PC 02-20-08 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
February 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) December 19, 2007 Minutes............................................................................................ (A)
3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP is a prioritized list of capital
projects requested by various County Departments and Agencies. The Plan is created as an
informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. If
adopted, the CIP is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B)
6) Revocation of Conditional Use Permit 909-04 of James and Barbara Bayliss. This
Conditional Use Permit is being revoked due to the size and number of signs on the property.
The property is located at 2680 Northwestern Pike (Route 50 W) and is identified with
Property Identification Numbers 52-A-55 and 52-A-56 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (C)
7) Ordinance Amendment — Dedication of Right -of -Way Proposed revision to the
Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, §144-17E — Expansion of existing right-of-way.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D)
8) Ordinance Amendment — Handicap Accessible Ramps — Proposed revision to the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance § 165-23F — Setback Requirements.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (E)
9) Ordinance Amendment — Trash Storage and Screening Requirements — Proposed
revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance §165-47 — Landfills, junkyards and
inoperable vehicles.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (F)
10) Other
FILE COPY
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 December 19, 2007.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Charles E_
Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District;
Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District,
Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Charles S, DeHaven, Jr., Board of
Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; and
Richard C. Ours, Opequon District;
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; Mark R.
Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; Candice E.
Perkins, Senior Plaruier; Amber Powers, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the December 19, 2007 meeting.
MEETING MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett; the minutes
of November 7, 2007 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Economic Development Commission (EDC) —12/7/07 Mtg.
Conunissionef Kerr reported on the following action items by the EDC: 1) Requesting a 1%
increase in the FY09 Budget over last year; 2) Held elections for Chairman, Vice -Chairman, and Executive
Committee; 3) Discussed results of a national cost of living analysis in which EDC is participating; initial results
indicated the Winchester/ Frederick County area has a relatively low cost of living compared with the rest of the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of December 19, 2007DR
R "
I - ,
Page 2160
°2
,.
nA
V
-2 -
state; 4) Launch of the "Stop the Cominute" campaign again, which will be going through the holidays.
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) —12/10/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the CPPS continued their discussions on the Route 277
Triangle Study. Commissioner Oates said Planner Lauren Krempa was available to report on potential historical
structures in the Triangle Study Area; she also reviewed work completed over the summer by the HRAB (Historic
Resources Advisory Board) for the history section of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Transportation Committee —12/17/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Kriz provided details of the following items discussed by the Transportation
Committee: 1) Acceptance of the 2008 meeting calendar; 2) VDOT's Draft Secondary Street Acceptance
Requirements; 3) The Virginia Assign -A -Highway Program; 4) Potential truck restriction on Springdale Road;
and 5) MPO Activity Update, which included details of the Route 37 Access Management Study, the Route I 1
Access Management Study, the Route 7 Corridor Study, the Transit Study, and the Multimodal Grant Program.
Sanitation Authority
Conunissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of November was down at 2'/4 inches,
and the Sanitation Authority's Director, Mr. H. Wellington Jones, stated that if rainfall doesn't improve this
Winter and Spring, there will need to be discussions on water conservation and drought. Commissioner Unger
reported waste in plants is average and water usage is down. He reported discussions on having the City of
Winchester provide water and sewer at Amiandale Mill, off Shady Elm Road, because it is gravity flow to the City
and would require pumping for Frederick County to serve.
Commissioner Unger said a replacement has been hired for Mr. Jones, since he will be retiring
soon. In addition, the Sanitation Authority adopted a Resolution of Memorial for the late Charles E. Maddox, Jr.
with a list of Mr. Maddox's accomplishments for the Sanitation Department over the years.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Shawnee District Representative on the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Gene E. Fisher, came forward
to thank the members of the Planning Commission for their service and to send holiday greetings. Mr. Fisher next
gave a special thanks to retiring commissioner, Robert A. Morris, who was present for his last meeting on the
Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher thanked Commissioner Morris for his service since 1993 on behalf of himself,
the Board of Supervisors, and the citizens of Shawnee District.
Frederick County Planning Commission VD.�Page 2161
Minutes of December 19, 2007
-3-
1110 4s41"tW,Wel
Rezoning 908-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone
58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for office and
warehouse uses. The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet
south of Route 37. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 75-A-1 in the Back Creek Magisterial
District.
Action — Tabled for 30 Days
Conunissioner Manuel said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this application,
due to a possible conflict of interest.
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Plamling Commission considered
this rezoning application at their meeting of November 7, 2007 and voted to table for 45 days to allow the
applicant additional time to eiiliance the application package and for the Conunission to review revised proffers.
Mr. Ruddy said the Planning Commission expressed concerns about a variety of items at the November 7 meeting
relating to transportation, including buffering and screening adjacent to Shady Elm, and some general economic
development perspectives. Mr. Ruddy next sunnnarized the changes in the applicant's proffers from the last
meeting to this one. The primary change revolved around Shady Elm Road and the detail provided by the
applicant explains their approach to addressing the Commission's concerns on the right-of-way for Shady Elm
Road, in addition to its buffering and landscaping. He also described the changes in the monetary proffers
involving signalization, road design, and historic resources. A final change involved a minimum of three users at
final build -out.
Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, came forward to provide a transportation
overview of what was plamied for this area and why. Mr. Bishop stated that Shady Elm is planned to be a major
urban highway and is a very important link in the transportation system. He talked about the considerable traffic
coming from the south on Springdale Road, which was undesirable, or by a circuitous route through Kernstown
and Apple Valley Road, in order to access this area. He noted the area is planned largely for industrial; however,
there is some residential, with more residential is coming, and the Transportation Committee is trying to find
ways to improve the situation. Mr. Bishop said issues of using rural standards where urban standards are planned
remain the same as they were at the last Commission meeting. Mr. Bishop also discussed the importance of the
bridge and the applicant's monetary proffer towards its design. He pointed out there is a limited amount of
property available in this area to help implement the road system and as the County looks for development to help
implement the transportation improvements, caution needs to be observed as far as how much burden is shifted to
the next developer to come forward. In conclusion, he talked about the signalization proffer being converted to a
cash proffer.
Mr. Ronald Mislowski, with Patton, Harris, Rust, & Associates, representing the applicant,
stated that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to identify the impacts for this development indicated no
improvements were required on Shady Elm Road. Mr. Mislowski stated that in addition to providing the required
20 -foot right-of-way, which would provide 40 feet from the centerline, they have made a proffer to reserve
another 20 feet, should it be required. He next talked about the applicant's intention to construct a rural section of
roadway and why he believed this was appropriate at the onset of the project. Regarding the bridge crossing, Mr.
Mislowski said he contacted CSX Railroad and it was his impression that if properly designed with standards in
affect at the time of construction, the bridge could be approved by CSX.
Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, was also representing the applicant.
Mr. Sowers reviewed the monetary portions of the revised proffers. He said the November 6 proffer revision
included a signalization agreement for Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road and because of that inclusion, the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of December 19, 2007
Page 2162
-4 -
bridge design proffer was reduced from $50,000 to $25,000. He said the revision before the Commission this
evening is a modification of the signalization agreement to allow flexibility by offering a cash option, should the
County prefer a cash proffer, and raises the total cash proffer from $50,000 to $225,000. He commented that the
cash flexibility will allow the County to implement the Eastern Road Plan more quickly by contributing towards
designing the bridge and implementing construction or allow the County to focus more on interim impacts and the
cash proffer could be used for signalization of the Shady Elm and Apple Valley intersection. Mr. Sowers next
described the proffered street trees in addition to landscaping required by the ordinance. In response to the staffs
comment about the substantial landscaping in a relatively small area, Mr. Sowers described how they could shift
some of the plantings around on both sides of the trail or have the additional landscaping between the trail and the
roadway. Mr. Sowers next described the distance buffers, right-of-way dedication, and potential right-of-way for
Shady Elm Road and the East-West Collector. He indicated the area adjacent to the Carbaugh property where
they are providing the fu1180-foot right-of-way. He also showed the 20 -foot right-of-way dedication along Shady
Elm's 40 feet, which totals 60 feet, and the provision of a 20 -foot distance buffer which could be used for
additional right-of-way to provide the County with the entire 80 feet required. Mr. Sowers proceeded to address
the historic proffers and construction design materials.
Mr. Sowers concluded his presentation by emphasizing that this project is in conformance with
the County's Long -Range Land Use Plan, which designates this area for industrial uses, and is the County's
economic development base. In addition, he said the Eastern Road Plan shows the planned major collector with
the future crossing of the railroad tracks. He conunented that he could see no reason why the railroad would
object to having a flyover at this location.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments and the following persons
came forward to speak:
Mr. James E. Clark, 126 Ladderback Court in Cross Creek Village on Apple Valley Road,
believed the proposal was ahead of its time for Frederick County and should be denied. He said the single
improvement that would appear to significantly aid in traffic management, the proposed connector road, is a good
concept, but is not a reality at present. He said there are no assurances a connector road between Shady Elm and
Route 11 will ever be built and the promise of a short piece of road on the applicant's property is of no value,
unless the entire road is built. He commented that all the surrounding roads are two-lane roads and he described
the congested traffic conditions that currently exist. Mr. Clark spoke about how the traffic congestion will be
exacerbated by the other two new projects currently under construction on Shady Elm and Apple Valley. He said
the cumulative impacts of this proposal and those of ongoing developments were too severe for an already
stressed network of two-lane roads.
Ms. Liz Hunter, Hedgebrook Hills, stated that traffic impacts at this location are huge. Ms.
Hunter said the applicant's proposed FAR (floor area ratio) of .4 will generate 5,950 daily trips and will bring
down the LOS (level of service) to less than a Category "C." She said this number does not take into account the
Opus site or the FedEx building. Ms. Hunter understood that industrial zoning was in the County's long-range
plan for this area, but the infrastructure was not in place to handle the impacts from the proposed project. She
described the narrowness of portions of Shady Elm Road and questioned its capacity to manage the volume of
traffic expected. She was also concerned about trucks traveling down Springdale and safety issues on that road.
Ms. Hunter raised concern about the landscaping being squeezed into a five-foot strip. She spoke about the
proximity of the project to residential; she said the Code allows the Commission to require a higher standard with
regards to buffering and landscaping in order to make this project more livable and acceptable to the residents.
Ms. Hunter suggested the street trees be planted every 20 feet and ornamental trees staggered in between the
street trees. She also mentioned this property is listed on the internet as having a 42 -acre lot for sale with price
per acre and proposed date of rezoning. She read the listing of the property for the Commission.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of December 19, 2007
Page 2163
-5 -
In addition, Ms. Hunter spoke on behalf of Mr. Charles HarIess, a resident on Apple Valley
Road, who could not be present this evening. Ms. Hunter said that Mr. Harless wanted to express his concerns
regarding traffic and trucks, air quality, and pollution from construction as well as the increased traffic volume.
Mr. James Gibson, the owner and developer of Shady Elm Farms, located on the southern
portion of Shady Elm Road, said that Shady Elm Farnis was Frederick County's first "green" subdivision. Mr.
Gibson said he was also the builder of the fust "green" home in Frederick County. Mr. Gibson's concerns
included the environment and aesthetics. He spoke about the growing public awareness of protecting the
enviromnent for future generations.
Ms. Kitty Hockman-Nicholas, from Hedgebrook Farms and The Herd's Inn, said Hedgebrook
Fauns has been in her family for 101 years. Ms. Hockman-Nicholas talked about everyone's role in being
stewards of the land and water. She said Hedgebrook Farms is currently partnering with Virginia Tech on a
wetlands project involving water quality testing of the Opequon Creek. She talked about ways her farm operates
to protect the environment. Ms. Hockman-Nicholas said she has three platted residential lots on her faun, parallel
to Shady Elm Road, and she asked for protection of their views, their safety, and their land with responsible
development. She suggested that the proposed industrial development be a "green" project with green space,
green parking lots, solar lighting, wind or solar power, and dense buffers.
Mr. Richard (Rick) E. Piger, Jr., 130 Hockman Court, said he moved away from one industrial
park and now finds himself about to be living next to another, which he disliked. Mr. Piger said he found no
benefits about living next to an industrial park; however, there are many disadvantages he wanted to share, such
as pollution from long-term idling of tractor -trailers, extended hours of operation, noise, crime, and quality of life
issues. He believed the new highways need to be in place before the industrial development begins; otherwise,
there would be horrendous traffic problems on local roads.
Mr. Jeffrey M. Surratt, a resident on Hockman Court on Shady Elm Road, said that whenever
land is developed in the B 1, B3, M 1, or M2 Zoning Districts that is adjacent to land used for residential purposes
in the RA District, a "Category C" buffer should be provided on the land to be developed. Mr. Surratt said this
property should be accountable in providing the maximum landscaping buffer adjacent to residential and he cited
the specific sections of the County Code.
Mr. Gregory Brown, a resident on Hockman Court, questioned a comment made at a previous
meeting that the County_ has a shortage of M 1 property and the best use of this property was for M 1 uses; he
wanted to know how much undeveloped and/or vacant MI property currently exists in Frederick County. He
spoke about all of the projects currently underway and the cumulative traffic impacts these projects would create
on Apple Valley, Shady Elm, Springdale, and Route 11. Mr. Brown had questions about the economic benefits
for the residents of Frederick County, such as the amount of tax revenue and employment opportunities, versus
how much the project will cost tax payers in terms of infrastructure. He spoke about the adverse impacts of
traffic, safety, and aesthetics.
Mr. Warden Jenkins, a resident on Soldiers Rest Lane, was primarily concerned about safety.
Mr. Jenkins said the road was just recently upgraded from a dirt road to tar and gravel; he was concerned that
inclement whether could cause the road to be unsafe. Mr. Jenkins was not in favor of developing land until the
roads were available to handle the traffic. He said the bridge over Route 37 on Shady Elm Road has been in bad
condition for the last six months and no one is repairing it; he thought that was one of the first things that should
be done before heavy trucks started using the bridge.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of December 19, 2007
Page 2164
QM
Mr, Darrell Habron, a resident on Hockman Court, had questions about the economic impact of
the project, such as the cost of building the bridge and if the money was available. Mr. Habron believed the
applicant's $200,000 proffer was not adequate to take care of the transportation impacts the project would create
and he was concerned about exacerbating the existing traffic congestion in the area. He suggested the possibility
of the applicant purchasing the needed right-of-ways from the adjacent Carbaugh property.
Mr. Jack Bailey, a resident on Hockman Court, stated that his home fronts on Shady Elm Road
and there is a school bus stop in front of his property. Because sections of Shady Elm Road were narrow, he
expressed safety concerns with school buses, trucks, and daily traffic. Mr. Bailey said Shady Elm Road is not
able to handle existing traffic. He was not in favor of approving the rezoning until the current road conditions
change on Shady Elm.
Mr. Chuck (Charles) Hunter explained existing traffic patterns in the area for the Commission_
He said he almost gets run off the road twice a day traveling to and from work_ He said the road needs to be
widened before another industry is established on Shady Elm Road.
Mr. James Fredman, a resident of the Back Creek District, was opposed to the rezoning because
he would be adversely affected by the proposed industrial project. He read Section 165-82, MI District, of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance_
Ms. Susan Claytor, a resident on 4273 Valley Pike, stated that traffic was her primary issue and
it needed to be addressed.
Ms. Teresa Ogle, a resident on Springdale Road, said she was employed by Frederick County
Public Schools as a bus driver. Ms. Ogle described the traffic congestion she experiences daily on the routes she
drives the school bus. She said getting off Route 37 to come into Winchester on Route I I is very congested. She
described the narrow conditions on Springdale Road and that she typically has to pull the school bus off the road
for another vehicle to pass. Ms. Ogle said the traffic on Springdale Road was a major issue.
Ms. Christine Kensinger, a resident of Hockman Court, expressed her concern about existing
traffic congestion and increased traffic impacts with additional development.
Mr. James Sluss agreed with the concerns expressed by the previous speakers. In addition, he
questioned the numbers used in the applicant's TIA and he believed the results were flawed. Mr. Sluss said if this
project is approved, the County will have to commit to building the collector road and bridge, without fully
knowing the costs. He also questioned the applicant's intentions for constructing a rural section roadway instead
of an urban section_
Ms. Joanna Brown, a resident of Hedgebrook Hills, at the corner of Hockman Court and Shady
Elm, said she agreed with the questions and concerns raised by her neighbors, who previously spoke.
Mr. Gerald Wakefield, a resident and owner at 4330 Valley Pike and 4324 Valley Pike,
expressed his concerns about the area traffic on Route I 1 and Springdale Road.
Mr. Gillian Greenfield said she was a commercial real estate agent, but had no interest in the
project being discussed. Ms. Greenfield said that based on her six years' experience in commercial real estate,
she knows first hand there is a dangerous shortage of industrial property. She said for the economic balance and
stability of the community, she thought it was imperative to continue moving forward with the Comprehensive
Policy Plan, which calls for industrial zoning on this 60 -acre parcel. Ms. Greenfield agreed the traffic was terribly
congested; however, it was projects like the one proposed that create the catalyst for getting the collector roads
started and completed.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of December 19, 2007
Page 2165
-7 -
Ms. Andrea Habron, a resident of Hedge -brook Hills, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Ms.
Habron said the FAR figures of other developing property on Shady Elm and Apple Valley Roads were lower
than that proffered by Venture One; she believed Venture One should limit their FAR to not more than .25. She
read sections of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, dealing with development of business corridors, and raised the
following points: the proposed project should be sensitive to environmental, visual, and transportation impacts;
limitations should be proffered on building height, materials, and building size; there should be a separation of
business and industrial uses; necessary facilities and infrastructure need to be provided; appropriate, quality
development should be ensured through the use of performance and design standards; and the preferred variety of
landscaping and buffering should be provided. Ms. Habron raised the possibility that industrial zoning may no
longer be the highest and best use for this property, since the area now has so much residential. She spoke about
the impacts to the conununity as a whole. She said the cost to the community for a bridge and to resolve
transportation problems by continuing to bring industrial to this area far out weighs the benefits of a tax base
from this project.
Ms. Patricia Bailey, a resident of Hedgebrook Hills, spoke about the proffer regarding design
standards. Ms. Bailey believed there needed to be a building height limitation which is consistent with existing
structures on Shady Elm Road. She also requested that loading areas be restricted to the rear of buildings.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
hearing.
Mr. Sowers returned to the podium with final comments. Mr. Sowers agreed traffic was the
number one issue with the citizens who spoke and he addressed comments questioning the validity of the TIA.
He agreed the application should mitigate the impacts of development, when a project is pursued for economic
purposes, such as M1. He pointed out that comments from both VDOT and the Planning Staff indicate this
project's impacts have been mitigated. Mr. Sowers stated that the Eastern Road Plan recognizes the need for
another connection to Route 11 and this application is the start to providing that connection by proffering a
minimum of 1100 feet of the future East-West Collector Road. He commented that if it is believed that the full
roadway should be constructed before anything can be rezoned, there is probably not a developer that could afford
to do that_ He said this development was the first step towards fixing the problem. Mr. Sowers noted there were
existing M 1 uses in this area and he coma rented on the existing buffers and benns along Shady Elm. He said the
extent of the applicant's buffers and berms go well beyond anything existing along this road today.
Mr. Mislowsky returned to the podium for final comments. Mr. Mislowsky said that Warrior
Road began in a similar manner 12-13 years ago as a 1,000 -foot section running north from Route 277 and only
recently was completed up to Tasker Road. He said the only way these projects start is one piece at a time. He
stated that the impacts identified in their TIA, which are caused by their development, are mitigated by their
proffers. He asked the Commission to consider the value of their proffered road improvements, the signalization,
and the other proffers.
Conunission members had questions for the applicant about how the three building permits
trigger road construction. Mr. Sowers replied the three building permits guarantee there will not be just one
single, large user on the property, which was an issue. He said there were a number of different triggers for
construction of the 1100 feet of roadway. One is any construction in Land Bay 2; the second is when construction
of the bridge commences, even without a single building permit on site; and three, if nothing happens on the site
by December 31, 2013, the road would have to be built.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of December 19, 2007
Page 2166
Commission members asked if there was enough room between the railroad track and Route 11
South to construct a ramp for the bridge. In addition, a question was raised about how many acres of the 57.7 -
acre tract had been allocated for set -asides, roads, setbacks, etc. Mr. Sowers said the topography is favorable for
construction of the ramp for the bridge. Regarding the amount of land allocated out of the 57.7 -acre site, Mr.
Sowers replied that including the 1200 feet of road frontage on Shady Elm, the 20 -foot right-of-way dedication,
the 20 -foot reserved area, the 25 -foot parking setback, and the 80 -feet of right-of-way for the East-West Collector
Road, there is probably four -to -five acres allocated.
Commission members inquired about building materials and the height of structures. Mr.
Sowers said the intent is for brick, stone, stucco, and other masonry materials, but they could identify the exact
materials, if desired. Mr. Ruddy addressed the structure height question, stating the maximum building height is
60 feet; however, in the M 1 and M2 Districts, there's the ability to increase the height up to 100 feet for
automated storage with no occupancy.
Chairman Wilmot commented there was still a concern about large buildings; she said there was
no indication how big the buildings will be or what the uses will be in them. Chairman Wilmot said she had
safety concerns because of the road without a bridge. She said with large users, there are large numbers of trucks
and traffic is limited to Shady Elm. Mr. Sowers replied there will be a large user located on the rear 30 acres,
which could potentially be 400,000 square feet in size.
Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT came to the podium at the Commission's request. A member of the
Commission asked Mr. Ingram if Shady Ehn and Valley Mill will be able to handle the traffic with the build out
of the property. Mr. Ingram said that based on the TIA, VDOT believes those roads will be able to handle the
traffic. He also believed the initial 1100 feet was a good first step with getting the connector road into place. Mr.
Ingram did not foresee any funding coming from the State any time soon.
Traffic impacts remained a concern for the Commission and they agreed this was a challenging
area from a transportation perspective. Commission members recognized the value of the applicant's proffer and
the extent to which the applicant committed to mitigating his project's transportation impacts; however, they
could not ignore the growing transportation problems in this vicinity and believed they needed to consider the
broader community. They did not see how anything was done to mitigate the impacts of traffic going right and
left on Shady Elm Road, and the uncertainties regarding Springdale Road and the bridge remained. They were
uncertain if one project, or even two, could solve the area's transportation dilemma. It was suggested that if there
was some commitment from adjoining properties, the County, and VDOT to complete the road out to Route 11,
they would be more comfortable about the applicant's first step. Other Commissioners agreed, but it was pointed
out that the Carbaugh property was not yet within the Sewer and Water Service Area. They agreed this zoning
was appropriate for this area, but were concerned that the timing for doing so was not at the present. The
possibility of incremental development to correspond with certain phases of road improvements was suggested.
With this possibility, the land could be rezoned; but, the county would have some certainty there would not be a
complete build out of the property with unknown land use before the infrastructure was in place.
Commissioner Unger made a motion to approve the rezoning with the proffers offered. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Kerr; however, the motion was defeated by the following vote:
YES (TO APPROVE): Kerr, Unger
NO: Mohn, Triplett, Kriz, Oates, Moms, Watt, Wilmot
ABSTAIN: Manuel
(Note: Commissioners Thomas, Light, and Ours were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of December 19, 2007
Page 2167
Commissioner Watt next made a motion to table the application for 30 days to allow the
applicant time to work with the staff on other possible considerations for transportation. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Kriz and passed by a majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table for 30 days Rezoning
Application 408-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7
acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M 1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for office and warehouse
uses, to allow the applicant time to work with the staff on other possible considerations involving transportation.
The majority vote to table was as follows:
YES (TO TABLE): Unger, Watt, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn, Wilmot
NO: Morris, Oates
ABSTAIN: Manuel
(Note: Conunissioners Thomas, Ours, and Light were absent from the meeting.)
PUBLIC MEETING
Master Development Plan 915-07 of Shenandoah University, submitted by Patton Harris, Rust &
Associates, PC, for commercial uses. The property is located adjacent and east of Route 522, .50 miles
south of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 50. The property is further identified by P.I.N. 64 -A -A in
the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Commissioner Manuel said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this master
development plan (MDP) due to a possible conflict of interest_
Ms. Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner, reported that this master development plan (MDP)
application is a proposal to develop 24.4 acres of land, zoned B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial
Transition) with commercial land uses. Ms. Perkins said there are no proffers associated with this property. She
said access to the property will be off existing Wincrest Drive, which connects to Route 522, as well as one full
commercial entrance onto Front Royal Pike. Ms. Perkins stated this property has adequate access to Front Royal
Pike, via Wincrest Drive, as well as an inter -parcel connection into the Holiday Inn property. She said the staff is
recommending the full commercial entrance onto Front Royal Pike be eliminated to reduce the number of
entrances on the arterial road. Ms. Perkins said that with the development of this property, Wincrest Drive will be
upgraded to State road standards; however, there is no guarantee it will be taken over by the State. Ms. Perkins
said the MDP is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Policy Plan;
however. the applicant should consider removing the full entrance onto Route 522.
Chairman Wilmot asked if Wincrest Drive was located on this site or the property to the south.
Ms. Perkins replied that Wincrest Drive is located on the subject property.
Frederick County Planning Commission n j Page 2I 68
Minutes of December 19; 2007 a r�
Conunissioner Morris said the MDP shows a sidewalk provided along the property frontage with
Route 522. He asked if the sidewalk would be provided for the entire length of the property and Ms. Perkins
replied yes.
Conunissioner Mohn asked if the applicant had met all the entrance spacing requirements on
Route 522, even with the full entrance. Ms. Perkins replied yes.
Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., was present to represent this
project. Mr. Sowers confined that Wincrest Drive was on their property and entrance spacing requirements have
been met. Mr. Sowers pointed out the existing entrance onto Route 522, which will be upgraded. He said the
importance of that particular entrance is if the property develops in multiple parcels for B2. He explained that
commercial users will have other access besides the Holiday Inn parking lot and private travel lane. Mr. Sowers
added that a sidewalk along Route 522 will be provided, even though it is not a requirement.
Conunissioner Oates thought it would be beneficial to have an inter -parcel connection back by
the fire department for access around to Costello Drive. Mr. Sowers said if the property is developed for small
B3 users, it would be appropriate; however, it depended on how many users and the layout for the property.
Regarding the entrances on Route 522, Cormnissioner Morris asked if the applicant was
assuming both left and right turns for the egress. Mr. Sowers replied yes; however, as they move towards the site
plan stage, the final determination will be made by the County and VDOT. Mr. Sowers noted this is north of the
proposed relocated Route 522 and ultimately, they will not have to cross lanes of traffic.
Chairman Wilmot inquired if the property to the south would also be served by Wincrest Drive
and Mr. Sowers replied yes.
Chainnan Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak
Mr. Tom Jackson, the owner/operator of the Holiday Inn, said he did not want commercial traffic
driving through the hotel parking lot because it is designed for hotel use. Mr. Jackson said they agreed to inter -
parcel connection considering that whatever was next door to them, they would logically like some access without
going back onto Route 522; however, he did not want this to be the main thoroughfare. Mr. Jackson said there
would be safety issues with commercial traffic and children, pedestrians, people parking their vehicles in the hotel
parking lot. Mr. Jackson said he supported the extra access onto Route 522 to keep all of the traffic from just
driving through the Holiday Inn parking lot.
Mr. Mike Morrison, Vice -President with Hospitality Hotel Group, which also operates the
Holiday Inn, reiterated the comments of Mr. Jackson. Mr. Morrison said they have dealt With this type of
situation in the past and the cross traffic presents a dangerous situation for hotel guests and others using the
facility.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
meeting.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the MDP. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Molun and unanimously passed.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of December 19, 2007
Page 2169
-11 -
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Master Development Plan 415-07 of Shenandoah University, submitted by Patton Harris, Rust & Associates, PC,
for commercial uses, located adjacent and east of Route 522_50 miles south of the intersection of Route 522 and
Route 50.
(Note: Commissioner Manuel abstained. Commissioners Ours, Light, and Thomas were absent from the
meeting.)
DISCUSSION
Discussion of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV,
Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 23F, Setback Requirements, Handicap Accessible Ramps.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that staff is proposing an ordinance revision to
allow the Zoning Administrator to permit handicap ramps to extend into required setback areas when no other
alternatives are available. Ms. Perkins stated that Section 165-23F, Setback Requirements, allows some features
to extend into required setback areas; however, this section does not provide any opportunities for handicap
ramps to extend into these areas.
Ms. Perkins read the proposed ordinance for the Commission. She said this item was presented-
to
resentedto the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) on October 25, 2007, and the DRRS
endorsed the amendment as presented.
The Planning Commission was in favor of this amendment, as presented.
Discussion of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chanter 165, Zoning, Article IV,
Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 47, Landfills, Junkyards 'brash Disposal, and Inoperable
Vehicles — Trash Storage Facilities.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this proposed ordinance revision is in response to
issues with interpreting the code in regards to du npsters and the screening of dumpsters. Ms. Perkins said the
existing trash section in the ordinance is vague and does not contain specific screening requirements. She said the
ordinance also combines residential and comi iercial/industrial trash container requirements and requires them
when one or more residence or use shares a lot. Ms. Perkins said the intent of this revision is to separate
residential and conunercial/industrial container requirements. She explained that residential will remain
dependant on more than one residence sharing a parking lot, but cormnercial/industrial will require outdoor trash
containers or other means for all developments. In addition, the ordinance will be revised to state that all refuse
shall be contained within a completely enclosed facility and the enclosure shall consist of a six-foot opaque fence
or wall with an opaque gate.
Ms. Perkins said the proposed amendment was presented to the Development Review and
Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting on September 27, 2007 and was endorsed as presented.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of December 19, 2007
Page 2170
Commissioner Oates said during the DRRS meeting, a question arose about the need for
screening for commercial/industrial refuse containers when they are already inside an enclosed storage area. Ms.
Perkins said that if the storage yard is already surrounded by a six-foot, board -on -board fence, or a double row of
evergreens, then the trash container would not have to be screened.
Commissioner Mohn asked if a chain-link fence with slats would be considered to be opaque.
Ms_ Perkins replied that under the Definitions section of the zoning ordinance, a chain-link fence with slats is
prohibited from being classified as opaque.
The Planning Commission was in favor of the proposed amendment as presented.
DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS WITH MODIFICATIONS
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that in confonnance with the adopted Planning
Commission Bylaws, each November the Coininission shall conduct an annual review of the bylaws. He said at
the Commission's November 7, 2007 meeting, it was noted that a slight grammatical modification to Section 8-3-
3 was warranted. He commented this modification does not change the intent or application of the bylaws.
Chairman Wilmot pointed out that on Page 6, Item 8-3-3, second sentence, the word,
representative was changed to representatives_
The Planning Commission was in favor of the proposed change to the bylaws.
OTHER
MPO UPDATE BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR -TRANSPORTATION, JOHN A. BISHOP
Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, came forward to provide the Commission with
additional detail on the MPO (Metropolitan Plamling Organization) activity update that Commissioner Kriz
referred to earlier in the Transportation Committee report. Mr. Bishop pointed out that Mr. Charles DeHaven, Jr.
is Chairman of the Transportation Committee and is also one of the Transportation Committee representatives on
the MPO Policy Committee.
Mr. Bishop began by speaking about the Route 37 Access Management Study. He said the goal
of this study has been to examine the interchange situation, both existing and what is hoped for long-term, and
how these objectives can be reached while still meeting the needs for adequate transportation, which is a LOS
(Level of Service) C. Mr. Bishop said although the draft final report contains improvements, it is not a perfect
solution. He said the two alternatives that received the most favor still have limited areas that do not meet LOS C.
He noted that the final plan has been received and is expected to be released shortly for locality review.
Mr. Bishop next talked about the Route 11 Access Management Study. He said they are
expecting to receive a presentation on the final draft of the report on January 15, 2008 at the Technical Advisory
Committee meeting. He commented this is purely an access management and corridor study, which encompasses
a significant part of Route 11, within the City of Winchester, and southward into the County to Salem Church
Road. Mr. Bishop next updated the Commission on the Route 7 Corridor Study. Mr. Bishop said this study has
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of December 19, 2007
Page 2171
-13 -
many of the same goals as the Route 11 Access Management Study. Along with access management, they are
examining issues such as commuter traffic, truck traffic, and development planning.
In conclusion, Mr. Bishop spoke briefly about the Transit Study and multimodal grants. He
stated the MPO has been a significant resource for the County in these studies and the community had benefited
from this. He named several recent studies that have been grant -funded and the amounts that had been awarded_
PRESENTATION OF A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ROBERT A. MORRIS, SHAWNEE
DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE
On behalf of the entire Planning Commission, Chairman Wilmot presented a Resolution of
Appreciation to Commissioner Robert A. Morris, retiring Shawnee District Representative, and thanked him for
his many years of service to the Plamiing Commission and the County. Chairman Wilmot read the resolution for
everyone present.
PRESENTATION OF A GIFT OF APPRECIATION TO LAWRENCE R. AMBROGI, LEGAL
COUNSEL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
On behalf of the entire Planning Commission, Commissioner Morris presented a gift of
appreciation to Mr. Lawrence R. Ambrogi, the Planning Commission's retiring legal counsel and thanked him for
his many years of service to the Plannuig Commission and the County.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. by a unanimous
vote.
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of December 19, 2007
Page 2172
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
y
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director
DATE: February 4, 2008
RE: Public Hearing: 2008-2009 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)
The 2008-2009 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is scheduled for a Planning
Commission Public Hearing on February 20, 2008. The CIP was previously considered
at the following meetings:
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - November 12, 2007
The CPPS agreed that the CIP requests were in conformance with the
Comprehensive Policy Plan and forwarded the draft document out of Committee
for Planning Commission discussion.
• Planning Commission - December 5, 2007
The Planning Commission considered the CIP as a discussion item and the
consensus of the Commission was that the projects proposed within the CIP were
in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Board of Supervisors — January 9, 2008, and January 23, 2008
The Board considered the CIP as a discussion item on two occasions and agreed
to schedule public hearings for the 2008-2009 CIP. The discussion resulted in the
inclusion of an additional project which establishes a capital expenditure fund for
the purpose of purchasing additional and replacement capital fire and rescue
vehicles and equipment.
Please find attached with this agenda item: a draft copy of the proposed 2008-2009 CIP,
which includes three maps illustrating the known locations of the CIP requests. If
adopted, the CIP and included maps, will ultimately become a component of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan, satisfying the review requirement of Section 15.2-2232 of
the Code of Virginia, which states that no public facility shall be constructed unless said
facility is a "feature shown" within a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan.
107 North Rent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Planning Commission
Public Hearing: 2008-2009 CIP
February 4, 2008
Page 2
The CIP is presented as a public hearing. A recommendation to forward to the Board of
Supervisors would be appropriate.
Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding this
information.
Attachments
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED)
2008-2009 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed CIP consists of 56 capital projects, a slight increase over the 54
projects included in the previous CIP.
Of the 56 capital projects proposed, only five are new compared with
seventeen in last year's CIP. Parks and Recreation account for two,
Winchester Regional Airport, County Administration/Fire and Rescue, and the
Transportation Committee each have one new project. Last year, the
Transportation Committee accounted for the majority of new requests as it
was the first year they had provided capital projects for the CIP.
• The following is a listing of the new project requests:
Five (5) new projects:
o Parks and Recreation, Baseball field lighting at Sherando and
Clearbrook Parks.
o Parks and Recreation, Bike Trail Phase 11 in the Sherando Park area.
o Transportation, Interstate 81 Exit 307 Relocation.
o Winchester Regional Airport, North side taxi way connector.
o County Administration/Fire and Rescue, Capital Equipment fund.
• Public Schools, Parks & Recreation, County Administration, and Winchester
Regional Airport have modified the details of a variety of their requests based
upon updated thinking and changing conditions. Of particular note are the
Public Schools modifications to the addition and renovation of Apple Pie
Ridge and Bass Hoover Elementary Schools; this, in conjunction with the
recently programmed 12th Elementary School, will enable the Public Schools
to move to an all day Kindergarten program. Public Schools have also
modified their CIF to reflect renovations to their administrative offices at their
current Amherst Street location. Fire and Rescue, through County
Administration and with the endorsement of the Finance Committee,
established a capital equipment fund for the ongoing need to ensure that the
significant capital expenditures associated with their equipment, vehicles and
trucks, is represented in the CIP and budgetary information.
Proposed 2008-2009 Canal Inirovements Plan
Comparison of New Project Requests and Modification Requests
Frederick County Public Schools
Project
Type of
2007-2008
2008-2009
Difference
Request
Local
Local
($)
Expenditure
Expenditure
Request ($)
Request ($)
Transportation Facility
Modification
13,186,200
18,220,000
5,033,800
Apple Pie Ridge
Modification
3,500,000
TBD
N/A
Elementary School
Renovation
Modification
3,135,000
3,276,000
1,141, 000
Bass Hoover Elementary
Modification
1,50000
TBD
N/A
School Addition
Replacement of Frederick
Modification
33,592,000
33,992,000
400,000
County Middle School
Renovation/Administrative
Modification
N/A
15,010,000
N/A
Offices
Robert E. Aylor Middle
Modification
18,000,000
18,100,000
100,000
School Renovation
Fourth High School
Modification
52,000,000
55,250,000
3,250,000
James Wood High School
Modification
TBD
TBD
N/A
Renovation
Fifth Middle School
Modification
34,642,000
35,542,000
900,000
Elementary School #13
Modification
19,389,000
19,969,000
580,000
Elementary School #14
Modification
19,389,000
19,969,000
580,000
Total
Frederick County Parks and Recreation
Project
Type Of
2007-2008
2008-2009
Difference
Request
Local
Local
($)
Expenditure
Expenditure
Request ($)
Request ($)
Aquatic Facility
Modification
14,107,500
14,750,000
642,500
Baseball Field
New
N/A
1,069,000
1,069,000
Lighting
Park Land in
Modification
3,135,000
3,276,000
1,141, 000
Western Frederick
County
Park Land in
Modification
4,180,000
4,368,200
188,200
Eastern Frederick
County
Bike Trail Phase II
New
N/A
450,000
4-50,000
Water Slide/
Modification
1,164,715
1,271,128
52,413
S rav round
Maintenance
Modification
352,123
363,039
10,916
Compound-
Sherando Park
Open Play Areas-
Modification
465,015
465,548
533
Clearbrook Park
Access Road with
Modification
1,123,693
1,496,560
372,867
Parking and Trails-
Sherando Park
Lake, Trails, and
Modification
1,101,638
1,322,369
220,731
Parking with 2 -MP
Fields
Soccer Complex-
Modification
1,871,245
1,371,559
-499,686
Sherando Park
Skateboard Park-
Modification
475,051
499,229
24,178
Sherando Park
Softball Complex-
Modification
620,389
653,011
32,622
Sherando Park
Baseball Complex
Modification
1,230,803
43,542
-1,187,261
Renovations-
Sherando Park
Tennis/Basketball
Modification
470,012
511,831
41,819
Complex -
Clearbrook Park
Picnic Area-
Modification
728,658
782,140
53,482
Sherando Park
Shelter/Stage
Modification
463,366
494,532
31,116
Seating- Clearbrook
Park
Multi -Generational
Modification
8,193,636
8,562,629
368,993
Community Center
Total
County Administration
Project
Type of
2007-2008
2008-2009
Difference
Request
Local
Local
($)
Expenditure
Expenditure
Request ($)
Request ($)
Fire & Rescue
Modification
3,100,000
3,100,000
0
Station #22
Round Hill Fire
Modification
N/A
N/A
NA
Station Relocation
Gainesboro
Modification
400,000
445,000
4-5,000
Convenience Site
Relocation
20,600,000
20,600,000
0
Gore Refuse Site
Modification
400,000
420,000
20,000
Expansion
47,800,000
47,800,000
0
Clearbrook Fire
Modification
1,530,000
1,530,000
0
Station- Relocation
3,000,000
3,000,000
0
Fire and Rescue
New
0
1,000,000
1,000,000
Capital Equipment
Total
GG,OVV,VVV
22,OCC,0CC
nn
V
Transportation Committee
Project
Type of
2007-2008
2008-2009
Difference
Request
Local
Local
($)
Expenditure
Expenditure
Request ($)
Request ($)
Planning &
3,000,000
3,000,000
0
Engineering Rt. 37
1-81 Exit 307
New
N/A
60,000,000
60, 000, 000
Relocation
Warrior Drive
23,200,000
23,200,000
0
Extension
Channing Drive
20,600,000
20,600,000
0
Extension
Widening of Route
47,800,000
47,800,000
0
11 North
Brucetown Rd. &
3,000,000
3,000,000
0
Hopewell Rd.
Realignment
Senseny Roars
GG,OVV,VVV
22,OCC,0CC
nn
V
Widening
East Tevis Street
2,600,000
2,600,000
0
Extension
Inverlee Way
10,200,000
10,200,000 0
Fox Drive
250,000
250,000 0
Blossom Drive
250,000
250,000 0
Revenue Sharing
3,000,000
3,000,000 0
Total
Expenditure
Winchester Regional Airport
Project
Type of
2007-2008
2008-2009
Difference
Request
Local
Local
($)
Expenditure
Expenditure
Request {$)
Request {$}
ReHab R/W 14/32 &
Modification
4,000
4,400
400
Upgrade Airfield
Lights
Terminal Building
Modification
110,000
1,140,000
1,030,000
Renovation
N Side T/W
New
N/A
1,100
1,100
Connector
Land Acquisition-
Modification
17,300
17,300
0
Parcels 47, 47A, & 48
Land Acquisition-
Modification
7,000
7,000
0
Parcels 50, 51, & 52
Airfield Maintenance
Modification
210,000
94,750
115,250
Building
Total
Handley Regional Library
Project
Type of
2007-2008 Local
2008-2009
Difference
Request
Expenditure
Local
($)
Request ($)
Expenditure
Request ($)
Bowman Library-
Modification
228,468
251,000
22,532
Parking Lot &
Sidewalk Extension
Library facility in
Modification
1,053,000
2,132,000
1,079,000
Northwestern
Frederick County
Library Branch-
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sensen /Greenwood
Library Branch-
Modification
N/A
N/A
N/A
Route 522 South
Total
FREDERICK COUNTY
VIRGINIA
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
2008-2009
Fiscal Year
Adopted by the
Frederick County
Board of Supervisors
tbd
Recommended by the
Frederick County
Planning Commission
tbd
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 1
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 2
Frederick County Public Schools...................................................2
Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ............................2
County Administration.. •........................................................... 2
Transportation Committee......................................................... 3
Winchester Regional Airport ...................................................... 3
Handley Regional Library...........................................................3
2008-2009 CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP .................................................. 5
2008-2009 COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP........... 6
2008-2009 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS MAP .................................... 7
2008-2009 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TABLE ........................ 8
CIP TABLE EXPLANATIONS............................................................10
PROJECT FUNDING........................................................................10
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................. I .......... ....
11
Frederick County Public Schools ............................................... < ....11
Transportation Facility......................................................11
Apple Pie Ridge & Bass Hoover Elementary Renovation..............
l l
Replacement of Frederick County Middle School ......................
l l
Frederick County Public School Admin. Offices Renovation .........
12
Robert E. Aylor Middle School Renovation .............................12
FourthHigh School..........................................................12
James Wood High School Renovation ...................................
13
Fifth Middle School.........................................................13
Elementary School#13.....................................................13
Elementary School#14.....................................................14
Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ............................14
Indoor Aquatic Center .....................................................
14
Baseball Field Lighting......................................................14
Park Land- Western Frederick County ...................................
15
Park Land- Eastern Frederick County ....................................
15
Bike Trail — PhaseIL... . ...... :......::....................:.............15
Water Slide/Spray Ground- Sherando/Clearbrook...............
16
Maintenance Compound- Sherando .......................................16
Open Play Area- Clearbrook ..............................................
16
Access Road with Parking and Trails-Sherando .........................17
Lake, Parking, and Trail Development-Sherando.......................
17
Soccer Complex-Sherando.................................................17
Skateboard Park-Sherando.................................................18
Softball Complex-Sherando.................................................18
Baseball Complex-Sherando................................................18
Tennis/Basketball Complex -Clearbrook ...............................
19
Picnic Area-Sherando.......................................................
19
Shelter/Stage Seating-Clearbrook.........................................19
Multi -Generational Community Center..................................19
County Administration..............................................................
20
Annex Facilities/Fire & Rescue Station #22 ............................
20
Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station Relocation ........................
20
Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation ...............................
21
Gore Refuse Site Expansion ...............................................
21
Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation .......................................
21
Capital Equipment Fire and Rescue.......................................22
Transportation Committee...........................................................22
Planning & Engineering of Route 37 .......................... . ...........22
Interstate 81, Exit 307 Relocation.........................................22
Warrior Drive Extension....................................................23
Channing Drive Extension..................................................23
Widening of Route 11 North................................................23
Brucetown/Hopewell Road Realignment..................................23
Senseny Road Widening....................................................24
East Tevis Street Extension................................................24
InverleeWay..................................................................24
FoxDrive.....................................................................25
BlossomDrive...............................................................25
Revenue Sharing.............................................................25
Winchester Regional Airport .......................................................
25
Rehab R/W 14/32, Upgrade Airfield Lights .............................25
Terminal Building Renovation ............................................
26
N Side T/W Connector......................................................
2
Land Acquisition— Bufflick Road — Parcels 47, 47A, & 48...........
26
Land Acquisition- Bufflick Road — Parcels 50, 51, & 52 ..............
27
Airfield Maintenance Building ............................................
27
Handley Regional Library ...........................................................27
Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension ...............
27
Northern Frederick County Library Branch .............................
28
Senseny/Greenwood Library Branch .....................................
28
Route 522 South Library Branch ..........................................
28
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
FREDERICK COUNTY
2008-2009
INTRODUCTION
Section 15.2-2239 of the Code of Virginia assigns the responsibility for preparation of
plans for capital outlays to the local Planning Commissions. The Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP) consists of a schedule for major capital expenditures for the county for the
ensuing five years.
The CIP is updated annually. Projects are removed from the plans as they are completed
or as priorities change. The plan is intended to assist the Board of Supervisors in
preparation of the county budget. In addition to determining priorities for capital
expenditures, the county must also ensure that projects contained within the CIP conform
to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, the projects are reviewed with
considerations regarding health, safety, and the general welfare of the public. When the
CIP is adopted, it becomes a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as a capital facilities planning
document, not for requesting funding allocations. Once adopted, project priorities may
change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that
particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The
status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is
projected.
Transportation projects are included in the CIP for a second year. The 2007-2008 CIP
included transportation projects for the first time. The reason for this change was that
state code now allows for transportation projects to appear in the CIP. The addition of
transportation projects to the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be
independently undertaking these projects. Funding projects will continue to come from a
combination of state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing.
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
Frederick County Public Schools
In an effort to maintain educational facilities that will handle the growing student
population, the construction of two new elementary schools is recommended within the
UDA (Urban Development Area). The 12th Elementary School has been removed from
the CIP as it has recently been programmed. A new high school and a new middle school
have also been requested in anticipation of the future demand of a growing student
population. A number of school renovations and relocations are proposed, several of
which are aimed at accommodating an all day Kindergarten program. The Public Schools
top priority remains a new transportation facility.
One of the most notable changes from last years CIP is a request to renovate and expand
the current administration building on Amherst Street rather than relocating and
renovating the current Frederick County Middle School.
Parks & Recreation
The majority of the recommended projects are planned for the county's two regional
parks (Sherando & Clearbrook). Ten projects are planned for Sherando Park: upgrade of
baseball lighting, upgrade pool amenities, maintenance compound and office, skateboard
park, parking and multi-purpose fields with trail development, a softball complex,
renovations to the existing baseball complex, a soccer complex, picnic area with a shelter,
and an access road with parking and trails. There are currently five projects planned for
the Clearbrook Park which include, upgrade of baseball lighting, upgrading pool
amenities, a new open play area, a tennisibasketball complex, and shelter with an area for
stage seating. The upgrade of pool amenities at the swimming pools at both parks will
include the addition of water slides and a spray ground.
The indoor aquatic facility is being proposed as a top priority of the Parks and Recreation
Department for a third year in a row. Phase II of the Bike Trail project in the Sherando
area has been added to the plan.
The Parks and Recreation Department has proposed to acquire land in both the eastern
and western portions of the county for the development of future regional park system.
Both land acquisitions call for 150-200 acres of land to accommodate the recreational
needs of the growing population.
County Administration
Modifications to two of the County's refuse convenience sites have been requested. The
first request is that the current Gairesboro facility be moved because of health hazards
the current site incurs. The other request is for the expansion/relocation of the Gore
Refuse Site to allow for a trash compactor, which will reduce operational costs, by
compacting trash before it reaches the landfill.
2
Fire & Rescue has requested two relocations of current fire stations in order to operate
more efficiently. The top project for the County Administration is the creation of Fire &
Rescue Station #22, with the ability to provide an annex facility for other county related
offices. A new project request for the benefit of Fire and Rescue is the capital
expenditure fund for the purpose of purchasing additional and replacement capital
equipment fire and rescue vehicles and equipment. With the endorsement of the Finance
Committee it was determined that the inclusion of such a project would be beneficial in
ensuring that this significant capital expense is identified in the County's capital planning
and budget process.
Transportation Committee
This is the second year the Transportation Committee is providing project requests for the
CIP. Virginia State Code allows for transportation projects to be included within a
locality's CIP. Funding for transportation project requests will likely come from
developers and revenue sharing. Implementation of transportation projects does not take
away funding for generalized road improvements.
The Transportation Committee has requested funding for twelve projects. The twelve
requests include projects that entail widening of major roads; key extensions of roads that
help provide better networks, and the addition of turn lanes at current unsafe
intersections. The relocation of Interstate 81, Exit 307 is the only addition to this years
CIP
Winchester Regional Airport
Several of the Airport requests were carried forward from last year. There are two
requests to acquire additional parcels along Bufflick Road which are required to meet
noise abatement requirements. Also carried over, is the request to renovate the terminal
building, the request to construct a new airfield maintenance building, and a request to
upgrade the airfield lighting system to enhance safety for aircraft use of the facility. Two
additional requests address the rehabilitation of Runway 14/42 and a new north side Taxi
way Connector.
Funding for airport projects is derived through a complex formula where the federal and
state governments contribute a majority of the funding, with Frederick County and the
other jurisdictions providing the remaining funding.
Handley Regional Library
The Handley Regional Library has recommended four projects, consistent with their
2008-2009 request. The library's top priority is a parking lot expansion as well as
improvements to sidewalk access at the Bowman Library. The parking lot expansion
would accommodate 121 more parking than what is currently available. The library
wishes to extend the sidewalks to serve residents traveling from the east to Lakeside
Drive.
3
The three remaining projects request that funding be provided for new library branches
throughout the county which include the areas of Gainesboro, Senseny/Greenwood Road,
and Route 522 South, with the latter two being located within the UDA (Urban
Development Area).
11
2008-2009 2008-2009
Capital improvements Frederick ounty
Specific or r
Approximate Locations JJ"fan
Parks and Recreation
1 Sherando Park
2 Clearbrook Park
3 Future Western Parkland
4 Future Eastern Parkland
County Administration
1 Annex Facility / Fire & Rescue Station
2 Round Hill Fire Station Relocation
3 0ainesboro Convenience Site Relocation
4Gore Convenience Site Expansion
5 Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation
Airport
Library
1 Bowman Library - Parking Lot and Sidewalk Addition
2 Northern Frederick County Library Branch
3 Library Branch - Senseny & Greenwood
4 Library Branch - Rt 522 South f,
Primary Roads„
s
Secondary Roads f
mote: 0 12,500 25,000 50,000 75,000
Created by Frederick County Department nt U 2 4 Feet
Planning & Development $ 12
Map represents the Capital Impr.--t Requeex Miles by various county departments.
Existing Elementary Schools
Existing High Schools
Existing Middle Schools
New School Location Alternatives
a _ I Urban Development Area
SVV-SWSA
O City / Town Bounday
2008 2,009
� J
Replacement
j FCMS i
f j 50� �I ! ;fj' I
�_
J.
..�� ,•
j � n
'r
;-
'i 7�+w r
i�
#12 Elem School
37 50
Elem School 6 '
#5 Middle School
50
r�
Elem School - r '
�- #A High School
Map Created by Frederick County Dept
Of Planning & Development
11/06/07
N
w'E
S
0 1 2 4 Miles
School Locations
Are Most
Appropriate
Within the UDA
"\.,^- I 1 �'-•.,�--,t jj r` �` 4 . _ :'�vb/reH t� cN�H�R,D. �:,.` _
3 I
SAINTCLAIR RO `"...,,'� !' JI
a µy
r
f ROPfYVFLL RD
'�4hRO � O
i
r 4,
4`
1
BRUCETOWN RD !'
I
37
1
k
87
/
yn
o.
PINE RD ?`
- f
v
Winchester ,�,�. J
NSfRYRp-
7 J
',}
py 1 O
.f �" : 'V/qP �4•�D�+ems,•.
4
50
MILL RD
522 ARMELRD
� r �.✓ yet/ `, ,�e`�{I ,�
`q(
2008-2009
Capital Improvement Plan
Transportation Projects
CONTINUE RT37 PLANNING
ENGINEERING WORK
fe1-81 EXIT
307 RELOCATION
WARRIOR DR EXTENSION
TO NEW EXIT 307
CHANNING DR
EXTENSION TO RT50
RTI 1 N OF WINC
WIDENING TO WV LINE
BRUCETOWN RD/HOPEWELL RD
ALIGNMENTAND INTERSECTION
O%SENSENY RD
OWIDENING
EAST TEVIS EXTENSION
TO RDWAY RUSSELL 150 & 181
INVERLEE WAY; CONNECTION FROM
RT50 TO SENSENY RD
FOX DR; INSTALL RT
TURN LANE ONTO RT522
BLOSSOM DR
INSTALL TURN LANE
/CIA
o
5r
S
o 't °
°G
-
Frederick County Dept of
N ' ,
..
-
=
Planning & Development
GP�
107 N Kent St
sy.{�
f,
Winchester, VA 22601
W
.COYREDERICK.V,A.US
November 19, 2007
2008-2009
Capital Improvement Plan
Transportation Projects
CONTINUE RT37 PLANNING
ENGINEERING WORK
fe1-81 EXIT
307 RELOCATION
WARRIOR DR EXTENSION
TO NEW EXIT 307
CHANNING DR
EXTENSION TO RT50
RTI 1 N OF WINC
WIDENING TO WV LINE
BRUCETOWN RD/HOPEWELL RD
ALIGNMENTAND INTERSECTION
O%SENSENY RD
OWIDENING
EAST TEVIS EXTENSION
TO RDWAY RUSSELL 150 & 181
INVERLEE WAY; CONNECTION FROM
RT50 TO SENSENY RD
FOX DR; INSTALL RT
TURN LANE ONTO RT522
BLOSSOM DR
INSTALL TURN LANE
County Total Project
Department Priority County Contribution Per Fiscal Year Contributions Notes Costs
2008-
2009-
2010-
2011-
2012 -
Projects
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Public Schools
Transportation Facility
4,500,000
10,500,00E
3,220,000
$18,220,000
$18.220,000
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary & Bass
Hoover Elementary Add/Renov
TBD
TBD
Replacement Frederick Middle
1,700,000
6,0M0,000
21,500,000-
4,792,000
$33,992,000
FCPS Office Expansion
500,000
4,700,000
9,810,000
$15,010,000
$15,010,000
Robert E. Aylor Renovation
800,000
6,375,000
6,725,000
2,275,000
21,226,000
$18,100,000
$18,100,000
Fourth High School
6,000,000
6,500,000
13,000,000
19,500,000
10,250,000
$55,250,000
James Wood High School Renov,
TBD
TSD -
Fifth Middle School
2,250,000
1,000,000
3,829,000
$35,542,000
D
$35,542,000
Elementary School #13
1,126,000°'
700,000
6,000,000
$19969,000
D
$19,969,000
Elementary School #14
700,000
1,125,000
14,001,7001
$19,969,000
D
1 $19,969,000
Parks &Recreation
':indoor Aquatic Facility
14,750,000
$1.4,107,500
$114,760,000
Clearbrook & Sherando
Baseball Field Lighting
1,069,000
$1,069,000
$1,069,000
-Park Land Western Fred, Co
12713,000'
$3,276,000
$3,276,000
Park Land Eastern Fred. Co.
4,368,200
$4,368,200
$4,368,200
Bike Trail (Phase II)
450,000
$450,0011
$450,000
Clearbrook & Sherando
Water Slide/Spray Ground
1,217,128
$1,217,128
$1,217,128
Sherando
Maintenance Compound
363,039
$363,039
$363,039
Clearbrook
Open Play Areas
465,548
$465,548
$465,548
Sherando
Access Road wlParking/Trals
1,496,560
$1,496.560
$1,496,560
Sherando
Lake/Trails/Parking- 2 Fields
1,322,369
$1,322,369
$1,322,369
Sherando
Soccer complex
1,371,555
$1,371,559
$1,371,559
Sherando
Skateboard Park
499,229
$499,229
$499,229
Sherando
-Softball Complex
653,011
$653,011
$653,011
Sherando
Baseball Complex
43,542
$43,542
$43,542
Clearbrook
Tennis/Basketball Complex
511,831
$511,831
$511,831
Sherando
Picnic Areas
782,140
$782,140
$782,140
Clearbrook
Shelter Stage
494,532
$494,532
$494,532
Multi -Generational Center
8,562,6291
$8,562,629
$8,562,629
County Administration
Fite & Rescue Station #22
400,000
1,100,000=
1,600,000
$3,100,000
$3,100,000
Station #15 Relocation
N/A
N/A
Relocation of Gainesboro Site
445,000
$445,000
$445,000
Relocation/Expansion Gore Site
50,000
370,000
$420,000
$420,000
Station #13 Relocation
132;000
135,000
142,500
145,000
155,000
$1,530,000
$1.530,000
Fire & Rescue Capital Equipment
1 200,0001
200,000
200,0001
200,0001
200,0001
$1,000,000
1
$1,000,000
County Total Project
Department Priority County Contribution Per Fiscal Year Contributions Notes Costs
2008-
2009-
2010-
2011-
2012 -
Projects
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Transportation
Route 37 Engineering
1,500,000
1,500,000
$1,500.000
E
$3,00.0,000=
1-81 Exit 307 Relocation
$60,000,000
$60,000,000
Warrior Drive Extension
$23,200,000
E
$23,200,000^
Channing Drive Extension
$20,600,000
E
$20,600,000
Widening Of Route 11 North
$47,800,000
E
$47,800,000
Brucetown/Hopewell Realign.
$3,000,000
E
$3,000,000
Senseny Road Widening
$22,800,000
E
$22,800,000
East Tevis Street Extension
$2,600,000
E
$2,600,000
Inveriee Way
$10,200,000
E
$10,200,000
Fox Drive
$250,000
E
$250,000
Blossom Drive
$250.000
E
$250,000
Revenue Sharing
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,0001
$3,000,000
1
$3,000,000
Winchester Airport
Rehab RNV 14/32, Upgrade Airfield Li
220,000
$4,400
A,B
$220,000.
Terminal Building Renovation
3,000,000
$1,140,000
A
$3,000,000
N Side TIW Connector
55,000
$1,100
$55,000:
Land Acquisition, Lots 47,47A,48
800,000
$17,300
A
$800,000
Land Acquisition, Lots 50,51,52
50,000
300,000
$7,000
A
$350,000
Airfield Maintenance Building
110,000
$94,750
Al$110,000
Regional Library
Bowman Parking LotSidewalk
251,000
$251,000
$251,000
Library Branch North Frederick
197,000
1,935,000
$2,132,000
C
$2,132,000
Zenseny/Greenwood Branch
NIA
N/A
Route 522 Branch
I
N/A
I
N/A
Total
$467,861,317
A= Partial funding from VA Dept. of Aviation N/A= Not Available
B= Partial funding from FAA
C= Partial funding from private donations
D= Funding goes beyond displayed 5 years
E= Funding anticipated through development & revenue sources
THE CIP TABLE
CONTENT DESCRIPTIONS
The Capital Improvements Plan table, on the previous pages, contains a list of the capital
improvement projects proposed for the ensuing five years. A description of the
information in this table is explained below.
Department Priority- The priority rating assigned by each agency or department for
their requested projects.
Project Description- The name of the capital improvement projects.
County Contribution- The estimated dollar value that will be contributed for each
project. This value is listed by individual fiscal years and by total contributions over the
five-year period. The total contribution column, located to the right of the fiscal year
columns, does not include debt service projections.
Notes- Indicates the footnotes that apply to additional funding sources for particular
projects.
Total Project Costs- The cost for each project, including county allocations and other
funding sources.
PROJECT FUNDING
The projects included in the 2008-2009 Capital Improvements Plan have a total project
cost to the county of $466,861,317 over the next five years.
• School projects are funded through a combination of loans from the
Virginia Public School Authority and the Virginia Literary Fund.
• Funding for Parks and Recreation Department projects will come from the
unreserved fund balance of the County. The Parks and Recreation
Commission will actively seek grants and private sources of funding for
projects not funded by the county.
• Airport projects will be funded by contributions from the federal, state,
and local governments. The local portion may include contributions from
Frederick, Clarke, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties, and the City of
Winchester.
• The addition of transportation projects to the CIF is in no way an
indication that Frederick County will be independently undertaking these
projects. Funding projects will continue to come from a combination of
state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing.
10
Frederick County Public Schools Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Transportation Facility
Description: This project involves the site acquisition and development of a new
transportation facility for the public school system. The site will house administration,
driver training areas, driver and staff meeting areas, mechanical service and repair bays,
inspection bay, wash bay, and fueling bays.
Capital Cost: $18,220,000
Justification: The current transportation site has outgrown the current facilities and there
is not sufficient area to expand. The increase in student membership, coupled with
stringent laws and regulations that govern the operation and maintenance of school
transportation vehicles, requires a much larger and upgraded transportation facility.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 38 months.
PRIORITY 2
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary & Bass Hoover Elementary School Renovations
Description: This project includes renovations, which consist of additional classroom
space; roof replacement; security, and upgrades of fire alarm, electrical, plumbing, and
mechanical systems.
Capital Cost: $TBD
Justification: These renovations are needed to a number of areas to insure economic and
efficient operation of the schools for years to come and to accommodate a full day
kindergarten program.
Construction Schedule: Begin Construction FY 09-08
PRIORITY 3
Replacement of Frederick County Middle School
Description: The replacement of Frederick County Middle School will have a program
capacity of 850 students and serve grades 6-8. The project location has been requested in
the western portion of Frederick County between Route 50 West and Route 522 North in
the area of Hayfield Road. It will contain approximately 166,000 square feet of floor
area and be located on approximately 30 acres.
Capital Cost: $33,992,000
Justification: With the need for renovations at the current school to major mechanical
systems, items dealing with ADA compliance, increasing membership, location of the
facility, concern for best building configuration for the delivery of instruction, and the
connectivity to other department projects.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 44 months.
11
PRIORITY 4
Frederick County Administrative Office Expansion
Description: This project involves renovations to the existing school board
administration building. The expansion will address the increased need for office space,
meeting room space, and electrical needs which continue to gro with the increase in
technology and staff.
Capital Cost: $15,010,000
Justification: The administrative offices will serve 110 current staff housed in the
present Frederick County Public Schools Administration building.
Construction Schedule: Begin Construction FY 10-11
PRIORITY 5
Robert E. Aylor Middle School Renovation
Description: This project involves renovations of the current facility. Major areas to be
included in the project are additional classroom space and storage space; a complete
replacement of fire alarm and communication systems, plus roof replacement; upgrade of
electrical and plumbing; and complete replacement of mechanical systems.
Capital Cost: $18,100,000
Justification: Robert E. Aylor Middle School is soon to be 37 years of age and
renovations are needed to a number of different areas to ensure economic and efficient
operation of the school for years to come.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 6
Fourth High School
Description: This project consists of the development of a fourth high school serving
grades 9-12 with a program capacity of 1,250 students. The project location has yet to be
determined, but will have a floor area of approximately 242,000 square feet and is to be
located on approximately 50 acres of land.
Capital Cost: $55,250,000
Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment in the
school division over the next five years. It is anticipated that student enrollment will
increase at all levels. Student enrollment in the high schools by the fall of 2012 is
projected to be 4,257.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 48 months
12
PRIORITY 7
James Wood High School Renovation
Description: This project involves renovations of the existing facility. Major areas to
be included in the project include increased electrical service and distribution to support
technology; technology cabling, hardware, and its installation; upgrade of plumbing and
mechanical systems; and modification of instructional areas to support instructional
delivery.
Capital Cost: TBD
Justification: Updating the facility will assist the school division in meeting the
community needs for the citizens and high school student in the James Wood High
School attendance zone.
Construction Schedule: Begin Construction FY 09-10
PRIORITY 8
Fifth Middle School
Description: This project consists of the development of a new middle school serving
grades 6-8 with a capacity of 850 students. The project location has yet to be determined
but will have a floor area of approximately 166,000 square feet and will be located on
approximately 30 acres of land.
Capital Cost: $35,542,000
Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment over the
next five years. Middle school enrollment in 2012 is projected to be 3,372.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 36 months.
PRIORITY 9
Elementary School 913
Description: This project consists of the development of a new elementary school
serving 750 students. The elementary school would be located upon 15 acres with a floor
space of 94,000- 97,000 square feet.
Capital Cost: $19,969,000
Justification: This project will be in a location that will relieve current overcrowding
and accommodate projected housing developments.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 36 months.
13
PRIORITY 10
Elementary School 414
Description: This project consists of the development of a new elementary school
serving 750 students. The elementary school would be located upon 15 acres with a floor
space of 94,000-97,000 square feet.
Capital Cost: $19,969,000
Justification: This school will be located in an area to relieve overcrowding and
accommodate projected new housing developments.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 36 months.
Parks & Recreation Department Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Indoor Aquatic Facility
Description: This facility would house a leisure and competitive lap swimming pool
with an office, storage and locker rooms. This facility should be located on property
owned or proffered to the County and would utilize approximately 8-12 acres with
parking.
Capital Cost: $14,750,500
Justification: It is estimated that the center will see over 120,000 guests each year. The
Department's swim team participation has increased by 29% in the last three years with
1,500 swim lessons during the summer of 2006. This project would permit the Parks and
Recreation Department to meet citizen programming demands, provide an instructional
facility, as well as provide the area with a facility that would attract new businesses to the
community. This facility would be available to all area residents.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09.
P-PIOPITV 7
Baseball Field Lighting Upgrade
Description: This project involves upgrading the lighting at both Clearbrook and
Sherando Parks Baseball Facilities. The upgrade would involve the removal of the
existing fixtures and wooden poles and their replacement with fixtures that meet Little
League International Standards on all little league fields.
Capital Cost: $1,069,000
Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park
service area and the entire Frederick County co�nnnur�ity. The provision of these
improvements will meet the minimum standards established for the service area and those
of the programming entity.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
14
PRIORITY 3
Park Land — Western Frederick County
Description: Parkland acquisition in the western portion of the county.
Capital Cost: $3,276,000
Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county
population. This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland
and the amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick
County service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The location of
this project would provide parkland to create more accessible recreational facilities to
residents in western Frederick County.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
PRIORITY 4
Park Land - Eastern Frederick County
Description: Parkland acquisition in the eastern portion of the county.
Capital Cost: $4,368,200
Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county
population. The park would be located in the primary growth center of Frederick County.
This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the
amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick County
service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10.
PRIORITY 5
Bike Trail Phase II - Sherando Park
Description: 10' bike/pedestrian trail at Sherando Park, north side of Route 277, and
running from the existing trail, parallel to Warrior Drive, and joining with the trail at the
Old Dominion Greens Subdivision. The design and engineering has been completed for
this project.
Capital Cost: $450,000
Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando
Park service area and the entire Frederick County Community.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10.
15
PRIORITY 6
Swimming Pool Improvements — Sherando/Clearbrook
Description: This project consists of removing the diving boards and installing two
water slides at both Sherando and Clearbrook Park. The upgrade would also include the
addition of a spray ground with 10-12 features at each pool.
Capital Cost: $1,217,128
Justification: This project is expected to increase pool attendance by 30 percent while
providing recreational opportunities for both the Sherando and Clearbrook Park service
areas.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10.
PRIORITY 7
Maintenance Compound and Office — Sherando Park
Description: This project involves the construction of a 1,200 square -foot office and a
4,000 square -foot storage shed for operation at Sherando Park.
Capital Cost: $363,039
Justification: This facility will enable the County to maintain equipment and facilities in
a more responsible and effective manner. The additional responsibility to maintain the
outdoor facilities at Sherando High School, Robinson Learning Center, Armel
Elementary, Orchard View Elementary, Bass Hoover Elementary, Middletown
Elementary, R.E. Aylor Middle, Admiral Byrd Middle, and Evendale Elementary,
increases the need for more storage, maintenance, and office space.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11
PRIORITY 8
Open Play Area — Clearbrook
Description: This project includes development of a picnic shelter; six horseshoe pits; a
volleyball court; croquet turf; shuffleboard; parking; refurbishing the existing concession
stand; landscaping (14 shade trees); peripheral work; and renovations to existing shelters,
restrooms, access paths, and parking areas on the south side of the lake.
Capital Cost: $465,548
Justification: These facilities will provide recreational opportunities for the Clearbrook
Park Service Area which will lessen the disparity between the number of passive
recreational areas needed to meet the minimum standards for this service area.
Clearbrook Park offers the best location for this development.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FYI0-11.
16
PRIORITY 9
Access Road with Parking and Trails- Sherando Park
Description: This project involves the development of an entrance and 1,800 linear feet
of access roadway from Warrior Drive; a 100 space parking area; and 2.8 miles of trails.
Capital Cost: $1,496,560
Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park
service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this
facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational
areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service
area.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11.
PRIORITY 10
Lake, Parking, and Trail Development with two Multi-purpose Fields
Description: This project involves the development of a 12 acre lake; 1.5 mile trail
system around the lake; 800 linear feet of access roadway; lighted parking lot with 125
spaces; and development of two irrigated 70x120 yard multi-purpose fields.
Capital Cost: $1,322,369
Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park
service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this
facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational
areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service
area.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11.
PRIORITY 11
Soccer Complex- Sherando Park
Description: This project includes the development of one soccer field (artificial grass);
access paths; restrooms; concession; one picnic shelter; a plaza; landscaping; and lighting
(one field).
Capital Cost: $1,371,559
Justification: This facility will serve the entire county population and will be utilized by
the Frederick County School System.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11
17
PRIORITY .12
Skateboard Park - Sherando Park
Description: This project recommends the development of a skateboard bowl; a half
pipe; an open skate area; vehicle parking; an access road; fencing; and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $499,229
Justification: This facility will enable the County to provide a recreational facility that
has been identified in the County Comprehensive Plan for recreational facility
development.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12.
PRIORITY 13
Softball Complex- Sherando Park
Description: This project includes two softball fields; an access road; parking spaces;
and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $653,011
Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for the entire county
population, as well as the Frederick County School System. Presently, there are ten
softball and baseball fields within the county's regional park system. Eight of the
existing fields must serve a dual purpose of facilitating youth baseball, as well as adult
softball programs. With the increased usage of these fields, it has become increasingly
difficult to facilitate these programs. This project is needed in order for the Parks and
Recreation Department to accommodate the existing demand for youth baseball and adult
softball programs.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12
PRIORITY 14
Baseball Complex Renovation- Sherando Park
Description: This project includes the renovation of four existing baseball fields; partial
fencing and backstops.
Capital Cost: $43,542
Justification: This facility, presently serving as both youth baseball and adult softball
fields, would be used by the Little League Programs within the Sherando Park service
area. In addition to its use as a recreational facility, the athletic complex will also be used
by the Frederick County School System.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12
IN
PRIORITY 15
Tennis/Basketball Complex- Clearbrook Park
Description: This project includes the development of four tennis courts; two basketball
courts; a shelter; access paths; parking; and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $511,831
Justification: These facilities will be available to all county residents. Currently, there
are no tennis courts or basketball courts in the Clearbrook Park Service Area. Clearbrook
Park is utilized by over 180,000 visitors annually; therefore, these facilities are needed.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13
PRIORITY 16
Picnic Area- Sherando Park
Description: This project includes a restroom/concession area; four picnic shelters;
playground area; access paths; parking; and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $782,140
Justification: These facilities would be used by the residents of Sherando Park service
area. This area of the county is growing and is deficient in passive recreational
opportunities. This development is needed to reduce the gap between the number of
existing facilities and the minimum standards for the Sherando Park service area and
southeastern Frederick County.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13
PRIORITY 17
Shelter/Stage Seating- Clearbrook Park
Description: This project includes the development of a shelter with a performance
stage; refurbishing existing restrooms and access paths; and renovations to the lake.
Capital Cost: $494,532
Justification: This facility would be used by the entire county population. Presently,
there are no facilities to accommodate cultural programs within the county's park system.
This project is needed to provide a facility for cultural activities.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13
PRIORITY 18
Multi -Generational Community Center
Descrirt;nn• The rrnject inynlA7ec building a 44 000 square foot facility that would
tr........ r..,J...... p s- t
contain an indoor track and at least two basketball courts. The court area would be
designed to be used by indoor soccer, baseball, softball, wrestling, volleyball, tennis and
19
badminton. The area could also be used for special events. Additionally, the project
would house a fitness center, multi-purpose rooms, office, storage, and locker rooms.
Capital Cost: $8,562,629
Justification: This facility would give the Parks and Recreation Department the ability
to offer year round recreational programming to the residents of Frederick County. The
department can no longer meet the programming and facility needs of the County
residents.
Construction Schedule: FY 12-13
County Administration Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Annex Facilities / Fire & Rescue Station #22
Description: This project will consist of several facilities located at strategic locations
throughout the County to house employees of the Sheriff's Office, the Treasurer's Office,
the Commissioner of Revenue's Office, and a Board of Supervisor office with meeting
room. A 10,000 square foot fire station would be included with the offices located in the
Fairfax Pike area, east of White Oak Road.
Capital Cost: $3,100,000
Justification: The development of satellite offices along major transportation networks
and in areas of dense population will provide ease of access for citizens and will improve
services to the county. The County continues to experience a significant rate of growth;
therefore, it is important to provide services within these areas instead of requiring
citizens to confront congestion, limited parking, and accessibility in the City of
Winchester.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10
PRIORITY 2
Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station Relocation
Description: This project includes the relocation and building of a 22,000 square foot
facility to accommodate ten or more pieces of emergency equipment and to house living
and sleeping areas for staff. A community center of approximately 10,000 square feet,
with a capacity of 400 people, is also planned; it would be used for fundraising events
and other activities. The project would need a parcel of three to five acres.
Capital Cost: N/A
Justification: The existing facility serving the Round Hill area is 50+ years old and not
large enough to accommodate the equipment needed to serve the commercial growth in
the Round Hill community. This communi-ty includes approximately 9,000 households,
two schools, and the Winchester Medical Center.
Construction Schedule: To be determined
20
PRIORITY 3
Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation
Description: This project involves the relocation and expansion of the Gainesboro
convenience site. The project would include fencing; earthwork; retaining walls; electric;
and paving. This project will take place following the closing of the current Gainesboro
School.
Capital Cost: $445,000
Justification: The project is necessary to provide adequate trash disposal service for
citizens living in the Gainesboro area of Frederick County. The existing site is
inadequate and cannot be expanded to provide for safe ingress/egress or fencing to
prevent illegal dumping.
Construction Schedule: Start in FY 08-09
PRIORITY 4
Gore Refuse Site Relocation/Expansion
Description: This project involves the expansion of the site by approximately two acres
to install a trash compactor. With the relocation of the landfill site and purchase of new
equipment, the present compactor will be surplus.
Capital Cost: $420,000
Justification: Installation of this compactor at Gore will drive down collection costs at
the site where trash is now collected in 8 -yard boxes. This project would pay for itself in
lower refuse collection costs. Ultimately the intent of the site is to make best use of
existing equipment while lowering operational costs in the Gore service area.
Construction Schedule: Start in FY 09-10
PRIORITY 5
Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation
Description: The new facility is to be located either North or South of Brucetown Rd.
The building is to be six (6) drive through bays, administration, eating, and sleeping
facilities along with a dining hall. The structure is to be approximately 28,000 square
feet.
Capital Cost: $1,530,000
Justification: This project calls for Fire Station #13 to be relocated to an area that has a
much safer exit/entrance way. This project will also accommodate the growth in
Northeastern Frederick County. The Rt. I1 site also allows for possible growth, if
required.
Construction Schedule: To be determined
21
PRIORITY 6
Capital Equipment Fire & Rescue — Vehicles & Equipment
Description: This new project will consist of a revolving fund in the amount of
$1,000,000 for the benefit of Fire and Rescue Services. It is the intention of this capital
expenditure fund to be for the purpose of purchasing additional and replacement capital
equipment fire and rescue vehicles and equipment. With the endorsement of the Finance
Committee it was determined that the inclusion of such a project would be beneficial in
ensuring that this significant capital expense is identified in the County's capital planning
and budget process.
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Justification: The inclusion of this capital expenditure fund for the purpose of
purchasing additional and replacement capital equipment fire and rescue vehicles and
equipment will enable the County to meet the requirements of the Code of Virginia with
regards to the collection and disbursement of cash proffers accepted on behalf of the fire
and rescue companies.
Construction Schedule: N/A
Transportation Committee Project Priority List
PRTOWTV 1
Planning and Engineering Work for Route 37
Description: This project would be to continue work on the Eastern Route 37 extension.
More specifically, to update the Environmental Impact Statement to the point of a new
Record of Decision and to update the 1992 design plans to address the current alignment,
engineering guidelines, and possible interchange improvements.
Capital Cost: $3,000,000
Justification: This project moves the County closer to completion of a transportation
improvement that would benefit the entire county and surrounding localities.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
PRIORITY 2
Interstate 81, Exit 307 Relocation
Description: Construct a relocated Exit 307 interchange.
Capital Cost: $60,000,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in many areas of the County and address coming development to the surrounding areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
22
PRIORITY 3
Warrior Drive Extension
Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Route 277 where Warrior
Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south and west to intersect
with I-81 at the location of the relocated Exit 307 interchange.
Capital Cost: $23,200,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in the Southern Frederick area and address development to the surrounding areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 4
Channing Drive Extension
Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road where
Channing Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south to intersect
with Route 50 East at Independence Drive.
Capital Cost: $20,600,000
Justification: This project has been identified in the Eastern Road Plan, and will address
congestion in Eastern Frederick County and address development to the surrounding
areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PUInPYTV S
Widening of Route 11 North to the West Virginia State Line
Description: Improve Route II to a divided 4 and 6 -lane facility as detailed in the
Eastern Road Plan.
Capital Cost: $47,800,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
over a large area of the County and address development to the surrounding area. This
project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and improving
the flow of traffic.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRTOWTV
Brucetown Road/Hopewell Road Alignment and Intersection Improvements
Description: Realign Brucetown Road to meet Hopewell Road at Route 11.
Improvements to this intersection will address comprehensive planned development's
traffic generation in the area.
Capital Cost: $3,000,000
23
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on
the Route 11 corridor. The location is identified by joint planning efforts between the
county and VDOT.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORTTV 7
Senseny Road Widening
Description: Widen Senseny Road to a 4 -lane divided roadway. This project is not
dependent upon, but is being coordinated with the implementation of Route 37, Channing
Drive, and development in the area.
Capital Cost: $22,800,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on
Eastern Frederick County. This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan,
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 8
East Tevis Street Extension
Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Route 522 and going west
approximately 0.2 miles to connect to the road network being constructed by the Russell
150 development.
Capital Cost: $2,600,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in many areas of the County and address development to the surrounding area. The
location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the county, VDOT, and the
developer.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 9
Inverlee Way
Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road and going
south to Route 50 East. This project is being planned in conjunction with improvements
to Senseny Road and surrounding development.
Capital Cost: $10,200,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
and provide an additional needed link between Senseny Road and Route 50 East.
Construction Schedule: TBD
24
PRIORITY 10
Fox Drive
Description: Add additional turning lane(s) to Fox Drive where it intersects with Route
522 North.
Capital Cost: $250,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at this
intersection.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 11
Blossom Drive
Description: Add additional turning lane(s) at Blossom and Route 7.
Capital Cost: $250,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at this
intersection. This project is identified in Secondary Road Improvements Plan.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 12
Revenue Sharing
Description: Plan to address changes in the revenue sharing program. Current State
Code allows localities to apply for up to $1 million under the program, and only allows
for one half of those dollars to come from proffers. This creates a requirement for a
minimum of $500,000 annually from County funds to apply for the maximum in revenue
sharing on an annual basis.
Capital Cost: $3,000,000
Justification: Based upon State Code, if the County wishes to apply for the full $1
million in revenue sharing, the County must be prepared to pay 50% of the match or
$500,000 from local funds.
Construction Schedule: N/A
Winchester ReLyional Airport Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Rehab R/W 14/32, Upgrade Airfield Lighting
Description: Acquisition of three parcels along Bufflick Road.
Capital Cost: $220,000
Local Cost: $4,400
25
Justification: This project involves the rehabilitation of runway 14-32 to renew the life
of the existing pavement. Also included is an upgrade to the runway lighting comprised
of new high intensity runway lights and the installation of a new four box PAPI, which
provides a greater accuracy for pilots on final approach to the runway.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
PRIORITY 2
Terminal Building Renovation, Phase I (Exterior)
Description: This project proposes complete renovation of the terminal building. Phase
I of this renovation involves all exterior work, including new windows and walls, and all
other items pertaining to the stability of the building.
Capital Cost: $3,000,000
Local Cost: $1,140,000
Justification: There are currently 130 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional Airport.
The owners and passengers of these aircraft will use the general aviation terminal
building on a regular basis.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
PRIORITY 3
North Side Taxiway Connector - Design
Description: A new taxiway connector on the north side of the airport is proposed to
increase access to the runway and as part of an overall airport improvement to improve
capacity.
Capital Cost: $55,100
Local Cost: $1,100
Justification: The design of the north side taxiway will allow for an increase in the
number of based aircraft, in business traffic, and additional hanger space for the airport to
lease out.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
PRIORITY 4
Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 47, 47A, & 48
Description: Acquisition of three parcels located along Bufflick Road. Property is
included in the 20 year Master Plan.
Capital Cost: $800,000
Local Cost: $17,300
Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within the
Airport's FAR Part 77 primary surface and/or approach surface. In addition, several of
the residential parcels are located inside the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The
26
FAA considers residential use within the noise contour non -compatible with airport
operations.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
17 !CCNN-1 -ATM
Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 50, 51, & 52
Description: Acquisition of three parcels located along Bufflick Road. Property is
included in the 20 Year Master Plan.
Capital Cost: $350,000
Local Cost: $7,000
Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within the
Airport's FAR Part 77 primary surface and/or approach surface. In addition, several of
the residential parcels are located inside the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The
FAA considers residential use within the noise contour non -compatible with airport
operations.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10
17 !7 C�77TI��1.1
Airfield Maintenance Building
Description: Demolition of undersized wooden structure and construction of a new
facility to accommodate the airport's maintenance equipment and maintenance work
activities.
Capital Cost: $110,000
Local Cost: $94,750
Justification: This project is necessary to accommodate maintenance activities at the
airport.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10
Handley Regional Library Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension
Description: This proposal is to expand the parking lot on the Lakeside Drive side of
the library from 101 to 221 parking spaces, and to provide a sidewalk that will extend
approximately 400 to 500 feet beyond the sidewalk that now borders the parking lot to
connect to the sidewalk on Lakeside Drive.
Capital Cost: $251,000
Justification: The parking lot expansion is needed to relieve overcrowding and to
accommodate library patrons. The sidewalk is necessary to provide safe access for
27
pedestrians to the library. Planning consideration for alternative modes of transportation
such as bicycle connectivity should also be considered.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10
PRIORITY 2
Northern Frederick County Library Branch
Description: This project entails the acquisition of 3 to 4 acres and the construction of a
7,000 square foot library branch with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet along
Route 522 N near Cross Junction. Initial parking would accommodate 35 vehicles.
Capital Cost: $2,132,000
Justification: There is no library in this area of the County to serve residents. The
residents of the Gainesboro District comprise the largest population group the greatest
distance away from a library. The library would serve members of the population from
toddlers to senior citizens.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10
PRT(bRTTV '1
Frederick County Library Branch — Senseny/Greenwood
Description: This project entails the acquisition of 3 to 4 acres and the construction of a
7,000 square foot library branch with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet. The
proposed location would be based upon future development. Initial parking would
accommodate 35 vehicles.
Capital Cost: N/A
Justification: This branch would serve citizens living in this rapidly growing area. A
library in this location will reduce traffic into the Winchester Library(s). The library
would also help fulfill a community center need within this area, by providing a meeting
room.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 4
Frederick County Library Branch- Route 522 South
Description: This project entails the acquisition of 3 to 4 acres and the construction of a
7,000 square foot library branch with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet. The
proposed location would be based upon future development. Initial parking would
accommodate 35 vehicles.
Capital Cost: N/A
.Justification: This branch would serve citizens living in this rapidly growing area. This
population group is not close to a library in the regional system. The library would also
help fulfill a community center need within this area, by providing a meeting room.
Construction Schedule: TBD
28
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and (Development
540/665-5651
MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator /yw <---
RE: Revocation of Conditional Use Permit #09-04 for a Cottage Occupation for a Real
Estate Brokerage Office
DATE: February 4, 2008
The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #09-04 for
a cottage occupation as a real estate brokerage office on July 14, 2004, with the following
conditions:
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. No more than five (5) customers at any one time.
3. Any proposed business sign shall conform to cottage occupation sign requirements, and
shall not exceed four square feet in size.
4. Any expansion or modification of facilities will require a new Conditional Use Permit.
5. Up to two temporary employees allowed.
Violation of Conditions: Staff received a complaint regarding violations of the CUP #09-04 with
regards to size and number of signs located on the property. The property has two (2) signs located
on the property, with the signs not meeting the requirements of Condition 3 of Conditional Use
Permit #09-04. Staff has met with the property owner and discussed the signage issue in order to
bring the property into compliance with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. A letter of
revocation was sent to the property owner December 12, 2007.
Staff conclusions for the 02/20/08 Planning Commission Meeting: The holder of Conditional Use
Permit #09-04 is in violation of the above -referenced conditions with regards to the size and number
of signs on the property. A recommendation from the Planning Commission for revocation of
Conditional Use Permit #09-04 would be appropriate. This recommendation will be forwarded to
the Board of Supervisor for their consideration.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
CUIP # 011-711- 04 / James & Barbara Baylis
MAS" FEATUREt�
- ' Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Terdary Roads
Parcel Lines
�l
fir. n City/Town Bounday
J CUPtt09-04
5025 0 50 100 150
Feet
Created by Frederick County Department
or rianning & Deveiopment
N
This map is for general reference
and is not to be construed as accurate.
Locate actual property documents on
`vo /
file with the Frederick County Clerks Office.
i 52 A 57
MILLER
52 A 63
SILVER LAKE LLC
52 A 56
i
BAYLISS
------- -
62 A 63
SILVER LAKE LLC
- 52 A 55
�r
rJ7 "ire
52 A 166
-
- -
CATHER
�G
_
1,
MAS" FEATUREt�
- ' Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Terdary Roads
Parcel Lines
�l
fir. n City/Town Bounday
J CUPtt09-04
5025 0 50 100 150
Feet
Created by Frederick County Department
or rianning & Deveiopment
N
This map is for general reference
and is not to be construed as accurate.
Locate actual property documents on
y P
vs
file with the Frederick County Clerks Office.
r
3 p4
d 52-A-
52- A -
2-A52-A-
-t�
a�
_ A 4i $a
v
J
a
a
tir a�
CAUIP # 09 - 041/ James & Barbara Bayliss
MAP FEATURES
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Terciary Roads
P_,F i At,
;f City /Town Bcunday
1 CUP#09-04
5025 0 50 100 150
Feet
Created by Frederick County Department
of Planning & Development N
This map is for general reference
and is not to be construed as accurate.
Locate actual property documents on
file with the Frederick County Clerks Office_ s
52-A
52-A
"W,
0.
MERV
T=
■
0
to
0 FICE
JIM BAUM-
REALTY
0
•
to ■
r. ry
G
•
to ■
CERTIFIED MAIL
December 12, 2007
James and Barbara Bayliss
2680 Northwestern Pike
Winchester, Virginia 22603
RE: 2680 Northwestern Pike
Property Identification Number (PIN): 52-A-56
Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas)
Dear Mr. and Ms. Bayliss:
Fla (Of
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
This letter is to inform you that your Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #09-04 is being scheduled for
revocation at the earliest public hearing, due to violations of the conditions placed on CUP #09-04.
You will receive further notice from this office in regards to the time and location of this public
hearing.
In accordance with Section 165-21 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the Board of
Supervisors may revoke a Conditional Use Permit for any violation of the conditions placed upon the
Conditional Use Permit. This office has received complaints of violations of the conditions placed
on Conditional Use Permit 409-04, due to the size of your sign and the number of signs on the
property. These violations have been ongoing. Staff has met with you on the property about these
violations. I have enclosed a copy of the conditions placed on CUP 409-04.
Please contact me regarding any questions that you may have at (540) 665-5651.
Sincerely,
oCheran
Zoning Administrator
Enclosure
MRC/dlw
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
M Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
o Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
19 Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
Mr. & Mrs. James Bayliss
2680 Northwestern Pike
Winchester, VA 22603
A. Signature
❑ Agent
❑ Addressee
Yj ceived by (Printed N1.) C. Date of Delivery
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3. Service Type
Certified Mail
❑ Express Mail
❑ Registered
J'Retum Reeel
❑ Insured Mail
❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number
(Transfer from service labeo 7006 2766 0003 4408 3365
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt
102595-02-M-1540 E ,
N
Pyr
Fi i[ [
COUN ofd ' L:K
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
July 15, 2004
James A. and Barbara V. Bayliss
2680 Northwestern Pike
Winchester, VA 22603
RE: CUP #09-04 for Cottage Occupation - Real Estate Brokerage
Property Identification Number 52-A-56
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bayliss:
This letter is to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on July
14, 2004. Your Conditional Use Permit 409-04 for a Cottage Occupation - Real Estate Brokerage, was
approved with the following conditions:
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. No more than five (5) customers at any one time on site.
Any proposed business signs shall conform to cottage occupation sign requirements; and, shall not
exceed four square feet in size.
4. Any expansion or modification will require approval of a new conditional use permit.
5. Up to two temporary employees allowed.
If you have any questions regarding this action, please feel free to call this office.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Cheran
Interim Zoning & Subdivision Administrator
MRC/bad
cc: teary W. Dove, Gainesboro District Supervisor
George Kxiz and les Triplett, Gainesboro Planning Commissioners
—J�& Anderson, Real Estate
,commissioner of Revenue
107 North bent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Submittal Deadline!y
P/C Meeting f
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
I. Applicant (The applicant if the X owner other)
NAME: James A. & Barbara V. Bayliss
ADDRESS: 2680 Northwestern Pike, Winchester, Virginia 22603
TELEPHONE 540-667-3983 Home 540-662-9216 Office
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
James A. Ba Liss
Barbara V. Bayliss
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
2 miles west of Winchester on Route 50 west on the north side of Route
Pr:),perty address is 2680 Northwestern Pike, Winchester, VA 22603. Property
s on mailbox.
4. The property has a road frontage of 3 feet and a
depth of 2.'3, y feet and consists u=
(Please be exact) acres.
5. The property is owned by James A.& Barbara V. Bayliss as
evidenced by deed from Do ild L. Bayi-lbb recorded
in deed book no. j0 on page (-3f
as recorded i
(Previous owner)
records of the Clerk of the Ci cuit Court., County the
Frederick. y
f. Tax(Parcel)Identifi,cation
Magisterial District,,,
Current Zoning _
(I.D.)NO.'2 G
:
�x c
7. Adjoining Property:
USE
North Orchard
East Country grocery store
South Residences
West Residences & Country
n ZONING
4C -R; c'c<�L 74At:-
� +. y I; J e -S S
cs:.1r �c�,s 2
store
S. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Pl renin t.
before completing) Cottage industry consisting of a smL genera -1 --real
estate brokerage consisting of the owners anct perriaps one emp _r date.
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed: A ,I
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear
and in front of (across street from) the property where the
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application:
14 s 7r4 -,L ,j fry
NAME ADDRESS t,o'; ti, if c-l.S T 2 61.4 : 2 z G c 3
PROPERTY ID# .,
_5
NAME <`, �vL, A! C' ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#_
NAME C_ J_ _ �=� s E .� ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID# jjLl
N_AMF /) rte �j �v fin .,Z LSI- ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#_�
NAME C ), h1'�re Z CA 111-� ,t ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
2�GC/
C%v
e.J7 02
TAL
11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show
proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including
measurements to all property lines.
m
This small business would generate on
12. Additional comments, if any:
an average of 2-5 customers per day that would rive to e p .
the business conducted would be by phone or the internet.
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application
and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to
allow the use described in this application. I understand that the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the
first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors, public hearing. Your application for a
Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and
Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed
use will be conducted.
Signature of Applicant
Signature of owner
Owners' Mailing Address
680 Northwestern Pike, Winchester, VA 22603
Owners' Telephone No. 40-667-3983 Home
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
R19NEWAL DATE:
CERTIFIED MAIL
April 10, 2006
Mr. Mark R. Cheran
Zoning Administrator
County Of Frederick
Dept. Of Planning & Development
107 North kent Street, Suite 202
Winchester, VA 22601-5000
Dear Mr. Cheran:
In reply to your certified letter dated April 3, 2006 that I received on April 7, 2006 that
in brief threatened to schedule a hearing to revoke my Conditional Use Permit #09-04 due to
complaints that you stated you had received in regard to the size of my sign, I would like to
respond as follows:
1.) 1 do not believe that I am in violation of the conditions placed upon my
conditional use permit. The sign that indicates that this is an Office is
a 6" X 24" sign that reads "Office".
2.) 1 do not believe that there is a size limit on real estate signs on property
that are for sale and since my property at 2680 Northwestern Pike is for
sale, and my sign is being used to indicate that my property is for sale,
I do not believe that this sign is in violation of my Conditional Use
Permit.
3.) 1 would like to request that you or someone from your office visit the area
of my sign and verify that This real estate sign is not in violation of
my Conditional Use Permit.
4.) Since this is a matter of public record, I would request the Names of the
person(s) who have made the complaints about my sign.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and I will await your reply!
Sincerely yours;
L
James A. Bayliss
cc: Peter Thos. Hansen
Attorney At Law
2680 Northwestern Pike
Winchester, VA 22603
540-662-9216
540-662-9585
jimbayliss@msn.com
877-662-9216 Toll Free
r 1
L..J
�J
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
ENI0ANDU
Frederick County Planning Commission
Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner(
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
Public Hearing — Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Dedication of Right -of -Way
January 31, 2008
The requirement for right-of-way dedication within Frederick County for existing roads is covered under
The Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance §144-17E — Expansion of existing right-of-way. This
portion of the ordinance currently requires dedication only when property is proposed for subdivision.
This section of the ordinance reads:
Whenever a property proposed for subdivision abuts one side of an existing or platted public street,
the subdivider shall dedicate 312 of the total right-of-way necessary to meet the right-of-way width
for the street as contained in this chapter or for future expansion of the street as determined by the
Virginia Department of Transportation or Frederick County. Any required setbacks or buffers
shall be measured from the edge of this dedicated right-of-way.
This section of the ordinance has become problematic in some circumstances due to the fact that it only
requires right-of-way dedication when property is being subdivided. Therefore, if a development
proposal (site plan for example) is submitted for a property on an existing street that currently does not
have adequate right-of-way, unless the applicant is willing to provide the right-of-way, Frederick County
cannot.require it be dedicated.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DDRS) at their
meeting on August 23, 2007 and the DRRS endorsed the text amendment as presented. This item was
discussed by Planning Commissions at your meeting on September 19, 2007. Members were supportive
of the amendment. Members of the Board of Supervisors were sent copies of the proposed ordinance
amendment and staff received one positive comment on the proposed amendment.
The attached documents show the existing ordinance, the changes to the ordinance supported by the
DRRS and the PC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added) and a clean
version of the text as it is proposed to be adopted.
A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is
sought. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Proposed Ordinance.
Attachments: 1. Existing ordinances.
CEP/bad
2. Existing Ordinance with proposed additions shown in bold italics.
3. Proposed ordinances (clean version).
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ATTACHMENT l
§ 144-17 SUBDIVISION OF LAND § 144-17
(1) Streets shall intersect at approximately right angles. The Planning Commission
may allow intersections of lesser angles. In no case shall a street intersect another
at an angle of less than 80°.
(2) No more than two streets shall intersect at the same point.
(3) Wherever possible, the intersection of two streets on the opposite sides of a street
shall be cross intersections. The center -line offsets of local or collector streets not
at cross intersections shall not be less than 300 feet. Any street intersecting with an
arterial street shall have a minimum center -line offset of 800 feet from any other
street intersecting that same arterial street. Distances shall be measured from center
line to center line of the two intersecting streets along the center line of said
arterial street.
E. Expansion of existing right-of-way. Whenever a property proposed for subdivision abuts
one side of an existing or platted public street, the subdivider shall dedicate 1/2 of the
total right-of-way necessary to meet the right-of-way width standards:. for the street as
contained in this chapter or for future expansion of the street as determined by the
Virginia Department of Transportation or Frederick County. Any required setbacks or
buffers shall be measured from the edge of this dedicated right-of-way.
F. Motor vehicle access.
(1) All new lots created on collector or arterial roadsshall meet the- requirements
regarding minimum driveway spacing as specified in Article IV of Chapter 165,
Zoning. Any lot created that can not meet the requirements of the Chapter 165,
Zoning, shall provide easements for shared access that will be reviewed for
approval at the subdivision design plan or final plat review stage.
(2) Whenever a proposed subdivision contains or is adjacent to an existing -or recorded
arterial street, the Planning Commission may require road improvements, such as
acceleration and deceleration lanes, service drives. approximately parallel to such
right-of-way, reverse frontage lots with buffers and screening along a nonaccess
strip at the back of the lots, deep lots or other such treatments as may be necessary
to adequately protect residential properties and provide separation of through and
local traffic. The design of such features shall be determined based on traffic safety
considerations.
G. Cuts -de -sac.
(1) Culs-de-sac, permanently designed as such, shall not exceed 1,,.000 feet in length_'
The Planning Commission may waive this requirement in cases where extreme
topography or other factors make it impractical. In no case shall the street serve
more than 25 lots. The turnaround provided shall have a right=of--way radius of not
less than 50 feet and a paved radius of not less than 45 feet. Loop streets are
preferred to cuts -de -sac, where possible.
(2) Any street dead -ended for access to an adioining orooertv or because of approved
stage development, which is over 200 feet in Iength, shall be provided with a
temporary, all-weather, fifty -foot turnaround. The plan shall note that the land
144:15 06- 15-2007
ATTACHMENT
E. Expansion of existing right-of-way. Whenever a property proposed for subdivision or
development abuts one side of an existing or platted public street, the subdivider or developer
shall dedicate %2 of the total right-of-way necessary to meet the right-of-way width for the street
as contained in this chapter or for future expansion of the street as determined by the Virginia
Department of Transportation or Frederick County. Any required setbacks or buffers shall be
measured from the edge of this dedicated right-of-way.
ATTACHMENT 3
E. Expansion of existing right-of-way. Whenever a property proposed for subdivision or
development abuts one side of an existing or platted public street, the subdivider or developer
shall dedicate 1/2 of the total right-of-way necessary to meet the right-of-way width for the street
as contained in this chapter or for future expansion of the street as determined by the Virginia
Department of Transportation or Frederick County. Any required setbacks or buffers shall be
measured from the edge of this dedicated right-of-way.
•
C�
•
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner f
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
Subject: Public Hearing — Proposed Ordinance Amendment Handicap Accessible Ramps
Date: January 31, 2008
Section 165-23F — Setback Requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for some
features to extend into required setback areas. This section, however, does not provide any opportunities
for handicap ramps to extend into required setback areas, which has required some property owners who
need handicap ramps to seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Staff is proposing an ordinance revision to allow the Zoning Administrator to permit handicap ramps to
extend into required setback areas when there are no other alternatives. The proposed ordinance would
state the following:
An unroofed handicap -accessible ramp shall be permitted to encroach into a required yard when there
are no other reasonable alternatives for the location of such ramp on the property or other means of
ingress/egress into or from the residence as determined by the Frederick County Zoning Administrator.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DDRS) at their
meeting on October 25, 2007 and the DRRS endorsed the text amendment as presented. This item was
discussed by the Planning Commission at your meeting on December 19, 2007. Members were
supportive of the amendment. Members of the Board of Supervisors were sent copies of the proposed
ordinance amendment and staff received one positive comment on the proposed amendment.
The attached documents show the existing ordinance, the changes to the ordinance supported by the
DRRS and the PC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added) and a clean
version of the text as it is proposed to be adopted.
A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is
sought. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Proposed Ordinance
Attachments: 1. Existing ordinances.
2. Existing Ordinances with proposed additions shown in bold italics.
3. Proposed Ordinance (clean version).
CEP/bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ATTACIUMNT 1
§ 165-23 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-23
E. Accessory uses. Side and rear yard setback distances may be established separately by
the district regulations for accessory uses. However, in no case shall the accessory use be
placed within the front setback yard required for the primary use on the lot.
F. Extensions into setback yards. The following features may extend into setback yards as
described:
(1) Air conditioners and similar equipment. Air conditioners, heat pumps and similar
mechanical equipment that are attached to the primary structure may extend three
feet into any side or rear yard area but shall not be closer than five feet to any lot
line.
(2) Architectural and structural features. Cornices, canopies, awnings, eaves, gutters or
other similar overhanging features which are least eight feet above the grade may
extend three feet into any required yard setback area. Chimneys, sills, headers, belt
courses and similar structural features may extend three feet into required yard
setback areas.
(3) Porches and related features. Balconies, porches, stoops, decks, bay windows, steps
and stairways which comprise less than 1/3 of the length of the wall of the primary
structure may extend three feet into a required setback yard. In no case shall such
features be closer than five feet to a lot line.
(4) Retail petroleum pumps. Retail petroleum pumps and canopy supports shall be
located at least 20 feet from any road right-of-way boundary. The canopies
covering the petroleum pumps shall be no closer than five feet to any road
right-of-way.
(5) Decks which are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses may be
constructed to the full width of the dwelling unit and may extend 15 feet into a
perimeter setback area or the active portion of a required buffer area, provided that
the decks are not enclosed or covered and the deck floor is not constructed higher
than the finished floor elevation of the primary entrance to the dwelling unit..
[Added 8-9-1995]
(6) Storage sheds which are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses that
can only be accessed through an outer entrance and do not exceed 1/4 the width of
the dwelling unit may extend 10 feet into a perimeter setback area or the active
portion of a required buffer area. [Added 8-9-19951
(7) Protective entrance canopies. Protective entrance canopies and support columns
which are attached to the primary structure may extend into the front yard setback
areas for the following uses: funeral homes, schools, churches, day-care facilities
and libraries. The purpose of such canopies is to provide protection to patrons from
the elements of weather as the patron enters or exits the structure. In no case shall
the canopy or its structure be located closer than 20 feet from a road right-of-way
boundary. [Added 4-12-1999]
G. Fences, freestanding walls and berms shall be exempt from the setback requirements.
[Amended 6-9-1993]
165:20 06- 15-2007
ATTACHMENT 2
F. Extensions into setback yards. The following features may extend into setback yards as
described:
(1) Air conditioners and similar equipment. Air conditioners, heat pumps and
similar mechanical equipment that are attached to the primary structure may
extend three feet into any side or rear yard area but shall not be closer than five
feet to any lot line.
(2) Architectural and structural features. Cornices, canopies, awnings, eaves,
gutters or other similar overhanging features which are at least eight feet
above the grade may extend three feet into any required yard setback area.
Chimneys, sills, headers, belt courses and similar structural features may
extend three feet into required yard setback areas.
(3) Porches and related features. Balconies, porches, stoops, decks, bay windows,
steps and stairways which comprise less than 1/3 of the length of the wall of the
primary structure may extend three feet into a required setback yard. In no case
shall such features be closer than five feet to a lot line.
(4) Retail petroleum pumps. Retail petroleum pumps and canopy supports shall be
located at least 20 feet from any road right-of-way boundary. The canopies
covering the petroleum pumps shall be no closer than five feet to any road right-
of-way.
(5) Decks which are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses may be
constructed to the full width of the dwelling unit and may extend 15 feet into a
perimeter setback area or the active portion of a required buffer area, provided
that the decks are not enclosed or covered and the deck floor is not constructed
higher than the finished floor elevation of the primary entrance to the dwelling
unit. [Added 8-9-19951
(6) Storage sheds which are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses that
can only be accessed through an outer entrance and do not exceed 1/4 the width of
the dwelling unit may extend 10 feet into a perimeter setback area or the active
portion of a required buffer area. [Added 8-9-19951
(7) Protective entrance canopies. Protective entrance canopies and support columns
which are attached to the primary structure may extend into the front yard
setback areas for the following uses: funeral homes, schools, churches, day-care
facilities and libraries. The purpose of such canopies is to provide protection to
patrons from the elements of weather as the patron enters or exits and structure.
In no case shall the canopy or its structure be located closer than 20 feet from a
- road right-of-way boundary. [Added 4-12-19991
(8) Handicap Accessible Ramps. An unroofed handicap -accessible ramp
shall be permitted to encroach into a required yard when there are no
other reasonable alternatives for the location of such ramp on the
property or other means of ingress/egress into or from the residence as
determined by the Frederick County Zoning Administrator.
ATTACHMENT 3
F. Extensions into setback yards. The following features may extend into setback yards as
described:
(1) Air conditioners and similar equipment. Air conditioners, heat pumps and
similar mechanical equipment that are attached to the primary structure may
extend three feet into any side or rear yard area but shall not be closer than five
feet to any lot line.
(2) Architectural and structural features. Cornices, canopies, awnings, eaves,
gutters or other similar overhanging features which are at least eight feet
above the grade may extend three feet into any required yard setback area.
Chimneys, sills, headers, belt courses and similar structural features may
extend three feet into required yard setback areas.
(3) Porches and related features. Balconies, porches, stoops, decks, bay windows,
steps and stairways which comprise less than 1/3 of the length of the wall of the
primary structure may extend three feet into a required setback yard. In no case
shall such features be closer than five feet to a lot line.
(4) Retail petroleum pumps. Retail petroleum pumps and canopy supports shall be
located at least 20 feet from any road right-of-way boundary. The canopies
covering the petroleum pumps shall be no closer than five feet to any road right-
of-way.
(5) Decks which are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses may be
constructed to the full width of the dwelling unit and may extend 15 feet into a
perimeter setback area or the active portion of a required buffer area, provided
that the decks are not enclosed or covered and the deck floor is not constructed
higher than the finished floor elevation of the primary entrance to the dwelling
unit. [Added 8-9-19951
(6) Storage sheds which are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses that
can only be accessed through an outer entrance and do not exceed 1/4 the width of
the dwelling unit may extend 10 feet into a perimeter setback area or the active
portion of a required buffer area. [Added 8-9-19951
(7) Protective entrance canopies. Protective entrance canopies and support columns
which are attached to the primary structure may extend into the front yard
setback areas for the following uses: funeral homes, schools, churches, day-care
facilities and libraries. The purpose of such canopies is to provide protection to
patrons from the elements of weather as the patron enters or exits and structure.
In no case shall the canopy or its structure be located closer than 20 feet from a
road right-of-way boundary. [Added 4-12-19991
(8) Handicap -Accessible Ramps. An unroofed handicap -accessible ramp
shall be permitted to encroach into a required yard when there are no other
reasonable alternatives for the location of such ramp on the property or
other means of ingress/egress into or from the residence as determined by
the Frederick County Zoning Administrator.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 54W665-6395
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AlCP, Senior Planner'O4f
Subject: Public Hearing — Proposed Ordinance Amendment — Refuse/Trash Storage
Date: January 31, 2008
The requirement for screening refuse containers is covered under § 165-47 Landfills, junkyards and
inoperable vehicles. The existing trash storage section of this ordinance is vague and does not have a
specific screening requirement. The current ordinance also combines residential and
commercial/industrial trash container requirements and requires them when one or more residence or use
shares a parking lot.
The intent of this ordinance revision is to separate residential and commercial trash container
requirements. Residential will still be dependant on more than one residence sharing a parking lot, but
commercial/industrial will require outdoor trash containers (or other means) for all developments. Also,
the ordinance would be revised to state that all refuse shall be contained within a completely enclosed
facility and that the enclosure shall consist of a six foot opaque fence or wall with an opaque gate.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DDRS) at their
meeting on September 27, 2007 and the DRRS endorsed the text amendment as presented. This item was
discussed by Planning Commissions at your meeting on December 19, 2007. Members were supportive
of the amendment. Members of the Board of Supervisors were sent copies of the proposed ordinance
amendment and staff received one positive comment on the proposed amendment.
The attached documents show the existing ordinance, the changes to the ordinance supported by the
DRRS and the PC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added) and a clean
version of the text as it is proposed to be adopted.
A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is
sought. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Proposed Ordinance
Attachments: 1. Existing Ordinance.
2. Existing Ordinances with proposed deletions shown in blackline
and additions shown in bold italics.
3. Proposed Ordinance (clean version).
CEP/bad
107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ATTACHMENT 1
§ 165-47 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-48
Permitted screening shall include opaque fences, opaque landscaping or opaque
natural vegetation. [Amended 6-9-1993]
D. Trash storage. When stored outdoors, outside of a legal landfill or trash heap, all trash,
rubbish or garbage shall be stored in watertight, verminproof containers.
(1) All multifamily residential developments, commercial developments and industrial
developments where more than one residence or use shares a parking lot shall be
provided with outdoor trash containers or other means of trash disposal. Means
shall be provided to ensure that all trash generated by the development is properly
disposed of to avoid litter, odor or other nuisances.
(2) Such trash containers shall not be located in the front yard areas of such uses. Such
containers shall be located to avoid traffic conflicts with parked vehicles and
general traffic. Such containers shall be properly screened or separated from
dwellings to avoid odors and other impacts.
E_ No junkyards shall be hereafter established any portion of which is within 1,000 feet of
the nearest edge of the right-of-way of any interstate or United States highway or within
500 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of any Commonwealth of Virginia
highway, except as follows: [Added 12-9-1992]
(1) Junkyards which are screened by natural objects, plantings, fences or other
appropriate means so as not to be visible from the main traveled way of the
highway or street or otherwise removed from sight.
(2) Junkyards which are not visible from the main traveled way of the highway.
§ 165-48. Car washes. [Added 4-10-1991; amended 10-27-20041
A. Car washes located in the B-1 (Business Neighborhood District) and B-2 (Business
General District) Zoning District, adjacent to RA with residential dwellings, RP, R-4,
R-5, MS (Medical Support with Residential Component), and MH -1 zoned properties
shall have an operator on-site during all hours of operation.
B. Car washes located in the B-1 (Business Neighborhood District) and B-2 (Business
General District) Zoning District, adjacent to RA with residential dwellings, RP, R-4 R-5,
MS (Medical Support with Residential Component) and MHA zoned properties shall be
operated only during the following hours:
Days
Monday through Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Hours
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m.
165:62
06-15-2007
ATTACHMENT 2
§165-47. Landfills, junkyards, trash disposal and inoperable vehicles.
D. Trash storage. When stored outdoors, outside of a legal landfill or trash heap, all trash,
rubbish or garbage shall be stored in watertight, vermin proof containers.
(1) All multifamily residential developments, eeffhiffier-eia4 developments an
where more than one residence or use shares a
parking lot shall be provided with outdoor trash containers or other means of
trash disposal. Means shall be provided to ensure that all trash generated by
the development is properly disposed of to avoid litter, odor or other
nuisances.
(2) All commercial and industrial developments shall be provided with outdoor
trash containers or other means of trash disposal. Means shall be provided
to ensure that all trash generated by the development is properly disposed of
to avoid litter, odor or other nuisances.
(3) Such trash containers shall not be located in the front yard areas of such uses.
Such containers shall be located to avoid traffic conflicts with parked vehicles
and general traffic. Such containers shall be properly screened or separated
from dwellings to avoid odors and other impacts.
(4) All refuse shall be contained within a completely enclosed facility. The
enclosure shall consist of a six foot opaque fence or wall and an opaque
gate.
ATTACHMENT 3
§165-47. Landfills, junkyards, trash disposal and inoperable vehicles.
D. Trash storage. When stored outdoors, outside of a legal landfill or trash heap, all trash, rubbish
or garbage shall be stored in watertight, vermin proof containers.
(1) All multifamily residential developments, where more than one residence or use
shares a parking lot shall be provided with outdoor trash containers or other means of
trash disposal. Means shall be provided to ensure that all trash generated by the
development is properly disposed of to avoid litter, odor or other nuisances.
(2) All commercial and industrial developments shall be provided with outdoor trash
containers or other means of trash disposal. Means shall be provided to ensure that
all trash generated by the development is properly disposed of to avoid litter, odor or
other nuisances.
(3) Such trash containers shall not be located in the front yard areas of such uses. Such
containers shall be located to avoid traffic conflicts with parked vehicles and general
traffic. Such containers shall be properly screened or separated from dwellings to
avoid odors and other impacts.
(4) All refuse shall be contained within a completely enclosed facility. The enclosure
shall consist of a six foot opaque fence or wall and an opaque gate.