HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 12-05-07 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNT' PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
December 5, 2007
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) October 3, 2007 Minutes and October 17, 2007 Minutes ................................................ (A)
3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Conditional Use Permit #06-07 for Mundy Sand, LLC, submitted by Benjamin M. Butler,
Esquire, for a Sand Mine Operation. This property is located near Brill Road (Route 603) and
Gravel Springs, along the eastern foot of Paddy Mountain, and is identified with Property
Identification Number 69-A-7 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (B)
PUBLIC MEETING
6) Master Development Plan #11-07 for Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust &
Associates, PC, for 30 Single Family Detached homes. The properties are located south and
adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673) approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection
of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 603), and are identified with Property
Identification Numbers 43 -A -15B, 43-19-57 and 43-A-16 in the Stonewall Magisterial
District.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (C)
7) Master Development Plan 413-07 for Winchester Gateway, submitted by Greenway
Engineering for Commercial Uses on 74.42 acres of land in the Stonewall Magisterial
District. The properties are located on Route 7 at Getty Lane and contain the new Martin's
Grocery Store and various other shops.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
8) Draft Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Mr. Ruddy .....................
FILE COPY
..... (E)
9) Sign Ordinance Amendments — Article IV Supplementary Use Regulations, §165-30
Signs; Article XXII Definitions and Zoning District Use Regulations.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (F)
10) Other
C7
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 October 3, 2007.
PRESENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chalmlan/Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District;
Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud
District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District;
Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of
Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: June M. Wilmot, Chainnan/ShaNNnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and Cordell
Watt, Back Creek District.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation;
Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Lauren Krempa, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Vice Chairman Thomas called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by
Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Conunissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the
agenda for this evening's meeting.
MEETING MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the nninutes
of September 5, 2007 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Relzulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 09/27/07 Mtg.
Vice Chairman Thomas reported that the DRRS continued their discussions on the conversion of
SIC Code classifications in the Zoning Ordinance to the NAISC Code classifications. He said the DRRS studied
and agreed upon the B2 Districts and is now ready to move on to other areas.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Page 2118
Minutes of October 3, 2007
11111
��JJ�uA
,0
-2 -
Sign Ordinance Working Group —10/02/07 Mtg.
Corrunissioner Unger reported that the Sign Ordinance Working Group has been meeting every
Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. He reported that the working group talked about the nrunber of signs allowed to be posted
on a particular property and this issue raised some controversy. Commissioner Unger said questions were raised
about the size of posted signs and areas where more than eight businesses are located in one park. He said
allowing a larger sign for these particular locations was proposed, to enable visibility from the road.
Commissioner Unger said sign heights were also discussed and the conclusion reached was that signs may be at
least 25 feet high on B2 -zoned properties; however, the issue still caused controversy because of topography. A
proposal was made for sign heights to be measured at the property entrance, so the sign wouldn't be too low.
Transportation Committee — 09/24/07 Mtg.
Conunissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Connnuttee discussed and took action on six
items: 1) The Enhancement Grant application for Senseny Road was sent forward to the Board of Supervisors
with a recommendation for submittal. This grant, in the amowit of $1,517,600, has a local match component of
20%; however, the application process does not obligate the County. Conunissioner Kriz provided further
explanation about the grant to the Commission. 2) The 2007 Capital Improvement Program was sent forward
with a recommendation for approval. CommissionerKriz noted that the list of transportation projects is the same
as last year with the addition of the Exit 307 relocation. 3) No work was done on Access Management because
the VDOT version will not be available until October 2, 2007. Public continents on the VDOT version will be
received on October 22, 2007. 4) The CPPS's Route 277 Triangle Study was mentioned and a member of the
Transportation Committee will be included in this working group. 5) The Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) Activity Update was included in the agenda materials, but not discussed. 6) There was discussion about
the need for some ordinance changes regarding entrance spacing and inter -parcel connectors to assist the Planning
Department and the Planning Commission before the Access Management Plan is completed; this request will be
sent to the Board of Supervisors for their reconunendations.
Conservation Easement Authority (CEA)
Conunissioner Light reported that the CEA is having a fund-raising event at the Museum of the
Shenandoah Valley on October 27, 2007 for the education and promotion of the conservation of rural lands in
Frederick County.
CTIZEN COMMENTS
Vice Chairman Thomas called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's
agenda. No one came forward to speak.
Frederick County Planning Commission M
Yage 2-1 l
Minutes of October 3, 20076' F T
-3 -
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit 907-07 of Florence Heflin for an Adult Care Residence at 215 Stafford Drive
(Route 1226). The property is identified with P.I.N. 54E -4-B2 in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Action — Reconunended Approval With Conditions
Planner Lauren Krempa reported that the proposed conditional use application is for an adult
care facility which will take place within the existing structure at 115 Stafford Drive. Ms. Krempa stated that the
property is zoned RP (Residential Perfomlance) and convalescent and nursing homes, adult -care residences, and
assisted living care facilities are permitted in this zoning district with an approved conditional use permit (CUP).
She said the applicant is requesting the ability to operate a small-scale adult care residence consisting of one or
two adults at a time. Ms. Krempa said that based on the review agency comments from the Building Official, the
staff believes up to five care recipients at one time would be appropriate, provided there is no more than one
recipient per bedroom. She noted the Sanitation Authority has made no continents regarding any increased usage
of public facilities that would occur as a result of this business.
Ms. Krempa said that in an effort to prevent any negative impacts to the surrounding properties,
the staff is recormnending limiting the hours of visitation to between 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. In addition, staff is
recommending that all vehicles should be parked on the 115 Stafford Drive property, due to the narrow streets m"
the Frederick Heights subdivision. She said the applicant has ample driveway and garage space to accommodate
this condition. Ms. Krempa added that the applicant does not intend to employ any additional nursing or care
staff to assist with this business; therefore, staff feels the prohibition of any additional employees on the property
further protects the surrounding property owners from the impacts of the business. Ms. Krempa next read the list
of reconunended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate.
Ms. Jeanette Heflin and Ms. Florence Heflin, the property owners and applicants, were available
to answer questions from the Connmission.
Vice Chairman Thomas asked the applicants if they understood all of the conditions presented by
the staff. The Heflins replied that they did.
Vice Chairman Thomas called for public continents. No one came forward and Vice Chairman
Thomas closed the public continent portion of the hearing.
Continissioner Unger questioned the wording of recommended Condition #5, noting it implied no
one was allowed on the property, other than the residents of 215 Stafford Drive. Ms. Krempa said the condition
is intended to mean the applicants will not hire any outside help. Ms. Krempa said that both applicants are nurses
and they did not feel any outside help would be necessary.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kerr and seconded by Cominissioner Mohn,
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit 407-07 of Florence Heflin for an adult care residence at 215 Stafford Drive
(Route 1226) in the Red Bud Magisterial District, with the following conditions:
Frederick County Planning Commission, Page 2120
Minutes of October 3, 2007 11
QM
The adult care residence facility shall take place entirely inside the existing residential dwelling, located at
215 Stafford Drive.
2. No rnore titan five occupants shall be allowed on the property for the_, purpose of the adult care residence at
any time. There shall be no more than one care -receiving occupant per bedroom.
3. No signs shall be posted on the property advertising the adult care residence.
4. Visiting hours for the adult care residence shall be limited to between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 9:00
p.m. All visitor vehicles should be parked on the property of 215 Stafford Drive.
No employees, other than residents of 215 Stafford Drive, are pennitted on the property.
6. One business vehicle shall be permitted on the property for the transport of occupants.
7. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use pen -nit.
(Note: Conw-iissioners Watt, Ours, and Wilmot were absent from the meeting.)
Authorization to Apply for a Virginia Department of Transportation Enhancement Grant to Implement
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in the Vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School.
Action — Recommended Approval
Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, reported that the County Staff has been
working to refine an application for a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Enhancement Grant for the
current application cycle. Mr. Bishop explained that enhancement grants are federal funds awarded by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on an annual basis for improvements to bicycle and pedestrian
transportation. He noted this is a grant with a local match component of 20%, however, the application process
itself does not obligate County funds.
Mr. Bishop stated that for this year's application cycle, the staff has recommended an application
for enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. He
noted this is a continuation of this project which was awarded $140,000 based upon last year's application. He
said the proposed project would add paved multi -use paths to the northern and southern sides of Senseny Road
between I-81 and the Orrick Commons project. The project would also include improvements to the crossovers of
roadways traversed by the paths and an additional crossover of Senseny Road at Senseny Elementary School.
Mr. Bishop continued, stating there were a number of ways Frederick County could meet the
required match, including proffers, staff project management, dedicated property or right -of --way, and any other
grant funds received by the County. He said it was the staff's intention that either very little or none of the project
would be fiuided out of the County's general funds. Mr. Bishop said the Transportation Committee reviewed this
on September 24, 2007 and unanimously recommended endorsement.
Vice Chaimlan Thomas called for public comments at this point in the hearing. No one came
forward to speak and the Vice Chairman closed the public connnent portion of the meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2121
Minutes of October 3, 2007 0 FU LAI F T
-5 -
Commissioner Kriz was pleased with the effort Mr. Bishop had put forth to develop last year's
enhancement grant and with the money received. He said if the County receives 20%-25% of this application,
there will be a significant amount of money for the County to make accomplishments in the Senseny Road area.
Commissioner Kriz complimented Mr. Bishop for a good job on this application, as well as his efforts seeking
other areas for grants.
Connnissioner Kriz made a motion to endorse the enhancement grant application as presented.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Morris_
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously endorse the
Virginia Department of Transportation's 2007-2008 Enhancement Grant Application to Implement Bicycle and
Pedestrian Improvements in the vicinity of the Senseny Road Elementary School and recommends that the Board
of Supervisors provide authorization to apply.
(Note: Conunissioners Watt, Ours, and Wilmot were absent from the meeting.)
An Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-156,
Definitions and Word Usage for Single -Family
Action — Reconvnended Approval
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that on September 12, 2007, the Board of
Supervisors reviewed a Public Works Commnittee report which recommended Frederick County adopt a definition
for single family. Mr. Lawrence said that because the definition will be placed within the zoning ordinance, it is
being presented to the Planning Commission as a public hearing. He noted the Planning Commission's
recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and the Board will consider a larger package
assembled by the Public Works Committee. Mr. Lawrence explained the underlying task of the Public Works
Committee was to study the occupancy loading of residential structures within the County. Mr. Lawrence
proceeded to read the proposed definition for the Commission.
Continents from the Planning Connmission included inquiry about adopted or foster children.
Mr. Lawrence replied if it is a foster program or if the children are formally adopted, they become a part of the
family and the two adults living in the home are caring for those children.
Vice Chairman Thomas called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mr. Vincent Diem, 137 Woodrow Road, spoke in support of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, Section 165-156, to adopt a definition for single family. Mr. Diem stated that residential over-
crowding, excessive occupancy, or any other similar phrases are becoming topics of household and neighborhood
concern throughout Northern Virginia and most recently, the northern Shenandoah Valley. He said the citizens
within any incorporated municipality in the Commonwealth have a legitimate interest and an inalienable
expectation of health, safety, and welfare within neighborhoods and common areas. It was Mr. Diem's opinion
that the County was delegated with a sizable portion of this responsibility. He noted a growing concern that over-
crowding is a direct threat to health, safety, and welfare of citizens within neighborhoods, as well as the occupants
of the home that is excessively occupied. He said many municipalities have adopted a two -prong approach,
realizing that neither the property maintenance code provisions of the Uniform Statewide Building Code, nor the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2122
Minutes of October 3, 2007 i 'N
r�dt!
Q.
zoning ordinance can be adequately affective alone. Mr. Diem said that recent discussions among the Board of
Supervisors and within the Public Works Committee had centered on adopting the applicable provisions of the
property maintenance code. He said he was encouraged that the Planning Cominission is simultaneously
considering adopting this zoning ordinance amendment. He believed the tentative adoption of these provisions
provides a crucial first step in preserving quality of life and will only succeed with a partnership of continued
involvement from within the residential communities and consistent enforcement efforts from the County staff
aimed at resolving the over -crowding concerns. He encouraged the Planning Com mission, the elected Board of
Supervisors, and County staff to continue pressing forward in not only identifying the magnitude and impact of
residential over -crowding in our neighborhoods, but to consider a variety of alternative resolution efforts as well.
Ms. Kathryn Green, 140 Woodrow Road, agreed with the comments made by her neighbor, Mr.
Vincent Diem. Ms. Green said last year, she telephoned the County to report a neighbor's home with seven to
eight cars in the driveway; she said all the residents were men and this wasn't a family situation. She commented
that it seemed to be lowering the quality of life, particularly with late night parties. She said the County personnel
told her there was nothing in the County Code to enforce. She thought this might be a circumstance where an
owner had purchased a home and rented the home to eight or nine people. Ms. Green encouraged the Commission
to consider and adopt this amendment.
Mr. Hewitt L. Sisk, 138 Woodrow Road, spoke in support of the proposed amendment. Mr. Sisk
said there are laws in this country that everyone must abide by and his neighborhood was simply asking for the
laws to be enforced so that everyone is on an equal balance.
No one else came forward to speak and Vice Chainnan Thomas closed the public comment
portion of the hearing
Vice Chainnan Thomas stated this proposed amendment was an effort to place specificity into
the County Code with a satisfactory definition.
Conunissioner Morris voiced concerns with the proposal. He questioned what the County was
trying to fix, how it would be enforced, and under what circumstances would it have meaning. Commissioner
Morris asked what criteria will be used to detennine whether someone is actually living in a house or simply
visiting for an extended time period. He was concerned that in the haste to fix something, the County could, in an
exclusionary way, be interfering with honest -to -goodness people trying to survive.
Mr. LaNvrence replied the staff would need to establish a program before the single-family
definition could be enforced. Vice Chainnan Thomas added there is little the staff can do without having a
definition of single-family; this is the first step in a number of actions that will have to be done. Vice Chainnan
Thomas said that single-family housing is frequently referred to in the zoning and subdivision ordinances, but the
term is not defined.
Conunissioner Manuel thought the definition needed more study. He gave an example of four
widows wanting to share a four-bedroom house or pharmaceutical students at Shenandoah University sharing a
four-bedroom house. Conunissioner Manuel thought there were other situations that needed to be considered.
Other Commissioners believed it was important to include a definition of single-family for the
purposes of identifying housing types within the ordinance. They did not believe a definition for single family
was an uncommon item to see in a zoning ordinance and the definition was consistent with what many
communities would use. Commissioners believed the details of enforcement will be a critical task for the
community to accomplish in a careful and thoughtful way.
Frederick County Planning Commission - Page 2123
Minutes of October 3, 2007 0 1
-7 -
Commissioner Light made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. This
motion was seconded by Conunissioner Molui,
BE IT RESOLVED, that by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Conuiussion does hereby recommend
approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-156,
Definitions and Word Usage, with the addition of a definition for single-family, as follows:
Single -Family — Two (2) or more persons related by blood or marriage occupying a dwelling, living together and
maintaining a household, which may include not more than one (1) unrelated person; however, not more than
three (3) unrelated persons occupying a dwelling, living together and maintaining a household shall be deemed to
constitute a single-family,
YES (TO APPROVE): Mohn, Triplett, Kriz, Thomas, Light, Oates, Unger
NO: Morris, Manuel
(Note: Conunissioners Watt, Ours, and Wilmot were absent from the meeting; ConunissiODer Kerr was
absent for this item.)
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. by a unanimous
vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2124
Minutes of October 3, 2007
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 October 17, 2007.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon
District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro
District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Molm, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud
District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -
Large, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District; and Cordell Watt, Back Creek District.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; Mark R.
Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner
Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the
October 17, 2007 meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 10/08/07 & 10/11/07 Mtgs.
Conumissioner Oates reported that the CPPS discussed the Route 277 Triangle Study at their
meeting on October 8, 2007. He said an announcement was made regarding proposed committee members for
this new study group, when the committee will be formed, and when work will begin. Commissioner Oates said
the first meeting was held on October 11, 2007 and the group reviewed a transportation layout, the boundaries of
the Route 277 Study, and a schedule of meeting dates. He said the next meeting will be held on Thursday,
October 25, 2007, at 7:30 a.m.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Page 2125
Minutes of October 17, 2007
-2 -
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) —10/16/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB finished their work on the History chapter of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan and voted to send it forward to the Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Subcommittee (CPPS). The HRAB also reviewed the Route 277 Triangle Study area and will meet again in
November to compile a list and map of the historic features within the study area. In addition, the HRAB
discussed possible projects, such as a website, creating a driving tour, and refocusing on the Plaque Program.
Commissioner Oates said that since there have not been any rezoning applications since last April, the HRAB felt
they should take advantage of this slowdown to reach other goals.
Economic Development Commission (EDC) —10/05/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Kerr reported that the EDC had four action items at their meeting: 1) endorsed a
letter dealing with water re -use regulations; the EDC is striving to formulate incentives for local industry to use
reclaimed water. 2) discussed the direct-mail update; the EDC mailed hand-held GPS units, with pre-
programmed locations, to potential businesses. 3) discussed the next phase of the commuter -capture
communication plan; radio, newspaper, and television advertisements will be used to disperse information. 4) the
EDC is considering product showcase, where the EDC would create and locate display cabinets for various
industries within schools.
Sanitation Authority (SA) — 10/16/07 Mtg.
Conunissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of September was slightly less than 2'/s
inches; rainfall is down considerably this year. Flows at plants are running about 60%, which is below normal.
Water demand is approximately six mgd. D&M Contractors was awarded the bid for Abrams Creek West at
$1.6 million and Patterson Construction was awarded the bid for the H.P. Hood Water Pump Station at $1.2
million. Commissioner Unger also reported that the City of Winchester will be serving 26 homes within the
Willow Run project, at the request of the SA, because of topography reasons.
Winchester Planning Commission
Chairman Wilmot reported that Comnussioner Manuel has volunteered to be a substitute should
anyone find they are unable to fulfil their liaison assignment at the City of Winchester Planning Commission
meetings.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 17, 2007
Page 2126
-3 -
Transportation Committee — 10/10/07 Mtg.
Conunissioner Oates reported that a few of the Transportation Committee members met to
discuss the access and entrance management draft plan proposed by VDOT. He said the plan was made available
at the beginning of October with only 30 days for the public and local governments to comment. He said that
while there were a few issues of concern by the members, such as addressing existing access problems, the overall
document received the committee's endorsement.
Conservation Easement Authority (CEA)
The Conservation Easement Authority will be hosting a fund-raising event at the Museum of the
Shenandoah Valley on Saturday evening, October 27, 2007, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. for the education and
promotion of the conservation of rural lands in Frederick County.
Si2n Ordinance Working Group
Conunissioner Thomas reported that the Sign Ordinance Working Group, a committee of the
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS), had their last in a series of six meetings with local
industry. He said the Committee has completed a final draft of the revised sign ordinance. The staff will have
some additional discussion with local industry and community groups and will bring the draft ordinance back to
the DRRS for final review. Commissioner Thomas hoped the draft ordinance would be to the full Planning
Commission before December. Conunissioner Thomas commented that representatives from the oil, hotel, and
automobile industries attended all of the meetings.
CTIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen continents on any item that was not on this evening's agenda.
No one came forward to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning 410-07 of Jude and Cheryl Sparrow to rezone 7.73 acres from RP (Residential Performance)
District to RA (Rural Areas) District. The property is located at 240 Glendobbin Road (Rt. 639) at the
intersection with Quaker Lane. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 42-22-5-24 in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 17, 2007
Page 2127
-4 -
Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that one house has been constructed on this
property and the use is residential. Within the immediate vicinity, there is a combination of RP (Residential
Performance) Zoning and RA (Rural Areas) Zoning with all of the surrounding properties being used for
residential purposes. He said this property was included in the 131 acres rezoned to RP in 1986. Following the
rezoning, the McGuire Hills MDP was approved and this particular lot is a part of McGuire Hills, Section Five,
which was approved in 2000. The property was also previously located within the County's Urban Development
Area (UDA); however, with the County's boundary modification exercise that took place in 2006, this particular
property, along with some other properties, was removed from the County's UDA. Therefore, the property is now
located within the Rural Areas. Mr. Ruddy explained the Rural Areas of the County are intended to promote
agricultural land uses and larger -lot residential uses without public water and sewer. He noted that the proposed
RA Zoning would not allow an additional subdivision of this particular property and with regards to the permitted
uses, it could be anticipated that agricultural uses may now be allowed. He stated that no impacts are anticipated
and the land use proposed is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and promotes the County's
rural areas.
Conunissioner Morris connrnented that the applicant would be able to follow the basic principles
of the Right -to -Farm Act with this RA Zoning and, theoretically, he could raise hogs on the property, if he
desired. Mr. Ruddy replied that within the RA Zoning District, agricultural uses are permitted.
Commissioner Thomas inquired why the property would not be eligible for a two -acre family
subdivision by right. Mr. Ruddy replied the subdivision ordinance requires a minimum density of one unit per
five acres. He explained that only existing lots established prior to the ordinance in 1991, containing less than
seven to ten acres, may be divided for a family subdivision. Mr. Ruddy said this lot was created after that date
and, therefore, can not be further subdivided.
Mr. Jude Sparrow, the property owner and applicant, was available to answer questions. Mr.
Sparrow said he had no intention of raising hogs; he said this was strictly for horses.
Chainnan Wilmot called for public connnents. No one came forward and Chairman Wilmot
closed the public coni vent portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the Right -to -Farm Act would supersede covenants established
by the McGuire Hills subdivision. Mr. Ruddy believed the subdivision covenants would still be valid; however,
the County Attorney could make a determination prior to the Board of Supervisors' public hearing.
Commissioner Oates made a motion to approve the rezoiung_ This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Kriz and was unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Rezoning Application # 10-07 of Jude and Cheryl Sparrow to rezone 7.73 acres from RP (Residential
Performance) District to RA (Rural Areas) District. The property is located at 240 Glendobbin Road (Rt. 639) at
the intersection with Quaker Lane in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioners Watt and Light were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 17, 2007
Page 2128
-5 -
Conditional Use Permit 906-07 of Mundy Sand, LLC, submitted by Benjamin M. Butler, Esq., for a sand
mine operation. This property, zoned RA (Rural Areas) District, is located near Brill Road (Route 603)
and Gravel Springs, along the eastern foot of Paddy Mountain. The property is further identified with
P.I.N. 69 -A -7C in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 45 Days to December 5, 2007
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that this property is subject to
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 4005-99 for a sand mine operation, which was approved by the Board of
Supervisors on May 10, 1989. The CUP specifies all of the mining operations will be conducted on 17 acres of a
174 -acre parcel at approximately 300 feet or more from any adjoining properties. Mr. Cheran said the applicant
is requesting an amendment to the CUP by deleting the following conditions: 1) This is a five-year permit to be
reviewed annually by the staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors; and, 2) If the use,
occupancy, or ownership of the property changes, this CUP shall expire and a new CUP will be required. Mr.
Cheran remarked that these conditions are no longer required by Frederick County for CUPS. Mr. Cheran next
read a list of recontinended conditions, should the Connnission find the use to be appropriate.
Mr. Cheran continued, stating that prior to staff sending out the Commission's agenda, the
applicant met with VDOT representatives and agreed to an additional VDOT requirement. Mr. Cheran read the
requirement, as follows: "The applicant will surface treat the road from the entrance of this site, from Brill Road
(Route 603) to Pifer Road (Route 600), when requested by VDOT." Mr. Cheran noted this would be an added
condition to those already recommended by the staff.
Conunissioner Thomas inquired how the setback distances from Gravel Springs Run came
about. He conmiented that since this was a surface -scraping operation, rather than a mining operation, he would
prefer to limit the depth and, possibly, have a depth -to -distance ratio next to Gravel Springs Run. Commissioner
Thomas also questioned the limitation for portable crushers only, as stated under Condition 410. He said a
portable crusher creates more dust and problems than a permanent crusher.
Mr. Benjamin M. Butler, Esq., with McKee & Butler, P.L.C., was representing Mundy Sand,
LLC in this application. Mr. Butler explained that Mundy Sand has taken over Mr. Brill's existing operation. He
said that Mundy Sand did not want to enter into any contractual obligations with the owner unless some of the
conditions were amended, otherwise, they would be in violation from the start. Mr. Butler said this request is not
to expand an existing CUP, but is simply a continuation of Mr. Brill's existing operation.
Conunissioner Morris inquired about the road treatment required by VDOT. Mr. Butler replied
that VDOT has indicated they will expect Mundy Sand to do dust abatement, if there tends to be a lot of traffic.
Furthermore, VDOT would dictate if the road needs to be tar and chip, etc.
Commissioner Unger asked Mr. Butler if activity at the site would increase when Mundy Sand
takes over the operation. Mr. Bulter replied yes; however, it may only be one truck per hour.
Chainnan Wilmot called for public continents and the following persons came forward to speak:
Mr. Robert M. Engle, a resident at 501 Brill Road, said he and his wife, Josie, own 66 acres and
they were opposed to the CUP. Mr. Engle said they purchased this property for their retirement and the peace and
quiet; he said there has not been any recent activity on this site. He said the success of the site for Mundy Sand
will be based on the number of trucks going into and out of the site. Mr. Engle was concerned about the noise and
dust of earth -moving equipment and trucks five days a week. He noted that this site is accessed by a one -lane
road. Mr. Engle said this operation will negatively affect their quality of life.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 17, 2007
Page 2129
QM
Mr. Tony E. Plaugher, a resident at 409 Brill Road, was opposed to the CUP. Mr. Plaugher said
Brill Road is not wide enough for two dump trucks to pass each other and trucks will be running up onto the
property owners' yards. He was also concerned about noise and dust. He mentioned that when the sand mine was
previously in operation, the crusher ran until dark and sand was being hauled on Sundays.
Ms. Melissa Salyers, a resident at 451 Brill Road, said she lived directly across from the sand
pit. She said her biggest concern was having dump trucks and school buses traveling on the same road. She said
Brill Road was not wide enough for a dump truck and a school bus to pass each other. Ms. Salyers said that she
gets a considerable amount of runoff from the Brill property and she was concerned the runoff would increase.
Ms. Salyers presented photographs to the Commission to show the narrow road.
Ms. Robin Hutchinson, a resident at 1696 South Pifer Road, said she operated an equine
breeding business. She was concerned about her safety while taking mares and foals back and forth across the
road from the property she owns to property she leases. She was worried about the safety of her children and the
neighborhood children because of speeding traffic. Ms. Hutchinson said she also had concerns about dust, noise,
and speeding traffic. She added that her house was only 15-20 feet from the road. Ms. Hutchinson said she was
opposed to the proposed CUP. She presented to the Commission a copy of the letter detailing her concerns that
she wrote to Mr. David W. Harrison, President of Mundy Quarries.
Ms. Sue Tannenbaum said she hopes to soon be building a house on land located about eight -
tenths of a mile from the sand mine on the paved portion of Brill Road. Not only did she have concerns about
dump trucks maneuvering on the narrow, winding dirt portion of Brill Road that most of her neighbors live on,
but she had concerns about the paved portions of Pifer and Brill Roads. She said the paved portions were only
slightly wider with some homes as little as four feet from the road. She also expressed safety concerns for the
neighborhood children and school buses. Ms. Tannenbaum was concerned about the number of trucks per day,
especially if the operation is successful, and she suggested the possibility of constructing a separate truck access
frorn the Brill property to Route 55.
Mr. Louis E. Lacaria, a resident at 901 Wardensville Pike, said he owned 41 acres just to the
north of Mr. Brill's property. Mr. Lacaria said he was a disabled veteran and he and his wife moved to this area
in 1988 for the peace and quiet. He said if this operation is allowed, it will force him to move. He said he would
not be able to tolerate the constant equipment noise. He agreed with his neighbors who spoke about the condition
of the roads and the safety hazards.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
hearing.
Mr. Butler returned to the podiunn to address some of the comments that were made. Mr. Butler
read the comment from VDOT, "... the application for the CUP for this property appears to have little measurable
impact on Brill Road (Route 603), the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property." Mr. Butler
did not believe there would be a lot of truck traffic and he requested that Mundy Sand be given the opportunity to
operate under the existing CUP.
Commission members discussed the validity of the existing CUP with a change in property
ownership or if the property was leased. Recognizing that the sand vein traversed a good portion of the Brill
property, a Commissioner inquired if any relocation of operations to follow the vein would require a new CUP
and the staff replied yes. Commission members considered additional and/or more specific conditions that could
be placed on the CUP, possibly restricting the number of trucks per day and the hours of operation. Another
concern was the narrow width of Brill Road; Commissioners suggested either limiting the number of trucks or
requiring the road to be widened. Commission members recognized that Mundy Sand was a reputable firm and
the proposed operation was a valuable and needed industry. A Commission member said he was not as
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 17, 2007
Page 2130
-7 -
concerned with Mundy Sand extracting the sand and Mundy Sand drivers as he was with other commercial
operators who would come in to purchase the sand; he pointed out that these outside drivers would have no vested
interest in either driving safely or conducting themselves well up and down the road. Commissioners noted that
the CUP could be pulled if the operation would get out of hand; and, in addition, VDOT could shut down the
operation if their requests are not fulfilled or if trucks are not operating safely on the road. Other members of the
Commission commented that this will be a different operation than what it was years ago and the number of
trucks going in and out is an unknown factor at this time. These Commissioners did not believe the road was safe
for a daily operation in its existing condition.
Mr. Butler requested the Conunission table the CUP request for 30 to 45 days to provide the
applicant the opportunity to address the concerns that have been raised. Mr. Butler said they could define the
hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to Noon on Saturday, and
could make a conurnitment to widen Brill Road.
Coinmissioner Unger moved to table the CUP request for 45 days. This motion was seconded by
Connnissioner Kriz and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick Cowity Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to table
Conditional Use Permit #06-07 of Mundy Sand, LLC, submitted by Benjamin M. Butler, Esq., for a sand mine
operation located near Brill Road (Route 603) and Gravel Springs, along the eastern foot of Paddy Mountain, for
45 days in order to provide the applicant the opportunity to address concerns raised by the public and the
Commission.
(Note: Conunissioners Watt and Light were absent from the meeting.)
Request to revise the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan, including expansion of the Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA) by 481 acres for commercial development on the north side of Northwestern Pike
(Rt. 50). The Round Hill area includes land generally located north and south of Northwestern Pike (Rt.
50), west of Route 37, and east of Crinoline Lane, in both the Gainesboro and Back Creek Magisterial
Districts.
Action — Recommended Approval
Commissioner Mohn said lie would abstain from all discussion and voting on this request, due to
a potential conflict of interest.
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that the Planning Commission last reviewed this
item in May of 2007 as a public hearing. He said action was deferred because the Board of Supervisors wanted
an opportunity to make an additional review before it proceeded through the public hearing process. Mr.
Lawrence next provided some history of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. He noted that through the
Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) process, the applicant requested a 370 -acre addition to the
Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. Upon review, the Comprehensive Policy Plan Subcommittee (CPPS)
recommended that the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) be expanded by an additional 481 acres, all on the
north side of Route 50. Mr. Lawrence explained that inclusion of the 481 acres into the SWSA, but not within the
Urban Development Area (UDA), provides support for commercial opportunities while discouraging residential
development. In addition to viewing this area strictly for commercial opportunities, Mr. Lawrence pointed out its
location adjacent to the medical center and advised that various types of medical -related uses would be most
appropriate at this location.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 17, 2007
Page 2131
Mr. Lawrence next proceeded to review the planned transportation system for this area. He
noted just one new major intersection on Route 50 and an east -west collector road system which continues
Petticoat Lane directly behind the Walmart and essentially runs parallel to Route 50. He commented that the
manor roads would need to be addressed during the rezoning stage and implemented to facilitate transportation
within the expanded area. Mr. Lawrence noted that VDOT has some initial concern about the traffic impacts.
The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) associated with future rezoning applications will identify where the
impacts are and it will be the responsibility of the applicants to mitigate the impacts. In addition, Mr. Lawrence
pointed out a proposed road on the southern end of the study area which will minimize entrances directly onto
Route 50, as future development occurs in the southern side of the study area. He noted the signalized
intersections at Round Hill Road, Botanical Road, and Round Hill Crossing. He commented there was no
support for any additional signalized intersections in this area.
Mr. Lawrence continued, stating that when this request was initially brought forward, the
applicant was seeking expansion for the Lutheran Home. Although high-density residential use would not be
appropriate for this area, the feeling is that the retirement community could be accommodated as a medical service
use.
Commissioner Morris reiterated the staff's comments concerning the expectation that future
development will pay for and mitigate transportation impacts, requirements, and design standards. There was
discussion on how those costs would be apportioned and when commitments would be made.
Commissioner Oates recommended extending Retail Boulevard further to the north instead of
tying it into a "T" intersection. He thought it would be important to show that route now and if the opportunity
comes about to tie into the interchange at the hospital, it would allow an extension to the west.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak:
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, said he was representing the Silver Lakes
property. Mr. Wyatt said their initial questions centered on the statement, "... the provision of services prior to
rezoning." He said it was clear through the Commission's discussions, however, that those commitments come
during the rezoning, but prior to development. Mr. Wyatt next referred to Page 3 of the red -lined attachment in
the agenda regarding the design principles for the Round Hill corridor. Mr. Wyatt said the language appeared to
be ordinance -type language and he suggested that the word "encouraged" be used instead of specific footages and
heights. He questioned whether the proposed policy language complimented the sign ordinance regulations
currently being studied and revised by subconnmittee. He gave as an example the entrance feature at the Snowden
Bridge project; he said they've received numerous compliments on its appearance, but he was not sure a similar
monument -style sign would meet the design standards of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Mr. Wyatt encouraged
the Commission to entitle Figure 13A, "Principles Encouraged for the Round Hill/ Route 50 Corridor Area."
In addition, Mr. Wyatt referred to Page 4, Paragraph 4, wider Transportation, referencing the
new north -south major collector road. He said the last sentence basically states that the location shown on the
plan is general with the precise location remaining flexible. Mr. Wyatt understood this sentence to mean that a
road to facilitate traffic movement to the north is needed, whether it's Retail Drive extended or Botanical Drive
extended, and he agreed with the language. He noted, however, that this same language was not attached to the
third paragraph for the east -west collector. He understood that the Commission was seeking a parallel road to
Route 50 for many reasons, including access management; however, if the road needed a slight curvature because
of topography, he thought it would behoove the Commission to be redundant with the sentence used for the north -
south collector.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 17, 2007
Page 2132
WZ
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
hearing.
Commission members next discussed the language issues raised by Mr. Wyatt. Commissioner
Kriz believed the title, "design principles," emphasized strong guidelines, whereas the words, "design standards,"
were more concrete. He did not agree with using the word, "encouraged." Commissioner Kriz agreed with taking
out some of the specifics, but he believed the language should be clear and not watered down, so everyone
understands there are particular objectives that need to be accomplished. He said the CPPS wanted to make sure
this was understood for this particular area.
Cominissioner Thomas said there were some conflicts between what is being proposed in the
draft sign ordinance and specifics within the design principles for the Round Hill Land Use Plan. He was
concerned about future debates on semantics between the design principles in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and
the requirements in the zoning ordinance.
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, cornmented that the title of the Design Principles Table, as
well as the sign dimensions, are taken from the original 1994 land use plan. He said these principles have been
effective for 15 years and were utilized for the development of the hospital and Walmart. Mr. Lawrence said the
staff would suggest that it remain within the land use plan and when a request comes through, to evaluate whether
the ordinance is appropriate or if a little more assistance through the design elements of a proffer is needed.
Commissioner Oates wanted to clarify his previous statement regarding the need to facilitate
traffic movement to the north. He said he was looking for both Retail Drive and Botanical Drive to be extended
to the north, not just Retail Drive or Botanical Drive. Commissioner Oates believed it was important to have the
roads extended to the north in order to initiate a grid and eventually, an east -west collector road off of the hospital
interchange to tie into it. Cornrnission members supported the concept for a total of three roads to be planned for
the north -south alignment that could link Routes 522, 50, and 37 areas.
Commissioner Kriz made a motion to adopt the SWSA expansion request for the Round Hill
Community Center with the condition that the Commission's desire for road extensions to the north is presented
to the Board of Supervisors at their public hearing. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Morris and
unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Conunission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the revised Round Hill Comunmiity Land Use Plan, including expansion of the Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA) by 481 acres for commercial development on the north side of Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50),
with the concept for three roads to be planned for the north -south alignment that could link the Routes 522, 50,
and 37 areas.
(Note: Commissioners Watt and Light were absent from the meeting; Commissioner Mohn abstained.)
OTHER
ANNOUNCEMENT — FORESTRY TOUR
Chairman Wilmot announced that the Division of Forestry will be conducting an educational tour
on October 25, 2007. Persons wanting to attend should telephone 540-564-3080.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 17, 2007
Olt
N
Page 2133
-10 -
CITIZENS PLANNING EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF VIRGINIA ANNUAL MEETING
Chairman Wilmot reported that both Commissioner Morris and she attended the CPEAV
(Citizens Planning Education Association of Virginia) Annual Meeting. She said that recent revisions to
legislative actions were presented and discussed. Chairman Wilmot handed out copies of the presentation
materials for the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. by a unanimous
vote.
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chainnan
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 17, 2007
Page 2134
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #06-07
MUNDY SAND, LLC
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: November 1, 2007
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on
this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning mattes.
LOCATION: This property is located near Brill Road (Route 603) and Gravel Springs, along
the eastern foot of Paddy Mountain.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 69-A-7
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: RA (Rural Areas)
Land Use: Sand Mining Operation
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas)
South: RA (Rural Areas)
East: RA (Rural Areas)
West: RA (Rural Areas)
PROPOSED USE: Sand Mine Operation
Land Use:
Reviewed
Action
Planning Commission:
10/17/07
Tabled 45 days by Applicant
Planning Commission:
12/05/07
Pending
Board of Supervisors:
01/09/08
Pending
LOCATION: This property is located near Brill Road (Route 603) and Gravel Springs, along
the eastern foot of Paddy Mountain.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 69-A-7
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: RA (Rural Areas)
Land Use: Sand Mining Operation
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas)
South: RA (Rural Areas)
East: RA (Rural Areas)
West: RA (Rural Areas)
PROPOSED USE: Sand Mine Operation
Land Use:
Agricultural
Land Use:
Agricultural
Land Use:
Agricultural
Land Use:
Agricultural
CUP #06-07, Mundy Sand, LLC
November 1, 2007
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this
property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 603, the VDOT facility which would
provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, brush
and foliage need to be cut to obtain required sight distance. Failure to do so may mean the loss
of commercial entrance privilege. Should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have
to be upgraded to VDOT commercial standards.
Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended.
Frederick County Inspections The temporary scales trailer shall comply with The Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code, Section 304 Use Group B (Business) of the International
Building Code/2003 and The Virginia Industrialized Building Code. Other code that applies is
ICC/ANSI A117-2003 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Please submit a site plan
showing the accessibility to the structure at the time of permit application. Please include
manufactures foundation and anchoring information along with the VA registration number.
Sanitation Authority: We do not serve this area.
Frederick -Winchester Health Department_: Health Department has no objections to the
request.
Winchester Regional Airport: No comment.
City of Winchester: No comments.
Planning and Zoning: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for the mining of sand
in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This
property is subject to the conditions of CUP #005-88, approved by the Frederick County Board
of Supervisors on May 10, 1989. Currently, this operation has been permitted and licensed by the
Division of Mineral Mining (DMM), part of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and
Energy and meets all of the requirements of this agency. All of the mining operations will be
conducted on 17 acres of a 174 acre parcel approximately 300 feet or more from any adjoining
properties. The applicant is requesting to amend CUP #005-88, by deleting the following
conditions:
1. This is a five-year permit to be reviewed annually by the staff, the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
2. If the use, occupancy or ownership of the property changes, this conditional use permit
shall expire and a new conditional use permit will be required
CUP 406-07, Mundy Sand, LLC
November 1, 2007
Page 3
The above -referenced conditions are no longer required by Frederick County for Conditional Use
Permits (CUP).
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 10/03/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the
following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requirements shall
be complied with at all times.
2. The mining operation shall meet all requirements of the Virginia Department of Mineral
Mining, along with sediment, erosion, runoff and spillage controls needed to allow the
setback from Gravel Springs Run to be placed at 50 feet.
The mining operation shall meet the landscaping and screening performance standards;
supplementary regulations; height, area and bulk regulations; and site plan requirements
contained in the requirements for the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District.
4. Mining shall be limited to the 17.191 acre area described on the provided plat.
5. No mining excavation shall occur within 200 feet of the boundaries of the adjoining property
not owned by the applicant or within 50 feet of Gravel Springs Run.
6. Daylight hours of operation only. No Sunday operations.
7. The Zoning Administrator may require enclosure of crusher, if adverse impact occurs.
S. Wash water from sand washing shall be filtered before entering surface water.
9. Only portable crushers are to be used on site.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 10/17/07 MEETING:
Six adjoining and/or nearby residents came forward to express their concerns and opposition to
the renewal of sand mine operations on this site. They reported no recent activity on this site and
the renewal of sand mining operations would negatively affect their quality of life. They
expressed concern about noise and dust from trucks and earth -moving equipment five days a
week. One resident reported the crusher running until dark and sand being hauled on Sundays
CUP #06-07, Mundy Sand, LLC
November 1, 2007
Page 4
during the previous operation. They said Brill Road was not wide enough for a dump truck and
another vehicle or school bus to pass each other and the trucks will inevitably be running up on
homeowners' lawns. One resident on Brill Road was worried about increased water runoff on her
property. In addition, residents cited increased traffic and speeding as a cause for concern for the
safety of neighborhood children. One resident along South Pifer Road operated an equine
breeding business and she Was concerned about her safety taking animals back and forth across
the road; she said her home was only 15-20 feet from the road. Another resident described older
homes as little as four feet from the road. One resident suggested the possibility of constructing
a separate truck access from the Brill property to Route 55.
The applicant's representative, Mr. Benjamin M. Butler, Esq., said this request is not to expand
an existing CUP, but is simply a continuation of the existing operation. Mr. Butler did not
believe there would be excessive truck traffic and he requested that Mundy Sand be given the
opportunity to operate under the existing CUP. He noted that VDOT comments had been
favorable and they would comply with their requests.
The Planning Commission considered additional and/or more specific conditions that could be
placed on the CUP, possibly restricting the number of trucks per day, widening Brill Road, and
limiting the hours of operation, to help alleviate some of the concerns of the adjoining property
owners. Commission members recognized that Mundy Sand was a reputable company and that
the proposed operation was a valuable and needed industry. However, they did not believe the
road was safe for a daily operation in its existing condition.
Mr. Butler requested that the Planning Commission table the applicant's CUP request to allow
the applicant time to address the concerns raised by the area residents and the Commission.
By a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission tabled the CUP for 45 days to allow the
applicant the opportunity to address the concerns raised by the neighborhood residents and the
Commission.
(Note: Commissioners Watt and Light were absent from the meeting.)
STAFF UPDATE FOR 12/05/07 PLANNING COMMISSON MEETING:
Staff and the applicant have met with representatives from VDOT and the neighborhood
residents to address concerns raised at the October 17, 2007, Planning Commission meeting.
VDOT does not believe a traffic count is warranted and has no concerns with truck traffic
associated with this proposed use using Brill Road, Pifer Road, or Star Tannery Road. The
applicant is willing to add a condition to this Conditional Use Permit and it is noted as Condition
11 below. Staff conclusions remain consistent with what has previously been offered to the
Planning Commission.
CUP #06-07, Mundy Sand, LLC
November 1, 2007
Page 5
1. All review agency comments and the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requirements
shall be complied with at all times.
2. The mining operation shall meet all requirements of the Virginia Department of Mineral
Mining, along with sediment, erosion, runoff and spillage controls needed to allow the
setback from Gravel Springs Run to be placed at 50 feet.
3. The mining operation shall meet the landscaping and screening performance standards;
supplementary regulations; height, area and bulk regulations; and site plan requirements
contained in the requirements for the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District.
4. Mining shall be limited to the 17.191 acre area described on the provided plat.
5. No mining excavation shall occur within 200 feet of the boundaries of the adjoining
property not owned by the applicant, or within 50 feet of Gravel Springs Run.
6. Daylight hours of operation only. No Sunday operations.
7. The Zoning Administrator may require enclosure of crusher if adverse impact occurs.
8. Wash water from sand washing shall be filtered before entering surface water.
9. Only portable crushers are to be used on site.
10. Mundy -owned trucks will only enter this site via Wardensville Pike (Rt.55) to Pifer
Road (Rt. 600) to Brill Road (Rt. 603). Mundy -owned trucks will exit this site using
Brill Road (Rt. 603) to Pifer Road (Rt. 600) to Wardensville Pike (Rt.55).
Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the
Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to
the Board of Supervisors.
."-./ -~�Vvf -- I u.,40.,+f MIVI
Frederick County, VA
Map Document: (N:\Planninq And DevelODment\ 1 1 ncatnr Nn—tNn—A„c.. Al r r —
Location in the County
Map Features
O Hamlets
"Q. Future Rt37 Bypass
Q Lakes/Ponds
^-- Streams
,Rx Buildings
Streets
'�. Primary Roads
'�- Secondary Roads
'�- Tertiary Roads
,f Urban Development Area
SWSA
Topography (5' interval)
Conditional Use
Permit
CUP #06-07
Application
Mundy Sand, LLC
Parcel ID:
69-A-7
Location in Surrounding Area
�4`GA. CpL�.
e
x
Case Planner: Mark
—w—VV I. 111AUI IVIZZILUU7--t5:64it) AM
`5 f}
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
—9/7/o7
47/0.
1-0
1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner X other)
NAME: Mundy Sand, LLC
ADDRESS: p 0. Box 126, Broadway, VA 22815
TELEPHONE (540) 833-2061
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
Mundy Sand,ALLC is the proposed tenant under Land Lease with Raymond E. Brill
and Shirley Brill, his wife, who are the owners of the property.
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
17.191 acres located a short distance from Route 603 (Brill Road) near Gravel
Sa ings, along the eastern foot of Paddy Mountain, Back Creek Magisterial District
Frederick County, VA
4.
The property
depth of
has a road frontage of 0 feet and a
feet and consists of _ 17.191 acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by Raymond E. Brill as
evidenced by deed from Decree of Circuit Court, Frederick recorded
(previous owner) County
in deed book no. 507 on page 237 as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. Tax(Parcel)Identification (I. D.) No. .69-A--769-A-7C
Magisterial District Back Creek
Current Zoning RA (Rural Area)
7. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North A=iculture RA
East RA
South Agr i r f1 ti lre RA
West Amari rill tilrP RA
8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing): Continuation of Amended Conditional Use
Permit #005-88 for a sand mine operation. (See additional
comments at Paragraph 12)
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed: NONE; no new permanent structures; a temporary
scales -office trailer will be located on site.
10, The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations
owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of
(across street from) the property where the requested use will be
conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be
notified by mail of this application:
NAME Dennis M. Tharpe ADDRESS 1412 N Pifer Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID# 69 -A -7B
NAME Dennis M. Tharpe ADDRESS 1412 N Pifer Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID# 69 -A -7E
NAME Robert B. & Regina A. Martin ADDRESS 19 W. Fairfax St.
Berryville, VA 22611
PROPERTY ID# 69 -A -7F
NAME David E. & Deborah S. Owens ADDRESS 258 McDonald Rd.
Winchester,_ VA 22602
PROPERTY ID#f69-A-7H
NAME Louis E. Lacaria
PROPERTY ID# 69-A-6
NAME Elizabeth D. Kleese, et al
PROPERTY ID# 69-A-10
NAME Robert M. & Josie M. Engle
PROPERTY ID# 69 -A -12D
ADDRESS 901 Wardensville Pike
Star Tannery, VA 22654
ADDRESS 600 Sandy Hook Road
Strasburg, VA 22657
_ADDRESS 501 Brill Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
NAME Elinor Brill & Ray R. Himelright ADDRESS 458 Himelright Ln
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID# 69 -A -12E
2
-- Item 10 continued --
NAME Glenn Eugene & Patricia P. Frye ADDRESS 8073 Donnell Road
Millington, TN 38053
PROPERTY ID# 81-A-3
NAME Esther Cooper Moore
ADDRESS 899 Brill Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID#
81-A-4
NAME Larry J.
& Virginia L. Alcorn
ADDRESS 935 Brill Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID#
81-A-6
NAME Edwards Elizabeth Jean Yentzer Davie ADDRESS 997 Brill Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID#
81-A-16
NAME Darwin L.
& Karen E. Anderson
ADDRESS 109 Horizon Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
PROPERTY ID#
81-A-17
NAME Orchard Automations,
Inc.
ADDRESS P. O. Box 2368
Winchester, VA 22604
PROPERTY ID#
81-A-26
NAME Marshall
W. Madigan
ADDRESS 2523 Gravel Springs Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID#
81-A-33
NAME Susan Tenenbaum, Trustee
ADDRESS 4413 S 8th Street
Arlington, VA 22204
PROPERTY ID#
81 -A -40G
NAME Robert E.
& Destiny D. Teets ADDRESS 225 Brill Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID#
69-5-1-1
NAME Ferrell
A & Brenda S. Whitt ADDRESS 255 Brill Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID#
69-5-1-2
NAME Lawrence
G. East
ADDRESS 287 Brill Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID#
69-5-1-3
NAME Phillip
A. Willey
ADDRESS 315 Brill Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID#
69-5-1-4
K
-- Item 10 continued --
NAME Karen J. Simpson ADDRESS 100 Summer Lake Drive
Stephens City, VA 22655
PROPERTY ID# 69-5-1-5
NAME Dwayne L & Amy B. Madigan ADDRESS 391 Brill Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID# 69-5-1-6
NAME Tony E. Plaugher ADDRESS 409 Brill Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID# 69-5-1-7
NAME Voyne & Sheena L. Boggs ADDRESS 431 Brill Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID# 69-5-1-8
NAME Ronnie D. Melissa Salyers ADDRESS 451 Brill Road
Star Tannery, VA 22654
PROPERTY ID# 69-5-1-9
0
11. Please use this page for
Show proposed and/or existing
i nrl 1iHj ng measurements to all
your sketch of the property.
structures on the property,
property lines.
See Plat drawn by Cameron G. Copp, C.L.S., dated June 9,
1978, attached.
5
UNITED STATES
FOREST SERVICE
RA\
80—A-38
RAY R.
HIMELRIGHT
439/758
h�
��
03
r
't 0 0
c
9,293,464 SQ. FT.
� 213.349 ACRES TOTAL rn
0
w
G�
PGS
X16 NA, �
X669 82
V1
G 5 69 06 Z9
0a'
1
69—A-10
ELIZABETH D_ KLEESE, ET AL
647/706
BOUNDARY SURVEY OF A 213.349 ACRE TRACT OF LAND
LOCATED IN THE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT,
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
OWNER: RAYMOND C. BRILL
REFERENCE: DEED BOOK 507. PAGE 237
JOB NO, F69—A-7 SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
RANDAII K NE
o. 1627
NEWMAN SURVEYING
Licensed Land Surveyor
Mt. Jackson, Virginia 22842
(540) 477-3730
N
1 = BEARINGS ARE MAGNETIC
LEGEND
2 = SCALE 1" = 500'
• = IRON PIN FOUND
3 = TAX MAP = 69—A-7, 7C
o— IRON PIN SET
4 = DATUM AS SHOWN HEREON IS ACCORDING
A =
TO RECORDED INFORMATION AND ISA
PPOINT
OST
A = NAIL IN STONE PILE
w
E
CURRENT FIELD SURVEY. /
0 = TREE AS DESIGNATED
5 = NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED
Ili = USFS MONUMENT
6 = OTHER RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS
® = STONE PILE
IF ANY, ARE NOT SHOWN
s
69—A— 7H
DAVID C. OWENS
CURVE
RADIUS
ARC LENGTH
CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING
Cl
654.25
126.75,
276.25'
126.55 S 4732'43 W
266.80' S 19'26'51' W
�/0
C2
C3
278.25'
.21
198.22.
197.34' S 08'06'24' E
L71
C4
877.70'
149.58
149.37'
( UNE
EARING
E1111§1-D60
DISTANCE
��G
�O.
Lt
S 35'O6'27�
W I
UNITED STATES
FOREST SERVICE
RA\
80—A-38
RAY R.
HIMELRIGHT
439/758
h�
��
03
r
't 0 0
c
9,293,464 SQ. FT.
� 213.349 ACRES TOTAL rn
0
w
G�
PGS
X16 NA, �
X669 82
V1
G 5 69 06 Z9
0a'
1
69—A-10
ELIZABETH D_ KLEESE, ET AL
647/706
BOUNDARY SURVEY OF A 213.349 ACRE TRACT OF LAND
LOCATED IN THE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT,
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
OWNER: RAYMOND C. BRILL
REFERENCE: DEED BOOK 507. PAGE 237
JOB NO, F69—A-7 SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
RANDAII K NE
o. 1627
NEWMAN SURVEYING
Licensed Land Surveyor
Mt. Jackson, Virginia 22842
(540) 477-3730
12. Additional comments, if any: The property is presently
under a Conditional Use Permit and the tenant, Mundy Sand
LLC desires that Item #1 and Item #2 on the Conditional
Use Permit dated August 1, 1989, Amended Conditional Use
Permit No. 005-88 be deleted. No other expanded use of
the premises is requested.
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and
petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the
use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued
to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front
property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public
hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of
Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use
Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning
Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development
Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be
conducted.
WDaHarrison,
LLC
Signature of Applicant By:
Manager Q
Signature of Owner:!! w
Raym nd E. Brell/Shirley Brill
Owners' Mailing Address: !2U U -r- r. 1 �ax 3(6
Owners' Telephone No.:
Sti o y69 19q 6 1
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
12443 Wilson A A:AWilson Applicatimstf
IT
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us
Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia,
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We)
(Name) Raymond E. Brill and Shirley Brill (Phone) (540) 465-8961
(Address) Route 1, Box 38, Star Tannery, VA 22654
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Deed Book 507, at Page 237, and is described as 17.191 acres, Tax Map No. 69-A-7, and 69 -A -7C, Back
Creek Magisterial District, Frederick County, VA
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Benjamin M. Butler, Attorney ( Phone) (540) 662-3486
(Address) 112 South Cameron Street, P.O. Drawer 2097, Winchester, VA 22604
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full
Power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above
described Property, including:
9 Rezoning (including proffers)
X Conditional Use Permits
9 Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
9 Subdivision
9 Site Plan
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered Conditions and to make amendments to
previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: Those conditions set forth in CUP #005-88 Item
No. 1 and Item No. 2.
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified.
In witness thereof, I (we) have h reto set my (our) hand and seal this day of August, p07,
c '
Signature(s)
kA OND E. BRJLL SAIR11EY BRILL
State o VirEoC?�gned
unty of S � To-wit:the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that
the personto th foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the
same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day August, 2007.
?V�s^—Q� Z AMy Commission Expires: 3 / �2 0 / 0
Notary Public 6
RHONDA S. SAGER
NOTARY PUBLIC
Commonwealth of Vir ini
Reg. #16948¢ 3 ��/ b
My Commission Expires 2S
SEP 2 8 20( i
Peter K. McKee (1934-1967)
Benjamin M. Butler
Stephen G. Butler
Edwin B. Yost
McKee & Butler, P.L.C.
112 South Cameron Street
P. 0. Drawer 2097
Winchester, Virginia 22604-1297
(540) 662-3486
Facsimile (540) 722-3787
E -Mail: bmblawl ftomcast.net
September 28, 2007
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Mark Cheran
Frederick County Planning Department
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Mundy Sand, LLC
My File No. 12443(A)
Dear Mark:
I am enclosing herewith the two (2) licenses for C. S. Mundy Quarries, Inc. issued by the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The State License Numbers are the 05747AA and 05748AA which
also have Federal MSHA Numbers 44-00080 and 44-00081, respectively.
I have spoken with my contact at Mundy Sand, and I will have you a generalized site plan
by next week which I intend to give to the Building Inspector's office so that the office will be
comfortable with the planning. With respect to the office trailer, at this time, Mundy Sand
intends to purchase a new unit complying with all regulations.
Assuming that the CUP is issued by Frederick County, Mundy Sand, LLC will obtain a
permit from the State and from the Federal authorities for the extraction of the sand from the site
owned by Raymond Brill.
Very truly yours,
& BUTLER
e aurin M. Butler
BMB Jds
Enclosures
cc: David Harrison (via e-mail)
T. J. Wilson (via e-mail)
C, -S190<-Pt P -A
PP-111
_1*
4 -
TC 0
IMS PERMITUCEINSE GOOD ONIN FOR THE AREA. SHOWN -ON IVIEMAP ATTACHW TO APPU AT) N.
-
TMS PERZMITMICIuNSE * NOT BANS' TE RABLE
C0T4K0NWE,UX14 OF VIB81NIA
DEPARniENT OF MINES, MINIEW".AIND ENETRIGY
DIVISION OF MINERAL MINING
P - Box 4499
LYNCHBURG, VA 24,502
(804�, 239;-0,602
Pl_zRIT/LICtENSE TO OPEPATE A IMME
Noruber 2574 -TAA- Rzceflpt Nin-`�75
Was isuej to C. S. Mundy Quarries, TDC.
1 - r 12.6-, Br-mg1way., ZZB15
vl--Ose maiv- off ioels luceed at P_ -a- Box
For type- -of raineral(s)
Located at I mi C0U,yjty,0f
'THISPEEAUTiLICENSEIS L&SUEDTURSUANITTO CKAPTEIR I AND 16,TrrLE 45.1,
CODE OF VIRGINIA. (195%, AS AMENDED
,Rzkag- , an Act to requir-e for pmt 'r mffilnq. operations. and to frK_ conditions for
issuance thereon to provide that certain safety and reclamation pracacer. be perfarme&by,mine
opemtom -and for inspee"lon the�flf; and taadta&& -aa- S3.0-11%otmTy. 4'QmPRaa rplqutm' an.
annureport on progress of'reclawation and tonnage of mineral ratned- to- pr"de W t1w
y
Wixector to s"k injuuttive relief; to Prmdde fox, a Howd of - Surface Aining Resriew and to, provide
$or -appeals froni rulings of such Boara;iwd to provide penalties for violations,
!�d thf5 ---tfttLday of fnher- .19_89._ -IU116/69 - aft
Covering 52-442. ACM5 DwISION OTMINERAL WNM
Cash Bond- Received
Swrety B No, RIA,
Surety Company -Nam N/A
sadle4 Fe — V -5-W
-nilS PERNITI'LICENSE MUST Bf-- POSTE D AT THE MINE OFFICT,
09-28-P007 07:18 MMY L-is540 M-36312 PPGE: I
THIS PERMIT/LICENSE GOOD ONLY FOR THE AREA SHOWN ON THE MAI' ATTACHED TO APPLICATION.
THIS PERMIT/LICENSE IS NOT TRANSFERABLE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS AND ENERGY
DIVISION OF MINERAL MINING
P. 0. BOX 4499
LYNCHBURG, VA 24502
(304) 239-06102
PERMIT/LICENSE TO OPERATE A MINE
Permit/License Number 9574BAA_ Receipt Number 8622
Was issued to C. S. Mundy Quarries Inc.
Whose, main office is located at P: 0_ Box 126, . Broadway, Virginia -22815
For type of mineral(s) Limestone
Located at 3 miles ,South of Route 259 on Rt. 613 County of Rockingham
THIS PERMIT/LICENSE IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER I AND 16, TITLE 45.1,
CODE OF VIRGINIA (1950), AS AMENDED
Being an Act to require permits/licenses for certain mining operations and to fix conditions for
issuance thereof; to provide that certain safety and reclamation practices be performed by mine
operators and for inspection thereof, and to advise on satisfactory compliance;. to require an
annual report on progress of reclamation and tonnage of mineral mined; to provide for the
Director to seek injunctive relief; to provide for a Board of Surface Mining Review and to provide
for appeals from rulings of such Bayard; and to provide penalties for violations.
Issued this - 18th . - day of October , 19. 89 10/16/69 - original
issue date
Covering
115.0 acres DIVISION OF MINERAL MINING
Cash Bond Received N/A
Surety Bond Na. N/A
e A"
NaN/A a
Surety Company me p REC bIK
Safety Fee $75.00
THIS PERMIT/LICENSE MUST BE POSTED AT THE MINE OFFICE
DMM•I 15 8187
oc-
McKee & Butler, P.L.C.
112 South Cameron Street
P. G. Drawer 2097
Winchester, Virginia 22604-1297
(540) 662-3486
Facsimile (540) 722-3787
E -Mail: bmblawl @comcast.net
Peter K. McKee (1934-1967)
Benjamin M. Butler
Stephen G. Butler
Edwin B. Yost
October 2, 2007
Office of the Frederick County
Building Inspector
John Trenary
107 North Kent Street, Suite 200
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Mundy Sand, LLC CUP
My File No. 12443(A)
Dear John:
I am enclosing herewith the sketch of the location of the proposed office trailer and scales
and the initial location of the portable plant for the Conditional Use Permit application filed by
Mundy Sand, LLC.
Please let me know if there is additional information which you need. If and when
Frederick County approves the Conditional Use Permit in the name of Mundy Sand and prior to
installing the office trailer upon the property, Mundy Sand will obtain the necessary permits
from your Department in order to utilize the office trailer at the site.
Very truly yours,
Mc & BUTLER
Benjamin M. Butler
BMB:jds
Enclosure
cc: Mark Cheran, Frederick County
Planning Office
Mr. David Harrison
, VI.RGY'P-TY A
IFIRE PERICK COUNTY I IN I A
COUNTY of FREDERICK.
Department of Planning and Developmen
7031665-5651
FAX 703/667-0371
August 1, 1989
Mr. Raymond E. Brill
Route 1, Box 38
Star Tannery, Virginia 22654
RE: Amended Conditional Use Permit #005-88 for a Sand Mine Operation
Dear Mr. Brill:
Upon review of the last correspondence mailed to you, it was discovered that some
errors appeared in the list of conditions for your sand mine operation. In order
to correct our mistake, we are sending you this letter which accurately reflects
the conditions approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 10, 1989:.
Approval of Amended Conditional Use Permit Request #005-88 of Raymond E. Brill for
a sand mine operation above the mean grade level, located on Route 603, in the
Back Creek Magisterial District.
<,
This conditional use permit is approved with the following conditions:
+ii l def• -1 Sfi'l ,tµp�: �; .... i.. _ v.: .- ,: ,'- r. :'
1This is a five-year permit to be reviewed annually by the staff, the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
2. :If the use,.occupancy or ownership of the property changes, this conditional
use permit shall expire and s new conditional use permit will be required.
3. The mining operation shall meet all requirements of the Virginia Division of
Mineral Mining, along with the sediment, erosion, ru.naff and spillage controls
vel Springs Run to be placed at 50 feet
needed to allow the setback from Gra
4, The mining operation
shall meet the, landscaping and screening performance
standards; supplementary regulations; height, area and bulk regulations; and
site plan requirements contained in the requirements for the EM (Extractive
Manufacturing) District.
5. The EM (Extractive Manufacturing) site plan shall be reviewed and approved
administratively by the staff.
6. Mining shall be limited to the 17.191 acre area described on the plat
provided.
9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia
22601
--Page 2
Raymond R. Brill
August.l, 1989
7. No mining excavation shall occur within 200 feet of the boundaries of
adjoining properties not owned by the applicant or within 50 feet of Gravewl
Springs Run.
�8. Daylight hours of operation only. No Sunday operations.
9.� Zoning Administrator may require enclosure of crusher, if adverse noise impact
occurs.
10. Wash water from sand washing shall be filtered before entering surface water.
11. Only portable crushers are to be used on the site.
If you have any questions regarding your conditional use permit, please do not
hesitate to call this office.
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #11-07
GLENDOBBIN
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: November 14, 2007
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: 12/05/07
Board of Supervisors: 01/09/08
Action
Pending
Pending
LOCATION: The subject properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673)
approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 603).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER(s): 43 -A -15B, 43-19-57 and 43-A-16
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: RP (Residential Performance), M1 (Light Industrial) and RA (Rural Areas)
Use: Undeveloped
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North:
RA (Rural Area)
Use:
Orchard
South:
RA (Rural Area)
Use:
Agriculture
East:
M1 (Light Industrial)
Use:
Industrial & Vacant
RA (Rural Areas)
Use:
Orchard
West:
RA (Rural Area)
Use:
Residential
PROPOSED USE: 30 Single Family Detached Homes
MDP #11-07, Glendobbin
November 14, 2007
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The preliminary master plan for the subject property is
acceptable to VDOT. It appears to have a measurable impact on Route 673, the VDOT facility which
would provide access to the property. Before making any final comments, this office will require a
complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation
Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs,
including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and
drainage. Prior to construction on the State's right-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this
office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work.
Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended.
Frederick County Public Works: The revised MDP for the Glendobbin Subdivision received on
August 27, 2007 has adequately addressed our previous review comments.
Frederick County Inspections Department: Demolition permit if removing structures. No additional
comments required at this time.
Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: 1 st review. Approved.
Frederick -County -Winchester Health Department: The property owner and applicant shall be
responsible to identify and report any existing wells or septics within 200 feet of the project that may be
impacted prior to construction. The Health Dept. has no objection as long as no ex. Wells or septics
exist and the FCSA's public water and sewer are utilized as stated on page 1 of the submitted plans by
PHR&A.
GIS Department: Sunflower Drive is not currently being used.
Parks & Recreation: The monetary proffer offered for this development does not appear to be
consistent with the impact its residents will have on the capital needs of the County Parks and
Recreation Department. Staff would suggest the Impact Model recommendation for single family units
be considered when determining an appropriate monetary proffer.
Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed master development plan and
determined that the proposed development will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester
Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the
airport's Part 77 close in surfaces.
Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the
proposed 30 single family detached homes will yield 5 high school students, 4 middle school students
and 7 elementary school students for a total of 16 new students upon build -out. This project alone will
not have a large impact on the school division, but significant residential growth in Frederick County
MDP #11-07, Glendobbin
November 14, 2007
Page 3
has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the
practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature,
coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future
construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this
master development plan on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval
process.
Planning & Zonin6:
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 are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673)
approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route
603).
C) Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies parcels
43 -A -15B and 43-A-16 as being zoned R-3 (Residential General). Parcels 43-A-1513 and 43-A-
16 were re -mapped from R-3 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's
comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was
adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently
combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning
map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to
the RA District.
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 site is not within any small area land use plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site
has no land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan.
MDP #11-07, Glendobbin
November 14, 2007
Page 4
Parcels 43-A-1513 and 43-19-57 are both within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), parcel 43-A-16, which is a rural preservation parcel, is
outside of the UDA and SWSA.
Transportation
The Frederick County Eastern Road. Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and
collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed
connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways
necessary to implement planned road improvements, and new roads shown on the road plan
should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the
development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to
implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6).
The future Route 37 is a road improvement need that is identified in the County's Eastern Road
Plan. With the rezoning for this development, the applicant proffered to provide right-of-way for
Route 37 as shown on the Generalized Development Plan from the rezoning as well as indicated
on the MDP.
The applicant is proposing one public entrance for all 30 lots in this development. The new road
entrance (Sunflower Drive) would be located on Glendobbin Road.
Proffers —
5) Proffer Statement — Dated June 27, 2006
A copy of proffers has been included in the agenda.
Proffers Applicable to Tax Map Parcel 43 -A -15B
A) Generalized Development Plan
The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated June 23,
2006, and revised June 27, 2006.
B) Land Use
The development will be limited to a maximum of 30 single family detached dwelling
units on lots a minimum of 30,000 square feet. No dwelling units will be permitted
within 200 feet of any adjacent active orchard or within 100 feet of any adjacent
agricultural uses in the two locations shown on the GDP.
C) Transportation
The applicant will dedicate land for the right-of-way for future Route 37 on the parcel
proposed for rezoning. The applicant will contribute $300.00 per dwelling unit for
future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown
Road (Route 661).
D) Monetary Contribution
A monetary contribution in the amount of $10,206.00 to Frederick County, to b�
MDP 411-07, Glendobbin
November 14, 2007
Page 5
provided at the time of building permit issuance, is proffered in an effort to mitigate the
impacts associated with this development on community facilities. A transportation
contribution (see above) has also been proffered.
E) Environment
The applicant has proffered Best Management Practices (BMP) for stormwater
management.
Proffers Applicable to Tax Map Parcel 43-A-16 (Preservation Parcel)
A) Subdivision
Future subdivision of Tax Map Parcel 43-A-16 shall be prohibited except for any
subdivision necessary to dedicate right-of-way for future Route 37.
B) Transportation
The applicant will dedicate land for the right-of-way for future Route 37.
Proffers Applicable to Tax Map Parcel 43-19-57 Parcel zoned Ml
A) Transportation
The applicant will dedicate land for the right-of-way for future Route 37.
Waivers
The Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance states that "culs-de-sac, permanently designed as
such shall not exceed 1,000 feet in length. The Planning Commission may waive this
requirement in cases where extreme topography or other factors make it impractical. In no case
shall the street serve more than 25 lots". As stated during the rezoning for this property, the cul-
de-sac shown for this development is 2,400 feet long. A waiver of §144-17G(1) is needed from
the Planning Commission in order for this development to be constructed as shown on the
proffered GDP and the MDP. The cul-de-sac length waiver is a Planning Commission waiver
only, no action from the Board of Supervisors is required for this waiver.
Also, since this development is proposing 30 lots on one cul-de-sac, the applicant needs a waiver
of §144-17G(1) from the Board of Supervisors for the five additional lots. A recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors from the Planning Commission is needed.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12/05/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The master development plan for the Glendobbin Development depicts appropriate land uses and
appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning
Ordinance. With the exception of the necessary waivers, this preliminary Master Development Plan is
in a form that is administratively approvable. The MDP is in accordance with the proffers for Rezoning
#17-05, including the proffered GDP. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission
should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Three
actions are needed from the Planning Commission for this MDP: a decision on the cul-de-sac
MDP 411-07, Glendobbin
November 14, 2007
Page 6
length waiver is needed, a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for the number of lots on
the cul-de-sac and a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the MDP.
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 once all issues have been
addressed
42 A 356
KSS LC
LDSIDE DR ,
N A `�
A3 �SS� G 431? 3
,KSS LC Js
Q N
co
v
M U
N J
e� y
43 A 10A
BE CON INCORPORATED
r
v Y
M 1
N (/)
a
Q VIP 43 A 11
B� q BHS LC
0.
eee
$g1NV-9 "�.m 4� " m pie �i��� ®,.���'�"•�
o
�-0 40 ��e�
,� �e
43 A 15
MCKOWN BETTY G.
<°
Q
0�
1
43 19 51
TOAN & ASSOCIATES LC
�pq I f i O'�G
. MF�<
Map Document: (NAPlannino And r)evalnnmonf\ 1 I —f— hA--XII- .a_��:_
Frederick County, VA
Location in the County
Map Features
O Hamlets
4%• Future Rt37 Bypass
C3 MDP1107_Glendobbin
8 Lakes/Ponds
^— Streams
Streets
4%s Primary
'�. Secondary
Tertiary
'�- Winchester Rds
�► Urban Development Area
SWSA
Topography (5' interval)
Master Development
MDP # 11 - 07
Application
Glendobbin
Parcel .JD:
43 -A -15B
43-19-57
Location in Surrounding Area
GK , CQ
.'50 500 i Op
eet
J �
r
Case Planner: Candice p
_ -vr .n;Au) 01cyrtUU7 -- V:[73/ AM
Frederick
Location in the county
Map Features
0 Hamlets
W, Future Rt37 Bypass
0 MDP7107_Glendobbin
95 Lakes/Ponds
^— Streams
streets
^. Primary
'�. Secondary
'�- Terciary
'�- Winchester Rds
m� Urban Development Are
Master Development
MDP # 11 - 07
Application
Zoning
+► Bi (Business, Neighborhood District)
- B2 (Business, General Distrist)
40 B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
4'0 EM (E)tractive Manufacturing District)
4P HE (Higher Education District)
4W MI (industrial Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
Ob MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
4w MS (Medical Support District)
a R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
^� R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
_.=
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
4W SWSA
Location in Surrounding Area
0 250 500 1 0p0
rpt
Map Document:(N:\Planning_And_Development\_1_Locator_Mps\Glendobbin_MDP1107_082907.mxd) 8/29/2007 -- 9:21:37 AM
42 A 356
KSS LC
'43
. �..•- •
123 16
Ksstc
a,
i
�•� O•'0•t43 A 15
�tMCKOWN
IWO.v - •. .•
s�e�r h r � r• a
�� A •p .M p.•� 4�a0.O
t as s o• a •` o �• .•?�;:•r sem? •. o
oke"Mew.,ro• !°s•,. o?`: ;•�°'•o '`°:'`�;'Fs
s• •i 4
a.
t
+ F
' < <.e?`�°a's s �N�ti�sre o °.• °s �r h°rr i'+ s °s• moi• s .rrs`;�
F o s N°o' s o o s•' o F�a•' �'rs •' � ?! s ° H
e:: r. r `. o� 2�'s � 2:_s•:S°.;o $•' aa�•`.'•�a•' � to e,•.°, ss .�'�s'�i�; r
Map Document: (N:\Plannino And Develonment\ I I nPntt.,r nnnat(_I—A,L. ;.
r reuerlCK l:ounty, V A
Master Development
MDP 4 11 - 07
Application
Glendobbin
Parcel ID:
43 -A -15B
Location in the County 43-19-57
Map Features
O Hamlets
Long Range Land Use
*?. Future Rt37 Bypass
Rural Community Center
(0 MDPI107_Glendobbin
Residential
33 Lakes/Ponds
Business
^— Streams
Industrial
streets
® Institutional
'4 Primary
Recreation
^. Secondary
�.,: Historic
'�- Tertiary
® Mixed -Use
'�- Winchester Rds
® Planned Unit Development
,f Urban Development Area
c SWSA
J
0 ,50 :inn i 0 0 4scK CpG�
w 't
Case Planner: Candice
.n+nuy w4ulevv/ -- 7.L 1:3/ HIV)
vic-vvl -- :7.L I.J/ HIVI
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application PackalZe
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Department of Planning and Development Use Only
Date application received 1 Application 4 i ,o
Complete - Date of acceptance —
Incomplete - Date of Return
1. Project Title:
GLENDOBBIN
2. Owner's Name:
Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell
270 Panarama Drive
Winchester, VA 22603
*Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest:
Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell
3. Applicant:
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc
Address:
c/o Patrick Sowers
117 E. Piccadilly St., Winchester, VA 22601
Phone:
(540) 667-2139
4. Design Company: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc
Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone Number: (540) 667-2139
Contact Name: Patrick Sowers
1
Frederick County, Virfinia Master Development Plan Application Package
5. Location of Property:
6. Total Acreage:
APPLICATION, cont'd
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
South and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Va Rt
673) approximately 3,250 feet west of the
intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road
(Va Rt 663)
74.62 Acres
7. Property Information:
a) Property Identification Number (PIN)
b)
Current Zoning:
c)
Present Use:
d)
Proposed Use:
43 -A -15B 43-19-57,
43-A-16
RP and RA and MI
Vacant
SF Detached — 30,000 SF
Minimum
C) Adjoining Property Information: SEE ATTACHED
0 Magisterial District: Stonewall
8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original X 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:
V
2
ADJOINERS RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN
Adjoining Property Owners
Master Development Plan
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property
abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public
right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The
applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the
parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of
Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County
Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street
Name and
Address
Property Identification Number (P.1N)
Name: BHS, LC
P.O. Box 2368
Property #: 43-A-13
Winchester, VA 22604
Name: BHS, LC
P.O. Box 2368
Property #: 43-A-14
Winchester, VA 22604
Name: BHS, LC
P.O. Box 2368
Property #: 43 -A -I 1
Winchester, VA 22604
Name: Betty G. McKown
223 Payne Road
Property #: 43-A-15
Clearbrook, VA 22624
Name: Lenoir City Company (MI)
P.O. Box 1657
Property#: 43-19-2
Winchester, VA 22604
Name: Marshall Mills, Inc.
1543 Millwood Pike
Property #: 43-9-4-73
Winchester, VA 22602
Name: Marshall Mills, Inc.
1543 Millwood Pike
Property #: 43-9-4-72
Winchester, VA 22602
Name: Marshall Mills, Inc.
1543 Millwood Pike
Property #: 43-9-4-71
Winchester, VA 22602
Name: Marshall Mills, Inc.
1543 Millwood Pike
Property #: 43-9-4-70
Winchester, VA 22602
Name: Marshall Mills, Inc.
1543 Millwood Pike
Property #: 43-9-4-68
Winchester, VA 22602
Name: Lenoir City Company (M1)
P.O. Box 1657
Property #: 43-19-65
Winchester, VA 22604
Name: Lenoir City Company (M1)
P.O. Box 1657
Property #: 43-19-64
Winchester, VA 22604
Name: Lenoir City Company (Ml)
P.O. Box 1657
Pro erty #: 43-19-66
Winchester, VA 22604
Name: Lenoir City Company (Ml)
P.O. Box 1657
Property #: 43-19-56
Winchester, VA 22604
Name: Lenoir City Company (Ml)
P.O. Box 1657
Property #: 43-19-67
Winchester, VA. 22604
1543 Millwood Pike
Name: Marshall Mills, Inc.
Property #: 43-9-4-67
Winchester, VA 22602
Name: Marshall Mills, Inc.
1543 Millwood Pike
Property #: 43-9-4-66
Winchester, VA 22602
Name: Marshall Mills, Inc.
1543 Millwood Pike
Property #: 43-9-4-64
Winchester, VA 22602
Name: Harley E. & Roxanne L. Ostlund
328 Union View Lane
Property #: 43-20-15
Winchester, VA 22603
Name: Kevin & Arlena Harbourne
329 Union View Lane
Property #: 43-20-16
Winchester, VA 22603
Name: David & Karen Walker
311 Union View Lane
Property #: 43-20-13
Winchester, VA 22603
Name: John & Monica King
309 Union View Lane
Property #: 43-20-10
Winchester, VA 22603
Name: Glendobblin Ridge, LLC
270 Panorama Drive
Property #: 43-20-9
Winchester, VA 22603
Name: Rajdeep & Connie Parmar
247 Union View lane
Property #: 43-20-7
Winchester, VA 22603
Name: Judy Russell
2619 Woodside Drive
Property #: 43-20-6
Clearbrook, VA 22624
Name: Judy Russell
2619 Woodside Drive
Property #: 43-20-5
Clearbrook, VA 22624
Name: Jose & Angela Daly
151 Union View Lane
Property #: 43-20-4
Winchester, VA 22603
Name: Rosanna Mateo
13554 Shardlow Court
Property #: 43-20-3
Bristow, VA 20136
Name: KSS, LC
P.O. Box 2368
Property #: 43-12-3-18
Winchester, VA 22604
Name: KSS, LC
P.O. Box 2368
Property #: 43-12-3-1
Winchester, VA 22604
Name: James Peyton Darlington Trust
1543 Millwood Pike
Property #: 43-A-19
Winchester, VA 22602
Name: Cheryl Grimm Morris
P.O. Box 2802
Property #: 43-A-21
Winchester, VA 22604
Name: Shenwin, LLC
P.O. Box 2555
Property #: 43-19-60
Staunton, VA 24402
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.cq.frederJckva.us
Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia,
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We)
(Name) Glen W. and Pamela Russell (Phone) 540-662-7083
(Address) 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, Va 22603
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Instrument No. 26114 and 5243 and is described as
Parcel: 15B,16 Lot: Block: A Section: 43 Subdivision:
Instrument No. 7805 and is described as
Parcel: 57 Lot: Block: 19 Section: 43 Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) PHRA -Patrick Sowers and Ron Mislowski Phone: 540-667-2139
(.Address) 117E Picadillo Street Suite 200, Winchester, Va 22601
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would
have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including:
Rezoning (including proffers)
Conditional Use Permits
X Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
X Subdivision
Site Plan
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered
conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified."
In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of v GG-, _'2007
Signature(s)/ L�sy�,� cnJ
State of Virginia, City/County of _ r-���To-wit:
o
1, &-2 al c� k � � I Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction
aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument person lly appear before e
and has o ledged the sa befgre me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of` - , 200 7
_`•4
• \,
P ` NC'r4ew stun Expires: J�f1
RYr
-
:� '�7 di'd
AMENDMENT
Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION.- May 17, 2006 - No Recommendation
BOARD OF SUPr;RV1SORS: July 26, 2006 ID APPROVFD U DENIED
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
REZONING #17-05 OF RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN
WHEREAS, Rezoning #17-05 of Russell-Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates,
to rezone 31.1851 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with
proffers on the property sought to be rezoned, including a proffer to limit the number of dwellings to 30 on
the property, and proffers on adjoining property owned by applicants, was considered. The property sought
to be rezoned is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 43 -A -15B. The additional properties to
be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned. are (i) PIN 43-19-57, a 6.89 acre parcel zoned MI (Light
Industrial) District, and (ii) PIN 43-A-16, a 3654 acre Preservation Tract zone RA. Parcels 43 .A -15B and
43-A-16 are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673). approximately 3,250 feet west of
the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663), in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Parcel 43-19-57 is located at the northern terminus of Kentmere Court. in the Stonewall Magisterial
District.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on May17, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on July 26, 2006: 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, Zonina, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to
change 3l .1851 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with
proffers on the property sought to be rezoned, including a proffer to Limit the number of dwellings to 30
on the property, and proffers on adjoining property owned by applicants, as described by the application
and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant
and the property owner.
PDRcs �I9-06
This ordinance shall be in effect oil the dale of adoption.
Passed this 216th day of July, 2006 by the following recorded vole:
Richard C. Shickle. Chairman Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Nay
Gary Dove Aye Rill M. Ewing Aye
Gene T_ Fisher Aye Charles S_ Del-lawn—Ir. Aye
Philip A. Lemieux Aye
A COPT ATTEST
Jolui R. Riley, Jr. 'r°-
Frederick County Administrator
PDRes. 419-06
PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ. # 17-05
RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) on Tax
Map Parcel ("TMP") 43-A-I5B
PROPERTY: Tax Map Parcels: 43-A-1513, 43-A-16, 43-19-57 (the
"Property")
RECORD OWNER: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell
APPLICANT: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell
JUL 7 M
PROJECT NAME: Russell - Glendobbin
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: May 1, 2005
REVISION DATE(S): August 4, 2005 November 9, 2005 March 9, 2006
April 11, 2006 June 23, 2006 June 27, 2006
The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject
property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the
following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made
prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional rezoning is not
granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed
withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final
rezoning of Tax Map Parcel 43 -A -15B with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning
which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in
the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to
submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include
the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which
has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following the date on which the decision
has been affirmed on appeal.
The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience
or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an
interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein
shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used
in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled
"Generalized Development Plan, Russell-Glendobbin Property" dated June 23, 2006
revised June 27, 2006 (the "GDP"), a copy of which is attached.
A. PROFFERS APPLICABLE TO TAX MAP PARCEL 43-A- 15B
LAND USE:
1.1 Residential development on the Tax Map Parcel 43 -A -15B
'1 30 1 f•, "ly detached dwellingunits.
shall not e1Cl:eeti a liiaxilTiiini of �v single ia'Tli. •
1.2 The project shall develop solely with single family detached residential
uses. The minimum lot size for said uses shall be 30,000 square feet. The
minimum lot width, as taken from the front setback line, shall be 100 feet.
1.3 No dwelling units shall be permitted within 200 feet of any active orchards
located on adjacent properties. (See GDP)
1.4 No dwelling units shall be permitted within 100 feet of any adjacent
properties in agricultural use. (See GDP)
2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN
APPROVALS:
2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in
accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards,
and this Russel l-Glendobbin Proffer Statement as approved by the Board.
3. FIRE & RESCUE:
3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $889.00 per
dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a
building permit for each single family detached unit.
4. SCHOOLS:
4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $7,571.00 per
dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building
pen -nit for each single family detached unit.
5. PARKS & OPEN SPACE:.
5.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,288.00 per
dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a
building permit for each single family detached unit.
6. LIBRARIES:
6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $213.00 per
dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building
permit for each such single family detached unit.
tj
7. SHERIFF'S OFFICE:
7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $42.00 per
dwelling unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of building permit for
each such unit.
8. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING:
8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $203.00 per
dwelling unit for construction of a general governmental administration
building upon issuance of building permit for each such unit.
9. WATER & SEWER:
9.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the portion of the
Property located within the Sewer and Water Service Area to public water
and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection.
All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with
the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority.
10. ENVIRONMENT:
10.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the
Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater
Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3 which
results in the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law
at the time of construction of any such facility.
11. TRANSPORTATION:
11.1 Transportation improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent
with the study entitled, "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Russell-
Glendobbin Property," prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC,
dated May 4, 2005 (the "TIA"). The Applicant shall privately fund all
transportation improvements required of this project.
11.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $300.00 per
dwelling unit for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg
Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661), payable at the time of
building permit issuance for each residential unit.
11.3 The Applicant shall dedicate sufficient Iand, not to exceed 350 feet in
width, across Tax Map Parcel 43 -A -1 5B for the right of way for VA Route
37 limited access highway in the location generally depicted on the GDP,
or such other location as determined by the County, at no cost to Frederick
County, said right of way to be dedicated within ninety (90) days of
3
request by the County. The County shall set the specific alignment of the
Route 37 right of way on Tax Map Parcel 43-A-1513 by January 30, 2007;
provided should the County fail to do so by January 30, 2007, it shall do
so within thirty (30) days after written notice from Applicant after January
30, 2007.
12, ESCALATOR CLAUSE:
12.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement
are paid to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors (`Board") within
thirty (30) months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the
Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any
monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to
the Board after thirty (30) months following the approval of this rezoning
shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index
("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that
at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage
change in the CPI -U from that date twenty-four (24) months after the
approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date
the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -
compounded.
B. PROFFERS APPLICABLE TO TAX MAP PARCEL 43-A-16
13. SUBDIVISION:
13.1 Future subdivision of Tax Map Parcel 43-A-16 shall be prohibited except
for any subdivision necessary to dedicate right of way to the County of Frederick for the
future VA Route 37 limited access highway as generally shown on the GDP.
14. TRANSPORTATION:
14.1 The Applicant shall dedicate sufficient land not to exceed 350 feet in
width across Tax Map Parcel 43-A-16 for the right of way for Virginia Route 37 limited
access highway in the Iocation generally depicted on the GDP, or such other location as
determined by the County, at no cost to Frederick County; said right of way to be
dedicated within ninety (90) days of request by the County. The County shall set the
specific alignment of the Route 37 right of way on Tax Map Parcel 43-A-16 by January
30, 2007; provided should the County fail to do so by January 30, 2007, it shall do so
within thirty (30) days after written notice from Applicant after January 30, 2007.
C. PROFFERS APPLICABLE TAX MAP PARCEL 43-19-57
15. TRANSPORTATION:
4
15.1 The Applicant shall dedicate sufficient land, not to exceed 350 feet in
width, across Tax Map Parcel 43-19-57, in the location generally depicted on the GDP, or
such other location as determined by the County, together with the balance of Tax Map
Parcel 43-19-57 located south and east of said right of way; all of said dedication to be
applied to the right of way for the VA Route 37 limited access highway, at no cost to
Frederick County; said right of way to be dedicated within ninety (90) days of request by
the County. The County shall set the specific alignment of the Route 37 right of way on
Tax Map Parcel 43-19-57 by January 30, 2007; provided should the County fail to do so
by January 30, 2007, it shall do so within thirty (30) days after written notice from
Applicant after January 30, 2007.
Respectfully submitted,
Glen W_ Russell
By:
Title: MeMbeA
Pamela L. Russell
By:
Title: b LP_Aj-�
STATE OF VIRGINIA,
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1 , 2006, by
My commission expires: Z Z60
Notary Public
RUSSELL — GLENDOSBIN
Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc
GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
117 E. Ncodill 5{. Winchester, Virginia 22601
O
a
VOICE (540) 667-2139 FAX. (540) 655-4493
FREDERICK CDUMY, IKROM
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #13-07
WINCHESTER GATEWAY
nJiall Repori for fthe Piianning Commission
Prepared: November 19, 2007
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICD, 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 Action
Planning Commission: 12/05/07 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 01/09/08 Pending
LOCATION: The subject properties are located on Route 7 at Getty Lane.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUNIBER(s): 54 -A -99C, 54 -A -99E, 54 -A -99F, 54 -A -99G, 54 -A -99I, 54 -A -99J, 54-
A -99K and 54 -A -99L
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: B2 (Business General) District
Use: Commercial and Vacant
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North: MH -1 (Mobile Home Community) Use: Regency Lakes
RA (Rural Areas) Use: Battlefield and Residential
South: RP (Residential Performance Use: Residential and Vacant
East: B2 (Business General) Use: Commercial
West: I-81 Use: Interstate
PROPOSED USE: Commercial Uses
MDP 413-07, Winchester Gateway
November 19, 2007
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The master plan for this property appears to have significant
measurable impact on Routes 7 and Regency Lake Drive, the V DOT facilities which would provide
access to the property. The submitted master development plan dated October 29, 2007 is acceptable.
Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage
calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review.
VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications,
traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to construction on the
State's right-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to
cover said work.
Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended.
Frederick County Public Works: Your letter dated October 17, 2007 has addressed all of our previous
comments outlined in our letter of September 18, 2007. Consequently, we grant our final approval of
the revised master development plan.
Frederick County Inspections Department: No comment required at this time.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: 1St review —approved.
GIS Department: No additional road names are required at this time. Structure numbering will be
assigned during the permit and construction phase of development.
Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed master development plan and
determined that the proposed development plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester
Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the
airport's Part 77 close in surfaces.
Planning & 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 are located on Route 7 at Getty Lane.
C) Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identified these
MDP #13-07, Winchester Gateway
November 19, 2007
Page 3
properties as being zoned B2 (Business General).
D) Site Suitabilill & Proiect 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 Compatihility:
The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan shows this area with a commercial
designation. The majority of this site was developed under Site Plans 914-05 and #57-05 for
Winchester Gateway; these site plans were for the new commercial development that existing on
the site. The existing and proposed uses with this development are in conformance with the
Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Transportation
The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan shows a road connecting Route 7 to
Regency Lakes Drive. Getty Lane, which is the existing road within the project, currently
terminates on parcel 54 -A -99C. This Master Development shows the continuation of this road
through the property and connecting with Regency Lakes Drive. Regency Lakes Drive will be
modified to accommodate a 120 foot left turn lane into the new Getty Lane extension.
The pavement for westbound Route 7 will be shifted to provide for a wider right turn lane onto
Regency Lakes Drive. A 100 foot transition will also be added to westbound Route 7 for
vehicles turning right onto Route 7 off of Regency Lakes Drive.
Pro ers — There are no proffers associated with these properties
Waivers
This development is proposing to utilize private roads for access. The subdivision ordinance
states that all lots must have state road frontage to be subdivided. In order for the proposed
commercial lots on the Winchester Gateway property to be subdivided utilizing private roads, the
Board of Supervisors would need to grant a waiver of §144-24C of the Frederick County
Subdivision Ordinance. A recommendation to the Board of Supervisors from the Planning
Commission is needed on this waiver request.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12/05/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The master development plan for Winchester Gateway depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be
consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance
and this preliminary Master Development Plan is in a form that is administratively approvable. All of
the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed prior to a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Two actions are needed from the Planning
MDP #13-07, Winchester Gateway
November 19, 2007
Page 4
Commission for this MDP: a decision on private street waiver request and a recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors on the MDP.
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 once all issues have been
addressed.
— — ---- _ u. ..qy_w 1— iovI.inxa) IIIoituU( -- 1U:b8:35AM
'IMDP i& - 07 .-A
Winchesf-ILateway
..
�w
S H0.
i
�4 3
oil
_i
;woo
cyw
v
rlov
c7 ..
�eR
z
io
I cjv'VC
N�DIA,K
/ t
EERIiY'yILLE AVEC � Pi,
IF
heco"
Wincster, A V
_ DA v
4Vrv.E,9s - -,_.• ® SII
Q°. TgfO�. VALLEY M[L ,. r.,I
Mao Document' (N•\Planninn Anel a t 3 _
Frederick County, VA
Master Development
Plan
MDP 4 13 - 47
Application
Winchester
k3ateway
Parcel Ill:
54 -A. -990,54 -A -99E,
Location in the Gounty 54 - A, - 99F, 54 - A - 99G,
Map Features 54-A-991
O Hamlets Zoning
4-4, Future R137 Bypass B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
0 MDPI307_WinchesterGateway B2 (Business, General Distdst)
a Lakes/Ponds f B3 (Business Industrial Transition District)
Streams +* EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
-"> Buildings OP HE (Higher Education District)
,D Urban Development Area Q� M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
4w MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
4P MS (Medical Support District)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
ai R5(Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
'E'er SWSA
s
I
Soo�
� E �
e�
Wirtchesler
V ryini
EO'±;iJi;
O �
' - 0 500
Case Planner: Candice
- -- -- ----- --•r .. -1 .- —.y_iovr_i 1 tour.IllXU) I u 15/zuut -- IVN3:35AM
1-- . , " —4uVI -- lu:oo:,3:Dmlvl
Winches _ewa
Map Document: (N:1Planninq And DevelODment\ 1 1 nratnr
Frederick County, VA
Master Development
Plan
MDP 9 13 - 07
Application
fO 'Y Winchester
Grateway
(Parcel 1D:
It 54 - A - 99C, 54 - A - 99E,
Location in the County 54 - A - 99F, 54 - A - 99C,
54-A-9911
Map Features
O Hamlets
�!• Future Rt37 Bypass
0 MDP1307_WincheslerGaleway
.0 Urban Development Area
SWSA
v,'g,
O
C y
Location in Surrounding Area
a 0 500 1 0 0 ��GK CpG
�eet o 'tae
Case Planner: Candice
,— .--. _ • , �r jul4vui -- ju:t'O:Ob AM
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1, Project Title: Winchester Gateway MDP
2. Owner's Name WIN I, It, III, LLC
140 North Hatcher Avenue
Purcellville, VA 20132
(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:
Jeremy Tweedie
5. Location of Property Route 7 and Gateway Drive
6. Total
Acreage:
74.42 acres
7. Property Information
a)
Property Identification Number
(PIN) :
b)
Current Zoning:
c)
Present Use:
d)
Proposed Uses:
e) Adjoining Property Information:
Property Identification
Numbers
North 54-A-90
South Route 7 -Berryville Pike
East 55-A-27, 55-A-102, 54-A-9913,
54 -A -99H, 54 -A -99A
West I-81
f) Magisterial District:
54 -A -99C, 54 -A -99E, 54 -A -99F,
54 -A -99G, 54 -A -99I, 54 -A -99J,
54 -A -99K, and 54 -A -99L
B2
Commercial/Vacant
Commercial
Property Uses
Non-taxable/vacant
Residential, commercial
Stonewall
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: 7 -?C) - 0 -7
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.fiederick.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) Blue Ridge Realty
(Phone) (540) 338-0010
(Address) 140 North Hatcher Avenue, Purcellville, VA 20132
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. 050006781 and 070001724 on Page and is described as
Parcel: 54 Lot: 99C Block: A Section:
Subdivision:
Parcel: 54 Lot: 99E Block: A Section:
Subdivision:
Parcel: 54 Lot: 99F Block: A Section:
Subdivision:
Parcel: 54 Lot: 99G Block: A Section:
Subdivision:
Parcel: 54 Lot: 99I Block: A Section:
Subdivision:
Parcel: 54 Lot: 99J Block: A Section:
Subdivision:
Parcel: 54 Lot: 99K Block: A_ Section:
Subdivision:
Parcel: 54 Lot: 99L Block: A Section:
Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Greenway Enaineerin
(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
modified.
In witness there9fae) have hq,4 set iy�/
Signature(s)
the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
our) hand and seal this day of , 200
State o irginia, City/ oun' oft:. , To -wit:
I, (' ' 1_ T�.defbar, Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who
signed to tae ofpgoi4rz ns`r w ent and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has
acknowte aee �`cfore n,e in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of d 200 —1
My Commission Expires: I
1
Notary FIubli&, 1 71CQ �2�
COUNTY of FREDERI� K
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
WRA;A FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director�:T
DATE: November 16, 2007
RE: Discussion: 2008-2009 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)
On November 12, 2007, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS)
met with County Department and Agency representatives to discuss their individual
capital improvement project requests, including new projects and modifications to
previous requests, associated with the 2008-2009 Capital improvements Plan (CIP).
The role of the CPPS in the CIP process was to ensure that the various departmental
project requests are in conformance with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. The
evaluation and prioritization of departmental projects was presented by the individual
County departments and agencies that also provided a projected cost for each project as
required by the Code of Virginia.
The CPPS discussion was thorough. Particular focus was once again afforded to the
transportation requests and mechanisms available to projecting improvement costs and
the implementation of the identified transportation improvements. Following the CPPS
discussion, the CPPS endorsed the 2008-2009 CIP and endorsed its conformance with the
County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. The CPPS forwarded the CIP to the Planning
Commission for discussion. It is the role of the Planning Commission to affirm that the
2008-2009 CIP is in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
It is requested that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors consider the
proposed 2008-2009 Capital Improvements Plan as a discussion item prior to the CIP's
advertisement for public hearing. This discussion will provide a valuable opportunity for
the collective review of proposed capital projects while also allowing the Commission
and Board the ability to determine if additional information or analysis is needed in
advance of final consideration of the CIP.
197 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Planning Commission
Discussion: 2008-2009 CIP
November 16, 2007
Page 2
Please find attached with this agenda item: a summary of the proposed 2008-2009 CIP,
information pertaining to new or modified departmental requests, and a draft copy of the
proposed 2008-2009 CIP, which includes three maps illustrating the known locations of
the CIP requests. If adopted, the CIP and included maps, will ultimately become a
component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which would satisfy the review
requirement of Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, which states that no public
facility shall be constructed unless said facility is a "feature shown" within a
jurisdiction's comprehensive plan.
Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding this
information.
Attachments
MTR/bad
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED
2008-2009 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
v The proposed CIP consists of 55 capital projects, a slight increase over the 54
projects included in the previous CIP.
Of the 55 capital projects proposed, only four are new compared with
seventeen in last years CIP. Parks and Recreation account for two,
Winchester Regional Airport has one. Last year the Transportation Committee
accounted for the majority of new requests as it was the first year they had
provided capital projects for the CIP.
• The following is a listing of the new project requests:
• Four (4) new projects:
o Parks and Recreation, Baseball field lighting at Sherando and
Clearbrook Parks.
o Parks and Recreation, Bike Trail Phase Il in the Sherando Park area.
o Transportation, Interstate 81 Exit 307 Relocation.
o Winchester Regional Airport, North side taxi way connector.
• Public Schools, Parks & Recreation, County Administration, and Winchester
Regional Airport have modified the details of a variety of their requests based
upon updated thinking and changing conditions. Of particular note are the
Public Schools modifications to the addition and renovation of Apple Pie
Ridge and Bass Hoover Elementary Schools, This, in conjunction with the
recently programmed 12th Elementary School, will enable the Public Schools
to move to an all day Kindergarten program. Public Schools have also
modified their CIP to reflect renovations to their administrative offices at their
current Amherst Street location.
Proposed 2008-2009 Capital Improvements Plan
Comparison of New Project Requests and Modification Requests
Frederick County Public Schools
Project
Type of
2007-2008
2008-2009
Difference
Request
Local
Local
($)
Expenditure
Expenditure
Re nest ($)
Request ($)
Transportation Facility
Modification
13,186,200
18,220,000
5,033,800
Apple Pie Ridge
Modification
3,500,000
TBD
N/A
Elementary School
Renovation
Bass Hoover Elementary
Modification
1,500,000
TBD
N/A
School Addition
Replacement of Frederick
Modification
33,592,000
33,992,000
400,000
County Middle School
Renovation/Administrative
Modification
N/A
15,010,000
N/A
Offices
Robert E. Aylor Middle
Modification
18,000,000
18,100,000
100, 000
School Renovation
Fourth High School
Modification
52,000,000
55,250,000
3,250,000
James Wood High School
Modification
TBD
TBD
N/A
Renovation _
Fifth Middle School
Modification
34,642,000
35,542,000
900,000
Elementary School 913
Modification
19,389,000
19,969,000
580,000
Elementary School #14
Modification
19,389,000
19,969,000
580,000
Total
Frederick County Parks and Recreation
Project
Type Of
2001 2M08
2008-2909f�ference
Request
Local
Local
($)
Expenditure
Expenditure
Re uest ($)
Request ($)
Aquatic Facility
Modification
14,107,500
14,750,000
642,500
Baseball Field
New
N/A
1,069,000
1,069,000
Lighting
Park Land in
Modification
3,135,000
3,276,000
1,141, 000
Western Frederick
County
Park Land in
Modification
4,180,000
4,368,200
188,200
Eastern Frederick
County
Bike Trail Phase II
New
N/A
450,000
450,000
Water Slide/
Modification
1,164,715
1,271,128
52,413
Sprayground
Maintenance
Modification
352,123
363,039
10,916
Compound-
Sherando Park
Open Play Areas-
Modification
465,015
465,548
533
Clearbrook Park
Access Road with
Modification
1,123,693
1,496,560
372,867
Parking and Trails-
Sherando Park
Lake, Trails, and
Modification
1,101,638
1,322,369
220,731
Parking with 2 -MP
Fields
Soccer Complex-
Modification
1,871,245
1,371,559
-499,686
Sherando Park
Skateboard Park-
Modification
475,051
499,229
24,178
Sherando Park
Softball Complex-
Modification
620,389
653,011
32,622
Sherando Park
Baseball Complex
Modification
1,230,803
43,542
-1,187,261
Renovations-
Sherando Park
Tennis/Basketball
Modification
470,012
511,831
41,819
Complex -
Clearbrook Park
Picnic Area-
Modification
728,658
782,140
53,482
Sherando Park
Shelter/Stage
Modification
463,366
494,532
31,116
Seating- Clearbrook
Request
Local
Local
($)
Park
Expenditure
Expenditure
Multi -Generational
Modification
8,193,636
8,562,629
368,993
Community Center
Modification
3,100,000
3,100,000
0
Total
County Administration
Project
Type of
2007-2008
2008-2009
Difference
Request
Local
Local
($)
Expenditure
Expenditure
Request ($)
Re uest ($)
Fire & Rescue
Modification
3,100,000
3,100,000
0
Station 922
Round Hill Fire
Modification
N/A
N/A
N/A
Station Relocation
Gainesboro
Modification
400,000
445,000
45,000
Convenience Site
Relocation
20,600,000
20,600,000
0
Gore Refuse Site
Modification
400,000
420,000
20,000
Expansion
Clearbrook Fire
Modification
1,530,000
1,530,000
0
Station- Relocation
Total
Transportation Committee
Project
Type of
2007-2008
2008-2009
Difference
Request
Local
Local
($)
Expenditure
Expenditure
Request ($)
Request ($)
Planning &
3,000,000
3,000,000
0
Engineering Rt. 37
1-81 Exit 307
New
N/A
60,000,000
60, 000, 000
Relocation
Warrior Drive
23,200,000
23,200,000
0
Extension
Channing Drive
20,600,000
20,600,000
0
Extension
Widening of Route
11 North
Type of
47,800,000
47,800,000
0
Brucetown Rd. &
Hopewell Rd.
Realignment
Request
3,000,000
3,000,000
0
Senseny Road
Widening
22,800,000
22,800,000
0
East Tevis Street
Extension
2,600,000
2,600,000
0
Inverlee Way
Modification
10,200,000
10,200,000
0
Fox Drive
250,000
250,000
0
Blossom Drive
250,000
250,000
0
Revenue Sharing
Modification
3,000,000
3,000,000
0
Total
Winchester Regional Airport
Project
Type of
2007-2008
2008-2009
Difference
Request
Local
Local
($)
Expenditure
Expenditure
Request (S)
Request (S)
ReHab R/W 14/32 &
Modification
4,000
4,400
400
Upgrade Airfield
Lights
Terminal Building
Modification
110,000
1,140,000
1,030,000
Renovation
N Side T/W
New
N/A
1,100
1,100
Connector
Land Acquisition-
Modification
17,300
17,300
0
Parcels 47, 47A, & 48
Land Acquisition-
Modification
7,000
7,000
0
Parcels 50, 51, & 52
Airfield Maintenance
Modification
210,000
94,750
115,250
Building
Total
Handley Regional Library
Project
Type of
2007-2008 Local
2008-2009
Difference
Request
Expenditure
Local
()
Request ($)
Expenditure
Request ($)
Bowman Library-
Modification
228,468
251,000
22,532
Parking Lot &
Sidewalk Extension
Library facility in
Modification
1,053,000
2,132,000
1,079,000
Northwestern
Frederick County
Library Branch-
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sensen /Greenwood
Library Branch-
Modification
N/A
N/A
N/A
Route 522 South
Total
FREDERICK COUNTY
VIRGINIA
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
2008-2009
Fiscal Year
Adopted by the
Frederick County
Board of Supervisors
tbd
Recommended by the
Frederick County
Planning Commission
tbd
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...................................... _.................................. 1
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 2
Frederick County Public Schools ............................ . .... . .................2
Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ...................... . .....2
County Administration.............................................................. 2
Transportation Committee.......................................................... 3
Winchester Regional Airport ....................................................... 3
Handley Regional Library ........................................................... 3
2008-2009 CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP ................................................ .. 4
2008-2009 COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP........... 5
2008-2009 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS MAP .................................... 6
2008-2009 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TABLE ........................ 7
CIP TABLE EXPLANATIONS............................................................ 9
PROJECT FUNDING ...................................................... . ................ 9
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS................................................................ 10
Frederick County Public Schools...................................................10
Transportation Facility ................................... .............10
Apple Pie Ridge & Bass Hoover Elementary Renovation..............10
Replacement of Frederick County Middle School......................10
Frederick County Public School Admin. Offices Renovation......... I 1
Robert E. Aylor Middle School Renovation ............................. l l
Fourth High School ..................................... ................11
James Wood High School Renovation ................................... 12
Fifth Middle School.........................................................
12
Elementary School#13.....................................................12
Elementary School#14.....................................................13
Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ............................13
Indoor Aquatic Center .....................................................
13
Baseball Field Lighting......................................................13
Park Land- Western Frederick County ...................................
14
Park Land- Eastern Frederick County ....................................
14
Bike Trail — Phase II.........................................................14
Water Slide/Spray Ground- Sherando/Clearbrook...............
15
Maintenance Compound- Sherando .......................................15
Open Play Area- Clearbrook ..............................................
15
Access Road with Parking and Trails-Sherando .........................16
Lake, Parking, and Trail Development-Sherando .......................16
Soccer Complex-Sherando.................................................16
Skateboard Park-Sherando.................................................17
Softball Complex-Sherando.................................................17
Baseball Complex-Sherando................................................17
Tennis/Basketball Complex -Clearbrook ...............................
18
Picnic Area-Sherando.......................................................
18
Shelter/Stage Seating-Clearbrook.........................................18
Multi -Generational Community Center..................................19
County Administration..............................................................
19
Annex Facilities/Fire & Rescue Station #22 ............................ 19
Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station Relocation ........................ 20
Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation ...............................
20
Gore Refuse Site Expansion ...............................................
20
Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation .......................................
21
Transportation Committee...........................................................21
Planning & Engineering of Route 37 ......................................21
Interstate 81, Exit 307 Relocation .................................... .
....21
Warrior Drive Extension....................................................22
Channing Drive Extension ................. . .......................... . .....22
Widening of Route 11 North ...................................... . .........22
Brucetown/Hopewell Road Realignment..................................22
Senseny Road Widening....................................................23
East Tevis Street Extension................................................23
InverleeWay.................................................................23
FoxDrive.....................................................................24
Blossom Drive...:..... .......... . . . . .
. .
RevenueSharing.............................................................24
Winchester Regional Airport ............................................... . .......
25
Rehab R/W 14/32, Upgrade Airfield Lights .............................
25
Terminal Building Renovation .................................. . .......
. . 25
N Side T/W Connector......................................................25
Land Acquisition— Bufflick Road — Parcels 47, 47A, & 48...........
26
Land Acquisition- Bufflick Road — Parcels 50, 51, & 52 ..............
26
Airfield Maintenance Building ............................................
26
Handley Regional Library...........................................................27
Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension ...............
27
Northern Frederick County Library Branch .............................
27
Senseny/Greenwood Library Branch .....................................
27
Route 522 South Library Branch..... . ................... ................
28
CAPI'T'AL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
FREDERICK COUNTY
2008-2009
INTRODUCTION
Section 15.2-2239 of the Code of Virginia assigns the responsibility for preparation of
plans for capital outlays to the local Planning Commissions. The Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP) consists of a schedule for major capital expenditures for the county for the
ensuing five years.
The CIP is updated annually. Projects are removed from the plans as they are completed
or as priorities change. The plan is intended to assist the Board of Supervisors in
preparation of the county budget. In addition to determining priorities for capital
expenditures, the county must also ensure that projects contained within the CIP conform
to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, the projects are reviewed with
considerations regarding health, safety, and the general welfare of the public. When the
CIP is adopted, it becomes a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as a capital facilities planning
document, not for requesting funding allocations. Once adopted, project priorities may
change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that
particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The
status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is
projected.
Transportation projects are included in the CIP for a second year. The 2007-2008 CIP
included transportation projects for the first time. The reason for this change was that
state code now allows for transportation projects to appear in the CIP. The addition of
transportation projects to the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be
independently undertaking these projects. Funding projects will continue to come from a
combination of state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing.
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
Frederick County Public Schools
In an effort to maintain educational facilities that will handle the growing student
population, the construction of two new elementary schools is recommended within the
UDA (Urban Development Area). The 12th Elementary School has been removed from
the CIP as it has recently been programmed. A new high school and a new middle school
have also been requested in anticipation of the future demand of a growing student
population. A number of school renovations and relocations are proposed, several of
which are aimed at accommodating an all day Kindergarten program. The Public Schools
top priority remains a new transportation facility.
One of the most notable changes from last years CIP is a request to renovate and expand
the current administration building on Amherst Street rather than relocating and
renovating the current Frederick County Middle School.
Parks & Recreation
The majority of the recommended projects are planned for the county's two regional
parks (Sherando & Clearbrook). Ten projects are planned for Sherando Park: upgrade of
baseball lighting, upgrade pool amenities, maintenance compound and office, skateboard
park, parking and multi-purpose fields with trail development, a softball complex,
renovations to the existing baseball complex, a soccer complex, picnic area with a shelter,
and an access road with parking and trails. There are currently five projects planned for
the Clearbrook Park which include, upgrade of baseball lighting, upgrading pool
amenities, a new open play area, a tennis/basketball complex, and shelter with an area for
stage seating. The upgrade of pool amenities at the swimming pools at both parks will
include the addition of water slides and a spray ground.
The indoor aquatic facility is being proposed as a top priority of the Parks and Recreation
Department for a third year in a row. Phase II of the Bike Trail project in the Sherando
area has been added to the plan.
The Parks and Recreation Department has proposed to acquire land in both the eastern
and western portions of the county for the development of future regional park system.
Both land acquisitions call for 150-200 acres of land to accommodate the recreational
needs of the growing population.
County Administration
Modifications to two of the County's refuse convenience sites have been requested. The
first request is that the current Gainesboro facility be moved because of health hazards
the current site incurs. The other request is for the expansion/relocation of the Gore
Refuse Site to allow for a trash compactor, which will reduce operational costs, by
compacting trash before it reaches the landfill.
2
Fire & Rescue has requested two relocations of current fire stations in order to operate
more efficiently. The top project for the County Administration is the creation of Fire &
Rescue Station #22, with the ability to provide an annex facility for other county related
offices.
Transportation Committee
This is the second year the Transportation Committee is providing project requests for the
CIP. Virginia State Code allows for transportation projects to be included within a
locality's CIP. Funding for transportation project requests will likely come from
developers and revenue sharing. Implementation of transportation projects does not take
away funding for generalized road improvements.
The Transportation Committee has requested funding for twelve projects. The twelve
requests include projects that entail widening of major roads; key extensions of roads that
help provide better networks, and the addition of turn lanes at current unsafe
intersections. The relocation of Interstate 81, Exit 307 is the only addition to this years
CIP
Winchester Regional Airport
Several of the Airport requests were carried forward from last year. There are two
requests to acquire additional parcels along Bufflick Road which are required to meet
noise abatement requirements. Also carried over, is the request to renovate the terminal
building, the request to construct a new airfield maintenance building, and a request to
upgrade the airfield lighting system to enhance safety for aircraft use of the facility. Two
additional requests address the rehabilitation of Runway 14/42 and a new north side Taxi
way Connector.
Funding for airport projects is derived through a complex formula where the federal and
state governments contribute a majority of the funding, with Frederick County and the
other jurisdictions providing the remaining funding.
Handley Regional Library
The Handley Regional Library has recommended four projects, consistent with their
2008-2009 request. The library's top priority is a parking lot expansion as well as
improvements to sidewalk access at the Bowman Library. The parking lot expansion
would accommodate 121 more parking than what is currently available. The library
wishes to extend the sidewalks to serve residents traveling from the east to Lakeside
Drive.
The three remaining projects request that funding be provided for new library branches
throughout the county which include the areas of Gainesboro, Senseny/Greenwood Road,
and Route 522 South, with the latter two being located within the UDA (Urban
Development Area).
3
2008-2009
Capital Improvements
Specific or
Approximate Locat.'cins
Parks and Recreation
1 Sherando Park
2 Clearbrook Park
3 Future Western Parkland
4 Future Eastern Parkland
County Administration
1 Annex Facility / Fire & Rescue Station
2 Round Hill Fire Station Relocation
3 Gainestioro Convenience Site Relocation
4 Gore Convenience Site Expansion
5 Clear6reek Fire Station Relocation
1
IM Airport
Library
1 Bowman Library - Parking Lot and Sidewalk Addition
2 Northern Frederick County Library Branch
3 Library Branch • Senseny & Greenwood 's,
4 Library Branch - Rt 522 South
f0\,% Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
2008 - 2009
Frederick County
arra ital Improvements Plan
3
��
4
2
N %Y
W E r:
0
No4a: 0 12,500 25,000 50,000 75,000
Created by Fredsnek County papaitmaM o} Feet
Planning & Gevelopmant 0 2 Q 8 12
Map represerds the Capital Improrment Requests
submitted by various county departments. MIKES
2008-2009
's
New School Locations
1r a ital Improvements Plan
p
® Existing Elementary Schools
Existing High Schools
Existing Middle Schools
New School Location Alternatives
• ` A Urban Development Area 1
SWSA
City/ Town Bounday ru
Replacement
FCMSv
J
50
1
' f
..
!
5o�.
f Elem School ~'
f I Elem School
#4 Hiyl
152
Map Created by Frederick County Dept
of Planning & Development
11/06107
N
W E
S
0 1 2 4 Miles
r 1 1
1 1
School Locations
Are Most
Appropriate
Within the UDA
W00D8
el
o
Fo I
W
o y
�.
NDJUIN
.. 0�•2`•• i "4�`r._� .. .µ.ms: l' 1 •J
PINE RD
ROUNDHI
LL`RD`'`
n.,
VALLEy MRL RD
f
may` �' Winchester � - '�•<:;� °o � �"
2008-2009
Capital Improvement Plan
r
Transportation Projects
37
T
✓� c'""FR 1 CONTINUE RT37 PLANNING
ENGINEERING WORK
1-81 EXIT
v°P% iiGl 307 RELOCATION
o
50 WARRIOR DR EXTENSION
V%VTO NEW EXIT 307
II CHANNING DR
HCP w K'PARKINSMILL RD 4 ', EXTENSION TO RT50
P
RT11 N OF WINC
i
WIDENING TO WV LINE
11 U
Ilk' BRUCETOWN RD/HOPEWELL RD
�'w 522 �MELRn r' t ALIGNMENTAND INTERSECTION
Stephens G�It SENSENY RD
p
WIDENING
s
EAST TEVIS EXTENSION
TO RDWAY RUSSELL 150 & 181
INVERLEE WAY, CONNECTION FROM
I RT50 TO SENSENY RD
FOX DR, INSTALL RT
` rtfi TURN LANE ONTO RT522
pa, Fred—.1, County Dept of
G _ 7` Planning 8 Developnwnl
-.' 107 N Kent St BLOSSOM DR
.! - .0 / Winchester; VA 22D01 INSTALL TURN LANE
f` • y www.CO FREDERICK VA US
November 19, 2D07
O
Department Priority
County
Total Project
Count
Contribution
Per
Fiscal Year
Contributions
Notes
Costs
2008-
2009-
2010-
2011-
1 2012 -
Projects
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Public Schools
$18,220,000
Transportation Facility
4,500,000
10,500,000
3,220.,000
$18,220,000
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary & Bass
Hoover Elementary Add/Renov
Replacement Frederick Middle
1,700,000
6,000,000
21,500,000
4,792,000
TBD
TBD
$33,9.92,000
FCPS Office Expansion
500,000
4,700,000
9,810,000
$15,010,000
$15,010,000
'Robert E. Aylor Renovation
500.,000
6,375,000
6,725,000
2,275,000°
2,225,004
$18,100.000
$18,100,000
Fourth High School
6,000,000
6,500,000
13,000,000
19,500,000
10,250,000
$55,250,000
James Wood High School Renov,
TBD
Fifth Middle School
2,250,000
1,000,000
3,829,000
$35,542,000
D
TBD
$35,542,000
Elementary School #13
1,125,000
700,000
6,000,000
$19.969,000
D
$19.969,000
Parks &Recreation
Elementary School #14
700,000
1,125,000
14,001,7001
$19,969,000
D
$19,969,000
Clearbrook & Sherando
Indoor Aquatic Facility
Baseball Field Lighting
14,750,000
1,069,000
$14,107,500
$14,750,000
:Park Land Western Fred, Co
3,276,000
$1,069,000
$3,276,000
$1,069,000
$3;276,000
Park Land Eastern Fred. Co.
4,368,200
$4,368,200
$4,368,200
Clearbrook & Sherando
Bike Trail (P -tease Ll)
Water Slide/Spray Ground
450,000
1,217,128
$450,000
$450,000
Sherando
Maintenance Compound
363,039
$1,217,128
$1,217,128
Clearbrook
Open Play Areas
465,548
$363,039
$465,548
$363,039
$465,548
Sherando
Access Road w/Parking/Tratls
1,41 6,560
$1,496,560
$1,496,560
Sherando
Lake/Trails/Parking- 2 Fields
1,322,369
$1,322,369
$1,322,369
Sherando
Soccer Com plex
1,371,559
$1,371,559
$1,371,559
Sherando
Skateboard Park
499,229
$499,229
$499,229
Sherando
Softball Complex
653,011
$653,011
$653,011
Sherando
Clearbrook
Baseball Complex
'rennis/Basketball Complex
43,542
$43,542
$43,542
Sherando
Picnic Areas
511,831
$511,831
$511,831
Clearbrook
Shelter Stage
782,140
$782,140
$782,140
Multi -Generational Center
494,532
$494,532
$494,532
County Administration
8,562,629
$8,562,629
$8,562,629
$3,10U.000
'Fire & Rescue Station #22
400,000°
1,100,000
1,600,000
$3,100.000
Station #15 Relocation
N/A
Relocation of Gainesboro Site
445,000
$445,000
N/A
$445,000
Relocation/Expansion Gore Site
50,000
370,000
$420,000
$420,000
-Stenon #13 Relocation
132,0001
135,0001
142,500
148,000•
155,000
$1,530.000
$1,530,000
County Total Project
Department Priority County Contribution Per Fiscal Year Contributions Notes Costs
2008-
2009-
2010-
2011-
2012-
Projects
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Transportation
Route 37 Engineering
1,500,000
1,500,000
$1,500,0.00
E
$3,000,000
1-81 Exit 307 Relocation
$60,000,000
$60,000,000
Warrior Drive Extension
$231200:000
E
$23,200,000
Channing Drive Extension
Widening of Route 11 North
$20,600,000
E
$20,600,000
Brucetown/Hopewell Realign.
$47,800,100
E
$47,800,000
Senseny Road Widening
$3,000,000
E
$3,000,000
East Tevis Street Extension
$22;800,000
E
$22,800,000
nverlee Way
$2,600,000
E
$2,600,000
Fox Drive
$10.200,000
E
$10,200,000
Blossom Drive
$250,000
E
$250,000
Winchester Airport
Revenue Sharing
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
$250,000
$3,000,000
E
$250,000
$3,000,000
$220,000
:Rehab R!W'14/32, Upgrade Airfield L41
220,000
$4.400
A,B
Terminal Building Renovation
3,000,000
$1,140,000
A
$3,000,000
N Side TNV Connector
65,000
$1,100
$55,000
Land Acquisition, Lots 47,47A,48
800,000
$17,300
A
$800,000
Land Acquisition, Lots 50,51,52
50,000•
300,000
$7,000
A
$350,000
Regional Library
Airfield Maintenance Building
110,000
$94,750
A
$110,000
$251,000
Bowrtlan Parking Lott-Stdewalk
251,000
$251,000
Library Branch North Frederick
197,000
1,935,000
$2,132,000
C
$2,132,000
'Senseny/Greenwood Branch
NIA
Route 522 Branch
N/A,
N/A
N/A
7otat
1
_ __:_,,._,•_ _ ...
$486,861,317
�•••�• y �N,. u rviduun N/A= Not Available
B= Partial funding from FAA
C= Partial funding from private donations
D= Funding goes beyond displayed 5 years
E= Funding anticipated through development & revenue sources
THE CIP TABLE
CONTENT DESCMPTIOS
The Capital Improvements Plan table, on the previous pages, contains a list of the capital
improvement projects proposed for the ensuing five years. A description of the
information in this table is explained below.
Department Priority- The priority rating assigned by each agency or department for
their requested projects.
Project Description- The name of the capital improvement projects.
County Contribution- The estimated dollar value that will be contributed for each
project. This value is listed by individual fiscal years and by total contributions over the
five-year period. The total contribution column, located to the right of the fiscal year
columns, does not include debt service projections.
Notes- Indicates the footnotes that apply to additional funding sources for particular
projects.
Total Project Costs- The cost for each project, including county allocations and other
funding sources.
PROJECT FUNDING
The projects included in the 2008-2009 Capital Improvements Plan have a total project
cost to the county of $466,861,317 over the next five years.
• School projects are funded through a combination of loans from the
Virginia Public School Authority and the Virginia Literary Fund.
• Funding for Parks and Recreation Department projects will come from the
unreserved fund balance of the County. The Parks and Recreation
Commission will actively seek grants and private sources of funding for
projects not funded by the county.
• Airport projects will be funded by contributions from the federal, state,
and local governments. The local portion may include contributions from
Frederick, Clarke, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties, and the City of
Winchester.
• The addition of transportation projects to the CTP is in no way an
indication that Frederick County will be independently undertaking these
projects. Funding projects will continue to come from a combination of
state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing.
E
Frederick County Public Schools Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Transportation Facility
Description: This project involves the site acquisition and development of a new
transportation facility for the public school system. The site will house administration,
driver training areas, driver and staff meeting areas, mechanical service and repair bays,
inspection bay, wash bay, and fueling bays.
Capital Cost: $18,220,000
Justification: The current transportation site has outgrown the current facilities and there
is not sufficient area to expand. The increase in student membership, coupled with
stringent laws and regulations that govern the operation and maintenance of school
transportation vehicles, requires a much larger and upgraded transportation facility.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 38 months.
PRIORITY 2
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary & Bass Hoover Elementary School Renovations
Description: This project includes renovations, which consist of additional classroom
space; roof replacement; security, and upgrades of fire alarm, electrical, plumbing, and
mechanical systems.
Capital Cost: $TBD
Justification: These renovations are needed to a number of areas to insure economic and
efficient operation of the schools for years to come and to accommodate a full day
kindergarten program.
Construction Schedule: Begin Construction FY 09-08
PRIORITY 3
Replacement of Frederick County Middle School
Description: The replacement of Frederick County Middle School will have a program
capacity of 850 students and serve grades 6-8. The project location has been requested in
the western portion of Frederick County between Route 50 West and Route 522 North in
the area of Hayfield Road. It will contain approximately 166,000 square feet of floor
area and be located on approximately 30 acres.
Capital Cost: $33,992,000
Justification: With the need for renovations at the current school to major mechanical
systems, items dealing with ADA compliance, increasing membership, location of the
facility, concern for best building configuration for the delivery of instruction, and the
connectivity to other department projects.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 44 months.
PRIORITY 4
Frederick County Administrative Office Expansion
Description: This project involves renovations to the existing school board
administration building. The expansion will address the increased need for office space,
meeting room space, and electrical needs which continue to gro with the increase in
technology and staff.
Capital Cost: $15,010,000
Justification: The administrative offices will serve 110 current staff housed in the
present Frederick County Public Schools Administration building.
Construction Schedule: Begin Construction FY 10-11
PRIORITY 5
Robert E. Aylor Middle School Renovation
Description: This project involves renovations of the current facility. Major areas to be
included in the project are additional classroom space and storage space; a complete
replacement of fire alarm and communication systems, plus roof replacement; upgrade of
electrical and plumbing; and complete replacement of mechanical systems.
Capital Cost: $18,100,000
Justification: Robert E. Aylor Middle School is soon to be 37 years of age and
renovations are needed to a number of different areas to ensure economic and efficient
operation of the school for years to come.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 6
Fourth High School
Description: This project consists of the development of a fourth high school serving
grades 9-12 with a program capacity of 1,250 students. The project location has yet to be
determined, but will have a floor area of approximately 242,000 square feet and is to be
located on approximately 50 acres of land.
Capital Cost: $55,250,000
Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment in the
school division over the next five years. It is anticipated that student enrollment will
increase at all levels. Student enrollment in the high schools by the fall of 2012 is
projected to be 4,257.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 48 months
11
PRIORITY 7
James Wood High School Renovation
Description: This project involves renovations of the existing facility. Major areas to
be included in the project include increased electrical service and distribution to support
technology; technology cabling, hardware, and its installation; upgrade of plumbing and
mechanical systems; and modification of instructional areas to support instructional
delivery.
Capital Cost: TBD
Justification: Updating the facility will assist the school division in meeting the
community needs for the citizens and high school student in the James Wood High
School attendance zone.
Construction Schedule: Begin Construction FY 09-10
PRIORITY 8
Fifth Middle School
Description: This project consists of the development of a new middle school serving
grades 6-8 with a capacity of 850 students. The project location has yet to be determined
but will have a floor area of approximately 166,000 square feet and will be located on
approximately 30 acres of land.
Capital Cost: $35,542,000
Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment over the
next five years. Middle school enrollment in 2012 is projected to be 3,372.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 36 months.
PRIORITY 9
Elementary School #13
Description: This project consists of the development of a new elementary school
serving 750 students. The elementary school would be located upon 15 acres with a floor
space of 94,000- 97,000 square feet.
Capital Cost: $19,969,000
Justification: This project will be in a location that will relieve current overcrowding
and accommodate projected housing developments.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 36 months.
12
PRIORITY 10
Elementary School #14
Description: This project consists of the development of a new elementary school_
serving 750 students. The elementary school would be located upon 15 acres with a floor
space of 94,000-97,000 square feet.
Capital Cost: $19,969,000
Justification: This school will be located in an area to relieve overcrowding and
accommodate projected new housing developments.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 36 months.
Parks & Recreation Department Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Indoor Aquatic Facility
Description: This facility would house a leisure and competitive lap swimming pool
with an office, storage and locker rooms. This facility should be located on property
owned or proffered to the County and would utilize approximately 8-12 acres with
parking.
Capital Cost: $14,750,500
Justification: It is estimated that the center will see over 120,000 guests each year. The
Department's swim team participation has increased by 29% in the last three years with
1,500 swim lessons during the summer of 2006. This project would permit the Parks and
Recreation Department to meet citizen programming demands, provide an instructional
facility, as well as provide the area with a facility that would attract new businesses to the
community. This facility would be available to all area residents.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09.
PRIORITY 2
Baseball Field Lighting Upgrade
Description: This project involves upgrading the lighting at both Clearbrook and
Sherando Parks Baseball Facilities. The upgrade would involve the removal of the
existing fixtures and wooden poles and their replacement with fixtures that meet Little
League International Standards on all little league fields.
Capital Cost: $1,069,000
Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park
service area and the entire Frederick County community. The provision of these
improvements will meet the minimum standards established for the service area and those
of the programming entity.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
13
PRIORITY 3
Park Land — Western Frederick County
Description: Parkland acquisition in the western portion of the county.
Capital Cost: $3,276,000
Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county
population. This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland
and the amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick
County service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The location of
this project would provide parkland to create more accessible recreational facilities to
residents in western Frederick County,
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
PRIORITY 4
Park Land - Eastern Frederick County
Description: Parkland acquisition in the eastern portion of the county.
Capital Cost: $4,368,200
Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county
population. The park would be located in the primary growth center of Frederick County.
This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the
amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick County
service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10.
PRIORITY 5
Bike Trail Phase II - Sherando Park
Description: 10' bike/pedestrian trail at Sherando Park, north side of Route 277, and
running from the existing trail, parallel to Warrior Drive, and joining with the trail at the
Old Dominion Greens Subdivision. The design and engineering has been completed for
this project.
Capital Cost: $450,000
Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando
Park service area and the entire Frederick County Community.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10.
14
PRIORITY 6
Swimming Pool Improvements — Sherando/Clearbrook
Description: This project consists of removing the diving boards and installing two
water slides at both Sherando and Clearbrook Park. The upgrade would also include the
addition of a spray ground with 10-12 features at each pool.
Capital Cost: $1,217,128
Justification: This project is expected to increase pool attendance by 30 percent while
providing recreational opportunities for both the Sherando and Clearbrook Park service
areas.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10.
PRIORITY 7
Maintenance Compound and Office — Sherando Park
Description: This project involves the construction of a 1,200 square -foot office and a
4,000 square --foot storage shed for operation at Sherando Park.
Capital Cost: $363,039
Justification: This facility will enable the County to maintain equipment and facilities in
a more responsible and effective manner. The additional responsibility to maintain the
outdoor facilities at Sherando High School, Robinson Learning Center, Armel
Elementary, Orchard View Elementary, Bass Hoover Elementary, Middletown
Elementary, R.E. Aylor Middle, Admiral Byrd Middle, and Evendale Elementary,
increases the need for more storage, maintenance, and office space.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FYI0-1 l
PRTnRTTV R
Open Play Area — Clearbrook
Description: This project includes development of a picnic shelter; six horseshoe pits; a
volleyball court; croquet turf, shuffleboard; parking; refurbishing the existing concession
stand; landscaping (14 shade trees); peripheral work; and renovations to existing shelters,
restrooms, access paths, and parking areas on the south side of the lake.
Capital Cost: $465,548
Justification: These facilities will provide recreational opportunities for the Clearbrook
Park Service Area which will lessen the disparity between the number of passive
recreational areas needed to meet the minimum standards for this service area.
Clearbrook Park offers the best location for this development.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11.
15
PRIORITY 9
Access Road with Parking and Trails- Sherando Park
Description: This project involves the development of an er_trance and 1,800 linear feet
of access roadway from Warrior Drive; a 100 space parking area; and 2.8 miles of trails.
Capital Cost: $1,496,560
Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park
service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this
facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational
areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service
area.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11.
PRIORITY 10
Lake, Parking, and Trail Development with two Multi-purpose Fields
Description: This project involves the development of a 12 acre lake; 1.5 mile trail
system around the lake; 800 linear feet of access roadway; lighted parking lot with 125
spaces; and development of two irrigated 70x120 yard multi-purpose fields.
Capital Cost: $1,322,369
Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park
service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this
facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational
areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service
area.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11.
PRIORITY 11
Soccer Complex- Sherando Park
Description: This project includes the development of one soccer field (artificial grass);
access paths; restrooms; concession; one picnic shelter; a plaza; landscaping; and lighting
(one field).
Capital Cost: $1,371,559
Justification: This facility will serve the entire county population and will be utilized by
the Frederick County School System.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11
16
PRIORITY 12
Skateboard Park - Sherando Park
Description: This project recommends the development of a skateboard bowl; a half
pipe; an open skate area; vehicle parking; an access road; fencing; and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $499,229
Justification: This facility will enable the County to provide a recreational facility that
has been identified in the County Comprehensive Plan for recreational facility
development.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12.
PRIORITY 13
Softball Complex- Sherando Park
Description: This project includes two softball fields; an access road; parking spaces;
and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $653,011
Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for the entire county
population, as well as the Frederick County School System. Presently, there are ten
softball and baseball fields within the county's regional park system. Eight of the
existing fields must serve a dual purpose of facilitating youth baseball, as well as adult
softball programs. With the increased usage of these fields, it has become increasingly
difficult to facilitate these programs. This project is needed in order for the Parks and
Recreation Department to accommodate the existing demand for youth baseball and adult
softball programs.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12
PRIORITY 14
Baseball Complex Renovation- Sherando Park
Description: This project includes the renovation of four existing baseball fields; partial
fencing and backstops.
Capital Cost: $43,542
Justification: This facility, presently serving as both youth baseball and adult softball
fields, would be used by the Little League Programs within the Sherando Park service
area. In addition to its use as a recreational facility, the athletic complex will also be used
by the Frederick County School System.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12
17
PRIORITY 13
Tennis/Basketball Complex- Clearbrook Park
Description: This project includes the development of four tennis courts; two basketball
courts; a shelter; access paths; parking; and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $511,831
Justification: These facilities will be available to all county residents. Currently, there
are no tennis courts or basketball courts in the Clearbrook Park Service Area. Clearbrook
Park is utilized by over 180,000 visitors annually; therefore, these facilities are needed.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13
PRIORITY 14
Picnic Area- Sherando Park
Description: This project includes a restroom/concession area; four picnic shelters;
playground area; access paths; parking; and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $782,140
Justification: These facilities would be used by the residents of Sherando Park service
area. This area of the county is growing and is deficient in passive recreational
opportunities. This development is needed to reduce the gap between the number of
existing facilities and the minimum standards for the Sherando Park service area and
southeastern Frederick County.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13
PRIORITY 15
Shelter/Stage Seating- Clearbrook Park
Description: This project includes the development of a shelter with a performance
stage; refurbishing existing restrooms and access paths; and renovations to the lake.
Capital Cost: $494,532
Justification: This facility would be used by the entire county population. Presently,
there are no facilities to accommodate cultural programs within the county's park system.
This project is needed to provide a facility for cultural activities.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13
IN
PRIORITY 16
Multi -Generational Community Center
Description: The project involves building a 44,000 square foot facility that would
contain an indoor track and at least two basketball courts. The court area would be
designed to be used by indoor soccer, baseball, softball, wrestling, volleyball, tennis and
badminton. The area could also be used for special events. Additionally, the project
would house a fitness center, multi-purpose rooms, office, storage, and locker rooms.
Capital Cost: $8,562,629
Justification: This facility would give the Parks and Recreation Department the ability
to offer year round recreational programming to the residents of Frederick County. The
department can no longer meet the programming and facility needs of the County
residents.
Construction Schedule: FY 12-13
County Administration Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Annex Facilities / Fire & Rescue Station #22
Description: This project will consist of several facilities located at strategic locations
throughout the County to house employees of the Sheriff's Office, the Treasurer's Office,
the Commissioner of Revenue's Office, and a Board of Supervisor office with meeting
room. A 10,000 square foot fire station would be included with the offices located in the
Fairfax Pike area, east of White Oak Road.
Capital Cost: $3,100,000
Justification: The development of satellite offices along major transportation networks
and in areas of dense population will provide ease of access for citizens and will improve
services to the county. The County continues to experience a significant rate of growth;
therefore, it is important to provide services within these areas instead of requiring
citizens to confront congestion, limited parking, and accessibility in the City of
Winchester.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10
19
PRIORITY 2
Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station Relocation
Description: This project includes the relocation and building of a 22,000 square foot
facility to accommodate ten or more pieces of emergency equipment and to house living
and sleeping areas for staff. A community center of approximately 10,000 square feet,
with a capacity of 400 people, is also planned; it would be used for fundraising events
and other activities. The project would need a parcel of three to five acres.
Capital Cost: N/A
Justification: The existing facility serving the Round Hill area is 50+ years old and not
large enough to accommodate the equipment needed to serve the commercial growth in
the Round Hill community. This community includes approximately 9,000 households,
two schools, and the Winchester Medical Center.
Construction Schedule: To be determined
PRIORITY 3
Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation
Description: This project involves the relocation and expansion of the Gainesboro
convenience site. The project would include fencing; earthwork; retaining walls; electric;
and paving. This project will take place following the closing of the current Gainesboro
School.
Capital Cost: $445,000
Justification: The project is necessary to provide adequate trash disposal service for
citizens living in the Gainesboro area of Frederick County. The existing site is
inadequate and cannot be expanded to provide for safe ingress/egress or fencing to
prevent illegal dumping.
Construction Schedule: Start in FY 08-09
PRIORITY 4
Gore Refuse Site Relocation/Expansion
Description: This project involves the expansion of the site by approximately two acres
to install a trash compactor. With the relocation of the landfill site and purchase of new
equipment, the present compactor will be surplus.
Capital Cost: $420,000
Justification: Installation of this compactor at Gore will drive down collection costs at
the site where trash is now collected in 8 -yard boxes. This project would pay for itself in
lower refuse collection costs. Ultimately the intent of the site is to make best use of
existing equipment while lowering operational costs in the Gore service area.
Construction Schedule: Start in FY 09-10
20
PRIORITY 5
Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation
Description: The new facility is to be located either North or South of Brucetown Rd.
The building is to be six (6) drive through bays, administration, eating, and sleeping
facilities along with a dining hall. The structure is to be approximately 28,000 square
feet.
Capital Cost: $1,530,000
Justification: This project calls for Fire Station #13 to be relocated to an area that has a
much safer exit/entrance way. This project will also accommodate the growth in
Northeastern Frederick County. The Rt. 11 site also allows for possible growth, if
required.
Construction Schedule: To be determined
Transportation Committee Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Planning and Engineering Work for Route 37
Description: This project would be to continue work on the Eastern Route 37 extension.
More specifically, to update the Environmental Impact Statement to the point of a new
Record of Decision and to update the 1992 design plans to address the current alignment,
engineering guidelines, and possible interchange improvements.
Capital Cost: $3,000,000
Justification: This project moves the County closer to completion of a transportation
improvement that would benefit the entire county and surrounding localities.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
PRIORITY 2
Interstate 81, Exit 307 Relocation
Description: Construct a relocated Exit 307 interchange.
Capital Cost: $60,000,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in many areas of the County and address coming development to the surrounding areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
21
PRIORITY 3
Warrior Drive Extension
Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Route 277 where Warrior
Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south and west to intersect
with I-81 at the location of the relocated Exit 307 interchange.
Capital Cost: $23,200,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in the Southern Frederick area and address development to the surrounding areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 4
Channing Drive Extension
Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road where
Channing Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south to intersect
with Route 50 East at Independence Drive.
Capital Cost: $20,600,000
Justification: This project has been identified in the Eastern Road Plan, and will address
congestion in Eastern Frederick County and address development to the surrounding
areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 5
Widening of Route 11 North to the West Virginia State Line
Description: Improve Route 11 to a divided 4 and 6 -lane facility as detailed in the
Eastern Road Plan.
Capital Cost: $47,800,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
over a large area of the County and address development to the surrounding area. This
project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and improving
the flow of traffic.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 6
Brucetown Road/Hopewell Road Alignment and Intersection Improvements
Description: Realign Brucetown Road to meet Hopewell Road at Route 11.
Improvements to this intersection will address comprehensive planned development's
traffic generation in the area.
Capital Cost: $3,000,000
22
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on
the Route 11 corridor. The location is identified by joint planning efforts between the
county and VDOT.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 7
Senseny Road Widening
Description: Widen Senseny Road to a 4 -lane divided roadway. This project is not
dependent upon, but is being coordinated with the implementation of Route 37, Channing
Drive, and development in the area.
Capital Cost: $22,800,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on
Eastern Frederick County. This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 8
East Tevis Street Extension
Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Route 522 and going west
approximately 0.2 miles to connect to the road network being constructed by the Russell
150 development.
Capital Cost: $2,600,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in many areas of the County and address development to the surrounding area. The
location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the county, VDOT, and the
developer.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 9
Inverlee Way
Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road and going
south to Route 50 East. This project is being planned in conjunction with improvements
to Senseny Road and surrounding development.
Capital Cost: $10,200,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
and provide an additional needed link between Senseny Road and Route 50 East.
Construction Schedule: TBD
23
PRIORITY 10
Pox Drive
Description: Add additional turning lane(s) to Fox Drive where it intersects with Route
522 North.
Capital Cost: $250,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at this
intersection.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 11
Blossom Drive
Description: Add additional turning lane(s) at Blossom and Route 7.
Capital Cost: $250,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at this
intersection. This project is identified in Secondary Road Improvements Plan.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 12
Revenue Sharing
Description: Plan to address changes in the revenue sharing program. Current State
Code allows localities to apply for up to $1 million under the program, and only allows
for one half of those dollars to come from proffers. This creates a requirement for a
minimum of $500,000 annually from County funds to apply for the maximum in revenue
sharing on an annual basis.
Capital Cost: $3,000,000
Justification: Based upon State Code, if the County wishes to apply for the full $1
million in revenue sharing, the County must be prepared to pay 50% of the match or
$500,000 from local funds.
Construction Schedule: N/A
24
Winchester Regional Airport Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Rehab RIW 14/32, Upgrade Airfield Lighting
Description: Acquisition of three parcels along Bufflick Road.
Capital Cost: $220,000
Local Cost: $4,400
Justification: This project involves the rehabilitation of runway 14-32 to renew the life
of the existing pavement. Also included is an upgrade to the runway lighting comprised
of new high intensity runway lights and the installation of a new four box PAPI, which
provides a greater accuracy for pilots on final approach to the runway.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
PRIORITY 2
Terminal Building Renovation, Phase I (Exterior)
Description: This project proposes complete renovation of the terminal building. Phase
I of this renovation involves all exterior work, including new windows and walls, and all
other items pertaining to the stability of the building.
Capital Cost: $3,000,000
Local Cost: $1,140,000
Justification: There are currently 130 based aircraft at the Winchester Regional Airport.
The owners and passengers of these aircraft will use the general aviation terminal
building on a regular basis.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
PRIORITY 3
North Side Taxiway Connector - Design
Description: A new taxiway connector on the north side of the airport is proposed to
increase access to the runway and as part of an overall airport improvement to improve
capacity.
Capital Cost: $55,100
Local Cost: $1,100
Justification: The design of the north side taxiway will allow for an increase in the
number of based aircraft, in business traffic, and additional hanger space for the airport to
lease out.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
25
PRIORITY 4
Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 47, 47A, & 48
Description: Acquisition of three parcels located along Bufflick Road. Property is
included in the 20 year Master Plan.
Capital Cost: $800,000
Local Cost: $17,300
Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within the
Airport's FAR Part. 77 primary surface and/or approach surface. In addition, several of
the residential parcels are located inside the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The
FAA considers residential use within the noise contour non -compatible with airport
operations.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09
PRIORITY 5
Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 50, 51, & 52
Description: Acquisition of three parcels located along Bufflick Road. Property is
included in the 20 Year Master Plan.
Capital Cost: $350,000
Local Cost: $7,000
Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within the
Airport's FAR Part 77 primary surface and/or approach surface. In addition, several of
the residential parcels are located inside the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The
FAA considers residential use within the noise contour non -compatible with airport
operations.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10
PRIORITY 6
Airfield Maintenance Building
Description: Demolition of undersized wooden structure and construction of a new
facility to accommodate the airport's maintenance equipment and maintenance work
activities.
Capital Cost: $110,000
Local Cost: $94,750
Justification: This project is necessary to accommodate maintenance activities at the
airport.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10
26
Handley Regional Library Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension
Description: This proposal is to expand the parking lot on the Lakeside Drive side of
the library from 101 to 221 parking spaces, and to provide a sidewalk that will extend
approximately 400 to 500 feet beyond the sidewalk that now borders the parking lot to
connect to the sidewalk on Lakeside Drive.
Capital Cost: $251,000
Justification: The parking lot expansion is needed to relieve overcrowding and to
accommodate library patrons. The sidewalk is necessary to provide safe access for
pedestrians to the library. Planning consideration for alternative modes of transportation
such as bicycle connectivity should also be considered.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10
PRIORITY 2
Northern Frederick County Library Branch
Description: This project entails the acquisition of 3 to 4 acres and the construction of a
7,000 square foot library branch with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet along
Route 522 N near Cross Junction. Initial parking would accommodate 35 vehicles.
Capital Cost: $2,132,000
Justification: There is no library in this area of the County to serve residents. The
residents of the Gainesboro District comprise the largest population group the greatest
distance away from a library. The library would serve members of the population from
toddlers to senior citizens.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10
RUMUTTV 'i
Frederick County Library Branch — Senseny/Greenwood
Description: This project entails the acquisition of 3 to 4 acres and the construction of a
7,000 square foot library branch with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet. The
proposed location would be based upon future development. Initial parking would
accommodate 35 vehicles.
Capital Cost: N/A
Justification: This branch would serve citizens living in this rapidly growing area. A
library in this location will reduce traffic into the Winchester Library(s). The library
would also help fulfill a community center need within this area, by providing a meeting
room.
Construction Schedule: TBD
27
PRIORITY 4
Frederick County Library Branch- Route 522 South
Description: This project entails the acquisition of 3 to 4 acres and the construction of a
7,000 square foot library branch with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet. The
proposed location would be based upon future development. Initial parking would
accommodate 35 vehicles.
Capital Cost: N/A
Justification: This branch would serve citizens living in this rapidly growing area. This
population group is not close to a library in the regional system. The library would also
help fulfill a community center need within this area, by providing a meeting room.
Construction Schedule: TBD
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Bevelopment
540/665-5651
FA x : 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner^
Subject: Planning Commission Discussion - Sign Ordinance
Date: November 19, 2007
Over the past year, the County has been evaluating potential areas within the County's sign
ordinance that warrant enhancements. The County's Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee (DRRS) endorsed changes to the Sign Ordinance (§165-30 of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance) during its meeting of January 25, 2007. The changes were presented
to, and received mixed reviews from, various community organizations through Spring 07 and
early summer. The participating groups included: the Industrial Parks Association. the local
Petroleum Industry, the Top of Virginia Regional Chamber, and the Top of Virginia Builders
Association.
In response to the various organizations' concerns, a Sign Ordinance Work Group was formed.
The work group was comprised of representatives from various community interest groups that
were selected by and coordinated through the Chamber of Commerce as well as members from
the DRRS. The Sign Ordinance Working Group was tasked with reviewing the ordinance which
was developed by the DRRS and revising the ordinance so that all parties were more comfortable
with the proposed changes. The DRRS endorsed the Sign Ordinance Work Group's changes at
their meeting on October 25, 2007.
There are numerous proposed changes to the existing sign ordinance as evident by the attached
documents. Some of the major changes include the types of signs which will be allowed in
certain districts, sign heights, sign sizes, as well as the number of signs proposed. In regards to
allowed signage in certain districts, the main change is the addition of electronic message signs
which will have restricted timing and size. Sign size and height is proposed to be regulated by
road classification: arterial roads, collector roads and all other roads. Freestanding signage
continues to be monument style.
The attached documents show the existing ordinances, the changes to the ordinance supported by
the DRRS (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold red italic for text added) and a clean
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Wincheste-r, Virginia 22601-5000
version of the proposed text as it is proposed to be adopted.
This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions horn the Planning
Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Existing ordinances
2. Existing ordinances with strikethroughs for eliminated text and bold red italic
for proposed
3. Proposed ordinances (clean version)
CEP/bad
2
DRAFT
Proposed changes to the Frederick County Sign Ordinance
As of November 15, 2007
Existing Ordinance
Suggested additions and deletions
§16.5-30. Signs
This section is established to regulate the erection, number, area, height, location, type and
maintenance of signs to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public and the
orderly development of the county by protecting property values, minimizing visual distraction
to motorists; protecting and enhancing the image, appearance and economic vitality of the
county; providing for signage that is adequate but not excessive; and supporting the Frederick
County Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Any type of sign not currently listed in Sections(s) 165-30 and 165-156 of the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance shall be prohibited.
A. Signs prohibited in all districts. The following types of signs shall be prohibited in all
zoning districts:
(1) Animated or Flashing Signs.
(2) Signs painted directly onto the exterior of buildings.
(3) Inflatable Signs.
(4) Roof Signs.
(5) Portable Signs.
B. Signs allowed in all districts. The following types of signs shall be allowed in all zoning
districts:
(1) Signs indicating the names or addresses of the occupants of residences.
(2) Signs or bulletin boards associated with public institutions, ekwehes, seheels, o —
(3) Commemorative plaques and historical markers.
(4) Signs identifying civic, social, or other nonprofit organizations.
(5) Private road signs.
(6) Signs erected or required by a governmental agency.
(7) Temporary yard sale signs.
(8) Temporary real estate signs.
(9) Temporary window signs.
-I-
I
(10) Temporary construction signs.
(11) Temporary campaign signs.
(12) _ Rntran ve signs fa developments vi subdivisions.
V1J.
1
) Menume"'signs.
(12) Flag, signs.
(13) Informational signs
(1 d) Directional signs
(15) Temporary Banner signs. Not to be displayed for more than 30 days.
C. Signs allowed in certain districts. The following types of signs are allowed only if they
are specifically listed under the list of allowed uses for the zoning districts in which they
are located:
(1) Business Signs.
(2) Cottage occupation signs.
(3) Freestanding building entrance signs.
(5) On site infan:na4ianal signs.
(4) Residential subdivision identification signs.
(5) Multi -tenant complex signs.
(6) Interstate overlay district signs.
(7) Electronic Message Signs. Such electronic sign messages shall be displayed
for a minimum of two (2) minutes, and shall not be animated by scrolling,
flashing or other similar non -static displays. In no case shall an Electronic
Message Sign occupy more than 30 percent of the area of a permitted sign size
D. Off -premises business signs. Signs that adve t e a p -o +
Vl 11V1 od , a of r
the lot or- par -eel on whieh the sigp is loeated and signs dial ad-veftise a business that is no
loeated on the premises sha4l be allowed as a eonditiafia4 use only. In all zoning districts
only multi -tenant complex signs and residential subdivision identification signs shall
be allowed off -premises. No other type of off -premises signs shall be allowed. Off -
premises signs shall be freestanding monument signs. Such signs shall be allowed only
if a conditional use permit for that sign has been granted. hi eensiaerinb stie , a sign, +�
uvl lri'�CLGTLTC.T�
fallwA4ng standards - should e eonsi er-e : Conditions which may be placed on off -
premises signs may include, but need not be limited to, the following:
MIN
(1) Appropriate separation shall be provided between the off -premises sign
and surrounding residences and other uses. The Board of Supervisors may
require that such signs not be visible from surrounding residences.
(.2) Off -premises business signs shall be limited to a size, scale, and height that does
not detract from surrounding properties and uses, and in no case shall exceed the
-2-
DRAFT
regulations for on premises multi -tenant complex signs and residential
subdivision identification signs.
(3) Off -premises business signs shall be properly separated from each other to avoid
clutter along road corridors, and in no case shall be less than the regulations for
on -premises multi -tenant complex signs and residential subdivision
identification signs.
(5) Off premises btisiness signs shall not be of a type that will Elistfaet motor-ists e -r-
(6) Off premises business signs shall be pfeper-ly niaintain@-d.
E. Setbacks. All freestanding signs shall be set back at least 10 feet from lot lines or
property boundary lines. Signs that are attached to buildings shall meet the required
setbacks for that building. In general, freestanding building entrance signs shall not be
located in front yard setback areas. However, freestanding building entrance signs may
be located in front yard setback areas as long as they are no more than five feet from the
entrance to the building or use designated.
F. Minimum spacing between freestanding :business signs. The minimum distance
separating new from existing freestanding business signs or separating new freestanding
busies signs shall be 50100 feet. The Zoning Administrator may allow two signs to be
separated by less than 50 100 feet in order to allow the signs to share an appropriate
location. In such cases, the two signs shall be separated from other signs by a distance of
5-0 100 feet plus the distance by which the separation between the two signs was reduced
from the required 50 100 feet.
G. Height. The following restrictions shall apply to the height of signs:
1) Ne -Nall -mounted signs shall not exceed the maximum height requirement for the
zoning district in which they are located. General office buildings, and hotel or
motel buildings allowed to exceed the general height requirements for the
underlying zoning district as per §165-2436 (Height limitations, exceptions)
shall be allowed wall -mounted signs with a maximum height not to exceed the
maximum height requirement of §165-2486.
(2)NoFreestanding btisiness building entrance signs shall not exceed 5 feet in
height.
(3) Freestanding directional signs shall not exceed 5 feet in height.
(4) Freestanding informational signs shall not exceed 5 feet in height.
(5) Freestanding residential subdivision entrance signs shall not exceed 8 feet in
height.
(6) All other freestanding business signs located in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning
District shall not exceed 10 feet in height.
All signs athe-r- bi-s-i—s- sha4I be ne more than 10 feet ifi heig4.
(7) All other freestanding signs located in zoning districts other than the RA (Rural
Areas) Zoning District shall be permitted to establish a maximum sign height
reflective of the roadway which the site's entrance is located on, as such:
(a) Signs along Arterial Roads shall not exceed 25 feet in height
(b) Signs along Collector Roads shall not exceed 15 feet in height
(c) Signs along all other roads shall not exceed 12 feet in height
-3-
I ].t_13i
(8) Sign height shall be measured from the grade level of the adjacent street to
which the land upon the sign is located.
(9) In developments utilizing a inulti-tenant complex sign, on-site freestanding
business signs shall not exceed 12 feet in height.
H. Size. The following restrictions shall apply to the size of signs:
(1) Wall -mounted business signs in the 2 Business Genefa4, the B3 industfial
Tr�sition, M! LighA ladustria4, the N42 Industrial Genefal of the MS Medi
Suppai4 Zoning Dist -ias shall be permitted to encompass 20% of the area of the
wall to which the sign is attached, provided that the total area of the wall -mounted
business sign does not exceed 200 square feet In situations where there are
more than 8 individual building users, each user shall not have a sign larger
than 25 square feet.
(2) Cottage occupation signs shall not exceed four square feet in area.
(3) No Freestanding building entrance sign shall not exceed 4 square feet in area.
(4) Subdivision entrance signs shall not exceed 30 square feet in area.
(5) Directional signs shall not exceed S square feet in area.
(6) Informational signs shall not exceed 10 square feet in area.
(7) No— s b b7 .mss: ,1; +; ag --h—All
4-00a 8 '
N
may exceed 1 nn square r+
in
but sh-a of exeeed 150 square -€M in area. in the B 1-R�eigMor-hood_
Business) Distr-iet and the RA (Rufa4 Areas) Zoning Distfiets, no busi..—
direetiena4 sign sha4l exeeed 50 square feet in area.
All freestanding business signs located in zoning districts other than the RA
(Rural Areas) Zoning District shall be permitted to establish a maximum sign
area reflective of the adjacent roadways' classification, as such:
(a) Signs along Arterial Roads shall not exceed 150 square feet
(b) Signs along Collector Roads shall not exceed 100 square feet
(c) Signs along other roads shall not exceed 50 square feet
(8) In developments utilizing a multi -tenant complex sign, on-site freestanding
business signs shall not exceed 50 square feet.
L Type. All freestanding business signs shall be monument signs.
J. Number.
(1) Freestanding business signs, excluding multi -tenant complex signs, in the MI
and M2 Districts shall be limited to one per property.
(2) Freestanding multi -tenant complex signs in the MI and IV2 Districts shall be
limited to one per business park.
(3) Freestanding business signs, shall be limited to one per development in all other
districts where allowed.
-4-
DRAFT
(4) Freestanding multi -tenant complex signs shall be limited to one per 1,200
linear feet of road frontage per development in all other districts where allowed.
(5) Cottage occupation signs shall be limited to one per business.
L K. Maintenance. All signs shall be maintained in a state of good repair. Signs that are
damaged, structurally unsound or poorly maintained shall be repaired or removed within
30 days.
(1) If an off -premises sign advertises a business or activity that is no longer being
operated or conducted or if a directional sign refers to a location where the
advertised activities no longer exist, that sign shall be considered to be abandoned
and shall be removed by the owner within 30 days.
(2) If the message portion of a sign is removed, the supporting structural components
shall be removed or the message portion replaced within 30 days.
L. Sign Permits.
(1) Before a sign may be constructed, reconstructed or altered, a sign permit shall be
obtained from the Frederick County Building Official.
(2) Conunemorativv plaques and histor-ieamarkers The following signs shall be
exempt from obtaining sign permits, provided they comply with ordinance
regulations:
(a) Signs indicating the names or addresses of the occupants of residences.
(b) Signs or bulletin boards associated with public institutions.
(c) Commemorative plaques and historical" markers.
(d) Signs identifying civic, social, or other nonprofit organizations.
(e) Private road signs.
(f) Signs erected or required by a governmental agency.
(h) Temporary yard sale signs.
(i) Temporary real estate signs.
(j) Temporary window signs.
(k) Temporary construction signs.
(1) Temporary campaign signs.
(m) Directional signs.
(n) Informational signs.
(o) Flag, signs.
DR YAFT
Section 165-156 (Definitions) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
SIGN —Any object, device, display or structure or part thereof, situated outdoors or indoors,
which is used to advertise, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object, person,
institution, organization, business, product, service, event or location by any means, including
words, letters, figures, design, symbols, fixtures, colors, illumination or projected images.
A. SIGN, BUSINESS — A sign which directs attention to a business or profession conducted
or to a commodity or service sold, offered or manufactured or to a service, activity or
entertainment offered.
B. SIGN, COTTAGE OCCUPATION — -s-sign advertising an approved
cottage occupation.
C. SIGN, DIRECTIONAL — ;n off V111
N"1 ' "t ng dif ei a
1JVJ J�"„
the dist r a; n to rt: l�r 1^ ati;,lls. A sign that is designed or
..11...1111 �b .. .., .A.�.,...,. .�.,....,.. ., Y� 1.,.� .,1 vv
erected for the purpose of providing direction and/or orientation for pedestrian or
vehicular traffic.
D. SIGN, BUILDING ENTRANCE — A sign designating the location to the outside entrance
to a particular use.
E. SIGN, OFF -PREMISES — A sign which directs attention to a business, commodity,
service, activity or entertainment conducted, sold or offered on a parcel of land other than
the one on which the sign is located.
F. SIGN, ON -PREMISES - A sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service
activity or entertainment conducted, sold or offered on the parcel of land on which the
sign is located.
G SIGN, TEMPORARY
A sign intended to display either
commercial or non commercial messages of a transitory or temporary nature.
H. SIGN, ANIMATED — Any sign or part of a sign that changes physical position or light
intensity by any movement or rotation or that gives the visual impression of such
movement or rotation.
I. SIGN, FLASHING — Any sign directly or indirectly illuminated that exhibits changing
natural or artificial light or color effects by any means whatsoever.
J. SIGN, ILLUMINATED — A sign lighted by or exposed to artificial lighting either by
lights on or in the sign or directed toward the sign.
K. SIGN, INFLATABLE — Any display capable of being expanded or powered by air or
other gas and used to advertise a business, service,
product or event.
L. SIGN, INTERSTATE OVERLAY — An on -premise business sign located within the
Interstate Overlay District meeting all requirements of Article XVII of this chapter.
M. SIGN, MONUMENT A business or „i..,4;4sio entrance freestanding sign placed
directly on the ground by means other than a support pole or brace in which the message
portion is either on top of or affixed to, the support structure. The support structure] or
the monument sign must be a minimum of 30% of the size of the sign face area.
Examples of Monument Sins
MID STATE
UNIVERSITY
GROUND OR LOW PROFILE
MONUMENT OR BLADE PYLON
N. SIGN, r'�`o TN SITE INFORMATIONAL — A sign commonly associated with, and not
limited to, information and dir-eetio necessary for the convenience of Visitors coming
on the property, including signs marking entrances and exits, parking areas, circulation
direction, rest rooms, and pick-up and delivery areas.
O. SIGN, ROOF — A sign that is mounted on the roof of a building or a sign that projects
above the top wall or edge of a building with a flat roof, the eave line of a building with a
gambrel, gable, or hip roof, or the deck line of a building wills a mansard roof.
P. SIGN PORTABLE — s sign that is not permaa + ffbce a to bt iding
, .,�b�.. t"' M �ioT277ZT/ccCC'cv'-GT'77Z[riTA211�3rLTLccurG-Qt
the ground, and is in4endea to be moved or i Ae .aed f r to up raf A sign designed
or intended to be moved easily that is not permanently embedded in the ground or
affixed to a building or other structure.
Q. SIGN, WALL -MOUNTED — A sign fastened to the wall of a building or structure in
such a manner that the wall becomes the significant supporting structure for the sign.
SIGN, BANNER — A sign having characters, letters or illustrations applied to cloth, paper,
flexible plastic, or fabric of any other kind, with only such material for backing.
SIGN, FLAG - Flags of the United States, the Commonwealth of Vir' inia, Frederick County,
other countries and states, the United Nations Organization or similar organizations of which
this nation is a member, religious groups, civic organizations and service clubs, are allowed
provided that there shall be no more than three (3) flags on any one lot. In addition, any
business zoned use, industrial zoned use, and business in the Rural Areas District with an
11114__
approved Condition Use Permit (CUP) may display its corporate or business emblem in the
form of a flag, provided that there is no more than one (1) such flag on any parcel.
SIGN, ELECTRONIC MESSAGE - A sign with a fixed or changing message and/or display
composed of a series of lights that maybe changed through electronic means. LED
(Light Emitted Diodes) is a type of Electronic Message Sign. Such electronic sign
messages shall be displayed for a minimum of two (2) minutes, and shall not be
animated by scrolling, flashing or other similar non -static displays. In no case shall
an Electronic Message Sign occupy more than 50 percent of the area of a permitted
sign size
SIGN, MULTI -TENANT COMPLEX - A sign that identifies the name of the development and
the users in a business park.
SIGN, RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVSION IDENTIFICATION— A sign which denotes the name
of a residential subdivision, condominium or apartment complex.
SIGNAREA — The entire face of a sign including any non-structural embellishments, but not
including the supporting structure. In the case of a double faced sign where the interior angle
formed by the faces is 45 degrees or less or where the sign face is parallel, only one display
face shall be used in calculating the area.
BUSINESS PARK — A development which includes multiple buildings and uses. Shopping
Centers, Industrial Parks, and Office Parks are tjpes of Business Parks.
-8-
Changes to Other Ordinance Sections
ARTICLE V
RA Rural Areas District
§165-50. Permitted Uses
U. Business signs
V. D -eetie ,,,i sigfis Signs allowed in §165-30B
W. Cottage Occupation signs
CCS Residential subdivision identification signs
ARTICLE VI
RP Residential Performance District
§165-59. Permitted Uses
B
(9) ,
ehufeh bulletin boards and idepAifieakien sig -ns, b
profit ser-viee eltibs an
ehafitable asseeiations (off site signs not t -----d eigIA sqtiafe feet) and direetional
(9) Business signs associated with schools, churches, fires stations and companies and
rescue squads, recreational facilities, public parks, playgrounds, and libraries.
(12) Residential subdivision identification signs
(13) Signs allowed in §165-30B
§165-60. Conditional Uses
Uses and associated signs permitted with a conditional use permit shall be as follows:
-9-
4®'
ARTICLE IX
MH1 Mobile Home Community District
§ 165-79. Permitted Uses
L. Business signs associated with schools, churches, public parks, playgrounds and
recreational uses, fires stations and companies and rescue squads.
M. Residential subdivision identification signs.
N. Signs allowed in §165-30B
-10-
DRAFT
ARTICLE X
Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
§ 165-82. District use regulations
A. B 1 Neighborhood Business District
Allowed Uses
Business signs
Dire 4 ^„al sig -s Signs allowed in §165-30B
Freestanding building entrance signs
Multi -tenant complex signs
Electronic Message signs
§ 165-82. District use regulations
B. B2 Business General District
Allowed Uses
Business signs
Pifeetiena signs Signs allowed in §165-30B
Freestanding building entrance signs
Multi -tenant complex signs
Electronic Message signs
§ 165-82. District use regulations
C. 133 Industrial Transition District
Allowed Uses
Business signs
Pir-eetional signs Signs allowed in §165-30B
-11-
Freestanding building entrance signs
Multi -tenant complex signs
Electronic lilesrage signs
§ 165-82. District use regulations
D. M1 Light Industrial District
Allowed Uses
Business signs
Dir-eetional signs Signs alloived in §163-30B
Freestanding building entrance signs
Multi -tenant complex signs
Electronic Message signs
-12-
DRAFT
ARTICLE XI
EM Extractive Manufacturing District
§ 165-85. Permitted uses.
J. Business and difeetio ' signs
L. Signs allowed in §165-30B
JI Freestanding building entrance signs
ARTICLE XII
HE Higher Education District
§ 165-92. Permitted uses.
E. Difeetien ' signs Business signs
F. Signs allowed in X5165 -30B
G. Freestanding building entrance signs
ARTICLE XIII
MS (Medical Support) District
§ 165-97. Permitted uses.
Business signs
Signs allowed in §165-30B
Multi -tenant complex signs
Freestanding building entrance signs
-13-
F. Single-family small lot. Single-family small lot housing shall be a single-family detached or
attached residence on an individual lot. No more than two units may be attached together. The
intent of this housing type is to provide an alternative to conventional single-family lots that can be
tailored to the unique needs of specialized populations such as those of the older person.
[Amended 10-27-1999; 8-9-20001
(1) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
(a) Minimum lot size: 3,750 square feet.
(b) Off-street parking spaces: 2.
(c) Setback from state road: 25 feet.
(d) Setback from private road: 20 feet.
(e) Rear yard: 15 feet.
(f) Side yard: Zero lot line option may be used with this housing type. If chosen, the
minimum side yard shall be 10 feet for that yard opposite the zero lot line side. If
not chosen, the minimum side yard shall be five feet.
(g) When the attached option for the single-family small lot housing unit is chosen, the
minimum building spacing requirement shall be 20 feet.
(h) Supplementary setbacks:
[1] With the single-family small lot housing type, decks may extend five feet
into rear yard setback areas.
[2] Where single-family small lot housing abuts open space, decks may extend up to
12 feet into rear yard setback areas.
[3] Front porches, stoops and steps may extend eight feet into front yard setback
areas.
(2) A minimum of 20 landscape plantings shall be provided on each individual lot. At least 1/4 of
the landscape plantings shall be trees, with the remainder being shrubs. The trees shall be a
minimum of two inches in caliper at time of planting, and the shrubs shall be a minimum
three -gallon container at time of planting.
(3) Detached accessory structures may not exceed 150 square feet.
(4) One detached accessory structure shall be permitted on each lot.
(5) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principle buildings: 35 feet.
(b) Accessory Buildings: 20 feet.