Loading...
PC 03-05-08 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia March 5, 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) January 2, 2008 and January 16, 2008 Minutes............................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Rezoning #01-08 for Frederick County School Board, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 15.24 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers to the RP District with modified proffers for the 12th Elementary School. The property adjoins Senseny Road to the north and Channing Drive to the west, approximately 3,000 feet east of Greenwood Road, in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 55 -A -206B. Mrs. Perkins.............................................................................................................:....... (B) PUBLIC MEE'T'ING 6) Master Development Plan #01-08 for Revised Lynnehaven Development, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for the 12th Elementary School, Residential and Commercial Uses. The properties adjoin Senseny Road to the north and Channing Drive to the west, approximately 3,000 feet east of Greenwood Road, and are identified with Property Identifications Number 55-A-206 and 55 -A -206B in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (C) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 7) Planning. Commission Guiding Document. Bylaws, Roles and Responsibilities and Subcommittee Restructuring. Mr. Lawrence................................................................................................................... (D) 8) Planning Commission February 9, 2008 Retreat Summary. Mr. Lawrence................................................................................................................... (E) 9) Other FILE COPY • 0 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on January 2, 2008, PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Philip E. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Robert Mitchell, Legal Counsel. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the January 2, 2008 meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS, MEETING SCHEDULE, COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS, AND ADOPTION OF BYLAWS FOR 2008 ~ The Secretary to the Planning Comi-nission, Mr. Eric R. Lawrence; presided over the election of the Chair and Vice Chair for 2008. Election of June S. Wilmot, Chairman for 2008 Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Chairman for the 2008 calendar year. The nomination of Ms. June M. Wilmot for Chairman was made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Chairman. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2173 Minutes of January 2, 2008 DO Fri -2 - BE IT RESOLVED, That by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Ms. June M. Wilmot as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2008. Election of Roder L Thomas, Vice Chairman for 2008 Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Vice Chainnan for the 2008 calendar year. The nomination of Mr. Roger L. Thomas was made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Motion was made by Conm-ussioner Kriz, seconded by Conuiussioner Triplett, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Vice Chairman - BE IT RESOLVED, That by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr, Roger L. Thomas as Vice Chainnan of the Planning Conunission for the Year of 2008. Election of Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary for 2008 Chairman Wilmot declared nominations open for Secretary of the Planning Commission. The nomination of Mr. Eric R. Lawrence was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours. Motion was made by Conunissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Secretary. BE IT RESOLVED, That by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Eric R. Lawrence as Secretary of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2008. MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2008 Planning Commission Upon motion made by Corunissioner Oates and seconded by Connnissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have their regular monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. to be held in the Board of Supervisors' meeting room in the Frederick County Administration Building. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2008 Page 2174 -3 - Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Upon motion made by Coimnissioner Kriz and seconded by Conunissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Conunission voted unanimously to have regularly scheduled meetings of the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) on the second Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the Frederick County Administration Building. Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) Upon motion made by Conunissioner Thomas and seconded by Conunissioner Unger, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Coimnission voted unanimously to have the regularly scheduled meetings of the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the Frederick County Adnniiustration Building_ Committee Assignments for 2008 Chairman Wilmot stated that all commissioners who are currently members of either the CPPS or the DRRS will remain in their respective roles. Chainnan Wilmot renewed liaison appointments to the following committees: Conunissioner Kriz to the Transportation Committee, with Commissioner Oates as the alternate; Commissioner Kerr to the Economic Development Commission; Conunussioner Unger to the Salutation Authority; Commissioner Oates to the Historic Resources Advisory_ Board, with Commissioner Kriz as the alternate; Commissioner Light to the Conservation Easement Authority; Conunissioner Manuel and Conunissioner Thomas to the Development Impact Model Oversight Committee. Planning Commission Bylaws for 2008 Upon motion made by Conunissioner Kriz and seconded by Conunissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Conunission unanimously voted un favor of the adoption of the Bylaws for the Planning Commission for the year of 2008, as presented. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen continents on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2008 Page 2175 -4 - PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #09-07 of Clearbrook Property, submitted by German Engineering, to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business), with proffers, for commercial uses. The property is located on the west side of Route 11, approximately 2,200 feet north of Hopewell Road (Interstate Exit 321) and south of Cedar Hill Road (Route 671). The property is further identified by P.I.N. 33-A-125 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 90 Days Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this matter due to a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this application is a request to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), with proffers. Mr. Ruddy said the property is within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the site is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP), which designates this site for business uses_ He noted that the NELUP calls for Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) to be improved to a four -lane divided facility and states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. He said this application does not provide for that LOS. Mr. Ruddy said the proffer statement submitted with this application provides for one point of ingress/ egress to this site, a new entrance directly on Route 11. He said the applicant has proffered the maximum amount of commercial development of 190,000 square feet, which provides an understanding of the associated transportation impacts and is consistent with what has been modeled' the applicant's Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA indicates that a LOS C condition will be maintained at the impacted intersections, Hopewell Road, Brucetown Road, Route 11 and the intersection of Rest Church Road, Route 11, with a variety of different improvements at these intersections, including additional turn lanes, re -alignment of roads, and additional signalizations. However, none of the improvements identified in the TIA have been addressed by this application or provided for in the proffer statement. Mr. Ruddy stated the applicant has taken a slightly different approach and rather than specifying particular improvements, has pointed out a couple approaches on how they will address the impacts. He said the applicant's program provides for a variety of things on-site and, dealing with transportation, the applicant has proffered an additional lane across the frontage of their property on Route 11, additional turn lanes into the site, and right-of-way dedication across the frontage of their site. In addition, he said the applicant has gone beyond their site to provide a monetary contribution for signalization at the Hopewell/Brucetown Road intersection and a left -turn lane on Route 11 North, turning left onto Rest Church Road. In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy stated that while many of the site design elements have been provided for, the transportation impacts associated with this request have not been fully mitigated in the applicant's transportation package. There next ensued some discussion between the commissioners and the staff concerning the combination of proffers offered by various previous applicants in this particular area involving funding and services. Commissioners asked if there was sufficient right-of-way to install a signal. The staff replied that a review of all of the TIAs performed for this area indicates that much more than a signal is needed. Staff noted that additional lane configurations are needed; however, there is a limited ability to make the improvements because of insufficient right-of-way. Commission members asked if enough money had been proffered to Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2008 Page 2176 -5 - purchase the right-of-ways and the signalization, and turn lanes, etc. to maintain a LOS C and the staff replied no. Deputy Director -Transportation, Mr. John Bishop, was available to answer questions involving the transportation network. A commissioner commented about adjoining parcels coming in for rezoning and the possibility of inter -parcel connectivity, similar to the layout on Route 7 at I-81, and what type of transportation network would be required. Mr. Bishop stated that if all of the parcels were to come in together, With possibly a reverse frontage situation and one primary signalized entrance, it would probably work well. It was noted that a signalized entrance midway between BrucetoNvii and Woodside would be preferable over each parcel having its own entrance. Mr. Bishop explained the full planned remedy includes re -alignment of Brucetown with Hopewell, intersection improvements, and signalization. Commission members commented about the advantage ofknowing the value for these improvements in order to be able to assign improvement costs to each development based on their traffic generated. Mr. Benjamin Butler, the attorney representing the applicant, said the applicant recognizes the transportation problems in this area of the County; however, no one property owner could solve the entire problem and the situation would have to be improved in pieces. Mr. Butler said their hope was that the Commission will recognize the applicant is offering his fair share of improvements. Mr. Claus Bader, with Gennan Engineering, the design and engineering firm for the project, said that since a user for the site has not yet been determined, they used worst-case scenario numbers for various users in their TIA. He said that in order to mitigate impacts of this site, VDOT requested an additional left -turn lane at Rest Church Road, which the applicant has agreed to install. He commented that installation of this lane will require the removal of existing curb and gutter, story i sewer, and the lowering of a water line installed with the Sempeles property, and they are estimating about $200,000 to make this improvement. In addition, they are proffering a monetary contribution for the Brucetown/ Hopewell Road intersection in the amount of $100,000. He talked about the various transportation proffers made by other projects in this vicinity and commented that the pieces are comm2 together for this intersection. Conunission members spoke with the applicant about the possibility of limiting the square footage or maximizing the trips per day. A suggestion was made for thresholds to be used if trips per day are exceeded and increasing portions of monetary proffers offered with more robust development. Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Ms. Debi Swimley-Martel, an adjoining property owner, said she was not opposed to the rezoning of the area, but she would have preferred for all the property owners to work together to rezone the entire neighborhood, instead of doing a patchwork rezoning. Ms. Swimley-Martin said a few of the neighbors met with the owner and his engineer and were told it was too late to work together, but maybe after the rezoning was approved. She said her concern is that since he is not a county resident, he may view this differently than the local residents. Ms. Swimley-Martin said she was concerned about what would be directly behind her property; she said the application is vague and so many land uses are allowed under the B2 Zoning, and she would like to see more details with the location of the planned buildings, roadways, and buffers, so she will know how to proceed with her property. Ms. Swimley-Martin recommended denial of this application in its present format. Mr. Mark Regan, an adjoining property owner, said the application seemed to be vague and incomplete because it did not identify the businesses, their Iocation, nor does it illustrate the location of roads, parking lots, or landscaping. He said there were no building or lighting specifications and no development map with a layout and design. Mr. Regan stated that no specific location has been mentioned for the northern inter - parcel connection, which was important to him because his property was on the north side of this site. In addition, he said his well is located 25 feet from the applicant's property. He was concerned about what was going to take place behind his property. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2008 Page 2177 aM. Mr. Robert Widdows, property owner at 2042 Cedar Hill, at the comer of I-81 and Cedar Hill Road, said his primary concern is the safety of his child and other neighborhood children. Mr. Widdows raised similar issues as the previous speakers, particularly that the application was vague and incomplete. He was concerned the application provided no specifics on timing or phasing and there was no commitment to design, materials, or grade of construction. Mr. Widdows said the applicant did not initiate any communications with the neighborhood residents and there was unwillingness by the applicant to provide specifics. He commented that many off-site improvements will be needed. He did not believe the applicant's monetary transportation proffer of $100,000 was a fair one and it did not help to advance the NELLIP. Mr. Widdows said there were 400 or more allowed B2 uses and the applicant eliminated only two, a truck stop and a mobile home dealer. He expressed concern because the application left him vulnerable to 398 uses, including afire department. Mr. Widdows said water and sewer are not mentioned, even though the neighbors' drain fields are on the applicant's property. He said there were too many variables and assumptions and the application should be denied. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Butler returned to the podium to address the remarks by the citizens. Mr. Butler said that everyone understands this area is slated for commercial development. Mr. Butler raised the question of whether all projects should be turned down until there is a transportation fix, or if the development should take place in such a way that each applicant that comes along will bear his fair share of what is needed. Mr. Butler stated that the transportation problems will have to be approached in pieces because no one developer could afford to fmance the entire project. Mr. Ruddy stated that on many recent occasions, applicants' TIAs have shown what the ultimate solution could be to accommodate their projects. He said many details, including right-of-way, need to be worked out to provide the blueprint on how development can occur. He noted that as more and more of these proposals come in, it becomes evident that this is how to achieve the blueprint. Mr. Ruddy advised that care should be taken about adding additional impacts within an already stressed corridor in lieu of having the blueprint in place. He said this application, therefore, is somewhat consistent to those of Arogas and BPG, where needed improvements have been identified, but there is no inunediate way of actually implementing them. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Ruddy what specific items were missing with regards to transportation. Mr. Ruddy stated that the TIA, Page 12, shows the build -out with the LOS and lane geometry needed to acconunodate this use and the background traffic. He said the TIA describes a variety of improvements at the intersections of Hopewell Road and Rest Church Road (Rt. I1); it describes left -turn lanes, additional through lanes, re -alignment, and signalization. Mr. Ruddy said those are fundamentally the impacts that have been identified in the TIA and are not fully addressed in the application. Mr. Ruddy recognized that for the applicant alone, it may not be appropriate for thein to provide for the ultimate build out of both of those particular interchanges; however, to move forward with this application at this time, would cause greater impacts in those particular locations. Mr. Ruddy said the staff believes, therefore, that this application in conjunction with others, should provide for those improvements. A Commissioner commented that the ultimate build -out of traffic would probably be realized in 2012-2014. He asked if there may be an opportunity to get something in the Six -Year Road Improvement Program to work on those intersections. Mr. Bishop said that VDOT has been accommodating to at least provide a line item with a token amount of dollars to enable the county to try and move things forward. Mr. Bishop said the $100,000 being proffered for the Hopewell intersection could be used as part of that seed money, Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2008 Page 2178 aC VDOT representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, said there could still be degraded service even with the traffic signal because much of the traffic coming out of Brucetovrn is laden trucks. He said the re -alignment of the two roads will be critical. Mr. Ingram said the applicants offered to construct the left -turn lane at Rest Church and the positive thing about that is with costs going up, we have something of value. He said a cash proffer is good, but if it can't be utilized in the near future, the value dissipates. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Ingram what was the most critical physical item needed at the Hopewell Road interchange to begin the process. Mr. Ingram believed the first thing needed is a full design and set of plans for the alignment. He said from that point, it can be determined what sections need to be completed. He said at present, VDOT is working from sketches and ideas. Conmussioner Light advised all developers involved in rezoning applications to make a commitment to work with the neighbors, especially when septic fields and sewer capacity is involved. In addition, he said the staff report clearly states the impacts associated with this request have not been mitigated by the applicant. In particular, transportation improvements have not been provided that would achieve an acceptable LOS Category C, specifically at the two major intersections identified in the applicant's TIA. Commissioner Light then made a motion to deny the rezoning request. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours, Other Commissioners commented they believed the application was a good package with the negative aspect being transportation. Conunission members commented that the County was going to be finding themselves in this situation more frequently because of the absence of sufficient transportation infrastructure in areas of the County. Members commented on the need to find some fair, reasonable, and proportionate method to make the process fair to the developers. It was pointed out that this property was in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and was designated for business use in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. They questioned one individual applicant's responsibility for the transportation infrastructure and if something could be worked out to allow this project to take place. Commissioner Mohn said he preferred to see more effort from the applicant with VDOT and the staff to see if some level of agreement can be reached to make sure this application is providing the best approach, given the scale of the project and how it fits within the total development area. Cominissioner Light stated that corridors included within the Capital Improvements Plan should have a regionalized transportation plan; subsequently, when a rezoning is pursued, the applicant knows exactly what is needed or expected. He said having a property in the Comprehensive Policy Plan is just one level. He said the Commission should tell the applicant when the infrastructure is not ready. Commissioner Light said a plan needs to be formulated, it needs to be implemented, and everyone should be asked for their level of participation. Commissioner Light's motion for denial was defeated by the following vote: YES (TO DENY): Unger, Watt, Light, Ours, Mohn NO: Manuel, Thomas, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Wilmot ABSTAIN• Oates A new motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to table the rezoning application for 90 days to allow the developer to meet with local residents and to re-evaluate his transportation plan and proffers. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and passed by a majority vote. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2008 Page 2179 ME BE IT RESOLVED, that by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table Rezoning #09-07 of Clearbrook Property, submitted by German Engineering, to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business), with proffers, for commercial uses, for 90 days to allow the developer to meet with local residents and to reevaluate his transportation plan and proffers. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO TABLE): Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Manuel, Watt, Unger, Wilmot NO: Light ABSTAIN: Oates Rezoning #11-07 of 1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone 2.2 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for a pharmacy. The properties are located at 1932 Senseny Road (Route 657) at the intersection with Greenwood Road (Route 656). The property is further identified by P.I.N.s 55-A-196 and 65A-2-1 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Conunissioner Molui stated that he would be abstaining from all discussion and voting on this rezoning, due to a potential conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, said this rezoning application was tabled from the Planning Commission's November 7, 2007 meeting. Mr. Ruddy proceeded to highlight some of the issues identified at the Commission's November 7 public hearing, which included concerns about pedestrian access, buffering and screening of adjacent properties, and transportation impacts, particularly ingress and egress. Mr. Ruddy said Proffer # 12 has been added, which attempts to provide a long-term solution to address the concerns over access to and from the site. He said the ability has been provided through this proffer to close the proposed entrances in favor of improved access and circulation south of the entrance on Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) and in a location directly across from the signalized entrance to the Orrick Commons project. Both scenarios could only occur with the development of adjacent properties and the provision of inter -parcel connectivity. He said Proffer #13 has been added which commits the applicant to providing pedestrian signalization with the crossing of Senseny Road, contingent on VDOT's approval. Mr. Ruddy noted that the applicant has also provided a series of renderings of the building elevations to represent a prototype the applicant believes will be constructed on the property; however, the renderings have not been proffered. In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy stated that while the applicant has attempted to mitigate the traffic impacts, the possibility of insufficient left -turn stacking room remains on north -bound Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) at the intersection of Senseny Road (Rt. 657). He said the applicant's parcel lacks sufficient depth to allow for adequate right-of-way dedication to elevate the stacking situation. He added that the provision of Proffer 412 provides a long-tenn solution, but is incumbent on the development and adjacent properties. Chainnan Wilmot next called for public comment and the following person came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2008 Page 2180 Ms. Kathy Kerns, the owner of the house directly across from the proposed pharmacy entrance on Greenwood Road, expressed her concern about the existing traffic congestion and the difficulty exiting her driveway on Greenwood Road. Ms. Kerns had concerns about the placement of proposed landscaping to screen her property. She wanted to make sure the height of the proposed landscaping would be sufficient to shield her home from headlights and parking lot lighting. In addition, Ms. Kerns did not think the appearance of a two-story pharmacy would fit in with the surrounding neighborhood, which consisted of single-family, one-story residences. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Conunission members inquired of the applicant whether he would be able to address the homeowners concerns. They questioned the applicant about why the renderings and site layout had not been submitted as proffers. Commission members also pointed out a pending revision to the County's sign ordinance which will restrict sign heights along collector roads to 15 feet, they asked the applicant about reducing the monument sign height from 20 to 15 feet. Mr. John C. Lewis, P.E., C.L.A. with Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., consulting engineers for the project, stated that while the rendering of the building and site layout had not been proffered, he was confident this was how the site and structure would look upon construction, based on the monetary investment in the project. Mr. Lewis commented on the submittal of a pedestrian crossing plan for Senseny Road, noting their proffer for its implementation. He also spoke about the proffered resolution recognizing that entrances may be too close to the intersections and noting their long-term plan for improved access with inter -parcel connections, once commercial development occurs along the Greenwood and Senseny Road corridors. Mr_ Lewis spoke of their intent to dedicate right-of-way, to construct turn lanes, and to provide transportation funds. In addition, he commented on the productive dialogue with the property owner on Greenwood Road; the applicant agreed to plant whatever the homeowner desired in that area, within reason. He noted that the homeowner had suggested the possibility of a one-year window after the pharmacy is in operation to see what the impacts will actually be. Mr. Lewis agreed to meet with his client to consider reducing the sign height to 15 feet. Conunission members recognized the transportation issues in this area, but were satisfied with the applicant's willingness to close the existing entrances, if and when the surrounding properties develop commercially, in favor of improved access and circulation south of the entrance on Greenwood Road. Commission members also recognized efforts by the applicant to work with the adjoining homeowners, particularly with landscaping, and the pedestrian crossing. A member of the Commission recommended the applicant consider stronger language concerning design standards. Connnissioner Kerr made a motion to approve the rezoning with proffers. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Conunission does hereby unanunously recornmend approval of Rezoning 411-07 of 1932 Senseny Road Phannacy, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone 2.2 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for a pharmacy at 1932 Senseny Road (Route 657). (Note: Commissioner Mohn abstained from voting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 2. 2008 Page 2181 -10 - Conditional Use Permit 408-07 for Wayne and Mellisa Fauver for a public garage with body repair at 441 Marple Road (Route 654). The property is zoned RA (Rural Areas) District and is identified with P.I.N. 42 -A -54-D in the Gainesboro District. Action — Recommended Approval With Conditions Zomig and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that public garages with body repair are permitted in the RA Zoning District with an approved conditional use permit (CUP), provided all the repair work takes place within an enclosed structure. Mr. Cheran said the proposed use will be conducted in an existing garage approximately 3,500 square feet in size. He said the property and adjoining properties are heavily wooded for natural screening. Mr. Cheran noted that the closest dwelling is more than 100 feet from the garage. He stated that no more than five vehicles waiting for repair will be allowed on the property at any one time and no more than two employees will be allowed with the proposed use. He pointed out that no vehicle sales or unrelated repair sales will be pennitted. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Mr. Cheran explained that recommended Condition 43, "The applicant will be limited to repairing only five vehicles at a time," refers to operable vehicles awaiting restoration repair; while Condition 44, "No more than five inoperable vehicles on the property at any give time," refers to inoperable vehicles awaiting repair by the applicant. Continissioner Kriz suggested that natural woodland screening should be considered more thoroughly. He said that mature trees may not provide adequate screening, if there are no inter -planted shrubs or evergreens, particularly through the winter and spring. Chairman Wilmot called for public continents and the following person came forward to speak. Mr. Ronald T. Smith, an adjoining property owner, agreed with the point made about inadequate screening with widely -spaced deciduous trees during the winter and spring. Mr. Smith suggested the addition of shrubs and evergreens to supplement the screening. He also raised a concern about the type and amount of traffic that would be generated on Marple Road. He said that his driveway onto Marple Road did not provide good sight distance for pulling out and he had safety concerns. In addition, Mr. Smith was concerned about size and type of vehicles being repaired on the property because of the possible affect on his property value. Mr. Wayne Fauver, the applicant, stated he would only be working on pick-up trucks and vehicles; he said the road traffic will probably only be three to four vehicles per week. Mr. Fauver said he would agree to additional screening, either with board -on -board fence or additional landscaping. Members of the Conninission questioned VDOT's comments regarding site distance and a commercial entrance. Staff commented that the applicant would have the opportunity to meet with VDOT on the site to discuss requirements. Upon motion made by Cominissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplet, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Conunission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Perniit #08-07 for Wayne and Mellisa Fauver for a public garage with body repair at 441 Marple Road (Route 654) with the understanding that concerns raised by the adjoining property owner are addressed and with the following conditions: Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2008 Page 2182 _11- All 11_ All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than two employees allowed with this conditional use permit. The applicant will be limited to repairing only five vehicles at a time. No more than five inoperable vehicles on the property at any given time. All repair activities shall occur entirely within the 3,500 square -foot enclosed structure. 6. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 7. Any business use outside the repair realm of the conditional use permit is not permitted. Any proposed business sign shall conform to cottage occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four square -feet in size. 9. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit. OTHER Discussion on Regionalized Transportation Plans Chairman Wilmot raised the issue of regionalized transportation plans and possible ways the transportation infrastructure could be accomplished within a targeted area as individual project applications come through for consideration. She stated that the Transportation Committee and others are studying transportation impact fees, but it will be some time before those will be implemented. Chairman Wilmot suggested the Commission approach the problem by using Route 11 as an example study area and examine the common areas, turn lanes, and intersections and decide which improvements would make this road work with an estimate on how much it will cost. She said the priorities would also need to be detennined. Commissioner Thomas suggested the possibility of having a summary for each intersection listing what has been previously proffered and a time frame of when that improvement may occur. He thought this would be helpful to the Commission when considering applications. Mr. Lawrence, Planning Director, stated that staff has initiated the tracking of this information through GIS and as future applications are considered, those improvements proffered in the vicinity of the TIA area will be included in the staff report. Commission members commented that many applicants don't know what is expected of them for transportation improvements; instead of letting the applicant know specific improvements, they are just are asked to try again. It was suggested that the work begin with staff, rather than at a committee level; possibly discussing particulars at the upcoming retreat. Mr. L aw7ence said staff could have preliminary proffer improvements laid out, so everyone can visualize the future improvements within the UDA and SWSA, and then can build from there. Cominissioners believed this would assist in getting the improvements in the CIP and the Six -Year Road Improvement Plan. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2008 Page 2183 -1 2 - ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. by a Unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M_ Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2008 Page 2184 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 January 16, 2008. PRESENT: June M_ Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District, Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District, Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Gary A. Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Jolur A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; Candice Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairrnan Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. WELCOME TO NEWLY -APPOINTED' BACK CREEK REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GARY A. LOFTON Chairman Wilmot welcomed the newly -appointed Back Creek District Representative on the Board of Supervisors, Gary A, Lofton. Chainnan Wilmot stated that Supervisor Lofton will serve as the Board's Liaison to the Planning Commission. WELCOME TO NEW COUNTY ATTORNEY RODERICK WILLIAMS Chairman Wilmot welcomed the new County Attorney, Mr. Roderick (Rod) Williams. Chairman Wilmot announced that Mr. Williams will serve as the Planning Commission's Legal Counsel. Frederick County Planning Commission Do nft Pi F Page 2185 Minutes of January 16, 2008 Wl -2 - ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA, JANUARY 16, 2008 Chainnan Wilmot announced one change to the agenda for this evening's meeting. Chairman Wilmot added Item #4 Committee Appointments before the public hearing portion of the meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Prol4rams Subcommittee (CPPB) — 1/14/08 Mtg. Conunissioner Light reported that the CPPS elected officers for 2008 and Commissioner George Kriz was elected as Chairman and Commissioner Gary Oates as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Light said the CPPS continued their work with the Route 277 Triangle Study, particularly the mapping and land use plans. He said the subcommittee is getting close to reaching a consensus on goals for the study. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) —1/15/08 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed three items: 1) revisions to the HRAB's portion of the Comprehensive Policy Plan; 2) discussion of a possible historic resources website; and, 3) discussion on the identification and mapping of old -family cemeteries. Sanitation Authority —1/15/08 Mtg. Conminission Unger reported that rainfall for the month of December was slightly over three inches, which is average; groundwater is down considerably and the hope is for more snowfall this winter. Comnmissioner Unger said plants are operating normally for December due to low groundwater; quarries have stabilized; and hook-up fees were down considerably for 2007, about 40%. Commission Unger said there was positive discussion about consolidation of water and sewer services with the City of Winchester. He added that the new Sanitation Authority Director will be starting on January 21; however, Mr. H. Wellington Jones, the current director, will be staying on for another month or so. Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) Conunissioner Light reported that the CEA elected officers with Ms. Diane Kerns as Chairman and Mr. Richard Wilkins as Vice Chainnan. Commissioner Light said there was discussion on a CEA Comprehensive Policy Plan, which could be incorporated within Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. He reported that as a result of the CEA's educational programs, there are numerous persons interested in placing easements on property. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 2008 Page 2186 -3 - CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Chairman Wilmot announced the names of the citizens and Commission members who work on the major connnittees which support the Planning Commission's operation and the County's efforts, as follows: Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS): Planning Commission members includeRoger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; H. Paige Manuel, At -Large; and June Wilmot, ex officio. Citizen members include Kevin W. Kenney; Claus Bader; Whitney L. Wagner; Scott Marsh; and Jolui Conrad of the Top of Virginia Building Association. Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS): Planning Comnussion members include George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Rick C. Ours, Opequon District; John Light, Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, ea officio from Opequon; and June M. Wilmot, ex officio from Shawnee District. Citizen members include Marjorie H. Copenhaver; Sue Ann Teal; Jay S. Banks; Robert A. Morris; James W. Golladay, Jr.; Diane Kerns; J.P. Carr, representing the Top of Virginia Builders Association; Al Omdorff, representing Frederick County Public Schools; and H. Wellington Jones, representing the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. PUBLIC HEARING An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-30 Signs. Specifically, this ordinance amendment proposes changes to the types of signs allowed, the allowable sign height, and sign size. The amendment also proposes changes to Section 165-156, Definitions. All individual zoning districts within Chapter 165 will be updated to reflect the changes to the sign regulations. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) endorsed changes to the sign ordinance in January of 2007. She said the changes were then presented to various community organizations and a Sign Ordinance Work Group was formed comprised of DRRS members and representatives from various conm-►unity interest groups. Ms. Perkins said the DRRS endorsed the Sign Ordinance Work Groups' revisions to the sign ordinance in October of 2007. She said the sign ordinance was next presented to the Chamber of Commerce and they endorsed the revisions at their meeting on November 29, 2007. Ms. Perkins stated that the sign ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission as a discussion item on December 5, 2007 and was also forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. Ms. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 2008 Page 2187 -4 - Perk -ins noted that the sign ordinance is being presented to the Planning Commission this evening as a public hearing. Ms. Perkins explained that some of the major changes to the sign ordinance include: the addition of electronic-. message signs, increased spacing of 100 feet between free-standing signs, and changes to the height and size of free-standing signs. She said there are minor revisions to building -mounted signs, changes to the number of free-standing signs permitted, and the addition of multi -tenant complex signs, as well as new and revised definitions. In terms of sign height, the existing ordinance is currently based on district regulations; however, the proposed revisions would make sign height based on the road classification of the proposed sign location. Ms. Perkins provided the Conunission with the sign heights for each road classification. In terms of free-standing sign size, Ms. Perkins said it is based on franchise or non -franchise busuiesses. She provided the sign sizes for each road classification for franchise and non -franchise businesses. Ms. Perkins reviewed the other sign ordinance changes with the Commission. Conunissioner Kriz pointed out a typographical correction on Page 6 of both new drafts. Ms. Perkins made a notation of the correction. Commissioner Kriz remarked that those involved with the sign ordinance revisions did a very good job. Conunissioner Ours asked if the revised ordinance included anything on businesses using trucks as signs. Ms. Perkins replied that since a truck sign is not fixed, it would be classified as a portable sign and would not be allowed. Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Upon motion made by Conunissioner Ours and seconded by Conunissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-30 Signs. Specifically, this ordinance amendment proposes changes to the types of signs allowed, the allowable sign height, and sign size. The amendment also proposes changes to Section 165- 156, Definitions. All individual zoning districts within Chapter 165 will be updated to reflect the changes to the sign regulations. (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Kerr were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning.#08-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to MI (Light Industrial), 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 by P.I.N. 75-A-1 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Conunissioner Manuel stated that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning, due to a potential conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, said this rezoning applicationwas tabled fromthe Planning Commission's December 19, 2007 meeting, following a lengthy public hearing, to give the applicant time and opportunity to address some of the concerns raised throughout the process. In response, the applicant Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 2008 Page 2188 -5 - provided a proffer, dated December 21, 2007, which was included in the Commission's agenda packet. Mr. Ruddy pointed out that this afternoon, two alternative proffer statements, dated January 16, 2008, were submitted by the applicant to the Planning Department. In addition, correspondence from an adjacent property owner, on behalf of Mr. Carbaugh, was submitted for inclusion in the record. Mr. Ruddy proceeded to review the December 21, 2007 proffers with the Commission. He said the proffers contain several changes and deal with corridor appearance, buffering of adjacent residential uses, and right-of-way dedication. Mr. Ruddy said this element of the proffer appears to be addressed satisfactorily. Referring to the transportation components, a key issue of this project, he said the monetary proffer contribution has a net increase of $25,000 from the previous proffer to $250,000.00 for off-site transportation unprovements. In addition, a statement has been included to address the comments raised concerning warehouse distribution. It states that no warehouse -distribution facility greater than 200,000 square -feet shall be constructed on the property within five years of the date of final rezoning. Mr. Ruddy said the conclusion drawn in the staff report following the review of the December 21, 2007 proffers remains similar as before; specifically, the transportation impacts generated by the project, in addition to the transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan, are not fully addressed in the application. Mr. Ruddy said that both he and Mr. John Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation, had a limited opportunity to review the January 16 proffer alternatives. He said the first alternative is relatively similar to the one in the Commission's agenda package. However, the second alternative is quite different and removes the ability of the applicant to construct the road along their property, in favor of a monetary contribution in the amount of $500,000.00. Mr. Ruddy said it was his opinion and Mr. Bishop's that none of the three proffer statements fully addresses the transportation impacts generated by this request or will further the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. John Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation, stated it has been well proven through the MPO Modeling Process and the Long -Range Transportation Plan that the number one transportation improvement for this region is how the Stephens City Bypass, the Exit 307 Relocation, and the tie-in with Route 37 collectively come together. Mr. Bishop said balancing this priority with the fact the collector road between Route 11 and Shady Elm Drive will be an on-going, local improvement, it is difficult to say which improvement is more important, especially for citizens trying to do business and live in this vicinity. However, from a global perspective, he believed the regional improvement would take precedence over the local improvement, even though they are both very important. Conunissioner Light commented that considering the number of acres that could potentially develop with the Artillery Business Center property and the Carbaugh property, a full change in Shady Elm Road and its intersections will be required. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Collector Road will also be needed in order for the total transportation network in the area to be realized. Mr. Benjamin M. Butler, attorney, was representing the applicant. Mr. Butler said his client realizes the Conunission's dislike for receiving last-minute revised proffers; however, due to conversations that have taken place, Mr. Butler believed it was unavoidable. Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, reviewed the differences between the two alternative proffers and the December 21 proffer statement for the Commission. Mr. Sowers explained that Alternative One is the most similar to the December 21 proffer and provides for the same roadway construction; specifically, the 1,100 feet within an 80 -foot right-of-way of the East-West Collector Road. In addition, he said the $250,000.00 off-site monetary proffer has been maintained. Mr. Sowers said the changes include: widening of the road along the improved property frontage with Shady Elm adequate for a double stripe; a statement that the applicant will fully fund the design of the at -grade crossing, should an at -grade crossing be obtained from the railroad for the East-West Collector Road by either Frederick County or others; an escalator Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 2008 Page 2189 W -C clause to ensure monetary contributions made to the County after 30 months from the date of final rezoning will be adjusted for inflation; and, the use of evergreen trees exclusively between the proposed bicycle trail and the parking areas, rather than a mix of deciduous and evergreens. Regarding Alternative Two, Mr. Sowers said the East-West Collector Road is not shown on the property and the cash contribution is increased to $500,000 and phased over three building permits. He said Alternative Two provides for fully funding the design of an at -grade crossing of the railroad, as well as the escalator clause and the use of evergreens exclusively. He said Alternative Two also includes the double striping of Shady Elm along the improved property frontage. Summarizing the content of the alternatives, Mr. Sowers said Alternative One contains 1,100 feet of a Comprehensive Policy Plan roadway and $250,000.00 for off-site traffic mitigation; Alternative Two has no Comprehensive Policy Plan roadway construction, but the monetary proffer has been increased to $500,000.00. Chainnan Wilmot next read the correspondence from Mr. Wayne W. Carbaugh for Mr. Henry J. Carbaugh, the owner of Knoll Dale Farm, dated January 16, 2008. Mr. Butler returned to the podium to address Mr. Carbaugh's letter. Mr. Butler said it was the applicants' opinion that the price Mr. Carbaugh is asking for right-of-way across his property for an East-West Collector is cost prohibitive to their project. Mr. Butler said that within the next three to four years, he believed either Mr. Carbaugh, or someone who has purchased Mr. Carbaugh's property, will approach the County for a rezoning of this land. He said a rezoning of this property complies with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); he pointed out the existing concentration of industry and commercial uses around the interstate and close to the major roads. He said the Renaissance development is in place on Route 11, and when the Carbaugh property comes on line, the road will be constructed, with the only remaining issue being the crossing of the railroad line. Mr. Butler questioned what fair share this project should be asked to contribute to Frederick County; he said a true model is not available for commercial development to know what is expected. Mr. Butler said the applicants believe that by building the inter -connector road and by providing $250,000.00 for signalization at the Apple Valley and Shady Elm intersection, they have met their fair contribution. Commissioner Light was concerned about possible complications with the railroad granting an agreement for a railway crossing; he said it would hold up construction of the East-West Collector, and the implications to Shady Elm, Apple Valley, and Route I I will become a reality. He said the County does not have a guarantee, but if the County agrees to a rezoning, the applicant has the ability to proceed with impacts on the road infrastructure. Commissioner Light believed the proper time to approve the rezoning would be with the Carbaugh property and with an agreement from the railroad in hand. Mr. Ronald Mislowsky, traffic engineer with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, said the applicant is addressing both the need to start the East-West Connector, with their proffer to construct 1,100 feet of roadway, and the need to address impacts on Apple Valley Road, with their monetary proffer of $250,000.00, to be used as VDOT determines, and with funding the design of a railroad crossing. He said VDOT can't determine where the road improvements will be needed until the other existing uses are up and running. Chainnan Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. James E. Clark, a resident at 126 Ladderback Court in Cross Creek Village on Apple Valley Road, Shawnee District, came forward to express his concerns on transportation issues. It was Mr. Clark's opinion that the applicant could not possibly provide all of the highway improvements required to support this development; he enumerated what the applicant's own TIA deemed to be necessary. Mr. Clark said a pledge of $250,000.00 for highway design and construction, and additional right-of-way width on Shady Elm Road, were generous, but were no assurance of the multi-million dollar transportation improvements needed. He believed Frederick County should have an approved scheduling and funding plan for major highway upgrades. Mr. Clark Frederick County Plan ling Commission Minutes of January 16, 2008 Page 2190 -7 - believed the rezoning should be denied based on unacceptable and unmitigated impacts. Mr. Benj amin Montgomery, speaking on behalf of Prosperity Properties, an adjoining property owner, said they are very much in favor of this proposal and believe the applicant has done a good job of providing their fair share of what is expected. Mr. Montgomery was in favor of this site being developed. Mr. James Sluss, a resident at 750 Shady Elm Road in the Back Creek District, stated that the revised proffer statement basically concedes the unlikelihood of a bridge being built because it refers to a crossing, rather than a bridge. He said Proffer Alternative One is basically the same as what was presented at the last meeting and was rejected by the Commission as inadequate. Mr. Sluss pointed out that the TIA was based on assessments made a year ago and does not include the existing situation with the FedEx facility and other development along Apple Valley Road. Mr. Sluss believed that until the transportation situation is satisfactorily addressed, a currently bad situation on Route I 1 and Apple Valley will only be made worse. Ms. Kitty Hockman-Nicholas of Hedgebrook Farm, located directly across from the property under consideration, stated she has three platted residential lots parallel to Shady Elm Road. Ms. Hockman- Nicholas described her "green" farm and talked about her nearby subdivision, the first "green" subdivision in Frederick County. She asked for the following items to be addressed: traffic issues, walking and bicycle paths, a minimum 200 -foot setback, high-density tree plantings, green landscaping and developing, and solar lighting and power. Ms. Hockman-Nicholas urged the County to attract quality businesses to the area. She said the time was not right for this proposal; she feared horrific traffic congestion and safety issues for bikers and pedestrians. Mr. Gregory Brown, a resident in Hedgebrook Hills off Shady Elm Road, asked the Commission to require a Category C buffer, consisting of 150 feet of inactive distance and 50 feet of active buffer, along Shady Elm Road so the project would be more palatable to the area residents. Mr. Brown stated the ground in this area has a high concentration of limestone, which contains asbestos and will be released into the air during construction; he asked if there were plans to protect the surrounding area from airborne asbestos. He asked about possible interruption of residential well water systems during construction and who would be responsible. Mr. Brown said the existing road network will not be able to support the increased usage caused by this project and other area projects currently underway; he described the traffic congestion he experiences daily on Route 11. Ms. Liz Hunter, a resident of Hedgebrook Hills, said the residents had presented a letter to the applicant requesting he consider the aesthetics and use of the property and none of the suggestions they made were addressed in the applicant's proffer statement dated January 16, 2008. Ms. Hunter asked the Commission to hold this applicant to a higher standard regarding screening, buffering, and landscaping. She requested a 50 -foot height restriction on the buildings and a restriction on warehouse and distribution centers. Ms. Hunter also mentioned flaws in the applicant's TIA because it did not include the FedEx and Opus projects. Ms. Andrea Habron, a resident of Back Creek District, was concerned about the landscaping adjacent to her property and several other residents, who were within 1,000 feet of this project. She presented a __&-awing` ­of the landscaping preferred by the residents; she said it was the same proposal previously made by the residents to the applicant. Ms. Habron pointed out that the applicant's revised landscaping proffer removed the deciduous trees and uses evergreens exclusively. Furthermore, she did not think the five-foot area designated for landscaping was large enough for trees to grow. Ms. Habron also preferred increased setbacks. In addition, Ms. Habron said the residents had requested the applicant proffer out warehousing and distribution. She said these uses are not on the Economic Development Commission's targeted business list. Mr_ Darrell Habron, a resident at 188 Hockman Court, had concerns about the absence of an agreement between the property oNNner/applicant, Venture I, and the adjoining property owner, the Carbaughs, on the purchase of right-of-way. Mr. Habron questioned the integrity of the applicant because of the tardiness in the submission of revised proffers and he questioned whether the applicant could truly afford or was willing to supply Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 2008 Page 2191 WE the needed transportation infrastructure. It was Mr. Habron's opinion that the transportation issues had not been resolved. Mr. Edgar Tufts, a resident of Cross Creek, said the primary concern of citizens living in this area was the lack of an adequate plan to take care of the traffic, not money to finance and carry it through, or VDOT approvals. He predicted that with so much development taking place, there would be a need for widening roads and installing traffic signals at Cross Creek and Shady Elm. He said the average age of residents on his street is at least 70 and he had safety concerns with the traffic. Mr. Tufts stated there were no guarantees that money would be available to appropriately take care of the transportation infrastructure. Ms. Allison Mora, a resident on Hockman Court, said she just recently moved to Frederick County from southern Maryland, which is also having an explosion of development, and she understood the impact of new development and roads. She said it seems there is a discrepancy with this proposal because the transportation issues have not been addressed fully. Ms. Mora asked the Commission to require that transportation be fully addressed and clearly understood, and that a clear plan is in place to take care of the traffic that will come, not only with Artillery Business Center, but the other developments currently underway. Ms. Joanna Brown, a resident of Hockman Court and Shady Elm, expressed her concerns about the lack of certainty for the provision of adequate transportation infrastructure. She was in favor of having a transportation plan in place and of requiring each proposal to supply an appropriate level of participation. She also asked for assurances that local residents' well water supply would not be affected. A letter from Robert and Donna Diaz, residents at 1006 Shady Elm Road, who could not be present, was read by Ms. Joanna Brown. The Diaz letter expressed concerns that the application fails to address the transportation impacts generated by the proposed project; that area roads will not be able to handle the increased traffic from this project, as well as the FedEx and Opus projects, the concern for possible detriment to adjoining residential property; and the possibility of tax increases to pay for infrastructure. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Butler returned to the podium to make final statements. Mr. Butler recognized the citizens concerns regarding traffic; however, he pointed out there were traffic problems all over Frederick County. He said this applicant did not create the traffic problems on Senseny Road and does not propose to cause the traffic problems on Shady Elm. He said under the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, applicants must mitigate traffic impacts created by their project and that is what this applicant has tried to do. Mr. Butler said this applicant has made a good faith effort. He read a portion of VDOT's review evaluation from the staff report, as follows: "... through a combination of previously proposed proffers, as well as the current proffers by the application, (it appears) the transportation concerns associated with this request can be adequately addressed " Mr. Butler said he interpreted VDOT's comments to mean that what has been proffered is fair and equitable, and does meet the impact this project has produced. Mr. Mark Lynch, a partner in Venture I of Winchester, LLC, the developers of the property under consideration, addressed the comments made by one of the citizens concerning meetings with Mr. Carbaugh on agreements to purchase property for right-of-way. Mr. Lynch believed this was a great project and they had addressed much of the TIA. He hoped for a positive recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Patrick Sowers returned to the podium and showed an aerial photograph depicting the existing M1 Zoning and the partially developed Ml land mass around the subject property. Mr. Sowers stated this was a comprehensive -planned industrial area and has the benefit of being a tax generator. He said it would go against the Comprehensive Policy Plan to say this property is in a residential area and to force additional Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 2008 Page 2192 buffers. He noted that providing a 150 -foot buffer along the property frontage decreases the net acreage by four acres. He said the County has a certain landmass comprehensively planned for industrial; he did not think it was appropriate to provide 150 feet of active buffers across the property frontage. Mr. Sowers said they have gone above and beyond what other projects have done along Shady Elm Road; he said they have provided an extremely dense vegetative screen for an industrial area. Conunissioner Unger asked about the height of proposed structures and Mr. Sowers replied the applicant has proffered 60 feet. Regarding procedural issues, Mr. Ruddy stated that the Planriing Commission has previously tabled this application, both on behalf of the Connmission and one time on the part of the applicant. Mr. Ruddy said that considering time restraints, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at this time. The Commission and the staff discussed procedural appropriateness in light of the applicant's submittal of two alternative proffer statements. Mr. Roderick Williams, legal counsel to the Planning Commission, did not believe the two revised proffers presented any new legal issues beyond those raised in prior proffer versions. Mr. Williams neat advised the Conu-nission procedurally on how to entertain a motion, considering the two alternative proffer revisions. Members of the Commission questioned the appropriateness of the Commission choosing between alternative sets of proffers_ They also raised the issue again of the appropriateness on acting when revised proffers were submitted on the evening of the public hearing. Commissioner Watt made a motion to deny the rezoning application. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Light and was passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Rezoning #08-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial), with proffers, for office and warehouse uses. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO DENY): Mohn, Kriz, Ours, Light, Oates, Watt NO: Triplett, Wilmot, Unger ABSTAIN• Manuel (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Kerr were absent from the meeting.) OTHER Commissioner Unger suggested the Commission put forward a declaration that the Commission will no longer accept or choose between alternative options on proffers for rezoning. Commissioner Unger suggested placing the statement in the land use application or in the zoning ordinance itself. Commissioner Ours suggested putting forth an additional declaration that the Commission will not accept proffer amendments the day of consideration. A suggestion was made for the proffer revision deadline to be the Friday before the meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 2008 Page 2193 -10 - Commissioner Light believed all proffer revisions should be reviewed by the County Attorney before review by the Planning Commission. Commission members decided to task the Bylaws Committee with this issue. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjounied at 9:05 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 2008 Page 2194 REZONING APPLICATION #01-08 FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: February 12, 2008 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 03/05/08 Pending Board of Supervisors: 03/26/08 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 15.24 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers to the RP District with modified proffers for the 12th elementary school. LOCATION: The property adjoins Senseny Road to the north and Channing Drive to the west, approximately 3,000 feet east of Greenwood Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55 -A -206B PROPERTY ZONING: RP (Residential Performance) District PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential South: B2 (Business General) Use: Vacant East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential PROPOSED USES: Public Use - 12th Elementary School Rezoning #01-08 — 12'h Elementary School February 12, 2008 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Frederick County Attorney: Add at the end of Item A the following sentence: "The Applicant hereby proffers that all conditions associated with the 1999 rezoning of the remaining portion of the property shall remain in place". Planning Department: Planning & ZoninjZ: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identified the zoning for the subject area as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. This zoning classification was modified to RA (Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application 415-99 for Channing Drive on December 8, 1999. This action established 354.3 acres of land zoned RP (Residential Performance) District, and 22.0 acres of land zoned B2 (Business General) District. The Board of Supervisors also approved Rezoning #04-04 for the Bean Property on May 12, 2004, which rezoned five acres from the RA District to the RP District with proffers. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The proposed 15.24 acre site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the development of the subject property for an elementary school use is in general conformance with the policies of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Transportation — See Master Development Plan The new elementary school will be accessed off of one entrance on Channing Drive. 3) Proffer Statement - Dated January 21, 2008, Revised February 7, 2008 The new proffers associated with the subject property will eliminate the proffers associated with the Bean Property Rezoning from 2004 which restricted the use of the property to single family residential structures. The proffers for the 12th Elementary School will restrict the use of the 15.24 acres to public use. Rezoning #01-08 — 12'h Elementary School February 12, 2008 Page 3 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 03/05/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is an application to rezone 15.24 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers to the RP District with modified proffers to accommodate the proposed 12th elementary school. The existing proffers associated with the five acre Bean property would preclude the construction of the school and, therefore, the applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned to modify the proffers. The land use proposed in this application is consistent with the goal of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and has addressed all of staffs concerns. A recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning- application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Plannin- Commission. I vo vcicva.mxa)z/-lz2UUt5--3:03:11 PM / v�13 1P )P SS/ S 1`9S 7�S J 1 P�1P J/ 1 P1S S 1 P�1S O� P1 Y21, /Pl sS/ 91 l P1 S '90 S/ 9 /B SJ B lP 1Bg � ssi � F F �w�ODR�wRD�-� A- y M1 55Y, 11 41 i 55K 12 55 1 x 55K 12 54 55 A 206B r ss� 1 SSk Taylor -Grace, LLC y ZP9 153 y � ss•F a SSk 1 B2 zoning 55 A 206 F x � O H h w rn h� Y h RP Zoning 65 A 39 Map Document (NAPlanninn Anrl r)=%I=I nm A 4 I , 65H . �9y` SCI —;,'Y r reueriCK Lounty, V A r R�7ezonin6 p RBZ#01-08 Application Frederick County School Board Parcel ID: 55 - A - 206B Location in the County Map Features - Application Zoning a Lakes/Ponds B2 (Business, General Distrist) ^– Streams RP (Res,dential Performance District) ,1 Urban Development Area SWSA 1�K , cpG 0 75 150Ml eet w w tI,; Case Planner. Candice • - --- ^rte- -��•••-u�-��...wvwny..ai.uv�rwaiURCLU lUa uz Izuu.mxa) 2/112!2008 -- 3.03:11 PM k If TI, 0 CA h aA, 44 M f 55�4� 'I, 0 . t _ 55Yv •7 2555 d 1-2 =x 59 v f` J _f d55� A 20613 Y f'k�jzR fsK.y,1 S Taylor -Grace, 1..1;(' x4, J k . 4:0 � rr 4J f a� �• � .......... Map Document: (N:1Plannina And Dpvpinnmant\ 1 1 n,- fn. nn �\onnotr. r _: ....... r i cuericK k-;ounty, V A Rezoning REZ # 01 - 08 Application Frederick County School Board Parcel ID: 55 - A - 206B Location in the County Map Features i Application 95 Lakes/Ponds Streams �1 Urban Development Area SWSA O�CK caG 0 75 150 301)eet e Case Planner: Candice w �.. •.�....,,,,,,,.,�oiui.��.v ivo_vL. ica0.1nXa) I-11Z/ZUUb -- 3:U3:11 PM Greenway Engineering January 21, 2008 .�' Elementary School Rezoning Revised February 7, 2008 12t'ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REZONING Tax Parcel 55 -((A)) -206B Red Bud Magisterial District REZONING: RZ # v /— v V Residential Performance District (RP) with proffers to Residential Performance District (RP) with modified proffers. PROPERTY: 15.24± acres (5.0± acre portion previously proffered) Tax Parcel 55 -((A)) -206B (here -in after the "Property") RECORD OWNER: County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia APPLICANT: County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia (here -in after the "Applicant") PROJECT NAME: 12'1'Elementary School ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: February 18, 2004 (Bean Property Rezoning — formerly Tax Parcel 55-((A))-208) REVISION DATE: February 7, 2008 Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of 15.241 acres from the RP, Residential Performance District with proffers on 5.0± acres of the Property to establish 15.24± acres of RP, Residential Performance District with proffers over the entire Property, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. File #2185R/EAW Greenway Engineering January 21, 2008 _Gf Elementary School Rezoning Revised February 7, 2008 The subject Property, more particularly described as the land owned by the County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia being all of Tax Map Parcel 55 -((A)) -206B, and further described by Final Consolidation and Subdivision Plat of the Land of Taylor - Grace. LLC, prepared by Greenway Engineering dated September 25, 2007 and recorded as Deed Instrument 070019473 on December 28, 2007 in the Frederick County Clerk of the Court Gff ce. PROFFER STATEMENT A.) Conditional Zoning Modification The Applicant hereby proffers to eliminate all conditions associated with the February 18, 2004 Proffer Statement previously approved for the 5.0± acre portion of the Property (formerly Tax Parcel 55-((A))-208). The Applicant hereby proffers that all conditions associated with the 1999 rezoning of the remaining portion of the Property shall remain in place. B.) Land Use The Applicant hereby proffers to develop and utilize the 15.24± acre subject Property as a public use area. File #2185R/EAW Greenway Engineering C.) Signatures January 21, 2008 2th Elementary School Rezoning Revised February 7, 2008 The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: 0. - County School Board of Frederick County Virginia Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools Commonwealth of Virginia, City/600t4y of Int j i tam E- — To Wit: Datc The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 day of e—broc'r Notary Public My Commission ExpiresE� «t SHARON S. NC-LLIS - Uof-Ory Public Comma»ea" o1 Virginia MY Oorrorrr��:ap:In Exglr a Jun 3ff, 2 File #2185R/EAW Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, Nov 2007 Data AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: April 21, 2004 - Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: May 12, 2004 ID APPROVED ❑ DEIFIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #04-04 OF BEAN PROPERTY WHEREAS, Rezoning #04-04 of Bean Property, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District. The subject property is located on Bean's Pond Lane, approximately 1/2 mile north of Senseny Road. The site adjoins the Lynnhaven and Sovereign Village Subdivisions, and is identified by Property Identification Number 55-A-208 in the Red Bud Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on April 21, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on May 12, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. r'r) Res 906-04 This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 12th day of May, 2004 by the following recorded vote_ Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Barbara E. VanOsten Aye Gina A. Forrester Nay Gary Dove Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye_ A COPY ATTEST John` Riley, Jr. Fre erick County A inistrator PD Res. 08-04 Greenway Engineering November 4, 2003 Bean Property Rezoning Revised February 4, 2004 Revised February 18, 2004 BEAN PROPERTY REZONING Tax Parcel 55-((A))-248 Red Sud Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Applicationo -o for the rezoning of 5.0 acres from the RA, Rural Areas District to establish 5.0 acres of RP, Residential Performance District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance_ In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the land owned by The Trustees of the Helen R. Bean Trust being all of Tax Map Parcel 55-((A))-208, and further described by Deed Instrument 01 0011489 recorded August 27, 2001 in the Frederick County Clerk of the Court Office. The applicant hereby proffers the following: A.) Land Use Restrictions The applicant hereby proffers that the 5.0 -acre site shall be limited to single-family detached urban lots. B.) Monetary Contribution for County Services The applicant hereby proffers to pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia at the time of building permit issuance $3,278.31 for each single-family detached urban lot that is Iocated completely on the 5.0 -acre site, or for each single-family detached urban lot that has the majority (more than 50%) of the lot area located on the 5.0 -acre site. File #219SR/E_AW Greenway Engineering November 4, 2003 Bean Property Rezoning Revised February 4, 2004 Revised February 18, 2004 This per lot monetary proffer provides for: $2,694.11 for Frederick County Public Schools $539.07 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation 545.13 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue In addition, the applicant hereby proffers to pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia $50,000.00 to cover capital costs associated with Fire and Rescue and/or Public School needs within. thirty (30) days of Final Subdivision Plat approval for the residential lots on the 5.0 -acre parcel. C.) Monetary Contribution for Traffic Signalization The applicant hereby proffers to provide a monetary contribution of $12,000.00 to Frederick County to be utilized as a portion of the local match for the Revenue Sharing Program for the purpose of the installation of traffic signalization at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley \4111 Road (Route 659). The $12,000.00 monetary contribution will be provided to Frederick County within thirty (30) days of written notification that the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised Frederick County that traffic signalization at this intersection has been warranted. D.) Channing Drive Major Collector Road The applicant hereby proffers to develop the portion of Channing Drive that traverses the eastern boundary of the 5.0 -acre parcel. Furthermore, the applicant hereby proffers to prohibit any connection to Channing Drive and to provide a continuous road efficiency buffer along the eastern boundary of the 5.0 -acre parcel. File 92185R.T-AW Greenway Engineering November 4, 2003 Bean Property Rezoning Revised February 4, 2004 Revised February 18, 2004 E.)Sianatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted.- By: ubmitted: By: %�4;- _(2 1 , 3 I /J /" "i Trustees of the Helen R. Bean Trust ate Commonwealth of Virginia, City'County f F!'Ed'it k To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 kh day of MGVOIj 20 C+by Notary Public My Commission Expires 1=d.ba. ,&— Z9 ZcX�F5 :- U3Gs 0- G&- C,S D��Okla_ ile-i-►S File =2 18SRTA\V 3 Action: AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION= Recommended Approval on November 3, 1999 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Approved December 8, 1999 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING 415-99 OF CHANNING DRIVE WHEREAS, Rezoning #15-99 of Channing Drive was submitted to rezone 354.3 acres from. RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) and of 22.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) with the proffers submitted by the applicant. This property is located on the north side of Senseny Road (Route 657), on both sides of Bean's Pond Lane, and adjacent to the Bedford Village, Apple Ridge, Senseny Glen, and Carlisle Heights subdivisions, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 55-A-206, 209, 211, 213 & 65-A-30, 31, 39, 40 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on November 3, 1999, and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on December 8, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 354.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) and of 22.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business GeneraI), as described by the application and plat submitted, and subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. NVR s#31_99 f.� _ This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this Sth day of December, 1999 by the Hlowing recorded vote - James L. Longerbeam, Chairman Aye Richard C. Shickle Aye W. Harrington Smith Jr. Aye Margaret B. Douglas Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. Aye Robert M. Sager Aye A COPY ATTEST Joh". Riley, Jr. 4 Frederick County Administrator O'_lgendaaICOMV1F.A-rS1RF.70NIN(;,RF.SOLUrW h4mm-gDnv .RfS.wpd PI)p— 031-99 6reenwavEnt;ineerin; _ t Channing DriveReZonina CA I'"TJ'N1N + R I V R EZ 01V N PROPER I" Y ID NUMBERS 55-((A))-206, 209, 211, 213 & 65-((A))-30, 31, 39, 39A, 40 Pursuant to Section 152 - 2296 Et Seq., of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia shall approve rezoning application # 15-99 for the rezoning of approximately 351.3 acres from the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district to the Residential Performance (RP) zoning district, and the rezoning of 22.0 acres from the Rural Areas (R -A) zoning district to the Business General (32) zoning district, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, z;ccept to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with said code and zoning ordinance_ In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever_ These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. ARTICLE I. PILASED CONSTRUCTION PLAN This article shall apply to the following parcels: Lvnnehaven, L -C.: 55-((A))-206, and 65-((A))-30, 31 Giles Farm: 65-((A))-39, 39A Sheppard/Futral: 55-((A))-209, 211, 213 and 65-((A))-40 The total number of residential building permits that may be issued for any parcel within the subject property in combination with all other above -referenced parcels shall not exceed the following phasing schedule: Greenway Engineering.1 _ j ' ; Channing Drive Re-rzning Year Permits Issued to Date 2000 79 2001 158 2002 237 2003 316 2004 395 2005 474 2006 553 2007 632 2008 711 2009 790 2010 846 ADZ TICLE H: L YNNEHA YEN, L_ C. This article shall apply only to those properties currently owned by Lynnehaven, L.C., property identification numbers 55-((A))-206, and 65-((A))-30, 31. The subject properties are more particularly described as all of the land owned by Lynnehaven, L.C. as recorded in Deed Book 843 at Pages 415, 418, and 424 and reported to collectively contain 91.4 acres. The conditions proffered are as follows: A) AREA ZONED RP - 81.4 ACRES 1. NI. XIMUN1 DENSITY The total number of lots shall be limited so as not to exceed a 2.5 unit per acre density for the entire subject area. 2. PROHIBITED UNIT TYPES Townhouses, weak -link townhouses, and t7arden apartments, as defined in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. shall not be permitted. 3. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS Pedestrian walkways shall be provided in the master development plan in addition to required - sidew•alks. Nature trails shall be constructed by the applicant in open space areas, in dedicated easements. and in tandem with the regional stormwater management network. Said trails shall also link to similar trail systems in adjacent housing developments, and shall be six feet wide with a wood chip or mulched surface. See Exhibit A attached. Greenwav Engineering d. SOLID WASTE Channing Drive Rezoning The owners of the subject property shall pay $100-00/mo. to Frederick County for the use of the solid waste facility located on the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company property and serving the Greenwood/Senseny Road area- Said payment shall be made from the time Frederick County encumbers and signs a new lease for the expansion of said facility, or acquires another facility serving this general area, and shall continue for a period of ten years, or the term of said lease. whichever is less. B) AREA ZONED 132 - 10.0 ACRES 1. PROHIBITED USES The following uses shall not be permitted on the subject property: Description SIC Automotive dealers 55 Hotels and motels 701 Organization hotels and lodging 704 Golf driving ranges & miniature golf courses 7999 Self-service storaole facilities --- Commercial batting cages operated outdoors --- 2. MAXIMUM BUILDOUT In the B2 area established by this rezoning, the maximum cumulative floor area of all buildings in said B2 area shall not exceed 100,000 square feet. BUILDING FACADES Commercial structures within the proposed 132 area shall be faced with brick, drivet, or architectural block on three (3) sides - C) ENTIRE PARCEL 1. CHANNING DRIVE Channing Drive is a new major collector which will be constructed along the eastern boundary of the subject property. Channing Drive shall consist of an 80' dedicated right-of-way with two 12' lanes, along with any associated turn lanes required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. This thoroughfare will be built in sections as warranted by adjacent development. The following criteria establish when the property owner is required to extend Channing Drive: I Greenway Eft-Ineering _ _ _ Channing Drive Rez-oning r ! J '? , a) Each subdivision plan for residential housing adjacent to a portion of Channing Drive that has not yet been constructed shall include the construction of the adjacent portion of said drive in the subdivision plan. b) The construction of the first section of Channing Drive. from Senseny Road to the proposed B2 area, shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area if said road section has not yet been constructed_ c) All of Channing Drive from Valley Mill Road to Senseny Road shall be constructed, open for traffic and dedicated to Frederick County before the 475th residential building permit is issued for any of the parcels listed in Article I of this proffer. 2- TRAFFIC SIGNALS a) The installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Senseny Road and Channing Drive shall be included in the first site plan subrnitted for the B2 area, if a traffic signal has not yet been installed at said intersection should residential traffic meet signalization warrants. The developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final site pian approval. b) The owners shall make a $25,000 cash contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Senseny Road (Route 657)_ This contribution shall be made to the Virginia Department of Transportation upon their request and upon approval by said department for the installation of this traffic signal. In the event a traffic signal is installed at said intersection before this contribution is made, the Virginia Department of Transportation may request the transfer of said contribution towards signalization at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 6.6) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659). The developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final subdivision and/or site plan approval_ 3. BRIDGE IitifPROVEMENTS There is currently a one -lane bridge on Valley Mill Road where it crosses Abrams Creek. The owners of the subject property shall pay towards feasibility studies, engineering, or construction of improvements to this crossing. These monies, paid to Frederick County, VA. are to be set aside for said improvements, and may be considered by the county for matching funds. Said payments shall be $ 100.00 per residential lot, at the time the initial building permit is issued for said lot. The owner of the subject property shall be required to pay said monies until the Virginia Department of Transportation awards a contract for a t�vo lane expansion and construction of these improvements on said bridge. 4. TURN LANES AND RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION a) Right and left turn lanes shall be constructed on Senseny Road at the intersection with Channing Drive. Said lanes shall be constructed by the applicant at the time Channing Drive is connected to Senseny Road. b) Right and left turn lanes shall be constructed on Channing Drive at the intersection with the main entrance road into the Lynnehaven subdivision - 4 Green waY Engineerin4 Channing Drive Rezoning c) The installation of a total of tvvo turn lanes at the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area, if two turn lanes have not yet been installed at said intersection. The necessity of said turn lanes, and their configuration will be subject to later review by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The owners of the subject property shall install said tum lanes or pay to the Virginia Department of Transportation up to $15,000 per turn lane towards the installation of said turn lanes. d) This paragraph shall apply to parcels 55-((A))-206, and 65-((A))-39, -')9A-- The 9_x: The first site plan submitted for either of these parcels which will result in more than 120,000 sf of commercial area for both parcels collectively shall result in an updated traffic study to determine if additional offsite improvements are required. Said traffic study shall require approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 5. DRAINAGE AND WETLANDS DEVELOP?'vLENT Sediment forebays shall be constructed upstream of Twin lakes in order to decrease the siltation of said lake and settle out man-made impurities. These sediment forebays shall be constructed in such a way as to encourage their development into a wetland with Iocally indigenous vegetation and wildlife. 6. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION a) Residential: In the event rezoning application X15-99is approved for rezoning, the owners of the subject property will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County. Virginia, S3,278.31 per residential lot prior to the initial building permit being issued for said lot. This per lot monetary proffer provides for: 52,691.11 for Frederick County Public Schools $539.07 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation 545.13 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue These payments are intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services. b) Commercial, In the event rezoning application 45-99is approved for rezoning, the owners of the subject property will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, $3245.60 prior to the initial building permit being issued within the B2 zoned area. This monetary contribution is intended to offset the additional capital costs to Frederick County for fire and rescue services. Greenway Engineering Channin.a, Drive Rezoning .3 ARTfCLE IV: DRS. GEORGE SLIEPPARD & ALLEN FUTRAL This article shall apply only to those properties currently owned by Drs. George Sheppard & Allen Futral, property identification numbers 55-((A))-209, 211, 213, and 65-((A))-40. The subject property is more particularly described as all of the land owned by Fu -Shop Farm Partnership as recorded in Deed Book 789 at Page 1022 and further described by a survey by Curtis L. McAllister dated February 13, 1990_ The conditions proffered are as follows: 1. LMAsXIMUM DENSITY The total number of parcels shall be limited so as not to exceed a 2.2 unit per acre density for the entire collective area for parcels 55-((A))-209, 211, and 2U. and a 2.5 unit per acre density for parcel 65-((.4))-40. 2. PROHIBITED UNIT TYPES Tol,vnhouses, weak -link townhouses. and garden apartments, as defined in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, shall not be permitted. 3. PEDESTRIAN W_A-LKWAYS Pedestrian walkways shall be provided in the master development plan in addition to required sidewalks. Nature trails shall be constructed by the applicant in open space areas, in dedicated easements. and in tandem with the regional stormwater management network. Said trails shall also link to similar trail systems in adjacent housing developments, and shall be six feet wide with a wood chip or mulched surface. See Exhibit A attached. 4. SOLID WASTE The owners of the subject property shall pay $100.00/mo. to Frederick County for the use of the solid waste facility located on the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company property and serving the GreenwoodlSenseny Road area. Said payment shall be made from the time Frederick County encumbers and signs a new lease for the expansion of said facility, or acquires another facility servinQ this general arca, and shall continue for a period of ten years, or the term of said lease, whichever is less_ 5. CHANNING DRIVE All of Charming Drive from Valley Nlili Road to Senseny Road shall be constructed, open for traffic and dedicated to Frederick County before the 475th residential building permit is issued for any of the parcels listed in Article I of this proffer. i() Greenway .Engineering vii .� V ` i i ♦.i i.i 'J 6. TRAFFIC SIGNAL Channing Drive Rezoning The owners shall make a $25,000 cash contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Senseny Road (Route 657). This contribution shall be made to the Virginia Department of Transportation upon their request and upon approval by said department for the installation of this traffic sinal. In the event a traffic signal is installed at said intersection before this contribution is made, the Virginia Department of Transportation may request the transfer of said contribution towards signalization at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659). The developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final subdivision and/or site plan approval. 7_ BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS There is currently a one -lane bridge on Valley Mill Road where it crosses Abrams Creek. The owners of the subject property shall pay towards feasibility studies, engineering, or construction of improvements to this crossing. These monies, paid to Frederick County, VA, are to be set aside for said improvements, and may be considered by the county for matching funds. Said payments shall be 5100.00 per residential lot. at the time the initial building permit is issued for said lot. The owner of the subject property shall be required to pay said monies until the Virginia Department of Transportation awards a contract for. a two lane expansion and construction of these improvements on said bridge_ 8. DRAINAGE AND WETLANDS DEVELOPkIENT Sediment forebays shall be constructed upstream of Twin Lakes in order to decrease the siltation of said lake and to settle out man-made impurities. These sediment forebays shall be constructed in such a wav as to eucouraize their development into a wetland with locally indigenous vegetation and wildlife_ 9. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO OFFSET INIPACT OF DEVELOPIINIENT In the event rezoning application 915-99 is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within an RP zone. the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia $4,205.14 per residential lot prior to the initial building- permit being issued for said lot. This per lot monetary- contribution provides for: 53.568.94 for Frederick County Public Schools 5591.07 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation 545.1= for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services. Greenway Engineering July?, 1999 rannin; Drive Rezoning ARTICLE V. SIGNATURES The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Robert A. Giles, Executor, Giles Farm Commonwealth of Virginia, Cit %County \of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisi day of '-�Y 1999 by Notary Public My Commission Expires Scully, Lynneha Commonwealth of Virginia, ice{ =� Cityl ounty of ��: :' To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this r—1 ~ ^ day of �` `'� ' } �,�1999 by I My Commission Expires Notary Public Greenwav Engineering July 2, 1999 canning Drive Running Dr. George Sheppard '`- Margie Sheppard Commonwealth of Virginia City/County.of ;r r To Wit= The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ` 41 day of t ! :! , 1999 by �J �I . f � ,J..,�,'.� �� •. , � Notary Public My Commission Expires Dr, Allen Eutral )4 etty Futrat Commonwealth of Virginia, ` _t 1 f l �C- �'� to Wit_ City/0 unty of �-,F- _ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ;-.:_ , 1999 by Notary Public My Commission Expires l Greenway Engineering Channing Drive Rezoning Ua�vld Madison, Mauager, Manning and Ross, LLC Commonwealth of Virginia, city�00Un I rity of To Wit: The foregoing 'instrument was acknowledged before mu this day of 11999by Notary Public My Commission Expires //Gre9 '8ancroft, Manager, Manning and Ross, LLC Commonwealth of Virginia, City)/! o n of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day t:� '� -"� I , 1999 by C", J Notary Public L My Commission Expires 14 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Skiff: Fee Amount Paid Zoning Amendment Number Date Receive /1 PC Hearing DateBOS Hearing Date 3 The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different from above) Name: County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia Telephone: (540) 662-4518 Address: 1415 Amherst Street Winchester, VA 22601 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt, AICP Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map ® Agency Comments Plat ® Fees Deed to Property ® Impact Analysis Statement ❑ Verification of taxes paid ® Proffer Statement 5, The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia Patricia Taylor Superitendent of Schools 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: PARUEL 11J lr u ivinrn See attached adjoining property map and adjacent nrnnerty information table Vacant 12th Elementary School NIN g, Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): Adjoining Senseny Road to the north and Chan-ning, Drive to the west-, approximately 3000 feet east of Greenwood Road. Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Imnact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 55 -((A)) -206B Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service 10, 11. Districts Red Bud Greenwood Co. 18 Greenwood Co. 18 High School: Middle School: Elementary School Millbrook Admiral Byrd 12` Elementary Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 15.24 ± RP w/Proffers RP w/modified Proffers F1_5.2_4± Total Acreage to be rezoned The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other Elementary School - 100,465 ± SF 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. 1(we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Date: i Z1 Owner (s): Date: —h s Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia Patricia Taylor Superintendent of Schools (Phone) (540) 662-4518 (Address) PO Box 3508 Winchester, VA 22604 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property') conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by ]nstrument No. 070019473 on Page 0466, and is described as Parcel: 55 Lot: 206B Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwiserescinded or modified. In witness thereo , I (we have h eto set my (our) hand and seal this aJ day o200�_,__ Signature(s) "L State of Virginia, City/C ty of (ILI" to l,shcs an tiFel1�5, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesa;d this C2 day off tJ, 200 g My ( mmission Notary Public �� 12th Elementary School Rezoning - Adjoining Property Owners Listing File 5048F Number Tax Map Number Owner Address City & State ZIP Zoninci 1 55K 12 61 EDGECOMB CHRISTOPHER J WATKINS KIMBERLY J 301 LYNNHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 226021 RP 2 55K 1 3 113 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP Q v 5GL! J1\ 1 Q 117 1 V i 1L IQIf-IJMnAir% A�ACQI(`ANI Lln�/��C /lC \/A I�1!` II VI I VIVIVV AIV1 L111 CAIV 11V V J VI VA 11VV i77n!\ OI ItvIQICCL VA CV I�IQ ILGG SU 111 1 A LE I I I QCCT(Jr� v/0 1ILV 1 2�4ni RP 4 55K 1 3 111 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 112220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191RP 5 55K 1 3 110 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC -- 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA - 20191 RP 6 55K 1 3 109 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 201911 RP 7 55K 13108 TAYLOR -GRACE LLC 36 RICKETTS DR WINCHESTER VA 22601 RP 8 55K 1 3 107 TAYLOR -GRACE LLC 36 RICKETTS DR WINCHESTER VA 22601 RP 9 55K 1 3 106 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 10 55K 1 3 105 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20192 RP 11 55K 1 3 104 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 12 55K 1 3 103 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 13 55K 1 3 102 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 14 55K 1 3 113E LYNNEHAVEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 142 N QUEEN ST #110 MARTINSBURG WV 25401 RP 15 65H 1 4 23A MANNING & ROSS DEVELOPERS LLC P O BOX 27 WINCHESTER VA 22604 RP 16 65 A 39 MANNING & ROSS DEVELOPERS LLC PO BOX 27 WINCHESTER VA 22604 RPB2 17 55K 1 3 101 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 18 55K 1 3 100 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 19 55 A 206A TAYLOR -GRACE LLC 36 RICKETTS DR WINCHESTER VA 22601 B2 20 55K 1 2 41A LYNNEHAVEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC C/O CLAGGETT MGMT 20 W THIRD ST FREDERICK MD 21701 RP 21 55K 1 2 51 SAGASTUME GUSTAVO SAGASTUME LORENDA 201 LYNNHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 22 55K 1 2 52 US BANK NATL ASSOC AS TRUSTEE C/O AMERICA'S SERVICING CO 3476 STATEVIEW BLVD FT MILL SC 29715 RP 23 55K 1 2 53 WIGHTMAN GARY E WIGHTMAN BETTY JEAN 205 LYNNHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 24 55K 1 2 54 MAGANA CRISTOBAL C MAGANA JACINTA 207 LYNNHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 25 55K 1 2 55 GOODE ROBERT GOODE CYNTHIA 211 LYNNHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 26 155K 1 2 56 CROISANT JUANA ICROISANT JESSICA 213 LYNNHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 2/7/2008 Source: Frederick County GIS Department, Nov. 2007 Data 1 of 1 Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, Nov 2007 Data f *s ., H Nassau_Dr ' yighcliffe Dr 0- , D A, f l �1 V. WOOdma nn.2 o° 12th Elementary School Aerial Overview e Al W E -, r. rr 'I• M R n.: 4Ir .-V4 r .s ` , co ` (y . r ,� �; ,tet !� _ •. "' , lit kw 1' _µ n • M ( r �,: � .: � 'fit•. � Ct rr+K.. r _ ',V F. . JK IV , °=v A. y, e,.. Cdr4F AF /00 .F e - ' w - , , ;. _:..... geld • ,. , � � �'• , .t 5 k Wic ham"TerLegend • - T • t , Parcel Subject - Parcel Boundaries Feet CGca 3i0 Q_ a Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va- GIS Department, Nov 2007 Data, Aerial Photos from March 2006 1 F7 . '4 i. •11 w 0 } m o MD LLz� r'0 u coo U w > u_ f � Q z o LL tr o ,zOOw_Oo W W Q3 U ( w ii W Ir 2 U O o J W a M W Q W _ W m N Q W NCT r W Ir o LL o or ( N F w o O O w U U W Er z Q — W zU O CWC w J Q G Ir W J W w W Q .� N T w 0 } m o MD LLz� r'0 u coo U w > u_ f � Q z o LL tr o ,zOOw_Oo W W Q3 U ( w ii W Ir 2 U O o J W a M W Q W _ W m N Q W NCT r W Ir o LL o or ( N F w o Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, Nov 2007 Data - L YANEHA MEN L1 N, L <YA/A, \ SECTION 2 PHASE 1 e DR " C3 CURVE DATA CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC LENGTH LINE DATA CHORD BEARING LINE Cl BEARING DISTANCE L1 N 55'15'41" E 69.47' L2 N 10'00'43" E 110.73' L3 N 85'09'23" E 685.93' L4 S 04'37'29" W 149.58' L5 S 69"16'23" E 151.30' L6 N 44'37'46" E 85.35' L7 S 40'56'33" E 33.78' L8 S 0136'22 E 9.56' 1-9S C5 38'41'52" W 208.24' L10 S 62'06'39" W 168.91' i Li 1 S 48'47'47" W 161.00' - L YANEHA MEN L1 N, L <YA/A, \ SECTION 2 PHASE 1 e DR " C3 CURVE DATA CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH Cl 5432'31" 325.00' 309.38' 167.54' N 27'59'26" E 297.83' C2 9'17'33" 275.00' 44.60' 22.35' N 05'21'56" E 44.55' C3 83'25'44" 40.00' 58.24' 35.66' N 51'43'35" E 53.23' C4 8'17'04" 528.00' 76.34' 38.24' N 89"l 7'55" E 76.28' C5 9'28'06" 1 272.00' ' ' '" 44.90' C6 4'11'24" 1000.00' 73.13' 36.58' S 40'47'34" W 73.11' C7 23'24'47" 920.00' 375.95' 190.63' S 50'24'16" W 373.33' C8 13'18'52" 1000.00' 232.38` 116.72' S 55'27'13" W 231.86° k �� / oL YNNEHAVEN �oSECTION 3, PHASE 1 � 0 00 Lo zk PUBLIC USE AREA Thi 55-A -2®6E N 15.2426 ACRES ZONED: RP z PROPOSED LYNNEHAVEN COMMERCIAL SITE L 11 C8 L YNNEHAVEN \ SECTION 3, PHASE 1 �s �cr C6 L71 Ll A48 100 0 ---loo 200 CHAM�®��7 DR - _ - SCALE: 1 " = 100' 1%. %I O O y� en W O i � Z' mml LLI O Q j MJ 0. (� V cc: WI Z pl Z Z WI O :1 Is: N O LL, W V it �� DATE: 01/18/2008 SCALE; 1- - 100' DESIGNED BY. KLB JOB NO. 5048F SHEET 1 OF 1 VICINITY MAP 1' = 2000" 0WiNER IS THE c IF ANY. FINAL CONSOLIDATION AND SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE LAND OF TA YL OIC -GRACE, LLC RED BUD MAG157ERLAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGIN14 SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 ..;:�:..•;f. Il 7t IIj ����� ,, t ,�►i!q,�� ; pal ,�,•�ri�ii • . ♦ MITI♦!: -a HIM ' � ��� ,, h �� q/ • aur.,.•`,.•'...., 'D fPREGOING S BDMSION, OF A POR77ON OF THE LANDS OF AS APPEARS THIS PLAT, IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN !E PESIRf# YF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, AND TRUSTEES COMMONWEALTH OF V/RG/NG4 CITY / C96M* OF W I h(L jk TO WIT - THE FOREGOING OWNERS CERTZF7047E WAS KNOWCFDGED BEFORE ME TH S a S DAY OF LPAM, ALD -1 BY COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY / COUNTY OF 70 WIT.• THE FOREGOING OWNERS CER7IF7047E WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _ DRAY OF , 2Q_ BY U _ �•�'_ NOTARY Pjp �V z NOTARY PUBLIC 20 MY COMMISSION IXPIRES 20 ON.WE... PARENT TAX PARCEL !D N77RC4 nN (i) TA�f�� GRACE, LLC T.M. 55—A-206 34.4380 ACRES ZONE. RP USE. VACANT (ii) TAYLOR—GRACE, LLC T.M. 55—A-208 3.261.1 ACRES ZONE. RP USE- VACANT SURVEYORS CERT97CATE I HEREBY CER71FY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED 1N THIS SUBUT SION IS (i A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO OR DEVELOPMENT, LLC BY DEED DATED MARCH 29, 2005 OF RECORD IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUTf COURT CLERKS OFFICE AS INSTRUMENT No. 050007270, AND (T) A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO OR DEVQOPAIENT, LLC BY DEED L1A7ED MARCH 26, 2004 OF RECORD IN SAID CLERKS OFFICE AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 040005596. OR DLYELOPMENT WAS MERGED )N70 TAYLOR—GRACE, LLC ON A44Y 29, 2007 BY CER70CATE OF MERGER ISSUED BY THE VIRGNLA STATE CORPOR477ON COMMLSSTON. ERNEST S. APPROVAL: FREDERICK COUNTY SUBDMSION ADMINISTRATOR DATE GREENWA■ �' ENGINEERING, � ■ V Zz 0 151 Windy HULane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX (540) 722-9528 21 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com L.S. TH OF ERNEST S. "1H Lic. No. 1837 SUB 1 MIA AREA TABULATION T.M. 55—A-206 0 ORIGINAL TM 55—A-206 = 34.4380 ACRES X7 LESS AREA TO NEW T.M. 55—Ai-2068 = —11.9813 ACRES Cn RES/DUE OF T.M. 55—A-206 22.4567 ACRES 4.0 T.M. 55—A-2068 ADDED TM 55—A-208 = + 3.2613 ACRES ADDED AREA FROM TM 55—A-206 = +11.9813 ACRES AREA OF NEW T.M. 55 A-2068 15.2426 ACRES LEGEND 0 = IRS = 1/2' IRON RESAR do CAP SET (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) IRF = 1/2" IRON REMR FOUND R/W — RIGHT OF WAY PROFFERS 1. PROFFERS ON FILE IN FREDERICK COUNTY, VA AS REZONING APPLICATION / 15-99, AND ARE RECORDEO IN THE SAID COUWS CIRCUIT COURT CLERKS OFFICE IN DEED BOOK 954, PAGE 1544. NOTES 1. THE BOUNDARY INFORM47ION SHOWN HEREON IS 84SED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY BY THIS FIRM. 2. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST. 3. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON UES ENTIRELY 077HIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, PER N.F.LP. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 510063 0120 B, a4TED JULY 17, 1978. 4. BUFFERS/LANDSCAPE SCREENING PER FREDERICK COUNT ZONING ORDINANCE 165-37—D. 5. THE SOURCE OR MERIL4W FOR THE BOUND,4RY SHOWN HEREON IS RECORDED AT INSTRUMENT No. 030007982 AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGINL4. 6. THE AREA TAOULA7701V FOR THIS PLAT 15 94SED ON RESIDUES RESULTING AFTER THE DEDIC4710N OF C84NNING DRIVE PARTS 2 do 3, LYNNEHAVEN SECTION THREE PHASE 1 AND LYNNEHAVEN COMMERCIAL SITE. Z ALL DUSTING EASEMENTS ARE RECORDED BY INSTRUMENT NUMBERS 070011417 & 070012186 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. CHANNING DRIVE IS RECORDED BY INSTRUMENT NUMBERS 070011100, 070011416 h 070012185. LYNND14VEN DRIVE IS RECORDED BY INSTRUMENT NUMBER 040026656. WOODROW DRIVE LS RECORDED BY INSTRUMENT NUMBERS 040026656, 070011417 & 070012186. FINAL CONSOLIDATION AND SUBDIVISION PLAT �,y'rx pF�jrP OF THE LAND OF TAYLOR -GRACE LLC RED BUD WGISOML DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGIN14 0 T S. TN a Lic.. � 0. 1837 � ee/� Zf/0 704' SCALE: NIA I DATE. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 i GREENNVINMf ENIGH-NEERIPIGg INC, 151 Windy Hill Lane SURF Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors �. Telephone: (540) 662-4185 2185R SHEET 2 OF 7 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Fowided in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com SUB 07-23 _A CURVE DATA CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGEEI CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C1 54'32'31" 325.00' 309.38' 167.54' 1 N 27-59'26 E 297.83' C2 9'17'33' 275.00' 44.60' 22.35' 1 N 05'21'56" E 44.55' C3 83'25'44" 40.00' 58.24' 35.66' N 51'43'35" E 53.23' C4 8'17'04" 528.00' 76.34' 38.24' N 89'17'55 E 76.28' C5 9'28'06" 272.00' 44.95' 22.53' N 89'53'26" E 44.90' C6 4'11'24 1000.00' 73.13' 36.58' S 40'47'34" W 73.11' C7 23'24'47" 920.00' 375.95' 190.63' S 50'24'16' W 373.33' C8 13-18'52" 1000.00' 232.38' 116.72' S 55'27' 13" W 231.86' C9 16'20'11 " 375.00' 106.92' 53.83' S 23'20' 11 " W 106.56' C10 8'56'44" 425.00' 66.36' 33.25' N 19'38'28" E 66.29' UNE DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 N 55'15'41" E 69.47' L2 N 10'00'43" E 110.73' L3 N 85'09'23" E 685.93' L4 S 04'37'29" W 149.58' L5 S 69' 16'23" E 151.30' L6 N 44'37'46 E 85.35' L7 S 40'56'33" E 33.78' L8 S 01'36'22" E 9.56' L9 S 38'41'52" W 208.24' L10 S 62'06 39" W 168.91' L11 S 48'47'47" W 161.00' L12 S 25'22'29" W 123.72' L13 N 67-16 58" W 170.46' L14 S 22'43'02" W 62.44' L15 S 35'25'17" E 245.00' L16 S 39'24'22" W 222.32' L17 S 46'24'23" W 105.00' L18 S 56'27 43" W 61.36' L19 S 89'37'41" W 115.00' L20 N 58'33'06" W 170.49' L21 N 71'11'14" W 103.00 L22 N 83'57'58" W 213.68' L23 S 57-59'48' W 69.72 L24 N 84'25'00" W 125.79' L25 N 74'49'54" W 50.00' L26 N 6553'10" W 85.00' L27 N 54'13'07" W 79.07 L28 N 38'44'07" W 45.00' FINAL CONSOLIDATION AND SUBDIt/ISiON PLAT OF THE LAND OF TA YLOR-GRA CE, LLC RED BUD MAGISTER6AL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY WRGINU SCALE.• N/A I WE SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 Gnrrnm ENGINEERING, mc. ' 151 Windy Hall Lane Engineers Winchester, Vuginia 22602 k Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com TH 6; ERNEST S.TH � Lic. N6' 1837 SUR OF 7 L Y MAP FIELDSTONE SECTION ONEAIX_ZONE.•RP, USE.:RES. INST.•# 04000!69j2 �-HT -- -- N RESIDUE TY 55—A-206 TAYLOR—GRACE, LLC ZONED: RP USE. VACANT INST. NO. 050007270 LYNNE74AVEN SEC. 3 PH. 1 ZONED. PR USE, RES INST. / 07001141 i �O�OQ pQ t Q Q Jc%,O�O� PROPOSED V� LYNNEHAVEN COMMERCIAL o� �Q• ZONE. B2 USE. COM. �0" ,300 0 300 DB 843 PG 415 INST. NO. 050007270 �/ GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) FINAL CONSOLIDATION AND SUBDIVISION PLAT H OF THE LAND OF �,LTof yrs TA YLOR-ORA CE, LLC RED BUD WlSTERAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINM T SCALE. • 1' = 300' 1 DATE.• SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 Lic. 0. 1837 ` GREENWAY ENGINEERING, ext r�z,r�, 0/1 l51 Windy Hill Lane SCrRV� Enguteers Wuwhester, Vuginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 2185R SHEET 4 OF 7 Fow+ded in 1971 www.grccnwayeng.com 1711R n7—T3 CL 250 0 250 2 4 CD �ou" o, GRAPHIC SCALE 5 �p1.o l) (IN FEET) 7 6 N 10 to 9 8 Eo 5 6433 moi IV N �BQL 15 0 NOTE.- SEE O' e SHEET 3 FOR ' t LEGEND, NOTES j - 3�y•" 203 i AND WA TABLES �; o 202 Iw 20J RESME �i 200 TAS W � � 199 22.4567 ZONED. RPS Ill o ---� h �0 10302 198 -2 0 104�f 1 1194&0 7 N 706, �,a� 3' 7 18 W o 106 E i�' 100 ; 5 nn 101 401 r 'j 107 8 ,, 10 1 0 192 • � � 109 °8 191 , ���'� l 1 �h 190 a 0 112 / 1 189 06 o �yy `� 113 07.06o 0X 0 0 0// T)W 55-A-2068 d 188 J ��r C> 0�(�k 15.2426 ACRES 0 -----I &0 61 O"� ZONED. RP Opo \iT, `O SECS 2 1 .- 1 50' BRL `� sT ,v N ;�j I 41'12 1,T 9Y 5.i� 58' O � PROPOSED LYhX9i4VEN C0MMLRCL9L SITE RML CONSOLIDATION AND SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE LAND OF p,LTH 01c, Lr� TAYLOR -GRI CE, LLC x RED BUD A(AGISTMW DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUMY, VIRGINIA NEST & TH ; SCALE.• 1' = 250' DAM SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 Lic. o. 1837 GREEMM "wGIN!'MEERING9 im 1q, 9/L �d7 04 151 Windy Hill Lane YV� SUR' Engineers Winchester, KTL-ria 22602 m S �o� Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 2185R SHEET 5 OF 7 ®W in 1971 W",.greenwayeng.com SLAB 07-23 15.0 0 75 150 r � mom GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) N07E SEE SHEET 3 FOR LEGEND, N07ES AND DATA TABLES ALL LABELED EASEMENTS ARE RECORDED AS INST. NO. 070011497 AND 070012186 UNLESS o'er OTHERWISE NOTED. / \ 103 102 \�SEE� 6_---L?— — I FOR DETAIL OF / L8 THIS / o �. o 100 101 ` � � � 1 \ o 0 0^o / � X p1 EX SANS EASEMEM Ex 20' WATER o / 4 EX 20' IRAlK4GE E4S'EMENT 0� OF EX. 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT k o EX 10' GAS D( 20' WATER EASEMENT EASEMENT EX. STORM DRAINAGE I EASEMENT Q 2 —7111,—UNE EASEMENT NEW �° / TAI 66-A 2088 l 15.2426 ACRES o \ ZONED.- RP o \ Df. SANITARY SEWER EASalENINST NO. 070011100 EX SANITARY 4110 LYNNEIM SEWER EASEMENT ���� SEC77ON 2 • NST. N0. E to 3 \ 040026656 \� 1 iDf. DRAINAGE EASEMENT 50_BRL INST. NO. 070011100--,N 41'12'13' W 558' PROPOSED LMNDVVEN COHMERC4IL SITE FINAL CONSOLIDATION AND SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE LAND OF TA noR-GRACE, LLC RED BUD 44GIS1ERlAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA � SCALE: 1 ' = 150' 1 DATE SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 GREENWAY ENGINEERING, 151 Windy Hill Lane Enguue s Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Y1 Founded in 1471 www.greenwayeng.com - O N 1 h fti TH pay, Lic. Nb. 1837 H O W 5 LOT 102 C:3 �G LYNNENAVEN SEC770N 3 PH4SE 1 0� O,r, No WOODPOW DR. 5s R/Ev — `�� / EX. DRA AE _ EA�IEM DETAL AREA— / i m i LOT 101 t e 0 ACTIVE Ra4O BUFFER - m OUTLOT "r DC SAWARY �♦ SEWER E45EMENT ._ Li 0 < ee QD o i 10 1 40' 1 CEN RaAD r' BUFFER / i i 0 >-,-- i� a EX: STORM DRAIWE EASEMDVT NOM SEF SHEET J FOR LEGEND, A'07FS AND WA TABLES ALL lABE1ED EASFAWENIS ARE RECORDED AS INST. NO. 070011417 AND 070012186 UNLESS OTHERWISE N07M FINAL CONSOLIDATION AND SUBDIOSION PLAT OF THE LAND OF TA YLOR-GRA CE, Lt 30 0 30 GIWHIC SCALE (IN fa -0 RED BUD WGISTERAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN14 SCALE. 1 " = 30' I DATE:• SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 mc. 151 Wutdy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Yuginia 22602 Sttneyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX- (540) 722-9528 2 Founded in 1971 www _p-cenwayeng.cam ;Lic. ,OWr,�� S WOR ~y . 1837 SUR�� 7 OF 7 C) �t rs VIII ININ FREDERICK couN1YSCP. Thls Instrument Of writing was produced to me on g at -_ inq- and with certificate acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. Tax imposed by Sec:. 58.1-802 of $066o, oo and 58.1-801 have been paid, if guenable. • 0 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #01-08 REVISED LYNNEHAVEN DEVELOPMENT Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: February 13, 2008 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Planning Commission: 03/05/08 Board of Supervisors: 03/26/08 Action Pending Pending LOCATION: The subject properties adjoin Senseny Road to the north and Channing Drive to the west, approximately 3,000 feet east of Greenwood Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55-A-206 and 55 -A -206B PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) & B2 (Business General) Use: Vacant ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES• North. RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential and Vacant B2 (Business General) Vacant West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Public Use — 12"' Elementary School, Residential and Commercial Uses MDP #01-08, Frederick County School Board February 13, 2008 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The revised MDP received February 7, 2008 is acceptable to VDOT. Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plans approved as submitted. Frederick County Public Works: Upon review of the revised MDP plan dated January 31, 2008, we offer no comments at this time. Therefore, we recommend approval of the subject MDP. A comprehensive review will occur at the time of site plan submission. Frederick County Inspections Department: No additional comments at this time. Will comment on site plan. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: No comment. There should be sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve this site. GIS Department: No additional road names are required at this time. Structure numbering will be assigned during the permit and construction phase of development. Parks & Recreation: The new calculation provided for the proposed open space appears to meet county requirements. Every effort should be made to create bicycle trails to improve non vehicular access to the school site and throughout the development. Relative to the Parks and Recreation amenities, please detail all changes or alterations included in the revised Master Development Plan. These changes and/or alterations need to be presented in a summary, specifically addressing Parks and Recreation amenities, clearly illustrating how the revisions are different from what was approved in the Master Development Plan. Winchester Regional Airport: The Master Development Plan was reviewed and it appears that the proposed plan will not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. This proposed site does lie within airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport which could result in noise from over flights of aircraft departing to and from the northeast. Frederick County Public Schools: Frederick County Public Schools asks that Frederick County approve the addition of a public use to the Lynnehaven Master Development Plan. This approval will enable us to work towards opening a much needed elementary school in the Lynnehaven development. This new school will help FCPS manage elementary student population growth and the reduction in elementary school program capacity resulting from implementation of full-day kindergarten. We think that this elementary school as proposed is properly located within its community and will be an asset to its community and Frederick County. The school will be located at the intersection of two collector streets within a densely developed and developing area. Many children will live within 1/4 mile of the school and will be able to walk or bicycle to school. Placing this school within Lynnehaven will result in general in a system -wide reduction in the distance elementary school children have to travel to school and in specific in a reduction in the distance Lynnehaven, Sovereign Village, Fieldstone, Apple Ridge, Senseny Glen, Twin Lakes, Glenmont Village, Lockhart and Burning Knolls children have to travel to MDP #01-08, Frederick County School Board February 13, 2008 Page 3 school. The school will offer recreational opportunities to the community. There will be an area designated for use by the Parks and Recreation Department in the school. This area will contain an activity room, a demo lab and an all-purpose room. Community members will be able to use the paved fire access lane around the school as a walking and jogging loop. Community members will also be able to schedule activities and events on the ballfields at the school. PlanninLy & Zoning: A) Master Development Plan Requirement A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. B) Location The subject properties adjoin Senseny Road to the north and Channing Drive to the west, approximately 3,000 feet east of Greenwood Road. C) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identified the zoning for the acreage within the master development plan as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. This zoning classification was modified to RA (Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #15-99 for Channing Drive on December 8, 1999. This action established 354.3 acres of land zoned RP (Residential Performance) District, and 22.0 acres of land zoned B2 (Business General) District. This property was originally Master Planned with MDP #08-2000 which was for the entire Channing Land Bay. The Board of Supervisors also approved Rezoning #04-04 for the Bean Property on May 12, 2004 which rezoned five acres from the RA District to the RP District with proffers. The original MDP for the Channing Drive project included the developments now known as Lynnhaven, Twin Lakes, and Sovereign Village. Separate master development plans for the revised Twin Lakes and Sovereign Village developments have already been approved. Staff Note: On March 23, 2004 the Frederick County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution which gave the individual property owners of the Channing Drive Rezoning the ability to submit revised master development plan applications independent of one another. MDP #01-08, Frederick County School Board February 13, 2008 Page 4 D) Site Suitability & Project Scope Comprehensive Policy Plan: The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use Compatibility: The parcels comprising this MDP application are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use map designates the general area in which the Lynnehaven Development is located for residential land uses. The residential portion of the Lynnehaven project will develop with a density of 2 units per acre which has decreased from 2.5 units per acre as shown on the original Channing Drive MDP. The revised Lynnehaven Master Development Plan will consist of 135 residential lots, 10 acres of commercially zoned land and 15.2 acres of land for public use which will be utilized for a new elementary school. It is noted that the most significant change presented with this revised Master Development Plan is the addition of the school site. Transportation Primary access into the Lynnehaven Development will be via Channing Drive. Currently this roadway is not completed and is not within the state's secondary road system. It is noted that the portion of Channing Drive between Senseny Road and Farmington Boulevard will not be accepted by VDOT until the traffic signal at the intersection of Senseny Road and Channing Drive has been installed. This revised MDP has a note that states that Channing Drive between Senseny Road and Farmington Boulevard will be barricaded and closed to the public until a signal is provided. The signal at this intersection was proffered with Rezoning 415-99 and will be installed with the first commercial development within the project. The internal roads as shown on this revised MDP reflect the network that has been approved with the phased subdivision design plans for the development. Proffers The majority of the Lynnehaven Development proffers fall under Rezoning #15-99 (Channing Drive), which are attached. The public use portion of the site which will be developed for the proposed 12th Elementary School will fall under the pending Rezoning #01-08 for the Frederick County School Board. MDP #01-08, Frederick County School Board February 13, 2008 Page 5 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 03/05/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The master development plan for Lynnehaven depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. The preliminary master development plan is also in accordance with the proffers for Rezoning #15-99 and pending rezoning #01-08 for the 12th Elementary School. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this MDP conformance with County codes and review agency comments. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Staff is ultimately seeking administrative approval authority of the Master Development Plan. y„'„vviwuaiulvivrU wo_uG i 3Ua.MXQ) Z/"13/ZUUb -- 1:42:02 PM I . A"�Z ria= AeriNFMap RP ✓ems �OOPO ` zoning A 206 TAYLOR -GRACE LLC 55 A 206B TAYLOR -GRACE LLC is 55 A 206A LYNNEHAVEN LC. 5p0 pqR�/NG r/ / o, '11 B2 zoning �\ Manning & Man Dnrnimant (N \Phnninn AnA r RWDODMAIN`Cr'Nt�� Waa I r I CL CHI ;K 1.OUnly, V A Master Development Plan MDP # 01 - 08 Application Revised LynnhaFven Pa reel ID: 55-A-206 Location is the County 55 - A - 206A 55 - A - 206B Map Features - Application Zoning Lakes/Ponds - B2 (Business, General Distrist) ^— Streams RP (Residential Performance District) 6% Urban Development Area c SWSA i ' 0 757®9eet A¢�LK COGS O � Case Planner: Candice — - - - ...•• I VUIILyJUnvU[DU77UfvsurU IUZS UL-13UZJ.n1XCl) 2/13/2008 -- 1:42:02 PM APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Department of Planning and Development Use Only. Date application received Application # 1 - C ' Complete. Date of acceptance _ Incomplete. Date of return 1. Project Title: Lynnhaven Development of Channing Drive MDP - Public Use Addition 2. Owner's Name County School Board of Frederick County Virginia Taylor -Grace, LLC Lynnehaven, LLC (Please list name of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Phone Number: 540-662-4185 4. Design Greenway Engineering Company: Address: Same Phone Number: Same Contact Name: Evan Wyatt, AICP 5. Location of Property Adjoining Senseny Road to the north and Channing Drive to the west; approximately 3000 feet east of Greenwood Road 6. Total 87.1 acres Acreage: 7. Property Information a) Property Identification Number (PIN): b) Current Zoning: c) Present Use: d) Proposed Uses: e) Adjoining Property Information: North South East West Property Identification Numbers See attached table 0 Magisterial District: 55-A-206, 55 -A -206B RP Vacant Residential and Public Use Property Uses Red Bud 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original ❑ Amended I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. Signature: Date: + Ue, Special ]Limited Power of Attorney a County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) County School Board of Frederick County, Vir inia Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools (Phone) (540) 662-4518 (Address) PO Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property') conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 070019473 on Page 0466, and is described as Parcel: 55 Lot: 206B Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ® Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwiserescinded or modified. In witness there I (w )have ereto set my (our) hand and seal this t'day qf�.� �00Y_ Signature(s) �" State of Virginia, City/c.y ofTo-wit: 1, AJ61 fid a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this klt'day of.: , 200 a `fl Q --01TIMIS Notary Public ftleo >l� 1WER018 10 Adjoining Property Informatio, Master Development Plan for The Lynnehaven Development of Channing Drive Red Bud M: terial District, Frederick County, Va. Number Tax Map Number Owner Mailing Address City & State ZIP Zoning 1 55G 51 12 CHRISINGER TRAVIS R CHRISINGER DANIEL G 123 NASSAU DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 2 55G 51 11 KENTON ODIS W SR KENTON EMMA L 121 NASSAU DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 3 55G 51 10 BAKEY AMMAN ABDEL 119 NASSAU DR WINCHES1 'A 22602 RP 4 55G 51 9 CAINES ROBERT W 1BRUNETTI ROBERT L PO BOX 1383 ASHBURN VA 20146 RP 5 55G 51 8 HAWKINS ERIC C IHAWKINS GULAY 1115 NASSAU DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 6 55G 51 7 RADFORD DAVID W RADFORD ANN L 113 NASSAU DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 7 55G 51 6 DURAL SHERMAN J DURAL JULIA L 111 NASSAU DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 8 55G 51 5 TAYLOR REGINALD L TAYLOR CARLA 109 NASSAU DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 9 55G 51 4 SIGLER SUSAN D SIGLER WILLIAM W 107 NASSAU DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 10 55G 51 3 MORIN KEVIN S MORIN RHONDA M 105 NASSAU DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 11 55G 51 2 WRIGHT CHAD E WRIGHT OLGA C 103 NASSAU DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 12 55G 51 1 HICKS EDWARD JR HICKS CHARMAINE A 101 NASSAU DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 13 0 14 55G 52 30A FIELDSTONE TOWNHOME ASSOC. INC C/O PROPERTY MGMT PEOPLE INC 741 MILLER DR SE STE K1 TRACY MILLER LEESBURG VA 20175 RP 15 65H 14 23A MANNING & ROSS DEVELOPERS LLC P O BOX 27 WINCHESTER VA 22604 RP 16 55K 1 3 113E LYNNEHAVEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 142 N QUEEN ST #110 MARTINSBURG WV 25401 RP 17 55K 1 3 102 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 18 55K 1 3 103 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 19 55K 1 3 104 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 20 55K 1 3 105 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20192 RP 21 55K 1 3 106 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 22 55K 1 3 107 TAYLOR -GRACE LLC 36 RICKETTS DR WINCHESTER VA 22601 RP 23 55K 1 3 108 TAYLOR -GRACE LLC 36 RICKETTS DR WINCHESTER VA 22601 RP 24 55K 1 3 109 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 25 55K 1 3 110 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 26 55K 1 3 111 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 27 55K 1 3 112 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 28 55K 1 3 113 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 29 55K 1 3 100 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 30 55K 1 3 101 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR RESTON VA 20191 RP 31 65 A 39 MANNING & ROSS DEVELOPERS LLC PO BOX 27 WINCHESTER VA 22604 RPB2 32 65H 13A 25 TRAN HAI MINH NGUYEN TUYET-DIEM THI 604 FARMINGTON BLVD WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 33 65H 13A 26 CASTILLO FERNANDO PANTOJA TURNER MARY F 602 FARMINGTON BLVD WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 34 65H 13A 26C MANNING & ROSS DEVELOPERS LLC PO BOX 27 WINCHESTER VA 22604 RP 35 55K 1 1 24A LYNNHAVEN LC 0 RP 36 55K 11 1 SWISHER AARON SWISHER KRISTINE 502 FARMINGTON BLVD WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP Date: Feb. 11, 2008 1 of 2 Job No: 5048F Adjoining Property Informatioi Master Development Plan for The Lynnehaven Development of Channing Drive Red Bud Kk _ sterial District, Frederick County, Va. Number Tax Map Number Owner Mailing Address Citv & State ZIP Zoning 37 55K 1 1 2 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA INC 12220 SUNRISE VALLEY DR STE 400 RESTON VA 20191 RP 38 55K 1 1 19 UDDIN MOHAMMED G HAMID ANJUMAN A 410 FARMINGTON BLVD WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 39 I55K 1 2 36 IMARTINEZ MARIA GUADALUPE RAMOS 101 LYNNEHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 40 55K 1 2 37 AWADALLAH ALA 103 LYNNEHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 41 155K 12 38 LANG SCOTT MICHAEL 105 LYNNEHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 42 55K 1 2 39 VAN VLIET ROGER S VAN VLIET MAUREEN L 107 LYNNEHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 43 55K 1 2 40 ACKERMAN ROBERT C 109 LYNNEHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 44 55K 1 2 41 QASIMYAR ZOHRA 45531 LAKE HAVEN TER STERLING VA 20165 RP 45 55K 1 2 41A LYNNEHAVEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC C/O CLAGGETT MGMT 20 W THIRD ST FREDERICK MD 21701 RP 46 55K 1 2 51 SAGASTUME GUSTAVO SAGASTUME LORENDA 201 LYNNHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 47 55K 1 2 52 US BANK NATL ASSOC AS TRUSTEE C/O AMERICA'S SERVICING CO 3476 STATEVIEW BLVD FT MILL SC 29715 RP 48 55K 1 2 53 WIGHTMAN GARY E WIGHTMAN BETTY JEAN 205 LYNNHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 49 55K 1 2 54 MAGANA CRISTOBAL C MAGANA JACINTA 207 LYNNHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 50 55K 1 2 55 GOODE ROBERT GOODE CYNTHIA 211 LYNNHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 51 55K 1 2 56 CROISANT JUANA CROISANT JESSICA 213 LYNNHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 52 55K 1 2 61 EDGECOMB CHRISTOPHER J WATKINS KIMBERLY J 301 LYNNHAVEN DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 53 55K 1 2 61A LYNNEHAVEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 20B RICKETTS DR WINCHESTER VA 22601 RP 54 55K 1 2 60 STETZ EDMUND P STETZ PATRICIA A 311 WOODROW RD WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 55 551 1 4 187 PUGH REX A & VERONICA Y 9423 VICTORIA ST MANASSAS VA 20110 RP 56 551 1 4 188 ASSOCIATED INVESTMENTS CORPORATION 25 W MAIN ST BERRYVILLE VA 22611 RP 57 551 1 4 189 ARNOLD KELLY D 104 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 58 551 1 4 190 RAUCH ARTHUR G JR & JOYCE E 106 REBECCA DR WINCESTER VA 22602 RP 59 551 1 4 191 NEWMAN NATHAN A & KARIE L 125 DARBY DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 60 551 1 4 192 DOUBLE S ASSOCIATES LC 1616 WHITTIER AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601 RP 61 551 1 4 193 SPARACIO GIUSEPPA 112 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 62 551 1 4 194 RICE KEITH W & AMY L 114 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 63 551 1 4 195 KINGSBERRY STEPHANIE C 116 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 64 551 1 4 196 DIAZ MARIA J MOLINA KIRIAN Y DIAZ 118 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 65 551 1 4 197 BURKE DORIS E120 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 66 551 1 4 198 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK TRUSTEE a�s T '1111 POLARIS PKWY COLUMBUS OH 43240 RP 67 551 1 4 199 SZUMINSKI WALTER J & BONNIE M 124 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 68 551 1 4200 GRIM WILLIAM G & CYNTHIA D 126 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 69 551 1 4201 GRAVES ROBYN R 253 SOTHEBY CT WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP 70 551 1 4202 LOPEZ LUIS 130 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER VA 122602 RP 71 551 1 4203 WHIPKEY DAVID A & BETTY J 132 REBECCA DR WINCHESTER VA 22602 RP Date: Feb. 11, 2008 2 of 2 Job No: 5048F ' \/Lrkens'waY Q Adjoining Property Information MDP for The Lynnehaven Development !� � of Channing Drive L"InVrlc_Rc1_ 11'�*' IIN I171Legend Adjoining Properties 1 9 P Parcel Boundaries Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2007 Data 40 39 38 f 37 T 36 ��-�---I I kt2 4 V 1 8 10 3 12 14 70 71 5 7 13 E 6866 64t% 65 TM 55-A-206 62 22.4567 Acres 63 .� 67 Zoned: RP 60` 58 59 24 22 20 18 :21]] 9 .� 53 25 ;� r 55 ✓.s; .C! °t3 52 F 7 50 46 48 44 , F _ ` 42 43 rr�r, 141 �--0 �r26J 29 27 E30 51 28 49 TM 55-A-20613 15.2426 Acres Zoned: RP 47 451 TM 55 -A -206A 10.0 Acres Zoned: B2 3. �� 32 34 33 35 ✓,,. 31 16 -IVIHVRd W LU z w 2 } W E t. LIJ S LLJ 0 Ir ` EL Q w 31 J> z ZI—WC� `Gy a e 1` �h0� } W W /(�jR� VI) `ly LL W 0 W Z OwQQ cE > = T- 0- w w w U (r)0Zw V Z w J O — --Godwin-Gt- �` a Z I -- U) w Q Q �< w Z a- o U Q z O J zCO 2i w w C, M o a M0oc�>u_. Q ,�zoQ�� z>cDJ�o o a— Qz w z W z 0 0 w z< (D W t� a- Z = Q Y - wo o�G2UM O w o FO Z ~ p U N07 Feet z o w r 00 U -Ir m 500 250 0 500 1,000 0 o w J /',1 0 CO • C • COUN" Y of FREDERICK � T Department of Plam:ing and Development ����p�E1'V� 11'1�'��.��� �l P*� 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-631,15 TO - Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Discussion - Planning Commission Guiding Document Revisions Bylaws, Roles and Respoasibilities, and S;ab- comrnittee Restructuring DAT; E: February 20, 2008 In 2006, a Bylaws Committee was established and tasked with reviewing the Planning Commission's Bylaws, and the Roles and Responsibilities. This Committee considers the existing bylaws and other areas in which the operations of the Planning Commission may be enhanced. The Committee's recent discussions have resulted in a number of recommended minor revisions to the Bylaws and associated Roles and Responsibilities documents. These proposed revisions will be presented for an initial review by the Planning Commission during the March 5, 2008 regular meeting. As the Planning Commission's Bylaw state that the "bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice" (Bylaws, Section 9-1), no action will be expected during the March 5, 2008 meeting. As such, we will be utilizing the larch 5, 2008 meeting to notify the Commission of the intent to modify the Bylaws and the Roles and Responsibilities documents after a 30 day period. No action by the Commission is necessary at this time. This item will be scheduled for a second Planning Commission review, and action, during a future Commission meeting. The proposed revisions are summarized below-, the full documents with proposed revisions are attached. • Restructure of the PC subcommittees. • Clarification regarding weather cancellation of regularly scheduled PC meeting. • Establishment of a deadline by which revised proffers may be submitted for consideration by the PC. • Establishment of a 45 -day tabling time frame. • Expansion of the opportunity to utilize a staff briefing/work session. Please contact me should you have questions. ERL/bad Attachments: Planning Commission Bylaws (draft rev. 2-19-08) Roles and Responsibilities (draft rev 2-19-08) Proposed Alternative Structure of PC Subcommittees (rev. 2/3/08x) 197 North `dent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 '"LANNI.-NG COMMISSION BYLAWS County of Frederick, Virginia (rev, 07/14/06; adopted 08/03/06; adopted 01/03/07; rev. & adopted 112/08) (DRAFT REV. 2/19/08) ARTICLE I -AUTHORIZATION 1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section 15.2-2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Frederick County Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission." ART CLE I1- PURPOSE 2-1 The primary purpose of the Commission is to advise the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and to carry out all duties and functions described by the Code of Virginia, as amended. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP 3-1 The membership of the Commission shall be determined by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as specified in Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick Coun . 3-2 Within the first month of initial appointment, new Commissioner Appointees shall: 1) participate in an orientation to familiarize themselves with the operations of the Department and the Commission, and 2) meet with planning staff representatives in an effort to review and better understand specific agenda items prior to attending their first two (2) Planning Commission meetings. -1- ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS 4-1 Officers of the Commission shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The chairman and vice-chairman must be voting members of the Commission. The secretary shall be a member of the Commission or a county employee. 4-2 Selection 4-2-1 The officers shall be elected by the voting members of the Commission at the first meeting of the calendar year. 4-2-2 Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor. at the first meeting ^� b �he calendar yem. Elections of officers shall follow immediately. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire voting membership shall be declared elected, 4-3 Duties 4-3-1 The Chairman shall: 4-3-1-1 Preside at meetings. 4-3-1-2 Appoint committees. 4-3-1-3 Rule on procedural questions. A ruling on a procedural question by the chairman shall be subject to reversal by a two-thirds majority vote of the members present. 4-3-1-4 Report official communications. 4-3-1-5 Certify official documents involving the authority of the Commission. 4-3-1-6 Certify minutes as true and correct copies. 4-3-1-7 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission. 4-3-2 The Vice -Chairman shall: 4-3-2-1 Assume the full powers of the chairman in the absence or inability of the chairman to act. 4-3-2-2 When acting as Chair, the Vice Chairman shall carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission Chairman. -2- 4-3-3 The Secretary shall: 4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings. 4-3-3-2 Ensure that the minutes of all Commission meetings are recorded. 4-3-3-3 Notify members of all meetings. 4-3-34 Prepare agendas for all meetings. 4-3-3-5 Maintain files of all official Commission records and reports. Official records and reports may be purged in accordance with applicable state codes. 4-3-3-6 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public meetings. 4-3-3-7 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the Commission. 4-3-3-8 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and functions of the Commission. 4-4 Term of Office 4-4-1 Officers shall be elected for a one-year term or until a successor takes office. Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the Commission. In such cases, the newly elected officer shall serve only until the end of the calendar year or until a successor takes office. 4-5 Temporary Chairman 4-5-1 In the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from any meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members a temporary chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice- chairman. ARTICLE V - COMMITTEES 5-1 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose. 5-2 In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose for each committee. 5-3 Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman and will serve for a term of -3- one year. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or committee members on committee appointments. 5-4 Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or citizen volunteers. 5-5 The committees will elect a chairman and vice-chairman annually. These officers shall be current Commission members and should represent different Magisterial Districts, if possible. 5-6 The chairman and vice-chairman of the Planning Commission shall be ex -officio members of every committee. 5-7 The committees may operate as a committee of the whole or by executive committee with current and past Commission members serving as members of that committee. 5-8 The committees may establish standing subcommittees whose activities will be a specific annual responsibility of the parent committee. Two executive committee members will serve as co -liaison to the standing subcommittee and will assist staff in managing its activities. Membership will be comprised of past Commission members and citizens. Membership will be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee with concurrence by the Commission Chairman. 5-9 The committees may establish ad-hoc groups to assist in specific, carefully -defined tasks for a limited period of time. Important considerations for membership on the ad-hoc group are skills and experience necessary to assist in providing acceptable solutions. Membership will be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee with concurrence by the Commission Chairman. ARTICLE VI — COMMISSION MEETINGS 6-1 Regular meetings shall be held at t. e time and plaee set by the Cenifnission a� the fi ting of eaeh oa4e 4a yew. At the first meeting of each calendar year, the Commission shall fix the date, time, and place of all its regular meetings for the ensuing calendar year, and shall fix the day on which a regular meeting shall be continued should the Chairman later declare that weather or other conditions snake it hazardous for members to attend. 6-2 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and publication by the secretary. 6-3 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days before the meeting. 6-4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for Closed Sessions held -4- in accordance with the provision specified under Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia, 1950. as amended. 6-5 Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. ARTICLE VII - VOTING 7-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or motion made unless a quorum is present. 7-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting. ARTICLE MY - OPERA T INC- RILES 8-1 Order of Business for a regular meeting 8-1-1 Call to Order 8-1-2 Adoption of the Agenda 8-1-3 Consideration of Minutes 8-1-4 Committee Reports 8-1-5 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda 8-1-6 Public Hearings 8-1-7 Public Meetings 8-1-8 Planning Commission Discussion 8-1-9 Other 8-1-10 Adjournment 8-2 Minutes 8-2-1 The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting. The Chairman and Secretary shall sign all minutes following approval by the Commission certifying that the -5- minutes are true and correct. Minutes made available to the public prior to formal approval by the Commission shall be clearly identified as a draft version of the meeting. 8-3 Procedures 8-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures. 8-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite recommendation is made. If a motion has been made and defeated, additional, different motions may be made concerning the item under consideration. 8-3-3 The initial motion on an agenda item shall be made by a member representing the application's Magisterial District. If both District representatives are absent or decline to make the initial motion, then any other Commissioner may act. 8-3-4 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures: 8-3-4-1 Report by County Staff 8-3-4-2 Presentation by Applicant 8-3-4-3 Citizen Comment 8-3-4-4 RebtAlal by ^ ppli . r+ Applicant Response 8-3-4-5 Staff Summary 8-3-4-6 Discussion by Commission 8-3-4-7 Motion and Action by Commission 8-3-5 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the Chairman may allow public comment. 8-3-6 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information after the staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-7 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting may be made part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the Commission and are to be kept on file by the secretary. Such items need not be made part of the published minutes. 8-3-8 Public Hearings 8-3-8-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which hearings are required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or by the Code of Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and notifications provided as required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 8-3-8-2 The Chairman may establish special rules for any public hearing at the beginning of said hearing. These rules may include limitations on the time of staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-8-3 In addition to those required by law, the Commission may hold public hearings on any matter which it deems to be in the public interest. In such cases, the public hearings shall follow all procedures described for public hearing in these bylaws. 8-3-8-4 The 90 -day period (Section 165-10 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance) for the Planning Commission to make a rezoning recommendation to the Board will start at the date of the first completed public hearing. 8-3-9 Tabling 8-3-9-1 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to table agenda items 45 days (less if reaching the limits of Section 165-10) if for any one of the following: s: Ons 066U Sit A) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. B) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Frederick County. C) Insufficient information has been provided for the agenda item. D) Revised proffers have been received from the applicant within twenty-one (21) days of the advertised Planning Commission meeting. E) Issues or concerns that arise during formal discussion of the agenda item warrant additional information or study. E) The applicant provides the Frederick County Planning Department with a written request to table the agenda item. -7- F) The Frederick County Planning Department is advised of an emergency situation that prevents attendance by the applicant. G) The applicant fails to appear at the meeting in which the application has been advertised to appear. 8-3-9-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from a scheduled Planning Commission meeting one time. The Planning Commission shall table the application for a speci_file period of time to ensure that the requirements of Section 165-10 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are not exceeded unless the applicant requests a waiver from this requirement. 8-3-9-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall be re -advertised for consideration by the Planning Commission once the following steps have been completed: A) The applicant has requested in writing that the agenda item be considered by the Planning Commission. B) The applicant has provided all required information to the Frederick County Planning Department which addresses all concerns of the Planning Commission. 3 8 4 The Planning Commission shall have the authefity to act an an agenda 4em that has been tabled one time when agenda8 the 1. t4 Planning CommissionComissiori 8-3-10 Work sessions 8-3-10-1 The Commission may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of these bylaws shall not apply. 8-3-10-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. 8-3-10-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at least five days before the session. 8-3-10-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and discussion. 8-3-10-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session. 8-3-10-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required at a work session. 8-3-10-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all work sessions and the items discussed. 8-3-11 Adjournment 8-3-11-1 In no case shall the Commission consider any new items after 10:30 P.M. and in all cases the Commission shall adjourn by 11:00 P.M. A i m L 7 1 _, +, F+L__+;_+' h y-� These bylaws may be a���ended by a ���a�orit<y voL%, o� the nt-ie voting ���e��� ers"Ip after thirty days prior notice at any time during the calendar year. 9-2 Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of these bylaws in November of each calendar year to ensure their accuracy. 9-3 At the first meeting of the calendar year the 13y -Laws will be adopted. IKIZ FM=DEVRICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1-ZOLE S AND RESPONSIBILITIES (rev. 7-14-06, adopted 8-3-06) DRAFT REVISION 2-19-08 This document has been prepared to assist Frederick County Planning Commissioners in understanding what their role and responsibilities are in the myriad of activities that they accept as a member of the Planning Commission. This compilation is a companion document to the Commission's By -Laws. APPLICATION COMMUNICATIONS There are three primary sources of information gathered by and weighed by the Planning Commission in order to make quality planning recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. They are ex -parte communications, staff reports and public input. Ex -Parte Communications: Individual meetings between Commissioners and an applicant/developer regarding a specific application shall follow the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. During this discussion or at any other time prior to action taken by the Commission on the application, a Planning Commissioner should make no commitments or endorsements. Any new written materials provided by the applicant to any one Commissioner shall be made available to all commissioners and staff by the applicant prior to the application appearing on the agenda. To not do so may result in the application being tabled at the Planning Commission public hearing. Staff Application Briefings/Work Sessions.- Prior essions: Prior to a the first public hearing being held, staff will hold a briefing for the Planning Commissioners, with an invitation extended to the Board of Supervisors to participate, regarding any application deemed sufficiently complicated / controversial to warrant detailed explanation. The purpose is to appraise the Commissioners regarding the details of the application, both those items that meet the ordinance and those that do not. This provides the opportunity for the Commissioners to have a common understanding of the application prior to the public hearing. The decision to hold a briefing on a specific application will be made jointly by the Director of Planning and the Chairman of the Planning Page 1 of 4 Commission. In addition to complexity, the application shall be basically complete prior to scheduling the briefing. The Planning Commission may request a work session for an application which, after the first public hearing is concluded, is subsequently tabled. The purpose of the work session is to discuss amongst each other and with staff details of the application, any revised proffers provided or anticipated by the applicant, and other improvements which could be made to the application. For either a briefing or a work session- -The applicant may attend, but will not have an active role in the briefing The briefing will folio , _The format of a Planning Commission work session as identified in paragraph x-3-9 8-3-10 of the Commission's By - Laws will be used. -In no case will the-SGhedUFinn of the staff briefingchange the legal timeline for consideration before the Planning Commission be changed.bef„re aGtinn is taken Public Hearing/Meeting: Efficient and effective public hearings are an essential part of enabling the Commission to make reasoned recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Every attempt will be made to obtain focused and broad representation of opinion or information from the public. When possible specific time limitations will not be used. However, both rules of order as well as time constraints most appropriate for the specific application will be implemented when there is either large interest in or controversy regarding an application. One constant during this process on both the part of the public, the applicant and the Commission itself is civility and respect for information offered or a differing opinion. Deviation from this behavior is unacceptable. COMMISSIONER DEVELOPMENT: Each Commissioner shall be committed to preparing for and keeping knowledge current in order to do the most effective job for the community. Page 2 of 4 New initial appointees should strive to obtain Planning Commissioner certification from an acceptable training program within the first year of appointment. This training is supported by the Planning Department budget Further continuing education through many offerings should be pursued and will be supported by the Planning budget as possible. These opportunities should be shared amongst the number of Commissioners who are serving. Examples include CPEAV's annual meeting, other special offerings as well as the American Planning Association's readings and meetings. A library is maintained by the Planning office. COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE Commissioners are expected to participate in 80% of the regularly scheduled meetings per year. Members who cannot attend a meeting due to illness, business, other governmental or family reasons should attempt to notify the Commission Chairman and/or staff Administrative Assistant prior to the scheduled meeting in order for the absence to be noted. It may affect quorum considerations. Especially essential is preparation and readiness for each of the Commission's meetings in order to use not only the Commission's but the staff's and public's time wisely. COMMISSION COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: Appointments to a Commission committee or liaison assignments are made by the Chairman and shared by the membership. Generally, they involve a once per month meeting. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Each Commissioner needs to be familiar with Commonwealth of Virginia information on conflict of interest. If a Commissioner is unsure if there is conflict, the Commonwealth's Attorney is the correct resource. Upon determination that there is or might be perceived to be a conflict, the Commissioner should state immediately after the agenda item is read that recusal action is necessary (with, preferably, stating the reason) then step down from the dais until the item is concluded. Page 3 of 4 PUBLIC REPRESENTATION: Commissioners are citizens, too. If there is an item before another p ublin body a public item that is of interest, the Commissioner should participate, but not identify themselves as members of the Frederick County Planning Commission unless acting in an official capacity and directed to do so. Implied endorsements by the Commission should be avoided. Page 4 of 4 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE OF PC SUBCOMMITTEES (draft 1/23/08, rev.2/3/08a) BACKGROUND: Our two major subcommittees, Comprehensive Policy and Plans (CPPS) and Development Regulation and Review (DRRS) are comprised of both citizen and Planning Commission members. They are appointed by the Chair of the Commission for annual terms. Each citizen member is personally contacted to assess interest in continuing service, including retired planning commissioners. Each current planning commissioner is expected to serve on one or the other of these two committees. The Chair and Vice Chair serve as ex -officio members of both. CURRENT STATU There exists a continuing high level of interest on the part of citizen members to serve which is a positive. The result has been larger committees as need for skills in the membership changes. However, as the size of the planning workload increases, these larger committees are continuing to work as a whole, rendering them less effective in accomplishing the needs of the Planning Commission and the County. It is simply more difficult to get through the workload. Beginning in 2006 and growing in 2007, one solution was to establish small task forces based on specific, limited projects (i.e., UDA revision, NAICS/SIC conversion, Sign Ordinance revision, UDA B-2 second story residence ordinance, etc.) The task forces (or ad hoc) sought specific skills of their citizen members to deal with the subject matter (appointed by Subcommittee Chair/Commission Chair). These have worked well, and have been an opportunity to get projects completed, with volunteers being able to commit to something that is not an extended time requirement. The Task Force concept is in our current By -Laws. CONCEPT: Goal: Help relieve staff of some of the workload, engage citizen members with particular expertise more directly related to the special projects, and establish an executive structure that has the responsibility for collaborating with staff in directing the work of the committee, as well as decision making regarding the recommendations of the subcommittees and task forces. Structure: 1. Executive committee of current and former planning commissioners. 2. Standing committees to be made up of former planning commissioners -and citizens, with two liaisons from the executive committee to be a conduit back to executive committee and to guide ongoing work (see example below). 3. Ad hoc task forces or work groups established as appropriate to work on time limited, specific projects. (This is already permitted in By -Laws.) EXAMPLE: CPPS is the largest subcommittee with six current Commissioners, four retired Commissioners; and six citizen members (16 total). Because of additional citizen interest and CPPS input needed, there are five likely new citizen members to be added. The CPPS annual workload includes activities in the following areas which could well be the responsibilities and titles for the CPPS standing committees: 1. Public facilities (schools and Sanitation Authority currently on CPPS, with Parks, Libraries, and Public Works to be added) 2. Comprehensive plan update 3. Small Area Plans (suggest dropping or changing the "small") MEETING SCHEDU The current schedule is a monthly meeting of the total committee. That could be the same schedule for the new structure except that the meeting would be only for the executive committee. The meeting's purpose would be to manage CPPS' workload in consultation with staff, get recommendations from subcommittees and task forces, and make recommendations for full PC action. Citizen members may attend the monthly CPPS meeting, but would not be required. The subcommittees would meet on their own schedule as Task Forces do. The executive committee liaisons would manage each subcommittee's work. They would note discussion and actions recommended as a record. IMPLEMENTATION: The purpose of this proposal is to help relieve staff, engage citizenry better, and manage the committees' workloads. This goal needs to be tested regarding its effectiveness within this proposed structure. It seems easier to identify potential standing subcommittees for CPPS because a good portion of its area of responsibility occurs each year. Perhaps it would be advisable to start with CPPS to test the restructure out. For DRRS, using task forces has been effective. However, looking at the 2007 (and years previous) goal list for DRRS, one sees the overhaul of both the zoning and subdivision—major large tasks still before us. And with CPPS revising portions of the comp plan annually, zoning ordinance changes (an example currently are TND ordinances as a result of the UDA revisions) only fall further and further behind. Using TND ordinances changes again as an example, those changes could be accomplished by a task force, but it will likely take a standing subcommittee to oversee the full revision until it is done. A few changes to the By -Laws would be in order. • i • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors Frederick County Planning Cormnission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director�/� SUBJECT: 2008 Planning Commission Retreat Summary DATE: February 20, 2008 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Thank you for participating in the 2008 Planning Commission Retreat on February 9, 2008 at the new Frederick County Public Safety Building. It was certainly a productive day of strategic planning and interaction, and staff appreciates your participation. As a follow-up to the day, staff has created a summary of the topics and associated discussions (see the attachments), as well as identified the major planning projects for 2008. In reviewing the day's discussions, as well as input staff has received since the day of the Retreat; the Planning staff is prepared to move forward on the following projects during the next year: 2008 Planning Projects • Revisiting the transportation and land use components of the North East Land Use Plan (a.k.a. NELUP); • Corrections to the UDA in the vicinity of the Stonewall Industrial Park; • Revisiting the Corridor Land Use Plans — Linking land use and transportation within existing business corridor plans (Rt. 11 North, Rt. 7, Rt. 50 East, Rt. 522 South, Rt. 11 South) [anticipated to be a multi-year undertaking]; • Proposed Warehouse/Distribution facility size limitations; • Age -Restricted Multi -Family Housing ordinance; • Parking requirements and surface treatments; • Route 11 North Transportation funding source identification; • Evaluation of Standards / Expectations / Timing for Transportation in C&I Rezonings; and, • Review and update the Eastern Road Plan 107 North Rent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22501-5000 Staff is preparing the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Study for a series of community meeting presentations in March; the public comments we receive will be addressed and incorporated, as possible, and a report will be prepared for discussions with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. We would ant c pate a product that is acceptable for a public hearing process by Suminer 08. With the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Study moving forward through a community meeting/public comment period, staff is prepared to initiate preliminary data gathering and analysis on the next land use study to be undertaken. Based on suggestions received at the Retreat, the next land use study to be undertaken by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) would be a review of the transportation and land use components of the North East Land Use Plan (NELUP). Recognizing the importance of preserving our planned/zoned C&I lands for use by attractive businesses sought by the community, the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) will immediately consider ordinance amendments that support manufacturing and high technology uses, and discourage warehouse/distribution uses. In 2008, the DRRS will also consider amendments which address age -restricted housing, in terms of appropriate density and locations (RP application), as well as retirement communities (MS application). The DRRS will also work towards drafting the appropriate ordinance amendments to incorporate the Urban Center and Neighborhood Village policies. The Planning staff is prepared to tackle these various planning projects, furthering the County's planning initiatives, and accommodating our community's interests. Please contact staff should you have additional projects that you feel warrant incorporation into the County's planning efforts for 2008. Additionally, please contact us should you feel that any of these projects might not warrant the attention we are prepared to provide. Thank you again for participating in the annual Planning Commission Retreat, and guiding the County's plaiming efforts and work program for 2008. Attachment: 2008 Retreat Summary ERL/bad 2 2008 Plannin,- Commission Retreat 2003 Fredrick County Planning Commission Annual Retreat Mee-ing Summary Notes Public Sal<ey Building Winchester, VA Saturday, February 9, 2008 Meetha2 Attendees: Planning Commissioners Present: June Wilmot, Chairman, Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman, Opequon District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Greg Unger, Back Creek District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Rick C. Ours, Opequon District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Christopher Mohn, Red Bud District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manual, Shawnee District; Gary R. Oats, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; John Light, Stonewall District Board of Supervisors Present: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman; Gary W. Dove, Gainesboro District; Bill M. Ewing, Opequon District; Gene E. Fisher, Shawnee District; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District; Philip A. Lemieux, Red Bud District County Administration Present: Jolm R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator Frederick County School Board Present: Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools; Al Orndoff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration; Kenneth W. Lee, Coordinator of Planning and Development Other Guests/Attendees: Patrick Barker, Economic Development Commission; Planning Staff Present: Eric Lawrence, Director; Mike Ruddy, Deputy Director -Land Use; John Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; Candice Perkins, Senior Planner; Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Amber Powers, Planning Technician; Angela Crone, Planning Technician; Dana Johnston, Zoning Inspector; Alex Gray, GIS Analyst Meetinp, Summary Motes- February 9, 2008 2008 Planning Commission Retreat Aze Restricted Mniti-Family, Housing Draft ®rdiivance Work Session Summary on June 4, 2007 - Presentation of the Draft Ordinance: By -right in the RP District within proffered age -restricted developments 0 Allowance of greater heights ® 1.5 parking spaces per unit Increased side and rear setbacks Increased landscaping • No restrictions on number of floors Discussion Issues and Concerns: © Elevators are necessary - concerns with physical capability • Fire and Rescue Codes need to be addressed to ensure safety • Greater setbacks needed - determined either by height or density multiplicative factors ® Need to ensure that the increased height allowances are compatible with adjacent properties; want to avoid a backyard nuisance ® Should be a case by case consideration - approval with a conditional use permit? ® Infill development would be more disruptive - new construction should instead take place in open areas ® Should appropriate locations be predetermined through the creation of sub - districts? ® Considering liability, would this type of housing be economically beneficial for the County Conclusions: • The demand for the housing type is present but current proposal doesn't address concerns. The proposal should return to DRRS; an ordinance should be crafted to protect adjacent residences. Meeting Summary Notes- February 9, 2008 2008 Planninz Commission Retreat Limitations an Warehouse/Distribution Facilities Draft Ordinance Potential There is need to accommodate commercial and industrial facilities with the assurance that transportation is supported and protected, and that doesn't use up commercial and industrial land resource for low revenue generating ones. e Recent proffer submission language: No warehouse or distribution facility greater than 200, 000 square feet shall be constructed on the property ® Possible ordinance amendment language as a performance standard: "Warehouse and distribution facilities shall be limited to 200, 000 square feet. Larger facilities may be permitted if a waiver to the maximum square footage is granted by the Board of Supervisors, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission. " Discussion Issues and Concerns: o Desire to know the impact-economic/transportation - of those facilities under 200,000 square feet • Higher square footage decreases overall revenue - to determine the maximum square footage a relationship between area and revenue should be considered o Transportation Impacts: trips per day, corridor compatibility; however the issue is less about transportation and more about the value of the user to the County • Allowing Warehousing/Distribution as a use is not beneficial because there is little return; limitations should be set to preclude those uses that are unwanted • Potential overbuild in the industry is of a concern to the County Conclusions: The concern is present but more research needs to be done to determine maximum area. The issue should be taken to DRRS for discussion and ordinance drafting. 1bleetina Summary Notes- February 9, 2008 2008 Planning Commission Retreat tand,�_rds, Expectations and Tiraing for Transportation in C&I Rezonings Proffers Expectations Issues: o C&I is needed to offset costs of residential need for services • How much is too much? o Currently staff pushes for full implementation of the Eastern Road Plan and mitigation of any other impacts. Is this what is expected/wanted by the leadership • What is plan B? o In the current situation, the County cannot get a sufficient level of proffer commitment from a C & I rezoning. o Who will address these deficiencies in the current and expected transportation finance situation? o State rules are constantly changing which leaves little time for the County to adjust o State funds are not adequate Road designs should be versatile and able to support future growth. Urban road standards are preferred: • Environmental: o According to local experts our geology is not well suited to ditch sections due to minimal filtration of runoff before entering waterways and drinking water sources; Curb and gutter and best management practices are a preferred combination. • Long tern maintenance costs: o Many localities around the country are in the process of spending local dollars to upgrade their rural sections to urban sections largely due to ongoing maintenance costs and issues associated with ditch sections • Safety and Aesthetics: o Urban sections create a safer roadway due to the barrier created by the curb, and a more polished well kept environment which can enhance property values • Right -of -Way limitations; o In terms of right-of-way needed urban sections can move more traffic in less space, when considering rural sections in place of a planned urban section this needs to be kept in mind Discussion Issues and Concerns: • Need to assume worst case scenario if a specific use is not proposed • Expectations should be set from the beginning to develop consistency; it's appropriate that County expectations be set high • What about development that may not reach build out conditions for another 20 years? Need to determine expectations concerning phasing • VDOT and Staff recommendations do not always coincide - VDOT goals are to address immediate problems while the County projects to the future Meeting Summary Notes- February 9, 2008 2008 Plannint- Coinmission Retreat • Levels of Service (LOS) should be addressed before an application is considered - no development approval until the LOS is acceptable • If Staff is overall unsatisfied with an application or an application is tabled perhaps a work session should be called to discuss the problems • Last minute proffer changes should be disallowed to ensure adequate time for their consideration but there is also concern about restricting opportunities Conclusions: • Levels of Service need to be addressed before any development is approved. • County transportation should take precedence over VDOT. Meeting Summary Notes- February 9, 2008 2008 Plannhng Commission Retreat Route 11 forth Area Transportation Scenario The Project: Create a transportation plan for the Route I 1 North area that will provide specific expectations for what each property should proffer. o Accuracy - need to be extremely conservative due to the inability to predict accurate future land uses o Trip Generation - reliant on trip generation predictions to create a defensible expected contribution o Timing - project inflation for projections and implementation, some level of bonding or phasing would need to be considered as part of the package ® What are the Next Steps before getting into the $$$? o Realize that we need more than just the Route 11 corridor to serve the area and create a skeleton transportation system to serve the geography o Update of the Northeast Land Use Plan with that skeleton as its base o Model the transportation system based upon planned land uses to determine needed roadway sections and intersection details Discussion Concerns and Issues: Consideration of worst case scenario when there is no proffered use P Must focus on use and trips per day - not parcel size based Unfair to make certain projects pay more than their share or to be obligated to fix past problems There is a need to be consistent with expectations and decision making Route 11 is a good starting point to address the issues but other areas must also be kept in mind ■ Difficult for the applicant to proffer due to the lack of control of the ROW Impact fees and levels of service fees should be considered Conclusions a Route 11 should be the next Land Use Study (after 277). Meeting Summary Notes- 1+ehruary 9, 2008 2008 Rlanninga Commission Retreat Access Management/Right In -Right Out • What is the Purpose of Access Management? o Access management is about the safety and efficient travel of the public at large, not about creating additional access for adequately served parcels o Improves safety due to reduction of left turn movements and channelization of traffic (according to FHWA approximately 74% of driveway accidents involve left turn movements) o Increases roadway capacity when compared to a full entrance • When are Right-in/Right-outs Appropriate? o When side road or interparcel connection cannot be made, particularly on arterial roadways o To improve roadway safety by reducing from a full entrance to a right -in right -out o When appropriate turn tapers and radii can be accommodated and when median control is present (can be placed where there is no median control IF designed correctly) • When are Right -in / Right -outs NOT Appropriate? o To add additional access to parcels that already have reasonable access via interparcel connection or side road connection o When proper design cannot be accommodated o Within functional area of intersection Discussion Issues and Concerns: • Is it appropriate that the only entrance be a right in -right out? YES • The appropriate entrances are location driven/site specific Conclusion All parcels should be given equal consideration; no parcel should be allowed special, inefficient entry allowances Meeting Summary Dotes- February 9, 2008 2008 Planning Commission Retreat Acceptab!e: Unacceptable: Meeting Summary Notes- February 9, 2008 2008 Penning C)naniissi®n Retreat Route 277 Land Use Study to Three Main Components: o Future Land Use o Transportation o Community Facilities, Natural and Recreational Resources, and Trails • Promotes five main areas of new land use: o the Route 277 Urban Center o the Route 277 Triangle; Center of Economy o Interstate Commercial @ 307 o Neighborhood Commercial @ White Oak Woods, o and Tasker Woods • Transportation Network Enhancements o Potential South Frederick Parkway o Relocation of 277: Alt 1 vs. Alt 2 o Enhanced Major and Minor Collector Road Network o Access Management o Context Sensitive Street Design o Traffic Calming (Schools and Parks) o Pedestrian and Bicycle Integration • Community Facilities, Natural, Historical, and Recreational Resources o Schools o Parks o Fire and Rescue and Community Facility o Historic Resources o Greenways and Trails • Time for Public Hearing?? Discussion Issues and Concerns: • Concern about traffic utilizing Warrior Drive when new intersection is built • Problem with transportation around school and park is controllable through design standards • Important to ensure that not all residential takes place before commercial and industrial • Rezonings will be the major support for the relocation of 277 • Relocation of 277: Alt 1-277 connection straight to 522 -favored Conclusion: • Relocation of 277 Alternative 1 would best serve the area. • Study is ready to go to community meeting, followed with a report to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors regarding citizen comments. Then on to public hearing if a forward motion on the continents received through community meeting process. Meeting Summary Notes- February 9, 2008 2008 Planning Commission Retreat Preferred Road Alignment: Meeting Summary Notes- PebruaLy 9, 2008 Route 277 Triangle & tTrban Center Studer Proposed Translaoi-tation c'� Trail Network -Aft Y as 'mak 522`.' I ems'"+► f S � - � 77" andoah Meeting Summary Notes- PebruaLy 9, 2008 2008 Planning Commission Retreat 1VIeetgnj4 Summary Notes- February 9, 2008 2008 Pdannin Commissi®n -Retreat j Route 277 "friang➢e & f tTrban Center Stud` I ''" Proposed Transportatioa c1c T�`�t Trail Network of k - LH 1 yj F ♦ liiry; 1t F vd dcta o ♦4 4.Gu1�i31 � J`� - ♦♦' Park it ij a Abad-nma t Ilk � ♦ Iii {. 522. EdF • i •��it 2n 41, �L». ,..�.•_u.:i Forest Lake. '♦• - RN , Mates ' �yN.i• aaVM .,x.ui � nr�uir..o�ia� SheriandOah 0 O.tlS Ol5 Q5 MOes 0 w� ave'�eE . n• .. N . Mectina Summary Nates- February 9, 2008 2008 fdanning Commission Retreat , &R-2. oMs { �i � � y ri � � Fores`t L�ake�j'� i��r � Estates Meeting Summary Notes- February 99 2008 2008 Planning Commission Retreat Meeting Summary Notes- February 9, 2008 LEI 7 2008 Planning Commission ;{retreat 277 Triangle The mmusraj i Park` Cedar Meadows ~ v `b+.. And i I Rural Community ` Cerner is o4 I "y t 522, 77 Y est`Lake Shenandoah Meeting Summary Notes- February 9, 2008 2008 Planning Commissi®n Retreat comm e rc ail 4 Meeting Summary Notes- February 9, 2008 e Southern WIS f:= -' 4'Caach x4_ Meeting Summary Notes- February 9, 2008 2008 Planning Commission Retreat i ". t f� F• v ! 4 " v. 6;v# ` ♦ 1 s v w♦ R� y f s ��tr .A • d � � � ` i r r- 1 h�.. ..""`my"d:•... 9 f i r w i .. ,. L Y C'1 $' r J r t Meeting Summary Notes- lF'ebraary 99 2008 2008 Pl nnigg Commission Retreat Woods � / 7 > ±2 - • !� : r k� ! wa c� �� 66, ». � - •� Meeting Summary Notes- February 9,2008 00 cz O N Route 277 Triangle & t -baii Center Stud `rf ,f t COFnl➢2U911tV FaCilitlei !' l'J ,.., �.�• � d' � � � _ ` r� it . ti fi.,•p„s.. - •`” ......�� - Tasker Natural L� �' % �� fl r .J�Pr � �.,. � ima ��� Wands ! r`� ♦� Recreational Resources& Trails M. M. ' �r »,, Eastgate �'••, "FredaidctotrrYe / 4 e`,, Pari `"w it / s{f Cedar j kind Real NM w. c Exit / y - The ` /'TP 307 Meadows 1 •• , _'ti, Mradawls _ � f rf ��� ��vf'°��C d'%-` � 14'�'a i• k �J , , " ""w.�_♦ i , r ei {5221 �' r a , Edd Se { a sx;:t ,':�.,-„� _• ,' �' '�y+�. 9 cif s �, 'Y�.,ns„„ � :.sir r ? �< Jd1lth@ll '\,awn ,ww.r.a Sf--.rp.Y9L 3 �'- d •i "t7k � - �. fin HBIs a n w t$ �, a *� ' ."- °• wy Ny ag 3 �ormire{ Diar�ct � �i RT277Aea Faclfes FY owes1i Potent RT277 TransPortatim.. ��." •: = Forest Lake :. M1+ • '♦4a '. _ I'277 — r'' pE Ekln.l4r, I.vl-0 al L4 'YrkY F x, G!r.,jla.l mot- rnxfE J f.x Ex Estates- IM�- NAII IrGI H4JI..�i�P1E,lixt pl ....—. FI••.111FIr /♦dl4a plot �'>IF.t� - '6d0' - - - u _ Mys l.a'�c� F b Pall, .-. P V.•a4rI E�[3, t I.ilJx - .,�' E�.y fI..P [vl+'..'iM:l K P 1 f rlrc.:.rFl P>rlfll:•rtll4i. ..n,l O • Shenandoah .- � 0.125 0.25 0.5 I�.IlES ..4 -_