PC 01-03-07 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
January 3, 2007
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Election of Officers, Meeting Schedule & Committee Appointments for 2007, and Adoption
of Planning Commission By -Laws for 2007.................................................................... (A)
2) November 15, 2006 Minutes........................................................................................... (B)
3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
5) To consider a Request to Revise the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan, Including
Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) for commercial development
on the north side of Northwestern Pike (Route 50). The Round Hill area includes land
generally located north and south of Northwestern Pike (Route 50), west of Route 37, and
east of Crinoline Lane in the Gainesboro and Back Creek Magisterial Districts.
Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (C)
6) Other
FILE COPY
0
L
0
COUNTY of FREDERICK
i Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director (V
SUBJECT: Election of Officers, Committee Appointments, Meeting Schedule
DATE: December 19, 2006
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2007
At the first meeting of each year, the Planning Commission elects a Chairman, Vice
Chairman, and Secretary. These three Planning Commission officers assume office
immediately, and hold such office for the duration of the calendar year.
For each office, the Commission will: open the nominations; accept nominations; close
nominations; and vote to fill the officer position.
ADOPTION OF MEETING SCHDULE FOR 2007
At the first meeting of each year, the Planning Commission adopts their meeting schedule
for the ensuing year.
Historically, the Commission has held meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of
each month at 7:00 p.m. to be held in the Board of Supervisors meeting room; the
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee meets on the second Monday of each
month at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room; and the Development Review &
Regulations Subcommittee meets on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in
the first floor conference room.
Staff Note: If the Commission chooses to continue the same meeting days and times
during 2007, staff would note that the meeting falls on two holidays when the County
offices are closed: July 4 (Independence Day) and November 21 (Thanksgiving). Staff
would suggest that the Commission consider canceling these two meetings based on the
holiday schedule. See the attached proposed Planning Commission meeting cut-off table;
left column is the meeting date.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Memorandum: Elections, Appointments, and Meeting Times
December 19, 2006
Page 2 of 2
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2007
At the first meeting of each year, the Chairman appoints the membership for the
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) and the Development Review
& Regulations Subcommittee (DDRS). The Chairman also appoints a Planning
Commission liaison to the: Transportation Committee (TC); Historic Resources
Advisory Board (HRAB); Economic Development Commission (EDC); Frederick
County Sanitation Authority (FCSA); and the Winchester Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS FOR 2007
At the first meeting of each year, the Planning Commission adopts their Bylaws, and
Rules and Responsibilities for the ensuing year.
Please contact staff should you have questions.
Attachment
ERL/bad
PLANNING COMMISSION CUT-OFF DATES FOR 2007
.......... llATE
... ........
.....................
�� - ,
. .. .......
.. . .......... .......
.UT(
............
............
.................
........
................ .
.... .. . . . . . . . :F.AMi!iiI
.......
..-I,.....,,..
..................................
.......... .
......... . . .
.............
........... .
.......... .. . ....... .......
. . . . . . . . . .
..... ..... ........
...... .....................
.......... ......
....
.......
. . . . . . WG .............
... ........ ...........
......... .. .... .. .............
STAT..
.. ..............
....
....
: UTO
"...0 F.F.
..........
. . . . . . .
.. :� ...........................
. . ..... ................... ..
...........
..............
IL ............
...........
. . AGENDA . X.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
01/03/07
12/08/06
12/11/06
12/15/06
12/13/06
12/18/06
12/22/06
01/17/07
12/22/06
12/22/06*
12/29/06
12/27/06
12/29/06*
01/05/07
02/07/07
01/12/07
01/12/07*
01/19/07
01/17/07
01/22/07
01/26/07
02/21/07
01/26/07
01/29/07
02/02/07
01/31/07
02/05/07
02/09/07
03/07/07
02/09/07
02/12/07
02/16/07
02/14/07
02/20/07*
02/23/07
03/21/07
02/23/07
02/26/07
03/02/07
02/28/07
03/05/07
03/09/07
04/04/07
03/09/07
03/12/07
03/16/07
03/14/07
03/19/07
03/23/07
04/18/07
03/23/07
03/26/07
03/30/07
03/28/07
04/02/07
04/06/07
05/02/07
04/06/07
04/09/07
04/13/07
04/11/07
04/16/07
04/20/07
05/16/07
04/20/07
04/23/07
04/27/07
04/25/07
04/30/07
05/03/07*
06/06/07
05/11/07
05/14/07
05/18/07
05/16/07
05/21/07
05/25/07
06/20/07
05/25/07
05/25/07*
06/01/07
05/30/07
06/04/07
06/09/07
07/04/074
06/09/07
06/11/07
06/15/07
06/13/07
86/1-8/87
06/22/0-7
07/18/07
06/22/07
06/25/07
06/29/07
06/27/07
07/02/07
07/06/07
08/01/07
07/06/07
07/09/07
07/13/07
07/11/07
07/16/07
07/20/07
08/15/07
07/20/07
07/23/07
07/27/07
07/25/07
07/30/07
08/03/07
09/05/07
08/10/07
08/13/07
08/17/07
08/15/07
08/20/07
08/24/07
09/19/07
08/24/07
08/27/07
08/31/07
08/29/07
09/04/07*
09/07/07
10/03/07
09/07/07
09/10/07
09/14/07
09/12/07
09/17/07
09/21/07
10/17/07
09/21/07
09/24/07
09/28/07
09/26/07
10/01/07
10/05/07
11/07/07
10/12/07
10/15/07
10/19/07
10/17/07
10/22/07
10/26/07
11121/07-4
10/26/07
10/29/07
11/02/07
10/31/07
11/05/07
11/09/07
12/05/07
11/09/07
11/09/07*
11/16/07
11/14/07
11/16/07*
11/26/07*
12/19/07
11/20/07*
11/26/07
11/30/07
11/28/07
12/03/07
12/07/07
01/02/08
12/07/07
12/10/07
12/14/07
12/12/07
12/17/07
12/21/07
01/16/08
12/21/07
12/21/07*
12/28/07
12/26/07
12/28/07*
01/04/08
02/06/08
01/11/08
01/14/08
01/18/08
01/16/08
01/21/08
01/25/08
02/20/09
01/25/08
01/28/08
02/01/08
01/30/08
02/04/08
02/08/08
Strike Through - County Holiday *Adjusted Date Due to County Holiday
Printed on December 14, 2006
0
MEETING MINUTES
uTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on November 15, 2006,
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon
District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro
District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall
District; Gary R Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek
District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of
Supervisors Liaison; and Walter E. Hibbard, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: City of Winchester Liaison
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner; Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician; 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 asked the
Commission for consideration of an amendment to the agenda to hear Item 45, Rezoning Application for Rock
Harbor Golf Course, and Item 96, Conditional Use Permit Application of Rock Harbor Golf Course, together as
one item. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning
Commission adopted the agenda with the amendment proposed.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes of
October 4, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes
of October 18, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Page 1901
Minutes of November 15, 2006
D
L1 L1
1 n I
F
V(
-2 -
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPQ — 11/13/06 Mtg.
Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS reviewed the 2007 Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP). He said highlights were the two new elementary schools, two potential satellite sites for the library, and a
new item for the CIP, road infrastructure.
Economic Development Commission (EDC) —11/15/06 Mtg.
Commissioner Kerr reported that the EDC had a joint work session with the Chamber of
Commerce this morning and there was a good turn out from both groups. He said the two groups are looking for
ways to combine their marketing efforts.
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
Rezoning 415-06 of Rock Harbor Golf Course, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 58.08 acres
from EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District to RA (Rural Areas) District, with proffers, for golf course
expansion. This property fronts on the south side of Round Hill Road (Route 803) and on the east side of
Woodchuck Lane (Route 654), adjacent to Section Three and Section Seven of the Roscommon
Subdivision and the existing Rock Harbor Golf Course. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 52-
A-256in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Conditional Use Permit #10-06 of Rock Harbor Golf Course, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for
commercial outdoor recreation with accessory clubhouse and food service for the general public. The
properties are located as follows: Property Identification Number 52-A-256 fronts on the south side of
Round Hill Road (Route 803) and on the east side of Woodchuck Lane (Route 654), adjacent to Section
Three and Section Seven of the Roscommon Subdivision, and the existing Rock Harbor Golf Course;
Property Identification Number 52-A-313 fronts on the north side of Merriman's Lane (Route 621) at the
northwest quadrant of the Route 37 bridge crossing; Property Identification Number 52 -A -313A fronts on
both sides of Lacosta Court in the Roscommon Subdivision, Section Seven; Property Identification
Number 53-A-88 is located on the west side of Route 37, adjoining and accessed through tax map parcel
52-A-313. The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval of Rezoning with Proffers
and Recommended Approval of Conditional Use Permit with Conditions
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2006
Page 1902
-3 -
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, read the background information for
the Commission. Mr. Cheran reported that the applicant wishes to rezone 58 acres from EM (Extractive
Manufacturing) District to RA (Rural Areas) District to allow for future expansion of the Rock Harbor Golf
Course. Mr. Cheran said that any expansion of the golf course will require an approved conditional use permit
(CUP) and approval of the rezoning does not guarantee the expansion of the golf course. He stated that the
property is located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA); he said the site has an industrial land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range
Land Use Plan.
Mr. Cheran stated that both the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP) and the
Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) 2030 Transportation Plan calls for a new interchange of Route 37
at Merriman's Lane, Mr. Cheran said the applicant has proffered to dedicate the 1.49 acres of land necessary to
accommodate that interchange; he noted that this proffered road dedication will provide a critical piece of the
planned Route 37/Merriman's Lane interchange. Mr. Cheran added that the applicant has also proffered to
develop this property for the expansion of the Rock Harbor Golf Course, in conformance with the exhibit
provided; however, the applicant would like to retain the right to utilize the property in the future for any land
uses permitted in the RA Zoning District. Mr. Cheran pointed out that this proffer would allow any RA uses,
including single-family dwellings, immediately adjacent to the EM -zoned property that will continue to be used as
an active quarry; he advised that it may not be good planning to allow new residences to be located in this area
adjacent to an active quarry. Other proffers described by Mr. Cheran included a boundary line adjustment plat,
joining this parcel with the existing golf course; and a $5,000 monetary proffer to Frederick County for Fire and
Rescue.
Mr. Cheran next presented the conditional use permit for the expansion of the golf course by 18
holes and expansion of the existing clubhouse to a maximum of 24,000 square feet; the clubhouse expansion will
include a pro shop, food service, and storage. Additionally, buildings to support this golf course expansion will
include maintenance structures, mid -stations, and golf cart storage buildings. Mr. Cheran read a list of
recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering was present to represent Stuart M. Perry, Inc.
and the Perry family. Mr. Wyatt described the four properties involved and their locations. He also addressed the
staff's concern about the applicant's desire to retain the right to utilize the property in the future for any land uses
permitted in the RA Zoning District. He explained the applicant's need to have the ability to use the property in
its RA capacity, in the event the golf course would no longer be viable at some point in the future. Mr. Wyatt also
talked about the applicant's intent on keeping the quarry operating; he said the EM District regulations in the
zoning ordinance establish setbacks for the quarry. He said the applicant has incorporated a yellow line in the
diagram and if the rezoning is approved by the Board of Supervisors, any work done in the quarry will be bound
by the additional setbacks towards residential.
Chainnan Wilmot next called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Unger was pleased with the applicant's proffer of the acre -and -a -half ofproperty
to VDOT for the future interchange and with the applicant's contribution of $5,000 to the County for fire and
rescue purposes. He did not think the applicant would do anything to jeopardize the quarry operations.
No other issues or concerns were raised by the Commission.
Commissioner Unger moved to recommend approval of the rezoning with proffers for Rock
Harbor Golf Course. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and unanimously passed.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2006
Page 1903
aC
Commissioner Unger next moved to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for Rock
Harbor Golf Course with the conditions recommended by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner
Ours and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Rezoning # 15-06 of Rock Harbor Golf Course, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 58.08
acres from EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District to RA (Rural Areas) District, with proffers, for golf course
expansion and Conditional Use Permit # 10-06 of Rock Harbor Golf Course, submitted by Greenway Engineering,
for commercial outdoor recreation with accessory clubhouse and food service for the general public, with the
following conditions:
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. An engineered site plan shall be approved by Frederick County prior to starting any expansion of this
site.
No more than one sign shall be allowed on the property. The sign shall be located at the entrance.
4. Any future expansion of this use beyond 36 holes and a 24,000 square -foot clubhouse with associated
maintenance and storage facilities, and mid -stations, shall require a new conditional use permit.
Approval of CUP 410-06 will null and void the existing CUP #27-99.
Conditional Use Permit #09-06 of Joyce Myers for a kennel at 625 Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012), a 1.04 -acre
parcel, zoned RA (Rural Areas). This property is identified with P.I.N. 85-A-137 in the Opequon
Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 60 Days
Planning Technician Kevin T. Henry reported that the proposed conditional use permit (CUP)
has been applied for as a result of a zoning violation of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Henry said
the applicant has been in violation since June of 2006, but has cooperatively worked towards reducing the number
of dogs on the property. In addition, this violation was before the General District Court on September 5, 2006;
judgment was extended 90 days to allow for a decision on the pending CUP. Mr. Henry stated that dog kennels
are a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved CUP. He noted that the property
consists of 1.04 acres and the proposed kennel will have no more than ten dogs or puppies, including litters. In
addition, he said the applicant has proposed outdoor kennels, but has given thought to an indoor facility in the
future.
Mr. Henry continued, explaining the buffer requirements for kennels adjoining residential uses.
He specified that a 100 -foot buffer is required along the northern and eastern boundaries of the Myers' property;
the buffer would need to maintain three trees per ten linear feet with a six-foot tall opaque fence. Mr. Henry said
the adjoining property to the north is a higher -density residential subdivision, zoned RP, and with any kennel,
staff has concerns that noise from the kennel may create a nuisance for adjoining property owners. He noted there
are four dwellings currently under construction adjoining the applicant's property and these dwellings will be
within 200 feet of the dog cages. Mr. Henry next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission
find the use to be appropriate.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Page 1904
Minutes of November 15, 2006
D
u U
M
V
Y
-5 -
Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Henry if he was aware of any recently -approved kennels where
the Commission did not require the dogs to be kept inside during the night 'man enclosed building. Mr. Henry
replied that typically, previously -approved kennels have required that dogs be kept inside during the night.
Commissioner Unger inquired if there was a limit on the number of dogs a kennel could have, in
relation to the size of the parcel. Mr. Henry said that a CUP is required and the number of dogs could be
restricted within the conditions; he said that because this particular property adjoins residential, the conditions
were more restrictive.
Commissioner Kerr questioned this use being classified as a business because the applicant has
said there is no boarding of dogs, nor breeding. Mr. Henry said that the applicant has referred to her operation as
a kennel, as well as a rescue facility. Mr. Henry said the Planning Department has made a determination that the
animals are not pets.
Chairman Wilmot inquired about the size of any proposed building; Mr. Henry believed the
applicant had considered about 4,000 square feet. He pointed out the limited area a structure could be placed
because of zoning district buffer requirements, as well as normal building restriction line requirements. Mr.
Henry thought it may be difficult to get an indoor facility on this property.
Mr. Ty Lawson, attorney, said his firm was recently engaged to represent Ms. Myers; in fact, it
was after the filing of the CUP, as well as the court case. Mr. Lawson said that Ms. Myers conducts an operation
called Paws and Whiskers, which is a 501(C)3 tax-exempt charitable organization, a designation received from
the IRS and is designated solely to rescuing dogs and cats from shelters, where they would be euthanized, and
adopting them out to suitable homes. He said that Ms. Myers has been operating on her property for quite some
time and has received national recognition for her efforts, especially with regard to Hurricane Katrina victims'
pets. Mr. Lawson said that they have looked at several of the issues, some dealing with the CUP itself and
whether the conditions will work for the applicant. He asked the Commission to consider tabling the request to
give them more time to work on these issues.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak:
Ms. Carla Coffey, representing Arcadia Development Company and Arcadia Southern Hills,
LLC, said they own the adjacent property to the north, known as Southern Hills Subdivision. Ms. Coffey said
that Ms. Myers' property borders four of their lots, on which single-family homes are currently being constructed.
She added that while she appreciates and commends Ms. Myers' efforts and desire to help animals in need, she
questioned the appropriateness of this use at the proposed location. Ms. Coffey said the size of the proposed
parcel, as well as the proximity of adjacent residential, is cause for concern. Ms. Coffey asked the Planning
Commission to strongly consider these concerns in their decision-making process.
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of
the meeting.
Commissioner Oates asked if the kennel was in operation prior to Southern Hills being rezoned
and Mr. Henry replied no. Mr. Henry said the property was purchased by Ms. Myers on July 29, 2002 and the
rezoning for Southern Hills took place in early 2002.
Commissioner Thomas recognized this was an admirable use; however, he said he would have
difficulty approving outdoor kennels. He said that even ten animals next to housing could present a nuisance for
neighbors. He pointed out that a metal structure is not going to be adequate to dampen sound; he said most of the
other structures constructed for kennels in the County have been concrete block buildings. Commissioner
Thomas also believed this was the wrong location for this type of use.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2006
Page 1905
at this location.
ma
Other Commissioners agreed and commented that they would only support an indoor operation
Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table
Conditional Use Permit 409-06 of Joyce Myers for a kennel at 625 Town Run Lane (Rt. 10 12) for 60 days, at the
applicant's request, to allow the applicant time to address issues raised by the staff and Planning Commission.
Conditional Use Permit #11-06 of Dawson and Robann Riggleman to re-establish a legal non -conforming
use to have horses at 120 Longeroft Road. This property is identified with P.I.N. 64-A-44 in the Shawnee
Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that this request is to re-establish a non-
conforming use, which is the right to maintain horses on the applicant's 8.86 -acre property, zoned RP
(Residential Performance); he said the applicants reside on the property. Mr. Lawrence provided some history of
the site, noting that the Rigglemans have lived in this area since the 1950's and acquired the property from family.
Mr. Lawrence said the building official granted them an agricultural exemption to build a barn, the building
official granted Allegheny Power an agricultural exemption to connect power to the barn, and they had
discussions with the Planning Department; therefore, the Rigglemans believe they had received all of the
authorizations to keep the horses on the property. Mr. Lawrence stated that within the last six months, the
Planning Department received a complaint, inspections were done and history reviewed; however, there was no
written documentation that the County had ever granted theRigglemans the right to keep horses. He said that the
property has been zoned residential since 1967, when the County adopted zoning, and never had, through zoning,
the rights to horses. He said the request this evening is simply to re-establish the grandfather right that this
property has always been a farm parcel, that the property always had animals, and it is referenced back to the
1950's. He said the staff has suggested a number of conditions, including limiting the number of animals, and he
read those for the Commission. Mr. Lawrence noted that the complaint received concerned insects, such as horse
flies, and odor, generated during the middle of summer.
Mr. Lawrence stated that while the staff and applicant went through the conditional use permit
(CUP) process, a number of adjoining property owners submitted documentation supporting the use.
Commissioner Kriz suggested that one of the conditions should state that only horses are allowed
on the property, prohibiting cows, sheep, etc.
Commissioner Thomas said he did not have a problem with this particular application; however,
he thought it may set a precedent for future applications. He said the argument is to re-establish a previous use;
he said this argument could be used on any residential property in the County because every residential property
more than likely used to be a farm. Commissioner Thomas thought this was the first time the County has used
this philosophy on a residential property to re-establish a previous non -conforming use. Mr. Lawrence believed
this was a unique situation because of the longevity of family knowledge and use of the property. He said that
every parcel needs to be considered on its own merit. Mr. Lawrence added that because this was a CUP, a
legislative action, the Board of Supervisors ultimately makes the determination whether it is appropriate or not.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2006
Page1906
-7 -
Commissioner Unger didn't believe this situation would set a precedent because of the fact that
this was the first time it has come up for consideration for the Commission. He said that because this is a CUP,
the choice of approval or disapproval can be made with each individual request.
Commissioner Morris mentioned the mass zonings that occurred in 1967; he wondered how
many other properties might be zoned RP when people think that they are RA. Mr. Lawrence didn't think there
were many pockets of this type within the County, but certainly some do exist.
Commissioner Oates asked if a downzoning was discussed with the applicant. Mr. Lawrence
replied that downzoning was presented to the applicant; however, the applicant felt the CUP was the more
appropriate route for them.
Mr. Benjamin Butler, attorney for the Rigglemans, said the Rigglemans were okay with the four
conditions recommended by the staff, he said restricting this to horses only will not be a problem for them. Mr.
Butler said he lived in the area back in 1967 and this area did not have public sewer and water. He said this
particular property was zoned R1 back in that time.
Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Butler if the subdivision along Longcroft Road was in existence in
1967 and if the parent tract included the Riggleman's property. Mr. Butler replied yes and the parent tract did
include the Riggleman's property.
Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Ms. Angelica G. Ganczak, an adjoining property owner at 102 Travis Court, said that she and
her husband, Kevin, can see the Riggleman's house from her back yard. Ms. Ganczak presented a letter from her
neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Ronald and Debra Potter, adjoining property owners at 106 Travis Court, who could not
attend the meeting and requested that their letter be read. Upon the Chairman's permission, Ms. Ganczak
proceeded to read the letter, as follows: To the Department of Planning and Development: We, Ronald and
Deborah Potter, live directly behind the barn on the Riggleman's property. It is wonderfully kept, beautiful, and a
pleasure to live behind. We were aware of the barn and horses before we purchased the land and actually chose
this particular lot because of its location. The horses are walked and groomed regularly. The barn is kept in
excellent condition, as well as the rest of the eight acres. Often, you will find us and our neighbors on the back
porch admiring the landscape. We are 100% in favor of the property remaining as it is. We would be at this
meeting showing full support, except we will be on vacation beginning tomorrow (today). If you have any
questions for us, we would be happy to answer. Please renew this application for a hundred years or so.
Ms. Ganczak continued, stating that her family arrived to this area in April of 2004 from
Loudoun County. She said one of the reasons they purchased their home here was because they loved the scenery,
including the house and barn on the Riggleman's property. Ms. Ganczak said they have not experienced any odor
from the horses or bugs, and the children love to see the horses. She said the last thing they would want to see is
the Rigglemans leave because they are wonderful neighbors. She does not want to see the horses go because they
are wonderful neighbors as well.
Ms. Rose Stine, an adjoining property owner at 124 Longcroft Road for 26'/2 years, stated this is
a wonderful neighborhood and she loves the horses. Ms. Stine said that she has never smelled an odor, even on
hot, summer days.
Mr. William (Bill) Holbrook, adjoining property owner at 112 Longcroft Road, said he watched
the Riggleman children grow up. Mr. Holbrook said his back yard goes right down to the Riggleman's pony ring.
He said the Rigglemans have been tremendous neighbors and good people; he has had no problems. He said he
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2006
Page 1907
has never seen horse flies, bugs, or smelled any odor. He said he would love for the Rigglemans to keep their
horses.
Mr. John Koontz said that his father built Bufflick Heights; he said he moved to this area in
1956 and helped his father build about eight houses in Bufflick Heights. He said the property in question was
never set up as a development, but was considered a buffer to Bufflick Heights. He said he purchased the land in
1978. Mr. Koontz said the house was started at this location because at the time, in 1979, there was a
moratorium on building anything that was not on public water and sewer. Mr. Koontz said they needed the 8.8
acres to construct the house because of the septic system. He said the Rigglemans bought the house and land in
1983 with the intent of leaving the land vacant and putting horses on it.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot next closed the public comment portion of
the meeting.
Commissioner Light asked staff if the CUP is granted and there are future complaints, if it would
be handled administratively or if it would come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lawrence said that
the staff will work with the property owner to try and resolve the complaint. Mr. Lawrence said it would only
come back to the Commission if the problem presented an impasse and continued violations were not addressed.
Mr. Lawrence believed that the issues surrounding the previous complaint stemmed from the horses continuously
being at one location. He said the idea was presented to circulate the horses around the different fields so they are
not standing adjacent to a particular property where all the manure can build up. He said this should alleviate the
issues. Mr. Lawrence said the complainants seemed to be comfortable with this concept. He said the original
complaint was about odor, which is not a zoning violation on the surface, but when the staff made the inspection
and found the horses, that became the violation. The complaint was not about the horses, it was about the odor
that was coming from the horses.
Commissioner Morris said that if he was one of the neighbors, he would much prefer five horses
over 30 single-family homes or a 100 -unit apartment complex. Commission members believed the property
should be restricted to "equine" only, in order to exclude other forms of livestock. Commissioner Morris in.
for approval of the CUP with the conditions as recommended by the staff, plus an additional condition stating that
only equine will be permitted on the property. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger. Mr.
Benjamin Butler, the applicants' attorney said the Rigglemans are fully in favor of the additional condition.
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #11-06 of Dawson and Robann Riggleman to re-establish a legal non-
conforming use to have equine at 120 Longcroft Road with the following conditions:
No more than a total of five equine shall be on the property at any one time.
2. The equine shall be rotated between fenced areas in an effort to minimize odor and insect impacts on the
adjacent residences.
Equine manure shall not be stockpiled nor spread within 40 feet of any property boundary line.
4. Any modification or expansion of this use will require a new conditional use permit.
Only equine shall be permitted on the property.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2006
Page 1908
M=
PUBLIC MEETING
Subdivision and waiver request for Subdivision #14-06 for C. Robert Solenberger, Et Al, submitted by
Greenway Engineering, for the creation of a new 1.25 acre, RA (Rural Areas)—zoned lot and waiver of
Chapter 144, Article V, Section 31C(1)(B) — Rural Subdivisions. The property (Rutherford Industrial
Park) fronts the western boundary of Martinsburg Pike (Rt.11Iv) approximately 0.65 miles north of the
intersection with I-81 (Exit 317). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 43-A-111 in the Stonewall
Magisterial District. (Tabled from the Planning Commission's October 18, 2006 meeting.)
Action — Recommended Denial
Commissioner Light said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this request,
due to a possible conflict of interest.
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the applicant is seeking
the ability to create two parcels from an 18.345 -acre tract, consisting of a 1.25 -acre parcel, zoned RA (Rural
Areas), and a second parcel consisting of 17.0954 acres, zoned M 1 (Light Industrial), with an access across RA -
zoned property. Mr. Cheran said the access across RA land would enable a secondary site access to Route 11; the
primary site access would be through the Rutherford Industrial Park road network, as proffered with the
Rutherford Industrial Park rezoning application. He further explained that in order to enable this subdivision, the
applicant would need to obtain a waiver of the minimum lot size for the 1.25 -acre, RA -zoned property.
Mr. Cheran continued, stating that this item was tabled for 30 days at the Commission's October
18, 2006 meeting to provide the applicant time to work out the issues and concerns from the Planning
Commission and staff. He read a list of items that the Planning Commission wanted to see with the re -submitted
application, as follows: 1) a schematic of the proposed entrance; 2) the location of the guard gates and FEMA
entrance gates; 3) buffering along the access road for the neighbors on both sides; 4) consideration of inter -parcel
connectors on both sides of the property; and 5) the provision of traffic counts. Mr. Cheran reported that the
applicant had not submitted plans to address buffering along the access road for the adjoining properties, nor
submitted plans for inter -parcel connection to adjoining properties to limit the number of entrances to Route 11.
He said the traffic count proposed to be generated by this site is 5,689 trips -per -day. He said that staff has
provided a copy of the entranceway approved with the FEMA site plan; however, the schematic shows the
I ocation of the temporary road with no gates.
Commissioner Oates asked for confirmation from the staff that none of the five requests from
the Planning Commission had been addressed by the applicant. Mr. Cheran confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner Oates also inquired if FEMA would own or lease the parcel. Mr. Cheran replied it was his
understanding they were leasing the parcel. Commissioner Oates pointed out that FEMA may not be a permanent
use on this parcel and Mr. Cheran said that was correct, it was available for general office use.
Commissioner Kriz asked staff for clarification on whether the access road was already approved
and if it was a temporary access. Mr. Cheran said the secondary access road had already been approved through
FEMA's approved site plan.
Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence explained that because the internal road system for
Rutherford Industrial Park would not be completed for some time, the site plan for the FEMA facility provided a
new entrance, termed "temporary," which indirectly is a secondary entrance to the property. He said it will be
constructed and it will remain there, but ultimately, the primary entrance would be coming through the industrial
park at a signalized access to Route 11. Mr. Lawrence said the Planning Commission is considering the
subdivision of a 1.25 -acre parcel, leaving a 17.0954 -acre balance for the FEMA parcel. He noted that the 1.25
acres does not meet the minimum lot size requirement. He added that the Commission's decision on the waiver
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2006
Page 1909
will not affect whether the road goes in.
Commissioner Thomas commented that there is no buffer between this road and the adjoining
Merryman's property. Mr. Lawrence said the access was not a road by definition, but simply an entrance.
Furthermore, because it is an entrance, it docs not have buffer requirements. Mr. Lawrence explained that during
the administrative review of the site plan, a determination was made that because the facility was larger than what
had initially been envisioned, the secondary access from an emergency standpoint made sense, and from a timing
perspective it made sense as well, until such time as the Rutherford Park's roads were built.
Commission members expressed concern that this entrance was approved administratively
through the site plan process. Commissioners commented that this will bring a huge volume oftraffic into an area
where there have been no proffered road improvements, no traffic control, and no safety measures. In addition,
they were displeased about how close the access was to the Merryman's property, especially without buffering.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, came forward to represent C. Robert
Solenberger, et als, the property owners in this application. Mr. Wyatt stated that of the five items requested by
the Commission, only two were specifically tied to this subdivision, the inter -parcel connectors and the buffering.
He said that because the existing residential driveway was so close to FEMA's new driveway access, FEMA
reluctantly allowed the residential parcel to tie into their road; however, FEMA was not interested in providing
additional connections. Mr. Wyatt said the response they received from FEMA on buffering the Merryman's
property was that a water line and easement runs up along the road, so they were not willing to do any sort of
buffering there. He said FEMA would consider the buffering only if the Merrymans would provide a landscaping
easement on their property and FEMA was allowed to relocate some of their trees on the office park site to the
Merryman's property.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak:
Mr. Scott Merryman came forward to introduce himself, his wife, Shelly, and daughter, Whitney.
Mr. Merryman estimated that the centerline of the proposed road was approximately 60 feet to his property line
and within 100 feet of his house. Mr. Merryman said he was devastated to hear tonight that the road was already
approved and was going in regardless. He expressed concern for the safety of children waiting for the school bus
with an estimated 5,000 trips per day entering the site. He also stated that there was nothing temporary about the
road being constructed; he believed employees would not travel around to the other entrance, through an industrial
park area, but would continue to use this driveway. Regarding FEMA's suggestion that Mr. Merryman provide a
buffer easement on his property, Mr. Merryman said he probably has no more than 35-40 feet available. He said
he didn't receive any notification on a site meeting to discuss how this would involve his property.
There being no one else present to speak, Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion
of the meeting.
A member of the Commission doubted that a water line would prevent placing some shrubs or
other landscaping for some minimal buffering. Another member of the Commission believed the administrative
determinations that were made on approving the site plan were probably made with the best interest of the County
in mind, but during the process, everyone lost site of the adjacent neighbors. Commission members recognized
there was not a lot they could do about the entrance at this point; they expressed their disappointment that it had
slipped through the cracks the way it did. Members commented that if this particular piece of acreage had been
rezoned, the Commission would have discussed buffers, entrances, etc.
Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend denial of the waiver request. This motion
was seconded by Commissioner Moms and was passed by a majority vote, as follows:
Frederick County Planning Commissionc Page 1910
Minutes of November 15, 2006 �,A F,
_J 1f
-11 -
YES (TO DENY): Unger, Manuel, Morns, Oates, Wilmot, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn
NO: Watt, Triplett
ABSTAIN: Light
Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend denial of Subdivision # 14-06 for C. Robert
Solenberger, Et Al. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Moms and passed by the following majority
vote:
YES (TO DENY): Unger, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Wilmot, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn
NO: Watt, Triplett
ABSTAIN: Light
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of
Subdivision # 14-06 for C. Robert Solenberger, Et Al, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for the creation of a
new 1.25 -acre, RA (Rural Areas) -zoned lot and does also recommend denial of the waiver of Chapter 144,
Article V, Section 31C(1)(B), Rural Subdivisions.
Waiver Request for Gas Mart 97, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to consider an entrance spacing
waiver permitted in Article IV, Section 165-29B(1), of the Frederick County Zoning Code to allow for a
new commercial entrance to be placed less than 200 feet from an existing road and an existing entrance.
Action - Denied
Transportation Planner, John A. Bishop, reported that the Planning Commission tabled this item
after consideration at their meeting of October 4, 2006. Mr. Bishop reported that the applicant is seeking a
waiver of the 200 foot County minimum entrance spacing in order to install an additional right -in -only entrance
from Route 7 onto the Gas Mart property. He explained the actual waiver would be for 120 feet off the existing
entrance t rI and 95 feefoff of Eckar ircle— Ivlr�isliop saw the Planning- Commission had asked the
staff to render an opinion on this issue; he said the staff would strongly discourage the waiver at this time.
Mr. Bishop continued, providing the Commission with the staff's basis for this determination.
1) County Ordinance Calls for 200 Feet Spacing: He explained that the County's ordinance calls for 200 feet
entrance spacing and this site is seeking the waiver on both sides of their entrance, despite the fact that their
currently -approved entrance is barely outside the County minimums. He said that while VDOT's current spacing
minimums remain at 50 feet, the County recognized back in 1991 that this was insufficient and adopted a stronger
standard. 2) Route 7 is an Arterial Roadway: Mr. Bishop explained that arterial roadways, by definition, are to
have the highest volumes of traffic with fewest possible conflicts, in order to facilitate through movement oftraific
above land access. He said in the functional classification hierarchy, arterial roadways are ranked just below
interstate roadways and act as a backbone to the transportation system. He noted that the creation of each
additional entrance erodes the roadway's ability to adequately serve this function. 3) County and State Planning
Efforts: Mr. Bishop said that in May of this year, the Board of Supervisors authorized the transportation planner
and the Transportation Committee to begin work on a county -wide access management plan and state-wide, the
General Assembly has instructed VDOT to come back with a state-wide access management plan in 2007. Mr.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2006
Page 1911
-12 -
Bishop said it would seem that granting this waiver would be in opposition to both of those efforts. 4) Site
Specific Traffic Flow Concerns: Mr. Bishop stated that Gas Mart's approved entrances on Eckard Circle allow for
a logical flow of traffic into and out of the site while minimizing impacts on Route 7 capacity and safety. He said
the inclusion of the right -in -only entrance so close to Eckerd Circle would create a situation of uncertainty for
drivers exiting the business from Eckerd Circle; there may be an issue of these exiting drivers having difficulty
distinguishing whether approaching drivers are turning onto Eckerd or the right -in -only entrance, thereby creating a
potential safety issue. 5) Needfor Additional Access: Mr. Bishop said that Gas Mart has been developed and is
now open for business under an approved site plan with entrances on Eckerd Circle. He said that although the
property owner may desire an additional entrance, the lack of it does not impede their ability to run a successful
business.
Mr. Mark Smith with Greenway Engineering and Mr. Benjamin Butler were present to represent
the Gas Mart entrance waiver request; they presented handouts to the Commission which included photographs
and diagrams of the site and entrances. Mr. Smith said the ordinance specifies entrance spacing requirements for
a two-way spacing setup and is silent on a right -in or right -out access scenario. He also commented that they
were seeking a waiver, not a variance; therefore, a hardship does not need to be proven. Mr. Smith thought the
most significant potential safety issue raised by Mr. Bishop was the scenario where a vehicle is waiting to make
an exit from Eckerd Circle and trying to judge whether an approaching vehicle is intending to turn into Eckerd
Circle or going further to make the Gas Mart's proposed right -in -only.
Mr. Smith continued, stating that the Eckerd Circle entrance is elevated and provides good site
distance back towards Winchester; the existing curb and gutter is set back 14 feet in order to provide a full turn
lane for approaching vehicles. He said that in the opposite direction, towards Berryville, there is an existing
traffic signal, necessitating vehicles to begin slowing down as they approach the signal. Mr. Smith next provided
the Commission with some operational facts about the Gas Mart. He said this particular Gas Mart is the first gas
station from the interstate in Frederick County on the right-hand side; it seems that vehicles are over -shooting the
gas station and driving by it. Mr. Smith said that his client owns several Gas Marts and a store of this capacity
should be doing approximately 15,000 gallons of fuel per day; it is currently running approximately 3,000 gallons
per day. He said inside sales should be roughly $7,000 per day; however, it is actually $2,000 per day. Mr.
Smith stated that this business is not meeting its sales potential. Mr. Smith asked the Commission if the entrance
spacing requirements would apply to the right -in -only entrance, on the east. He said that if the right -in -only
entrance was moved closer to the property line with Seven -Eleven, the distance from Eckerd would be increased,
and it would aid a motorist in judging whether an oncoming vehicle was turning on Eckerd or going into the right -
in -only. In addition, he said that if the Seven -Eleven project would redevelop in the future, his client would try to
work out a shared entrance at the property line.
Commissioner Unger was concerned that the existing entrance/ exit design on Eckerd wasn't
working properly for this site. Mr. Smith said that going out is fine; however, the exit is wide and the pumps are
clearly visible, so it is too inviting not to use the designated exit as an entrance, as well.
Commissioner Triplett believed that motorists would continue to use the Eckard access, even if
the additional access on Berryville Avenue is approved; he preferred to see the entrance in front of the pumps.
Commission members believed the proposed additional right -in -only entrance on Berryville Pike
would present a safety hazard. A Commission member pointed out that there was no deceleration lane and the
right -in was probably almost a 90 -degree turn; motorists would have to slow down to make the right turn with
vehicles coming behind them at 45 mph. In addition, they said vehicles would be coming out from Eckerd Circle
with no acceleration lane into a line of traffic coming into the Gas Mart. Commissioners said they could not
support the proposed additional entrance, but they would be willing to consider a shared entrance with Seven -
Eleven. Furthermore, they believed the first access on Eckerd Circle needed to be closed, to prevent vehicles from
darting into that location from Berryville Pike.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2006
Page 1912
-13 -
Upon motion made by Commissioner Mohn and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously deny the
waiver request for Gas Mart #7, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to allow for a new commercial entrance to
be placed less than 200 feet from an existing road and an existing entrance.
DISCUSSION
Discussion of various Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance amendments, as follows: Subdivision of Land
(Chapter 144), Article II, Definitions; Subdivision of Land (Chapter 144), Article V, Design Standards,
Section 24(C)(2)(B), Lot Requirements; Zoning (Chapter 165), Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District,
Section 54(B), Permitted Lot Sizes; Zoning (Chapter 165), Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section
54(D), Permitted Lot Sizes; Zoning (Chapter 165), Article XXII, Definitions and Word Usage, Section 156.
Subdivision of Land (Chapter 144), Article II, Definitions and Word Usage
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that the Development Review
and Regulations Subcominittee (DRRS) recommended additional language to clarify Section 144-2, Definitions
and Word Usage. Mr. Cheran read the proposed language for the Commission. No issues or concerns were
raised by the Commission and they agreed the amendment was appropriate.
Subdivision of Land (Chapter 144), Article V, Design Standards, Section 24C(2)(b)
Mr. Cheran stated that the DRRS recommended removing and adding language to this section
which would correct a typographical error dealing with road length for individual lots. Mr. Cheran read the
proposed language for the Commission. No issues or concerns were raised by the Commission and they agreed
the amendment was appropriate.
Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 165), Article V, RA District, Section 54(B)(1), Family Division Lots
Mr. Cheran stated that the DRRS recommended adding new language to this section of the
ordinance regarding a time period for family division lots to remain with the family member. Mr. Cheran reported
that just this legislative year, the Commonwealth of Virginia changed the State Code to allow localities to set time
limits on how long a family division lot has to remain with a family member, but not to exceed 15 years. He
stated that historically, the zoning administrator in Frederick County has interpreted the unwritten time period to
be two years. Mr. Cheran explained that given the opportunity to codify a period of time a family member must
keep the conveyed lot, the DRRS has recommended a period of five years from the date of the creation of the
family lot.
Commissioner Oates, a member of the DRRS, commented that the applicant would have to sign
an affidavit acknowledging awareness of the five-year time period in order to do a family subdivision. No issues
or concerns were raised by the Commission and they agreed the amendment was appropriate.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2006
Page 1913
ME
Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 165) Article V, RA District, Section 54(D) Rural Preservation Lots
Mr. Cheran stated the DRRS recommended changes to this section of the zoning ordinance
regarding rural preservation lots to avoid confusion and to add clarification to the text. Specifically, the ordinance
is not clear if the parent tract can be subdivided if it is recorded with a greater than 40% set-aside. He said that
historically, the zoning administrator has interpreted that once the tract is recorded, it cannot be subdivided,
regardless of the percentage of the set-aside. Mr. Cheran read the proposed language for the Commission. The
text specified that 40% or more of the parent tract shall remain intact as a contiguous parcel (Rural Preservation
Tract); the acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot; and no future division of this
designated Rural Preservation Tract shall be permitted. New language was also added under subsection (3) Board
of Supervisors Waiver of Division Restriction. This section included language regarding releasing the
preservation parcel from restrictions. Commissioners provided the following comments for the staff.
Commissioner Triplett said the language indicates the rural preservation tract can not be
subdivided; however, he asked if it could be resold as a full tract of property and the new purchaser subdivide the
property. The answer provided was no; the property remains as a preservation parcel with the new owner.
Commissioner Morris stated that at the last Planning and Zoning Conference he learned that the
General Assembly passed legislation effective in July of 2007 directing that this preservation parcel is set aside in
perpetuity and can never be rezoned. Mr. Cheran said that he was not aware of the legislation and would research
the matter.
Commissioner Oates said that during the RA Study two -and -a -half years ago, committee
members had the opinion that rural preservation parcels were not intended to bei the UDA (Urban Development
Area), but instead were meant for the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). Commissioner Oates said he
thought the basis for their reasoning was if the preservation parcel comes through the SWSA, then it could be
considered for a rezoning. Commissioner Oates also commented that the language under 165-54(D)(1)(c) may
preclude the ability to add acreage to the rural preservation tract. He said that as long as the acreage of the tract
doesn't shrink, he did not see any reason why a consolidation or a boundary line adjustment couldn't be done. In
addition, Commissioner Oates commented that high-density housing should be located within the UDA. He said
he could not support someone who had just created a rural preservation tract within the existing UDA and then
requests a rezoning on that same preservation tract. He thought the Commission should impose a ten-year
restriction when a preservation parcel is created in the UDA, not exempt them from the restriction. Commission
members agreed and questioned whether the preservation parcel should even be allowed in the UDA; they did not
see any value to the County for allowing that kind of subdivision to occur in the UDA.
Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 165), Section 165-156 Definitions
Mr. Cheran stated that the DRRS is recommending change to the current written definition of
Full Screen and Landscape Screen; he said there was a typographical error and the definitions were reversed. He
said that no new language was added and the error was corrected. No issues or concerns were raised by the
Commission and they agreed the amendment was appropriate.
Mr. Cheran said these proposed amendments would next be sent to the Board of Supervisors as
discussion items.
�C
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2006
Page 1914
-15 -
OTHER
TIME FRAME FOR TABLED ITEMS
Commissioner Oates said that in talking with the Planning Staff, it was mentioned that when the
Planning Commission tables an item for only 30 days, it is sometimes difficult to prepare the paperwork and do
notifications because of an insufficient amount of time. Commissioner Oates suggested that the Commission
consider a 45 -day minimum for tabling items. Commission members agreed with the suggestion.
ALLEGHENY ENERGY TRANSMISSION LINE
Chairman Wilmot received information from Allegheny Energy regarding the 500 kv
transmission line that is proposed from Pennsylvania to Loudoun County. She said there will be a public open
house in Middletown on December 6, 2006, from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., at the Middletown Elementary
School. She said the public is invited and there will be displays and information available.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. by a unanimous
vote.
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2006
Page 1915
0
0
CPPA #05-06
SWSA EXPANSION REQUEST — ROUND HILL CENTER
w Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting
Prepared: December 18, 2006
AW Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner
11A
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 the discussion of this
request. It may also be useful to others interested in this comprehensive planning matter.
CPPS:
Planning Commission:
Board of Supervisors
Reviewed
10/09/06
12/11/06
01/03/06 (Discussion)
01/24/06 (Discussion)
Action
Postponed
Recommended approval
Pending
Pending
PROPOSAL: To expand the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) by approximately 481
acres and to modify the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan.
PLANNED USE: Commercial
LOCATION: The properties are located north and adjacent to Northwestern Pike (Route 50)
and east and adjacent to Poorhouse Road (Route 654).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro (properties covered by the Round Hill Plan are also
in the Back Creek District)
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS FOR SWSA EXPANSION: 52 -A -C, 52-A-50, 52 -A -50A, 52-
A-52, 52-A-63, and additional adjacent parcels suggested by the CPPS: 53-A-70, 53 -A -A
(partially in the SWSA), 53 -A -A1 (partially in the SWSA), 52-A-51, 52-A-5 IA, 52-A-53, 52-A-
55, 52-A-56, 52-A-57, 52-A-58, 52-A-59, 52-A-71, 52-A-68, 52-A-66
PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District & B2 (Business General)
PRESENT USE: Agricultural, orchard, residential, commercial and radio towers
Round Hill Center
December 18, 2006
Page 2
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North:
RA (Rural Area)
Use:
Agricultural & Orchard
South:
RA (Rural Area)
Use:
Residential and Institutional
East:
RA (Rural Area)
Use:
Agricultural & Orchard
B2 (Business General)
Use:
Vacant
West:
RA (Rural Areas)
Use:
Residential and Agricultural
B2 (Business General)
Use:
Motel and Retail
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION:
Expansion Request
The Board of Supervisors at its meeting on August 23, 2006, directed the Planning
Commission to study this CPPA request. After the Board's action, the applicant
modified the application to remove the Urban Development Area (UDA) designation and
is now seeking only SWSA designation. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Subcommittee (CPPS) considered this request at its meetings on October 9, 2006 and
December 11, 2006. The CPPS recommended the applicant's SWSA expansion and
recommended expansion of the SWSA to cover some adjacent parcels. The CPPS also
endorsed a revised draft of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan to cover the
expansion area.
Staff Note: The applicant is still seeking to ultimately develop part of this site for the
National Lutheran Home. The applicant is aware that a Continuing Care Retirement
Community (CCRC), such as the National Lutheran Home, is allowed in the RP
(Residential Performance) District, which requires inclusion in the UDA. However,
expansion of the SWSA without the UDA would allow rezonings to the MS (Medical
Support) District. The applicant is further aware that a CCRC is not an allowed use in the
County's MS District. The applicant will be pursuing a text change to the MS District
Ordinance (via the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)) at a
later date.
Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identified
all of the subject parcels, except current parcel 52-A-53, 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 properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land
to the RA District. The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester
Quadrangle) identified current parcel 52-A-53 being zoned B-2.
Round Hill Center
December 18, 2006
Page 3
Comprehensive Policy Plan
Land Use Plan
The Round Hill Community Land Use Plan (Adopted May 10, 2006) includes much of
the land that is the subject of this SWSA expansion request. While this land is not
included in the SWSA, it is covered by Phase II of the Round Hill Plan, which calls for
commercial development. The applicant seeks to further expand the commercially
designated area and include all the land planned for commercial development north of
Route 50 into the SWSA. The SWSA expansion would cover approximately 481 acres.
Unique to this proposal is the idea for this commercial development to be focused on
medical related uses. This is due to its proximity to the Winchester Medical Center and
the Medical Center West Campus, on the west side of Route 37.
Should the County wish to expand the SWSA in this area to accommodate a medical
related campus, staff has prepared a revised Round Hill Plan (attached) that would guide
this development. Features of the draft plan include:
• Continuation of the policies in the adopted Round Hill Plan for the residential
core and commercial area along Route 50;
• Medical -related commercial development on the north side of Route 50;
• Future transportation links to the north;
• A park and land, if needed, for future public facilities;
• Continuation of design standards for Round Hill: and
• Inclusion in the SWSA of some parcels contiguous to the applicant's property.
Staff note: Any future rezoning in the expanded SWSA area would be dependent on the
applicant extending water and sewer lines at his own expense, providing the road
infrastructure called for in the plan, mitigating the impacts of development, and providing
the design features called for in the plan. Water and sewer lines would need to be sized
to ultimately include residential land in the rural community center core area.
Transportation
The County's Eastern Road Plan calls for Route 50 to be improved to a six -lane minor
arterial road between Route 37 and Poorhouse Road (Route 654). West of Poorhouse
Road, Route 50 is planned as a four -lane minor arterial. An east/west collector road,
parallel to Route 50 is also included in the Eastern Road Plan. A section of this road,
Petticoat Gap Lane, has been proffered with the Round Hill Crossing development. A
new north/south major collector road is sought in this draft plan through the campus
commercial area. This road would serve the campus and provide access to development
north of Round Hill, should the County plan for that in the future. A_ minor collector road
to connect Round Hill Road (Route 803) to Ward Avenue is proposed in the draft plan.
This will help to facilitate redevelopment of that area.
Round Hill Center
December 18, 2006
Page 4
Mentioned throughout the draft plan is the requirement for alternative modes of
transportation, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The plan calls for an
interconnected system of multi-purpose trails and sidewalks. It is critical that these
alternative modes of transportation link the entire Round Hill area and link to the
Winchester Medical Center east of Route 37.
Staff Note: The development of new road systems, new signalization and improvements
to existing road systems are all elements of this plan. It will be the responsibility of
private property owners and developers to ensure that these improvements are made.
Community Facilities and Service
Future development south of Route 50 and also west of Round Hill Crossing (the
WalMart site) will be served by the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. An
expansion of the Parkins Mill Plant has been designed and the expanded plant should be
operational in 2009. Adequate wastewater capacity to serve Round Hill should be
available by 2010.
Water lines exist on Route 50 in the area of Round Hill Crossing and the Winchester
Medical Center — West site. These lines have sufficient capacity to provide the volume
of water the Round Hill area could demand. However, they do not have sufficient
pressure. To provide adequate pressure, existing line pressure would have to be boosted
and water storage provided.
Staff Note: This plan does not recommend rezoning land within the community for
commercial development prior to the provision of central sewer and water. It is also
recommended that as land is developed over time and infrastructure extended, that new
developments further the goal of providing sewer to the established rural community
center.
The draft plan includes a new park in the campus commercial area, likely in the area of
the large pond. This park would be a passive recreational facility with trails, benches and
outdoor eating areas. Also, part of the park network would be the interconnected trail
system.
Public facilities to serve new development in the Round Hill Community may be required
in the future. It would then be necessary for future development to provide a site for such
public facilities.
Round Hill Center
December 18, 2006
Page 5
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE (CPPS) SUMMARY
& ACTION OF 10/09/06 MEETING:
The CPPS reviewed the SWSA expansion request. There was general support for a medical
related campus north of Route 50. Staff was directed to work with the applicant to draft a small
area land use plan to accommodate a medical campus. Attention was to be paid to land use,
transportation, public facilities and design standards.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE (CPPS) SUMMARY
& ACTION OF 12/11/06 MEETING:
The CPPS reviewed the small area land use plan prepared by staff. There was general support
for the inclusion of a medical related campus north of Route 50. There was support for including
some adjacent parcels into the SWSA. Staff was directed to make a number of changes to the
draft plan including further restricting access on Route 50, clearer design standards within the
campus and further prohibition on strip development along Route 50. The CPPS added a minor
collector road, connecting Round Hill Road (Route 803) and Ward Avenue, to the plan. The
plan, to be amended by staff as stated above, was endorsed by the CPPS.
Since the CPPS meeting on 12/11/06, staff has made the changes recommended by the CPPS.
The attached draft plan incorporates these changes.
Followinz the public meeting, comments from the Planninz Commission to the
Board of Supervisors concerninz this Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment
would be appropriate.
All
41 A 169 �b / •�
// c`!".r�(j 41 A acs '. /!/ a �°'�U sY \V 184.21 ac. ryPP �.��+.,t ��
Found Hill
o.1'/? 8 )f� a ^ 4 42 A 155 •� •j j�.
,!�\
�F. }� Community
5z _ a.
z2.5 /
571.25 ac' I ��. ac29 • .. aYr .� i / y Q'9x�r.' _.'�.___._41 A 170 \ 42 A 180,x•
/} ` ! ,,-r 274.i6ac. 10526�a'" `o Land Use Plan
V \ 8m. 5`L yh � `� I 11
Total Study Area
52 A 47
g
ac
/ N
. /� �� 5z1180 Acres
26ac ___•.�-+. ` / 53 A 1 \.<
/jf / \ •-I� * � l q9 96.69 ac.
7 52 2 A5
l ! 55 ac f ..�_��• 1` poi •.. / _ r
i� 1 �.,� ...._� ti�a' /�c -_.� .'/ `•,� r''0 _ ^ (Feet
„/ Q^m f ;rte / i \ , //hy 0'�.ac f` , a•' •` \°•�
53 A ss 0 750 1,500
•`� �, 7 yp, �a / + / \. / - f..F,. ! ^p. �C'a • 52 A 50 O 120.9 ac.
_-:zf? gaol 2os.61 ac / �p �` Proposed Traffic Signal
/ 1
S11.
'� 63 P a
>.
A17
Y f 3p�� Streets
- Gc. •\�$, , 52 A 92A / 4�•. :`\ 52 A 63 \ i Primary
55 ac. '
\ 54-5 ac. v..c _ _ • Secondary
`�'.� ` '°r1§e?A' '4 S�>"s`�.-• f 53 A A Ternary
ls.s i'j�' , ;-,. - 'i'J o4d.i`in • '?�� s` 73.34 ac
✓/ c„ /
1":•<`..• i"a1t i • e f c°'.';> / �. Winchester City
yeAc %�%' railroads
m ~ ie *` Y f
119 - +• \ - ) y�>., 7 J� . 53 A 68 ?,'. Lakes
/ 52 P c % J V `% �C / ► a^'� 611. •�''\.:' 4797-
/��{` �1z ` / - _( ,(�,� _ h^'.ym a .• Sura rUr y�--� ^^rte Streams
�• # _ o f �.43P Q Parcels
tin ' �'• � •� Urban Development Area
a sziq'9a� lz'7F A��122 J Y �N"ypRe. C*{(."] _ \ m� ,�•�o u+. f P^p�
-
Ii s 4 S
wA5214.2 ac Zoning
f m (h.
i—�.�\ �, },`�Yr.•:,r �2 1��''rq?5 r J� e� r ff �� j r B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
Qt . `-0•.� . ac (Business, B2
s a\ �# ` o •,,,v// `Y f3i T y,�tr" General District)
4s Yom, ` 52 A 124
yQm •st gP�a'y g6g./
--j B3
�
�B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
52 A 261 EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)it35.e7as
's + t . ) so f " Q—� Its h • * HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
Q> `a " ^f /� ij�—^;. 1 f ¢ M2 (Industrial, General District)
e 53 A 88
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District
239s2 ac. ,r j �' '���' /w r .r 3 � �� MS (Medical Support District)
�\\� �1 tc t, j• t v R4 (Residential, Planned Community District)
; /•• 7,�t ✓,: 41 R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
52 A 160 r r . •'' RA (Rural Areas District)
lY 40.5 ac. IRP (Residential Performance District)
52 A 300 Frederick County Dept of
+
\ ,�pP �
305.43 ac, p•pa. 1�` ; '� - Planning & Development
5
1-63-
6 107 N Kent St
Winchester VA 22601
52 A 305-
�'
433.01 awww.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US
¢ � /� +\ /i ��� N
> 53 A 92A Adopted May 10, 2006
i �r� �"`/ � 17.05a Q y �..• .. i; f \ r� 145.84 ac.
UDA updated Sept.13, 2006
Round Hill
Community
Land Use Plan
Total Study Area
1180 Acres
N}t
we
^s'
� I Feet
0 750 1,500
0 Proposed Traffic Signal
Proposed Collector Roads
Phase 1 - 110acres
Phase 2 - 180acres
Phase 3 - 300acres
Streets
_ Primary
Secondary
Terciary
Winchester City
1`'V railroads
Lakes
Streams
<? Parcels
Urban development Area
"SWSA
Community Centers
Frederick County Dept of
Planning & Development
107 N Kent St
Winchester, VA 22601
www.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US
Adopted May 10, 2006
UDA updated Sept.13, 2006
DRAFT PLAN
DECEMBER 2006
DRAFT
ROUND HILL COMMUNITY
LAND USE PLAN
Draft following CPPS -December, 2006
Guiding Principles
The Round Hill Community has two distinct areas, the long established rural community center
focused around Round Hill Road (Route 803) and the developing commercial area along
Northwestern Pike (Route 50). This plan encompasses both of these areas. The plan has two
primary goals - first, to protect and enhance the character of the established rural community
center and second, to create a vibrant, functional and well-designed commercial center. While
the two areas are distinct, this plan seeks to link them by efficient roads and multi-purpose trails
and sidewalks and to locate a park and other public facilities in Round Hill for the benefit of both
the residents and the workers.
Land Use
Rural Community Center
The core of the long established rural community center consists primarily of residences. In the
past, a number of small businesses were located in the core area, but few of these remain today.
The development pattern established in Round Hill consists of both small lots along Round Hill
Road, Poorhouse Road, Woodchuck Lane and other roads, and the larger lots and small farms on
the periphery. Both residential patterns should continue. The farms and large lots on the
periphery of Round Hill should be maintained to preserve the rural character. In order to further
preserve the existing character of the area, no part of the Round Hill Community Center should
have high density housing.
Along the residential streets, the established small -lot residential pattern should be continued.
Most residential lots in Round Hill are less than one-half acre. They contain single family
detached houses with small front yard setbacks. This historic development pattern cannot be
accommodated within the existing RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, which allows one
residence for every five acres. A new zoning district will need to be created to accommodate
infill development that is in character with the area. Such a district should address housing type,
lot size and setbacks and might allow for modest commercial/retail uses (with discreet signage)
to serve surrounding residents. Other issues to be addressed with a new zoning district would be
street trees, curb -side parking and underground utilities.
In recent years, new residential development in Round Hill has been limited due to the need for
private health systems. Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) in 2006 to a
wider area of Round Hill has given the opportunity for some existing residents to connect to
public water and sewer, at the property owner's expense. Small lot infill development, as
described above, would not be able to accommodate private health systems and wells. Once an
ordinance is in place to accommodate in -fill development, the County will need to re-examine
-i-
DRAFT
the SWSA boundary to determine any other areas in Round Hill that should be enabled to
connect to public water and sewer services. Rezonings to the new district should not be allowed
prior to the availability of public water and sewer.
Commercial Development
Commercial development is an important component of the Round Hill area; historically,
highway commercial uses located along Northwestern Pike (Route 50). These included gas
stations, car dealers, restaurants and small retail establishments, and some of these remain. In
more recent years, Round Hill Crossing (the large Wal-Mart center) developed on the north side
of Route 50, and this 70 acre site will ultimately accommodate retail, restaurant and business
development. The Winchester Medical Center — West Campus, with 102 acres to the east of
Round Hill Crossing, has both a retail component along Route 50 and a medical component, the
northern portion which is zoned MS (Medical Support) District. Together these two large
developments have changed the character of Route 50. Large-scale commercial development is
now a dominating presence in Round Hill. Its growth and development should be carefully
planned to take advantage of its close proximity to the Winchester Medical Center, but this
development should not prejudice the quality of life for existing residents in the Round Hill
Community Center.
Two distinct commercial environments are planned for Round Hill — a commercial corridor and a
campus area. Both are planned to accommodate only business uses.
The first commercial component is the highway commercial development already in place.
Route 50 functions as a gateway to Frederick County from the City of Winchester. An objective
of this plan is to prevent the creation of a typical commercial strip. Consolidated entrances are
strongly encouraged to avoid multiple -entrances along Route 50 and other roads with
commercial properties. Inter -parcel connections will be necessary for the small lots to develop.
Standards have been developed that will minimize the visual disruption to the Route 50 corridor
(see Figure 13A). These include standards for shared entrances with inter -parcel connectors,
requiring a green space along Route 50, the screening of structures and parking areas and their
location in relation to Route 50 itself, controlling the size, number and location of signs,
requiring underground utilities, and minimum standards for landscaping. These standards
discourage individual business entrances both for aesthetic reasons as well as for transportation
safety and efficiency. Commercial establishments should front feeder roads that connect to
Route 50 at signalized intersections. Another design feature is extra screening between the
commercial properties and existing residences to protect the character of the residential areas.
A new commercial area is planned in the vicinity of Ward Avenue and Stonewall Drive. As this
area redevelops, new developments will be expected to follow the Route 50 standards (Figure
13A) that apply to small parcels on the south side of Route 50. Consolidation of these small
parcels is the key to redeveloping this area. A minor collector road, to join Round Hill Road
(Route 803) and Ward Avenue, is planned to funnels traffic to two key intersections on Route 50.
-2-
DRAFT
Figure 13A
Desi,an Principles for the Round Hill Route 50 Corridor
Street trees in the median, along both sides of the ditch;
Freestanding signs — one monument sign per development (maximum size
- 50 feet, maximum height — 12 feet);
No off -premise business signs;
Crosswalks at signalized intersections, with signals for pedestrians;
Interparcel connectors required between all properties planned for
commercial development (even if currently zoned RA and used for
residential purposes) to encourage shared entrances;
Commercial entrance spacing — 200 feet if speed limit is 35 mph or less,
250 feet if speed limit is greater than 35 mph, to encourage shared
entrances;
A row of evergreens in addition to the ordinance -required buffer and
screening adjacent to areas planned to remain residential;
Underground utilities;
Encourage the placement of buildings close to Route 50 with landscaped
parking lots in the rear;
North side of Route 50: 50 foot landscaped strip, within the landscaped
strip a ten foot asphalt bike trail, ornamental shrubs and street trees
along Route 50;
South side of Route 50: 50 foot landscaped strip (20 feet for small tracts),
within the landscaped strip a five foot concrete sidewalk, ornamental
shrubs and street trees along Route 50;
Due to its close proximity to the Winchester Medical Center, both the main facility and the West
Campus, the Round Hill area offers a unique location to accommodate medical -related
commercial uses. Therefore, a second commercial component of the Round Hill Plan is to
provide a large campus environment on the north side of Route 50. A number of large open
tracts of land exist in this location. It is anticipated that such a campus could accommodate
hospital -related uses, medical offices and institutional uses.
In a campus setting, sites have heavily landscaped green areas and tree lined boulevards. In
order to minimize areas of impervious surface, decked or structured parking or increased
building heights may be warranted. High quality building designs and materials are expected.
Small plazas at the building entrances or in the center of a group of buildings are suggested. Site
design standards are expected to exceed those established for the Route 50 corridor (Figure
13A). Coordinated signage, lighting and street furniture are encouraged. The frontage properties
along the north side of Route 50 could accommodate limited compatible retail uses, although
these would need to be integrated into the campus environment and not be allowed to directly
access Route 50. Additionally, any properties along Route 50 will be strongly discouraged from
placing blank walls and loading areas in this highly visible area.
-3-
DRAFT
All of the commercial areas in Round Hill should provide commercial services and employment
opportunities that are accessible for residents within the Round Hill area via alternative modes of
transportation, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Enhanced accessibility is anticipated
through the connection of such areas to the existing residential areas by a network of multi-
nurpose trails, sidewalks and intersections with. pedestrian actualized signals.
Transportation
The County's Eastern Road Plan and the Win -Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
2030 Transportation Plan call for Route 50 to be improved to a six -lane minor arterial road
between Route 37 and Poorhouse Road (Route 654). West of Poorhouse Road, Route 50 is
planned as a four -lane minor arterial. Sidewalks are planned on the south side of Route 50 and
multi-purpose trails on the north side. Developments along Route 50 will be expected to
incorporate these road improvements.
A north/south collector road, parallel to Route 37, is included in the Route 37 West Land Use
Plan. This road is also incorporated into the County's Eastern Road Plan. A section of this road,
Botanical Boulevard, is being built with the Winchester Medical Center — West Campus
development. Should properties further to the north develop, this road would eventually connect
to Route 522 (North Frederick Pike).
An east/west collector road, parallel to Route 50 is also included in the Eastern Road Plan. A
section of this road, Petticoat Gap Lane, has been proffered with the Round Hill Crossing
development. This road is envisioned as an urban divided four -lane cross-section that includes
landscaped medians as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, to enhance transportation on the
north side of Route 50. Development in the campus area will need to accommodate the
continuation of this collector road.
A new north/south major collector road is planned through the campus commercial area. This
road will serve the campus and provide access to development north of Round Hill, should the
County plan for that in the future. While this road is envisioned as an urban divided four -lane
road that includes landscaped medians as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, it may initially
be built as a two-lane road because development to the north may not occur for many years, if at
all. The location shown on the plan is general, with the precise location of the north -south
collector road remaining flexible.
Limited vehicular access is recommended throughout the Round Hill Community, particularly
along Route 50. A six lane arterial road should not include multiple access points. Ideally
access should be limited to four signalized intersections.
Noted throughout this plan is the requirement for alternative modes of transportation, such as
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The plan calls for an interconnected system of multi-purpose
trails and sidewalks. It is critical that these alternative modes of transportation link the entire
Round Hill area and link to the main Winchester Medical Center. A pedestrian bridge over
Route 50 should be provided to link the north and south sides of Route 50. A future Winchester
Medical Center internal road over Route 37 should provide a sidewalk and trail for bicycle and
-4-
DRAFT
pedestrian access. The County should also encourage the extension of existing bus routes to
serve the area. Ideally, bus stops should be located at all of the commercial centers.
The development of new road systems, new signalization and improvements to existing road
systems are all elements of this plan. It will be the responsibility of private property owners and
developers to ensure that these improvements are made. No rezonings should be approved until
the County is certain that the transportation impacts of development will be mitigated and the
improvements facilitate the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. As with all area of the
County, Level of Service "C" should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new
developments.
FnvirnnmPnf
A number of environmental features are found in the Round Hill Community. The area is
dominated by two major natural features — Round Hill itself, which is west of Poorhouse Road
and a north/south ridgeline. The ridgeline, west of Winchester Crossing, is highly visible and
should be sensitively developed. Ponds, streams and floodplains are present and will need to be
protected with any future development. These natural areas provide an obvious location for a
trail system.
Historical Resources
Round Hill is one of the older settlements in Frederick County. The original village was located
at the base of Round Hill. The community today includes a small number of eighteenth and
nineteenth century dwellings. Approximately 30 late -nineteenth century and early -to -mid
twentieth century houses, primarily American Foursquares and I -houses are located in the area.
The mid -nineteenth century Round Hill Presbyterian Church and the early -twentieth century
Round Hill School (now used as a residence) are also located in this community. Protection of
these historic structures is encouraged.
Public Utilities
A fundamental issue for the development of Round Hill has been the provision of public water
and sewer. Development of the area is dependent on the availability of appropriate
infrastructure. The Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) has been extended to portions of
Round Hill a number of times in recent years. This plan does not recommend rezoning land
within the community for commercial development prior to the provision of central sewer and
water. It is also recommended that as land is developed over time and infrastructure extended,
that new developments further the goal of providing sewer to the core residential area of the
community.
The Round Hill area will ultimately be served by two wastewater treatment plants. The area
immediately west of Route 37, including Winchester Medical Center — West Campus and Round
Hill Crossing are served by the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. This facility has limited
capacity. Therefore, future development south of Route 50 and also west of Round Hill Crossing
will be served by the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. An expansion of the Parkins
-5-
DRAFT
Mill Plant has been designed and the expanded plant should be operational in 2009. Adequate
wastewater capacity to serve Round Hill should be available by 2010.
Water lines exist on Route 50 in the area of Round Hill Crossing and the Winchester Medical
Center — West site. These lines have sufficient capacity to provide the volume of water the
Round Hill area could demand. However, they do not have sufficient pressure. To provide
adequate pressure, existing line pressure would have to be boosted and water storage provided.
Public Facilities
Public facilities to serve new development in the Round Hill Community may be required in the
future. It would then be necessary for future development to provide a site for such public
facilities. The Round Hill Community Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company, in particular, is in
need of a site for a new facility.
Parks
The Round Hill Community has one neighborhood park, at the Round Hill Fire Station. A
children's play area is maintained by the Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation
and the fire company maintains a ball field. The scope of this park could be expanded, possibly
with the relocation of the fire station.
The campus commercial area should include a new park, ideally in the area of the large pond.
This park would be visible from Route 50 and could serve as the visual focal point of the entire
Round Hill Community. This park would be a passive recreational facility with trails, benches
and outdoor eating areas. It should be designed to serve both the workers on the campus as well
as the residents of Round Hill. A linear trail could also link this park to the smaller pond to the
north. Also, part of the park network will be the interconnected trail system as described in the
transportation section. Consideration should be given to establishing a trail along the ridgeline
between Route 50 and Route 522 and a trail at the southern edge of Round Hill to link to the
Green Circle in the City of Winchester.
-6-
Round Hill
Community
Land Use Plan
DRAFT
N
S
Feet
0 750 1,500
*V4 * Proposed Collector Roads
SWSA Expansion Request
Proposed Traffic Signal
^/ Streets
/'V railroads
Lakes
^'4^- Streams
Urban Development Area
SWSA
Q Parcels
Community Centers
Business
101 Park
Frederick County Dept of
Planning & Development
107 N Kent St
Winchester, VA 22601
www.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US
June 1996
Updated as of April 27, 2006
DRAFT REQUEST DEC 2006