD and is in the locality's comprehensive plan Satisfies specific requirements regarding acceptance of streets within multifamily developments, retail shopping complexes, and/or acceptance of streets in nonresidential land uses in advance of occupancy of three or more units of varied proprietorship. See pages 18 - 20 of the regulation for more details on these specific requirements. How will this change design standards? Under the 2005 Subdivision Street Requirements local streets were commonly designed and built to be 36 — 40 feet wide. These widths combined with the off-street parking requirements of many local ordinances and VDOT requirements often resulted in an effective local street lane width of 18 feet. This width results in large impervious surface areas that exacerbate stormwater runoff and encourages higher vehicular speeds that are generally inappropriate in residential and mixed use areas. A set of key elements that will contribute to the implementation of the SSAR are the revised elements of the roadway's geometric design. The revised geometric design standards generally allow for narrower streets (24 to 29 feet wide for local streets) than were allowed in the past. These narrower street widths will play a significant role in reducing vehicle speeds through neighborhoods. Additionally, these narrower roadways will reduce the amount of stormwater runoff due to their smaller impervious area. While the streets are narrower, they meet the nationally accepted AASHTO minimum design standards for the design of roadways. Page 9 of 11 The direct link between speed and safety has been clearly drawn in many studies. Speed is a very important factor for determining the severity of crashes involving pedestrians. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has produced extensive findings in this area and has demonstrated compelling evidence of the importance of speed as it relates to injuries and fatalities among pedestrians. One such study's results (DOT HS 809 021 October, 1999), shown in the figure on the right demonstrate clearly the linkage between pedestrian injuries and fatalities and speed. A study titled "Residential Street Typology and Injury Accident Frequency" by Swift, Painter, and Goldstein 2006 found a strong correlation between street widths and accident frequency suggesting that narrower streets in residential areas can result in safer operation than standard width local streets. Additional key elements of the new SSAR include added flexibility regarding parking requirements and placement of stormwater best management practices or devices (also known as low impact development techniques) within the right of way. How are inspections, fees, and sureties being changed? The SSAR have also revised the surety bonding and fee structure from what was found in the old regulations. The length of surety (1 year) in the revised regulations is the same as it is today for streets inspected using the normal VDOT staff inspection process. However, the regulation provides additional flexibility to local governments and developers to use alternate means of inspection that do not rely on VDOT staff. As in the previous regulation, a local government may initiate a local certification process where, if desired by the local government, the locality would take on the role of street inspection. Currently Prince William County and Fairfax have set up such programs. A new provision gives developers the option of hiring a third party to inspect the streets for VDOT. In both of these situations the surety bonding requirement would be waived and the associated VDOT inspection fees would be reduced by 75%. The maintenance fee is eliminated and the fee covering inspection costs is separated from the administrative cost recovery fee. Page 10 of 11 Figure 1. Fatal Injury Rates by Vehicle Speed, by Pedestrian Ages (Florida, 1993-1996; pedestriansin single -vehicle crashes) 70% 60°Y. IS -24 25 - 44 50% 0 40% C w 30! a. 20°% 10% of 1-20 mph 21-25 mph 26-30 mph 31-35 mph 36-45 mph 46+mph F iimated V ehicle T—el Speed A study titled "Residential Street Typology and Injury Accident Frequency" by Swift, Painter, and Goldstein 2006 found a strong correlation between street widths and accident frequency suggesting that narrower streets in residential areas can result in safer operation than standard width local streets. Additional key elements of the new SSAR include added flexibility regarding parking requirements and placement of stormwater best management practices or devices (also known as low impact development techniques) within the right of way. How are inspections, fees, and sureties being changed? The SSAR have also revised the surety bonding and fee structure from what was found in the old regulations. The length of surety (1 year) in the revised regulations is the same as it is today for streets inspected using the normal VDOT staff inspection process. However, the regulation provides additional flexibility to local governments and developers to use alternate means of inspection that do not rely on VDOT staff. As in the previous regulation, a local government may initiate a local certification process where, if desired by the local government, the locality would take on the role of street inspection. Currently Prince William County and Fairfax have set up such programs. A new provision gives developers the option of hiring a third party to inspect the streets for VDOT. In both of these situations the surety bonding requirement would be waived and the associated VDOT inspection fees would be reduced by 75%. The maintenance fee is eliminated and the fee covering inspection costs is separated from the administrative cost recovery fee. Page 10 of 11 -S —� —45-64 X45 or more A study titled "Residential Street Typology and Injury Accident Frequency" by Swift, Painter, and Goldstein 2006 found a strong correlation between street widths and accident frequency suggesting that narrower streets in residential areas can result in safer operation than standard width local streets. Additional key elements of the new SSAR include added flexibility regarding parking requirements and placement of stormwater best management practices or devices (also known as low impact development techniques) within the right of way. How are inspections, fees, and sureties being changed? The SSAR have also revised the surety bonding and fee structure from what was found in the old regulations. The length of surety (1 year) in the revised regulations is the same as it is today for streets inspected using the normal VDOT staff inspection process. However, the regulation provides additional flexibility to local governments and developers to use alternate means of inspection that do not rely on VDOT staff. As in the previous regulation, a local government may initiate a local certification process where, if desired by the local government, the locality would take on the role of street inspection. Currently Prince William County and Fairfax have set up such programs. A new provision gives developers the option of hiring a third party to inspect the streets for VDOT. In both of these situations the surety bonding requirement would be waived and the associated VDOT inspection fees would be reduced by 75%. The maintenance fee is eliminated and the fee covering inspection costs is separated from the administrative cost recovery fee. Page 10 of 11 When does the SSAR go into ef'f'ect? A transition period will be in effect until July 1, 2009. During this period, developer's may choose to process street acceptance requests under the older 2005 Subdivision Street Requirements or the new 2009 Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements. However, it is important to note that these regulations cannot be mixed. The 2009 SSAR must be used after July 1, 2009. Developments approved prior to July 1, 2009 may use the former requirements. Additional grandfathering provisions exist for area type changes and specific proffered conditions. For more details on these grandfathering issues, please reference page 10 of the regulation. Ilow can I get more information about. the SSAR? The new SSAR is the result of specific public policy objectives requested by the Governor and unanimously supported by the 2007 General Assembly. They have been structured to meet the required goals of the legislation that include: 1. Ensuring the connectivity of road and pedestrian networks with the existing and future transportation network; 2. Minimizing stormwater runoff and impervious surface area; and, 3. Addressing performance bonding needs of new secondary streets and associated cost recovery fees. Clearly, this public policy change will have implications on the development process and the transportation network. If you would like to learn more about the specifics of the SSAR visit VDOT's website at http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/ssar/. Page 11 of 11