Loading...
PC 08-20-08 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia August 20, 2008 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) July 2, 2008 and July 16, 2008 Minutes.......................................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Rezoning #06-08 of Route 50 Assisted Living Facility, submitted by Bowman Consulting, to rezone 10.24 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers. The properties are located at the intersection of Ward Avenue and Route 50 to the east and Round Hill Road and Route 50 to the west in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 53-A-81, 53-A-82 and 53B-3-25. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B) PUBLIC MEETING 6) Road Right -of -Way Waiver Request of Betty Davis, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., for an exception of Article V Design Standards, §144-31 Rural Subdivisions, C(3) Minor rural subdivisions, of the Code of Frederick County, Subdivision of Land, to enable family division of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet in width. The property is located north of Harmony Hollow Lane approximately 0.8 miles north of Northwestern Pike (Route 50), and is identified with Property Identification Number 27 -A -77A in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (C) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 7) Interstate Overlay Signs. Discussion on revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to remove general merchandise and apparel stores (SIC 53 and 56) from the qualifying uses. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D) 8) Industrial Transition (133) Zoning District Height Restriction. Discussion of revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow for structures up to 45 feet in height. Mrs. Perkins ..... ................ (E) FILE COPY 9) Other • 0 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 July 2, 2008. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District, Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District. STAFF PRI SENT : Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7: 00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the July 2, 2008 meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the meeting minutes of May 21, 2008 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee.(DRRS) — 06/26/08 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that t're DRRS heard from a company who had concerns abo»t the proposed amendment to the height restrictions in the B3 Zoning District. He said after the company representatives explained to them how products were stacked within the buildings and with the overhead sprinklers, they believed the 35 -foot height restriction on buildings was low; he said they preferred to see 45 feet. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2008 Page 2275 -2 - Commissioner Unger said the majority of persons attending the meeting agreed. They also wanted to see the setback increased from 50 feet to 75 feet. Outdoor storage was also discussed. He said companies wanted to store some of their products on other people's property and after reviewing the details, the DRRS members were not in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Unger said the DRRS discussed Interstate Overlay Signs and would like to restrict those to solely restaurants and motels and remove some of the other miscellaneous advertisers. In addition, street lighting and parking lots were discussed at length. It was decided to seek out lighting manufacturers' opinions of how it should be handled before the DRRS went into it in great depth. Commissioner Oates added that the DRRS also discussed a proposed amendment which would limit the square footage of warehousing in the B3 District to 150,000 square -feet and the DRRS was generally in favor of that proposal, along with a height change_ Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) — 06/12/08 Mtg. Commissioner Watt reported that the two main items of discussion were the planned summer events initiated to further educate the public. He said a summer event is scheduled for mid Au'pust at Wayne and Sam Snapp's farm in Marlboro, Virginia. Commissioner Watt said the other item discussed was time lines that people need to meet for future applications. Transportation Committee — 06/23/08 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the KFH Group Contract from the MPO for the transit study for the County was ready to sign. In addition, he said the coordinated mobility plan has been drafted. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject that was not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #05-08 for Bubbleworks, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, for an off -premise sign. This property is located at the intersection of North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522 North) and `o's'estminster-Canterbury Drive (Rt.13t8). The property .s further identified with P.I N. 53-4-2-D in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2008 Page 2276 -3 - Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance specifies that when considering off -premise business signs, additional performance standards should be considered to promote orderly economic development; these performance standards are to ensure that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas, and properties of significant historic value are not negatively impacted. He said these standards shall include: height and size limitations, placement of signs along highway corridors, and illumination of signs to mitigate any negative impacts to adjoining properties and uses. Mr. Cheran stated that the proposed off -premise business sign will be illuminated, it is approximately 15 -feet in height, and has a sign face area of approximately 50 square feet. He said there are two existing business signs on the sign structure advertising Westminster -Canterbury and Bubble Works Car Wash. The proposed off -premise sign will be used solely for Westminster -Canterbury and no other signage will be allowed on this site. Mr. Cheran said the existing sign face size of 50 feet and the existing sign height of 15 feet shall not be increased. He said the proposed sign meets the distance requirements for signage within the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cheran next read a list of proposed conditions, should the Planning Commission find the use to be appropriate. Mr_ John Lewis of Painter -Lewis, P.L. C. was the representative for this conditional use permit for Bubbleworks. Mr. Lewis said this situation has come about as the result of two land owners who are entering into an agreement to sell their property to CVS Pharmacy. He said CVS Pharmacy would combine the four lots and the Bubbleworks buildings would no longer exist. Mr. Lewis said in order for CVS Pharmacy to go there, they want their own sign. He said it was brought to his attention that the Bubbleworks and Westminster - Canterbury sign would eliminate the opportunity for CVS to have a sign on the parcel because once the four parcels are combined, there is only one parcel and the ordinance allows only one business sign per parcel_ Mr_ Lewis explained that changing the status of the Westminster -Canterbury sign to a legally conforming off -premise business sign will allow his client the opportunity to put another business sign on that parcel. Mr. Lewis said this is the first step in trying to get approval of another sign on the single parcel. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Norman Sites, the C.P.A. and representative for two existing businesses in this area, inquired why this action was necessary. Mr_ Sites said the other businesses in this area would like to prevent CVS Pharmacy from locating here, as well as placing a sign here, because they do not want to change the business character of the community. He said they would like to go on record and point out that their sign was here first and Westminster -Canterbury was grandfathered. Mr. Sites predicted that these two existing businesses, as they are currently conducted, will fail because they will not be able to withstand this type of change in business character. the hearing. No other persons wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of No issues were raised by Commission members. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ruckman and seconded by Commissioner Oates, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 405-08 for Bubbleworks, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, for an off - premise sign located at the intersection of North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522N) and Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Rt. 13 18) with the following conditions: Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2008 Page 2277 -4— The sign shall be properly maintained. This illuminated off -premises business sign shall not exceed 15 feet in height and 50 square feet in face area. 3. Only the Westminster -Canterbury sign shall be on this sign structure. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit. (Note: Commissioner Thomas and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Conditional Use Permit #06-08 for Barleyfield Farm Cottage Bed & Breakfast for a Cottage Occupation for a bed and breakfast at 967 Marlboro Road (Rt. 631). This property is identified with PINT #74 -A -13A in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a potential conflict of interest. Zoning and Subdivision Adininistrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that this proposed two- bedroom bed and breakfast will take place on 27 acres of land in a separate structure from the primary dwelling. He said the applicant will be serving meals as a part of the bed and breakfast use; the nearest adjoining structures are more than 150 feet away; and there will be no employees associated with this proposed use, other than those residing on the site. Mr. Cheran stated that based on the limited scale of the proposed use and evaluation of the property, it appears this proposed would not have any significant impacts on the adjoining properties. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Mr. and Mrs. Kent Barley, the owners and applicants, were available to answer questions for the Commission. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing for citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wihnot closed the public continent portion of the hearing. Conunissioner Kriz commented that this was a very good facility and wished the applicants success in their business. Commissioner Kriz thought there was a need for several more B&Bs in this County. Conunissioner Unger made a motion to recontinend approval of the conditional use permit with Obc c`.nditions recommended by the staff This *notion was seconded by Commissioner Watt and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 406-08 for Barleyfield Farm Cottage Bed & Breakfast for a Cottage Occupation for a bed and breakfast at 967 Marlboro Road (Rt. 63 1) with the following conditions: Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2008 Page 2278 -5 - All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Any proposed business sign shall conform to cottage occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four square -feet in size. 3. No more than two bedrooms to be used with the bed and breakfast use. 4. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new conditional use permit. (Note: Commissioner Oates abstained; Commissioners Thomas and Ours were absent from the meeting.) OTHER Staff Overview of Proposed Ordinance Amendments to the Rural Areas District of the County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, and Chapter 144 Subdivision of Land Planning Director, Eric R Lawrence, stated that in two weeks, for the Planning Commission's July 16, 2008 meeting, the staff has one item planned for the Commission's agenda, which is the Rural Areas ordinance amendments. Mr. Lawrence.said these amendments are a culmination of efforts undertaken in the last few months and have been discussed by the DRRS, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. He said the Board of Supervisors made some revisions to those draft ordinances for the Rural Areas in June and has directed the staff to take them through as a public hearing item. Mr. Lawrence proceeded to review the most significant proposed ordinance changes with the Commission and answered questions raised by the Commission. He added that the agenda has already been assembled and adjoining property owner notifications have been mailed. The principal changes were: A decrease in the Rural Areas density. Presently the density is one unit per five acres; the proposed amendment is one unit per ten acres. Increase in the traditional lot size from a five -acre minimum to a ten -acre minimum. A change in the rural preservation tract from a 40% set-aside to a 60% set-aside. The 60% set-aside tract would count towards the overall density for the project; currently, the set-aside tract does not count towards overall density and some deem it as a bonus lot. Mr. Lawrence explained how those persons who have already started the subdivision process will be recognized. He said there are essentially two steps in today's subdivision process for the Rural Areas and the first step is the sketch plan. Mr. Lawrence said sketch plans for projects already submitted to the Countyby July 1, 2008, will be given additional time to complete the process. Commissioner Kriz asked if there would be any changes to the family lot. Mr. Lawrence replied there were no changes to the family lot as proposed; he said the family lot will remain at two acres. Commissioner Kriz inquired how long a family lot must remain within the family before it could be sold. Mr. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2008 Page 2279 Lawrence replied the family lot must be held for five years by the family member. Commissioner Oates stated that presently a landowner can do a family subdivision with seven acres; he said that is being changed to 12 acres, so anyone with less than 12 acres after this ordinance change will not be able to do a family subdivision. Mr. Lawrence said the intent was not to affect family lots; therefore, the minimum ten -acre lot does not apply in the Rural Preservation or the Family Lot subdivisions. He said this caveat needs to be emphasized. He said under the new proposal, a landowner with seven acres, whether it is today or after the amendments are adopted, can still do a five -acre parent tract and a two -acre family lot. Other topics of discussion by Commission members included setbacks; the fact that the July 1, 2008 deadline had already passed before the amendments were approved; and the January 9, 2008 administrative approval date, because of the length of time it takes some reviewing agencies, such as the Health Department and VDOT, to provide final comments. Cominissioner Watt asked if the proposed amendments were open for debate or modification at the July 16 meeting. Commissioner Watt believed a small percentage of landowners in the County, especially farmers, would be greatly affected by the proposed amendments- He said farmers are not the ones who have been developing land and farmers have not caused the problems the county is experiencing, but at the same time, they are being asked, with no compensation, to give up half of their lots for the good of the County to cut down on future growth. Connmissioner Watt said these are three -to -four generation family fanners who have never developed a lot, but suddenly, they are having half of their building lots taken from them. He said if this goes into effect, some compromise needs to be made; he said this was too drastic. Commissioner Kerr's main concern was increasing the lot size from five to ten acres- He said a large portion of the County will be unaffordable for many people to live there. Commissioner Mohn said a rationale or justification for any of the components of the proposed ordinance amendments is critical. JOINT WORK SESSION Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, announced a joint work with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors is scheduled for August 5, 2008, at 12:00 Noon, to review this year's annual Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments (CPPAs). Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2008 Page 2280 -7- STEPHENS CITY APPOINTMENT Chairman Wilmot thanked Commissioner Thomas and Commissioner Unger, who will be representing the Planning Commission on the Stephens City Planning Application Effort dealing with areas recently annexed. She said this appointment will bean on-call basis and Commissioners Thomas and Unger will be sharing the appointment: ADJOERNMENT vote. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. by a unanimous Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2281 Minutes of July 2, 2008 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 July 16, 2008. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel, ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Cbairman/Opequon District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director—Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; Amber Powers, Planner I; Dana Johnson, Zoning Inspector; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the July 16, 2008 meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the meeting minutes of June 4, 2008 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMIT T EE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 7/14/08 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the CPPS discussed two submitted CPPAs (Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments) and made recommendations. He announced a Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission work session on August 5 to further discuss the CPPAs. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2264 Minutes of July 16, 2008 Commissioner Mohn, Chairman of the Community Small Area Study Group of the CPPS, reported that his committee is continuing their work on the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) revisions. He said they met last Friday, July 12, with the Transportation Committee and are continuing to work side-by-side. Commissioner Mohn said his committee will then focus on the land use component, probably through August and September. The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, August 1. Commissioner Kriz reported that James W. Golladay, Jr., the chairman of the Community Facilities Subcommittee, said his committee had met and they are waiting for input from some of the departments regarding their needs, particularly for the Northeast Land Use Plan. Commissioner Kriz added that his group is moving along with the Natural Resources component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan as well as a rewrite to get it into the new format of the Historical Resources Advisory Board's submission. City of Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) — 7/15/08 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported that the WPC discussed a site plan request by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates for the proposed Walgreens pharmacy on Amherst Street. He said concerns were expressed, particularly because this was the original location of the home of Admiral Richard Byrd and three 100 -year old maple trees on the property are considered to be very historic. He said there was considerable discussion in attempt to preserve as many of those trees as possible. The site plan was recommended for approval based on relieving ten percent of the required parking spaces and some other things that will, hopefully, save two trees. The second item of business was the approval of a request by the George Washington Hotel for a conditional use permit for nightclub use. The nightclub will only be open until 10:00 p.m. at night and will not include any of the out-of-doors parts of the George Washington Hotel. In addition, Commissioners Ours reported that the WPC recommended approval of an amendment to the sign ordinance as it pertains to Medical Center Districts; he said this request came from Valley Health. Commissioner Ours said Valley Health was requesting the sign amendments to accommodate changes to their logo and colors. Sanitation Authority (SA) — 07/15/08 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of June was 4.4 inches, which is about an inch above average; quarries are doing well and are up from this same time last year; plants are operating normally, with only minor excess material from HUD and the SA is working with HUD to take care of the situation. Commissioner Unger reported that the Parkins Mill construction is continuing and is anticipated to be completed in 2009. He added that the Stevens force main was completed and the facility on Tasker Road will be named after the former engineer/director, H. Wellington Jones for his many years of work for the SA. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject that was not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1165 Minutes of July 16, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment— Chapter 165, Zoning, Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article II, Definitions and Article V, Design Standards. The amendment includes: changes to decrease the permitted lot density from one unit per five acres generally to one unit per ten acres in all of the RA District; change the general minimum lot size in all of the RA District, except for family division lots and rural preservation lots, from five acres to ten acres; as well as revisions to the family division and rural preservation subdivision requirements. The changes are as follows: Section 165-49 — Purpose and Intent — Revision to change the lot density generally in all of the RA District from one unit per five acres to one unit per ten acres. Section 165-52A — Permitted Residential Density, Exception — Revision to change the lot density generally in all of the RA District from one unit per five acres to one unit per ten acres and to clarify that the density is determined by the size of the parent tract as of December 11, 1991 (the date of the previous amendment to the section). Section 165-52B — Permitted Residential Density, Exception — Revision to change the exception to permitted density generally in all of the RA District, currently allowed for lots containing between seven and ten acres, to allow the exception for lots containing between seven and twenty acres; revision to clarify that eligibility for the exception is determined by the size of the parent tract as of December 11, 1991 (the date of the previous amendment to the section); revision to change the lot density generally in all of the RA District from one unit per five acres to one unit per ten acres; and revision to provide that rural preservation lots count against the permitted density of a rural preservation subdivision. • Section 165-54A — Permitted lot sizes — Traditional five acre lots - Revisions to change the general minimum lot size in all of the RA District, except for family division lots and rural preservation lots, from five acres to ten acres. • Section 165-54B — Permitted lot sizes — Family division lots — Revision to clarify that eligibility for the exception is determined by the size of the parent tract as of December 11, 1991 (the date of the previous amendment to the section). • Section 165-54C — Permitted lot sizes — Agricultural lots — Revision to eliminate the provision for five acre agricultural lots as a permitted lot type in the RA District. • Section 165-54D — Permitted lot sizes — Rural preservation lots — Revisions to change from 40% to 60% the minimum percentage of the parent tract that must be preserved as a rural preservation lot. • Section 165-55A — Setback requirements — Traditional five -acre lots — Revisions to change traditional five acre lot to ten acre lot. • Section 165-55D— Setback requirements —Accessory uses — Revisions to change traditional five acre lots to ten acre lots. • Section 165-56B — Maximum depth — Revision to make rural preservation tracts exempt from the requirement that the maximum depth of any lot shall not exceed four times the width ofthe lot at its front setback line. • Section 144-2 — Definitions and word usage — Revisions to the definition of major rural subdivision and minor rural subdivision to change traditional five acre lots to ten acre lots and to remove references to five acre agricultural lots. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2266 Minutes of July 16, 2008 Section 144-31B — Major rural subdivisions - Revisions to remove reference to five acre agricultural lots. Section 144-31C — Minor rural subdivisions - Revisions to change traditional five acre lots to ten acre lots and to remove references to five acre agricultural lots. Action — Recommended Denial Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, provided a description of the major changes to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Lawrence said the three major points encompassed by this proposal include an overall decrease in the density in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District from a one unit per five -acre density to a one unit per ten -acre density; an increase in the minimum traditional lot size from a five -acre lot to a ten -acre lot minimum; and an increase in size of the preservation tract for rural preservation lot subdivisions from 40% to 60%. He said the proposal will count the preservation tract towards density; currently, the preservation tract does not count towards density. Mr. Lawrence explained that the proposal continues to enable rural preservation lots (cluster development) on lots as small as two acres. In addition, he said the proposal does not impact existing lots of record or existing family lot provisions. Mr. Lawrence stated that this proposal compliments Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan's efforts to direct growth towards the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). He explained that UDAs are planned growth areas within the County which are positioned to most effectively and efficiently provide the necessary public services; for example, the public roads, bicycle paths, sidewalks, schools, parks, and fire and rescue services. He noted that development in the rural areas has intensified over the past decade, along with an increase in growth rate over the past five -to -six years. Mr. Lawrence said that growth in the rural areas impacts the agricultural community, it impacts the view shed and rural landscape, and it impacts the demand for community services. Mr. Lawrence stated that earlier this year, the staff was directed by the Board of Supervisors to draft an ordinance amendment that dealt with the rural preservation ordinance, specifically to decrease the overall density in the rural areas, as well as establish an increased minimum lot size. The Board further directed the staff to schedule a public hearing, to solicit public comments, to seek a recommendation from the Planning Commission, and present all of the information at the Board of Supervisors' meeting on August 13, 2008. In addition, two dates have been established by the Board for those persons who have already been through the start of their subdivision process, via a sketch plan and recordation, and those projects will be recognized under the existing ordinance provisions. Mr. Lawrence said the proposed amendment is an effort to preserve the rural character and open space of the community; it works towards improving the rural view shed, and it furthers the belief that preserving the rural character and view shed enhances the community's attractiveness and value. He said it discourages residential growth in rural areas and redirects residential growth from the rural areas to the UDA. He commented that the proposal is not an effort to stop growth, but growth is redirected and managed. He pointed out that the proposal is also an effort to reduce the future traffic impacts on existing rural roads. Mr. Lawrence proceeded to show a synopsis comparing surrounding communities' rural area densities with the proposal for Frederick County. Commissioner Oates voiced his concern about the increase in minimum lot size from five acres to ten acres; he said it seemed like a waste of land. He said the change to a one -to -ten density will not allow a subdivision unless a property owner has at least ten acres. Under the existing ordinance, he pointed out, a rural preservation subdivision can be accomplished with a minimum of 20 acres, and that rule is not being changed with this proposal. Commissioner Oates said that if a property owner has 20 acres or more, he could do a rural preservation subdivision, create a two -acre lot, and keep 18 acres. Commissioner Oates said Frederick County Planning Commission rage zzo i Minutes of July 16, 2008 he would advise a client not to do the ten -acre subdivision, but if they qualify, he would recommend a rural preservation subdivision and only cut off a two -acre lot, not ten acres. Commissioner Unger asked staff for the Board of Supervisors' reason for pursuing the ten -acre lot size, rather than five acres. Commissioner Unger pointed out that preservation of the rural areas was studied in depth about three years ago and was placed on hold. He said it hasn't been discussed for a long time, until now. He was concerned about rushing this ordinance through a public hearing process so quickly without sufficient discussion or analysis. He said he didn't remember discussing the ten -acre lot size three years ago. In addition, he raised the issue of the July 1, 2008 cut-off date when the public hearing for this amendment is this evening, July 16, 2008. Commissioner Unger's fear was that people may have already spent a good deal of money starting this process and may not even get their subdivision through. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing and called names from a list of citizens who had signed up to speak. Mr. Mark Grim, Opequon District, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Grim stated that this proposed change would devalue the land owned by farmers. He said farmers are not seeking to subdivide their land, but do rely on selling a five -acre portion during poor economic times to help pay bills and continue farming. He didn't think a farmer would be able to get twice the value for a ten -acre lot. He was also concerned about going through a whole subdivision process, just to sell off five acres. Ms. Janet Chapman, Red Bud District, spoke in opposition to the ordinance amendment. Ms. Chapman did not feel the Board of Supervisors had the right to arbitrarily cause undue hardship on rural area landowners by devaluing their land; she said land is the rural area property owners' investment for their future. Ms. Chapman said the rural area landowners work hard for what they have and are present this evening to protect their investments. Ms. Chapman suggested the County work towards the goal for people to be able to afford to both live and work in Frederick County. She believed that if ten acres became the minimum lot size, the number of families that could afford to both work and live here will be reduced and local commercial and business development would also suffer. Ms. Chapman continued, stating that a portion of this amendment was piggy -backed with a proposal to change the rural area preservation lot size from 40% to 60%. She believed this proposal needed to be sent to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) for further review and discussion. Ms. Chapman agreed there needed to be other alternatives for RA development. She mentioned the Conservation Easement Authority for voluntary placement of land for protection and benefits; she suggested the provision of greater incentives for ten -acre subdivisions. She also suggested impact fees for rural area development to assist with costs of infrastructure improvements. Ms. Chapman also thought PDRs were a fair alternative for landowners. Mr. Michael Perry, President of the Top of Virginia Building Association (TOVBA), representing over 235 business members, said the TOVBA is not in favor of changing the rural preservation homestead lot from 40% to 60%. Mr. Perry said the TOVBA supports the DRRS's recommendation of not changing a portion of the ordinance without studying the ordinance in its entirety. In addition, a sound policy needs to be developed to support and justify any change in the ordinance. Mr. Perry said the TOVBA supports the revival of the Rural Areas Land Plan Study commissioned over three years ago which encourages the clustering of lots and community sewer systems. The TOVBA also does not support the by -right density change from five to ten acres. He said if part of the ordinance is to be changed, it must be supported by sound policy that is fair and equitable and, at a minimum, does not diminish the stakeholders existing equity. Mr. Perry believed that if the goal is to protect the rural integrity of the County, this proposal was not the best land - planning approach. Additionally, he said the reduction in density takes affordability out ofthe equation for the majority of potential home buyers and folks just wanting to live in a rural setting. He commented that members of the local building industry are the major builders and developers of the rural areas, not the nationals. He said the economic hardship would not only be felt by the landowners, but by the local building Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2268 Minutes of July 16, 2008 industry and economy. Mr. Bruce Carpenter, Gainesboro District, said he owned 30 acres in the Gainesboro District. Mr. Carpenter said he constructed a home there in 2000, strategically placed so that if he had to, he could subdivide four five -acre lots and maintain his home. Mr. Carpenter said if this ordinance is passed, and because he did not have the forethought to plot them before July 1, he would lose the ability to subdivide the five -acre lots. He thought this proposal could be considered discriminatory against landowners who don't live in the Urban Development Areas of Frederick County. Mr. Carpenter asked the Commission to reject the proposal or at least send it back for further review and study. Mr. Shotsie Bayliss, Gainesboro District, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments. Mr. Bayliss said that with the decrease in land value, the impact will fall directly on the landowner. He questioned the absence in the staff's presentation of figures showing economic impacts and/or decrease in land values. Mr. Bayliss said he would like to see this proposal sent back to committee. Ms. Lisa Frank, Opequon District, was opposed to the proposed amendments. Ms. Frank stated that home and property is a most significant investment and many families purchased homes and land in the rural areas with the intention of living off their land. She said living off one's land is expensive when all the equipment, livestock, and crop purchases are considered. Ms. Frank said that in times of drought or economic stress, landowners often have to borrow against the equity of their farms to continue operations. She believed the proposed amendment would cause many small farming operations to fail. She commented on a statement made by the staff that there were not as many five -acre subdivisions as rural preservation subdivisions in the past. She questioned whether this could be because the actual impact for the change is on all of the small farmers, and the few who need to use the equity for their farms. She said the impact to services from these five -acre subdivisions is minimal, compared to the development within the UDA. Ms. Frank encouraged the Commission to do further research and investigate the significant impact to the farming community and citizens, and recommend denial of the ordinance change. Mr. Gary McDonald said he operates in multiple districts within Frederick County and he was opposed to the ordinance amendment. Mr. McDonald said the biggest problem he sees is the imbalance between the RA (Rural Areas) and the UDA (Urban Development Areas). He suggested having both areas under the five -acre rule and if a developer in the UDA wants five houses per acre, they should purchase that right from the property owners. He said this would put all the land in preservation; he said the landowner could negotiate his own terms about what he would accept for his rights, since he owns the property. Mr. McDonald reasoned that the property owner could sell one tract or ten tracts, for retirement or health reasons, because he owns the property, not the Frederick County Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors. Mr. McDonald said his farm is 119 years old, well over a century, and the seventh generation male is currently on the farm. He said the family wants him to stay there and not be removed by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. Ms. Kim Messick, Back Creek District, said she was a member of a fourth generation farm family. Ms. Messick said it was sad to learn that the ground her grandfather walked over in his bare feet behind a horse and plow could be devalued by a mere vote on the proposed amendment. Ms. Messick said it seemed almost by design the farmer is being pushed out of Frederick County. Ms. Messick commented that with the state of the world today, she believed the local farmers will soon be playing an important role in the community. Mr. Randal Anderson, Gainesboro District, said he recently purchased a house with ten acres. He said the ten acres was attractive to him because of the potential to divide and sell it, if needed. Mr. Anderson said he understood the need of County officials to manage public lands and common utilities and business infrastructure. On the other hand, he did not understand how elected representatives, who are Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2269 Minutes of July 16, 2008 supposed to represent his and other landowners' interest, could dictate what he does with his land. He suggested that the speed and growth of Frederick County be determined by the citizens who own the land in Frederick County. Mr. Anderson said there was a reason why our founding fathers' first draft of our national motto was, "life, liberty, and land;" they understood that whoever controls the land determines the quality of life and the reality of its liberty. Mr. Anderson asked the Commission to vote no on this amendment. Ms. Anna McDonald, President of the Blue Ridge Association of Realtors, said she was present this evening to represent over 650 realtor members who were opposed to this change. Ms. McDonald encouraged the Commission to rethink changing lot requirements and the rural preservation requirement from 40% to 60%. She said this change will impact a large number of people in this community: specifically, the farmers who would want to sell their parcels to possibly retire or supplement their farms today; the children, who can barely afford to live here now; first time home buyers; and local builders. Ms. McDonald stated that a balance is needed between preserving land and protecting property values. She asked the Commission to conduct further research, consider other alternatives, and to think about articles that have been written in the Winchester Star referring to purchasing development rights (PDRs). Mr. Robert (Bob) Carpenter, owner of 156 acres in the Gainesboro District and Chairman of the Committee to Preserve Rural Life in Frederick County, provided written comments to the Commission. Mr. Carpenter stated that this evening's public hearing seemed to be the result of directions from the Board of Supervisors to ram through a major change to the rural areas ordinance without opportunity for deliberation or debate. Mr. Carpenter said the proposal before the Commission amounts to a down zoning of all ofthe land in Frederick County zoned RA (Rural Areas). He said if the primary objective is to divert growth to the UDA, the impact of this proposed ordinance change will dispossess rural landowners of about $500,000,000 in land value without making a significant change in the County's housing patterns. He commented that given the 20,000 rural lots potentially available today, cutting that number in half will not change residential patterns for decades. Furthermore, literally thousands of lots have already been platted and not developed and will mean that no real savings will accrue to the County in most of its citizens' life times. Mr. Carpenter believed this proposal was a gross injustice to the people who cost Frederick County the least amount in services. Even more disturbing to him as a citizen, is that he heard in recent days that at least one Supervisor did not care what happened at this evening's public hearing, the Board planned to vote on this matter in August. He said as late as today, he heard that another Supervisor is offering a plan to vote on the ten acres, but consider allowing the five acres to stand if property owners would rezone. It was Mr. Carpenter's observation that extreme pressure was being applied to the Planning Commission to make an affirmative vote and he questioned the Board of Supervisors' motives. He said three years ago, he served on an ad-hoc committee which presented a compilation of ideas received from a cross section of stake holders to address concerns of rural property owners, agriculturalists, and preservationists. He said the committee's recommendation preserved flexible options in order to minimize impacts for all; it provided standards reflecting the various circumstances and interests of individual land owners. Subsequently, a presentation was provided that prescribed alternative wastewater treatment systems that would allow clustering of homes on less than two acres. He said the committee strongly urges the Commission to study this matter further; and ifthis is not possible, to vote no this evening. Mr. John Gavit, Gainesboro District, came forward to speak on behalf of Preserve Frederick, of which he was a Board member. Mr. Gavit said Preserve Frederick's mission is to promote compatible development that strengthens the community, protects the natural and historic resources, and preserves rural heritage. He said Preserve Frederick supports the protection of rural lands within Frederick County which are critical to its agricultural, wildlife, forestry, or water resources. He said increasing lot density in rural areas supports the concept of growth in UDAs and decreases the need for services, police, fire and rescue services, schools, and water, etc., in outlying areas. Furthermore, it maintains the spirit of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan by continuing to preserve large open parcels of land, tree cover, scenic views, sensitive environmental areas, and prime agriculture and locally significant soils. Mr. Gavit said Preserve Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2270 Minutes of July 16, 2008 Frederick supports this, as well as other initiatives that will help maintain the rural character of Frederick County in the short run. He said the fact remains, however, that all rural lands are at risk to further development over time through the rezoning process. He noted as pressure from more homes and commercial development continues, Frederick County is poised to lose the very essence of what has made this County such a wonderful place to live. He said the County is also at risk for losing our local base for agriculture and other resources that will become increasingly important as transportation costs continue to rise. He said the members of Preserve Frederick are advocates for permanent protection of agriculture, wildlife, forestry, and waterways through conservation easements, purchase of development rights (PDRs), or other legislative means. He said Frederick County government must make a commitment, both financial and philosophical, to take a more active role in that regard. Mr. Gavit said he wanted to end on a personal note and explained why he thought the land should be returned in the same and better condition for future generations and why he had put his properties into conservation easements. Mr. John Goode, Jr., noted his family farm in the Gainesboro District, established in 1952. Mr. Goode and his family were 100% opposed to the proposed ordinance changes. He said the unintended consequences of any action are often not discussed until they have manifested themselves in real-world problems that are often impossible to reverse and he wanted to address three of those unintended consequences this evening. Mr. Goode said first, it will be harder to garner open space easements to protect property in perpetuity from development. He said part of the dynamic of open space easements for many potential donors is the value of the tax deduction and the tax credits. He said when the value of property is decimated with the proposal this evening, the value of those deductions and credits will go down. Mr. Goode said the second unintended consequence is that the adoption of this change will provide rocket fuel to propel the subdivision of large parts of the remaining rural areas of the County. He explained that if a person loses 50% of his life's savings in less than 60 days, they will ponder how they can protect the remaining 50%. He said if the holdings are land, the only solution is to immediately sell or subdivide the remaining portion. Mr. Goode said the third unintended consequence is that future rural subdivisions will not be as environmentally or view shed friendly as they should, because Frederick County's Subdivision Ordinance does not allow it. He said that while the staff's presentation was positively expressed, particularly on something that does not allow quality rural development, a better job can be accomplished with smaller lot sizes and community septic systems. He was not in favor of a rezoning compromise by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. John Light, Stonewall District, a former Planning Commissioner, said he was very involved with this issue for two years and he had two points he wanted to make. Mr. Light strongly believed the single, ten -acre lot size was a waste of land; he recommended that the Commission not endorse it and he suggested the Commission send a resolution forward to amend the proposed ordinance to read, "two acres or more." He advised the Commission to let the market dictate the size so land was not wasted. He gave an example of a chopped up, five -acre subdivision with straight rectangular lots in Frederick County; he said if this is what is being promoted, he implored the Commission to start over and do something that promotes quality. Mr. Light commented that being on both sides of the table is a difficult position; his second point focused on how individual Board members would vote and he speculated about what the Board would do next, if this proposed ordinance amendment was not approved. He speculated that if the proposed amendment was not approved, the next logical step for the Board would be rezoning in the rural areas. Mr. Light strongly recommended against rezoning in the rural areas. He advised the Planning Commission to state in the Comprehensive Policy Plan that development in the rural areas should be a by -right style of development and not a zoning style of development. He said everyone present this evening should be asking these crucial questions. Mr. John Betchum said he was opposed to the proposed ordinance change for the same reasons cited by Mr. John Goode. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 22 /1 Minutes of July 16, 2008 Ms. Charlotte Messick said her family has a fourth generation farm on 1,200 acres in the Back Creek District. Ms. Messick said she would love to see development slowed down in Frederick County; however, she totally disagreed with the method proposed for many reasons. She said the one reason that is the most important to her is the environment. Ms. Messick showed photographs of the viewshed within one mile of her family farm. She showed a ten -acre lot located in the middle of a hayfield; the ten -acre lot was filled with thistle and weeds and she said it was a problem. She showed a photograph of the farmer's alfalfa field adjacent to the weedy lot; she said there was added cost and time to the farmer for the chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides necessary to fight the neighbor's weedy field problem. Ms. Messick next showed photographs of a new subdivision on a farm with 2'h acre lots. She said there are old apple trees that maintain the beauty of the rest of the farm; however, an environmental problem still remains. She said the average homeowner has no idea about how to take care of a big open field, nor does he have the special equipment needed or the knowledge about chemical and fertilizer use regulated by the EPA. Mr. Walter Aikens said that he and his partners own 258 acres in the Gainesboro District. Mr. Aikens said that he and his partners have no intention of selling; however, they would like to retain the right to sell in the future, if it was necessary. He said the ten -acre lot requirement devalues the land by at least 40%. The housing economy today is about as bad as it has been in the last five to ten years and this proposed change will make things worse. Mr. Aikens said that farmers count on their land as their biggest asset; they don't have a lot of money in the bank. Mr. Aikens believed this issue needed to go back to a committee for further study and to develop something that will not hurt the farmers and will not hurt the landowners. Mr. Les Jones, Stonewall District, said he has owned property in Frederick County for the last 20 years and currently has a 23 to 24 -acre tract of land in Woodsmill. Mr. Jones said before he purchased this property, he conducted research on the property restrictions, the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and Zoning Ordinances, and ascertained that five -acre lot subdivisions were permitted. He said through his purchase, he committed to follow the County's rules and regulations and he assumed he would have an implied promise from Frederick County that they would also abide by the same rules. Mr. Jones said the financial damage to him from this proposed ordinance change would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and he speculated that for some people, it would be in the millions of dollars. Mr. Jones mentioned that Route 37 will not be funded by the State; he speculated whether this zoning amendment might be a prelude to the Board of Supervisors down zoning property along the Route 37 right-of-way so they could purchase property at a cheaper price. Mr. Dan Redman, Opequon District, said he was opposed to the changes. Mr. Redman said when he purchased his property, it was to build a house and for a financial investment. Mr. Redman said he worked for a corporation that down -sized, but relied on his land investment to back him up if times got hard. Mr. Redman was dismayed how corporations and government change the rules without any regard for the impact on the people affected. He said the over abundance of homes in Frederick County has caused everyone's home and land values to decrease. He said a developer can purchase a ten -acre lot in the UDA and place about 30 homes on it; however, he can only place one more home on his 12 acres. Mr. William (Bill) Butterfield, Opequon District, said he owns 60 acres in Frederick County and he agreed with many of the comments made by the previous citizens who spoke. Mr. Butterfield was concerned about the speed in which this ordinance change was taking place. Mr. Butterfield implored the Commission to take time to study this change because it was so critical to people's future, their income, and their families; he said this change will impact many people in Frederick County. He questioned why the proposals raised three years ago by previous committees cannot be reconsidered. Mr. Butterfield thought there r --r were some good ideas raised at the time and they need to be discussed. He said additional time was needed for everyone to study this issue. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2272 Minutes of July 16, 2008 Mr. Al Shirley said he purchased a farm for $150,000 a few years back; a year later, it was assessed at $450,000 and he has had to pay high taxes ever since. Mr. Shirley said the only reason he bought the farm was to take care of his family. He said he wouldn't be able to give his children ten acres apiece; he said three acres was sufficient. Mr. John Marker, Back Creek District, said his family has owned land in Frederick County and has been farming here for over 100 years. He said he has farmed for most of the 61 years he has lived in Frederick County. He was also a Planning Commissioner for 12 years. Mr. Marker said he was aware of the problems with the impact of development on the rural areas. Mr. Marker said that 30 years ago, he was in favor of raising lot sizes in rural areas to five acres (previously, it was one to three acres). He said he thought it would really slow down development in the rural areas. Twenty years ago, however, the County found out this didn't work; it just ate up land faster. He said the County formed a Rural Issues Committee to study this problem. After considerable discussion, it was decided that within the rural areas, it was much better to cluster development on smaller lots instead of spreading it out on five acres. Mr. Marker said the reason there has been more rural subdivisions in the last five -to -six years with the 40% rural preservation lot, is because of the bonus lot. Before that, most of the rural divisions were five acres. He said he realized that when a property owner decides to develop his property, there are affects on the County's infrastructure. This is why the property owner needs to pay some type of fee for the impacts the development will have on the system. However, the proposal before the Commission this evening is not going to solve this problem. He said all it's going to do is eat up the rural areas faster. Mr. Marker believed this proposal shows that the Supervisors are very serious about this issue and something is going to be done --that's great! But, he said let there be some time for input from the landowners and reach a proposal that will be supported by the majority of the people and the Board. Mr. Marker did not see the need for this to be approved in the next three -to -four weeks; he said land and lot sales are moving at a very slow pace. He preferred that everyone take a little time; establish a deadline on finishing and do this right. Mr. Marker requested that the Planning Commission recommend denial of this proposed ordinance amendment. Mr. Don DeHaven, Gainesboro District, questioned the impact this proposed ordinance amendment would have on young people in Frederick County. Mr. DeHaven said it was hard enough for young people just starting out to get the money together to build or buy a house without having to buy five acres of land with it. He thought it would force young people to move outside of Frederick County, where it was more affordable and the ten acre -lots in Frederick County will be purchased by outsiders. Mr. DeHaven was against the proposed amendment and he urged the Commission to further consider this amendment before voting. Mr. Marcus Adams, Gainesboro District, spoke about the preservation ofthe rural character of Frederick County. His definition of rural character was countryside full of small and large farms and maybe some communities; he wanted to see it preserved the way it has been for the last 50-100 years, to some degree. Mr. Adams believed the ten -acre lot is a waste of the County's most valuable natural resource --land. Mr. Adams said it was irresponsible, unethical, and unconscionable for a governing body to mandate a change that would only further degrade the rural character of the County. He asked the Commission to focus on the individuals in the audience this evening; he said these people are the essence of rural life in Frederick County. He said many are multi -generation rural farm families, some going back as far as nine generations; he said these people are what make up the rural character. It's not rules and regulations made by folks sitting behind a desk who clearly don't understand it; it's not politicians who may vote in favor of it in hopes of more votes from the UDA; it's not over grown poorly -managed, ten -acre lots. Mr. Adams stated these people who have the desire and the know-how make up rural Frederick County and these people are the only ones that can truly preserve it. He said if the Board of Supervisors wants to truly preserve the rural character of Frederick County, to focus on preserving the citizens that make it rural. He believed that making changes that will cause further hardship on an already difficult life style is just another step in the direction of eliminating the rural character which most citizens say they want protected. Mr. Adams urged the Commission to table this for further Frederick County Planning Commission rage zl- i j Minutes of July 16, 2008 discussion until a better alternative is found. Mr. Steve Parrish, Opequon District, said one of the issues the County faces is the maintenance cost of infrastructure, such as roads, and going from five acres to ten acres will create sprawl and the need for additional roads. Mr. Parrish said he purchased two lots five years ago and just recently purchased another 14.23 acres behind his house. He said under the proposed amendment, he would only be allowed to subdivide one lot off the 14.23 acreage, resulting in only two of his three children receiving a lot. Mr. Parrish urged the Commission to vote no, or at least remove the July 1, 2008 deadline, so that he could apply to subdivide his land under the previous regulations. Mr. David Frank, with the Top of Virginia Building Association (TOVBA), said the TOVBA's President, Mike Perry, spoke clearly about the position of this organization. However, Mr. Frank said he wanted to add one additional point. He said typically, when an issue of this magnitude comes before a community, there is a period of gathering stake holders, land planners, and building consensus, studying rational ideas and alternatives. Mr. Frank said since this has not occurred, he believed it would be difficult for the Planning Commission to respond to the Board of Supervisors with a reasonable affirmation or denial. Mr. Frank urged the Commission to table this matter and bring in the stake holders, to discuss the issue further, and to develop a realistic plan or at the very least, develop rational reasons why the Commission is either in favor or opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment. Mr. Robert Engle, Back Creek District, stated that he and his wife own 66 acres on Brill Road in Star Tannery. Mr. Engle said they purchased this land and built their home here because they wanted to live in a rural, agricultural and forest area; he said they wanted to enjoy the environment of Star Tannery. Mr. Engle said in the three years they've lived in Star Tannery, they have already seen a significant deterioration in the quality of life as development has taken place around them. He was very concerned if the County stayed with the five -acre tract, Star Tannery will become just another big subdivision of houses lined up along every road in the County; he said it will have a very negative impact on everyone in the future. Mr. Engle said he would like to see the proposed amendment passed by reducing the number in half. He knew there were economic concerns, but he believed that over time, if the supply of land is available, at some point in time, the demand will bring the economics back into align with where they should be to make it appropriate for everyone. He urged the Commission to support keeping the rural environments rural and not having them look like subdivisions. Mr. Bobby Gibson, Opequon District, said he and his wife purchased 22 acres in the Opequon District, behind Sherando Park, in 1983-84. Mr. Gibson said he protected two five -acre areas for a retirement nest egg. He said he will be turning 65 years old and with the cost of medication and the expense of keeping his property maintained, he was going to need the nest egg. Under the proposed amendment, he would not be able to subdivide the two five -acre parcels. Mr. Gibson said they don't have a 401 K or an IRA; what they have is their land. Mr. Dwight Dunton, III, Back Creek District property owner, spoke about family preservation of land for future generations. Mr. Dunton said his grandfather, a hard-working man, purchased land 50 years ago on Middle Road. He said before his grandfather passed away, his grandfather told his father to preserve the land for his grandchildren, which included himself and his brother. He said it was made clear the land was to provide for future generations of the family—true family preservation to maintain the viability of long- term, multi -generational families. Mr. Dunton said they do not intend to develop their land, but they understand the land is there for future generations of his family. Mr. Dunton believed if this proposed ordinance was passed, it would cost his family about one million dollars. He suggested that the County purchase the land they want to preserve. Mr. Dunton urged the Commission to deny the proposed amendment. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2274 Minutes of July 16, 2008 Mr. Benjamin (Ben) Conner, Back Creek District, came forward and spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment on behalf of his wife and himself. Mr. Conner believed there was a rush to judgment on this matter. He questioned the short time line and said he had not had enough time to study the proposal. He said he has two contiguous parcels consisting of 8%2 acres with a house and 16.75 acres. He said under the proposed amendment, the money they thought they might have with selling the property will certainly be reduced. Mr. Conner said they have more of their money invested in their land than they do in other investments such as IRAs, etc. Mr. Conner liked the idea previously raised which was for the County to pay the property owner for the preservation rights. Mr. Conner urged the Commission not to send the proposal to the Board of Supervisors without further study. Mr. Robert Funkhouser, property owner in Gainesboro District, said that property became very expensive in the last few years and he and a friend could not afford to purchase a five -acre lot. Mr. Funkhouser said they went in together and were able to purchase a larger parcel with the intent under the current regulations of subdividing the property, selling some of it, and have their own parcel. Mr. Funkhouser said they came to Frederick County from Clarke County because of Clarke County's restrictions and the cost of land. He believed that changing the minimum lot size would create the same situation in Frederick County and people are not going to be able to afford the large lots, the large lots are difficult for some people to maintain; however, people have a desire to live outside of the city limits or in small developments. Mr. Funkhouser said they were in the process of working with the County on subdividing their property when he received his notification in the mail. He said he received the letter on July 1 or 2, dated June 30. He said when he went to the County offices, they told him he had already missed the deadline, and he would be under the new regulations. Mr. Funkhouser said the new regulations are not even in effect, and yet, he is being told he cannot continue with his subdividing. He said he didn't understand why the letter went out so late; he didn't think it was fair to the property owners. Mr. Mike Brill, Gainesboro District, said the previous speaker, Mr. Funkhouser, spoke about the issues he was going to raise. Mr. Brill said there are many people who have money invested in subdividing property and because they haven't been downtown to start the paperwork process with the County office, they are being told they can't subdivide. Mr. Brill said his letter was dated June 30, 2008; he said he has already built roads and obtained perk sites. He said he planned to use the money he received from the sale of his property to expand his business; he said if this proposed ordinance amendment is approved, it will decrease the money he would have received for his land in half. Mr. Brill believed the July 1 cut-off date completely by- passed how the Commission would vote and that deadline needed to be abolished. He said the property owners should be allowed to go to the County offices and start their paperwork. He said once this becomes a law, then the officials can say it's ten acres; however, until it's voted on and passed, the property owners should not be denied the. ability to subdivide under the existing regulations. Mr. Scott Gregory, Back Creek District, said his family owns a farm on Middle Road consisting of slightly more than 100 acres; he said they grow apples and other crops to pay the taxes. He said the land has been in his family for 98 years. He said the proposal being considered would essentially be like cutting farmers' 401 K in half. Mr. Gregory said that his view shed has already been ruined with an elementary school on Middle Road and no one had asked for his opinion beforehand. He was not pleased with the idea of changing the rules; he said small farmers have been struggling to keep their properties rural. He did not think the proposal was fair. Mr. Ryland Carper, Stonewall District, stated that he owned land in the Gainesboro District, and although he had no intentions of subdividing the property at this time, there may come a time when he or his heirs may choose to subdivide. Mr. Carper said this proposal would curtail some of the investment he has; he said it was just like any other commodity owned that a person may wish to sell at some point in time. He said doubling the lot size from five to ten acres certainly reduces the opportunity for making some profit on his land. Mr. Carper asked the Commission if they were willing to go on record as being in favor of reducing the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2275 Minutes of July 16, 2008 real estate taxes on rural area property. He said he observed this same issue take place in Loudoun County and it created considerable confusion. Mr. Carper attempted to explain how the ten acres was too small to farm profitably and too big to maintain for the typical homeowner. Mr. Paul Anderson, Back Creek District, said that he and his wife both own and farm approximately 100 acres which has been in his family for about 135 years; he said another family member owns an additional 150 acres of land. Mr. Anderson said he first wanted to speak on behalf of the Frederick County Farm Bureau. He said the Farm Bureau supports larger open space, which can be done with five -acre lots by reducing the lot size, using alternative septic systems approved by the Health Department, or by allowing easements on the parent tract for the septic systems. He said the five -acre lot could continue, along with the 60% open space. Mr. Anderson said farmers need the flexibility of using land as a financial tool because most farmers invest their money in land. He said the proposed amendment will only cripple what farmers can do in the future with the land they have, if they have to make a major decision to sell. Mr. Anderson next wanted to speak as a farmer. He said there has been much said about improving the quality of life; he said there is no better quality of life than life on a farm right now. He didn't see where that was relevant unless you wanted to improve the quality of life for people who are driving through and want to keep the view shed. He said that is for the benefit of the entire public. He said if that is the case, let the public pay for it; don't place the burden on the agricultural community. Don't force agriculture to suffer the financial setback because the County wants to keep everything open and make a nice, pretty county for everyone else. He said there was a need to attempt to control development and some alternatives were mentioned; however, this proposed amendment is going through so quickly, that no one has had the opportunity to present the ideas. Mr. Anderson believed this issue was being forced onto the Planning Commission. He said this needs more time for study and input needs to be received from the agriculture community and those who farming full time and have their life and blood invested in that land. Mr. Henry Buettner, Gainesboro District, thought the proposed ordinance amendments were been pushed through too quickly and there has not been enough time to consider them properly. Mr. Buettner recalled back in 2005, when a group studied the rural areas and came up with proposals. He said those proposals were left inactive and now, all of a sudden, everyone is in a "hurry up" position to enact a very important change that will affect the value of land owned by many individuals, farmers, and their families. Mr. Buettner said these folks should not have to be rushed to make quick decisions to beat an arbitrary deadline. Commenting on the posted deadline, Mr. Buettner said it takes from nine months to a year to get a road ordinance approved and plans drawn by an engineering company and approved by VDOT; it can't be done in six months. He remarked that a person should not have to be pushed to preserve the value of their property; they should be able to do it when they want to and when market conditions make sense. Mr. Buettner stated there have only been 29 lots sold this entire year in the City of Winchester and all of Frederick County, including commercial, farm, small building lot, or five -acre lot. Mr. Buettner thought a mistake would be made if this ordinance change was pushed through; he presumed there was some agenda to get this pushed through quickly. Mr. Buettner presented an idea to the Commission for a 50 to 100 -acre subdivision using five -acre parcels; he said ten -acre tracts were not needed. Mr. Tim Sabin, Back Creek District, stated that his family owns eight acres of land in Star Tannery. Mr. Sabin said he was relieved to hear they would still be able to build on this land; however, he was concerned about the possibility, with the current economic conditions, that he may be unable to build in the near future. He questioned whether he could advertise this land as a buildable lot and secondly, he questioned whether he would even be able to sell it. Mr. Sabin suggested the possibility that this change may take away all of his privileges for owning this land. He urged the ( orrzmission notto recommend approval of this change. Ms. Betsy Brumback was the owner of property in both the Gainesboro and Back Creek Districts. Ms. Brumback thought a public hearing of this type should be held in a larger facility where everyone in the audience could see the PowerPoint presentation; she said she couldn't see the visual Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2276 Minutes of July 16, 2008 presentation from the back of the room. Ms. Brumback said this audience is largely composed of Frederick County citizens who own a majority of the rural lands that will be affected by the Commission's decision this evening. She said the people in this audience are not land speculators or land developers; she said these people are simply hard-working farmers, farm market owners, hay croppers, timber men, cattle farmers, orchardists, and some with other employment just to make ends meet. She said most of these people work 12-14 hours per day, seven days a week, and are not looking to get rich quick or they would not be in these professions. Ms. Brumback said she was a state -certified real estate appraiser employed by Valley Farm Credit. Ms. Brumback stated that this proposed amendment change will cripple the farm economy; she said without equity, most farmers can't get their loans; they can't get operating lines of credit and maintain their operations. She remarked there may be some farmers who will be bankrupted because of this. Ms. Brumback questioned why the Commission and the Board would discuss or vote on this matter without involving rural experts; she asked why the Farm Bureau wasn't contacted; she said the Farm Bureau is the voice of agriculture in our area. She asked why a farm lender or a bank was not contacted; she said they are the ones who hold the mortgage secured by the land to be impacted; she asked why environmentalists or green land planners were not contacted. Ms. Brumback predicted the proposed change would cause widespread concern over liquidity, equity, and cause dire financial hardships. Mr. Greg Hewitt, Stonewall District, agreed with the previous speaker and said the people in the back could not see the visual presentation. Mr. Hewitt said he was opposed to the ordinance change for the same reasons given by previous speakers. He asked the Commission to table this matter so the Board could not take action at their August 13 meeting. Mr. Jason Aikens, Gainesboro District, said he did not own a large amount of acreage, but he was fortunate to be able to purchase 3'/z acres in a subdivision this past September. Mr. Aikens believed the mandate for the ten -acre lot size would cause an economic loss in the real estate taxes collected by Frederick County. He said the costs for infrastructure will continue to increase and additional taxes will be needed from the people in the audience. He asked the Commission to recommend denial of the proposed change. Mr. Michael Smith, Vice -President of Valley Proteins, said he represents about four separate districts in the County for land ownership. Mr. Smith wanted to speak with the Commission about alternative fuel. He said his company is heavily involved in alternative fuel and he believed all of the farmers present this evening will have answers to the country's fuel problems and dependence on foreign oil. Mr. Smith was concerned about taking this land out of farming because of the need to acquire additional alternative fuels. He was concerned about putting the farmer out of business, which in turn, takes his company out of business. Mr. Smith believed this matter needed additional discussion and was being pushed through too fast. He asked the Commission to recommend denial of this proposed change. Mr. Steve Zeibarth, Back Creek District, said he purchased a couple hundred acres, which the bank still owns because he is making payments. Mr. Zeibarth said he doesn't plan on subdividing his property; however, he would like to know that he could subdivide, if for unforeseen health issues he needed to sell his land for financial security. Mr. Zeibarth anticipated that after July 1, a property will be worth 40% less. If the property owner implements a conservation easement, he said the landowner is provided with 70-75% of the appraised value; he estimated tax credits at about 72 cents per dollar, which further reduces the property value to less than half of what it was originally valued. Mr. Zeibarth asked the Commission to recommend denial of this ordinance amendment. Mr. Michael Artz, a surveyor and a landowner in the Gainesboro District, wanted to make several points involving the details of the subdivision amendment proposed. Mr. Artz recalled a couple years ago, when there were many people involved with the RA Study and it was never quite finished. He said the UDA Study came out after that. He said at the time, there were some good planning practices put into effect and he would like to see the county continue with the process and pick it back up from where the group left off. Frederick County Planning Commission rage 2z Minutes of July 16, 2008 Mr. Artz remarked that the proposal being considered by the Commission this evening is not the consensus the RA Study group had at the end of their study process. He proceeded to provide the Commission with a few details of what the County might look like in the future, if ten -acre minimum lots are adopted. He said a ten - acre lot must have a minimum of 250 feet of road frontage; a 2,000 -foot depth is needed to get ten acres, plus a four -to -one ratio cannot be exceeded, which means the lot cannot be more than 1,000 feet deep. Mr. Artz said there were problems existing with these changes which have not been clearly thought through. For example, he said back -dating density does not work. He explained that if ten lots, or half the density, were subdivided off 100 -acre property back in 1991, today 50 acres are remaining and if the applicant wants to back -date the density to 1991, he has no more land to divide, even though 50 acres remain—the landowner cannot subdivide further. Mr. Artz said another point was the cost of the rural preservation lot subdivision. He said back in May of 2008, the cost for Planning Department fees quadrupled; he said today, a 20 -acre lot divided into a rural preservation lot subdivision would cost about $7,000 in fees to the Planning Department. He said the cost will not change if the density goes down to two lots instead of four. Mr. Artz said that due to the costs associated with the rural preservation lot subdivision option and the decreased number of lots a landowner will get, he predicted that no one will see 70% rural preservation lot subdivisions in the future; he said there will not be any. He anticipated strictly ten -acre lot subdivisions. Mr. Artz did not think that was the way we wanted our county to look. Mr. Artz stated that there is not a consensus on this matter and the proposals do not truly consider the consequences. Mr. Ross Hewitt, Gainesboro District, remembered when this issue was discussed three years ago, the consensus of the farmers and landowners was that if this change was going to happen, they would take steps to protect their investment. He reasoned that the Board of Supervisors dropped the issue because of the landowners' remarks and their fear of rampant development. Then all of a sudden, three years later, the issue comes back when the market is down. He said something is trying to be pushed through with a deadline that has already passed during bad economic times. Mr. Hewitt expressed his feelings that something didn't feel right and possibly, something under -handed may be taking place. No one else wished to provide any new information and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. Chairman Wilmot next asked the Director of the Department of Planning and Development, Mr. Eric Lawrence, to respond to some of the specific issues that were raised. She said after Mr. Lawrence, the Planning Commission will discuss the matter at hand. Mr. Lawrence responded to some of the issues raised by the citizenry. At this point, Commissioners had questions for Mr. Lawrence and discussed the issue with each other. Commissioner Mohn said it has been indicated that the Commission is expected to provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors this evening. Commissioner Mohn said that by making a recommendation, it seems the Commission would be drifting outside of the normal process. He asked Mr. Lawrence if there was any clarification as to why the Commission is bound to provide a recommendation tonight, rather than potentially holding continued deliberations. Mr. Lawrence replied that the Board directed that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and bring their recommendation back to the Board by August 13, 2008; he said a clear date was given on when it was to go back to the Board. Mr. Roderick Williams, County Attorney, stated that Mr. Lawrence's explanation was correct. He said on June 11, 2008, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to prepare the ordinance so that it could go back before the Board on August 13; the Board followed that up on June 25 with a resolution that said they had directed staff to do so and that resolution directs the Commission to conduct a public hearing. Mr. Williams said the Board has indicated it wants the Commission to have this matter back to the Board by August 13, 2008. Mr. Williams clarified the matter by saying that State Law provides that when a matter is Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2278 Minutes of July 16, 2008 referred to the Commission, the default provision under the State Law is that the Commission has 100 days within which to act; if it doesn't act within 100 days, it is deemed to be a recommendation for approval by the Commission. However, the law goes on to say that if the Board directs some other period, that period applies. Furthermore, Mr. Williams said if the Commission does not act in sufficient time to provide a recommendation to the Board by August 13, 2008, under state law it is deemed an automatic recommendation of approval by the Commission. Chairman Wilmot called a five-minute break at 9:45 p.m. Chairman Wilmot reopened the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Commissioner Kriz said the citizen tally was 41 opposed and 1 or 2 in favor; he told the audience they found out about the proposed ordinance change at the same time as the Planning Commission. Therefore, the Commission did not have adequate time to study this. Commissioner Kriz said he had hoped there would have been enough time to reorganize the old RA Study committee. He was totally opposed to the ordinance change as presented, especially the ten -acre minimum lot; he thought the five -acre minimum lot was too large. Commissioner Kriz suggested clustering and reducing the lot size as small as possible, perhaps 3/4 to one acre in size; there is sufficient technology available for septic systems to handle this. Commissioner Kriz was in favor of the 60% set aside with the smaller lot size. Commissioner Kerr agreed with many of the points made by Commissioner Kriz, although he was still undecided. Commissioner Kerr said his biggest issue is the speed at which this has been pushed through. He said this change could affect people's livelihoods, some of which run generations deep. He did not think a decision of this magnitude could be made on something that's been studied for only two months. Commissioner Kerr said he would like to see a study conducted, similar to the UDA Study, and receive citizen input. He thought the matter should be tabled for at least 12 months. Commissioner Kerr was not in favor of the proposed amendment as presented. Commissioner Mohn agreed with the previous two Commissioners. Commissioner Mohn said that given the significance of this issue, the Commission is given more time to deliberate a conditional use permit for a kennel, and this was troubling from a process perspective. He said that in his mind, whatever ordinance comes out of this process, the Commission and Board needs to proceed through a planning process, in order to be valid and equitable for the community. He said the process was engaged a few years ago and the Commission and the Board needs to get that back. He urged the Board to consider that previous effort before they take any action on this. He said it would mean going back and revisiting the analysis of the rural areas, what was discovered by the study, what was discovered by the Ad -Hoc group through its deliberations and communications with the community, and from there, policies developed and adopted with input from the community, and finally, adopt the ordinance. Commissioner Mohn said that whatever the outcome of that process is, he would feel a lot more comfortable saying that he could support it. He remarked that as it stands right now, it is not anywhere close to being as comprehensive as it needs to be and it certainly doesn't deal with all of the multi -faceted parts of a rural areas' community that deserves much more attention than provided by this effort. In addition, he found that, although admirable, trying to link this to the Comprehensive Policy Plan is uncomfortably general in terms of the policies and the goals. He believed the Commission needed to get back to the fundamentals before anything was done. Commissioner Mohn said that as the ordinance currently exists, he could not support it. Commissioner Ours commended the audience members on coming out this evening to speak. Commissioner Ours said if he had any doubts about voting against this tonight, the citizens' comments have made him 100%; he said the comments were very well done and it was very important for the Commission to hear this type of feedback. He said the Planning Commission has talked about this issue in the rural areas for a long time; we've had the study, which is incomplete. Commissioner Ours did not understand why all of a sudden, the Commission must make a decision in a short period of time he does not understand; he said this is Frederick County Planning Commission Yage zz iy Minutes of July 16, 2008 a very complex issue; it deserves and needs further study. Commissioner Watt said he took 45 cell phone calls today. Commissioner Watt said he has been on the Planning Commission for seven years, but he has been a farmer his whole life; so he really understands what the citizens are trying to say. He said his family has been farming for over 60 years in Frederick County and they have never developed a single lot, but at the same time, do not want to give up the right to do so. Commissioner Watt believed this was a straight down zoning with no compensation; there has been no discussion about any compensation to the landowners. He believed this could do more financial damage to farmers than a freeze or a hailstorm. Commissioner Watt said the farmers should not be in fear of the leaders in this County; the community leaders should be available to help the citizens. He said that what landowners will have to do is go out and plat their land in fear of this and future Boards to protect the landowners' rights. He said it's called a "by right," but the spelling needs to be changed and a "u" added in there because if you want to keep your right, you have to get grandfathered in and "buy" this right; however, if you don't have the money, you're going to lose it. He said that shouldn't be the way; you shouldn't have to protect your land by subdividing to protect it against future Boards. Commissioner Watt commented about all the work that has previously been done on this issue; he said other people need to have input and work through this. Commissioner Watt said he agreed with many of the points made by Mr. John Marker, a former Planning Commissioner. He agreed that when we develop land in the RA (Rural Areas), we cause impacts and we should pay our way as developers, if we choose to do this, but not nearly as much as land in the UDA. Commissioner Watt said he felt this issue was being piece milled; he said the focus is on density and not on roads, septics, or any other issues. He did not like the idea of being on a time table; he said time was needed to work through this issue. Commissioner Watt remarked that the impact is being inflicted on the wrong group of people; these people are not the cause of many of these problems. He said many citizens here this evening have no intentions of ever selling their land; they just want to keep farming. He urged the Board of Supervisors to listen to the comments made by the citizens this evening. Commissioner Watt said he could not support this in any shape, way, or form. Chairman Wilmot said she had the pleasure of attending the meeting held at John Marker's farm. She said she came away from that meeting with the thought that just a little more time was needed, because she felt the study group was not that far away. She said while the Chair is really not supposed to express an opinion, she believed this issue was workable and doable. She said the Planning Commission has the responsibility for land use; she was sure there was a way to reach a consensus for everyone. Commissioner Oates agreed the technology was available for using alternative sewage systems; however, the regulations in the State of Virginia must be followed. He said not every piece of property perks. He said as a land surveyor and an engineer, he does many rural preservation subdivisions. He said some properties get the maximum development, some do not get any. He said he did one in Gainesboro that was 148 acres and there was not one perk site on the entire 148 acres. Commissioner Oates preferred more time to study this issue. He said if it was up to the Planning Commission, he would like to see this presented to various stake holders, engineers, developers, land landowners for input. Commissioner Oates did not agree with any of the deadlines posted; he thought the deadlines needed to be extended by a year or a year -and -a -half. He said that Mr. Buettner was correct when he talked about how long the various reviewing agencies need to respond to a request. Commissioner Oates said he had a subdivision plat that took 13 months just to get through the Health Department. Commissioner Oates believed the ten -acre minimum lot size was ludicrous and a waste of land. He thought even five acres was too large and it should be two acres minimum. Commissioner Oates said if this were approved and a client wanted him to do a survey on 20 acres, he would recommend they do the rural preservation, to subdivide two acres off, and keep the remaining 18 and don't sell half the property. He thought the fee schedule needed to be worked on. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2280 Minutes of July 16, 2008 Commissioner Mohn had some final comments. Commissioner Ambrogi had some final comments. Commissioner Unger had some final comments. He wanted to go on record as preferring to make a motion to table the proposed ordinance amendment; however, this was not possible because of the directive from the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Unger made a motion to recommend denial of the proposed ordinance amendment. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and passed by a unanimous vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165, Zoning, Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article II, Definitions and Article V, Design Standards. The amendment includes: changes to decrease the permitted lot density from one unit per five acres generally to one unit per ten acres in all of the RA District; change the general minimum lot size in all of the RA District, except for family division lots and rural preservation lots, from five acres to ten acres; as well as revisions to the family division and rural preservation subdivision requirements. ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No other business remained to be discussed and the e meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. by a Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2281 Minutes of July 16, 2008 REZONING APPLICATION 906-08 ROUTE 50 ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: August 6, 2008 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Planning Commission: 08/20/08 Board of Supervisors: 09/24/08 Action Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 10.24 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The properties are located south of Route 50, east of the intersection of Ward Avenue and Route 50. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 53-A-81, 53-A-82 and 53B-3-25 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Residential and vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) B2 (Business General) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) B2 (Business General) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential Commercial Use: Candy Hill Campground Use: Residential/vacant Bank Use: Residential PROPOSED USES: Up to 75,000 square feet of Assisted Living Care Facility Use. However, all other B2 uses permitted (please see comments relating to the proposed land use for this site). Rezoning #06-08 — Route 50 Assisted Living Facility August 6, 2008 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: VirlZinia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 50. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied with the transportation proffers offered; no proffers were offered addressing transportation. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation 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. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: No Comment. Department of Public Works: 1. Refer to the Impact Analysis under suitability of the site: The discussion of the bedrock should be expanded to address the potential for sinkhole development within the limestone which underlies the entire site. 2. Refer to the Impact Analysis under drainage: Indicate if there are sufficient off-site drainage channels and/or culverts to accommodate the storm flows derived from the proposed stormwater management facility. Also, indicate if the proposed stormwater pond will be designed as a BMP facility to attenuate storm flows and maximize nutrient removal. 3. Refer to Impact Analysis under Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Expand the narrative to include an estimate of the yearly solid waste in tons produced by the proposed development. 4. Refer to Impact Analysis under Impact on Community Facilities: Explain the reference to the impact on the City of Winchester when Frederick County provides all the services required by the proposed development. 5. Refer to the Wetland Assessment prepared by ECS: This assessment indicates a topographic high of 825 MSL with approximately 20 feet of total relief. This observation is in conflict with the plan of the existing natural conditions prepared by Bowman Consulting which indicates a topographic high of 834.6 with approximately 35 feet of relief. This conflict needs to be corrected. 6. Refer to the MDP, sheet 2 of 3: Delineate any karst features which could impact the site development. 7. Refer to the MDP, sheet 2 of 3: Indicate the locations of any existing wells and/or drainfields which will need to be properly abandoned to accommodate development. These features currently exist on the property identified as Map I.D.: 5313-3-25. 8. Refer to the MDP, sheet 3 of 3: Any site development should be designed to ensure that storm runoff is diverted to the proposed stormwater management/BMP facility and away from the single family residences fronting on Ward Avenue. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority Department. There should be sufficient sewer and water capacity to serve this project. Dcpartment of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Rezoning #06-08 — Route 50 Assisted Living Facility August 6, 2008 Page 3 Health Department: Unless the proposal has changed since the attached Health Department comments dated 2/21/08 were sent to the owner, those comments are still valid. 2/21/08 — The Health Department has no objections. According to the "Sewer & Water Exhibit: public water and sewer are to be provided. Permits from this office will be required for food preparation facilities. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning application and determined that the proposed development plan 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, therefore, special conditional will not be requested. Frederick County Public Schools: We offer no comments. Historic Resources Advisory Board: It appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify a core battlefield within this area. Attorney Comments: Pending. Planning Department: Please see attached memorandum. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies these properties as being zoned A-2 (Agriculture General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were 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 in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Rezoning #06-08 — Route 50 Assisted Living Facility August 6, 2008 Page 4 Land Use The property is located in the area covered by the Round Hill Land Use Plan which was most recently updated on November 11, 2007. The property is within the SWSA and is designated as an area of commercial land use. The Round Hill Land Use Plan addresses the corridor appearance elements of the Round Hill Community along Route 50. Particular effort should be made to provide for enhanced design of the project to facilitate improved corridor appearance along Route 50. Landscaping, lighting, and . building layout and form should be carefully planned to ensure that this is achieved. Examples consistently used in the current development in the corridor have included brick construction and in several cases, standing seam metal green roofs. Along Route 50 West, a 50 foot landscaped buffer has been recognized as a desirable landscaped area that promotes the corridor appearance goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Recently rezoned projects in several corridors have consistently applied this approach. This property is located in an area that contains a number of established residential properties. Special consideration should be provided to ensure that the impacts to the adjacent residential properties are sensitively addressed. A tailored approach to the buffering and screening of these properties may be warranted. Transportation This application must address the transportation components of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. The Round Hill Community Land Use Plan calls for a transportation network that would feed traffic to and from Route 50 at controlled intersections, and discourages a proliferation of entrances along Route 50 itself. The Round Hill Plan states that commercial establishments should front feeder roads which connect to Route 50 at signalized intersections. This discourages individual business entrances on Route 50 both for aesthetic reasons as well as transportation efficiency. The Round Hill Land Use Plan identifies a local collector street connecting Ward Avenue to Round Hill Road in the general vicinity of the southern boundary of this property. The dashed line on the GDP does not give sufficient guidance as to how this application addresses the road. The associated proffer language with this road provides minimal assistance in providing this important road connection. More detail needs to be provided regarding Ward Avenue, its associated right-of-way, and the ability to modify and expand upon, or dedicate the right-of-way to provide for an acceptable access to and from the site. Ward Avenue is an existing State Road that does not meet current street standards. Consideration should be given to improving Ward Avenue to a public street standard that meets all current standards. In Frederick County's Eastern Road Plan, Route 50 is classified as a minor arterial road. The Eastern Road Plan Generalized Cross Section Designation Map identifies this section of Route 50 as a six -lane divided road section. Rezoning #06-08 — Route 50 Assisted Living Facility August 6, 2008 Page 5 The Comprehensive Policy Plan also states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. This application does not provide that Level of Service (LOS Q. In addition, this application fails to accurately model a level of service consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Site Access and design. Site Access is proposed to be provided from two locations. Primary access to the site is via Ward Avenue and a secondary limited access point is proposed to be provided from Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) via a right -in right -out only entrance. A third access point would be permitted to the rear of this property in the future. Please recognize that theproposed access onto Ward Avenue is very constrained. Theparcel acquired by the applicant is 50' in width and may not sufficiently accommodate a full two way access road that meets the necessary setbacks from the adjacent property line to the north and respects the required buffer to the south. The applicant is proposing to locate the access driveway within the active portion of the required buffer. This should be clamed in the application prior to the Commission's recommendation. In addition, the entrance on to Route 50 should be carefully evaluated. As noted previously, additional entrances along such a significant transportation corridor should be avoided. The design of the site is specifically illustrated on the Generalized Development Plan for this project. The GDP provides a degree of certainty as to how the site is proposed to be developed. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, mature woodlands, floodplain or wetlands on the parcel which are identified in this application. Two reports prepared by ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC were performed in conjunction with this application, a wetlands study and a preliminary geotechnical evaluation. Please see the letters dated October 26, 2007 and January 29, 2008 respectively which further describe the reports. 4) Potential Impacts When considering this request, it should be recognized that the approach taken in this application seeks to minimize the use in an effort to minimize the impacts that need to be addressed in the application. It may be more desirable to take a greater advantage of the location of this property and enable a more intensive use of the property than that which is proffered. It would appear as though there is ample space to enable additional compatible land uses on the property in the future. Such additional uses may include day care facilities and medical and professional office uses. Rezoning #06-08 — Route 50 Assisted Living Facility August 6, 2008 Page 6 The rezoning amendment process is a process that requires the applicant to identify and address all impacts associated with the request. This Applicant has chosen an approach that is not desirable. They have stated that they intend to develop the property with up to 75,000 SF of assisted living care facility use and that all other B2 uses shall be permitted on the property. In essence, that this is a rezoning request that would permit all B2 uses with no development limitations; subiect only to future TIA's with no guarantees as to how future impacts may be addressed. To reiterate, this approach is not acceptable. A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analis The TIA prepared for this application was based upon the development of an eighty-four bed assisted living facility. Primary access to the development was modeled from Ward Avenue and a secondary limited access point from Route 50 (Northwestern Pike). The Applicant evaluated the intersection of Ward Avenue and Route 50 and the intersection of Echo Lane and Route 50. As the Commission is aware, the Comprehensive Policy Plan seeks to ensure that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. An acceptable level of service to Frederick County, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is a level of service C. This TIA's evaluations and conclusions are based upon a level of service D or better. This is not acceptable. Therefore, the conclusions of the TIA are not acceptable. This application has not accurately measured the transportation impacts associated with the request. Transportation Program. It is anticipated that additional right-of-way and improvements may be necessary along Route 50 and Ward Avenue. A mechanism should be considered which would enable any right-of- way necessary for the planned improvements to be dedicated to the County or VDOT. Future right-of-way dedication should be based upon the road improvement plans as approved by VDOT and Frederick County. Access management of Route 50 is a significant consideration. An additional entrance onto Route 50 should be avoided. The function of the existing signal at Route 50 and Ward Avenue should continue to be enhanced. It does appear as though additional improvements are being proposed on the GDP along the properties frontage with Route 50. These improvements should be clarified and specifically incorporated into the language of the Proffer Statement. On recent rezonings, other projects have contributed additional funding for transportation improvements in the general area of their requests. This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County in addition to the specific improvements they may be proposing. Such an approach has been considered with this request. Rezoning 406-08 - Route 50 Assisted Living Facility August 6, 2008 Page 7 The applicant has proffered $25, 000 towards such improvements. However, a sunset clause of 5 years has been added to the Proffer as has a restriction on the distance from the property (500') the funding could be used. The result of these two restrictions may invalidate the proffer. The application has not provided for any right -of way dedication along Ward Avenue or Route 50. Ward Avenue is identified as a 40' right-of-way. The minimum right of way needs of VDOT should be recognized, in addition to any additional right of way necessary to implement access to and from the site. Pedestrian accommodations have been provided in a coordinated manner internal to the project, to and along Ward Avenue, to the Route 50 frontage, and along the Route 50 frontage. This has been addressed but should be specifically incorporated into the proffer language. The application identifies a local collector street connecting Ward Avenue to Round Hill Road in the general vicinity of the southern boundary of this property. The dashed line on the GDP does not give sufficient guidance as to how this application addresses the road. The associated proffer language with this road provides minimal assistance in providing this important road connection. in addition, the reservation language and sunset clause of five years is once again insufficient to address the importance of this future connection identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The entrances identified on the GDP should be addressed at this time and the future construction should be consistent with the GDP. The Applicant has written additional flexibility into Proffer 2.1 which may provide additional flexibility. B. Design Standards The application provides for the addition of an enhanced landscaping buffer area along the properties frontage with Route 50. In addition, the application includes minimal architectural language, loosely written in an attempt to address the corridor appearance design elements of the Comprehensive Plan. C. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services. However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application, however, is not a typical revenue generating commercial land use (please refer to a previous comment about the intensity of the land use at such a key location). This application's effort to address the impacts to community facilities is limited to a $2,000.00 contribution to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes. Rezoning 906-08 — Route 50 Assisted Living Facility August 6, 2008 Page 8 5) Proffer Statement — Dated February 22, 2008; revised June 24, 2008. A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP dated January 2008 and revised through June 24, 2008) for the site. The GDP is very specific which may cause conflicts with existing requirements and engineering and site development issues during the development of this project. Staff does recognize that this is more detailed than that initially provided, as requested, however, with this request should be simplified. Staff would suggest removing the utility lines and parking lot striping and handicap details. It is not clear how the enhanced buffer details are different from those required by Ordinance. The Applicant should clarify this item. In addition, the applicant should address the Ward Avenue entrance on the GDP. The GDP shows a right -in right -out only entrance on Route 50 and a full entrance on Ward Avenue. The location of three potential locations for possible inter parcel connections is also shown on the GDP. B) Land Use The Applicant has stated that they intend to develop the property with up to 75,000 SF of assisted living care facility use and that all other B2 uses shall be permitted on the property. In essence, that this is a rezoning request that would permit all B2 uses with no development limitations; subject only to future TIA's with no guarantees as to how future impacts may be addressed. To reiterate, this approach is not acceptable. The rezoning amendment process is a process that requires the applicant to identify and address all impacts associated with the request. This Applicant has chosen an approach opposite to that required and opposite to best practices, an approach that does not provide the County with the appropriate measure of control and security to make sure the impacts associated with the request can be adequately addressed. The applicant has proffered a 100' enhanced landscaped road efficiency buffer along the Route 50 frontage which will include mixed ornamental plantings generally consistent with the exhibit included with the GDP. C) Transportation The applicant has proffered to limit site entrances to two as shown on the GDP. Direct access from Route 50 shall be limited to a right in only entrance. A third entrance to the rear would be permitted in the future. The Applicant has a commitment to reserve up to 25' along the southern boundary for possible right of way dedication for the extension of existing Round Hill Road by others. To reiterate, this element should be addressed to a greater extent. In addition, the sunset clause in this and other proffers should be removed. Rezoning 406-08 — Route 50 Assisted Living Facility August 6, 2008 Page 9 Interparcel connection opportunities have been identified. The Applicant has proffered a $25,000 contribution for future road improvements to Route 50, Ward Avenue, or the extension of Round Hill Road within 500' of the property. Please note the concerns previously identified with distance condition and the sunset clause. D) Community Facilities The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $2,000 to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes. No additional contributions have been made to address the other community facility impacts recognized by the County's development Impact Model (DIM). An overall concern with this request is the approach the applicant has taken to the administrative triggers and mechanisms for the Proffers that are aimed at mitigating the potential impacts associated with this request. The approach is undesirable. The approach proposed by theApplicant is complicated and more confusing than it needs to be. It is the County's desire to ensure that the proffer language is clear and concise. Further, that the proffers actually address the impacts generated by the specific request. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/20/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: In general, the B2 land use proposed conforms to the Round Hill Land Use Plan. However, elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. Particular attention should be paid to the proposed entrances to the facility, impacts to Ward Avenue, and how the application addresses the comprehensively planned road to the rear of the property. In addition, significant concerns have been raised regarding the details of the Proffer Statement and the triggers and mechanisms for the Proffers, the conclusions of the TIA, and the important fact that not all B2 land uses and there potential impacts have been evaluated. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately, address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6345 BOWMAN CONS L1171 TO: Chris Oldham , AY 2 NO3 FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICD R E 0 E]" ' Deputy Director RE: Rezoning Continents - HHHunt Assisted Living Facility, Route 50 West DATE: May 20, 2008 The following points are offered regarding the HHHunt Assisted Living Facility, Route 50 West Commercial Rezoning application. This is a request to rezone 10.24 acres from. RA to B2. Please consider the comments as you continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. The comments reiterate the input that has previously been provided on this request. HHHunt Assisted Living Facility. Route 50 West, Commercial Rezoning - Initial Rezoning; Comments. General. lyl Vil.Ultallj SV V4;s to be - vidv1.1 'JcL1ibWard , it,C associ-ated right-of-way, and the ability to modify and expand upon, or dedicate the right-of-way to provide for an acceptable access to and fiom the site. Ward Avenue is an existing State Road that does not meet current street standards. Consideration should be given to improving Ward Avenue to a public street standard that meets all current standards. Please ensure that all review agency comments are fully addressed. Land Use. The property is located in the area covered by the Round Hill Land Use flan. The property is within the SWSA and is designated as an area of commercial land use. 107 North Kent Street, Scute 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 MHunt Assisted Living Facility, Route 50 West Commercial Rezoning — Initial Rezoning Comments May 20, 2008 Page 2 Address the corridor appearance elements of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Particular effort should be made to provide for enhanced design of the project to facilitate improved corridor appearance along Route 50. Landscaping, lighting, and building layout and form should be carefully planned to ensure that this is achieved. This elernent is specifically addressed in the Plan. Along Route 50 West, a 50 foot landscaped buffer has been recognized as a desirable landscaped area that promotes the corridor appearance goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Recently rezoned projects in several corridors have consistently applied this approach. Consider providing snore design details, including the form of the layout of the site and the building materials, which would implement the goal of developing an attractive addition to the Round Hill area. Ideally, you would guarantee this would be how the site would develop by incorporating into the proffer statement. Examples consistently used in the current development in the corridor have included brick construction and in several cases, standing seam metal green roofs. This property is located in an area that contains a number of established residential properties. Special consideration should be provided to ensure that the impacts to the adjacent residential properties are sensitively addressed. A tailored approach to the buffering and screening of these properties may be warranted. The current Ordinance requirements should be removed from the GDP; rather, the GDP should be used to depict additional or unique additions to the buffer and screening. Impact Analysis. The approach taken in the application seeks to minimize the use in an effort to minimize the impacts that need to be addressed in the application.. It may be more desirable to take a greater advantage of the location of this property and enable a more intensive use of the property than that which is proffered. It would appear as though there is ample space to enable additional compatible land uses on the property in the future. Such additional uses may include day care facilities and medical and professional office uses. The impact to solid waste and the Frederick County Landfill should be calculated based on standard figures per unit. This should be endorsed by the Frederick County Engineer. Please confirm how the proffered commitment of a 100,000 square foot facility compares with the 84 beds evaluated in the Impact Analysis and TIA. The Development Impact Model recognizes impacts to Community facilities and services. Please adjust your Impact Analysis accordingly. HHHunt Assisted Living Facility, Route 50 West Commercial Rezoning — Initial Rezoning Conunents May 20, 2008 Page 3 Transportation. This application must address the transportation components of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. In particular, the local collector street identified as connecting Ward Avenue to Round Hill Road in the general vicinity of the southern boundary of this property. The dashed line on the GDP does not give sufficient guidance as to how this application addresses the road. It is anticipated that additional right-of-way and improvements may be necessary along Route 50 and Ward Avenue. A mechanism should be considered which would enable any right-of-way necessary for the planned improvements to be dedicated to the County or VDOT. Future right-of-way dedication should be based upon the road improvement plans as approved by VDOT and Frederick County. Access management of Route 50 is a significant consideration. An additional entrance onto Route 50 should be avoided. The Ruiction of the existing signal at Route 50 and Ward Avenue should continue to be enhanced. On recent rezonings, other projects have contributed additional Rending for transportation improvements in the general area of their requests. This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County in addition to the specific improvements they may be proposing. Such an approach should be considered with this request. Please understand that an acceptable level of service to Frederick County, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is a level of service C. It appears as though your TIA evaluations and conclusions are based upon a level of service D or better. This is not acceptable. Therefore, the conclusions of the TIA are not acceptable. Any and all of the improvements identified in the TIA (once corrected to provide for a level of service C or better) and the proffer statement should be in place in a timely manner. Inter -parcel circulation and access should be a greater consideration. It is anticipated that redevelopment may occur on the properties to the east of this rezoning. Therefore, inter - parcel connectivity should be accommodated to the adjacent property to the east in addition to any provided to the west. The location of Stonewall Drive provides an opportunity for an additional point of connectivity, even if this is solely for emergency purposes only. Pedestrian accommodations should be provided in a coordinated manner internal to the project, to and along Ward Avenue, to the Route 50 frontage, and along the Route 50 frontage. This should be addressed at this time. HHHunt Assisted Living Facility, Route 50 West Commercial Rezoning — Initial Rezoning Comments May 20, 2008 Page 4 Proffer Statement. The Generalized Development Plan accompanying the Proffer Statement could be enhanced to address some of the comments identified. It may be prudent to provide specificity on important elements such as the access, pedestrian accommodations, building and site design, tree and environmental preservation, and tailored buffering and landscaping. The Generalized Development Plan should be specifically referenced in the proffers. Section 1 of the proffers may be the best place to do this. Proffer 1.3 appears to be unnecessary. It may be more desirable and ultimately more efficient and profitable to allow for a more intensive use of the property. Any proffered limitations should be directly related to the analysis provided in the Impact Analysis, in particular, the TIA. Proffer 2.1 should be evaluated to reflect the desire not to have an entrance on Route 50 in close proximity to the signalized intersection. Proffers 3 and 5 appear to be unnecessaiy. They would be required in order to develop the site. The proffer statement must be signed by the owner/owners of the property. In summary, this proffer statement simply provides for a 100,000 square foot Assisted Living Facility and a monetary contribution of $2,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes. I would offer that this is inadequate to address the impacts associated with this request, the unique characteristics of the site's location, and the Comprehensive Plan and the Round Hill Land Use Pian. Other. I would suggest an evaluation of the existing mature specimen trees on the property to determine if any can be incorporated into the design of the project. It would be desirable to preserve such examples if possible. MTR/bad June 26, 2008 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Dept. of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Route 50 Assisted Living Facility Rezoning Application PCG Project #5132-01-003 Dear Mr. Ruddy, Attached please find our formal submission of the Route 50 Assisted Living Facility Rezoning Application for further review and placement on the Planning Commission agenda for consideration. All required submission materials have been provided including: A letter responding to all agency referral comments; a revised Generalized Development Plan (GDP), which provides a much greater level of detail as requested; and a revised Proffer Statement executed by Mr. Bo Cook representing the contract purchaser, and Mr. Thomas Lawson, who has Power of Attorney for the Owners previously executed and on file with the County. In addition to the rezoning submission, we have included a copy of the Master Development Plan Application submitted to Ms. Candice Perkins as previously discussed. As discussed, our intention is to be able to have both applications reviewed together by the Planning Commission and Board. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions and thank you for your continued assistance with this project. Sincerely, BOW CO ULT GROUP Michael P. Pointer, ASLA Principal cc: Mr. Bo Cook, 1111[lunt Corporation Mr. Thomas Lawson, Lawson & Silek Attachments P:\5132 - Route 50 Assisted Living\5132-01-003 (PLN)\Admin\Correspondence\SentUune 26, 2008 to Mike Ruddy.doc Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 124 East Cork Street e Winchester,VA 22601 Phone: 540.722.2343 e Fax: 540.722.5080 o www.bowmanconsulting.com Bow- an 7 A, I�i,14 G 0 rV, r �'� PIL, 9 -.- 631 June 26, 2008 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Route 50 Assisted Living Facility - Rezoning BCG Project 45132-01-003 Dear Mr. Ruddy, We have received comments from the following agencies and offer the following in response. Frederick County Sanitation Authority Comments dated February 19, 2008 1. "There should be sufficient sewer and water capacity to serve this project. " Response: Acknowledged. Frederick Countv Dept of Parks & Recreation Comments dated February 20, 2008 1. "No comment. " Response: Acknowledged. Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department Comments dated February 20, 2008 1. "Plan approval recommended `Yes , " Response: Acknowledged. Round Hill Fire and Rescue Company — No comments received 1. Attempts were made to contact Fire Chief Chester Lauck regarding this application and per discussion with Michael Ruddy, the comments from the Frederick County Fire and Rescue will suffice. Frederick -Winchester Service Authoritv Comments dated February 23, 2008 1. "No comments. " Response: Acknowledged. Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 124 East Cork Street Winchester,VA 22601 Phone: 540.722.2343 ,a, Fax: 540.722.5080 o www.bowmanconsuIting.com Mr. Michael Ruddy June 26, 2008 Page 2 of 10 Frederick County Public Schools Comments dated March 12, 2008 "We offer no comments. " Response: Acknowledged. Department of Public Works Comments dated April 10, 2008 "Refer to the Impact Analysis under suitability of the site: The discussion of the bedrock should be expanded to address the potential for sinkhole development within the limestone which underlies the entire site. " Response: In a separate study by ECS, LLC, Mid -Atlantic for this property, karst/sinkhole development was expanded upon as it relates to this site. This report has been included as part of Appendix VII to expand upon sinkhole potential and is referenced via new text in the soils and bedrock section of the report. 2. "Refer to the Impact Analysis under drainage: Indicate if there are sufficient off-site drainage channels and/or culverts to accommodate the storm flows derived from the proposed stormwater management facility. Also, indicate if the proposed stormwater pond will be designed as a BMP facility to attenuate storm flows and maximize nutrient removal. " Response: Determination of sufficient off-site drainage channels and/or culverts to accommodate the storm flows derived from the proposed storinwater management facility will be provided with final engineering on the Site Plan. Bowman Consulting Group will verify adequate channels/culverts to accommodate runoff and provide for water quality. 3. "Refer to Impact Analysis under Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Expand the narrative to include an estimate of the yearly solid waste in tons produced by the proposed development. " Response: Through a discussion with Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works, an acceptable amount of waste/person, is 3.5#/person/day for this type of use. This calculation has now been reflected in the report accordingly. 4. "Refer to Impact Analysis under Community Facilities: Explain the reference to the impact on the City of Winchester when Frederick County provides all the services required by the proposed development. " Response: This reference to the City of Winchester as an entity with little impact from this site has been removed. It is not applicable to this submission. S. "Refer to the Wetland Assessment prepared by ECS: This assessment indicates a topographic high of 825 MSL with approximately 20 feet of total relief This observation is in conflict with the plan of the existing natural conditions prepared by Bowman Consulting which indicates a topographic high ,f 843. v with approximately 35 feet of relief. This conflict needs to be corrected. " Mr. Michael Ruddy June 26, 2008 Page 3 of 10 Response: The "...825' MSL ... 20' of total relief.,.," as indicated by ECS, was an approximation based on USGS topography. The 843.6' topographic high/ 35' of relief was based upon a field run surveyed study by Bowman Consulting Group and is the accurate measurement to follow. Frederick -Winchester Health Department Comments dated May 9, 2008 "Unless the proposal has changed since the attached health department comments dated 2/21108 were sent to the owner, those comments are still valid. " (Per MDP comments from 2121108, "The Health Dept. has no objection. According to the "Sewer & Water Exhibit, " public water & sewer are to be provided. Permits from this office will be required for food preparation facilities. Response: The proposal has not changed. Acknowledged. Viriinia Department of Transportation Comments dated May 12, 2008 1. The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 50. This route is the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. Response: As provided in the TIA, this project proposes a peak PM count of 25 trips, which will have a negligible impact on the surrounding roadways, including Route 50. The proposed right in/ right out from Route 50 is an improvement of existing Echo Lane and must be maintained as access to the existing Allegheny Power substation on the property behind this one. The applicant has purchased a parcel east of the main parcel to facilitate access to the signalized intersection at Route 50 and Ward Avenue, consistent with the guidelines of the Round Hill Land Use (Comprehensive) Plan (RHLUP) to have primary vehicle access points to signalized intersections. 2. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered, no proffers were offered addressing transportation. Response: Attached is a revised proffer statement, which includes: up to a maximum of 25' of reservation along the rear of the property for the future extension of Round Hill Road to Ward Avenue by others; right-of-way dedication and improvements to Ward Avenue; Route 50 frontage improvements; allowance of future inter - parcel access to adjacent properties; a provision to submit a new TIA with any further development of the property; and a $25,000.00 contribution for future road improvements in the vicinity of this project if constructed within five (5) years of rezoning approval. 3. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation 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. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Mr. Michael Ruddy June 26, 2008 Page 4 of 10 Response: Acknowledged. Historic Resources Advisory Board Comments dated May 14,, 2008 Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the IIRAB. According to the rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not ident f a core battlefield within this area. Response: Acknowledged. Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Comments dated May 20, 2008 General: "More detail needs to be provided regarding Ward Avenue, its associated right-of-way, and the ability to modify and expand upon, or dedicate the right-of-way to provide for an acceptable access to and from the site_ Ward Avenue is an existing State Road that does not meet current street standards. Consideration should be given to improving Ward Avenue to a public street standard that meets all current standards. " Response: This application proposes right-of-way dedication and improvements to Ward Avenue to match improvements completed by United Bank. (Note: No right-of- way was requested or dedicated with the approval of the United Bank site development.) We are proposing this private access drive from Ward Avenue to our site as a secondary access point to the signalized intersection at Ward Avenue and Route 50. 2. "Please ensure that all review agency comments are fully addressed. " Response: Acknowledged. All review agency comments (including Public Works, VDOT, and Department of Planning) have been fully addressed. Land Use: 3. "The property is located in the area covered by the Round Hill Land Use Plan. The property is within the SWSA and is designated as an area of commercial land use. Address the corridor appearance elements of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Particular effort should be made to provide for enhanced design of the project to facilitate improved corridor appearance along Route 50. Landscaping, lighting, and building layout and form should be carefully planned to ensure that this is achieved. This element is specifically addressed in the Plan. Along Route 50 West, a 50 foot landscaped buffer has been recognized as a desirable landscaped area that promotes the corridor appearance goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Recently rezoned projects in several corridors have consistently applied this approach. " Mr. Michael Ruddy June 26, 2008 Page 5 of 10 Response: This application proposes a 100' road efficiency buffer along Route 50 as guided by the RHLUP; an extension of the existing sidewalk along Route 50 -West from the United Bank site out of the road right-of-way; an internal sidewalk network; provisions for inter -parcel access; quality lighting; and enhanced landscape buffering around the site to improve the Route 50 corridor as called for in the RHLUP. 4. "Consider providing more design details, including the form of the layout of the site and the building materials, which would implement the goal of developing an attractive addition to the Round Hill area. Ideally, you would guarantee this would be how the site would develop by incorporating into the proffer statement. Examples consistently used in the current development in the corridor have included brick construction and in several cases, standing seam metal green roofs. " Response: Architectural designs have been provided with this resubmission, as requested, and the GDP has been revised to show a greater level of design detail. The Site Plan will finalize these improvements subject to final engineering. S. "This property is located in an area that contains a number of established residential properties. Special consideration should be provided to ensure that the impacts to the adjacent residential properties are sensitively addressed. A tailored approach to the buffering and screening of these properties may be warranted. The current Ordinance requirements should be removed from the GDP; rather, the GDP should be used to depict additional or unique additions to the buffer and screening. " Response: Landscape screening and buffering adjacent to the existing residential properties has been designed to mitigate development impacts by grouping more evergreen trees closest to existing houses. The proposed enhanced buffers will include additional plantings in lieu of providing berming or fencing so as to promote more connectivity of properties within the rawp? area. Impact Analysis: 6. "The approach taken in the application seeks to minimize the use in an effort to minimize the impacts that need to be addressed in the application. It may be more desirable to take a greater advantage of the location of this property and enable a more intensive use of the property than that which is proffered. It would appear as though there is ample space to enable additional compatible land uses on the property in the future. Such additional uses may include day care facilities and medical professional office uses. " Response: This application proposes an 87 -bed assisted living facility of up to 75,000 sf. The Applicant anticipates possible future complimentary and supportive uses on the balance of the property such as other health service uses or a child daycare facility. The Applicant has proffered to submit a new TIA and MDP with any further development of this property. Mr. Michael Ruddy June 26, 2008 Page 6 of 10 "The impact to solid waste and the Frederick County Landfill should be calculated based on standard figures per unit. This should be endorsed by the Frederick County Engineer. " Response: Through a discussion with Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works, an acceptable amount of waste/ person, is 3.5#/ person/ day for this type of use. This calculation has now been reflected in the revised report. 8. "Please confirm how the proffered commitment of a 100, 000 square foot facility compares with the 87 beds evaluated in the Impact Analysis and TIA. " Response: The proffers have been amended to state that the applicant intends to develop the property with up to 75,000 SF of assisted living care facility use and that all other B-2 uses shall be permitted on this site provided a new TIA is commissioned and any reasonable recommendations provided in that study will be addressed prior to submission of a site plan for said use. 9. "The Development Impact Model recognizes impacts to Community facilities and services. Please adjust your Impact Analysis accordingly. " Response: Per the requirements of the Rezoning application and our conversation on April 23, 2008, a DIM is not required for a non-residential use. Per on-going conversations with staff, an Assisted Living Facility is considered a permitted B2 use per an approved ordinance amendment by the Board of Supervisors on February 26, 1997. Note also that no reviewing agency (including Fire & Rescue) made any requests to offset any impact perceived by this development. Transportation: 10. "This application must address the transportation components of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. In particular, the local collector street identified as connecting Ward Avenue to Round Hill Road in the general vicinity of the southern boundary of this property. The dashed line on the GDP does not give sufficient guidance as to how this application addresses the road. " Response: This application shows the general alignment for the extension of Round Hill Road to Ward Avenue per the RHLUP and that sufficient area exists within the south end of the site for dedication for future development of this road by others. This project does not propose impacts to the area roadway network to warrant the extension of Round Hill Road, however, the Applicant has proffered a $25,000 contribution for road improvements to Route 50, Ward Avenue, or this extension by others if completed within five years of zoning approval. 11. "It is anticipated that additional right-of-way and improvements may be necessary along Route 50 and Ward Avenue. A mechanism should be considered which would enable any right-of-way necessary for the planned improvements to be dedicated to the County or VDOT. Future right-of- way dedication should be based upon the road improvement plans as approved by VDOT and Frederick County. " Mr. Michael Ruddy June 26, 2008 Page 7 of 10 Response: The Route 50 improvements can be completed within the existing right-of-way as sufficient right-of-way exists to implement the R6D Rural 6 -lane Divided Highway section per the Win. -Fred 2030 Transportation. Flan. Regarding Ward Avenue, right-of-way dedication is now proffered and road improvements are proposed to match those improvements required of United Bank. Note that no right-of-way dedication was required of the United Bank site. 12. `Access management of Route 50 is a significant consideration. An additional entrance onto Route 50 should be avoided. The function of the existing signal at Route 50 and Ward Avenue should continue to be enhanced. " Response: The proposed right in/right out commercial entrance from Route 50 is an improvement of existing Echo Lane and must be maintained for access to this property and for access to the existing Allegheny Power substation on the parcel behind this property. The applicant has also purchased a parcel east of the main parcel to provide access to Ward Avenue and to the signalized intersection at Route 50 and Ward Avenue consistent with the guidelines of the RHLUP to have primary vehicle access points to the four signalized intersections along Route 50. The TIA shows that this application does not contribute a significant amount of traffic to the Route 50/ Ward Avenue intersection, however, the Applicant has proffered a $25,000.00 contribution for road improvements adjacent to the subject property if completed within five years of rezoning approval. 13. "On recent rezonings, other projects have contributed additional funding for transportation improvements in the general area of their requests. This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County in addition to the specific improvements they may be proposing. Such an approach should be considered with this request. " Response: As outlined above and in our attached revised proffer statement: up to a maximum of 25' of right-of-way reservation along the rear of the property for the future extension of Round Hill Road to Ward Avenue by others; right-of-way dedication and improvements to Ward Avenue to match physical improvements required of United Bank for approval; Route 50 frontage improvements; allowance of future inter -parcel access to adjacent properties; a provision to submit a new TIA with any further development of the property; and a $25,000.00 contribution for future road improvements in the vicinity of this project if constructed within five (5) years of zoning. 14. `Please understand that an acceptable level of service to Frederick County, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is a level of service C. It appears as though your TIA evaluations and conclusions are based upon a level of service D or better. This is not acceptable. Therefore, the conclusions of the TIA are not acceptable. " Response: A level of service results for the intersection of Route 50 and Ward Avenue for existing (EX), future without development (FB), and future with development (TF) scenarios were compared. The results are presented in the table below: Mr. Michael Ruddy June 26, 2008 Page 8 of 10 Route 5o and Ward Avenue/Botanical Boulevard (Signalized) EX PM Peak Hour FB TF EX SAT Peak Hour FB TF Overall A B B A C C Eastbound Left D D D D D D Eastbound Through A B B A D D Eastbound Right A A A A B B Westbound Left D D D D D D Westbound Through A B B A C C Westbound Right A B B A B B Northbound Left/Through D D D D D D Northbound Right D D D D D D Southbound Left A D D D C D Southbound Left/Through A D D D C D Southbound Right D D D D C C The results presented in the table above show that there is no degradation in the levels of service between the existing/future background and total future conditions for this intersection_ The traffic generated by the proposed Assisted Living Facility is less than 1% of the total projected traffic at the intersection of Route 50 and Ward Avenue. The impacts from the proposed facility are minimal as there is no change in the levels of service with or without the proposed facility. However, the applicant is offering a cash contribution of $25,000 for improvements to the Route 50, Ward Avenue frontage, or Round Hill Road extension by others if constructed within five (5) years of zoning approval. 15. "Any and all of the improvements identified in the TM (once corrected to provide for a level of service C or better) and the proffer statement should be in place in a timely manner. " Response: Road improvements along Route 50 and Ward Avenue, as shown on the GDP, will be in place prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Anticipated build -out is within 1 year of zoning approval. The Applicant has also proffered a $25,000 contribution for road improvements to Route 50, Ward Avenue, or the extension by others if completed within five (5) years of zoning approval. 16. `Inter parcel circulation and access should be a greater consideration. It is anticipated that redevelopment may occur on the properties to the east of this rezoning. Therefore, inter parcel connectivity should be accommodated to the adjacent property to the east in addition to any provided to the west. The location of Stonewall Drive provides an opportunity for an additional point of connectivity, even if this is solely for emergency purposes only. " Response: The Applicant has identified potential inter -parcel access points to adjacent properties on the revised GDP. 17. "Pedestrian accommodations should be provided in a coordinated manner internal to the project, to and along ujard Avenue, to the Route 50 frontage, and along the Route 50 frontage. This should be addressed at this time. " Mr. Michael Ruddy June 26, 2008 Page 9 of 10 Response: Sidewalks will be provided throughout the property for pedestrian access. A 5' concrete sidewalk proposed parallel to Route 50 outside of the existing right-of- way and the Applicant will provide a 5' concrete sidewalk to Ward Avenue, as requested. Proffer Statement: 18. "The Generalized Development Plan accompanying the Proffer Statement could be enhanced to address some of the comments identified. It may be prudent to provide specificity on important elements such as the access, pedestrian accommodations, building and site design, tree and environmental preservation, and tailored buffering and landscaping. " Response: The Generalized Development Plan has been submitted with a greater level of design detail including enhanced category B buffer details as required of a Master Development Plan. The Site Plan will finalize these proposed site impovements. 19. "The Generalized Development Plan should be specifically referenced in the proffers. Section I of the proffers may be the best place to do this. " Response: The GDP is referenced in the proffers, as requested, in Section 1.2. 20. "Proffer 1.3 appears to be unnecessary. It may be more desirable and ultimately more efficient and profitable to allow for a more intensive use of the property. " Response: The Applicant seeks to clarify with Proffer 1.3 that this application is for an assisted living facility of up to 75,000 SF and that all other B-2 uses shall be permitted on this site provided a new TIA is commissioned and any reasonable recommendations provided in that study will be addressed with submission of a site plan for said use. 21. `Any proffered limitations should be directly related to the analysis provided in the Impact Analysis, in particular, the TIA. " Response: 22. "Proffer 2.1 should be evaluated to reflect the desire not to have an entrance on Route 50 in close proximity to the signalized intersection. " Response: The proposed right in/right out from Route 50 is an improvement of existing Echo Lane and must be maintained for access to this property and to the existing Allegheny Power sub -station on the property behind this property. This will also allow for better access by fire and rescue vehicles and for deliveries by larger trucks. 23, "Proffers 3 and 5 appear to be unnecessary. They would be required in order to develop the site. " Response: Proffer 5 has been removed accordingly. Proffer 3 has been expanded to elaborate on inter -parcel connectivity. Mr. Michael Ruddy June 26, 2008 Page 10 of 10 24. "The proffer statement must be signed by the owner/owners of the property. " Response: The proffer statement will be signed by the owner/owners of the property upon submission of the final Rezoning application. These names have been included accordingly. 25. "In summary, this proffer statement simply provides for a 100,000 square foot Assisted Living Facility and a monetary contribution of $2, 000.00 for fire and rescue purposes. I would offer that this in inadequate to address the impacts associated with this request, the unique characteristics of the site's location, and the Comprehensive Plan and the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Response: We note that no reviewing agency has requested this application to offset any impact perceived by this development. However, the proffer statement has been revised to include: up to a maximum of 25' of right-of-way reservation along the rear of the property for the future extension of Round Hill Road to Ward Avenue by others; right-of-way dedication and improvements to Ward Avenue; Route 50 frontage improvements; allowance of future inter -parcel access to adjacent properties; a provision to submit a new TIA with any further development of the property; and a $25,000.00 contribution for future road improvements in the vicinity of this project if constructed within five (5) years of the approval of the zoning. Other: 26. "I would suggest an evaluation of the existing mature specimen trees on the property to determine if any can be incorporated into the design of the project. It would be desirable to preserve such examples ifpossible. " Response: An evaluation of the existing vegetation was performed by a Certified Arborist. Per Part 4: Existing Vegetation Report, the trees onsite are "advantageous" (weedy) trees of limited merit (by type, shape, size, or overall visual quality/ coarseness). Should any trees be within areas not in need of site grading, as determined by final engineering, attempts for preservation will be reviewed. Should you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at the office. Sincerely, BOWMA CONSULTIN ROUP Michael P. Pointer, ASLA Principal cc: W. R. "Bo" Cook, Jr., N_tLH_unt Christopher T. Oldham, C.A., C.L.A., Bowman Consulting Group Thomas "Ty" Lawson, Lawson & Silek R\5132 - Route 50 Assisted Living\5132-01-003 (PLN)\Admin\Comment-ResponseVune 26, 2008 to Mike Ruddy.doc PRELIiMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 9 ACRE PARCEL, ROUTE 50 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA FOR MR. C. ALLAN LOGAN. SR. ISI HH UNIT OCTOBER 26. 2007 ECS MID -ATLANTIC, LLC. _ Gew'oteelutical o Collstructioll INIaterials ° Eiv ronmental ° I++"acilities October 26. 2007 1lkfi% C. Allan Lo+unin. Sr. HHHunt 1 1 7 Edinburgh Sotlt}l Suite 100 Carv. North Carolina 27.511 1 ECS .lob No. 9194 Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation 9 Acre Parcel, Rout:, 50 ��Jinchesier, Vir,inia Dear lMr. Loran: As authorized by acceptance of our proposal No. 17249 -GP. ECS Mid -Atlantic. LLC* (ECS) has completed the preliminarygreotechnical evaluation For the referenced site. This report provides veoteclmirll information and preliminary recommendations addressing, the suitability of st)il, rock and groundwater conditions foe° lilstaljai ioil and support of proposed development. The site appears suitable for file proposed assisted living development. There are, however, some geotecluilcal issues that must be considered for planning and budgeting. Of primary concern are file characteristics of the underlying limestone bedrock. The depth to bedrock is highly variable throughout file site due to the pillilacled weatlleiing which occurs in this geologic tell'ane. Additionally, large: detac=hed boulders may also be encountered in the soil profile. Refusal depths in limestone generally represent tilt practical Unfits of Ge)Iiventional exe avatioll. A total of six (6) test pits were e.xcavated with some encountering bucket refusal oil hard rock and others to the limits of the equipment. The depths of the test bits excavated ranged from bucket refusal at approximately three (a) feet to equipment limits at 1I feet below C.,Jstilw grades. Therefore. dependent of filial `r-ading plans and maximum cuts and fills. deep utility installations and confined excavations may encounter shallow limestone bedrock Xv}licll couid require more costly rock excavation methods (e.g., drilling and blasting or hot. -ramming) to reach file proposed utility inverts and road and building pad grades. The site is located in a geologic terrane that is identified to have karst development potential. For construction recommendations regarding karst development. please ser the "Special Cotisiderations - Karst Terrane" section ofthis report. The residual soil profile weathered frolll limestone presents additional ellallen.Ies to site grading. Specifically. these materials, deseribcd as logy plasticity silts and clays. Ire unstable when exposed rind 5LAUrated. especially In midways and ht'ai-ili` ti'ai'i3ied areas. Excavated maortal reused as fill can be difficult to work with under wet conditions. anti extended eh),ing periods 106 NVind!' Hill Lane. ��'inLh+ ;ler. VA 22602 °(54M 607-377t) FAX (540{ 607-3710 �!~ �t�v.iitililnilcit.iellll .MD. 13;111i'714Ift% N11) {11;1DI111t_ VA • C'13:1Y'I+ tet,, illi, V-1 • FrcdcrlcL. \117 I r.,leri 1.,i7.u'_.. !;l 1 J�Call t,'its,. NH Richmond. !':! • Ro'.,tsol.e. VA � !'i:�?yd1 iS; 1: .3cil. \A • 1+Ath'rl%H) � tl-ilii;�ltr.hcu_. ! \ � 11u1cIlv,l r. VA • nosh. PA - iC�i11i=' -Cl "ok ---------- V 9 Acre Pareel — gout.,.iO ECS Job �N;o. 9 194 , ober ' 6. 11107 Page; 2 may be j,equired to i -educe moisture content to levels suitable lbr fill. Therefore, earthwork costs hil-dler 1,11,111 usual call be anticipated during the wetter nionflis. Additionally- for this reason, eadhwoi-k operations should be performed under the- guidance of a qualified geotechnical enuineer. NVe will be pleased to provide these services during. construe'11011. The soil samples analyzed were classified as low plasticity clays. High plasticity soils are encountered in this --ograIpbic re gion and may be encountered during earth work on this site; therefore, we have enclosed file section OD "Special Considerations - High Plasticity Soils". It. ' high plasticity suspect soils are encountered, these nIaterials should be tested for their swell Potential bet -ore being utilized as fill material. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. If you have questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Lis. Respect fiflIN!, ECS A-> id -Atlantic, SLC -pop Aloshua NV. Flollonian. C.P.G. Stuart B. Mayb E. Stuart 8. Mayberry Senior Project Engii ce leer Senior Emineeiinu Geologist Lic, No. 36551 0 1012610 N A L 1-11 ` 5 Suite 100 CFH -y Nforth F arojirz 27511 ECS P rQjecl 9222 t_ e :i'e"� e: cl kc� € r SS s E � � F.,—urate 50 Winchester TV. Virghda ('reviged") Dear t fir. L Farr: Pursuant (0 Your request, thle Undersigned visited thie re iwellce ! situ on P.Tfy4't„:I iE_ve 26. _007 in u`se'sthe , otentiai for jurisdictional When of Me thS. (_AkT€a w.) to be present. Our assessii ent was pen -f stied in guidelines in the S. `-`Fttjy - E -s of Engineers iF'r"tlalsld Delirect:t€Cn 1°,rcaE'L€=i �iavironmental E .c'ibo atmy., 19,97). €©r determining jurisdictional -,veal _ndl C}oundariES. The- property mider considei'atie'll inooi`p oraws alai--ir dinaFtely 9. 25 acres and is p_C'igi€atrily Ot``an p stme- located on the sowh side of North,vestE;rn Pike (TJ.S. Route its)just west of Ward Avenue. The property is _urther i€ ej—Ptikled as Tau, N/la} Parcels ,r3_ ` 431 &7 _ as well ..?-r--.-� U� y'', � �?.S .e .`'.iliaii Y`c'si�[eiltE��i �'t�t1'C.:Fi Vit} theeast :dentilied as 5 -IB -3-25, rhe topography o the Site slopes gently to the iiGi"thea€s"f firoin a, high of al E f'b� ihrp hely 625 above mean sea level (lvtSL) with al-tTa o.,,i l a eels, 0 feet of total relief Basel Eget USES trapographic and 1--lati€ nal Viletland hiventory niaps, there are no creel s, ponds or wetlands mapped on the IES' Property is underlain by 4el-drained c fJ� l�a%fsoils �TveaFtiGt'ed over vi-€a±lif it beatiock limestone. and xmllich are not alia.-ractpei' ed as hydric. As noted, the pioperty is �:rii" arify olden pasture. and ovc eci by upland -crass s with smnall €hiders, of sore -shrub `talc:dJLll' 110 hydrophy"tic vegeta €ion or areas of suspect seasonal wetness ivere obseF' ),ad on the premise -s.. fn GoI-t C,Iusib'.il, it is our opiili(neIt! la.E ark; ilf3 (-jr ciiher juri-sclictiar!aI W.Iters ofthe U.S. pis- sE sit onsi,Ee, Iff you should require 'Urt ter assistance please !_'lrs not he-silate try cortcc,•t Our fit%imbes er offilce. at 540-667-3750 c e pec Chill y :Elbi-ni}_tc;d, i cRock �. '; is 53 A 74 � A n - IT 50 Assisted Living Facility, � �'U A a ReZoning R a A , REZ 06 - 08 w 62 ~ j `AR. 53A75 PIN: 53 -A -81,53-A-82,536-3-25 77 VE 53 A 76 DRTHWES ERN PEKE A --~_ ■ 50 ! ` ` ■ t h 638 6 53B 3 1 53 8 3 24■- ct"r 538 3 2 538 3 t �3 f0 538 i 3 26 5 $38 3 rr.538 328 .638 3 538 3 - . 13 X29 538 3 1 14 53 A 82 538 3 30 .may' 538 3 15 m tim $39 3...�, 53g 3 16 f yam y^,0 y� 539 3 31 -..■ 53B 3 1T - r r 53B538 . • t 3 33 . F 538 3 3� r 538 -_ 3 -19 53 A 83 e 538 - g 538 •-. N 3 35 -.- 3 ?0 Q _ 5381 36 53B 3 21 ,� ■ 53& 3 37 -. 538 3.. 2-2 r ,- ■ 53 A 86 53 A 86A N 0 250 500 W* I r- 536 3 38 ; 98B 3 23 '��" - •_ F � Case Planner: Mike 53 A 866 ® REZ0608_AsssitedLivingFachity Zoning .� 8 M2 (Industrial. General District) A' Future Rt37 Bypass B I (Business. Neighborhood District) ' MH 1 (Mobile Home Commumty District) po ® Urban Development Area B2 (Business, General Distrisp MS (Medical Support District) SWSA B3 (Business, Indusutal Transition District) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) lob EM (ENtractiVe Manufacturing District) R5 (Residential Recreational Communitt District) t^ 0 � #4W HE (Higher Education District) �—� RA (Rural Area District) t1 4W M 1 (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residential Performance District) 1,000 Feet C0 ca_Gving F, ctiiLy tn...ti - L200b - .2� p, PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RA TO B2 PROPERTY: 10.24 Acres/ Tax Map Parcels: 53-A-81, 53-A-82, & 53B-3-25 RECORD OWNERS: Darla Poe Funkhouser Sharon S. Poe PHTH Properties, LLC APPLICANT: HHHunt Corporation PROJECT NAME: Route 50 Assisted Living Facility PROFFER DATE: February 22, 2008 Revised: June 24, 2008 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as identified above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. Any improvements proffered herein below shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. When used in these proffers, the General Development Plan ("GDP") shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Route 50 Assisted Living Facility" comprised of one (1) sheet, prepared by Bowman Consulting Group, LTD., and shall include the following: -"Generalized Development Plan" dated January 2008 and revised through June 24, 2008 The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as reference herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. The applicant hereby proffers as follows: LAND USE/ BUILDING 1.1 The Applicant intends to develop the property with up to 75,000 SF of assisted living care facility use. All other B-2 uses shall be permitted on this site provided a new Traffic Impact Analysis is commissioned and any reasonable recommendations from said study will be addressed with the submission of a site plan for said uses. 1.2 All site improvements, as shown in the Generalized Development Plan (GDP), such as: Route 50 frontage improvements; Ward Avenue frontage improvements; an enhanced 100' road efficiency buffer along Route 50; enhanced Category B buffer yards along east, west, and south property lines; on-site drive aisles and parking; sidewalks; and site landscaping and lighting shall be constructed or bonded by the Applicant within the earlier of 1 year from Zoning Approval or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. This does not include potential connections to adjacent (or future) roads as illustrated on the GDP. 2. SITE DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Site entrances shall be limited to three (3) as shown on the GDP. Direct access to the Property from Route 50 shall be limited to an improved right in/ right out only entrance. Secondary access is to be provided to Ward Avenue. The third access point is shown along the southern boundary to maintain access to the existing Allegheny power service substation and to allow for a future connection to the Round Hill Road extension by others. The exact design and location of each entrance shall be determined upon final engineering and pursuant to the specifications and approval of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). 2.2 The Applicant agrees to use a mix of brick and siding to break up the elevations of the structure and to provide an attractive facility generally as depicted in exhibits provided. Any future additional structures will be required to use compatible materials for design continuity. 3. TRANSPORTATION 3.1 Up to a maximum of 25' along the southern property boundary will be reserved for possible right-of-way dedication for the extension of existing Round Hill Road by others, consistent with the Round Hill Land Use Plan (RHLUP) provided said road is installed within five (5) years of this zoning approval. 3.2 The applicant has provided for potential inter -parcel access locations to adjacent properties in the general locations noted on the GDP to help facilitate connectivity within the Round Hill Land Use Plan (RHLUP) area. 3.3 A revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be submitted for any future development of this site. 3.4 The Applicant agrees to contribute to Frederick County the sum of $25,000.00 for future road improvements to Route 50, Ward Avenue, or the extension of Round Hill Road within 500 feet of the Property provided the improvements are completed within five (5) years of this zoning approval. The payment shall be made by the Applicant upon receipt of notice of commencement of the aforementioned road improvements provided said Notice is received within five (5) years of the approval of this rezoning. 4. FIRE & RESCUE 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum of $2,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes, upon the issuance of a building permit. Respectfully submitted, a4ml W. R. `Bo" Cook, Jr. (Applicant) STATE OF V t R�/Nfn , AT LARGE CITY/ COUNTY of-r=fyo"fj � , To -wit: The ford of 'ns e wa acknowledged before me this Z6, 2008, by 0 My commission expires: �_&Iq guf,e ZZ 2-0a Registration No.: D ALIO k ay e� Darla Poe Funkhouser (Owner) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: NOTARY PUBLIC day of Vd�� fEATHER D. KEHOI= DivLX -}.i �S b'°'1.Y.l,K.y Foh l The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thish_26 day of June, 2008, by Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire, attorney-in-fact pursuant to a Special Limited Power of Attorney. mn J. �}S�N T NOTARY PUBLIC P.•- " 'NOTARY . t - PUBLIC My commission expire: REG#324329 Registration No.: n MY COMMISSION — 10131/20/ OF�.�\` f��!rrriitts,�` FW Tu PHTH Properties,LL p (Owner) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this J54 day of June, 2008, by Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire, attorney-in-fact pursuant to a Special Limited Power of Attorney. Xj%J111111/1 // N T �\50 -- . O0 '%� NOTARY PUBLIC Q . NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission expires: REG # 324324 - Registration No.: _ r-, : MY COMMISSION ' 10/31/20 PROPOSED ENHANCED 100 ROAD EFFICIENCY BUFFER AND CATEGORY *'B"— BUFFER PROnRTY IPE DOWIDW I'WERW LKE ME z :-j :D < -j 0 < U 'S' 807EER YARD S'0f'4NALL DRIVE - RTE. 858 GRAPHIC SCALP, Df ner I i -h - W ft, (VAP4ASLF 03TH—P AL ROAD t IT EAS oBcUp,,D 14 X ��10`jr 20' k YARD 4, J/F7 X FUNKHOUSER DARLA POE AND VA S? c - POE, �HARON S - MAP ID: 53-A-81 ZONE 8 RA TO BE REZONED TO TO 2 Xt9 ACRES r rI DO 0734 PG 09,5 /Y, EYISTI,4r w0. 11CRESS/ELRES5 T- . Sm T. OB )-,3:, PC o9.5 v �w - - - -- 41 kit cS jr Q- ap- BUILDING #2 j r! At ------------ MAINTENANCE BUILDING CONTINUED ACCESS TO -ALLEGHENY X", PC f,ER SERVICE STATION N/F FUNKHOUSER, DARLA POE AND POE, SHARON S. 1�7 MAP ID: 53—A-82 ZONED RA TO BE REZONED TO B2 ±13.0 ACRES ' , �opolx'M ccNvl-lcIIoQ -- -FROPS =D mwwang T6 20 DL WA LCGt•AN - -'—C N/F MAP 0- ZViEfl: RA TO SE REZONED 92 4-15 ACRE KQ7$7 I- NO ST=EP SLOPES OVER 50% AND i;REATER EXIST ON THE SITE- 2. ITE2. FINAL LfYOUT SIJRJECT TO EN^NCERED SITE PLAW LEGEND EASTING DESCRIPTION PROnRTY IPE DOWIDW I'WERW LKE ME z :-j :D < -j 0 < U SAMMY SE.94 0 11 Y UMV ME/ E Ymc LPE STM SclE LW PROPOSED DESCRIPTION CD Etta OF rAvam W— Wki-Tut SWTARY SDO OI'AftNt AREA FUTURE DESCRIPTION I-- C.) Foull WLK _ Ln cau-Ectm Rw U) CD LLJ (n -1 z < <: KU �40 USE KM D04TED KY. 2DO7 C) L'i L0 Li CD M-Ecmm al CTOI I, .1. CRKD SCALE IIGRIZA'.", VERT JOB No. 5132-01-003 DATE JAN. 2008 ME No. 5132—D—ZP-001 SHEET 1 2L J, z :-j :D < -j 0 < U 0 11 Y Ld < LJ CD 0 0 -i >Ui LLI LLI 0 I-- C.) _ Ln U) CD LLJ (n -1 z < <: < otf C) L'i L0 Li CD Z Ld < W0 F- =) 0 Lj of LLI m WD tic Na. 34091 al CTOI I, .1. CRKD SCALE IIGRIZA'.", VERT JOB No. 5132-01-003 DATE JAN. 2008 ME No. 5132—D—ZP-001 SHEET 1 2L J, IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE REZONING OF: ROUTE 50 -ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY INTRODUCTION: (See Appendix II: Context Exhibit) (See Appendix IV: Round Hill Land Use Plan) (See Appendix V: Long-range Land Use Plan) This 10.23 acre site composed of three parcels is proposed for rezoning from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) for use as an Assisted Living, Health Services Facility as a by -right use under that zoning category. It is located west of the City of Winchester on Route 50 (south side) approximately '/ mile west of the Route 37 bypass. The site is situated between, but not adjacent to, the cross streets of Ward Avenue and Round Hill Road and has an access road near its western property line (Echo Lane). Tax map identification numbers for the three properties are: 53-A-81, 53-A-82, and 5313- 3-25. The existing uses in the vicinity are relatively equal parts of residential, commercial, and open space. It is within the Round Hill Land Use Plan, as enacted in November 2-007, and designated for business uses in the Comprehensive Plan. The anticipated completion date is Fall 2009. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: (See Appendix VI: Existing Natural Conditions for delineations, if applicable, of the following subjects.) 1. loo year flood plain: Per the latest FEMA Panel Number 51oo63 0115 B (July 17,1978) there is no floodplain onsite. The closest flood plain to the site is associated with Abrams Creek approximately 450 ft behind the rear property line of the subject parcel parallel with the Winchester and Western Railroad tracks. 2. Wetlands: (See Appendix VII: Wetlands study by ECS) There are no wetlands onsite per a study conducted by ECS on a site visit November 26, 2007. 3. Steep slopes: The site is composed of primarily rolling topography over its area. There are small areas of steep slopes scattered around the site that are typically associated with rock outcroppings. There is approximately 19,330 sf (0.44 ac) of land in slopes of 15-25% and 1,815 sf (0.04 ac) of land in slopes of 25% and greater. 4. Existing Vegetation Report: This site is primarily one of pastured farmland. There is no mature forest stand on this site. Most of the trees on this site are "advantageous" trees that re -seed readily in most environments. The total area of the canopy of vegetation onsite is approximately 72,550 sf (1.65 ac). Pasture land: -AREA (all areas are approximate): -OVERALL FOREST CONDITION: 10.23 acres The treed areas onsite are of a fair to poor quality. 213 of the trees are growing in areas that are noticeably rocky and the buttresses of the trees are molding around the rock. This starts a choking process in getting nutrients to the tree and many are dying due to this. Being a cattle field for many years, there is also much compacting of the soil from the cows. -CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Primarily black locust and tree -of -heaven (about the only two trees capable of tolerating the conditions)/ also includes eastern redcedar, Siberian elm, hackberry, and persimmon. -CANOPY TREE HEIGHT: Variable, but averages approximately 40-50' in height. -CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE: 12-28" -UNDERSTORY TREE SPECIES: (See canopy trees) -UNDERSTORY TREE HEIGHT: 15 -25' -UN DERSTORY TREE CAL. AVER.: 3-10" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: barberry, honeysuckle (shrub & vine), and various briars S. Soils & Bedrock: Prime Agricultural Soils: Two of the three soils on this site are deficient in some way when relating their usefulness to agriculture. The third soil is not actually a part of the site (per the Soil Survey of Frederick County by the USDA), but may be impacted as far as potential road improvements to Route 5o are concerned. The site is comprised of different types of silt loams with a tendency toward rock outcroppings. -6C - Carbo-Oaklet Silt Loams (2-15% sl), ±1.45 acres This soil type is poorly suited to cultivated crops. It is commonly used for pasture (although overgrazing increases runoff). This is due to the erosion common, soil clods common in tillage, and frequent rock outcrops. Fertility is medium and natural organic matter is low. -14C - Frederick-Poplimento Loams (7-15% sl), ±2.4 acres This soil type is considered moderately well-suited to cultivated crops. It is also used for pasture and hay uses. The limitation on growing crops in this soil is the chance for erosion. The subsoil extends to a depth of 6o" or more. Given the chance for erosion, pasture uses would need to be limited to prevent excess compaction. This soil type can also contain areas of rock outcrops. This site does have areas of rock outcrops that are scattered particularly around the high points of the site where erosion over time, and pasture use, has worn away the soil. -17C - Frederick-Poplimento Rock Outcrop Complex (2-157- sl), ±6.38 acres This soil type is not considered well-suited to cultivated crops or hay (tillage is impractical). It can be used for pasture, but the erosion of this type of soil limits that use. The subsoil extends to a depth of 6o" or more, but bedrock is also common at 60". Relation to development: Two of three types of soils are acceptable to development. There is much development in the area despite any limitations noted herein. -6C - Carbo-Oaklet Silt Loams (2-15% sl), ±1.45 acres Development is mainly limited with rock outcrops, shrink/ swell potential being high, and low permeability. -14C - Frederick-Poplimento Loams (7-15% sl), ±3.8 acres Development is mainly limited with clayey subsoil, shrink/ swell potential being high, low strength, moderate permeability, severe erosion, moderate slopes (up to ±20%), and some shallow bedrock. -17C - Frederick-Poplimento Rock Outcrop Complex (2-15% sl), ±6.34 acres Development is mainly limited with clayey subsoil, shrink/ swell potential being moderate, moderate permeability, medium surface runoff, severe erosion, moderate slopes (up to ±30%), and some shallow/ surface bedrock areas (visible onsite). Bedrock: Of note is that this area has been found to have the potential for sinkhole development. In a separate study by ECS, LLC, this subject is expanded upon further. Please see the "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation" in Appendix VII. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES & PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (See Appendices II, III, & XII: Architectural Graphics) There are two existing neighborhoods that flank the subject property to the east and west. They feed into Stonewall Drive and Ward Avenue respectively. The neighborhood to the west (Stonewall) has been subdivided a number of times over the past 55 years; the latest house being built in 2005. The neighborhood to the east (Ward) has a similar background with houses dating from 1941-2005. All houses within these neighborhoods are single-family detached and vary extensively in type/ style due to the continual development. The lot sizes average % to % acres and the zoning is RA. In addition to those existing RA developments, there are other adjacent and/ or nearby lots that have larger lot sizes and/ or different zoning categories. Adjacent and to the south is another RA -zoned property that is ±14.55 acres and contains a power easement within its property (access of which is obtained through the previously mentioned Echo Lane through the subject property). Also zoned RA in the vicinity of the site is the Candy Hill camping ground and the Farmers Livestock Exchange. The final adjacent lot, next to the northeast corner of the property is a B2 -zoned property owned by Marathon Bank. Nearby lots that are listed as B2 are the Courthouse Marriott and the properties associated with/ including the Walmart Supercenter. The nearby Citgo station, opposite the bank, is zoned RP. The proposed architecture of this assisted living facility will tie into its surroundings in an aesthetically pleasing way. While having the design ethic of a neighboring house, it will also share the size of its nearby business counterparts and fit within a future B2 zoned area. C. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: (See Appendix VII I: Traffic Impact Analysis) The TIA included (dated February 1't, 2008), was performed by Gorove/ Slade Associates, Inc. Note that per a meeting with Lloyd Ingram of VDOT December 11, 2007, they do not want internal public access through this lot parallel to Route 50. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT: (See Appendix IX: Sewer & Water Exhibit) As mentioned in the introduction, the proposed facility property is fully contained within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County per the adopted Round Hill Land Use Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. Sewer to the site will be provided by Frederick County Sanitation Authority. There is an existing sewer line along Ward Avenue with service proposed for this site through an extension of approximately 280' of sewer line. The sewage will be treated at the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility, which has an overall capacity of 8.4 million gallons of water per day. The available capacity is currently ±6o,000 gallons/ day per Earl Wiley, engineer for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA). There are existing parcels north of Route 50 with reserved capacity and the Opequon Facility is expected to expand by 2011. Please reference the calculations below for both the water and sewer flow demands: Typical Demand: Number of Beds= 87 Average Daily Demand= 87 beds x zoo GPD/bed = ±17,400 GPD Peak Hour Demand: 17,400 GPD x 2.5 = ±43,500 GPD E. WATER SUPPLY: (See Appendix IX: Sewer & Water Exhibit) Water to the site will be provided by the James T. Anderson Water Treatment Plant, which has an overall capacity of 4.0 million gallons/ day (expandable to 6.o mgd). Earl Wiley of FCSA has stated that there is no shortage of use available from this facility. There is currently no water main extending along either side of Route 50 (Northwestern Pike). This site will be served through the extension of approximately 28o' of waterline along Ward Avenue. If requested, a water system analysis will be performed prior to site plan approval to determine if the existing 20" line on Ward Ave has adequate pressure and flow to meet the needs of the proposed site for both domestic and fire service although it is unlikely one will be needed. Water supply systems must be designed to supply 1,000 GPM at no less than 20 PSI per section 90-4 E Fire Prevention of the Frederick County General Code. Please reference Section D, Sewage Conveyance and Treatment for the demand flows for the water. F. DRAINAGE: (See Appendix VI: Existing Natural Conditions) Currently, approximately %4 of the site drains toward Route 5o storm drains (with eventual drainage into Abrams Creek). The back Y of the site drains, via wide Swale fingers, back to Abrams Creek. The grade along most of these swales is relatively gradual at <15%, with a few areas of steeper slopes. Preliminarily, one storm water management facility is anticipated near Route 5o, as depicted. This location is subject to change with final site design/ engineering. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES: The 87 beds and care uses within the Route 5o Health Services Facility property will be serviced via private carriers contracted by the property owners. An acceptable amount of waste/ person per Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works is 3.5#1 person/ day for this type of use. As such, the total waste would approximate: 87 people x 3.5#1 person = 305# total/ day H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES: (See Appendix X: Historic Site Letter and Study) Per the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Historic Resources, there were no architectural or archeological sites onsite. I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES: (See Appendix XI: Generalized Development Plan) The Route 5o Assisted Living Facility property is a project that accomplishes the Round Hill Land Use Plan guideline of developing commercial areas in which, "Commercial, medical support, medical offices... are important components of the RH LU P." This development will help the community as far as economic development is concerned. There are few small- scale assisted living facilities in the Winchester area and this proposed development will fill a void in particular within the Round Hill Community. Given the target group using this site, Frederick County Public Schools and parks & recreation will be affected very little. Police protection is also likely not to be impacted much on a daily basis. The one service that might be affected would be fire & rescue protection for ambulance transport, of which Winchester Medical Center is within % mile of the proposed facility (see Appendix 1) and the Round Hill Fire & Rescue is approximately i.o mile away. This was a prime reason for choosing this location. Traffic Impact Analysis H H HUNS Assisted Living Frederick County, Virginia February 1, 2008 Prepared For: Bowman Consulting Group 124 East Cork Street Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared By: Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc. CDRCVE/SLADE ASSOCIATES., ING, Alt 3nsport rr•}1"i, Tr'3rf c 3 ad Pa- r"'flirt, 1140 Connecticut Avenue Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202.296.8625 Fax: 202.785.1276 Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc. 3914 Centreville Road Suite 330 Chantilly, VA 20151 Tel: 703.787.9595 Fax: 703.787.9905 ADDITIONAL OFFICES: 651 Holiday Drive Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 Tel: 412-928-1730 Fax: 412-928-1731 www.gorovesla€te.com 825 Chicago Avenue Suite D Chicago, IL 60202 Tel: 847.733.1390 Fax: 847.733.1391 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of services, is intended for the specific purpose and client for which is was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization by Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc., shall be without liability to Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc. HH Hunt Assisted Livi Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS Listof Figures------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 Listof Tables----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ExecutiveSummary--------------------------------------------------------------.-------------------------------- 3 Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Scopeof Study----------.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Existing Conditions (2008) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 ExistingRoadway Network--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 ExistingTraffic Volumes------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis---------------------------------------------------------------------5 Future Conditions Without Development (Future Background 2010) -------------------------- ---7 Planned Roadway Improvements---------------------------------------------------------------------------7 Future Conditions without Development Traffic Volumes ------------------------ --- - 7 Future Conditions without Development Capacity Analysis--------------------------------------------- 8 Future Conditions With Development (Total Future 2010) ----------------------------------------------- 10 SiteDescription------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - 10 SiteAccess-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 SiteGenerated Volumes----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Directional Distribution, Trip Assignment, and Total Future Traffic Volumes---------------------- 11 Total Future Capacity Analysis--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 Warrant Analyses- Right Turn Lane---------------------------------------------------------------- - 15 Pedestrian and Bike Facilities on Site------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 Queuing analysis (2010) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 Conclusions----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 February 1, 2008 HH Hunt Assisted Livin raffic Impact Analysis Eal LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Map and Site Location....................................................................... . . 2 Figure 2: Existing (2008) Conditions ................................ . ......................... . ..... . ........... , ... 6 Figure 3: Future Conditions without Development 2010 ............... . ........................... 9 Figure 4: Site Generated PM/ SAT Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................. 12 Figure 5: Future Conditions with Development 2010 ............................................14 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Existing (2008) Intersection Capacity Analysis ...... ...................... — .............. ............ 5 Table 2: Future Conditions without Development (2010) Intersection Capacity Analysis ................ 8 Table 3: Proposed Site Trip Generation (2010) ................. . ...............................................10 Table 4: Future Conditions with Development (20 10) Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................13 Table 5: Warrant Analysis for Right Turn Lanes ... . :...........................................................15 February 1, 2008 HH Hunt Assisted Livi, Traffic Impact Analysis Pit EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following report presents the findings of a traffic impact analysis for the proposed HH Hunt Assisted Living development in Frederick County, Virginia. The site is located just outside the city of Winchester along the south side of Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) bounded by Echo Lane to the west and Ward Avenue/ Botanical Boulevard to the east. The proposed HH Hunt development plan consists of approximately 84 beds for assisted living housing. The development will have primary access from Ward Avenue and a secondary limited access from Route 50 (Northwestern Pike). The project is scheduled to be built -out by the year 2010. The analysis presented in this report supports the following major conclusions: Existing Conditions (2008) ' No mitigations are required at the study intersections under the existing conditions based on the criteria set forth by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) (LOS D or better per lane group). Future Conditions without Development (Future Background 2010: ' No mitigations are required at the study intersections under the future conditions without development scenario based on the criteria set forth by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) (LOS D or better per lane group). Future Conditions with Development (Total Future 2010): ' The projected site trips for the assisted living development will have a negligible impact on the roadway network within the vicinity of the site. ' The HH Hunt development during the peak traffic hours will generate: ❑ Approximately 25 trips during the PM peak Hour (13 in and 12 out) and 34 Saturday peak hour trips (18 in and 16 out). ❑ Approximately 1 trip every 2 minutes will travel along Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) in the PM and Saturday peak hours. All intersections operate at an acceptable level of service based on the criteria set forth by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) (LOS D or better per lane group). February 1, 2008 HH Hunt Assisted Lir Traffic Impact Analysis INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of a traffic impact analysis for the proposed HH Hunt Assisted Livin development in Frederick County, Virginia. The site is located just outside the City of Winchester along the south side of Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) bounded by Echo Lane in the west and Ward Avenue/ Botanical Boulevard to the east. The general location of the site is indicated in the regional map found in Figure 1. The proposed assisted living development plan consists of approximately 84 beds for assisted living housing. Two (2) access points to the proposed site will be provided. The primary site drive is along Ward Avenue, just south of the intersection of Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) with Ward Avenue. The secondary site drive is located along Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) along Echo Lane (Limited Access). The development site is currently zoned as a Rural Area (RA). A rezoning of the property to B2 is being proposed for the assisted living residential development. The following tasks were undertaken as part of this study in accordance with direction received from VDOT staff in a scoping meeting held on January 17, 2008: ■ Field reconnaissance in the vicinity of the site was performed to collect information related to existing traffic controls, roadway geometry, and traffic flow characteristics; ■ Traffic counts were conducted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 and Saturday, January 12, 2008 during the afternoon and Saturday peak hours at the intersections located within the study area; ■ Future traffic conditions were projected based on inherent traffic growth of two percem compounded annually over a two-year period to account for regional development along the roadway network along with the trips generated from the background development within the vicinity of the study area and the proposed site plan. r Site traffic volumes were generated based on the methodology outlined in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 7t11 Edition. The ITE Trip generation rate for assisted living developments is approximately 4 trips per day per bed. Intersection capacity analyses were performed using Synchro, version 6.0 based on the Highway CCQacity Manual methodology. Traffic analyses were performed for the existing conditions (2008), future conditions without development (Future Background 2010), and future conditions with development (Total Future 2010) at the intersections and roadway segments contained within the study area. Sources of data for this study include Frederick County, VDOT, and the office files and field reconnaissance efforts of Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc. February 1, 2008 1 HH Hunt Assisted Livi, Traff.'c Impact Analysis Figure 1: Regional Map and Site Location February "1 2008 2 . iaht�: ,.V1 v ri,4 Round Hill flL K1,H)v 522i Pilk cr .50 51 2 Alt $ T L P fid. t �yyr$r I jtw Z5 :T rjb,, , 6?a&4, it H C- I N t"rc�-075 Ln Apple 01 F R' E D 'K February "1 2008 2 HH Hunt Assisted Livi. Traffic Impact Analysis O Scope Of Study The following intersections were identified for inclusion in this study: ■ Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) and Echo Lane; ■ Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) and Ward Avenue/ Botanical Boulevard; 0 All site driveways associated with the proposed site. This report presents the findings of analyses performed for the following conditions: 0 Existing Conditions (2008): Consider existing traffic volumes and existing roadway configurations during the weekday evening and Saturday peak hours. Future Conditions without Development (Future Background 2010): Consider future traffic conditions resulting from inherent traffic growth, but do not include volumes generated by the proposed HH Hunt Assisted Living development. ■ Future Conditions with Development (Total Future 2010): Consider future traffic volumes with the background growth and traffic generated by the proposed site. The results of the analysis and the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development plan are presented in the Conclusion section of this report. Febe nary 1, 2008 3 HH Hunt Assisted Livin fraffic Impact Analysis;i EXISTING CONDITIONS (2008) Existing /roadway Network A description of the major roadways within the immediate vicinity of the site is presented below • Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) is a four -lane, divided roadway with posted speed limit of 3S mph in the vicinity of the site. • Echo Lane is a two-lane, undivided roadway. There is no median break at the intersection of Echo Lane. Hence, the northern and southern approaches have a right -in right -out access. • Ward Avenue is a two-lane, undivided roadway. There was no posted speed limit sign in the vicinity of the site. ■ Botanical Boulevard is a four -lane, undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph in the vicinity of the site. Figure 2 illustrates the local roadway network with the existing intersection lane uses and traffic control devices. Existing Traffic Volumes In order to determine the peak hour turning movement traffic volumes, traffic counts were conducted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM and on Saturday, January 12, 2008 from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Analysis of the existing traffic data determined that the weekday afternoon peak hour occurred from 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM and the Saturday peak hour occurred from 12:45 PM to 1:45 PM. The existing peak hour traffic volumes for the intersections contained within the study area are shown in Figure 2. The existing turning movement counts are included in the Technical Appendix. February 1, 2008 4 HH Hunt Assisted Livi. Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis Intersection and roadway capacity analyses were performed for the existing conditions at the intersections and roadway segments contained within the study area during the afternoon and Saturday peak hours. Synchro, version 6.0 was used to analyze the study intersections based on the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. The results of the intersection capacity analyses are presented in Table 1, and are expressed in level of service (LOS) and delay (seconds per vehicle) per lane group. Figure 2 illustrates the results graphically. Table 1: Existing (2008) Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection (Lane Group) Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour Level of Delay Level of Delay Service (sec/veh) Service (sec/veh Route 50 and Echo Lane Drive (Unsignalized*) Northbound Right A 0.0 A 0-0 Southbound Right A 9.1 A 9.7 Route 50 and Ward Avenue/Botanical Boulevard (Signalized) Overall A 8.6 A 8.8 Eastbound Left D 45.5 D 51.9 Eastbound Through A 7.6 A 8.2 Eastbound Right A 6.0 A 5-6 Westbound Left D 45.6 D 50.7 Westbound Through A 6.2 A 6.6 Westbound Right A 4.9 A 5.0 Northbound Left/Through D 43.2 D 49.5 Northbound Right D 42.2 D 48.1 Southbound Left A 0.0 D 49.0 Southbound Left/Through A 0.0 D 49.1 Southbound Right D 44.4 D 48.5 * There is no median break at the intersection of Echo Lane with Route 50. Hence, the northern and southern approaches have a right -in right -out access According to VDOT guidelines on traffic operations performance, it is desirable to achieve a L,OS D or better per lane group. The results presented in the Table 1 conclude that: ° No mitigations are required at the study intersections under the existing conditions based on the criteria set forth by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) (LOS D or better per lane group). February 1, 2008 5 HH Hunt Assited Living, ,elopment_ Fig.+re 2 Existing (2008) Conditions February 1, 2008 HH Hunt Assisted Livi Traffic Impact Analysis FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT (FUTURE BACKGROUND 2010) Planned Roadway Improvements There are no planned roadway improvements in the area. Future Conditions without Development Traffic Volumes The construction of the proposed assisted living development is anticipated to be complete in 2010. Typically, future traffic volumes are projected by increasing existing traffic volumes to the build -out year using a growth rate based on historical traffic growth. Based on historical data obtained from VDOT, an inherent growth rate of two (2) percent per year over a two-year period, or a total increase of 4.04% was applied to the existing traffic volumes along Route 50. The Valley Health Systems, Degrange Property and WWW Property sites were the approved developments identified at the scoping meeting with VDOT and the County. These approved developments are located in close proximity of the proposed Assisted Living Facility, north of Route 50 (Northwestern Pike). The traffic studies for these approved developments were prepared by PHR+A, and were utilized in order to calculate the trip generation and distribution. The trip generation tables and distribution for the approved developments is attached in the appendix section of the report. The trips generated by the background approved developments along with the inherent growth were added to the existing volumes to estimate the future volumes without development as illustrated i Figure 3. February 1, 2008 7 HH Hunt Assisted Livin_ fraffic Impact Analysis Future Conclitions without Development Capacity Analysis Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the future background conditions at the intersections and roadway segments contained within the study area during the afternoon and Saturday peak hours. Synchro, version 6.0 was used to analyze the study intersections based on the Hiuhway Capacity Manual methodology. The results of the intersection capacity analyses are presented in Table 2 and Figure 3. The detailed analysis worksheets are contained in the Technical Appendix. Table 2: Future Conditions without Development (2010) Intersection Capacity Analysis * There is no median break at the intersection of Echo Lane with Route 50. Hence, the northern and southern approaches have a right -in right -out access As mentioned earlier in the report, it is desirable to achieve a LOS D or better per lane group. The results in Table 2 conclude that: ■ All study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service under the future conditions without development scenario. February 1, 2008 8 Future Conditions Without Development Intersection (Lane Group) PM Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour Level of Delay Level of Delay Service (sec/veh) Service (sec/veh) Route 50 and Echo Lane (Unsignalized*) Northbound Right A 0.0 A 0.0 Southbound Right A 9.1 A 9.5 Route 50 and Ward Avenue/Botanical Boulevard (Signalized) Overall B 17.5 C 28.8 Eastbound Left D 46.2 D 41.9 Eastbound Through B 15.9 D 36.6 Eastbound Right A 9.3 B 14.2 Westbound Left D 47.7 D 42.3 Westbound Through B 13.3 C 20.6 Westbound Right B 11.2 B 13.5 Northbound Left/Through D 45.7 D 37.8 Northbound Right D 44.8 D 37.0 Southbound Left D 44.0 C 33.2 Southbound Left/Through D 44.0 C 33.3 Southbound Right D 41.4 C 25.2 * There is no median break at the intersection of Echo Lane with Route 50. Hence, the northern and southern approaches have a right -in right -out access As mentioned earlier in the report, it is desirable to achieve a LOS D or better per lane group. The results in Table 2 conclude that: ■ All study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service under the future conditions without development scenario. February 1, 2008 8 HH Hunt Assisted Livinj velopment Future Background Lane Configuration and Traffic Control m m -�-- Route 50 Northwestern Pike LEGEND ® Existing Conditions m o �— Lane Configuration w 11— Signal i stop Sign Q Future Background PM/SAT Peak Hour Traffic Volumes m m� MOO N�°J 207/97 1053/1487 J 1 1/104/1608 1 42/18 Route SO Northwestern Pike 0/0 62/116 1312/1512— 1209/1354— r m 1/0--Im 41/42 mom m w LEGEND {-MODm 00/00 Peak HourTrafFc -P 00/01 Volumes Future Background PM/SAT Peak Hour Levels of Service m UOU B/B B/C 3 V m D/D Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) BC D/D —J F B/DCS A/B - � o0 w LEGEND t -NA Peak Hour Level of a' _ Service Figure 3 Future Conditions without Development (2010) February 1, 2008 HH Hunt Assisted Livir i raffic Impact Analysis FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT (TOTAL FUTURE 2010) . ,ite Description The proposed HH Hunt Assisted Living development is located just outside the city of Winchester along the south side of Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) bounded by Echo Lane to the west and Ward Avenue/ Botanical Boulevard to the east. The proposed development plan consists of approximately 84 beds for assisted living housing. The development will have primary access from Ward Avenue and a secondary limited access from Route 50 (Northwestern Pike). The project is scheduled to be built -out by the year 2010. Site Access Two access points to the proposed site will be provided. The primary site drive will be along Ward Avenue (Full Access), whereas the existing right -in right -out access (Echo Lane South) along Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) will form the secondary site drive (limited access). Site Generated Volumes In order to calculate the trip generation for the proposed development, the ITE's Trip Generation, 7 Edition publication was used to determine the trips into and out of the proposed site for the weekday afternoon and Saturday peak hours as well as for the entire day. Table 3 presents the new trips generated by the proposed site. Table 3: Proposed Site Trip Generation (2010) Land Use ITE Code Size Total Future Trip Generation PM Peak Hour In Out Total SAT Peak Hour In Out Total Dairy Total Assisted Living 254 84 Beds 13 12 25 18 16 34 231 Total Site Trips 13 12 25 18 16 34 231 February 1, 2008 10 HH Hunt Assisted Livii. Traffic Impact Analysis Directional Distribution, Trip Assignment, and Total Future Traffic Volumes The distribution of the proposed site trips was based on existing volumes and anticipated traffic. patterns. Based on the location of the proposed site and the existing traffic data, the inbound and outbound trips calculated for the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours were routed in the roadway network to the site based on the direction of approach assumptions presented below: Direction of Approach: ® Route 50 (west of Echo Lane) _ 10% Route 50 (east of Ward Avenue) - 90% Number of vehicles entering and exiting the site entrances: Inbound (PMPH/SATPH) ■ Primary site drive (Ward Avenue) = 12 /16 (90%) ■ Secondary site drive (Echo Lane) = 1/2 (10%) Outbound (PMPH/SATPH) a Primary site drive = 5 / 6 (40%) r Secondary site drive = 7/10 (60%) The site traffic assignment for the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours is illustrated in Figure 4. The proposed site trips were added to the future background volumes in order to establish the total future 2010 traffic volumes, and are shown in Figure S. February 1, 2008 11 HH Hunt Assited Living •elopment Figure 4 Site Generated PM/SAT Peak Hour Traffic Volumes February 1, 2008 12 Total Future Lane Configuration and Traffic Control — m t— -r Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) i LEGEND -� �-® Existing Conditions t �— Lane Configuration s° w �/p{f�'"�"� s�+ll `3/ Traffic Signal JL. Stop Sign Q fyl 3 m m 90% Route 50 Northwestern Pike 10% - w LEGEND OD Peak HourTrafic 0%00 X00/00 Volumes Background Site Generated Traffic Volumes moo opo m t 0/0 0 00000 -0/0 L ��/2 Route 50 (Northwestern Pike1 X12/16 0/0 -1 r' 0/0 a/o— 7/10-- 112 -� J 0/0 W fo N� LEGEND �--00/00 5/6-J Site Traffic Volumes — 00/00 0/0---)- 0 0 (--00/00 0 0 Figure 4 Site Generated PM/SAT Peak Hour Traffic Volumes February 1, 2008 12 HH Hunt Assisted Livia Traffic Impact Analysis ' Tota/ Future Capacity Analysis Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the total future 2010 traffic conditions at thc- intersections and roadway segments contained within the study area during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Synchro, version 6.0 was used to analyze the study intersections based on the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. The results of the intersection capacity analyses for the total future conditions are presented in Table 4. The detailed analysis worksheets are contained in the Technical Appendix. Table 4: Future Conditions with Development (2010) Intersection Capacity Analysis * There is no median break at the intersection of Echo Lane with Route 50. Hence, the northern and southern approaches have a right -in right -out access As mentioned before, it is desirable to achieve a LOS D or better per lane group. The results in Table 4 conclude that: ■ All the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service. ® The proposed HH Hunt Assisted Living development will generate approximately 1 trip/ 2 minutes along Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) in the PM and Saturday peak period respectively. Figure 5 shows the results graphically. February 1, 2008 13 Future Conditions With Development Intersection (Lane Group) PM Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour Level of Delay Level of Delay Service (sec/veh) Service (sec/veh) Route 50 and Echo Lane (Unsignalized*) Northbound Right B 14.8 C 16.8 Southbound Right A 9.1 A 9.6 Route 50 and Ward Avenue/Botanical Boulevard (Signalized) Overall B 18.1 C 34.0 Eastbound Left D 44.8 D 50.4 Eastbound Through B 16.7 D 39.5 Eastbound Right A 9.7 B 15.4 Westbound Left D 47.0 D 44.1 Westbound Through B 13.7 C 28.3 Westbound Right B 11.5 B 18.0 Northbound Left/Through D 45.2 D 41.8 Northbound Right D 44.2 D 40.8 Southbound Left D 43.5 D 36.8 Southbound Left/Through D 43.4 D 37.0 Southbound Right D 40.9 C 27.9 Site Drive (Full Access) and Ward Avenue (Unsignalized) Eastbound Left/Right A 9.2 A 9.0 Northbound Through A 0.0 A 0.0 * There is no median break at the intersection of Echo Lane with Route 50. Hence, the northern and southern approaches have a right -in right -out access As mentioned before, it is desirable to achieve a LOS D or better per lane group. The results in Table 4 conclude that: ■ All the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service. ® The proposed HH Hunt Assisted Living development will generate approximately 1 trip/ 2 minutes along Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) in the PM and Saturday peak period respectively. Figure 5 shows the results graphically. February 1, 2008 13 HH Hunt Assisted Livinf velopment Total Future Lane Configuration and Traffic Control ��'�1-207/97 coo + 10105/76D9 m- o "- Imor m J I l_ Route 50 (Northwestern Pike m L_ 0/0 —} 62/116 —j 1 1 f- 1312/1512-12_16/1354---- ® Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) 2/2 i LEGEND —� cov o °J m o t W � N N �Ir L gym® Existing Conditions L00/00 -Traffic —- — Lane Configuration Peak Hour — 00/00 Volumes 0/0 }- oN Traffic Signal i stop Sign _ r � - . site Improvements 4 3 ITotal Future PM/SAT Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 Total Future PM/SAT Peak Hour Levels of Service LEGEN L -- A/A Figure 5 Future Conditions with Development (2010) February 1,2008 14 ��'�1-207/97 coo + 10105/76D9 m- o "- Imor m J I l_ Route 50 (Northwestern Pike —1053/14B7 v - 54/34 0/0 —} 62/116 —j 1 1 f- 1312/1512-12_16/1354---- 2/2 i 41/42—) fl r cov o °J m o t W � N N �Ir L LEGEND L00/00 -Traffic 5/6� v Peak Hour — 00/00 Volumes 0/0 }- oN j-00/00 3 m Total Future PM/SAT Peak Hour Levels of Service LEGEN L -- A/A Figure 5 Future Conditions with Development (2010) February 1,2008 14 HH Hunt Assisted Livii. Traffic Impact Analysis WARRANT ANALYSES- RIGHT TURN LANE Right turn warrant analyses were reviewed for the right -in right -out site entrance along Route 5G (Northwestern Pike). Based on Virginia Department of Transportation .(VDOT) Road Design Manual, warrant analysis for right turn lane was performed at the proposed driveways to determine if a right turn lane is required. It should be noted that the VDOT Road Design Manual provides a guideline for left -turn and right -turn facilities to be considered on four -lane highways. Table 5 presents the results of this analysis. Table 5: Warrant Analysis for Right Turn Lanes Approach Right Turn Right Turn Warrant Analysis Intersection Volume Volume PM SAT PM SAT PM Right Turns SAT Right Turns Route 50 and Secondary Site Drive 1314 1514 2 2 Right turn lane Right turn lane (RIRO) not required not required Notes: 1. Source: VDOT Road Design Manual (Table C-1-9). 2. Warrant Analysis is based on the future with development (2010) volumes As shown in Table 5, right turn lane or taper is not required at the intersection of Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) with Secondary Site Drive (RIRO). The VDOT Subdivision and Commercial Entrance Spreadsheet for the Edinburg District for four lane divided highways was also used in order to check the requirement for a right turn lane. The spreadshee, revealed that a right turn lane is required at the entrance. The Subdivision and Commercial Entrance Worksheet recommends turn lanes based on a combination of factors such as Posted Speed Limit, Highway Traffic Volume etc. The factors taken into consideration are translated into points, which are tallied in order to come up with the recommendations. The traffic volume data i.e. existing as well as site generated (VPD's) is also converted into points based on the range in which they fit in. The ranges in which traffic volumes are evaluated is depicted in increments of 500 VPD's, starting from 0 working up to 6,000. The Subdivision and Commercial Entrance Worksheet is therefore very generic in structure as compared to the VDOT Road Design Manual Guidelines. The VDOT Road Design Manual guidelines are very specific, especially for right turn bay analysis. The recommendations are based on the specific peak hour volumes for approaches and especially right turns. Based on the above information coupled with the fact that the Secondary Site Drive (RIRO) has a projected peak hour volume of approximately 2 vehicles turning right in the peak hour, a right turn bay is not recommended at this Site Entrance. The detailed analysis worksheets are provided in the technical appendix. February 1, 2008 15 HH Hunt Assisted Livir, i raffic Impact Analysis -EWa PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE FACILITIES ON SITE For non -vehicular transportation features on the site, please refer to the concept plan prepared by Bowman Consultants that will accompany this report. QUEUING ANALYSIS (2010) Queuing analyses were performed at the existing and proposed intersections contained within the vicinity of the proposed development to determine any queuing issues under future traffic conditions (2010). The queuing analyses were performed using Synchro, version 6.0. The queuing analyses results are expressed in terms of the 95' percentile and 50th percentile queue Iength (in feet). The 50'h percentile queue length is the average queue length observed during the peak hour. The 951h percentile queuing results show the worst-case scenario and has the probability of occurring approximately once in the peak hour. Hence, for design purposes, the 50th percentile queue results are representative of the actual conditions. The queuing analysis results table and worksheets are included in the Technical Appendix. February 1, 2008 16 HH Hunt Assisted Livinz raffic Impact Analysis CONCLUSIONS This report presents the findings of a traffic impact analysis for the proposed HH Hunt Assisted Livin€ development in Frederick County, Virginia. The site is located just outside the city of Winchester along the south side of Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) bounded by Echo Lane to the west and Ward Avenue/ Botanical Boulevard to the east. The proposed HH Hunt development plan consists of approximately 84 beds for assisted living housing. The development will have primary access from Ward Avenue and a secondary limited access from Route 50 (Northwestern Pike). The project is scheduled to be built -out by the year 2010. The analysis presented in this report supports the following major conclusions: Existing Conditions (2008) " No mitigations are required at the study intersections under the existing conditions based on the criteria set forth by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) (LOS D or better per lane group). Future Conditions without Development (Future Background 2010: No mitigations are required at the study intersections under the future conditions without development scenario based on the criteria set forth by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) (LOS D or better per lane group). Future Conditions with Development (Total Future 2010): • The projected site trips for the assisted living development will have a negligible impact on the roadway network within the vicinity of the site. 0 The HH Hunt development during the peak traffic hours will generate: ❑ Approximately 25 trips during the PM peak Hour (13 in and 12 out) and 34 Saturday peak hour trips (18 in and 16 out) . ❑ Approximately 1 trip every 2 minutes will travel along Route 50 (Northwestern Pike) in the PM and Saturday peak hours. ■ All intersections operate at an acceptable level of service based on the criteria set forth by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) (LOS D or better per lane group). February 1, 2008 17 (A N Q C1 u RMU 1 E 9UGENEGUKMR AT'MRNn AT LAW THr KENr HUHDINO 16 SOUTH KENT ST. WINCHESTER, VA. 71601 DEED OF GIF' iii 9 2 :D! u I 115 THIS DEED OF O17T, made and dated this 28th day of December, 1998, by and between RALPH W POE. unmarried, party of the first part and hereinafter called common, parties of the second part and hereinafter called GRANTEES, WITI NESS1ETH: That in and for the consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, including the love of a father for his daughters, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, � 1l .M-0 0Oftntortdoes hereby grant �d �anyeyr,��#ha��nerai, artanry_an� ��gi�sh covenants pf � u�tle,uiatu. eachof ihe.��dw ;RCantee as tenants-in-cornmon, in accordance with the provisions of Virginia Cade Section 55-35, as if feme sole at common.law, in fee simple;ardne=`quarter} (1/4}_undWW9d ntW in and to the following described real estate, together with all rights, rights of way, privileges, improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging and subject to all easements and legally enforceable restrictions of record affecting such realty: All of that certain tract or parcel of land, containing eight (8) acres, more or less, it being specifically understood that this real estate is being conveyed in gross and not by the acre, lying and being situate along and fronting on the Southern side of Northwestern Pike (U.S. Route 50), in Back Creek Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, and having been identified and described as Parcel One (1) of the real property conveyed to Grantor by Deed dated the V day of August, 1972, from William J. Lockhart, of record in the Office of the Clerk of fie Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 394, at Page 121, to which Deed reference is made for a more particular metes and bounds description of said eight (8) acre, more or less, tract or parcel. C[J Vi N 2 I R MP`D: E EUGENE? OUNTrIl ATTORNEY AT LAW THE KENT BUILDING 16 SOUTH KENT Sr. WINGHSTER, VA. 22W I � f C) DEED OF GTFT M 2 9;'G 0 '9 Z 4 THIS DEED OF GIFT, made and dated this 4th day of January, 1999, by and between RALEu W PM unmarried, party of the first part and hereinafter called common, parties of the second part and hereinafter called GRANTEES. WITNESSETH: That in and for the consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, including the love of a father for his daughters, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the{sardGrutgr does :hereby.,gmnt and convey wath General Warramty and ;FnglishrCayen nts, f Tim -1 htd each of tiae said �stenants sn command in accordance with the provisions of Virginia Code Section 55-35, as if feme sole at common law, in fee simple,4oriTe-yuarte� (1 �4) utl�✓ded Interest= in and to the following described real estate, together with all rights, rights of way, privileges, improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging and subject to all easements and legally enforceable restrictions of record affecting such realty: All of that certain tract or parcel of land, containing eight (8) acres, more or less, it being specifically understood that this real estate is being conveyed in gross and not by the acre, lying and being sitaate along and fronting on the Southern side of Northwestern Pike (U.S. Route 50), in Back Creek Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, and having been identified and described as Parcel One (1) of the real property conveyed to Grantor by Deed dated the V day of August, 1972, from William J. Lockhart, of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 394, at Page 121, to which Deed reference is made for a more particular metes and bounds description of said eight (8) acre, more or less, tract or parcel. L LV VLIG GUMU ATTORNEY AT LAW 16SOM1E 51: WINK. VA. 22601 DK92VC, 0925 AND BEING the residue ofParcel One (1) of that certain conveyance of real property i unto Grantor, by Deed dated the V day of August, 1972, from William J. Lockhart, et al., of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 394, at Page 121. I, This conveyance is SIIB.IECT TO all easements and rights-of-way in existence and of record,, especialy fiat certain Easement Agreement wifh Plat of West Winchester �l it Substation Location Plan attached, from Grantor to The Potomac Edison Company, dated the 19" day of January, 1990, and of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book No. 738, at Page 941, and to restrictions of record affecting the property herein conveyed. ` P i Grantor covenants that he has the right to convey the herein described property; that the same is free from all liens and encumbrances except as may be hereinabove set forth or i incorporated by reference, whether direct or otherwise; that the Grantees shall have quiet and peaceable possession of said property; and that he, his heirs, executors, successors or assigns, will forever warrant and defend the title hereto. 'i DECLARATION OF CoNi SIDERATION i Under penalty of penury, I hereby declare that this is a gift conveyance without actual li II consideration as provided for in Section 58.1-811, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. [ oro m i nlSS the following signatures and seals: CT 1 k� (SEAL) P W, PGE I 'k �I f STATE OF VIRGINIA, v G I CITY OF WINCHESTER, to-wit; /J I I O r/ , a Notary Public in and for the Stato and City aforesaid, do hereby certify flat RALPH W. POE, unmarried, whose name is signed to the foregoing inshla>atent, bearing date on the 4th day of January, 1999, who is well known to 4L_ j me, has personally appearec! before me. and a6mow-edgec, the same in my State and i I11 jurisdiction aforesaid. .� i Given under my hand this�7 day of January, 1999. :I 'i NOTARY PiiBLIC i t�fij}fl k0asion expires; Th Jnotrument wd na rodU0 d to a the .. . �doy of—_ t end With Cettlftae#e Of i0knoWledgment theMto annexed WAS ad tied to record. rpx imposed by Sec. 18.1.802 of 8--4► And 60.1.801 have been paid, if aM38ebla. jrf +t, Aa-r.ar Clark i9l ATFORNEY AT LAW I 1t1!!1C'�•rPIiU1t�INa 16 MUM KENT Sr, �f WrxcHBSTF? 4 VA. Prf,-* L» 01/30,2008 By ROWMAN CONS 'NG GROUP IP THIS DEED made and dated this day J4IL 2002, by and between LARRY E. HOLLIDAY and TERESA D. HOLLIDAY husband and wife, parties of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and >f HTH PROPERTIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITMSSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars', cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey with general warranty of title unto the Grantee, in fee simple, absolute, all of that certain lot or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate along the western side of Ward Avenge, about one mile West of Winchester, in Back Creek District, Frederick County, Virginia, fronting on said Avenue a distance of 50 feet and extending back Westward between parallel lines a distance of 200 feet, and being the same land identified and designated as Lot No. 25 on the Plat of Ward Avenue Lots, which is of record in the 's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 2�ge 268; and ing the same real estate conveyed to Larry E. Holliday and Teresa D. Holliday, husband and wife, by William D, Santmier and Doris J. Sanbnier, husband and wife, by Deed dated the 30' day of July, 1999, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 943, at Page IJM9" I ! � I Reference is made to the aforesaid instruments for a more particular description of the property herein conveyed. -id,an't)r130r008 By 80KIMAN CONSULTING GROUP BN943PG 1139 4 THIS DEED, made and dated this 30th day of July 1999, by and between L M A. 9M and DORIB J 'F , husband and wife, parties of first part, herein called the Grantors, and W Z, 'FT T.LII M and TR S411MM, husband and wife, parties of the second part, herein caked the Wi'MESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and other gpod and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey, with General Warranty d English covenants of title unto the Grantees, in fee simple, as tenants by the entireties with right of survivorship as at common law, all the following described real property: All that certain lot or parcel of land, together with all rights, privileges, improvements and appurtenance thereto belonging, lying and being situate along the western side of Ward Avenue, about one miles West of Winchester, in Back Creek District, Frederick County, Virginia, fronting on said Avenue a distance of SQ feet and extending back Westward between parallel lines a distance of 200 feet, and being the same land identified and designated as Loot No. 25 on the Plat of Ward Avenue Tats, which is of record in the CIerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book No. 202, page 268, and further being the same land that was convcyed to the tlrantors h dated May 15, 1982, by John K. Holliday and .tune o�,:andf record in the afore3aid Clerk's Office in Deed 547, Referenoe is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments and the references therein contained for a more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. \j This conveyance is made subject to all easements, rights of way and restrictions of record affecting the subject property. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: %3 �� .P r (SEAL) DORIS J. R STATE OF VIRGINIA, CrIY OF WINCHESTER, to -wit: Acknowledged before me this 27th day of July, 1999, by William D. Santmier and Dtuis J. Santmier. My commission expires• 4 X�xz-lr iIo Y1itiR7Ll� 1tifJ1�(7x SCt: M llu� . xaak+aM*daM(11 thereto Amend troard. SiK lnpo Wd Cry ft-$. U -1 -MI at n `�i &tib X1401 bm bem i&k% M 9M639hls• 4,ee.,. .Ole* X1357 WILLIAM J. LOCKHART ET UX ID PLAT +� IV ttarat ** y** e#xx usx The undersigned, William J. Lockhart and Dellitt E. Lockhart, hiswi being the owners of certain real estate situated about two miles West of Win ester on the Southern side of U. S. Highway No. 50, do hereby certify that the annexed plat embracing a portion of that certain larger tract or parcel of land which was conveyed i to the said William J. Lockhart by Mary E. Lockhart and other, vy deed dated September 5, 1947, and of pecord in the Clerk's Office in the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book No. 202 page s has been made with the full and free consent and desires of the undersigned; that the street identified thereon as Ward Avenue is hereby dedicated for the use in common of -all of the lots adjacent thereto, and that said plat is submitted for recordation with the full and free consent and desires of the undersigned. It is expressly stipulated, however, that none of said lots shall at any time be sold or leased, or the ownership, or possession thereof, in any manner transferred to any person or persons other than members of the white race. And this condition shall constitute a covenant real running with the land and shall be applicable as to each and every lot in said plat. Given under our hands and seals this 26th day of September, 1947. WILLIAM J. LOCKHART (SEAL) DELLITT E. LOCKHART (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to—wit., I, Virginia Ritter, a notary public in and for the County of Frederick, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that William J. Lockhart and Dellitt E. Lockhart, his wife, whose names are signed to the foregoing writing bearing date of September 26, 1947, have personally appeared before me in my county aforesaid, and acknowledged the same. Given under my hand this 26th day of September, 1947, My commission expires Yarch 24, 1948. VIRGINIA RITTER Notary Public GRp�pE o- q a -- � o o � N "� (40.'J; , '��� q 3 2! Q Q �'7 ` � Sa ,' ✓ ' so w� 'a CJ tJ D pO 9 v j �- JLu Z3 U O LU 1 `) < O / D J a ..lug oc Z a GI } W' — = ur EC w -j U)U� L� v1 ' z h� 0in v Q a d w .a o a a' r o rr'� o zoe , o- z a X05. q ip c v 4'g4eE LANd x.05• 5 E �TA�� 1 GKNART VIRGINIA FREDERICK COUNTY, (SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me on the 26th day of Sept,, 1947 at 3:00 P.M., and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was admitted to record. L— CLERK C� • MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator'" 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Waiver Request to Enable Family Subdivision on R -O -W Less than 50 Feet for Betty Davis DATE: August 4, 2008 On behalf of Betty Davis, Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. is requesting a waiver of Chapter 144-31 C (3) of the Subdivision Ordinance requirement to enable a family subdivision of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. The property is located north of Harmony Hollow Lane approximately 0.8 miles north of Northwestern Pike (Route 50) in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 27 -A -77A. The applicant is seeking a waiver from the minimum width requirement for a shared private driveway. The reason for the waiver request is to provide relief from a 50 foot right-of-way; the parent parcel is currently served by a 20 foot right-of-way. Your agenda includes letters from adjoining property owners who declined to grant this easement. This waiver would enable the creation of two family lots to be served by the current 20 foot right-of-way. The proposed plats are illustrated on Exhibit "A". A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors is requested. Attachments MRC/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 } V A 23.".' ANDERSON•DONLSJANICELTRUSTEES `f• Y+ ] t t� •..fir 17 A 23E r ' + AMERiNE ROBERT L `+ 17 A 22 THE GOBBLER LAND HOLDING CO INC 4' <u2i 3etty Davis Wavier Request - ROW Access PIN: 27 - A - 77A 4�GK COQ �� tlfr + 11 J 27 'A 78 28 A 8 WHITACRE GILAYA �.. I f I �* ti PELAEt MARC Y E TRUSTEE r ' �'�.' �°' � ``•.� " i 7t)--_ y` N' {J�..�t. 0 750 1,500 i•1••r E L Future Rt37 Bypass Zoning 1112 (Indust at Gnmral Distrial QApplication BI tBusmcss Ncighborltood Dutnq) 4W MHI (Mobile Home C )writ Dutricu Urban D—lo ♦ ,� proem Arca B? (Business G neral Distrisn 4m Ms (Medical Support District) -_ m SWSA ® Bt (Business I dt sinal T mien Dianct) R4 tRi:dct lial Plan t •d Lon nuutin District) ?' EM (Eatracucc ht fact 1 g Dim -0 AM Rs IRes denial Rcere i -ml Conununit) District! a HE tHtghcr Educauon Distrito RA (Rural Arca Distrito f- �? 111I tlndustriul. Light District RP IRcsidcntinl Pcrfommncc DISUICO 3,000 Feet Case Planner, Mark COUNTY OF FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone: 540/665-5651 Fax: 5401665-6395 WAIVE R/EXCEPTI 0 NS REQUEST APPLICATION 1. APPLICANT: Name: Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. Address: 560 North Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. PROPERTY OWNER (if different than above): Name: Betty Jean Davis Address: 1429 Locust Street Front Royal, Virginia 22630 3. CONTACT PERSON (if other than above): Name: Helen Hall JUL i Telephone: 540/667-0468 Telephone: 540/636-9768 Telephone: 540/667-0468 8 2008 4. WAIVER REQUEST DETAILS (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): It is requested to reduce the ingress/egress easement requirement of a 50 -foot minimum right of way to a 20 -foot minimum right of way. The ordinance requirement for a 50 -foot ingress/egress easement for subdivision is Section 144-31-C.(3) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. 5. PROPERTY LOCATION: The property is located north of Harmony Hollow Lane approximately 0.8 miles north of U. S. Route 50 (Northwestern Pike). 6. PARCEL IDENTIFICATION/LOCATION: Parcel Identification No. 27 -A -77A Magisterial District: Gainesboro 7, PROPERTY ZONING AND CURRENT USE: Zoned RA District Current Use: Agricultural 8. ATTACHMENTS: Adjoining Property Owners List X Existing/Recorded and Proposed Plats X OFFICE USE ONLY. Fee: $500 enclosed: Receipt # �` � 9. LIST OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the waiver or exception is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear and in front of (across street from) the subject property. These people will be notified by mail of this application. The Gobbler Land Holding Co., LLC Address: 13 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Property ID#: 17-A-22 Whitacre, Raymond J. and Linda H. Address: Post Office Box 10 Gore, Virginia 22637 Property ID#: 27-A-69 Whitacre, Clay A. Address: Post Office Box 10 Gore, Virginia 22637 Property ID#: 27-A-76 Whitacre, Raymond J. Address: Post Office Box 10 Gore, Virginia 22637 Property ID#: 27-A-77 Kelley, Ruth Ann Address: 2901 64th Avenue N. Saint Petersburg, Florida 33702 Property ID#: 28 -A -2C Kittredge, Fred G. Address: 2901 64th Avenue N. Saint Petersburg, Florida 33702 Property ID#: 28 -A -2D REASON FOR THE REQUEST: The subject property is a tract of land designated as 103.0255 acres created by Deed of Partition dated December 4, 2007 and recorded as Instrument No. 070018771. The creation of this partition has a specified 20 -foot right of way to serve the property. The private driveway (Harmony Hollow Lane) currently exists and adjacent owners do not take exception to the existing right of way. Adjacent owners have been approached and are not willing to dedicate additional right of way to allow for a 50 -foot wide right of way to U. S. Route 50. 2 Adrian & Vondy, P.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 125 West Boscpwen Street VGinchestcr, Virginia 22605 P. Kay Adrian Frc,L r ick S. Vtmdy* Ab. •admmed in did. & lC-w April 18, 2008 E. Eugene Gunter, Esq. 16 South Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Gunter: U �- v Office: (540) 667-8735 Faoin i c: (540) 667-8128 I have discussed your letters of April 6 aid April 9 with Mr. Whitacre. First, Mr. Whitacre has completed the clearance and rough - grading of the 20 -foot right of way at his own expense. He has driven the length of the cleared area. If Mrs. Davis wishes any improvements to the road, she will be responsible for them. With the clearance of the 20 -foot right of way, neither Mrs. Davis nor any of her family have any business tampering with the gate or trespassing on the roadway to the house. Mrs. Davis or her agents have blocked off access routes that Mr. Whitacre traditionally used. He acknowledges that he now has no right to use those access routes; Mrs. Davis needs to do the same. The strand of electric wire is a cattle guard as defined by Section 55-304 and 305 of the Virginia Code. The existing wire is a temporary measure that was necessitated by the division of the property. Mr. Whitacre is working on a more permanent arrangement. The electric wire has an obvious device for its removal so that a person may pass on the right of way. I believe that this cattle guard falls within the purview of Section 18.2-143, and that your clients need to replace it anytime that it is opened. Finall Mr. Whitacre has no desire to alter the 20 -foot right of way My position on this case is that the court entered a final order that was not appealed, and the case is over. Mrs. Davis would be better advised at this point to use her money for work on the right of way. Thank you for your attention. TFedevr%,'ck s truly, S. ondy cc client ATTAMIt'iiTNT . i May 29, 2008 Lyndel E. Seldon Living Trust P.O. Box 67 High View, WV. 26808 To Whom it May Concern, Frederick County Planning and Zoning Commission require a 50 foot right of way from Route 50 to my property so I can obtain an agricultural family subdivision approval. I am asking that you grant me a 15 foot right of way on your side of the existing 20 foot right of way. Please return this letter with your signature and approval or denial of my request no later than Saturday, June 7, 2008. Regards, Betty J. Davis (Whitacre) Please check one: ❑ Yes, I will grant a 15 foot right of way on my side of the existing 20 foot right of way No, I will not grant a 15 foot right of way on my side of the existing 20 foot right of way Signature:roL a i Date: 6 2 6f May 29, 2008 Clay A. Whitacre P.O. Box 10 Gore, Va. 22637 Dear Mr. Whitacre, Frederick County Planning and Zoning Commission require a 50 foot right of way from Route 50 to my property so I can obtain an agricultural family subdivision approval. I am asking that you grant me a 15 foot right of way on your side of the existing 20 foot right of way - Please return this letter with your signature and approval or denial of my request no later than Saturday, June 7, 2008. Regards, Betty J. Davis (Whitacre) Please check one: ❑ Yes, I will grant a 15 foot right of way on my side of the existing 20 foot right of way o, I will not grant a 15 foot right of way on my side of the existing 20 foot right of way Signature: - Date: May 29, 2008 Owen S. Mayhew 434 Singhass Road Winchester, Va. 22602 Dear Mr. Mayhew, Frederick County Planning and Zoning Commission require a 50 foot right of way from Route 50 to my property so I can obtain an agricultural family subdivision approval. I am asking that you grant me a 15 foot right of way on your side of the existing 20 foot right of way. Please return this letter with your signature and approval or denial of my request no later than Saturday, June 7, 2008. Regards, Betty J. Davis (Whitacre) Please check one: ❑ Yes, I will grant a 15 foot right of way on my side of the existing 20 foot right of way ❑ No, I will not grant a 15 foot right of way on my side of the existing 20 foot right of way Signature: Date: No Response ® Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. a Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed-to: 6w'en J. � Q %l eGCIVt -- ' 2. Article Number 7007 256 (Transfer from servicd label) A. Signkiture X /';�7i.— B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Deliver D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Sanoeb Type Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandis ❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 0302 4434 5672 PS F"M"'RTT'1 Fahrnary 9nnd rl-ri nor neo . ,.,�:. May 29, 2008 Richard Revetta. 240 Harmony Hollow Lane Gore, Va. 22637 Dear Mr. Revetta, Frederick County Planning and Zoning Commission require a 50 foot right of way from Route 50 to my property so I can obtain an agricultural family subdivision approval. I am asking that you grant me a 15 foot right of way on your side of the existing 20 foot right of way. Please return this letter with your signature and approval or denial of my request no later than Saturday, June 7, 2008. Regards, Betty J. Davis (Whitacre) Please check one: ❑ Yes, I will grant a l5 foot right of way on my side of the existing 20 foot right of way ❑ No, I will not grant a I5 foot right of way on my side of the existing 20 foot right of way Signature: Date: SlEvjutK: COMPLETE THIS SEC-rioiv ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the revers so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: 0-4 and T., P- -Ve-4A �o Response g yp 140r-tont' l �lor�i Lao Gore A. C. J D. Is delivery address different from Item 11' U Y& If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No I 3. Se lce Type IM,Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Flegistered ❑ Return Recelpt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mall ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service labeo 7007 2560 0022 4434 5663 �nna 4--- ` - -- - - EXHIBIT "A" WCIN/TY MAP SCALE- 1'3000' APPROVED BY FREDERICK COUNTY SUBDIVISION ADM/N1S7RATOR DATE OWERS' CERIIFICA IF THE ABO/E AND FOREGOING MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF BETTY JEAN DA VIS [TAX MAP 27 -A -77A] AS APPEARS 11V THE ACCOMPANYING PLATS, IS WTH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS AND TRUSTEES, IF ANY. A oz—a� BETTY sI N DA VIS DA IF PARCELS 1 AND 2 ARE BEING CREATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 165-54B, FAL Y DI19S/ON LOTS OF CHAPTER 165 ZONING, AND SEC. 144-3IC.la, MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISIONS, OF CHAPTER 144, SUBDIWSION, OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE PARCEL 1 IS BEING CONVEYED TO IRA WS MICHAEL HENDERUIF GRANDSON OF BETTY JEAN DA VIS AND PARCEL 2 IS BEING CONVEYED TO KATHI KA YE HENDERLITE, DAUGHTER OF BEyjiSII10f0 JEAN DA VIS ��.`Q�Pp1E M fi NOTARY PUBLIC STA TE OF % CITY/C9LT i' OA,71'r,,) C� ,• fl THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME ON ., BY BETTY JEAN DA VS. (D TE) ��'. O/yWEA0 ��aEA0 2.1) ,al 1L-kl MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ON Q,— 302 09'. NOTARY PUBLIC) C/ (DA NOTES I. NO 777ZE REPORT FURNISHED- THEREFORE, EASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES AFFECTTNG THE PROPERTY REPRESENTED BY THIS SURVEY MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN. 2 THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAT IS BASED ON AN EXHIBIT DATED 01 OCTOBER 2007 RECORDED A T INST. #070017817. 3 ACCORDING TO FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NO. 51006.3 0050 B, DATED 17 JUL Y 1978, THE LAND SHOWN ON THIS PLAT IS WITHIN AN AREA DESIGNATED AS ZONE C WHICH IS AN AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING. 4. THE PARCELS CREATED BY THIS SUBDIVISION CURRENTZ Y ZONED RA AND ARE INTENDED FOR AGRICUL7URAL USE ONLY. SURVEYORS CER17RCA TF I HEREBY CER77FY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED /N THIS MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION IS THE LAND WHICH WAS CONVEYED TO BETTY JEAN DA VIS [TAX MAP 27-A-77AJ BY DEED OF PAR777701V DATED 4 DECEMBER 2007, AND RECORDED AT INST. #070018771 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. FAMIL Y D/ VISION �P T H OF MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF Qt BETTY JEAN OA 14SINST. x'0 STERIA71 GAINESBORO MAG/ST£R/AL pISTR/CTFREDL'R1CK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAWN BY JTG DWG NAME. 8056SUBD SHEET 1 OF 2 Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C- l 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHES7FR, VIRGINIA 22601 DA TE: 0510.912008 PHONE (540) 667-0468 FAX (540) 667-0469 FMAIL officc&norshand/egge.csm COVER SHEET REMAINDER OF h� PARENT TRACT IRS '-o j 36.5127 ACRES j- 4 O �, ZONED: RA p PROPOSED USE.- 1 �1 �� �8�j ol / Q a AGRICUL TUBAL T .y F � 9f IRS N 44'02'02- W PARCEL 2 � IRF 51328' g 36.517 ACRS WCP ZONED: RA IRF - - IRS PROPOSED USE.- E4 AGRICUL TURAL E5 N 4334'46" E O �n Q s v2��2 v LEGEND 'moo FOUND PROPOSED USE y 936.01 k1 AGRICUL TURAL J IRS (z TAS) p 1� 50' INGRESS EGRESS Tp �1 EASEMENT HEREBY z p y�� IRF - IRON ROD QO 35'A9 P 27 HITAcRE 5 72 TAX MAJUIIUs 8 o IRS - '� �9 �s� �2� IRON ROD SET Q) 6� <"� WCP - WOOD CORNER POST X - - WIRE FENCE G Z TAX MAP 27 -A -77A REMAINDER OF h� PARENT TRACT IRS '-o j 36.5127 ACRES j- 4 O �, ZONED: RA p PROPOSED USE.- 1 �1 �� �8�j ol / Q a AGRICUL TUBAL 306.43' IRS N 44'02'02- W PARCEL 2 0� kph ooh06�OE�`�SE�P �O� ~ s �� J `' 51328' g 36.517 ACRS WCP ZONED: RA IRF - - IRS PROPOSED USE.- E4 AGRICUL TURAL E5 N 4334'46" E 100.00' �0 7 PARCEL 1 s9 � 30.0000 ACRS LLi V IRF �_ 7 ZONED. RA 7 W Q PROPOSED USE y 936.01 k1 AGRICUL TURAL J IRS (z TAS) o 1� 50' INGRESS EGRESS Tp �1 EASEMENT HEREBY Q o a' O CREA TED ') 1458.g 1 W 77 A / h 35'A9 P 27 HITAcRE 5 72 TAX MAJUIIUs 8 o 1j71Ij WCP 549 EIRAYMONOT #0j0AGRE5 UI TURAL ti N 2844088 WCP 79085E: AGRIC l EXISTING 20' R/W NEO: RA Q �—INST. 1070018771 ZO EASEMENT LINE TABLE Q Q z W Q ti 'o Q5 z5 Q- QQmoz�' 0 �[ -HARMONY HOLLOW LANE EXISTING 20' RAW D. B.6IS P. 492 0.6 MILES TO Us RTE 50 LINE BEARING D/STANCE El N 723549" E 306.43' E2 N 44'02'02- W 628 67' E3 N 37'13'47" E 51328' E4 N 767035 " E 559.67 E5 N 4334'46" E 100.00' GRAPHIC SCALE 500' 0' 500' 1000' SCALE : I" = 500' FAM/L Y DIVISION MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF BETTY JEAN DAVIS /NST. (070018771 GAINESSORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, IORGIN/A DRAWN BY.- ✓TG I DWG NAME- 8056SUBD I SHEET 2 OF 2 Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. s 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET WAICHESTER, IORGINIA 22601 PHONE (540) 667-0468 FAX (540) 667-0469 EMAIL office@marshandlegge. com P�7 H OF �i c o D *C. L ge No. 001197 9f2/o$ CgNO SUR`1��� DA TE.- 05/09/2008 SCALE 1 " = 500' AFFIDAVIT FOR FAMILY DIVISION DATE: � a2 , 2008 I, Betty Jean Davis of 1429 Locust Street, Front Royal, Virginia, 22630, affirm that I am the owner of a certain parcel of land identified as PIN 27 -A -77A on the Frederick County tax map and is located approximately 0.8 miles north of U.S. Route 50 (Northwestern Pike). I hereby affirm that I am familiar with the prerequisites of Section 15.2 — 2244 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the requirements and provisions of 165-54 B., Chapter 165, Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance; and 144-15, 144-31 C, and 144-39, Chapter 144, Frederick County Code, Subdivision Ordinance. I will convey by deed legally authorized portions of the above identified property to the following immediate family members. The family members recipient of these family lots realize that they must maintain ownership of this land for a period of at least five (5) years from the date the family lot was created. This Affidavit shall be recorded with the family division plats. NAME RELATIONSHIP AGE (IF CHILDREN) ACREAGE Kathi Kaye Henderlite Daughter over 21 36.5127 Acres Travis Michael Henderlite Grandson over 21 30.0000 Acres I further affirm that this division of land is for the accommodation and use of the listed family members and will not be used to circumvent the applicable subsection of the Code of Virginia, and that I have not previously conveyed a lot to these family members under paragraph 165-54 B., Cha 165, Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance. ��NOTARY 42 • IPUOUC % �, Betty Jea D is REQ,. #E310414 Property Owner (Grantor) n ; MV COMAInm• STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 1, 2AQ 4,.,-✓ ) hq"a� ",'_, a notary public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that this day, Betty Jean Davis, personally appeared before me and acknowledges the above affidavit dated , 2008 that affirms division of land under the family division procedure. d 0 - Given under my hand this _ nd day of _ SIX 41 , 2008. Notary fublic My commission expires, .3(3 , 20". MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission COUN'Y Y 6f FREDERICK Department of Manning and Development 546/665-5651 From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner r? Subject: Planning Commission Discussion — Interstate Overlay Signs Date: August 4, 2008 FAX: 540/665-6395 Per Article XVII of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (§165-127-131) property owners are permitted to erect larger signs along highways if they are within the Interstate Overlay (IA) District. Intestate overlay signs range in maximum size from 300sf to 500sf depending on the number of users, and the maximum sign height is determined by the interchange where the sign is located. The intent and purpose of interstate overlay signs is to inform the traveling public as to the location of hotels, gasoline stations and restaurants. Currently, the IA Overlay also allows for general merchandise and apparel stores (SIC 53 and 56) to be located on the signs as well. Uses such as merchandise and apparel stores are classified as a destination business and with these types of uses customers have already planned in advance to visit the business and, therefore, an interstate overlay sign would not be necessary. Businesses such as restaurants, hotels and gasoline stations would be classified as a drive-by business which is businesses that customers frequent more on impulse or while driving by and, therefore, a sign to attract customers from the interstate would be more appropriate. Staff is proposing an ordinance revision to the Interstate Overlay District regulations to remove general merchandise and apparel stores from the qualifying uses. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting on June 26, 2008 and the DRRS endorsed the text amendment as presented. The attached document shows the existing Ordinance with proposed deletions shown in blackline and additions shown in bold italics. This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachments: 1. Existing Ordinance with proposed deletions shown in blackline and additions shown in bold italics. CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ARTICLE XVII IA Interstate Area Overlay District [Added 5-10-1995; amended 8-13-19971 § 165-127. Intent. ATTACHMENT 1 The IA Interstate Area Overlay District is intended to provide commercial businesses within an identified area the ability to utilize business signs that are in excess of the limits specified in § 165-30 of this chapter. This flexibility is provided to inform the traveling public of business service opportunities at specific interstate interchange areas. The standards within this article are designed to allow for additional visibility for commercial businesses while minimizing negative impacts to view sheds, the traveling public and residential properties that are adjacent to or within the proximity of the overlay district. Established boundaries are based on reasonable sight distances and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and are intended to designate each interstate interchange area and provide guidance for considering the addition of subsequent properties. § 165-128. District boundaries Properties that are included within the Interstate Area Overlay District shall be delineated on the Official Zoning Map for Frederick County. This map shall be maintained and updated by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. § 165-129. Establishment of district. A. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors may apply the Interstate Area Overlay District to properties within the proximity of interstate interchange areas upon concluding that: (1) The property is in conformance with the idealized interchange development pattern recommendation of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. (2) The placement of a sign meeting the requirements of this section will not have an adverse impact on adjoining properties whose primary use is residential. (3) The property has met the requirements of Article II of this chapter, as well as the requirements of § 15.2-2286 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended. [Amended 11-12-2003] B. The Interstate Area Overlay District shall be in addition to and shall overlay all other zoning districts where it is applied so that any parcel of land within the Interstate Area Overlay District shall also be within one or more zoning districts as specified within this chapter. The effect shall be the creation of regulations and requirements of both the underlying zoning district(s) and the Interstate Area Overlay District. ATTACHMENT 1 § 165-130. Qualifying criteria. A. On property that is delineated on the Official Zoning Map as being part of the Interstate Area Overlay District, the following uses shall be authorized to erect a commercial business sign that complies with the requirements of § 165-131 of this article. Such commercial business signs complying with the requirements of § 165-131 of this article shall hereinafter be referred to as interstate overlay signs. Standard Industrial Classification Qualifying Uses (SIC) General merchandise a apparel stores 53 and 56 Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations 55 Eating and drinking establishments 58 Hotel and lodging establishments 70 B. Qualifying uses specified under § 165-130A that are authorized on property through the issuance of a conditional use permit in the RA Rural Areas District may be entitled to erect an interstate overlay sign that is of a greater height and size than is permitted in the underlying zoning district, provided that the property has met the requirements of Article III of this chapter, the business sign complies with the requirements of § 165-131 of this article and the qualifying use is located on property that is delineated on the Official Zoning Map as being part of the Interstate Area Overlay District. § 165-131. District regulations. A_ Permitted signs. Permitted signs shall be as follows: (1) Interstate overlay signs. (2) Signs permitted in the underlying zoning district(s). B. Prohibited signs. Prohibited signs shall be as follows: (1) Off -premise business signs. (2) Signs prohibited in the underlying zoning district(s). C. Number of freestanding commercial business signs. On any parcel within the Interstate Area Overlay District, one interstate overlay sign that complies with the requirements set forth in this article may be erected. D. Setback requirements. (1) All portions of an interstate overlay sign shall bed set back a minimum of 10 feet from any lot line or property boundary line and shall meet all other applicable setback requirements. (2) When any interstate overlay sign exceeds the height requirement of the underlying zoning district(s) and is located on properly that adjoins or is across a right-of-way from property that is in the RP Residential Performance District, the HE Higher Education District or any property which has a residence as its primary E. F C Ir' ATTACHMENT 1 use, the setback shall be the normal setback plus one foot for every foot over the maximum height of the underlying zoning district(s). (3) The Planning Commission may waive any portion of the setback described in § 165-131D(2) if it can be demonstrated that the setback requirement cannot be met due to the irregular size or shape of the parcel. Spacing requirements. The spacing requirements between an interstate overlay sign and signs in the underlying zoning district(s) shall comply with the requirements in § 165-30F of this chapter and shall meet all other applicable spacing requirements. Maximum size. (1) No interstate overlay sign shall exceed a total of 300 square feet in area. (2) When more than one qualifying use is located on a single parcel within the Interstate Area Overlay District, a single support structure may be erected which contains one or more signs, the total combined square footage of which shall not exceed 500 square feet in area. Illumination. Neither the direct nor reflected light from any illuminated interstate overlay sign shall create an increase in the ambient footcandle at the property line, create glare into or upon other structures or create glare onto a public thoroughfare so as to create a traffic hazard for operators of motor vehicles. Maintenance and permits. (1) All signs that are erected in the Interstate Area Overlay District shall meet the maintenance and permit requirements as specified in §165-30K and § 165-30L of this chapter. (2) If required, appropriate easements shall be secured by a property owner that desires to erect an interstate overlay sign prior to the issuance of a sign permit in order to ensure that required maintenance can be performed. Permitted heights. (1) All interstate overlay signs shall be located a minimum of 25 feet in height above the base of the sign support structure. (2) The maximum height for interstate overlay signs shall be determined by the nearest interstate exit number and shall be based on an elevation above mean sea level as set below: Maximum Business Sign Height Exit Number (feet above mean sea level) 302 (Middletown and Rt. 11 South) 760 307 (Stephens City and Rt. 277) 800 310 (Kernstown and Rt. 37) 805 313 (Rt. 50/17 and Rt. 522) 805 315 (Rt. 7 and Berryville Avenue) 750 317 (Rt. 11 North and Rt. 37) 815 321 (Clearbrook and Rt. 11 North) 700 323 (Whitehall and Rt. 11 North) 710 MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission COUNTY cif FREOEpZICK Department of Planning and Development 546/665-5651 From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planners kx FAX: 540/665-6395 Subject: Planning Commission Discussion — Height Restrictions in the B3 Zoning District Date: August 6, 2008 1 Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, PC submitted a Zoning Ordinance text amendment request to the County to enable the building height restriction in the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District to be increased from 35 feet to 45 feet. The requested changes are based on a desire to have a height allowance in the B3 District that falls between the B2 (Business General) District and the M 1 (Light Industrial) District. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DDRS) at their meeting on June 26, 2008. The DRRS stated that they could support the 45 foot height increase as an exception to the height requirements so long as anything over 35 feet in height utilized the building setbacks required for the M 1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. This item was then discussed at the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission Joint Work Session held on August 5, 2008. At the work session, this item was briefly discussed; however, a clear direction on the height exception was not achieved. The attached document shows the existing Ordinance as well as the proposed height exception in bold italics. §165-83 is the section in the Zoning Ordinance that shows the maximum height restriction for the commercial and industrial districts; this section is proposed to remain the same. The height exception is proposed to be added to § 165-24 Height limitations; exceptions. This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachments: 1. Existing Ordinance with proposed additions shown in bold italics (§165-24) 2. Existing Commercial and Industrial Height Requirements (§165-83) 3. Letter from applicant requesting a text amendment CEP/bad 107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 • Whichester, FJirgpnia 22501-5000 ATTACHMENT 1 ARTICLE IV Supplementary Use Regulations § 165-24. Height limitations; exceptions. [Amended 4-10-19911 A. No structure shall exceed the height limitations described in this chapter. B. Exceptions to height requirements: (1) The maximum height requirements shall not apply to the following: (a) Barns and silos. (b) Belfries. (c) Bulkheads. (d) Chimneys. (e) Church spires and towers. (f) Flagpoles. (g) (Reserved) s (h) Domes and skylights. (i) Masts and aerials. (j) Radio and television transmission towers and commercial telecommunication facilities [Amended 4-9-19971 (k) Smokestacks and cooling towers. (1) Utility poles and towers. (m) Water tanks. (n) Windmills. (2) Parapet walls may be up to four feet above the height of the building on which the walls rest. (2) Solar collectors, air conditioners and other mechanical equipment may exceed the height limitations if they are screened from the public view of surrounding properties and rights-of-way. ATTACHMENT 1 (3) Automated storage facilities in the M1 and M2 Zoning Districts shall be exempt from the maximum height requirement. This exemption shall be granted only when the facility is provided with full sprinkling for fire protection according to the specifications of applicable codes. Such exemptions shall be approved by the Frederick County Fire Marshall. In no case shall the height of these facilities exceed 100 feet in height. (4) All of the above exceptions shall be allowed only if they accomplish the purpose for which they are intended, if they are not intended for human occupancy and if they do not infringe on the solar access of surrounding properties. (6) General office buildings in the B2 and B3 Zoning Districts and hotel and motel buildings in the B2 Zoning District shall be exempt from the maximum height requirement of those zoning districts. In no case shall the height of such building exceed 60 feet. When such exemptions are proposed adjacent to existing residential uses, the Planning Commission shall review the site development plan pursuant to the provisions of § 165- 37A(3). [Added 3-8-200061 (7) Buildings used for schools without residential components may exceed the maximum height of the underlying zoning district. The only portions of buildings used for schools without residential components that may exceed the height in the underlying zoning district are those which are accessory and inconsequential to the primary function of the building. In no case shall any portion of the building exceed 75 feet in height. [Added 6-11-200361 (8) If any of the above exceptions exceed the height limitation of the proposed zoning district, the structure shall be required to be set back the normal setback or required buffer distance plus one foot for every foot over the maximum allowed height of that zoning district. [Added 6-9-1993; amended 3-8-20001 (9) In the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District, uses may exceed the height limitation so long as all front, side and rear setbacks conform to the setback requirements for the MI (Light Industrial) Zoning District. In no case shall any structure in the B3 Zoning District exceed 45 feet in height. ATTACHMENT 2 § 165-83 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-85 § 165-83. Dimensional and intensity requirements. A. The following table describes the dimensional and intensity requirements for the business and industrial districts: B. Minimum landscaped area. In the B2 Business General Zoning District, the Planning Commission may require that more than 15% of the area of a site shall be landscaped in order to meet the intent of this chapter. Additional landscaped areas may be required to ensure that all unused areas are landscaped and to improve the general appearance and use of the site. In no case shall more than 25% of the site be required to be landscaped in the B2 Business General Zoning District. ARTICLE XI EM Extractive Manufacturing District § 165-84. Intent. The intent of the Extractive Manufacturing District is to provide for mining and related industries, all of which rely on the extraction of natural resources. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. It is also the intent of this article to avoid the encroachment of incompatible uses on the borders of the EM District. § 165-85. Permitted uses. The following uses shall be allowed: 165:122 06-15-2007 District Requirement B1 B2 B3 Ml M2 Front yard setback on 50 50 50 75 75 primary or arterial highways (feet) Front yard setback on 35 35 35 75 75 collector or minor streets (feet) Side yard setbacks (feet) - - 15 25 25 Rear yard setbacks (feet) - - 15 25 25 Floor area to lot area ratio 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 (FAR) Minimum landscaped area 35 15 25 25 15 (percentage of lot area) Maximum height (feet) 35 35 35 60 60 B. Minimum landscaped area. In the B2 Business General Zoning District, the Planning Commission may require that more than 15% of the area of a site shall be landscaped in order to meet the intent of this chapter. Additional landscaped areas may be required to ensure that all unused areas are landscaped and to improve the general appearance and use of the site. In no case shall more than 25% of the site be required to be landscaped in the B2 Business General Zoning District. ARTICLE XI EM Extractive Manufacturing District § 165-84. Intent. The intent of the Extractive Manufacturing District is to provide for mining and related industries, all of which rely on the extraction of natural resources. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. It is also the intent of this article to avoid the encroachment of incompatible uses on the borders of the EM District. § 165-85. Permitted uses. The following uses shall be allowed: 165:122 06-15-2007 WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH & WALSH PC John H. Foote (703) 680-4664 Ext. 114 jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680-2161 May 21, 2008 Via E-mail and Firsl Class Mail Eric R. Lawrence Planning Director Frederick County 1 (;'7 ?Tnr`?y T -exit Sheet , ..... _ Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Proposed B3 Text Amendment Request Dear Eric: ATTACHMENT 3 On behalf of our client, BPG Properties, Ltd., we request that Frederick County initiate an ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance § 165-83.A. to provide for a maximum permitted height of 45 feet in the B-3 Zoning District. As the County's Industrial. Transition District, it is appropriate for the maximum permitted height to fall between the permitted height in B-2 of 35 feet and the permitted height of 60 feet in M-1 to accommodate the types of uses and end-users contemplated by the B-3 district regulations. Frederick County is relatively unique in its inclusion of such a transitional zoning category, but a review of some other Virginia jurisdictions reveals that a 35 foot maximum height is comparatively low for similar commercial and industrial districts. In nearby Warren County, the maximum permitted height in the Industrial Zones is 50 feet, and in all other zones 40 feet. Warren County Zoning Ordinance § 183-13. Fauquier County permits maximum building heights as follows in its corresponding commercial and industrial districts: 65 feet in the `'; ��rrrrierciul iligin..,4y (C-2; District", 60 et In ilie "Cornmerciai - Shopping Center, Community/Regional (C-3) District", 45 feet in the "Industrial Park (1-1) District", and 45 feet in the "Industrial General (I-2) District". Fauquier County Zoning Ordinance § 3-300. Thank you for your consideration of this request, and please inform us when this matter is scheduled for a Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee committee meeting. MAY 2 2 PHONE 703 680 4664 1 FAX 703 6`8o 6067 t WWW.THELANDLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Eric Lawrence May 21, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely yours, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY, EMRICH & WALSH, P.C. John H. Foote JHF/j hf cc: Daniel P. DiLella John Knott Michael Coughlin _._. Robert Mitchell Market Driven Justification for 4.5' Height Increase in B-3 Permitted uses • Offices and storage facilities for building construction contractors, heavy construction contractors and special trade contractors • Warehousing • Various repair facilities • Flex tech 45' height needed for sophisticated storage operations Racking—most users utilize racking system to organize product/materials Product/materials accessed by forklift Goal is to maximize vertical storage to reduce floor space (footprint) needed Typical elevation attached • Fire Code requires clearance between product and sprinkler • Underside of roof joist at 32'3" elevation • Top of structure from finished floor at 41' 6" • Loading dock—elevation of loading dock must be higher than ground, increasing the height measurement at the loading dock to 45'6" NOTE—Height measured from mean level of the ground surrounding structure to its highest point Typical Users: Solaris Paper (consumer/commercialpaper products), Plygem Industries (building products), Home Depot distribution Other jurisdictions: Frederick County at a competitive disadvantage with: • Warren County -50' height limit in Industrial Zone; 40' height limit in all other districts • Fauquier County --65 feet in the "Commercial - Highway (C-2) District", 60' in the "Commercial - Shopping Center, Community/Regional (C-3) District", 45' in the "Industrial Park (I-1) District", and 45' in the "Industrial General (1-2) District". • Rockingham County—height up to 45' if certain setbacks increased • No mechanism for modifying height by special use permit or other means T -O. PANEL / PARAPET WA EL. +42'-6" -- �T.0.5 a RIDGE LINE (HIGH EL. +44b" 5.0.5 m LOW POINT 'IR7 EL. +32'-311 CONCRETE WA1 ENTRANCE / 5T( FIRST FLOOR EL. +0'-0"------- PROP05ED WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOR: 5F`G DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P. 1-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER 1 WALL SECTION A.2 Scale: NTS -SPRINKLER LINE 5PRINKLi RACKING RACKING BOG Properties, Ltd 3000 Centre Square West 1500 Mahe' Street Philodelphia, PA 19103 Tel. No. (215) 496-0400 Fax No. (2 5) 496-0431 2 SECTION CSD LOADING DOCK A.2 Scale: NTS REVISIONS _ PANEL / PARAPET WALL -- -- EL. +42'-6" RIDGE LINE (HIGH POINT) EL. +41'-6" 5,0_5 a LOW POINT EL. +32'-3" gCRETE WALL PANEL FIRST FLOOR EL. LOADING PAD EL. -4'-0" WALL SECTIONS 24, 2008 TO SCALE A2 WULFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1515 LOCUST STREET, 2NO FLOOR PHIWIELPHt4, PA 19102 T. 215.905.0500 F: 215.985.4404 W: WnWULFFARCHOECTS.COM -SPRINKLER LINE 5PRINKLi RACKING RACKING BOG Properties, Ltd 3000 Centre Square West 1500 Mahe' Street Philodelphia, PA 19103 Tel. No. (215) 496-0400 Fax No. (2 5) 496-0431 2 SECTION CSD LOADING DOCK A.2 Scale: NTS REVISIONS _ PANEL / PARAPET WALL -- -- EL. +42'-6" RIDGE LINE (HIGH POINT) EL. +41'-6" 5,0_5 a LOW POINT EL. +32'-3" gCRETE WALL PANEL FIRST FLOOR EL. LOADING PAD EL. -4'-0" WALL SECTIONS 24, 2008 TO SCALE A2 T.O. PANEL/PARAPET WALL (LOADING) EL. +42'-6,,— — -- �_____ _ T.O.S. 9 RIDGELINE� EL. +41'-6— — - S ,n v LOADING PAD T.O. PANEL/PARAPET WALL ENTRANCE _ _ T.O. PANEL/PARAPET WALL --- —� — — EL. +42'-6' IF ` TOi_� RIDGE LINE (NIaH POINT) ----- —EL. +41'-6" FIRST FLOOR - EL. +O' -O" PROPOSED WAREHOUSE BUILDING BPG DEVELOPMENT GOMPANY, LF 1-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER VIEW OF BUILDING FROM NORTHEAST 1515 LOCUST STREET, 2ND FLOOR PHIIADELPHtq PA 19102 T215.985.0500 I-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER Development : ` .,.�....�.,T.�,..,.�. FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Company, L.P. PROPOSED WAREHOUSE BUILDING BPG DEVELOPMENT GOMPANY, LF 1-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER GPG Properties, Ltd 3000 Centre Squore West 1500 Market Street Philedelphio, PA 19103 Tel. No. (215) 496-0400 Fox No. (215) 496-0431 REVISIONS PERSPECTIVE NOT TO SCALE JUNE 24, 2008 A k WULFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1515 LOCUST STREET, 2ND FLOOR PHIIADELPHtq PA 19102 T215.985.0500 F: 215.985.4404 W: WAVUREFFARCHOECTS.COM GPG Properties, Ltd 3000 Centre Squore West 1500 Market Street Philedelphio, PA 19103 Tel. No. (215) 496-0400 Fox No. (215) 496-0431 REVISIONS PERSPECTIVE NOT TO SCALE JUNE 24, 2008 A k