HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 12-19-07 Meeting AgendaAGENT FILE COPY
FREDERICK COUNTY PLA
The Board
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
December 19, 2007
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1)
91
Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should
adopt the Agenda for the meeting............................................................................ (no tab)
November 7, 2007 Minutes.............................................................................................. (A)
3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Rezoning #08-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates,
to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with
proffers, for Office and Warehouse Uses. The property is located east and adjacent to Shady
Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37 in the Back Creek Magisterial District,
and is identified by Property Identification Number 75-A-1.
Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B)
PUBLIC MEETING
6) Master Development Plan #15-07 for Shenandoah University, submitted by Patton Harris
Rust & Associates, PC, for Commercial Uses. The property is located adjacent and east of
Route 522, .50 miles south of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 50, and is identified
with Property Identification Number 64 -A -A in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (C)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
7) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV Supplementary Use Regulations,
Subsection 23 Setback Requirements - Handicap Accessible Ramps
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D)
8) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV Supplementary Use Regulations,
Subsection 47 Landfills, Junkyards, Trash Disposal and Inoperable Vehicles — Trash Storage
Facilities
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (E)
9) Planning Commission Bylaws with Modifications
Mr. Lawrence................................................................................................................... (F)
10) Other
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PL :A NNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on November 7, 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. 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; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District ; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.,
Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; Mark R.
Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; Candice E.
Perkins, Senior Plainer; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot announced that
Item # 10 on the Conumssion's agenda, Rezoning Application # 12-07 of Opequon Crossing, has been requested
to be postponed by the applicant with no time limit. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded
by Commissioner Ours, the Commission unanimously agreed to remove Item # 10 from the agenda.
Chairman Wilmot next referred to Item #7 on the Commission's agenda, Rezoning Application
#09-07 of the Clearbrook Property. She said the applicant has already used one opportunity to request a delay of
their application, which is the limit. Chairman Wilmot said the Commission will leave this item on the agenda
because the Commission will need to take action on the applicant's request to postpone the hearing for 45 days.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the November 7, 2007 meeting, minus Item #10.
MEETING MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes of
September 19, 2007 were unanimously approved as presented.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2135
Minutes of November 7, 2007 15
-2 -
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) —10/27/07 Gala
Commissioner Light reported that the CEA held a gala on October 27, 2007 at Glen Burnie at
the Museum of the Shenandoah Valley. Cormnissioner Light reported an excellent presentation by Mr. Doug
Rinker on rural community and rural land management. He said between 30 and 40 people attended.
Commissioner Light said this was the first fimdraiser for the CEA as an organized group and the experience
gained will help them with future events.
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) —10/25/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS once again reviewed the sign ordinance in detail
and made a few minor changes. He said sign heights will be measured from the entrance into the business; the
distance between signs will be increased from 50 feet to 100 feet; and with developments containing several
businesses, a sign will be allowed every 1,200 feet.
Transportation Committee —10/22/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee received a briefing on the
progress regarding access management. He reported that the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution generally
in support of the VDOT draft of the access management standards, but did express some concerns. The
Metropolitan Pla-tuning Organization (MPO) adopted a similar resolution. Commissioner Kriz said the Board
directed the Transportation Committee to do no further work on the temporary solutions until after the next
legislative session.
In addition, Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee prioritized the
interchange improvements as follows: Exit 307 relocation, Exit 317 improvements, Exit 310 completion, Exit
315 safety improvements, Exit 315 improvement to the ultimate VDOT 1999 plan, and Exit 313 decking and
improvement to ultimate design.
Commissioner Kriz reported that the MPO adopted the Bicycle and Mobility Plan and the
Transportation Planner will begin work on the details.
Route 277 Study
Commissioner Ours reported that the goals and objectives for the Route 277 Study are being
defined. He said the transportation issues are being thoroughly examined by the study group.
Frederick County Planning Commissionn Page 2136
Minutes of November 7, 2007 iA F T1W � I F�Al
-3 -
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda.
No one came forward to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING
An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Residential
Performance (RP) District, Section 165-65, Dimensional Requirements. This amendment will allow
detached accessory structures on single-family small lots.
Action — Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the Planning Staff has had inquiries from
members of the public regarding the permissibility of allowing detached accessory buildings on lots that were
created under the single-family, small -lot housing type. She said the Zonuig Ordinance prohibits detached
accessory structures on lots created under this housing type. She noted that within the RP (Residential
Performance) Zoning District, the single-family, small -lot housing type is the only housing type that does not
permit detached accessory structures. Ms. Perkins stated that the ordinance amendment proposed will permit this
lot type to have one detached accessory structure that does not exceed 150 square feet.
Ms. Perkins reported that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
endorsed this proposed ordinance amendment at their meeting of July 26, 2007. The proposed teat amendment
was also discussed and supported by the Planning Commission on September 5, 2006.
Commissioner Kriz asked if homeowners associations (HOAs) would still have the ability to
place a prohibition against detached accessory structures in their bylaws, if they desired to do so, if this
amendment was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Perkins replied yes.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak.
Chairman Wilmot suggested that a communication received from Mr. and Mrs. Mickey Poole regarding their
feelings on this ordinance change be included in the record. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and
seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Conuiussion unanimously voted to add this communication to the minutes
of the meeting, as follows:
October 27, 2007
TO: Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission
TO: Members of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
We would like to go on record in opposition to the proposed change to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance,
Article VI, Residential Performance District, Chapter 165-65, Dimensional Requirements. Currently, Section
165-65F(4) does not permit any detached accessory buildings on lots within a single-family, small -lot
subdivision. However, if this amendment passes, a single freestanding or detached accessory structure (i.e.,
storage shed, pergola, gazebo, arbor, dog house, greenhouse, etc.) would be permitted in the rear yard of lots of
these subdivisions, subject to certain size criteria.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 7, 2007
Page 2137
-4-
We live in a new single-family, small -lot subdivision called Shenandoah located at Lake Frederick. The lots in
our development are too small to accommodate any type of free standing or detached accessory structure without
causing a severe visual impact on adjacent lots. That visual impact will detract from the harmonious look and feel
to each individual neighborhood, thereby impairing the overall ambiance of the community as a whole.
The impact of a single free standing or detached accessory structure will fall on those homeowners who back up
to other homeowners and who may be forced to look at the freestanding storage shed, pergola, gazebo, arbor, dog
house, greenhouse, etc. from their yards, decks, patios, and porches.
Thank you for considering our comments and concern. Please have our comments read into the record for the
November 7 Planning Commission public hearing and for the upcoming Board of Supervisors' public hearing.
Sincerely,
Mickey and Charlotte Poole
Lot #29, Shenandoah, 105 Merganser Court
Lake Frederick, VA 22630-2062
540-869-6424
Chairman Wilmot next closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Thomas reported significant discussion of this matter at meetings of the
Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). He said the Subcomttee did not see any
negative aspects of this amendment and viewed this as bringing this one partimicular section in conformance with
the remainder of the ordinance. Commissioner Thomas next made a motion to recommend approval of the
proposed ordinance amendment. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours and was unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Residential
Performance (RP) District, Section 165-65, Dimensional Requirements. This amendment will allow detached
accessory structures on single-family small lots.
An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article X, Business and
Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 165-82(C), District Use Regulations. This amendment will allow
grocery and food stores in the B3 (Industrial Transition) District with a size restriction.
Action — Recommended Approval
Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a
potential conflict of interest.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this amendment pertains to the addition of
grocery stores to the permitted uses in the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District. She said the Zoning
Ordinance permits SIC 54 (food stores) in the B 1 (Neighborhood Business) District and the B2 (Business
General) District. SIC 54 as a whole would permit grocery stores, fruit and vegetable markets, meat and fish
markets, candy confectionary stores, dairy product stores, retail bakeries, and miscellaneous food stores. Ms.
Perkins noted that this proposed text amendment would permit only SIC 54 11, which is grocery stores, in the B3
(Business General) Zoning District and would have a supplementary section which would limit the building
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 7, 2007
Page21ii
-5 -
square footage for the retail sales of grocery or food products to 10,000 square feet, excluding areas for storage
and warehousing of products. She explained that this size limitation would pernut small, convenient -type stores
serving surrounding residents, but would preclude larger operations from locating to the B3 District.
Ms. Perkins said the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered
and endorsed this proposed amendment at their meeting on July 26, 2007. The Planning Commission reviewed
and discussed this item at their meeting of September 5, 2007.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments regarding this proposed change to the Zoning
Ordinance. No one came forward and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Conmlissioner Thomas stated that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee
(DRRS) bad considerable discussion of this proposed amendment. He stated that the DRRS believed this
amenchnent would provide a good service with limited scope for those who work within a B3 area or surround a
B3 area.
Upon motion made by Connnissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article X, Business and
Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 165-82(C), District Use Regulations. This amendment will allow grocery and
food stores in the B3 (Industrial Transition) District with a size restriction.
(Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from voting.)
Rezoning Application 409-07 of Clearbrook Property, submitted by German Engineering, to rezone 11.53
acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial
uses. The property is located on the west side of Route 11, approximately 2,200 feet north of Hopewell
Road (Interstate Exit 321) and south of Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671). The property is further identified with
P.I.N. 33-A-125 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 45 Days
Cormnissioner Oates abstained from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a potential
conflict of interest.
Chairman Wilmot stated that the applicant has already used one opportunity to request a delay of
their rezoning application. She said the applicant has once again requested that their item be removed from the
agenda in order to allow time for further refinement of their application. Chairman Wilmot said that because of
the applicant's previous request, the Commission will need to approve the applicant's second request. She
suggested the Commission consider a 45 -day postponement.
A motion was made by Commissioner Light to postpone Rezoning Application 409-07 of
Clearbrook Property for 45 days. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours.
There was some discussion by the Connnission members as to whether the 90 -day time limit
would start on this application from the first or second postponement request. Deputy Planning Director, Michael
T. Ruddy, stated that the Commission is endorsing a request by the applicant for postponement and as part of that
Frederick County Planning Commission(� Page 2139
Minutes of November 7, 2007 0111 �j
a.
endorsement, the applicant is waiving any time considerations at this point. It was clarified that the 90 -day time
limit would not start until this application is considered by the Commission at their first meeting in January.
Mr. Claus Bader, P.E., of German Engineering, PLC, the applicant's representative, said that
they would like additional time to work out all of the transportation issues with VDOT. Mr. Bader had no
problems with a postponement for 45 days until the Commission's first meeting in January.
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table
for 45 days Rezoning Application 409-07 of the Clearbrook Property, submitted by German Engineering, to
rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for
commercial uses.
(Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from voting.)
Rezoning Application 411-07 of 1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to
rezone 2.2 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, with
proffers, for a pharmacy. The properties are located at 1932 Senseny Road (Rt. 657), at the intersection
with Greenwood Road (Rt. 656). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 55-A-196 and 65A-2-1
in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 45 Days
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this application is to rezone 2.2 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, specifically for a pharmacy with
a drive-through window. The site is located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer
and Water Service Area (SWSA); however, itis not within the limits of any small -area land use plan. He said the
Comprehensive Policy Plan does call for neighborhood business uses in the vicinity of residential areas and given
this key intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road and the existing B2 -zoned properties at this
intersection, this commercial development would be consistent with the Plan. Mr. Ruddy noted that the business
design standards in the Comprehensive Policy Plan are relevant to this application, including landscaping,
screening of adjoining uses, and controlling the number, size, and location of signs.
Mr. Ruddy stated that the applicant is implementing the County's Eastern Road Plan. On
Senseny Road, one additional lane is being provided to achieve an ultimate four -lane section of Senseny Road.
Also provided is a raised median across the front of the property which provides additional access management
benefits. He said that Greenwood Road is also being improved to standards identified in the Comprehensive
Plan; however, the improvements do not fully address the turning movements identified in the applicant's
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA).
Mr. Ruddy next reviewed the impacts associated with this request. Regarding the full
commercial entrance proposed on Greenwood Road, he said the possibility exists for an insufficient left -turn
stacking area on the northbound Greenwood turning movement onto Senseny Road. He explained that the parcel
lacks sufficient cient depth to allow for adequate right-of-way dedication to elevate the stacking situation. As a result,
the applicant has proffered to provide $25,000 for future transportation improvements within the Senseny Road
(Rt. 657) and Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) right-of-ways.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 7, 2007
Page 2140
-7 -
Mr. Ruddy reviewed the design standards proffered by the applicant. He said the applicant has
provided for a single monument sign with a maximum proffered height of 20 feet; however, the draft sign
ordinance amendments currently being studied may restrict the height of monument signs along collector roads to
15 feet. The applicant should seek consistency with the proposed ordinance.
In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy stated that the rezoning application is generally consistent with the
Comprehensive Policy Plan and, in particular, the long-range transportation elements of the plan. However,
careful consideration should be given to the impacts generated by this request; specifically, the transportation
impacts as they pertain to Greenwood Road and its intersection with Senseny Road.
Commissioner Manuel suggested the possibility of re -orienting the structure on the property to
mitigate the vehicle stacking problem. Mr. Ruddy said he was familiar with potential layouts, but the stacking
remained a problem. Mr. Ruddy said the issue is a combination of the left -turn movements into the site and the
left -turn movements heading westbound from Greenwood Road onto Senseny Road.
Mr. John Lewis of Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., representing the project, stated that results of the TIA
under current conditions determined a Level of Service (LOS) B -C. He said the TIA results under 2010
conditions were based on traffic projections for pending projects already approved by Frederick County, such as
the Orrick development and others, not currently started. He said when these projects come on line, traffic will be
doubled and LOS will be C -F under the current lane configuration. He stated that with the addition of the
pharmacy's 1,140 trips to the 2010 background traffic trips, the TIA determined that the LOS remains the same
with or without the pharmacy. Mr. Lewis explained that the 1,140 trips used was a conservative figure because
the proposed phannacy takes its trips from existing traffic and is not a destination point. Mr. Lewis said the
problem identified by the TIA is when the left turn stacks northbound on Greenwood, it stacks through the exit
during peak -hour traffic. Mr. Lewis next went over the needed improvements identified by the TIA to obtain a
LOS B -C. He said the applicant's proffered transportation improvements include: 1) left -turn lane southbound
into the site; 2) left -turn lane northbound onto Senseny Road, 3) right -turn northbound onto Senseny Road; 4)
right -turn lane eastbound into the site restricted to a right -in, right -out only with a raised median. Regarding the
design and sign standards, Mr. Lewis commented that they incorporated identical language from the Orrick
application into their proffers and anticipate something very similar as far as architectural finishes and signage as
what was approved with the Orrick application.
Commissioner Mohn was interested in the applicant's renditions of the architectural appearance
of the structure. He said the Orrick Commons project shared renderings and made a commitment to elevate their
design standards in this neighborhood with the use of brick facades. Commissioner Mohn believed this particular
location is even more prominent in this neighborhood and more visible to existing residences. He asked Mr.
Lewis if the applicant had any interest or willingness to pursue a continuation of the architectural treatments that
were used with Orrick Commons.
Commissioner Morris raised the issue of pedestrian access to adjacent lots across Senseny Road,
since this lot was within the neighborhood design circle of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak:
Ms. Joaime Leonardis, Red Bud District, also raised the issue of pedestrian and bicycle mobility
to the pharmacy and if cross walks would be available. She believed every rezoning was an opportunity to
provide for pedestrians. Ms. Leonardis also inquired about the new urbanism initiative and if there was any
consideration of placing the building closer to the road with parking in the rear. She also inquired about
landscaping.
Frederick County Planning Commission R, 1~ F V Page 2141
Minutes of November 7, 2007
Im
Ms. Kathy Kerns, Shawnee District, said the proposed location of the pharmacy entrance will be
directly across from her property and driveway and she will be directly impacted. Ms. Kerns was concerned about
vehicle lights and parking lot lighting shining into her home and on her property. She said her mailbox was
located across the street from her house, next to the pharmacy entrance. She described the traffic congestion at all
hours of the day and the safety issue to get her mail. Ms. Kerns inquired about the proposed hours of operation.
She commented that all of the neighborhood residences are single -story structures and all of the CVS pharmacies
in Winchester appear to be two-story structures.
Ms. Gillian Greenfield, a resident of Senseny Glen, commented that getting across town to the
nearest pharmacy is inconvenient because of the terrible traffic congestion on Greenwood Road to Route 7 and
from Route 7 to Berryville Avenue. Ms. Greenfield said it seemed the County was trying to have these mixed-use
areas within a nucleus where residents could live, work, and shop in order to avoid all of the traffic. She believed
this application for the Senseny Road Pharmacy fits in perfectly with what the County is trying to achieve. She
was in favor of this application.
Mr. John Fox was the o,,Niier of Greenwood Grocery and Deli, located at the corner of
Greenwood and Senseny Roads, directly across the road from the proposed project. Mr. Fox had questions on the
proposed median and how it will affect his main entrance and parking. He asked if he will still be able to have
left-hand traffic going into his store or if the median would block the entrance.
Mr. Lewis returned to the podium to address the issues raised. Mr. Lewis recognized that
crossing five lanes on Senseny Road will be difficult for pedestrians. He said he will be working with the staff
and VDOT to see what could be done in this area to assist pedestrians, whether it is signalization adjustment or a
median refuge. Regarding the suggestion about moving the building closer to the front with parking in the rear,
Mr. Lewis said the configuration would not work for this use. He said there would be a problem mixing services,
such as deliveries and trash removal with the drive-through and patron parking. In addition, he mentioned the size
of the building versus the size of the lot. He noted that CVS pharmacies do fairly extensive landscaping on their
sites; he pointed out two areas that will have a 25 -foot green space buffer with an opaque fence, as well as
landscaping. Regarding the traffic congestion, he said the pharmacy is making a significant investment in
transportation improvements here to help with the flow of traffic. Mr. Lewis said he would be happy to meet with
Mrs. Kerns to work on a solution to the problem of vehicle headlights shining into her home. Regarding access to
the Greenwood Grocery and Deli, Mr. Lewis said vehicles traveling eastbound will not be able to turn into the
grocery; he said vehicles would have to come up Greenwood Road and into the site. Mr. Lewis said he would
review this situation further with VDOT at the site plan stage.
Commissioner Light commented there will be new construction within the roadways on three
sides of this project. He questioned whether painted pedestrian crosswalks and signals and expanded sidewalks
had been incorporated into the transportation plan for this area. Mr. Ruddy said that implementation of the items
mentioned are sought as new projects come on line. He said the Comprehensive Policy Plan illustrates an
idealized intersection design, which includes bicycle paths, sidewalks, crossovers, etc. Mr. Ruddy said that with
new development, there is an opportunity to improve design standards, both locally and through the State. He
said presently, there is greater recognition and ability to get those improvements; however, historically, it is not
something that was achievable through County ordinances and State requirements. Commissioner Light wanted
to know if the capability to get these items exists today. Mr. Ruddy replied the ability to do so is in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan and rezoning; and, in addition, the State has also recently been improving their ability
to require and implement pedestrian accommodations. He said every transportation project currently moving
forward should have pedestrian accommodations as a priority to that improvement and he saw no reason why the
improvements to this intersection would not respect that. Commissioner Light inquired if this particular property
and rezoning would be accountable for all of the pedestrian crossing traffic implementations. Mr. Ruddy said the
applicant should evaluate what is appropriate given their particular development.
Frederick County Planning Commission Ce Page 2142
Minutes of November 7, 2007 1 JI
I=
Mr. Lloyd Ingram came forward at the Commission's request. Mr. Ingram said the pharmacy
has offered to donate property for the right-of-way; however, the grocery across the street has no additional right-
of-way available for sidewalks at this time. He said the property to the west has been rezoned to commercial, but
the sidewalk would have to be within the State's right-of-way in order to be maintained by VDOT. Mr. Ingram
commented that pedestrian access has increasingly become a higher priority and more regulations are going
through that require these issues to be addressed. There is no ability, however, to force a developer to go off their
site to create walkways.
Since VDOT's primary concern was the stacking distance, Commissioner Oates made the
suggestion that the Commission approve the rezoning with the condition, as the property to the south develops
and inter -parcel connectors are constructed, that the applicant close off the Greenwood Road entrance and utilize
another one that's safer. Mr. Ingram specified that the p.m. peak hour was the issue and the remainder of the day
should not be a problem. Mr. Ingram said VDOT preferred the transition lanes to be just north ofthe entrance for
safety reasons. Commission members agreed the only way to resolve the problem is to wait until additional
acreage to the south becomes available and consolidate or develop with this site on the corner to move the
entrance further back.
Commissioner Thomas commented this was a low -intensity business and would provide a
neighborhood service. He thought it provided what was intended by the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Commissioner Thomas noted that the applicant was putting forth considerable effort to improve the
transportation problems at this location, particularly with the expansion of the intersections, the right -in, right -
out, and the median strip.
Commissioner Mohn said that while he agreed with the transportation rationale, the
neighborhood was probably going to have to contend with some imperfect issues, particularly on Greenwood
Road. Commissioner Mohn stated that given the location and the setting within an established neighborhood, he
felt the applicant could go further in providing some comfort to the community in terms of the appearance of this
site. He didn't think the residents needed to be compelled to accept the "off-the-shelf" architecture of a chain
pharmacy. Connnissioner Mohn felt the Commission would be remiss if they did not ask for additional dialogue
regarding the structure's appearance and how it will fit onto this site. He said he was in favor of the use, but
believed more attention was needed to the sway this site will be designed in terms of layout and the appearance of
the building; he suggested the applicant submit some type of rendering.
Commissioner Oates commented that the extreme eastern side of this property ties into the
Orrick site. He said there could possibly be a crosswalk at the far eastern end of this property, which might be
safer than trying to accommodate something up in the intersection itself.
Commissioner Mohn made a motion to table the rezoning to allow the applicant an opportunity
to provide the Planning Commission with additional information concerning building design and site layout and to
include additional information on pedestrian connectivity. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kerr.
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table
Rezoning Application # 11-07 of 1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone 2.2
acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for a pharmacy
at 1932 Senseny Road (Rt. 657), to allow the applicant an opportunity to provide the Planning Commission with
additional 'information concerning building design and site layout and to include additional information on
pedestrian connectivity.
Frederick County Planning Commissionj� N
Page2]43
Minutes of November 7, 2007 . `�
-10—
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO TABLE): Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Wilmot, Light, Oates, Morris, Manuel, Watt, Unger
NO: Thomas
Rezoning Application 908-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust &
Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with
proffers, for office and warehouse uses. The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road,
approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 75-A-1 in the
Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 45 Days
Commissioner Manuel abstained from all discussion and voting on this rezoning application, due
to a possible conflict of interest.
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this property is within the County's
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and it is within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. Mr. Ruddy said
both the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan
designate this area for industrial land use and recognizes the desire to provide for industrial uses along the CSX
Railroad, Mr. Ruddy said the proposed M1 (Light Industrial) rezoning request is consistent with the land use
designation of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He noted that the County's Eastern Road Plan shows an east -west
major collector road in this location, running from Route 1 I South over to Shady Elm Road. In addition, Shady
Elm Road, along the front of the property, is identified as an improved major collector road. Furthermore, the
County's Eastern Road Plan defines those particular road improvements as an urban section and the proposed
commercial and industrial development should only occur if impacted roads function at a Level of Service (LOS)
"C" or better. Mr. Ruddy pointed out that this application does not achieve a LOS "C" or better on roads and
intersections studied in the application's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
Mr. Ruddy reported that the property is the site of a historical house, the Route 651 House,
dating from circa 1880-1910. The HRAB (Historical Resources Advisory Board) suggested the completion of an
archeological survey and documentation of the property, and the completion of a Phase I archeological survey of
the site to determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the property.
Mr. Ruddy continued by reviewing with the Commission the traffic impacts associated with the
rezoning and the applicant's transportation program. Mr. Ruddy stated that none of the improvements identified
in the TIA have been addressed by this application. In addition, the applicant's transportation program does not
provide for or advance the County's Eastern Road Plan element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Ruddy
pointed out that a new proffer package was submitted by the applicant this evening. While those new proffers
and improvements do not fully satisfy and address the impacts identified in the TIA, through a fair amount of
collaboration, coordination, and effort to provide a consensus, it moves this plan forward from what was
originally submitted. Mr. Ruddy proceeded to review the changes with the Commission.
Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates (PHR&A), Inc., was representing the
Artillery Business Center project. Mr. Sowers stated that all three parties, VDOT, the Planning Staff, and the
applicant, are in agreement with the revised proffer from a transportation standpoint. Mr. Sowers said the
proffers address two separate scenarios: Scenario A, assumes the connection from Shady Elm to Route 11 is not
Frederick County Planning Commission�. Fage z 144
Minutes of November 7, 007 WD 1
-11 -
in place and has traffic impacts from Shady Elm up to Apple Valley Road and eventually out to Route 11; and
Scenario B, assumes the connection from Shady Elm through Renaissance Commercial Center is already in place.
He said they have tried to blend both transportation scenarios to create a proffer package that both enhances the
Eastern Road Plan and constructs a minimum of 1100 feet of the roadway as a two-lane section from points A to
B as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). In addition, should the future bridge over the railroad
track be a long-term plan and take longer to implement than hoped, there's still mechanisms within the proffers to
mitigate impacts to intersections, if Scenario A ends up being the more long-term scenario.
Mr. Sowers said that another issue raised was the pedestrian/ bicycle accommodations. He said
per the existing Subdivision Ordinance, any proposed major collector roadways as identified by the
Comprehensive Policy Plan, which would include the roadway from A to B, has to provide pedestrian
accommodations. In addition, there is a pending subdivision ordinance amendment to require the same pedestrian
accommodations along existing major collectors, which would apply to Shady Elm Road.
Mr. Sowers next addressed the comments from the HRAB. He said roughly one-third of the
property is within the study area for the First Kenistown Battlefield. Recognizing the property is well outside of
the core area, he did not believe anything of significant benefit to the County would be found on the property.
Rather than spend the money on a Phase I Archeological Study, he believed there would be more benefit to
historic resources by applying $5,000 for general improvements at Star Fort.
Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Dr. James Sluss, a resident at 750 Shady Elm Road in Hedgebrook Hills subdivision, wanted to
express his extreme apprehension and disapproval of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Sluss said he was opposed for
three main reasons. He said allowing commercial areas to encroach on residential would negatively affect the
aesthetics and the quality of life of his neighborhood. He was concerned for the safety of his children and the
neighborhood children, especially with delivery trucks on the same road with mini -vans and buses. And third, he
was concerned the adjacent industrial zoning would devalue his home as well as his neighbors' homes. He noted
that houses in Hedgebrook Hills and Shady Elm Acres were valued at $500,000 to $700,000. He added that this
rezoning would set a precedent for further industrial rezoning on vacant land in the area.
Ms. Liz Hunter, a resident of Hockman Court, off Shady Elm, in the Hedgebrook Hills
subdivision, was opposed to the proposed rezoning. Ms. Hunter was concerned the industrial zoning would
devalue the homes in her neighborhood. She expressed concern about setting a precedent for further industrial
rezoning, particularly on the vacant Carbaugh property. Ms. Hunter stated that the mix of commercial and
industrial uses with residential was unappealing and would affect her family's quality of life. She was concerned
for the safety of neighborhood children and she was concerned about the increased traffic on local roads. Ms.
Hunter commented that at a minimum, efforts should be made to buffer the residential development from the
industrial uses.
Mr. Darrell Habron, a resident at 188 Hockman Court in Hedgebrook Hills, was opposed to the
rezoning and he expressed a number of concerns about existing and future road conditions. He said that local
roads could not handle the increased traffic industrial development would generate. Mr. Habron said Springdale
was not wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other; he asked who would pay for the traffic signal at the
corner of Springdale and Route 11; he questioned who would benefit the most from the proposed bridge over the
railroad tracks; he also questioned how the applicant could proffer a road that would go onto another person's
property.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 7, 2007
Page 2145
-12 -
Ms. Joanne Leonardis, Red Bud District, agreed with the points made by the previous speakers.
Ms. Leonardis agreed that property values, safety, and transportation were extremely important; however, she
believed this was a great opportunity to make this an aesthetically pleasing corridor. She suggested large berms,
lots of landscaping, and pedestrian mobility be incorporated to make this area livable for the residents.
Ms. Donna Diaz said that her property borders the Carbaugh Farm. Ms. Diaz said she contacted
the County Planning Department before she purchased her property about one year ago. She said she was told the
industrial zoning would only come down to a certain point because of all the residential. She agreed that
Springdale was not wide enough for two vehicles to pass. Ms. Diaz said there were a considerable number of
tractor trailer trucks that go passed her property and down onto Springdale, instead of going out to Route 11.
Mr. Ben Montgomery, a partner in Prosperity Properties located on Prosperity Drive, said he was
in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Montgomery said Springdale was an awful road and a new connector was needed
coming across there; he thought this rezoning was the answer for that new connector. He said he would be
pleased when there is a satisfactory road going through this entire area. Mr. Montgomery believed the whole area
fit with industrial zoning, particularly with VDOT's long-range plans.
Mr. James Sluss returned to the podium and stated that he thought the planned connector would
only increase the traffic on Route 11. He said it would not connect to the bypass and would make a bad situation
even worse.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
hearing.
Mr. Ronald Mislowski, also with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates (PHR&A), Inc., came
forward to address some of the transportation issues. Mr. Mislowski said initially, their efforts on the original
proffer concentrated on the east -west connector, particularly with design and coordination with CXS on the
bridge. However, VDOT had some immediate concerns and that is how the $200,000 signalization agreement
came into focus. Mr_ Mislowski said they still contributed $25,000 towards the east -west connector. He said
they were not implying that this amount of money will build the bridge, but they wanted to contribute their share
towards the east -west connector while still addressing the short-term goals of VDOT.
Mr. Sowers returned to the podium to address some of the comments and concerns raised. Mr.
Sowers talked about Frederick County's need for additional M 1 property to help fund the tax base. He addressed
comments made about proposed future roads going across property boundaries; he addressed the long-term traffic
impacts on Springdale Road. Mr. Sowers said the applicant is willing to provide pedestrian accommodations and
has street trees along the proposed collector roadway, as well as the corridor for Shady Elm Road, to improve
aesthetics along the corridor. In conclusion, Mr. Sowers stated that they were in accordance with the
Comprehensive Policy Plan; they had an agreement from the Planning Staff and VDOT on the transportation
scenario, they were in accordance with the Long -Range Land Use Plan, and they were incorporating the Eastern
Road Plan in recognition of the Shady Elm/ Route 11 connector.
Mr. John Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation, spoke regarding the East-West Connector
Road between Route 11 and Shady Elm Road. He also explained the long-term goals about what is expected to
develop over a significant amount of time.
Commissioner Light talked about development from Apple Valley Road down Shady Ehn Road
South. He said with each new rezoning, there are proffers for right-of-way donation; however, there are no
proffers for improving road base or width on Shady Elm Road. Mr. Bishop replied there was a proffer to improve
northbound Shady Elm to add an additional northbound lane, solely on the property, and 40 feet of right-of-way.
Mr. Bishop said turn lanes associated with future entrances would be addressed at the site plan stage.
Frederick County Planning Commission n ® Page 2146
Minutes of November 7, 2007 I� Lj
-3 3-
Conunissioner Thomas suggested that this development, along with the Carbaugh property,
improve the entire length of Shady Elm Road because the opposite side of Shady Elm Road is already developed
and will not change. Commissioner Thomas did not think the proposed rezoning package was complete enough
for him to feel comfortable voting this evening. He said the transportation proffers needed additional work and
were not at the point they needed to be. Commissioner Thomas said there were ways this area could be developed
into an attractive industrial area and be compatible with the surrounding residential community. He suggested
segregating the sidewalks from the industrial area. In addition, he said he disliked receiving revised proffers on the
same day the Commission needed to vote on an application. He also did not prefer to see an industrial
development with steel -framed structures and metal exteriors; he thought there should be something to address
the standard of appearance. He commented there were a number of things that could be incorporated into the
application package to raise it to a higher level.
Commissioner Kriz agreed there could be ways to make the industrial areas compatible with the
residential uses across the street by utilizing berms, expanded buffers, and landscaping_ Commissioner Kriz was
not pleased with receiving revised proffers on the evening of the public hearing because it did not give the
Commission sufficient time to review them. He believed the application needed to be postponed because the
revised proffers were just received.
Commissioner Unger asked the VDOT representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, what Level of Service
(LOS) could be expected when this project is built out. Mr. Ingram replied there should be a LOS "C," if the
connector is built_
Cotmnissioner Oates commented that last year, when the Eastern Road Plan was adopted, it
provided cross sections of a UD4, a rural two-lane, and required right-of-way. He said the Eastern Road Plan
calls for this road to be a UD4 and the applicant is offering something less. Commissioner Oates said in the
future, applicants seeking to do something different should be required to come in beforehand and request a
change in the Eastern Road Plan.
Mr. Mislowski replied that the rural section was not proffered lightly; he said they reviewed this
with VDOT to make sure VDOT supported the rural section because it was easier to maintain, and easier to
widen in the future; he said it will be more expensive to change the road in the future, if curb and gutter is put in
now. Mr. Mislowski said this is an industrial area and trucks will be running up over the curbs and increasing the
maintenance costs. In addition, he stated that recent industrial rezoning applications have set a standard for
monetary proffer amounts. Mr. Mislowski said this is a 58 -acre rezoning that is proffering $200,000 for a traffic
signal, $25,000 for off-site improvements to roadways, $5,000 for Star Fort, and constructing 1100 feet of
roadway. He believed the monetary proffers were far in excess of any of the other recently -approved rezonings on
a per -acre basis.
Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Mislowski what he envisioned for this site. Mr. Mislowski said he
envisioned smaller buildings sharing access on the new connector road with a couple entrances on Shady Elm
Road; he said one of the proffers restricts access to only four roads. Mr. Mislowski said there will be shared
entrances to properties within the park and if another internal road is needed for future subdivision, it is proffered
to be built to VDOT standards.
Commissioner Kerr, who is the Planning Commission's Liaison to the Economic Development
Commission (EDC), said Frederick County has a severe lack of available M 1 (Industrial Limited) land. He said
that while distribution centers are a needed component of any community, care needs to be exercised as to where
they are allowed. Commissioner Kerr said the County needs to maximize its M1 -zoned land for uses that are
high -tax generators, which distribution is not. He said his greatest fear is the County will end up with a large
distribution center which will also have higher traffic. On the other hand, he thought the applicant had offered to
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 7, 2007
Page 2147
-14 -
pay their fair share; he recognized the considerable negotiation and compromise made with all parties_
Commissioner Unger made a motion to table the rezoning application for 45 days, due to the
revised proffers being received the day of the hearing and to give the applicant more time to enhance the
application package by addressing the Commission's concerns. This motion was seconded by Commissioner
Kriz.
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a unanimously vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table
for 45 days Rezoning Application #08-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust &
Associates (PHR&A), Inc., to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M I (Light Industrial) District,
with proffers, for office and warehouse uses, in order to provide the applicant additional time to enhance the
rezoning application package and to give the Planning Commission time to review the revised proffers.
(Note: Commissioner Manuel abstained from voting.)
OTHER
PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS
With the start of a new year approaching, Chairman Wilmot commented there were two items the
Commission may want to think about putting in the bylaws. She said one is the issue of getting revised proffers
between the time of agenda distribution and the public hearing meeting, so the Commission can be fully prepared
and understand what is being presented. The second item is the 45 -day postponement. She suggested for the
purposes of moving into the next year, the Commission carry forward with the Bylaws and the Rules and
Responsibilities with one exception, which is a typographical error in the section dealing with motions. She said
this will provide the Commission with 30 advisory days_ The Plaiu-iing Coinnussion agreed with flus suggestion.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. by a unanimous
vote.
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 7, 2007
Page 2148
REZONING APPLICATION #08-07
ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: October 23, 2007 (updated December 3, 2007)
Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed
Action
Planning Commission: 11/07/07
Tabled by PC
12/19/07
Pending
Board of Supervisors: 01/09/08
Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to MI (Light Industrial) District,
with proffers.
LOCATION: The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet
south of Route 37.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-1
PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas)
PRESENT USE: Agricultural and residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North:
M1
Use:
Industrial
South:
RA (Rural Areas)
Use:
Agricultural
East:
B3 (Industrial Transition)
Use:
Commercial/vacant
West:
RA (Rural Areas)
Use:
Agricultural
M1 (light Industrial)
Vacant
PROPOSED USES: Light Industrial Office and Warehouse Uses (0.4 FAR proffered).
Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center
December 3, 2007
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this
property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 651, 652 and 11. These routes are
the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has
reviewed several submissions of proposed transportation proffers offered to mitigate the development's
potential trip generation. While not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Artillery
Business Center Rezoning Application dated December 26, 2006, revised October 9, 2007, it appears
that through a combination of previous proposed proffers, as well as the current proffer by the
application the transportation concerns associated with this request can be adequately addressed. Before
development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs,
drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for
review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way
dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work
performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued
by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage.
Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended.
Department of Inspections: Demolition permit and asbestos inspection shall be required prior to the
removal of any structures. No additional comments required at this time.
Department of Public Works: 1. Refer to page 2 of 4, Transportation: The discussion of Scenario A
indicates that 60 percent of the trips would utilize Apple Valley Road and 40 percent would use
Springdale Road. It appears that the existing traffic distribution is approximately 80:20. Considering
the current condition of Springdale Road, we conclude that the 80:20 distribution is more realistic than
the 60:40 distribution. 2. Refer to page 3 or 4, Environmental Features: a. The narrative indicates that
the property does not contain any wetlands. However, a review of available aerial photographs
indicates the existence of a pond on the property. A wetland study needs to be performed to verify that
this pond does not represent a wetland. b. The discussion of drainage needs to address stormwater
management and the potential impact on a karst environment. c. The discussion of soils needs to be
expanded to include a review of the karst geology and the potential for sink hole development. This
condition is particularly relevant along the eastern property boundary. 3. Refer to page 4 of 4, Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities: Indicate if the solid waste projection is presented as pounds per day or
pounds per year. 4. Refer to the proffer statement, Site Development Item 2.2: The dedication right-
of-ways should be sized to accommodate sufficient turning radii at the intersection with Shady Elm
Road. The discussion indicates that "entrances to the said roadway will be located at a minimum of
400 feet apart". This statement raises the question, "apart from what?"
Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments.
Sanitation Authority Department: We have capacity and can provide sewer and water service to this
site.
Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center
December 3, 2007
Page 3
Department of Parks & Recreation. No comment.
Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objections as long as no septics or wells are proposed or
existing. If any existing septics or wells are located, please call the Health Department for proper
abandonment procedures.
Winchester RelZional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning application. Allowed uses
under this rezoning should not impact airside operations at the Winchester Regional Airport therefore
we have no further comment regarding this rezoning request.
Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units
will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out.
Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick
County Rural Landmarks Survey Report and the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley.
The subject parcel is the site of the Route 651 House (DHR #1042), dated from circa 1880-1910 and
representing a typical example of a vernacular I -House. This project also adjoins the Henry Carbaugh
property (DHR 34-1040). The Henry Carbaugh House represents atypical vernacular QueenAnne-style
dwelling constructed in the early twentieth century and still retains many elements of its original
construction, as noted in Frederick County, Virginia: History Through Architecture. Although neither
of these two structures is listed as potentially significant by the Rural Landmarks Survey, mitigation of
the impacts to these structures should be considered. In addition, a small portion of the property is
located in the study area of the 1" Kernstown Battlefield. Although not located in the core area of the
battlefield, attention should be given to the potential archeological significance of this property in the
battle for Kernstown. The application states that the applicant proposes to construct no more than
327,000 square feet of office space and no more than 327,000 square feet of warehouse space. The
HRAB feels that this proposed development can address several issues prior to the rezoning of this
property. If the property is developed for commercial use, the HRAB suggests the following be
considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: Archeological Survey and Documentation. The
HRAB felt that there is a need to document the historic and archeological significance of the property
based upon the proximity to the 1" Kernstown Battlefield area and the location of the historic structure
on the property. The HRAB suggested documenting the house and any out -buildings for their historical
significance including identifying past owners/occupants, building materials, architectural features,
photographs of both the interior and exterior, etc. The HRAB also suggested a Phase 1 one
archeological survey would be appropriate to determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the
property.
Attorney Comments: 1. In Proffer 2.2, at the end of the second sentence I would recommend that the
following words be added"..., in the location shown on the Generalized Development Plan." 2. In
proffer 2.3, it is not clear who makes the determination that an internal access road is "necessary". That
should be clarified.
PlanninI4 Department: Please see letter dated March 23, 2007, signed by Susan K. Eddy, Senior
Planner.
Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center
December 3, 2007
Page 4
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) identifies the
subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning
districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an
amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding
revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1
and A-2 zoned land to the RA District.
Comprehensive Policy Plan
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1]
Land Use
The property is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (S WSA) and the site
is within the limits of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Sewer and Water Service
Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of planned commercial, and
industrial development will occur. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and the Eastern
Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan designate this area for industrial land use. The
Plan recognizes the desire to provide for industrial uses along the CSX Railroad. The proposed
M1 light industrial rezoning is consistent with the land use designation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The application of quality design standards for future development is also an objective of the
Plan; in particular, along business corridors. These include landscaping, screening, and
controlling the number and size of signs.
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).
Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center
December 3, 2007
Page 5
The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Southern Frederick Land Use
Plan calls for Shady Elm Road to be improved to a major collector road. In addition, a new east
west major collector road connecting Shady Elm Road to Route 11 is identified. The County's
Eastern Road Plan further defines the appropriate typical section for these major collector roads
as an urban divided four -lane facility. The construction of planned major collector road
typical sections, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is not provided for by this
application.
The Plan also states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if
impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. This application does
not achieve a level of service C or better on the roads and intersections studied in the
application's TIA.
It is important to note that the County's Eastern Road Plan does not call for improvements to
Springdale Road. Therefore, the Applicant should concentrate any efforts to address their
transportation impacts on those roads and intersections identified in the Comprehensive Plan; in
particular, Shady Elm Road, the new east west major collector road, and the intersection of
Apple Valley Road and Route 11.
Site Access and circulation
The Comprehensive Plan generally provides for a limitation on the number of entrances that
may be located along business corridors. Further, the Plan generally seeks to address pedestrian
accommodations. No pedestrian accommodations have been provided internally to the project
and, more importantly, along the projects frontage with the planned major collector roads.
3) Site Suitability/Environment
The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site
development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. The
Frederick County Engineer has referenced the potential for wetlands to exist on this site based
upon the presence of an existing pond. Also, the Frederick County Engineer has identified that
a detailed geotechnical analysis will be needed as part of the detailed site plan design as this
area is also known for karst topography.
The property is the site of a historical house, the Route 651 House (DHR #1042), dated from
circa 1880-1910 and representing atypical example of a vernacular I -House. This project also
adjoins the Henry Carbaugh property (DHR 34-1040). The HRAB suggested the following be
considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: the completion of an archeological survey
and documentation of the property, and the completion of a Phase 1 archeological survey to
determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the property. The application does not
presently address the comments provided by the HRAB.
Rezoning 908-07 — Artillery Business Center
December 3, 2007
Page 6
4) Potential Impacts
A. Transportation
Trak Impact Analysis.
The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application evaluated two scenarios. Scenario
A assumes the existing road network with development access to be provided via a single site
driveway located on Shady Elm Road. Scenario B assumes, in addition to Scenario A, direct
development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned over the existing railroad and
through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center.
The TIA assumed 326,700 square feet of office use and 326,700 square feet of light industrial
use. This was generally consistent with the proffered square footage limitation on the use of the
properly based upon a 0.25 FAR. However, concern has been raised regarding the trip
generation figures used in the TIA. As a result, the inaccuracy of the trip generation figures
brings into question the conclusions provided in the TIA. Using trip generation figures from the
TIA, the proposed rezoning is projected to generate 3,562 average daily trips (ADT).
An addendum to the TIA, dated September 12, 2007, was provided which reflected a change in
the land use and FAR. The proffered square footage limitation has been increased to a 0.4 FAR.
As a result, the TIA assumes 511,395 square feet of light industrial land use and 511,395 square
feet of warehousing resulting in a trip generation of 5,950 average daily trips (ADT). Concerns
remain with the TIA, in particular with the land uses used and the trip generation numbers. The
TIA may not represent the most intensive use of the property enabled by the M1 zoning or the
proffered square footage limitations.
The addendum to the TIA continues to indicate that, with the exception of the intersection of
Route 11 and Springdale Road, Level of Service C conditions or better will be maintained on
study roads and intersections with the following improvements. A level of service D is
identified at Route 11 and Springdale Road during Scenario B.
1. The proposed signalization of Springdale Road and Route 11, Scenario A (not
a desirable avenue for industrial development traffic).
2. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Apple Valley Road and
Route 11.
3. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Renaissance Driveway
and Route 11 (Scenario B).
4. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Site Driveway and
Shady Elm Road (Scenario A).
5. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Shady Elm Road and
Apple Valley Road (Scenario A).
The application fails to address the transportation impacts generated by the request as
identified in the Applicant's TIA.
Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center
December 3, 2007
Page 7
Transportation Program.
The Applicant's transportation program provides for right-of-way dedication along Shady Elm
Drive (45 feet from centerline), construction of the widening of the northbound lane of Shady
Elm Road, right-of-way dedication along the southern property line to partially accommodate an
east west major collector road (80 feet in width), the design of a rural four -lane road to
approximately the railroad bridge, the potential construction of a rural two-lane section
(westbound lanes) of this road at such time a fourth building permit may be issued or a bridge
crossing of the existing railroad is constructed by others, and a monetary contribution in the
amount of $50,000 to the County for the design and construction of a railroad crossing.
None of the above improvements identified in the TIA have been addressed by this
application. In addition, the Applicant's transportation program does not provide for or
advance the County's Eastern Road Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations have not been provided in the applicant's
transportation program.
B. Sewer and Water
Water demand for the site would be approximately 29,350 gallons per day. Sewer generation is
projected to be equivalent to the water demand at approximately 29,350 gallons per day. The
Frederick County Sanitation Authority has stated that they have capacity and can provide sewer
and water service to this site. The wastewater from this site would be directed to the Parkin's
Mill Wastewater facility.
C. Community Facilities
The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services.
However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on
community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application
addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an
amount of $5,000. The application also provides for a monetary contribution in the amount of
$2,500 for the Sheriff's Office and $2,500 for general government purposes in an effort to
address the impacts to these community facilities.
5) Proffer Statement — Dated December 26, 2006; revised through October 9, 2007.
A) Generalized Development Plan
The Applicant has provided a basic Generalized Development Plan which simply illustrates the
proffered transportation improvements described in this report.
B) Land Use
The Applicant has limited the development of the property to a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
The Applicant has proposed signage limitations along Shady Elm and the collector road.
However, the limitation proposed may be in excess of those signage standards currently being
proposed through the DRRS.
Rezoning 408-07 — Artillery Business Center
December 3, 2007
Page 8
C) Transportation
This application has provided for additional dedication of right-of-way along Shady Elm Road
and the widening of the existing northbound lane along the property's Shady Elm frontage.
The application has provided for the dedication of an 80 foot right-of-way along their southern
property line for a minimum of 1,100 feet. The Applicant has proffered the design of a rural
four -lane divided collector road to connect with proposed Renaissance Drive. The
Comprehensive Plan identifies this important road as an Urban our- lane divided road. This
should be recognized in this application. The design of the bridge necessary to accommodate
this road has not been proffered by the Applicant. Therefore, care should be taken when
evaluating the value of designing a major collector road without understanding the design,
and ultimately obtaining the approval by CSX, of the bridge necessary to accommodate the
road.
The construction of the westbound two lanes as a two lane rural undivided road is proffered for
a minimum of 1,100 feet. Please be aware that the proffer only guarantees that this rural two
lane section will be constructed prior to the issuance of the fourth building permit. There is
no guarantee that there will be a fourth building permitfor the property. Therefore, there is
no guarantee that this road will be constructed Any construction of this road by the
Applicant is very questionable, and most certainly untimely with the development of this
property.
A second trigger is provided for the construction of 1,100 feet of this road as an R2, on the
Applicant's property, which is at such time construction commences of a bridge over the
adjacent railroad. However, no design or construction of the bridge crossing is provided by the
Applicant.
In lieu of the above, the Applicant has proffered a contribution to the County in the amount of
$50,000 for the design and/or construction of a bridge over the railroad or for any other general
transportation improvements as may be decided by the County. Presently, the County is not in
the road building or bridge design business. It would be more appropriate for the Applicant
to undertake this effort to secure the approval of a future bridge crossing, facilitate the future
development of their property, and help mitigate the transportation impacts associated with
the potential development of 58 acres of MI zoned land:
The Applicant has proffered a limitation on the number of entrance providing access to the site
to two from the east -west collector road and two from Shady Elm Road.
In addition, the Applicant has proffered to one tree every fifty feet along Shady Elm Road, and
the collector road.
D) Community Facilities
This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary
contribution in an amount of $5,000. The application also provides for a monetary contribution
in the amount of $2,500 for the Sheriff s Office and $2,500 for general government purposes in
an effort to address the impacts to these community facilities.
Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center
December 3, 2007
Page 9
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The land uses proposed in this rezoning are generally consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use
Plan_ However, the application does not fully recognize the transportation improvements identified for
this area in the County's Eastern Road Plan. Further, the transportation impacts associated with this
rezoning request, as identified in the Applicant's TIA, have not been mitigated by the Applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 11/07/07 MEETING:
Six citizens spoke during the public comments portion of the hearing; all but one citizen was opposed to
the rezoning. Those who were opposed were primarily residents of Hedgebrook Hills and adjacent
areas and most were unaware this area had been designated for industrial development when they
purchased their homes. They stated that allowing industrial and commercial uses to encroach on the
existing residential neighborhood would be aesthetically unappealing and would negatively affect their
quality of life. They believed industrial zoning would set a precedent for additional rezoning,
particularly on the Carbaugh property, and it would negatively affect the value of their homes. They
expressed concern about increased traffic on local roads and the safety of neighborhood children. It was
noted that existing local roads did not have the capacity to handle industrial traffic and Springdale Road
was not wide enough for two vehicles to pass. The one citizen who spoke in favor of the rezoning was
a partner in a local business on Prosperity Drive. He agreed Springdale was substandard and a
satisfactory connector road was needed through this entire area; he believed this rezoning could supply
that new connector.
Planning Commission members did not believe the rezoning package was sufficiently complete for
them to vote at this time. They commented that the transportation package needed additional work;
some questioned why the applicant had no plans for improving the road base or width of Shady Elm
Road. Commissioners believed there were ways this site could be developed into an attractive
industrial park and be compatible with the residential community around it. They suggested a number
of ideas that could be incorporated to enhance the package, such as: segregating sidewalks from the
industrial area; utilization of expanded buffers, berms, and landscaping; and, addressing the standard of
appearance by avoiding steel -framed structures with metal exteriors. In addition, Commission members
disliked receiving proffer revisions on the same day as the public hearing because it did not provide
them enough time to thoroughly review the document.
A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to table the rezoning application for 45 days to
give the applicant additional time to enhance the rezoning package and to allow the Commission the
opportunity to review the revised proffers. (Commissioner Manuel abstained from voting.)
Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center
December 3, 2007
Page 10
STAFF UPDATE FOR 12/19/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
In response to the input the Applicant received before, during, and after the November 7, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting, a revised proffer statement dated November 15, 2007, including a revised
generalized development plan and proffered exhibit was submitted for the Planning Commission's
consideration.
Previously, the Applicant had modified their proffer statement in a version dated 11/06/07 which
generally included transportation related changes. This effort was the result of a significant amount of
communication and cooperation between staff, VDOT, and the Applicant and generally went a long
way towards satisfying the outstanding transportation concerns associated with this project. As
previously noted, the transportation proffer statement did not fully satisfy either scenario in the
Applicant's TIA, rather it addressed elements of both scenarios modeled in the Applicant's TIA by
attempting to deal with the longer term transportation solution while simultaneously offsetting the near
term impacts. At your November 7 meeting, the Commission expressed additional concerns regarding
the transportation impacts of this request.
In the latest proffer statement, dated November 15, 2007, the Applicant has further modified the
proffers in an effort to clarify the commitments they have made and to attempt to satisfy some of the
concerns that have been expressed to date.
In summary the Applicant has:
• Modified their basic Generalized Development Plan to illustrate two land bays in addition to
illustrating their proffered transportation improvements described in this report. The purpose of
this is to provide an additional trigger for the construction of a portion of the east west collector
road.
• Included an exhibit, Exhibit A, which details the landscape buffers, hiker/biker facilities, and
right-of-way dedication proffered in Section 3 of the proffer statement along both Shady Elm
Road and the future east west collector road.
• Added Section 3 to the proffer statement which describes the above exhibit and further
describes that the Applicant will make available for future dedication to the County or State an
additional area along Shady Elm Road twenty feet in width. This is beyond that area previously
dedicated in Section 2.1. This area is in the area commonly set aside for the twenty five foot
parking lot setback. Outside of this twenty foot distance buffer, the provision of a fifteen foot
trail and landscaping easement is proffered, in essence resulting in a thirty five foot front
parking setback. Please recognize that when this right-of-way dedication is implemented, the
front parking lot setback along Shady Elm Road would be reduced to fifteen feet, less than
current standards.
• Added to the landscaping buffer the planting of four ornamental trees between each of the
previously proffered one street tree for every fifty feet along the collector road frontages of the
property.
• Clarified the provision of a hiker/biker trail along the collector road frontages of the property.
Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center
December 3, 2007
Page 11
• Clarified the initial dedication of right-of-way along Shady Elm Road in the amount of twenty
feet. This is the same amount as would be required to be dedicated as part of the subdivision
process.
• Clarified the triggers for the construction of the east west collector road.
• Provided for the signalization of any intersection in the vicinity of the site with a monetary cap
in the amount of $200,000.00, or an equivalent cash contribution in the amount of $200,000.00
for general transportation improvements in the vicinity of the site.
• Reduced the monetary contribution for the design and/or construction of a bridge over the
railroad or other improvements from $50,000.00 to $25,000.00 while maintaining flexibility
with the application of these monies for the design and/or construction of the future east west
collector road or any other transportation improvements deemed necessary by Frederick County
or VDOT.
• Included a proffer stating that the property shall contain a minimum of three users upon final
build out.
• Provided for a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000.00 for improvements to Star Fort
and proffered to complete a survey documenting any historical structures on the property in
general accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Historic Resources.
Please recognize that no limitation of the specific uses has been proffered out nor have any restrictions
been placed on the size and scale of the buildings or uses. The minimum of three users proffer provided
is extremely flexible and should be carefully evaluated. The Planning Commission previously
expressed concern regarding large warehouse and distribution uses on this site. The County's targeted
industries seek to maximize the available land uses from tax and revenue generation perspective.
In relationship to the concerns expressed relating to the appearance of these developing business
corridors and the buffering of the adjacent residential land uses, the net result of the modified proffer
statement, above what would be required by ordinance, is the following; an additional ten feet in
distance between the edge of the Shady Elm Road right-of-way and the parking lot resulting in a thirty
five foot front parking setback, the street trees at a ratio of one tree for every fifty feet previously
included in the proffer statement, and an additional four ornamental trees planted between each street
tree.
Staff has noted that a significant amount of landscaping has been proposed within a minimal 5' space
between the proposed trail and the edge of the parking lot, in particular, when you take into
consideration the parking lot landscaping required by ordinance. It may be more sustainable and offer a
better buffer if the landscaping that is in addition to what is already required by ordinance (the Street
and Ornamental Trees) is placed in the 5' to 10' area immediately in front of the trail. This would
appear to be achievable along the east west collector road, and if care is taken to locate this additional
landscaping as close to the west side of the trail as possible, also along Shady Elm Road.
Rezoning 408-07 — Artillery Business Center
December 3, 2007
Page 12
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/19/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The land uses proposed in this rezoning remain consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan.
Careful consideration should be given to ensuring the Commission's satisfaction that the application
fully recognizes the transportation improvements identified for this area in the County's Eastern Road
Plan and mitigates the impacts of this request. In addition, the corridor appearance and buffering of the
adjacent residential land uses should be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Commission.
COUNTY of FRHDI`RfCX
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
March 23, 2007
Mr. Patrick Sowers
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
117 E Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Shady Elm Property
Dear Patrick:
I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Shady Elm
Property. This application seeks to rezone 58.74 acres of land from the RA (Rural Areas)
District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District. Staff s review comments are listed
below for your consideration.
1. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site is designated on the Eastern Frederick
County Long Range Land Use Plan for industrial use. The site is within the
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The site is within the limits of the
Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. This small area land use plan calls for
industrial uses along the CSX Railroad and specifically designates the site for
industrial use. The proposed B3 rezoning is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Shady Elm area north and south of Route 37
is a thriving industrial area, and its integrity should not be compromised with
quasi -retail uses. While the B3 District can function as a transition between
business and industrial areas, the Kernstown Business Park immediately to the
east, which is Zoned B3, already serves as the transition between the retail uses
along Valle, Pike (Route 1 1) and this planned industrial area. An Ml rezoning
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
2. Comprehensive Policy Plan. A number of road improvements in the vicinity
of this site are called for in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. These
include a new interchange of Route 37 at Shady Elm Road, Shady Elm Road
upgraded to a major collector road, and a new east/west collector road
connecting Shady Elm Road to Route 11. The County's Eastern Road Plan
further defines these road plans. Shady Elm Road is to be improved to an urban
four -lane divided section. This applicant will need to address any right-of-way
needed for this road and also address any additional paving needed along their
frontage. The new east/west collector road is planned to be an urban four -lane
divided section. The applicant is encouraged to work with the owners of the
07 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
Mr. Patrick Sowers
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Shady Elm Property
March 23, 2007
Renaissance Commercial Center, who will be constructing a section of the
collector road east of the CSX railroad line, and work with the CSX to plan for
the connection of the new road as it meets their property on the eastern border.
The applicant should address any right-of-way and road paving associated with
this road as it traverses their property.
3. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level
of Service Category C or better to be maintained on roads adjacent to and within
new developments in the County. This application does not provide that
expected Level of Service. See TIA comments below.
4. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a
number of design features for properties along business corridors. These
include landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs.
These design elements should all be addressed in this application.
5. Impact Analysis Statement — Proposed Uses. The application states the
rezoning is for 327,000 square feet of office and 327,000 square feet of
warehouse space. Unless a specific use and/or floorspace are proffered, the
County will assume the maximum possible development as per the County's
rezoning application (18,848 square feet of retail use per acre in the B3
District). The applicant will need to base all analysis, including the TIA, on
these numbers unless the proffers ensure a lesser scale of development.
6. Traffic Impact Analysis. The proposed development trip generation in the
TIA was based on office and light industrial floorspace. See comment #5 above
on basing the TIA on the worst case scenario as called for in the rezoning
application. Also, light industrial use is not allowed in the B3 District. While
the:jttnt}T ;is supportive of ?gr�iStri�l �SP3 in tbi.S location, a TTA for a R3
rezoning should not be based on light industrial use, which is not allowed in the
B3 District. Since the application lists the proposed uses as office and
warehouse, the TIA should reflect these uses.
7. Traffic Impact Analysis. As stated previously, the Comprehensive Policy Plan
calls for Level of Service C or better. While this application would not be the
sole cause of the poor levels of service, rezoning should not exacerbate existing
or projected failing situations. The TIA lists three intersections where
improvements are needed:
A. Route II/Springdale Road: Traffic signalization is required at this
intersection. The application does not address this issue.
Page 3
Mr. Patrick Sowers
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Shady Elm Property
March 23, 2007
B. Route 11/Apple Valley Road: Additional northbound and southbound thru
lanes are required. The application does not address this issue.
C. Renaissance Driveway/Route 11: Traffic signalization and additional lanes
are required at this intersection. A new traffic signal at the intersection of
Route 1 l and the new east/west collector road may be provided by the
owners of the Renaissance Commercial Center. Liaise with this property
owner o:n the rroposed lane configuration and the timing of the traffic
signal.
The County's Eastern Road Plan does not call for improvements to Springdale
Road. Therefore, the applicant should direct their efforts to solving
transportation problems at the intersection of Route 11 and Springdale Road
and, most importantly, to upgrading Shady Elm Road and providing a new
collector road on their property.
8. Proffer Statement 2.1. As stated above, the applicant should be addressing not
only right-of-way along Shady Elm Road, but should also be addressing the
road improvements called for along their frontage.
9. Proffer Statement 2.2. The Eastern Road Plan calls for the new collector road
to be an urban four -lane divided section. The applicant should be addressing
half of this road section (with the adjacent property owner to eventually provide
the other two lanes) along the entire southern property boundary. The 800
linear feet proposed only covers half of the boundary line.
10. Proffer Statement 2.2. For good access management, access to the site should
be Itin-ited to on;-- access point on Shady Elm Road and un. to two access points
on the new collector road. The applicant is encouraged to consider limiting
access to the site to these three points.
11. Proffer Statement 2.3. Staff assumes this would be a state road built to state
standards.
12. Proffer Statement 2.4. Given that the land directly across Shady Elm Road is
subdivided for future residential purposes, it would be beneficial to also include
street trees along the frontage of Shady Elm Road.
Page 4
Mr. Patrick Sowers
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Shady Elm Property
March 23, 2007
13. Other. Include a copy of the recorded deed and a survey or plat of the parcel.
Please use the correct acreage of the site throughout the application. (Both 60
acres and 58.74 acres are used in this application.)
14. Adjoiners. The list of adjoining property owners was not included with this
preliminary application. A complete list must be included with the rezoning.
15. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the
following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of
Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick
County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation,
Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick -Winchester Health
Department, Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick -
Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney.
16. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00
per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. This is based on fees as of
January 27, 2005. Fees may change.
All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately
addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me
with questions regarding this application.
Sincerely,
(. A I
Susan K. Eddy, AICP
Senior Planner
SKE/bad
cc: Venture I of Winchester, LLC, 827 Armistead Street, Winchester, VA 22601
m m -
v Y
U
_ .H£DC�EB�DOK NILLs
7
DAWSON XD PARK
a
v®
75 A 1
VENTURE I OF WINCHESTER, LLC
74,-A 68
CARBAUGH, HENRY J TRUSTEE
i63–A, 61
WHITING ROAD, LLC
A,'
63 A 57
GE LIGHTING, LLC
60b��4
1hP a4p,
m�
teJyR�=
�7
ke /
H 0 L �
Wd,C
°
rry.
�r
O
N OWN
TS
JA S,8 p INC
�gs6p 7NdC s �G�109�°c'
ns�yc Q
.�'� �"� SATTLEFIEL PARTNE HIP
7 or QoSS� S ; a 4a
i
i a 1
.
Map Document: (N:\Planning_And Development\ 1 LOCatnr Mne\Artillc rRi..r,,. --
�vu�l �.,� \ ,vuliLy, V tl
Re -Zoning
REZ#08-07
Application
Artillery Business
Center
Parcel ID:
75 -A -I
Location in the County
Map Features
O Hamlets
. Application
R+. Future Rt37 Bypass
£! Lakes/Ponds
^-- Streams
aW Buildings
Streets
^� Primary
^s Secondary
'�- Tertiary
61 Urban Development Area
ra SWSA
Op quon w.rt has,�r
v qnn s . •
m ❑r �e!°
Vqmi.
¢`pK cpG
0 250 500 0
1,0 'Y
Reef O �
Case Planner: Mike
----......_..��,..,..._.., r—+.uiAU) rt 14I1-UUI -- 5:"I S:"I3 HM
62 A 81
MADIGAN. MAGGIE
z
Uj
A
03-
3A
ys'P yc
'Po
\
a °,y �
6, °
9se � �
0
01,yop
�rda4�
m m -
v Y
U
_ .H£DC�EB�DOK NILLs
7
DAWSON XD PARK
a
v®
75 A 1
VENTURE I OF WINCHESTER, LLC
74,-A 68
CARBAUGH, HENRY J TRUSTEE
i63–A, 61
WHITING ROAD, LLC
A,'
63 A 57
GE LIGHTING, LLC
60b��4
1hP a4p,
m�
teJyR�=
�7
ke /
H 0 L �
Wd,C
°
rry.
�r
O
N OWN
TS
JA S,8 p INC
�gs6p 7NdC s �G�109�°c'
ns�yc Q
.�'� �"� SATTLEFIEL PARTNE HIP
7 or QoSS� S ; a 4a
i
i a 1
.
Map Document: (N:\Planning_And Development\ 1 LOCatnr Mne\Artillc rRi..r,,. --
�vu�l �.,� \ ,vuliLy, V tl
Re -Zoning
REZ#08-07
Application
Artillery Business
Center
Parcel ID:
75 -A -I
Location in the County
Map Features
O Hamlets
. Application
R+. Future Rt37 Bypass
£! Lakes/Ponds
^-- Streams
aW Buildings
Streets
^� Primary
^s Secondary
'�- Tertiary
61 Urban Development Area
ra SWSA
Op quon w.rt has,�r
v qnn s . •
m ❑r �e!°
Vqmi.
¢`pK cpG
0 250 500 0
1,0 'Y
Reef O �
Case Planner: Mike
----......_..��,..,..._.., r—+.uiAU) rt 14I1-UUI -- 5:"I S:"I3 HM
— — — yr icvi.nixu) t IZIZuut -- 3:I13:13 NM
REZ #7$ - 07 v Land e Map
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
Pi4
�nA117 East Piccadilly Street
L+ AWinchester, Virginia 22601
T 540.667.2139
F 540.665.0493
To: Mike
Organization/Company:
From:
Date:
Project Name/Subject:
Frederick County Planning
Patrick Sowers
November 16, 2007
Artillery Business Center
i, ;
Please find attached a revised proffer statement, revised generalized development plan, and proffered exhibit all dated
November 15, 2007 for the Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application. The revisions are intended to satisfy concerns
expressed by members of the Planning Commission, Planning Staff, and residents of nearby properties that spoke during
the November 7h Public Hearing. The revisions include the following
1. Proffer 2.1 has been revised to state that the Applicant shall proffer 20' of right of way across the Shady Elm Road
property frontage. This provides the same amount of right of way as the previous proffer which read 40' from die
road centerline but describes more clearly the amount of land being dedicated in addition to the right of way
already in existence.
2. Proffer 2.2 has been re -written to provide the triggers for the construction of the East-West Collector Road in a
bulleted format. This should aid the review process and clarify the Applicant's intent.
3. Proffer 2.3 has been revised to give the County and VDOT the option for the construction of a traffic signal at
any intersection in the vicinity of the site or an equivalent cash proffer of $200,000.00 for general transportation
improvements. This will provide greater flexibility for the County and VDOT in addressing transportation issues.
4. Proffer 2.7 has been added which requires a minimum of 3 users upon final build -out. This proffer is intended to
address concerns of Planning Commissioners as to the scale and potential type of end user for the site.
5. Proffer 3.1 has been revised to provide a 20' distance buffer that is in addition to the 20' right of way being
dedicated along Shady Elm Road. This 20' distance buffer will provide viewshed impacts but the proffer is also
worded to allow the buffer area to be dedicated as public right of way if need be. If this area were taken for right
of way purposes in addition to the right of way already proffered, the Applicant would be providing the full 80' of
right of way needed for Shady Elm Road's ultimate build -out without the need for additional right of way from
other properties on the opposite side of Shady Elm Road.
6. Proffer 3.1 also provides for additional screening and hiker/biker trail accommodations along Shady Elm Road
within a 15' landscape easement between the 20' distance buffer and any future parking areas located on the
Property. The Applicant has now proffered street trees every 50 feet with ornamental trees spaced 10 feet apart
between the street trees. With the addition of the hedgerow required by ordinance, this will provide for an
attractive screening element that will improve the aesthetics of Shady Elm Road. Exhibit A depicts the proffered
buffer/landscape/trail improvements for Shady Elm Road and the East-West Collector.
7. Proffer 3.2 provides for identical landscaping and hiker/biker trail elements along the East-West Collector
excluding the additional 20' distance buffer as the Applicant is already proffering the full 80' right of way needed
to accommodate the future major collector roadway. Exhibit A depicts these improvements as well.
8. Proffer 4.1 ensures that any building facades shall incorporate one or a combination of high quality construction
materials into any facade fronting Shady Elm Road or the East-West Collector.
9. In addition to the $5,000.00 monetary contribution for improvements at Star Fort, the Applicant has proffered to
complete a survey for historic structures on the Property using guidelines established by the Department of
Historic Resources to address impacts to historic resources by the proposed rezoning.
As always, please feel free to call with any questions you may have. Thank you.
PRS
PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ. # &a `D 7
Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (M1)
PROPERTY: 58.7 acres +/-;
Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"]
RECORD OWNER: Venture I of Winchester, LLC
APPLICANT: Venture I of Winchester, LLC
PROJECT NAME: Artillery Business Center
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: December 26, 2006
REVISION DATE(S): 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1/07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07;
8/1/07; 8/17/07; 9/14/07; 9/19/07; 9/21/07; 10/9/07; 11/5/07;
11/6/07;11/15/07
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 M1 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 the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which
is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County
Supervisors (the `Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court.
If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until
such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court
order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day
following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. 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, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised
November 15, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following:
1. Monetary Contribution
1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for
fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit.
1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for
Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first building permit.
1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for
general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit.
1 of 5
Proffer Statement
Artillery Business Center
1.4 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $25,000.00 for
the design and/or construction of the future East-West Collector Road or for any
other transportation improvements as deemed necessary by Frederick County and
VDOT upon issuance of the first building permit.
2. Site Development
2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 20 feet of right of way for Shady Elm road along the
Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of the first building
permit. Additionally, the Applicant shall widen the existing northbound lane to a
total width of 24 feet of pavement as measured from the center line of Shady Elm
Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road to provide for a continuous
right turn lane along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road. Direct access to
the Property from Shady Elm Road shall be limited to a maximum of 2 entrances as
shown on the GDP. (See 1 on GDP)
2.2 The Applicant shall dedicate 80 feet of right of way along the Southern Property
boundary in the location depicted on the GDP to accommodate a minimum of 1100
feet of a future East-West Collector Road as depicted on the GDP from Point A to
Point B prior to issuance of the first building permit. The Applicant shall design said
collector road from Point A to Point B as a Rural 4 Lane Divided (R4D) cross
section. The Applicant shall then construct the ultimate two westbound lanes of the
roadway for a minimum 1100 feet as shown on the GDP upon any of the following
conditions, whichever occurs first: (See 2 on GDP)
• Prior to issuance of the fourth building permit for the Property.
• Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure located in Land
Bay 2.
• Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure located in
Land Bay 1 but with associated land area located in Land Bay 2 as depicted
by site plan.
• Upon commencement of a bridge as shown on the GDP to facilitate the
railroad crossing of the proposed East-West Collector Road.
• Prior to December 31, 2013.
2.2.1 The Applicant shall construct a maximum of two entrances on the portion of
the East-West Collector Road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the
GDP.
2.2.2 Land Bay 2 as shown on the GDP shall have access via the easternmost
entrance located on the portion of the East-West Collector Road constructed
by the Applicant as shown on the GDP.
2.3 The Applicant shall construct a traffic signal, not to exceed $200,000 in cost, at an
intersection located within the vicinity of the Property within 180 days of receiving
written notice from the County and VDOT. The County may also choose to accept
a monetary contribution of $200,000 for general transportation improvements within
the vicinity of the site in lieu of the aforementioned traffic signal construction. The
Applicant shall contribute the $200,000 monetary proffer within 60 days of receiving
written notice from Frederick County and VDOT after issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy for any structure on the Property. If no written notification
from the County and VDOT has been provided within 10 years from the date of
2of5
Proffer Statement
Artillery Business Center
final rezoning, the Applicant shall contribute the monetary contribution of $200,000
to the County for general transportation improvements within the vicinity of the site
and shall not be responsible for the aforementioned signal construction.
2.4 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary to meet the
requirements for lot access as identified by §144-24C of the Frederick County Code, to
serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a
minimum pavement width of 26 feet.
2.5 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any
structures prior to site plan approval.
2.6 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
2.7 The Property shall contain a minimum of three users upon final build -out.
3. Landscape Buffers, Hiker/Biker Facilities, & Additional Right of Way
3.1 The Applicant shall provide a 20 foot distance buffer as measured from the
proposed right of way dedication for Shady Elm Road as depicted by Exhibit A.
The Applicant shallmake any area within the 20 foot buffer available for public right
of way at no cost to the County or VDOT should any transportation improvements
necessitate the use of the buffer area for right of way purposes. Additionally, the
Applicant shall provide a 15 foot landscape easement between the aforementioned
distance buffer and any future parking. Said 15 foot landscape easement shall
include a ten foot asphalt trail constructed to Parks and Recreation Standards as well
as a five foot landscape strip which will include street trees planted a maximum of 50
feet on center with four ornamental trees planted 10. feet on center between each
street tree as depicted by Exhibit A. Building and parking setbacks from Shady Elm
Road shall be provided from the right of way boundary in existence at the time of
each site plan submission.
3.2 Within the 25 foot parking setback provided from the proposed 80' right of way for
the East-West Collector as required by § 165-27E(5) of the Frederick County Code, the
Applicant shall provide a 10 foot distance buffer, a 10 foot asphalt trail constructed
to Parks and Recreation standards, and a 5 foot landscape strip will include street
trees planted a maximum of 50 feet on center with four ornamental trees planted 10
feet on center between each street tree as depicted by Exhibit A
4. Design Standards
4.1 The Applicant shall incorporate one or a combination of the following construction
materials into any building facade fronting Shady Elm Road or the proposed East-
West Collector: cast stone, stone, brick, glass, wood, stucco or other high-quality,
long lasting masonry materials. By definition, standard, smooth -faced cinder block
shall not be considered a high quality, long lasting masonry material.
4.2 Freestanding business signs shall be limited to one monument style sign per lot that
shall not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, the Applicant may construct one
main entrance/tenant directory sign along either Shady Elm Road or the proposed
East-West Collector as a monument style sign that shall not exceed 30 feet in height.
3 of 5
Proffer Statement
5. Historic Resources
Artillery Business Center
5.1 The Applicant shall complete a survey documenting any historic structures on the
Property in general accordance with the guidelines established by the Preliminary
Information Form from the Department of Historic Resources. Any documentation
created as part of said survey shall be provided to Frederick County Planning Staff
and shall be completed prior to demolition of any buildings located on the Property.
5.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for
purposes associated with historic Star Fort prior to issuance of the first building
Permit.
SIGNATURES) APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S)
4of5
Proffer Statement
Venture I f i chester, LLC
By:
Date: I(Lo-LD 7
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit:
Artillery Business Center
77�
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Z9 day of A-4 b, ,
2007, by D&cge IhAtUtht %
My co ssio pites a c 7 .
Notary Public .
_ <
/�i�chr3c� 1,711r,tf2
5 of 5
�. , / / '\ /,lei"' / ,
ICA71ON
ROAD W -N ING
. ....... .....
o
.. . .. .. ................
71
BUFFER, LANDSCAPING, ... .... .....
& 10' ASPHALT TRAiC :\
LAND BAY
(A' "�8 7
p prox. acres
......... ..
o-,
Y .1
VLAN D BAY
.... .. .......
8Q_ ,._R /W D (App'rax_i3o.o acres
CONSTRUCTION)
\01
''CO) F Imum/'
lc_,A� 0 N
11G , 2 LANE ROADW)
f
FUT1JRf SHADY EL f���OT -00 N N E CJ,0P 146AD z-,
ll� I-LECTO R _RoAD)
. . ...... ...
FUTURE BRIDGE
... . ........ .
ARTILLERY BUSINESS Cl-AITFly
Patton, Horns, Rust & Associates, pc
CENE-RAUZED Df_VFLOPYL'AIF PLAN 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601
VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (W) 665-0493
SHADY ELM ROAD
STREET TREES 50' ON CENTER
Y ,bWOCEPOW AS REQUIRED PER 165-07E(11)(a)
—ORNAl�tiTAL T4EF-S PLANTED 10'
ON CENTER BETWEEN STREET TREE'S
PARKING AREA
r 1D` A3pLrjLT TRAIL & 5' L4NDSrAP-P R)P
20' DISTANCE BUFFER
& POTENTIAL Rl#'
20' RIA- DEDICATION &
NORTHBOUND LANE IMPROYMENTS
EXISTING SHADY ELM ROAD (40' R/)Y)
115' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT PER PROFFER
NOTE:
STREET TREES AND ORNAMENTAL TREES
PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ANY LANDSCAPING
OTHERJYISE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE
EAST—WEST COLLECTOR ROAD
STREET TREES 50' OW CENTER
3' A-E'IIGEROX AS REQMiED PER 185-27E(IIJ(a)
ORNAAlENTAL TREES PLANTED 10
ON CENTER BETWEEN STREET TREES
PARKING AREA
J
2!7' ASP, 2LT`. M4ff, :& 5' L.4AVSCAPE' STRIP :
10' DISTANCE BUFFER
BO' RIW DEDICATION &
ROAD CONSTRUCTION
25' PARKING SETBACK
NOTE. -
STREET TREES AND ORNAMENTAL TREES
PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ANY LANOSCAPINC
OTHERK= REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE
ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Patton Harris, Rust &Associates, pc
Cb
I �• EXHIBIT A 117 E. kadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601
p Q VOICE; (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
�l FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
REZONING:
PROPERTY:
RECORD OWNER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS:
REVISION DATE(S):
PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT
RZ. # C'S—Oq
Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (1\41)
58.7 acres +/-;
Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"]
Venture I of Winchester, LLC
Venture I of Winchester, LLC
Artillery Business Center
December 26, 2006
2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1/07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07;
8/1/07; 8/17/07;9/14/07;9/19/07;9/21/07;10/9/07
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 M1 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 the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which
is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County
Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court.
If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until
such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court
order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day
following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. 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 shallinclude within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When
used 'n these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled
"Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised October
5, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following:
Monetary Contribution
1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for
fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit.
1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for
Sheriffs office purposes upon issuance of the first building permit.
1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for
general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit.
1 of 3
Proffer Statement
2. Site Development
Artillery Business Center
2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 40 feet of right of way from the center line of existing
Shady Elm road along the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. Additionally, the
Applicant shall widen the existing northbound lane to a total width of 24 feet of
pavement as measured from the center line of Shady Elm Road along the Property
frontage with Shady Elm Road. Direct access to the Property from Shady Elm Road
shall be limited to a maximum of 2 entrances as shown on the GDP. (See 1 on
GDP)
2.2 The Applicant shall dedicate 80 feet of right of way along the Southern Property
boundary in the location depicted on the GDP to accommodate a minimum of 1100
feet of a future East-West Collector Road prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for any building on site. The Applicant shall design said collector road
from Point A to Point B and from Point C to Point D as a Rural 4 Lane Divided
(R4D) cross section to connect with proposed Renaissance Drive as shown on the
GDP. The design shall incorporate a vertical and horizontal alignment that will
accommodate a future bridge over the Railroad from Point B to Point C as depicted
on the GDP. The Applicant shall then construct the ultimate two westbound lanes
of the roadway for a minimum 1100 feet as shown on the GDP prior to issuance of
the fourth building permit for the Property. In the event that construction
commences of a bridge as shown on the GDP to facilitate the railroad crossing for
the collector road, the Applicant shall construct the 1100 foot R2 roadway as shown
on the GDP. The Applicant shall construct a maximum of two entrances on the
portion of the collector road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP.
(See 2 on GDP)
2.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $50,000 for
design and/or construction of a bridge over the railroad as depicted from Point B to
Point C on the GDP or for any other general transportation improvements as may
be decided by the County. Said monetary contribution shall be made within 90 days
of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any building on site.
2.4 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary, to serve the
Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a minimum
pavement width of 26 feet.
2.5 Street trees shall be located a maximum of 50 feet on center along the Property
frontage with Shady Elm Road, the 1100' of the proposed east -west collector road
and both sides of any internal public access road that may be constructed..
2.6 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any
structures prior to site plan approval.
2.7 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
2.8 Freestanding business signs shall be limited to one monument style sign per lot that
shall not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, the Applicant may construct one
main entrance/tenant directory sign along either Shady Elm Road or the proposed
East-West Collector as a monument style sign that shall not exceed 30 feet in height.
2of3
Proffer Statement Artillery � .ness Center
Venture I of Winchester, LLC,
By. a6 lvt �PU*rJ4i5<5rL
Date:�% �h Lit Z , Z-Oca %
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
FREDERICK MUNTY, To -wit: ,¢^�
The foregoingg��instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ( ,
2007, by i � WAV Lr
My coinr-Lission expires 3 % f t 9w9f ®) l
Notary Public 1,1 IN T6 r% be 4 4
3 of 3
October 2007 Artillery Business Center
INTRODUCTION
The 58.7 acre Artillery Business Center is comprised of a single tax map parcel identified as 75-A-1.
The Property is located adjacent to Shady Elm Road just South of Route 37 with access provided to
Route 11 by Apple Valley Road to the North and Springdale Road to the South (See Figure 1).
Currently, the subject acreage is zoned RA (Rural Areas) but bounded to the North and West by
property zoned M1 (Light Industrial) with property zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) bounding the
project site to the East (See Figure 2).
The Property is located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Recently,
Frederick County approved revised boundaries for the Urban Development Area (UDA).
Originally, the subject property was located within the UDA. With the adoption of the revised
UDA boundary, however, the Property is now located outside of the UDA. The Comprehensive
Policy Plan identifies that areas located outside of the UDA but within the SWSA boundary are
intended for commercial and industrial uses.
This application seeks to rezone the Property from RA (Rural Areas) to the M1 (Light Industrial)
zoning district in an effort to integrate the site with the surrounding area, particularly those
properties along Shady Elm Road to the north. Rezoning the Property from its current
residential/agricultural designation to the light industrial zoning classification will provide for an
increasingly viable industrial node that accommodates the County's future land use and
transportation goals while bolstering the County's tax base.
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN
The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan (EFCLRLUP) identifies industrial as the
intended land use designation for the Property and the surrounding area to the North. The site is
also located within the boundary of the Route 11 South Land Use Plan. This small area land use
plan does not identify an intended land use for the Property but instead simply indicates its current
RA zoning designation. As such, the EFCLRLUP can be considered the guiding document
regarding the intended land use for the Property. The proposed M1 (Light Industrial) zoning
designation would be in keeping with the intended land use identified by the Comprehensive Plan.
ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION
Currently, access to Route 11 is provided by Shady Elm Road's connection to Apple Valley Road to
the North and Springdale Road connecting Shady Elm Road with Route 11 to the South. The
majority of project generated trips will travel north through the existing industrial area fronting
Shady Elm Road.
The adopted Eastern Road Plan includes a collector road located just South of the subject property
that will connect Shady Elm Road with Route 11. This future connection would allow commercial
and industrial traffic to avoid using Apple Valley and Springdale Roads as a means of access to
Route 11 from Shady Elm Road. The recent Master Development Plan for the Renaissance
Commercial Center Property which is located east of the railroad tracks from the subject site has
provided the alignment for this planned roadway from Route 11 to the railroad. The Applicant has
proffered to design a four lane divided roadway from Shady Elm Road to the planned roadway
within the aforementioned Renaissance Commercial Center. The road design would incorporate a
1 of 4
FIGURE
FIGURE 2
October 2007 Artillery Business Center
vertical alignment that would accommodate the future bridge that will be needed to cross the
railroad tracks. The Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $50,000.00 for the design
and/or construction of this bridge. The Applicant will 80 foot right of way dedication along a
portion the southern property line and the construction of a two lane section of the collector for a
minimum distance of 1,100 feet to implement the roadway on the west side of the railroad. The
Eastern Road Plan also calls for Shady Elm Road to be a major collector. The Applicant has
proffered sufficient right of way to along the Property's frontage with Shady Elm Road and also
proffered to widen the existing northbound lane of Shady Elm Road to a width of 24 feet to
accommodate the two future northbound through lanes.
A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from
other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the
I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7`'' Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will
produce 5,950 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA uses two scenarios to analyze the impact of the
proposed rezoning on the subject area street system.
Scenario A assumes access is provided by the existing road network with Apple Valley Road
providing access to the North and Springdale Road providing access to the South. Using this
scenario, 80 percent of the trips would utilize the northern connection where Shady Elm Road
meets Apple Valley Road with the remaining 20 percent of the trips utilizing the Springdale Road —
Route 11 intersection. The identified improvements needed to keep the transportation system
operating at a Level of Service (LOS) C or better include the following:
- Additional northbound and southbound through lanes for Route 11 at Apple Valley Road.
- Signalization of Springdale Road — Route 11 Intersection
- Signalization of Apple Valley Road — Shady Elm Road Intersection
Scenario B assumes access provided by the future connection of Shady Elm Road directly to Route
11 as intended by the Eastern Road Plan. This scenario will serve as the ultimate transportation plan
for the subject site as the roadway is currently being planned and provided for on the nearby
Renaissance Commercial Center. Under Scenario B, the same improvements found under Scenario
A would be needed where Route 11 intersects Apple Valley Road and Springdale Road. In addition,
a signal would be needed at the intersection of the new collector road and Route 11. All
improvements to this intersection with the exception of an additional northbound through lane are
provided by the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center MDP.
While the Applicant recognizes that the proposed development would yield increased traffic at the
subject intersections, it is important to note that background traffic alone, with the exception of the
Apple Valley — Shady Elm intersection, would result in a Level of Service (LOS) that is less than the
specified "C" threshold as identified as the goal by the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant is
implementing a road connection between Shady Elm Road and Route 11 which will help mitigate
traffic congestion at both the Springdale Road and Apple Valley Road intersections with Route 11.
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development
activities. The Property does not contain any areas of steep slopes, stream channels, flood plain, or
2 of 4
October 2007 Artillery Business Center
wetlands. Verification of wetland data would be provided through a wetland delineation which
would be required and completed during the master plan phase of the development process.
The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils
comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Pophmento-Oaklet soil association. Such
geology is prevalent on land located West of Interstate 81 and accommodates commercial and
industrial development as evidenced by development on surrounding parcels.
Drainage leaves the site to the East where it meets a drainage divide which directs drainage
approximately 3,000 feet South into Opequon Creek. A lack of steep slopes on the 58.7 acre site
result in little to no issues associated with drainage (See Figure 3).
The site is underlaid by karst geology. During design of on site improvements, proffered
geotechnicial studies will be completed to ascertain if there are areas of concern. The final design
will reflect measures to address any critical geologic features discovered.
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY
Water service can be provided to the Property by two different scenarios. The first option is to
connect to the existing 8" water main on Prosperity Drive, east of the site. The second option is to
connect to the existing 12" water main in the Dawson Industrial Park. Assuming a water
consumption rate of 500 gpd/acre, water demand for the site would be approximately 29,350
gallons per day.
Sewer service would be provided to the site by connection via force main to tap into the existing 6"
force main at the Dawson Industrial Park. Sewer flows would be roughly equivalent to the
projected water consumption of 29,350 gallons per day.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
The following table shows a projection of solid waste generation as a part of this project.
to ment Type Area (Square ft Waste Generation I Total Waste lbs
Industrial/Warehouse 1,022,790 .01 lbs/s .ft. 10,228
TOTAL 10,2281bs/day
Solid waste would be transferred by private carrier and deposited at the County landfill.
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
It is noted that the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survev identifies two older structures within
the vicinity of the site (See figure 4). One of the structures, identified as "The House off Route 651"
(#34-1042), is located on the Property but is not listed as potentially significant. Figure 5 includes an
up to date photo of the house. The adjacent property to the South includes the Carbaugh House
(#34-1040). Figure 6 depicts a current photo of the Carbaugh House which is located approximately
1/3 mile south of the subject Property.
3 of 4
Wr
</
h
f
-A:
f
U
f
r
N�f
SHADY ELM Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc
(31, SITE DRAINAGE
Q) 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601
O 6 Cb VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
FREDERICK COUNTY WRGINIA
FIGURE 3
L
C
4
i {i it
t r '
� Xw� t � � �a.. � �, rkl +s�, ,� r 9�;Es�ta �� ±.9 F•z Fy `' 1 � �, `�
Im
w x +1 `'t a.e.ely L rr µ iVa
MN
k �
t:.
$ 1.
t i
.a .
1 ,.. rpt „.,-'. a ,� ti `' ���,. �w 1 ,w. ,y• #a. ,d vT�i .� t
� h 3
77
y' l�F err of jS ZS N, r s
r. rl i
mop—
� � u
��., - :. ,��. •� . �"�s"� �� Y f'' _t°hy -�,?� e r iii s� �� `s
L1 C� Il•5�i�lu� � r ,Ys}yf ir(`
4
October 2007 Artillery Business Center
The National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia indicates
that the subject site is located well outside of any core battlefield areas. Figure 7 and Figure 8 depict
the Property location with respect to the First Kernstown and Second Kernstown Battlefield. As
labeled on each of the battlefield exhibits, the land use along Shady Elm Road has been modified
substantially since the 1991 study. As existing development separates the Property from the
identified core battlefield for First and Second Kernstown, development of the site would not pose
any detrimental impacts to viewsheds or interpretative quality of the battlefields.
IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The industrial uses proposed as with this rezoning results in a net positive fiscal impact for Frederick
County.
WE
r�
�a�s`.�:c�.t�-•a�t� /,��"`,', Vii' .
fi+`k +•fit 4 x,45/} 'Cb��`.;` ,�.
per• � ��1t-7. f �.Z J;y-r'!y-�•'4; .-%.e..� /'� F
r'4 &..�3 rx x. int •
Illy
1-0 BUilt—Up Land
c �:.`F �C`s.�.�:rs�y`� ' Y�.yn�'•a`',.�*-it;.
f SSC
KY >< /f i�� �� •fir �`�� J
1 ylsv nr �j gs, ! e Land
I1 ouarry of Strip Mire,
/jStudy Area Boundary
�s
Core- Arco
:o
i
Streans
• ! Rivers
�-r �• i i
oundipi
,d
SHADY ELM Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates
\ L OCA TION MAP
� I 117 E Picadiliy 5t. Winchester, Virginia 22601
o FIRST KERNSTOWN BATTLEFIELD VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
V FREDERICK COUNTY, P71YGIN14
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 8
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc
PH
EnjneerSurveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
R+AWilliamsport,
10212 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007
Maryland 21795
Phone: 1.223. 831 Addendum
Fax: 301.223.6831
To: Lloyd Ingram
Organ izationlCompany: VDOT — Edinburg Residency
From: Michael Glickman
Date: September 12, 2007
An Addendum to: A Traic Watt An41 it of the Lynch -Shad
Project Name/Subject: Elm Road Proper, dated November 29, 2006
PHR+A Project file Number: 14846-1-1
Per your request, Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this document as an
addendum to: A Tra is Loact Anal roof the Lynch -Shady Elm Road EMpertE, by PHR+A, dated
November 29, 2006. The purpose of this document is to present a revised traffic impact analysis
due to modifications in proposed land use and change in FAR (Floor Area Ratio) from 0.25 to 0.4.
The revised development includes 511,395 square feet of Light Industrial and 511,395 square feet of
warehousing. PHR+A has provided traffic analysis for 2010 build -out conditions. All methodology
and existing & background conditions remain consistent with the aforementioned November 29,
2006 report.
2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily
traffic data, a growth rate of 5% and 2% was calculated and applied to Route 11 and Apple Valley
Road, respectively, to obtain the 2010 base conditions. PHR+A has prepared analyses for two (2)
alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network
with development access to be provided via a single site -driveway located along Shady Elm Road
(opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, in addition to
the site -driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future
roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. Additionally, PHR+A
included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7"'
Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trig Generation Report, PHR+A has
provided Tables 1a thru 1f to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation.
Figure 1 shows the location. of the background developments with in the vicinity of the proposed
development. Figures 2a and 2b show the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic
volumes at key locations throughout the study area network during Scenarios A and B, respectively.
Figures 3a and 3b show the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour
levels of service during Scenarios A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are
included in the Appendix section of this report.
Page 1 of 18
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 2 of 18
Table l a
2010 "Other Developments" - Kernstown Commons
Trip Generation Summary
Code
Land Use Amount
In
AM Peak Hour
Out
Total
In
PM Peak Hour
Out
Total
ADT
Kernstown Commons (From Limited Access Break Report
dated February, 2006)
138
414
552
435
245
310
Hotel 120 rooms
31
20
51
14
38
129
33
194
71
324
701
2,453
444
Theater w/ Mat. 16 screens
11
3
56
142
271
294
565
6,134
820
Retail 85,500 SF
87
97
97
194
129
129
258
3,594
853
Conven. Mart w\pumps 4,250 SF
868
1,669
43
80
80
160
895
912
Drive-in Bank 3,500 SF
24
19
40
26
66
763
932
H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF
36
33
69
46
27
17
44
509
932
H -T Restaurant 4,000 SF
24
22
69
40
26
66
763
932
H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF
36
33
69
40
26
66
763
932
H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF
36
33
91
186
63
58
121
1,736
934
Fast Food w/ DT 3,500 SF
95
Total
477
407
884
856
882
1,738
18,310
*Total Pass By:
25
25
50
62
62
124
1,459
Total "New Trips":
452 382
833
1 794
820
1,614
16,851
*Pass By trips are fifteen percent (1�)%) of total retail aevelopuiem anu Or,
Table Ib
2010 "Other Developments" : Crosspointe Center Development (Phase 2)
Trip Generation Summary
Code
Land Use
Amount
In
AM Peak Hour
Out Total
In
PM Peak Hour
Out Total
ADT
210
Single -Family Detached
775 units
138
414
552
435
245
679
109
7,750
1,740
230
Townhouse/Condo
200 units
15
74
89
73
36
10
348
253
Elderly Housing - Attach
100 units
4
3
7
6
31
4
150
180
1,224
710
Office
90,000 SF
151
236
21
151
171
386
801
868
1,669
17,673
820
Retail
440,000 SF
Total Tris
544
661
1,205
1,346
1,302
2,648
28,735
Total Internal
80
80
159
330
330
660
6,954
Total Pass -by
29
29
58
125
125
250
2,651
Total "New Tri s"
435
553
988
890
847
1,737
19,130
Table Ic
2010 "Other Developments": Volvo Car Delarship
Trin Generation Summary
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Arcnitects
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ADT
Code Land Use Amount
In Out Total
In Out Total
841 Car Sales 23,446 SF
36 12 48
27 43 70
782
Total Trips
1 36 12 48
27 43 70
782
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Arcnitects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 3of18
Table Id
2010 "Other Developments" : Ryland/Russell Property
Trip Generation Summary
Table le
2010 "Other Developments": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2)
Trip Generation Summary
Code
Land Use
Amount
In
AM Peak Hour
Out
Total
In
PM Peak Hour
Out
Total
ADT
110
Light Industrial
470,448 SF
410
56
466
61
448
509
3,412
210
Single -Family Detached
233 units
43
129
173
145
85
230
2,330
230
Townhouse/Condo
123 units
10
51
61
48
24
71
1,070
820
Retail
156,816 SF
125
80
205
404
438
842
9,098
Total
1 588
316
904 1
658
995
1,653
15,910
Table le
2010 "Other Developments": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2)
Trip Generation Summary
Code
Land Use
Amount
In
AM Peak Hour
Out Total
In
PM Peak Hour
Out Total
ADT
Land Bay A
35
123 158
736
820 Retail 117,612 SF
105
67 173
334
362 697
7,546
210
Single -Family Detached
102 units
20
60
81
69
40
109
1,017
230
Townhouse/Condo
438 units
29
140
168
135
67
202
3,811
820
Retail
10,000 SF
24
15
39
66
71
137
1,520
Land Bay B
210
Single -Family Detached
37 units
9
27
36
28
16
44
373
Land Bay C
488
Soccer Complex
3 field
2
2
4
43
19
62
214
Total Tris
84
244
328
340
214
554
6,935
Total Internal
1
1
2
16
16
31
107
Total "New Trips"
83
243
326
325
198
523
6,828
Table if
2010 "Other Developments": Renaissance Commercial Center (Scenario B only)
Trip Generation Summary
Code Land Use Amount
In
AM Peak Hour
Out Total
In
PM Peak Hour
Out Total
ADT
110 Light Industrial 11.20 acres
70
14 84
35
123 158
736
820 Retail 117,612 SF
105
67 173
334
362 697
7,546
Total
175
82 257
369
486 855
8282
Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc
No Scale
Addendum
Page 4 of 18
Figure 1 Location Map - 2010 Background Developments
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Arcniieczs
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 5 of 18
No Scale
9A
Q�8J�9v S004S
vs�� �]>3(63)
9 /
ROa
a
S�aa9 Imo,
A ti
V
W N
(96)7
6
iii
(180)96 t
�p v�J2 ` S ' °p
L
` e Q
N��ryo SITE 11 N
N,
L
11
tih °',Vo
n
r�r I M
Jy
n
■TJ /A� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
■—T TP+
Figure 2a 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario A)
Engineers • Surveyors e Planners • Landscape Architects
Patton Harri's Rust A Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 6 of 18
9�
d y ,OSP
V J �a q ti
�j2J�r6` 7 r�17 (
242
No Scale (63)) -Igo
(2596)76®.1 1
hof �r� 996 )131
O
r�JV
ti
5r
s
PrS
�d?
e
S�
\\SIL
♦ P#
f
SITE
d�Le�2 Oedds � ^�
4 �e. arc �'Y Ob
dy " Re tib tib�N��
p OLewa��e
9
69 Oro C3,
(o
b (7 )o 2i6
4� r�d6'ryalP �� 9V?
°I i9J �odo, i �j
�2 j9 b
3
h~b
q�
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 2b 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario B)
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 7 of 18
w
Signalized
No Scale Intersection
Overall LOS B(D)
dill AfP C..1 9/
°rob aff y
b
5rro
4-°
w�F
a9 Signalized "Suggested
Srro lnleF'Se _tj Improvements"
LOS=B(B) NB & SB - I nru
i✓
Psrtai «� �+'
rq� EC1C� �l/
1 f r^4
Q
SITE 11
s
rr
o�,a�fe
kod�
f
TT AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
PT JQ+/ A \ * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement
Figure 3a 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A)
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 8 of 18
a
1:1 Signalized
Intersection
Overall LOS QF)
No Scale
UI
W
9 11
P9'OAIP '°'D,P G Il
'P0. dffP
y
ma
_o
iIiZed "Suggested
ma * D ]nterwetion Improvements"
S'O o'" LOS--B(C) NB & SB - 1 Thru
relC� t
S
� rye
�P
� 5lgnalized "New Intersection"
I7, SITE Intersectiort EB & I t • New Le
gs
NB - hru, 1 left
LOS=S(Bt SB - I thru, I Bight
O .♦
!yP ` f
�e7 !
rJ dlfr LJ fq
y _
Or y off`
Q�aY
Sry, 11�
Bda�
r�
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
TJ f A *Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement
■'T T�T/
—1 LIl %L i
Figure A 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B)
Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 9of18
TRIP GENERATION
Using the 7`' Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tn� Generation Root
PHR+A has prepared Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Lynch -Shady Elm
Road Property development.
Table 1
Proposed. Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road
Trio Generation Summary
Code Land Use Amount
In
AM Peak Hour
Out Total
In
PM Peak Hour
Out
Total
ADT
110 Light Industrial 511,395 SF
452
62 514
68
500
568
3,718
150 Warehousing 511,395 SF
217
48 265
59
178
237
2,232
Total
669
109 779
127
677
805
5,950
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The distribution of revised trips for Scenario A and Scenario S, shown in Figures 4a and 4b,
respectively, remain consistent with the November 2006, study_ Figures 5a and 5b show the
respective revised development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments.
2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS
The Lynch - Shady Elm Road development assigned trips (Figures 2a and 2b) were added to the
2010 background traffic volumes to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 6a and 6b show the
revised 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the
study area during Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 7a and 7b show the
corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+
levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects
Patton Barris Dust S Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 10 of 18
CONCLUSION
Per HCS+ analysis results, assuming suggested improvements, all intersections will maintain overall
levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B,
except the intersection of Route 11 /Springdale Road. The aforementioned unsignalized intersection
will maintain levels of service "D" during Scenario B. The signal warrants will not be met for this
intersection during Scenario B. The following describes the suggested roadway improvements for
each of the study area intersections as shown in Figures 7a and 7b.
• Route 11 /Springdale Road: Traffic signalization will be required during 2010 build -out
conditions for Scenario A. The signal warrants for this intersection will not be met during
Scenario B.
• Route 11 /MplValley Road: An additional northbound and southbound thru lane will be
required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B.
• Renaissance Driveway /Route 11: Traffic signalization along with an additional northbound
thru lane, northbound left -turn lane, an additional southbound thru lane and a southbound
right -turn lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario B.
• Shady Elm Road/Site Drive#1: Traffic signalization along with a westbound right -turn lane
will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A.
• Shady Elm Road/Apple Valley Road: Traffic signalization will be required during 2010
build -out conditions for Scenario A.
NOTE: Intersections where signalization is suggested in order to meet the Frederick County level
of service requirement must satisfy signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) prior to installation.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 11 of 18
No Scale
Figure 4a Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario A)
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners a Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 12 of 18
No Scale
Figure 4b Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario B)
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape wrcnitects
Patton Harris !fust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 13 of 18
No Scale
�d 402(76)
k?`c��'rybb P G
5
'IV
. 2a
40'
4°
s
(203
F
C$ e )33
A � (203)33
11
SITE
ti
11
b
` OgdafP
o�JrJr�
6�
A O
1~
w ti
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
IMMIMIN
n, T-P+n
Figure 5a Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario A)
Engineers . Surveyors • Planners . Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 14 of 18
s e9AAe
l
N
�2S �V
No Scale *Mft
�ryti (135)22
holo' ryc� ``� bq1 (34)5
Prr� $rte 4-/
z ♦ 9A M
9'9
r 9ry�°da
M
S�
d'.
�e
�J
SIE 11
�l�V �3.fa - Re aaO
ay G "ew a?cN
q e°'LO i2 dl
�a.Y 'jJ44
gddfe
b
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Lp-,, Yrs,A
ff
Figure 5b Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario B)
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Arcnitects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 15 of 18
9
dl�y Ade
No Scale r8`��. � 5p(las
S75(139)
�3
a
�0�d� 9A
��5 •�
d ry'�
'C`ro
Baa
ma
40
aa9
S�
o
� b
S
ti` til ry1
`oma' h1 O
n Q
N b
ii/
N 1
N
' r 2J rta ��
(383), 9 �11�
/t
(J2p'Oj S92J
n
e
SITE
by
L
11
ti o
(J 6V �oiy
2�J2O v�
q
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
�T T.P + A \
W.11� _' Imul1
Figure 6a 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario A)
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners a Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 16 of 18
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
1 f1 %-I V_
Figure 6b 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario B)
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust &,associates, Inc Addendum
Page 17of18
Signalized"Suggested
Intersectio ImprovCMtflU"
LOS=CIC} SignWization
Y Q Signalized
Intersection
y e 4®
Overall LOS C(E)
No Scale
G
y
boa
a
a eyA e
$(A)* oa
a� Sigoali�ed "Suggested
�1F �,w Sri _I, l seMlto[t Improvements"
NB & SB - I Thru
5�
s .0
d
l Suggested
TSlg1c11n m'Provement
s^
` LOS=B(I3) nalizai&
ionfC)$-wo
SITE ► o
s
rl�gd II
alP
�Oad $3t;ttIItiZCd "Suggested
r`�J� Itttt^.rsec:tion Improvements"
L4S=li(C) 5ignalization
AM
P� U
� S ,r1R t3 dra
R"' d
�l
11 A?
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
�T -.-P+ / A \ * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement
Figure 7a 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A)
Engineers 9 Surveyors e Planners e Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum
Page 18 of 18
w
4P Signalized
Intersection
i/ Overall LOS B(F)
No Scale
9AAf° 11 11
G
J�
oa
a
J eyA'DIr
+PP, Signalized "Suggested
a 1nlerSeCiiOn Improvements"
AiA)* 40'" NB&SB-1Thru
LOS=B(C)
w
�a D� 9
S'Pb N
er�,�Ps` PSP;
�J 11
Signalised "New Intersection"
STm Intersection EB & WB - New Leg
ITE E L _B� ) NB -1 Thru, I Left
SB - 1 Th., I Right
a,
'Q10�
wa
afe
X96
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement
nT TP+A
H -
Figure 7b 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B)
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The following information shall be provided by the applicant:
All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of
the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester.
1. Applicants:
Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Telephone: (540) 667.2139
Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
2. Property Owner (if different than above)
Name: Venture I of Winchester, LLC Telephone: 540.247.4974
Address: 118 Armstrong Place
Winchester, Virginia 22602
3. Contact person(s) if other than above
Name: Patrick Sowers Telephone: (540) 667.2139
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location Map X Agency Comments X
Plat X Fees X
Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X
Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X
5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to
rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
Paige Manuel Mark Lynch
James Lynch Randy Kremer
6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential/Agriculture
B) Proposed Use of the Property: Light Industrial
7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED.
8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance
from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers).
The Property is located East and adjacent to Shady Elm Road approximately
1,500 feet South of Route 37.
In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the
applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the
planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning
District as described on page 9 of the application package.
9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number: 75-A-1
Magisterial:
Fire Service:
Rescue Service
Back Creek
Stephens City
Stephens City
Districts
High School:
Middle School:
Elementary School:
Sherando
James Wood
Orchard View
10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested.
Acres
Current Zoning Zoning Requested
58.7
RA M1
58.7
T Total acreage to be rezoned
2
11. The fo11_owing information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed:
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family Home Townhome Multi -Family
Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms
Office
Retail
Restaurant
12. Signature:
Square Footage of Proposed Uses
Service Station
Manufacturing 511,395
Flex - Warehouse 511,395
Other
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick
County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site
inspection purposes.
I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front
property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of
Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the
hearing.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to
the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant(s) DateZ/.7
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.ns
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) Venture I of Winchester, LLC (Phone) 540.667.9794
(Address) 827 Armistead St, Winchester, Virginia 22601
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 Number: 24270 and is described as
Tax Map Parcel 75-A-1 Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Patton I4arris Rust & Associates (Phone) 540.667.2139
(Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 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
X Rezoning (including proffers)
_ Conditional Use Permits
X Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
_ 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 _ , 200_,
Signature(s) `�V �`'`�'�'�y °'
W" J C t4tK TL'4L ,LLC_
State of Vir rola, C' /County of C( -C 1; C.K ,To -wit: j Ca_e
y -�
I, L �!� l � � �� a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction
aforesaid, certify that he person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personably appeared before me
and has acknowledged the same b fore me 'yn the jurisdiction aforesaid this day ofjY�ck ; 200 -7 .
494110± My Commission Expires: 6 P 51,&lit'"
Votary Public
H
ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER
Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates
AD1 v n 651
NARRaDo O Z� pC 93
t
ZONING BOUNDARY
117 E. Picadilly K Winchester, Virginia 22601
o
V
a
t
VOICE: 540 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
MEDER/CK COUNTY VIRG/N/A
PIN: 75 -A -IA
N/F SYNERGY
VESTMENTS, LLC7yy
INST. NO. 11862 r
O
�
I
PIN: 75-A-1 D
(
N/F FVC PROPERTIES,
INC.
INST. NO. 17707
v
o
-----------
PIN: 75 -A -1E
N/F FVC PROPERTIES, INC.
a
INST. N0. 9679
"00
I
Wmo
�mm
Nlz
U1
o A r._
PIN: 75-A-1 B
�=b
to
N/F FVC PROPERTIES, INC.
PIN: 74-A-68
DB 896 PG 1326
N/F HENRY J. & NORA
f
PIN: 75-A•-1
N
CARBAUGH
2,557,582 SF/5&74140 AC
DB 574, PG 537
I,
A
N
N
(AS NOW SURVEYED)
ri
N
N
PIN: 75 -A -1C
`
N/F COOUGCIRD CONTAINER
I
DB 729, PG 929
I
EP
MILE POST '3T FUUND AT
STATION 1955487.9
SEE OETAL
S42406�50"W
S41'49'D5"W S4Y14!3D"
N/F CSX TRANSPORTATION
INC.
"-�S SHOWN ON VALMAP
V-32.1/3
ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER
Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates
p
ZONING BOUNDARY
117 E. Picadilly K Winchester, Virginia 22601
o
V
a
VOICE: 540 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
MEDER/CK COUNTY VIRG/N/A
•
C7
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #15-07
SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: December 4, 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
Planning Commission: 12/19/07
Board of Supervisors: 01/09/08
Action
Pending
Pending
LOCATION: The subject property is located adjacent and east of Route 522, .50 miles south of the
intersection of Route 522 and Route 50.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64 -A -A
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: B2 (Business General)
B3 (Industrial Transition)
Use: Vacant
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North:
B2 (Business General)
Use:
Commercial
South:
B3 (Industrial Transition)
Use:
Commercial
East:
RA (Rural Areas)
Use:
Airport
West:
B2 (Business General)
Use:
Commercial
M2 (Industrial General)
Industrial
PROPOSED USE: Commercial Use
MDP #15-07, Shenandoah University
December 4, 2007
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The master plan for this property appears to have significant
measurable impact on Route 816 and 522, the VDOT facilities which would provide access to the
property. This master plan is acceptable to VDOT. 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: Water supply for fire fighting needs to be on site prior to building
supply arrival. Plan approval recommended.
Frederick County Public Works: The revised MDP for the subject project received on August 4, 2007
has adequately addressed our previous review comments. We recommend that the drainage easements
referenced in the MDP be reflected on any future site plans.
Frederick County Inspections Department: Question about building located on property line?
Demolition Pen -nit required to remove. 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 Health Dept. has no objections as long as all
facilities built use FCSA water and sewer and no existing wells or drainfields are impacted. It is the
owner or builder's responsibility to report and locate any existing drainfield and wells to the Health
Department for proper abandonment.
GIS Department: No road names are required at this time. Addressing will be assigned during the
permit and construction phase of development.
Parks & Recreation: No comment.
Winchester Regional Airport: Comments will be made upon review of site plans as submitted.
Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units
will be part of the master development plan, there will be no impact to the school population upon build-
out.
MDP 415-07, Shenandoah University
December 4, 2007
Page 3
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 property is located adjacent and east of Route 522, .50 miles south of the intersection
of Route 522 and Route 50.
C) Site History
The front portion of this property was depicted on the Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S.
Winchester Quadrangle) as being zoned B2 (Business General) and the rear portion of the
property as being zoned M2 (Industrial General). Rezoning #20-88 for Winchester Office Center
Limited Partnership rezoned this property from B2 and M2 to B2 and B3. This rezoning depicts
the current zoning designations of this property.
D) Site Suitability & Project Scone
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. I-]]
Land Use Compatibility:
The subject properties are within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The
Sewer and Water Service Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of
planned commercial and industrial development will occur.
The properties are within the limits of the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan.
The plan shows this area with a commercial land use designation.
Stormwater Management Pond:
There is an existing pond located on the property that is shown as an existing stormwater
management pond. It is noted that the Airport Authority has expressed concern over this facility
and it may need to be addressed at the site design stage of the project.
MDP 415-07, Shenandoah University
December 4, 2007
Page 4
Transportation
Access to this property will be off of the existing Wincrest Drive which connects to Front Royal
Pike (Route 522 South), as well as one full entrance onto Front Royal Pike. Staff would note
that since this property has adequate access to Front Royal Pike via Wincrest Drive, as well as an
Interparcel connection into the Holiday Inn property, the full entrance should be eliminated to
reduce the number of entrances on this arterial road.
With the development of this property, Wincrest Drive will be upgraded to state road standards.
While this road may be built to state road standards, there is no guarantee that this will be a state
road. As shown on the MDP, if a public road is needed in order to subdivide properties, the road
will become a public road, but if the B3 portion of the site develops with a single lot and the site
does not require a public road, then Wincrest Drive will be constructed to state standards but
remain private.
As shown on the location maps for the property, Route 522 relocated is shown on the property
directly east of this property. Currently, Wincrest Drive is shown with a cul-de-sac near the
middle of the property. There is a note on the MPD that states that the road could be extended
should the applicant wish to continue the road to the eastern property line. There is no guarantee
with this MDP that a connection from Wincrest Drive to Route 522 relocated will be provided
with this development. This MDP should be providing a future connection between these two
roads.
Proffers — There are no proffers associated with this property.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12/19/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The master development plan for the Shenandoah University/Route 522 property 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.
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.
Winchester, VA
City of Winchester v
646
a MJF LLC Y
y� 4
W
c4
1
C A,
111 s4
144 8 o
R4'q
rY<C
2
j�
6
�y
s ISI,
6q A
iYI-Ay-MILULN 4p>
WOLSE�
C r4 r,
r f7NC
i
0
Y i
e • A 17
HO
HOSPITALITY WINCHESTER LC
t 1 e
64 A '
AMERICAN FREIGHTWlIYS
e
1 i cuci iLlt k - O I, H LY, VA
Master Development
Plan
MDP # 15 - 07
Application
Shenandoah
University
Parcel ID:
64 -A -A
s
A 4J
64 A A
SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY
64B A 38 /
A.P.R. MINI STORAGE LLC
64 A 88
WINCHESTER REGIONAL
Map Document: (N:\Planning_And Development\ 1 Lncatnr AAnc\Chcnonr1—k11..6... —4.,
Location in the County
Map Features
�f NCNE`S7'O
Eastern Road Plan
R* Future Rt37 Bypass
k
1
64 A 7
fi. Improved Major Arterial
At
WILSON CHARLESLBTGUY
— Streams
WORCO
(,w+ Buildings
cjap.
O Property Lines
ft Improved Major Collector
Urban Development Area
New Minor Collector
-
ft Improved Minor Collector
q� o
64@
,Q,,RRFOi
ft Ramp
Nq
NgYMgk fR
9y
�G
646
SAHI
A 30
B AYANN INC
T�
ur
rQ ii%gym
y�-�
P�
Na
646 A 33A�
ta'
BEAVER MARJORIE G
>q ��s22
tr
4,
rJ22
64B A 38 /
A.P.R. MINI STORAGE LLC
64 A 88
WINCHESTER REGIONAL
Map Document: (N:\Planning_And Development\ 1 Lncatnr AAnc\Chcnonr1—k11..6... —4.,
Location in the County
Map Features
O Hamlets
Eastern Road Plan
R* Future Rt37 Bypass
New Major Arterial
® Application
fi. Improved Major Arterial
a Lakes/Ponds
db New MinorArterial
— Streams
Improved MinorArterial
(,w+ Buildings
ft New Major Collector
O Property Lines
ft Improved Major Collector
Urban Development Area
New Minor Collector
P40 SWSA
ft Improved Minor Collector
ft Ramp
`pK CpG
250 50,0C-
eet
Case Planner: Candice
J_ •--• — '-1-11'Au) IGrAIGVUI--k9:bb:bbHM
Shenana
Map Document: (N:\Planning_And_Development\ 1 Locator Mns\.ShPnnnrin,aFil Ini.rer - AAl, acnes „
Zoningtap
Frederick County, STA
Master Development
Plan
MDP # 15 - 07
Application
Shenandoah
y.
University
Parcel ID:
64 -A -A
Location in the County
Map Features
Q Hamlets Eastern Road Plan Zoning
�. Future Rt37 Bypass d New Major Arterial BI (Business, Neighborhood District)
Application Improved Major Arterial B2 (Business, General Dlslrisl)
D LakeslPonds Ifto New Minor Arterial O83 (Business, Industriai Transition District)
^— Streamsto Improved Minor Arterial EM (,Uddalive Manufacturing District)
r+v' Buildings r HE (Higher Education District)
O Property Lines New Major Collector O M7 (Ind-bi.f. Light District)
wUrban Development Are fti Improved Major Collector - M2 (Industriat, General District)
6V SWSA 4ft New Minor Collector • MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
`" Improved Minor Gondola, O MS (Medical Support District)
Ramp R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA(Rura l Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
1
{
Wm<fi•a1•r � �
V gh,a `
t
i \ fir♦
e
Location in Surrounding Area
r 0 250 50 ¢�pK COGS
Feet
+' Case Planner: Candice
—1—Vu7 --tl.00:00 ANI
__ _-__...._ � .�.Y•�vv� - J.JJ.JV 111Y1
Frederick County, VA
Master Development
Plan
MDP # 15 - 07
Application
Shenandoah
University
Parcel ID:
64 -A -A
11
Location in the County
Map Features
O Hamlets
Long Range Land Use
Eastern Road Plan
*!+ Future Rt37 Bypass
Rural Community Center
ftl New Major Arterial
Application
Residential
f?_.: Improved Major Arterial
£! Lakes/Ponds
._ Business
4%pNew MinorArterial
^— Streams
<D Industrial
Improved Minor Arterial
rrrBuildings
® Institutional
OW New Major Collector
O Property Lines
o, Urban Development
:>, • Recreation
+� Improved Major Collector
Area
9a Historic
4 New Minor Collector
C SWSA
® Mixed -Use
AP Improved Minor Collector
® Planned Unit Development
Ramp
Location in Surrounding Area
0 250 50 �1GK CpG
�Feet
d
Case Planner: Candice
_r �ovvr.utxvj IG13/000I -- V:bb:b6AM
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION
1VIA011TPR DEVELOPMENT PLAIN
Department of Planning and Development Use Only
Date application received
Complete - Date of acceptance
Incomplete - Date of Return
1.
2.
3.
111, /_,-, ? Application 4 % 5-`0 `/
Project Title: SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY
Owner's Name: Shenandoah University
c/o Business Office 1460 University Drive
Winchester, VA 22601
*Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest:
Richard Shickle
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. nc
Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester VA 22601
Phone Number: (540) 667-2139
Contact Name: Patrick Sowers
Frederick County, VirlZinia Master Development Plan Application Package
5. Location of Property:
6. Total Acreage:
APPLICATION, cont'd
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Adjacent and East of Route 522, 0.50 miles south
of the Intersection of Route 522 and Route 50
24.4275 Acres
7. Property Information:
a) Property Identification Number (PIN)
b) Current Zoning:
c) Present Use:
d) Proposed Use:
64 -A -A
B2 and B3
Vacant
Commercial
C) Adjoining Property Information: SEE ATTACHED
0 Magisterial District: Shawnee
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 sub ssion74f my master development plan Application.
Signature: '-"I- Date:
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frcderick.va.ns
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) Shenandoah University (Phone) 540.665.4514
(Address) 1460 University Drive, Wincherster,_ VA 22601
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: 973 on Page 924 and is described as
Parcel: 64 -A -A Subdivision: N/A
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates Price Phone: 667.2139
(Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street 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)
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—Ix day of Ala vcIZ h 2007.
Signature(s) -_—• \ .
State of Virginia, C4PXounty of _ ]ye6( c, -'l .To -wit
1, L QAky-o Y . Sp V-1 I I -f— Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction
aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeare before me
and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this 'N4"— day of 1 200 Y
My Commission Expires: /6
6,
\rNot Public U
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Develogrnent
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
Subject: Planning Commission Discussion — Handicap Accessible Ramps
Date: November 29, 2007
546/665-5651
FAX: 546/665-6395
Section 1.65-23F — Setback Requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for some
features to extend into required setback areas. This section, however, does not provide any
opportunities for handicap ramps to extend into required setback areas, which has required some
property owners who need handicap ramps to seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Staff is proposing an ordinance revision to allow the Zoning Administrator to permit handicap ramps
to extend into required setback areas when there are no other alternatives. The proposed ordinance
would state the following:
An unroofed handicap -accessible ramp shall be permitted to encroach into a required yard when
there are no other reasonable alternatives for the location of such ramp on the property or other
means of ingress/egress into orfrom the residence as determined by the Frederick County Zoning
Administrator.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DDRS) at their
meeting on July 26, 2007 and the DRRS endorsed the text amendment as presented. The attached
documents show the existing ordinances, the changes to the ordinance supported by the DRRS (with
strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added) and a clean version of the proposed
text as it is proposed to be adopted.
This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission
will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Proposed Ordinance
Attachments: 1. Existing ordinances.
CEP/bad
2. Existing Ordinances with proposed additions showed in bold italics.
3. Proposed Ordinance (clean version).
107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ATTACHMENT 1
§ 165-23 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-23 -
E. Accessory uses. Side and rear yard setback distances may be established separately by
the district regulations for accessory uses. However, in no case shall the accessory use be
placed within the front setback yard required for the primary use on the lot.
F. Extensions into setback yards. The following features may extend into setback yards as
described:
(1) Air conditioners and similar equipment. Air conditioners, heat pumps and similar
mechanical equipment that are attached to the primary structure may extend three
feet into any side or rear yard area but shall not be closer than five feet to any lot
line.
(2) Architectural and structural features. Cornices, canopies, awnings, eaves, gutters or
other similar overhanging features which are least eight feet above the grade may
extend three feet into any required yard setback area. Chimneys, sills, headers, belt
courses and similar structural features may extend three feet into required yard
setback areas.
(3) Porches and related features. Balconies, porches, stoops, decks, bay windows, steps
and stairways which comprise less than 1/3 of the length of the wall of the primary
structure may extend three feet into a required setback yard. In no case shall such
features be closer than five feet to a lot line.
(4) Retail petroleum pumps. Retail petroleum pumps and canopy supports shall be
located at least 20 feet from any road right-of-way boundary. The canopies
covering the petroleum pumps shall be no closer than five feet to any road
right-of-way.
(5) Decks which are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses may be
constructed to the full width of the dwelling unit and may extend 15 feet into a
perimeter setback area or the active portion of a required buffer area, provided that
the decks are not enclosed or covered and the deck floor is not constructed higher
than the finished floor elevation of the primary entrance to the dwelling unit.
[Added 8-9-1995]
(6) Storage sheds which are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses that
can only be accessed through an outer entrance and do not exceed 1/4 the width of
the dwelling unit may extend 10 feet into a perimeter setback area or the active
portion of a required buffer area. [Added 8-9-1995]
(7) Protective entrance canopies. Protective entrance canopies and support columns
which are attached to the primary structure may extend into the front yard setback
areas for the following uses: funeral homes, schools, churches, day-care facilities
and libraries. The purpose of such canopies is to provide protection to patrons from
the elements of weather as the patron enters or exits the structure. In no case shall
the canopy or its structure be located closer than 20 feet from a road right-of-way
boundary. [Added 4-12-19991
G. Fences, freestanding walls and berms shall be exempt from the setback requirements.
[Amended 6-9-1993]
165:20 06 -15 -2007
ATTACHMENT 2
F. Extensions into setback yards. The following features may extend into setback yards as
described:
(1) Air conditioners and similar equipment. Air conditioners, heat pumps and
similar mechanical equipment that are attached to the primary structure may
extend three feet into any side or rear yard area but shall not be closer than five
feet to any lot line.
(2) Architectural and structural features. Cornices, canopies, awnings, eaves,
gutters or other similar overhanging features which are at least eight feet
above the grade may extend three feet into any required yard setback area.
Chimneys, sills, headers, belt courses and similar structural features may
extend three feet into required yard setback areas.
(3) Porches and related features. Balconies, porches, stoops, decks, bay windows,
steps and stairways which comprise less than 1/3 of the length of the wall of the
primary structure may extend three feet into a required setback yard. In no case
shall such features be closer than five feet to a lot line.
(4) Retail petroleum pumps. Retail petroleum pumps and canopy supports shall be
located at least 20 feet from any road right-of-way boundary. The canopies
covering the petroleum pumps shall be no closer than five feet to any road right-
of-way.
(5) Decks which are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses may be
constructed to the full width of the dwelling unit and may extend 15 feet into a
perimeter setback area or the active portion of a required buffer area, provided
that the decks are not enclosed or covered and the deck floor is not constructed
higher than the finished floor elevation of the primary entrance to the dwelling
unit. [Added 8-9-19951
(6) Storage sheds which are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses that
can only be accessed through an outer entrance and do not exceed '/a the width of
the dwelling unit may extend 10 feet into a perimeter setback area or the active
portion of a required buffer area. [Added 8-9-19951
(7) Protective entrance canopies. Protective entrance canopies and support columns
which are attached to the primary structure may extend into the front yard
setback areas for the following uses: funeral homes, schools, churches, day-care
facilities and libraries. The purpose of such canopies is to provide protection to
patrons from the elements of weather as the patron enters or exits and structure.
In no case shall the canopy or its structure be located closer than 20 feet from a
road right-of-way boundary. [Added 4-12-19991
(8) Handicap Accessible Ramps. An unroofed handicap -accessible ramp
shall be permitted to encroach into a required yard when there are no
other reasonable alternatives for the location of such ramp on the
property or other means of ingress/egress into or from the residence as
determined by the Frederick County Zoning Administrator.
ATTACHMENT 3
F. Extensions into setback yards. The following features may extend into setback yards as
described:
(1) Air conditioners and similar equipment. Air conditioners, heat pumps and
similar mechanical equipment that are attached to the primary structure may
extend three feet into any side or rear yard area but shall not be closer than five
feet to any lot line.
(2) Architectural and structural features. Cornices, canopies, awnings, eaves,
gutters or other similar overhanging features which are at least eight feet
above the grade may extend three feet into any required yard setback area.
Chimneys, sills, headers, belt courses and similar structural features may
extend three feet into required yard setback areas.
(3) Porches and related features. Balconies, porches, stoops, decks, bay windows,
steps and stairways which comprise less than 1/3 of the length of the wall of the
primary structure may extend three feet into a required setback yard. In no case
shall such features be closer than five feet to a lot line.
(4) Retail petroleum pumps. Retail petroleum pumps and canopy supports shall be
located at least 20 feet from any road right-of-way boundary. The canopies
covering the petroleum pumps shall be no closer than five feet to any road right-
of-way.
(5) Decks which are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses may be
constructed to the full width of the dwelling unit and may extend 15 feet into a
perimeter setback area or the active portion of a required buffer area, provided
that the decks are not enclosed or covered and the deck floor is not constructed
higher than the finished floor elevation of the primary entrance to the dwelling
unit. [Added 8-9-1995]
(6) Storage sheds which are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses that
can only be accessed through an outer entrance and do not exceed '/4 the width of
the dwelling unit may extend 10 feet into a perimeter setback area or the active
portion of a required buffer area. [Added 8-9-1995]
(7) Protective entrance canopies. Protective entrance canopies and support columns
which are attached to the primary structure may extend into the front yard
setback areas for the following uses: funeral homes, schools, churches, day-care
facilities and libraries. The purpose of such canopies is to provide protection to
patrons from the elements of weather as the patron enters or exits and structure.
In no case shall the canopy or its structure be located closer than 20 feet from a
road right-of-way boundary. [Added 4-12-19991
(8) Handicap -Accessible Ramps. An unroofed handicap -accessible ramp
shall be permitted to encroach into a required yard when there are no other
reasonable alternatives for the location of such ramp on the property or
other means of ingress/egress into or from the residence as determined by
the Frederick County Zoning Administrator.
•
•
C�
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
M7� O (14DU /( 540/665-5651
a ,l�'1 1 lvl FAX: 540/655-5395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner U
Subject: Planning Commission Discussion —Trash Storage and Screening Requirements
Date: November 29, 2007
The requirement for screening refuse containers is covered under § 165-47 Landfills, junkyards and
inoperable vehicles. The existing trash storage section of this ordinance is vague and does not have
a specific screening requirement. The current ordinance also combines residential and
commercial/industrial trash container requirements and requires them when one or more residence or
use shares a parking lot.
The intent of this ordinance revision is to separate residential and commercial trash container
requirements. Residential will still be dependant on more than one residence sharing a parking lot,
but commercial/industrial will require outdoor trash containers (or other means) for all
developments. Also, the ordinance would be revised to state that all refuse shall be contained within
a completely enclosed facility and that the enclosure shall consist of a six foot opaque fence or wall
with an opaque gate. In an effort to ensure that all residential and commercial/industrial
developments provide adequate, screened refuse areas, staff is requesting the Planning Commission
consider this amendment.
This item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DDRS) at their
meeting on September 27, 2007 and the DRRS endorsed the text amendment as presented. The
attached documents show the existing ordinance, the changes to the ordinance supported by the
DRRS (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added) and a clean version of
the proposed text as it is proposed to be adopted.
This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission
will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Proposed Ordinance
Attachments: 1. Existing Ordinance.
2. Existing Ordinances with proposed deletions shown in blackline
and additions showed in bold italics.
3. Proposed Ordinance (clean version).
CEP/bbd
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ATTACHMENT 1
§ 165-46 ZONING § 165-47
the land containing the residential development. In no case shall residences be placed
within 600 feet of a sewage treatment facility.
§ 165-47. Landfills, junkyards, trash disposal and inoperable vehicles.
Landfills, junkyards, automobile graveyards, dumping and trash heaps shall be permitted only
where specifically allowed by the zoning district regulations of this chapter. Where allowed,
such uses shall meet all requirements of the Frederick County Code and applicable state and
federal regulations.
A. Where allowed, landfills, junkyards, automobile graveyards, dumping and trash heaps
shall be completely screened from the view of surrounding roads and properties by
fences, walls, screens or other methods.
B. A minimum buffer of 600 feet shall be maintained on parcels containing a landfill
adjacent to properties containing residences or properties zoned RP Residential
Performance, MH1 Mobile Home Community, R4 Residential Planned Community or R5
Residential Recreational Community. Such buffers shall be along the boundary of the
property adjacent to the properties so zoned or containing the residences. In addition, the
Planning Commission may require landscape screening or full screening in the buffer as
described by this chapter. If a residential development is established adjacent to an
existing landfill, a Category C buffer shall be placed on the land containing the
residential development. In no case shall residences be placed within 600 feet of a
landfill.
C. Inoperable motor vehicles.
(1) Inoperable motor vehicles shall not be stored outside of a completely enclosed
building in the following zoning districts: [Amended 10-27-20041
RP
Residential Performance
R4
Residential Planned Community
R5
Residential Recreational Community
MH1
Mobile Home Community
HE
High Education
MS
Medical Support
BI
Business Neighborhood
B2
Business General
B3
Industrial Transition
Ml
Industrial Light
M2
Industrial General
EM
Extractive Manufacturing
(2) Inoperable motor vehicles permitted to be stored outside of a totally enclosed
building shall be completely screened from public roads or surrounding properties.
165:61 06- 15- 2007
ATTACHMENT 2
§165-47. Landfills, junkyards, trash disposal and inoperable vehicles.
D. Trash storage. When stored outdoors, outside of a legal landfill or trash heap, all trash,
rubbish or garbage shall be stored in watertight, vermin proof containers.
(i) All multifamily residential developments, levelopmen4s and
iiidu,tfia4 develapf where more than one residence or use shares a
parking lot shall be provided with outdoor trash containers or other means of
trash disposal. Means shall be provided to ensure that all trash generated by
the development is properly disposed of to avoid litter, odor or other
nuisances.
(2) All commercial and industrial developments shall be provided with outdoor
trash containers or other means of trash disposal. Means shall be provided
to ensure that all trash generated by the development is properly disposed of
to avoid litter, odor or other nuisances.
(3) Such trash containers shall not be located in the front yard areas of such uses.
Such containers shall be located to avoid traffic conflicts with parked vehicles
and general traffic. Such containers shall be properly screened or separated
from dwellings to avoid odors and other impacts.
(4) All refuse shall be contained within a completely enclosed facility. The
enclosure shall consist of a six foot opaque fence or wall and an opaque
gate.
ATTACHMENT 3
§165-47. Landfills, junkyards, trash disposal and inoperable vehicles.
D. Trash storage. When stored outdoors, outside of a legal landfill or trash heap, all trash, rubbish
or garbage shall be stored in watertight, vermin proof containers.
(1) All multifamily residential developments, where more than one residence or use
shares a parking lot shall be provided with outdoor trash containers or other means of
trash disposal. Means shall be provided to ensure that all trash generated by the
development is properly disposed of to avoid litter, odor or other nuisances.
(2) All commercial and industrial developments shall be provided with outdoor trash
containers or other means of trash disposal. Means shall be provided to ensure that
all trash generated by the development is properly disposed of to avoid litter, odor or
other nuisances.
(3) Such trash containers shall not be located in the front yard areas of such uses. Such
containers shall be located to avoid traffic conflicts with parked vehicles and general
traffic. Such containers shall be properly screened or separated from dwellings to
avoid odors and other impacts.
(4) All refuse shall be contained within a completely enclosed facility. The enclosure
shall consist of a six foot opaque fence or wall and an opaque gate.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director 3%.l---"
SUBJECT: Discussion - Planning Commission Bylaws Revision
DATE: December 5, 2007
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
In conformance with the adopted Planning Commission Bylaws, each November the
Commission shall conduct an annual review of the bylaws. At the Commission's
November 7, 2007, it was noted that a slight grammatical modification to Section 8-3-3
was warranted. This modification does not change the intent or application of the
Bylaws. No other modifications were suggested at this time.
The Planning Commission Bylaws, with the modification noted on November 7, 2007,
will be presented to the Planning Commission as a discussion item during their December
19, 2007 regular meeting. If the drafted revision to the Bylaws is deemed appropriate,
the revised document will be returned to the Commission at their first meeting in January
for adoption.
Please contact me should you have questions.
Attachment
ERL/bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 •'Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS
County of Frederick, Virginia
(rev. 07/14/06,- adopted 08/03/06,- adopted 01103107)
proposed revisions 12/5/07- Section 8-3-3, 2"d sentence
ARTICLE I -AUTHORIZATION
1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with
Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section
15.2-2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Frederick County Planning Commission,
hereinafter referred to as the "Commission."
ARTICLE II -PURPOSE
2-1 The primary purpose of the Commission is to advise the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors and to carry out all duties and functions described by the Code of Virginia, as
amended.
ARTICLE III -MEMBERSHIP
3-1 The membership of the Commission shall be determined by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors as specified in Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of
appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick
Cozen .
3-2 Within the first month of initial appointment, new Commissioner appointees shall: 1)
participate in an orientation to familiarize themselves with the operations of the Department
and the Commission, and 2) meet with planning staff representatives in an effort to review
and better understand specific agenda items prior to attending their first two (2) Planning
Commission meetings.
-1-
ARTICLE IV -OFFICERS
4-1 Officers of the Con mission_ shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The
chairman and vice-chairman must be voting members of the Commission. The secretary
shall be a member of the Commission or a county employee.
4-2 Selection
4-2-1 The officers shall be elected by the voting members of the Commission at the
first meeting of the calendar year.
4-2-2 Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor at the first meeting of the
calendar year. Elections of officers shall follow immediately. A candidate
receiving a majority vote of the entire voting membership shall be declared
elected.
4-3 Duties
4-3-1 The Chairman shall:
4-3-1-1 Preside at meetings.
4-3-1-2 Appoint committees.
4-3-1-3 Rule on procedural questions. A ruling on a procedural question by the
chairman shall be subject to reversal by a two-thirds majority vote of the
members present.
4-3-1-3 Report official communications.
4-3-1-4 Certify official documents involving the authority of the Commission.
4-3-1-5 Certify minutes as true and correct copies.
4-3-1-6 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the
Commission.
4-3-2 The Vice -Chairman shall:
4-3-2-1 Assume the full powers of the chairman in the absence or inability of the
chairman to act.
-2-
4-3-2-2 When acting as Chair, the Vice Chairman shall carry out other duties as
assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission Chairman.
4-3-3 The Secretary shall:
4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings.
4-3-3-2 Ensure that the minutes of all Commission meetings are recorded.
4-3-3-3 Notify members of all meetings.
4-3-3-4 Prepare agendas for all meetings.
4-3-3-5 Maintain files of all. official Commission records and reports. Official
records and reports may be purged in accordance with applicable state codes.
4-3-3-6 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public
meetings.
4-3-3-7 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the
Commission.
4-3-3-8 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and
functions of the Commission.
4-4 Term of Office
4-4-1 Officers shall be elected for a one-year term or until a successor takes office.
Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the
Commission. In such cases, the newly elected officer shall serve only until the end of
the calendar year or until a successor takes office.
4-5 Temporary Chairman
4-5-1 In the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from any
meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members a temporary
chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice-
chairman.
-3-
ARTICLE V -COMMITTEES
5-1 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose.
5-2 In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose for each committee.
5-3 Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman and will -serve for a term of
one year. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or committee
members on committee appointments.
5-4 Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or
citizen volunteers.
5-5 The committees will elect a chairman and vice-chairman annually.
5-6 The chairman and vice-chairman of the Planning Commission shall be ex -officio members
of every committee.
5-7 The committees may establish ad-hoc groups to assist in specific, carefully -defined tasks for
a limited period of time. Important considerations for membership on the ad-hoc group are
skills and experience necessary to assist in providing acceptable solutions. Membership will
be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee with concurrence by the Commission
Chairman.
ARTICLE VI - MEETINGS
6-1 Regular meetings shall be held at the time and place set by the Commission at the first
meeting of each calendar year.
6-2 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and
publication by the secretary.
6-3 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days before
the meeting.
6-4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for Closed Sessions held
in accordance with the provision specified under Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virgil
1950, as amended.
6-5 Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place
set by the Commission.
M
ARTICLE VII - VOTING
7-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or motion
made unless a quorum is present.
7-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those
present and voting.
ARTICLE VIII - OPERATING RULES
8-1 Order of Business for a regular meeting
8-1-1 Call to Order
8-1-2 Adoption of the Agenda
8-1-3 Consideration of Minutes
8-1-4 Committee Reports
8-1-5 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda
8-1-6 Public Hearings
8-1-7 Public Meetings
8-1-8 Planning Commission Discussion
8-1-9 Other
8-1-10 Adjournment
8-2 Minutes
8-2-1 The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting. The Chairman and Secretary
shall sign all minutes following approval by the Commission certifying that the
minutes are true and correct. Minutes made available to the public prior to formal
approval by the Commission shall be clearly identified as a draft version of the
meeting.
8-3 Procedures
8-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's
- 5 -
Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures.
8-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors,
the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite recommendation
is made. If a. motion has been made and defeated, additional, different motions may
be made concerning the item under consideration.
8-3-3 The initial motion on an agenda item shall be made by a member representing the
application's Magisterial District. If both District representatives are absent or
decline to make the initial motion, then any other Commissioner may act.
8-3-4 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures:
8-3-4-1 Report by County Staff
8-3-4-2 Presentation by Applicant
8-3-4-3 Citizen Comment
8-3-4-4 Rebuttal by Applicant
8-3-4-5 Discussion by Commission
8-3-4-6 Motion and Action by Commission
8-3-5 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia, 1950,
as amended, or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the Chairman may
allow public comment.
8-3-6 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information after
the staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment.
8-3-7 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting may be
made part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the Commission and are
to be kept on file by the secretary. Such items need not be made part of the published
minutes.
8-3-8 Public Hearings
8-3-8-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which hearings
are required by the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, or by the Code of
Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and notifications
provided as required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
8-3-8-2 The Chairman may establish special rules for any public hearing at the
M
beginning of said hearing. These rules may include limitations on the time of
staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment.
8-3-8-3 In addition to those required by law, the Commission may hold public
hearings on any matter'%Abich it deems to be in the public interest. In such.
cases, the public hearings shall follow all procedures described for public
hearing in these bylaws.
8-3-9 Tabling
8-3-9-1 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to table agenda items if
any one of the following situations occurs:
A) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended.
B) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of
Frederick Countv.
C) Insufficient information has been provided for the agenda item.
D) Issues or concerns that arise during formal discussion of the agenda
item warrant additional information or study.
E) The applicant provides the Frederick County Planning Department
with a written request to table the agenda item.
F) The Frederick County Planning Department is advised of an
emergency situation that prevents attendance by the applicant.
G) The applicant fails to appear at the meeting in which the application
has been advertised to appear.
8-3-9-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from
a scheduled Planning Commission meeting one time. The Planning
Commission shall table the application for a specific period of time to ensure
that the requirements of Section 165-10 of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance are not exceeded unless the applicant requests a waiver from this
requirement.
8-3-9-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall be
re -advertised for consideration by the Planning Commission once the
following steps have been completed:
A) The applicant has requested in writing that the agenda item be
-7-
considered by the Planning Commission.
B) The applicant has provided all required information to the Frederick
County Planning Department which addresses all concerns of the
Planning Commission.
8-3-8-4 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to act on an agenda item
that has been tabled one time when the agenda item has been readvertised for
a subsequent Planning Commission agenda.
8-3-10 Work sessions
8-3-10-1 The Commission may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of
these bylaws shall not apply.
8-3-10-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adjournment of regular meetings or at
the time and place set by the Commission.
8-3-10-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at least
five days before the session.
8-3-10-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and
discussion.
8-3-10-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session.
8-3-10-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required at
a work session.
8-3-10-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all work sessions and the items
discussed.
8-3-11 Adjournment
8-3-11-1 In no case shall the Commission consider any new items after 10:30 P.M. and
in all cases the Commission shall adjourn by 11:00 P.M.
ARTICLE IX - AMENDMENTS
9-1 These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership
after thirty days prior notice at any time during the calendar year.
9-2 Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of these bylaws in November
of each calendar year to ensure their accuracy.
9-3 At the first meeting of the calendar year the By -Laws will be adopted.