Loading...
PC 05-16-07 Meeting AgendaFILE COPY AGENT a FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia May 16, 2007 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adoptthe Agenda for the meeting............................................................................ (no tab) 2) April 4, 2007 Minutes..................................................................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Rezoning #12-06 of Carriage Park, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 30.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, and 15.18 acres from MH1 (Mobile Home Community) District to RP District, totaling 45.44 acres, with proffers, for up to 249 single family attached homes (townhouses). The properties are located south and adjacent to Route 7, east and adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 55-A-161, 55 -A - 165A, 55-A-166, 55-A-167, 55 -A -167A, 55 -A -168,55-A-1 74A, 55-A-1 74B, and 55-A-1 74D. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B) PUBLIC MEETING 6) Waiver Request of The View Subdivision, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, of the Code of Frederick County, Subdivision of Land, Chapter 144, Article V Design Standards, § 144-17 Streets, (G) (1), Cul-de-sac, to allow cul-de-sac length of approximately 1,650 feet, 650 feet more than the allowed length of 1,000 feet, and to allow right-of-way radius of 55 feet, five feet more than the allowed 50 feet. The property is located on the western side of McDonald Road (Route 616) approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the intersection of McDonald Road and Wardensville Grade (Route 608), in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 51-A-116. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (C) 7) Waiver Requests and Subdivision #08-06 for Fairway Court, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for seven single family detached dwellings, as well as Waiver Request from Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV Supplementary Use Regulations, 165-37 Buffer and Screening Requirements and Waiver Request from Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article III General Provisions, 144-5 Interpretations and Appeals. The property is located on Oakridge Lane (Route 1201) at the intersection of Senseny Road and Oakridge Lane, and is identified with Property Identification Number 54-A-136, in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Mr. Suchicital................................................................................................................... (D) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 8) 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan Update Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (E) 9) UDA Ordinance Amendment — Business Overlay District Mrs. Edd ......................... (F) 10) Other C� s MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on April 4, 2007. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro 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; Philip E. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; and the City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Candice Perkins, Planner II; Bernard Suchicital, Planner 1; 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 presented an additional item from the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) dealing with height limitations of monuments. Chairman Wilmot said she would like to add this item under Number 8 on the agenda, for discussion by the Planning Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Ours, and unanimously passed to adopt the Planning Commission's agenda with the addition of Item Number 8, Planning Commission discussion of monument heights. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of the February 21, 2007 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2016 Minutes of April 4, 2007 ��, -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 03/22/07 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS had a lengthy discussion about the SIC Codes with Mr. Patrick Barker, Executive Director for the Economic Development Commission. Commissioner Unger said that Mr. Barker detailed some of the problems relating with the SIC Codes and the DRRS will be doing some work on trying to get those codes updated. Transportation Committee — 03/26/07 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the subject of turning roads over to homeowners associations. He also reported that the bicycle plan is moving along nicely. Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee also discussed and finalized the revisions for the Rural Roadways Ranking System. Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) Commissioner Light reported that the CEA had an open house meeting at the home of Ms. Diane Kerns. He said that anyone who was interested in learning about or discussing conservation easements was encouraged to attend. He said there were four or five persons interested in the process. Also, Mr. Jeff Green spoke about his recent experience in placing his property into a conservation easement. City of Winchester Work Session Commissioner Unger reported that the City of Winchester held a work session and talked about ways to draw more business into Winchester. He said slides were shown of what they wanted buildings to look like. Commissioner Unger said the City was also concerned about providing sufficient housing and where to place low-income housing. He said they talked about placing housing over top of commercial strip malls. 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. Frederick County Planning Commission w w Page 2017 Minutes of April 4, 2007 EV �� ` -3 - PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan 417-06 of Crosspointe Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. to develop 547.37 acres for up to 1,578 single-family homes at Phase III build -out, and commercial uses. The properties are located in the Kernstown area, east and adjacent to Interstate 81, where VA Route 37 terminates. The properties are identified with P.I.N.s 75-A-89, 75 -A -89A, 75 -A -90,75 -A -91,75- A -92, 5 -A -90,75 -A -91,75- A-92, 75-A-94, 75-A-95, and 75-A-96 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the master development plan (MDP) for Crosspointe Center is a proposal to develop 574.37 acres on a tract of land rezoned in 2003 with proffers. Ms. Perkins said the site consists of 381.8 acres of RP -zoned land and 192.57 acres of B2 -zoned land. She stated that the development will consist of up to 1,578 single-family homes and 960,000 square feet ofcommercial uses and will be developed in three phases. Ms. Perkins noted that the parcels comprising the MDP are located within the boundaries of the South Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP); the parcels are also located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). She said a series of transportation improvements were proffered by the applicant at rezoning and she summarized those for the Commission. Those transportation proffers included: the realignment and extension of Tasker Road (Rt. 642); the extension of Route 37 in the form of Crosspointe Boulevard; the extension of Warrior Drive; the extension and realignment of Hillandale Lane; and modification of the north bound I-81 interchange ramps. At this point in her report, Ms. Perkins pointed out the outstanding issues remaining with the MDP. She said that Proffer 3.3 stated that a comprehensive sign plan would be presented as part of the MDP submission for approval; the applicant has only provided a statement on Sheet 2 regarding commercial and residential signage within the development. Ms. Perkins said the sign specifications provided by the applicant are not adequate and a complete sign package with sign details needs to be provided to implement this proffer. Ms. Perkins said the second issue involves a parcel owned by Glaize Developments, Inc. (PIN 75-4-2), which has not been included in this MDP; she said the property is technically shown under relocated Tasker Road, but the parcel number has not been included in the project summary. Third, Ms. Perkins stated that Proffer 16.2 stated that nine acres would be dedicated to Frederick County for the placement of government services; she said the location of the nine acres should be shown on the MDP. Additionally, Ms. Perkins pointed out the absence of the road detail for Route 37. Furthermore, she noted there were a number of outstanding agency comments from VDOT, Public Works, and GIS, which will need to be resolved, including approvals from the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), and VDOT, before the MDP could be administratively approved. Ms. Perkins specifically referred to some of the transportation issues, other than the aspects currently under review by FHA and the CTB, which were located at the intersections of Crosspointe Blvd. and Tasker Road; and at Crosspointe Blvd. and Warrior Drive. Regarding Crosspointe and Tasker, she said the interim section of Tasker Road is shown with an at -grade crossing at Crosspointe Blvd., while the ultimate design for this intersection shows a separated intersection. At this time, it is unclear if the applicant intends to build the ultimate section of Tasker or only the interim. She said the applicant should be insuring the bridge over Tasker Road at this intersection with Phase II of the development. Regarding the intersection of Crosspointe and Warrior, she said the intersection is shown as an at -grade intersection. In the future, if this road is converted into Route 37, this intersection would need to be bridged to produce a grade -separated intersection. She said the applicant should demonstrate the constructability of this improvement. In addition, she said the road detail for Crosspointe Blvd. on Sheet 3 shows Phase II and III with a 110 -foot right-of-way, but does not appear to make any commitment to provide any shoulders or grading. She said the applicant should be prepared to address what the ultimate section will be. Frederick County Planning Commission 0y j,� Page 2018 Minutes of April 4, 2007 P 1. r . In,, Fri -4- Ms. Perkins pointed out that after review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, the MDP can not be administratively approved until the applicant has received approvals from the FHA and the CTB, and has satisfied VDOT. Mr. John H. Foote, P.C., of Walsh, Colucci, Stackhouse, Emrich & Lubeley, came forward to represent Glaize Developments, Inc. and Crosspointe Center. Mr. Foote said with the exception of the items specifically mentioned by the staff, the MDP is in conformance with the proffers and the ordinance requirements. He said they have been engaged in discussions with VDOT and the applicant's engineers are satisfied that the interim and ultimate conditions at Tasker relocated can be well satisfied. Similarly, he said the location of Warrior and Crosspointe is a matter that will ultimately be resolved by final engineering and not by the conceptual MDP. Mr. Foote said it was his understanding that VDOT is satisfied that they can use the MDP to accomplish the goals that were set forth when the project started. He noted that they ultimately need VDOT's approval for any road constructed at the project and they also need to get approval from the FHA because ofthe improvements that will be needed to the interstate itself. He said they believe this conceptual plan satisfies the issues that have been raised with respect to the roads mentioned. Mr. Foote said they had agreed to provide 110 feet of right-of- way for Route 37 and to design and build the roads according to the standard necessary. Mr_ Foote next addressed the issue of the sign plan. Mr. Foote said they have provided information regarding signage and because of the way the proffers are written, they will have to do a unified program through this development. He said the provision of a comprehensive sign package, before they have users for the property, will create constraints if presented at this time. Mr. Foote said the applicant has submitted they will do monument signage; overall project standards will be incorporated, and signage will be covered under the restrictive covenants. With respect to Proffer 16.2, the nine acres of dedicated property, Mr. Foote said there must be a mutually-identified location between the applicant and Frederick County; he said the applicant can not show something on the plan that has not yet been identified by both parties. Mr. Foote said the applicant has just recently received a letter, in conformance with the proffer, which permits the Board to extend their three-year period by an additional two years, by asking for the right to do so, while they are determining what they are going to put on the site and where. Mr. Foote said there is no reason or no ability at this time to identify the property that is to be dedicated to the Board. Mr. Foote said the guarantee is there and the Board of Supervisors is fully aware. The applicant is obligated to make the dedication within 30 days of the Board's written request of an identified area. The Planning Commission discussed with Mr. Foote the applicant's intentions for signage throughout the development. They also discussed the dedication of the unspecified nine acres to the County for a public use site. In addition, they talked about the ability, with the approval of Crosspointe, to bring Warrior Drive up to Route 37, with commitments for construction. Recognizing that this property borders the Opequon Creek, Commissioner Light mentioned that some years ago, the Parks and Recreation Department discussed the possibility for a Parks and Recreation Opequon Watershed Recreational Use Agreement and the creation of a linear trail. He asked if the applicant might consider a dedication to Frederick County, under the management of the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department, instead of the HOA. Mr. Light believed the applicant could successfully achieve the dedication under the current proffers and the restrictive covenants. Mr. Scott Alexander, VDOT's Assistant Residency Administrator to Edinburg, agreed with the staff's comments about the need for additional road detail on Route 37; however, he believed the overall plan was in good shape and that PHR&A had an understanding of what VDOT's concerns were. Frederick County Planning CommissionPage 2019 Minutes of April 4, 2007 no{ (1� �l u U eJ -5 - Commission members had questions for VDOT about whether the work that will be taking place by this developer will not ultimately have to be redesigned and reconstructed at a tremendous waste of money. They asked what VDOT has been planning in terms of a Warrior Road and Route 37 interchange, the grading, the bridging, and right-of-way. They asked if VDOT was comfortable that the amount of money being spent by tills developer was being spent in the best possible fashion for future transportation endeavors. Mr. Alexander replied that the app'licant's plan generally conforms to the initial Route 37 plans done a few years ago, with the exception of the new Warrior Drive interchange. He said the Warrior Drive interchange required VDOT to revisit the previous plans to ascertain whether it could be included in the ultimate construction of Route 37. Mr. Alexander said VDOT has a good idea about where they want this to go and how they want to get there, he believed this was a good first step. Commissioners talked about the massive road changes that would need to take place and how it would affect normal traffic flow. They questioned Mr. Alexander about whether the transportation improvements were tied to the project's phasing in such a way that the next phase of development cannot commence until the transportation issues in the previous phase had been satisfied. Mr. Alexander believed there were enough contingencies within the proffers to prevent the developers from continuing on to another phase of development without approvals from VDOT or the County. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Alexander about the issues raised by the staff. Mr. Alexander said that VDOT's concurrence with the plan must include a caveat stating that the FHA and the CTB have agreed on the interchange improvements. He said that they are currently working through the process and are in their second submittal with the interchange modifications; he remained optimistic that VDOT would receive those comments by this summer. Mr. Patrick Sowers of PHR&A came forward to address the staff's comment regarding the missing parcel, PIN 75-4-2, owned by Glaize Developments, Inc. Mr. Sowers pointed out a reference to the parcel on Sheet #3 of the MDP; he noted this parcel was not included in the original Rezoning # 13-03. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Ours believed this project was critically important to the transportation improvements in southeastern Frederick County and he was satisfied this development will give the County what it needs, especially in the overall plan of making Warrior Drive and Tasker Road work, and ultimately providing the foothold for the expansion of Route 37. Other Commissioner agreed and supported the proposal. Commissioner Morris moved for approval of MDP #17-06 of Crosspointe Center with the caveat that an administratively -approved sign package accompany the MDP and that the County takes action on designating the nine -acre site. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #17-06 of Crosspointe Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. to develop 381.8 acres of RP -zoned land with up to 1,578 single-family homes and 192.57 acres of 132 -zoned land with 960,000 square feet of commercial uses, to be developed in three phases, with the following two caveats: 1) an administratively -approved comprehensive sign plan shall accompany the approved MDP; and, 2) the County shall take action on identifying the nine -acres for a government services site. (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Mohn were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2020 Minutes of April 4, 2007 Do NO WE UPDATE ON THE SHENANDOAH DEVELOPMENT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 906-00 Action - No Action Required Planner Bernard Suchicital provided the Planning Commission with an update of the Shenandoah project, an age -restricted community, which was approved on May 1, 2001, and surrounds Lake Frede.^:ck o!�of Front Royal Pike. Mr. Suchicital said the applicant is proposing some minor adjustments to the plan which can be handled administratively and no action is required by the Planning Commission. Mr. Suchicital reported that this 926 -acre project will include a village retail center, a two -acre fire and rescue site, continued public access to Lake Frederick, an indoor recreation facility, and the maximum build -out for the site will still remain at its original 2,130 units of mixed-use residential. He reported an increase of 40 additional units to the housing total, which will still meet the maximum allowed units. Other changes include a shifting of the phase lines and a slight modification to the internal neighborhood residential streets. Mr. Suchicital continued, stating that since the MDP's initial approval, the applicant has built a new wastewater treatment plant, has extended water lines to the property, and has had a total of 90 residential building permits issued to date_ No questions or issues of concern were raised by the Commission. No action was required by the Commission for this update item. DISCUSSION Proposed amendments to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 165, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance) District; specifically, the introduction of Age -Restricted, Multi -Family housing. No Action Required Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. has initiated a request for a text amendment to the county code to enable age -restricted multi -family housing. Ms. Eddy explained that the text amendment would allow a new housing type in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. She said the requested change is based on a desire to incorporate elevators in a cost-effective manner by permitting taller buildings with more units per building than allowed' the garden apartment housing type. Ms. Eddy next proceeded to explain the differences between the proposed new housing type, age -restricted multi- family housing, and the existing housing type, garden apartments. Ms. Eddy reported that this item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting on February 22, 2007, and the DRRS was supportive of the applicant's proffered age -restricted version of the text amendment; however, they had a few modifications. She noted that the DRRS's main concern was with parking and they endorsed more parking per unit (2.0 spaces per unit) than the applicant had originally suggested (1.0-1.5 spaces per unit depending on the site of the unit). She said the DRRS was supportive of the maximum height of 60 feet, but wanted to limit the number of habitable floors to four. Ms. Eddy said the DRRS was supportive of a tall building with a well-designed roof line; however, they did not want to see the "packing -in" of floors with a flat roof on top. Commissioner Ours said the only real concern he would have is when a structure of this type would be built adj acent to an existing single-family neighborhood. He asked the staff if the buffers as specified would be adequate to deal with concerns from adjoining landowners. Ms. Eddy replied that the viewshed issue Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2021 Minutes of April 4, 2007 N was discussed by the DRRS and was part of the reason why staff suggested the possibility of shifting this new housing type to the "neighborhood villages" and "urban centers." She said it would give the County some control on where this housing type could be located, as opposed to the applicant's proposal that it could be located in "any proffered age -restricted development." Commissioner Oates was also concerned about compatibility with existing neighborhoods. He said a 60 -foot structure at Cedar Meadows, for example, would lookout of place. Commissioner Oates said that since there are only eight existing subdivisions that could seek to do this housing type, he felt comfortable with it. He pointed out that the Commission will have an opportunity during the rezoning process to determine if the location and height were compatible. Commissioner Unger said he wouldn't have a problem with habitable space on a fifth floor as long as the structure didn't exceed the 60 -foot limit. Ms. Eddy said the concern at the DRRS was avoiding a "flat -roof' look. She said the DRRS was trying to encourage a well-designed roof. Commissioner Manuel supported the text amendment completely and he believed it was a good way to conserve land. He commented that this is only one more floor than is currently allowed. Commissioner Light stated that he saw one of the proposed structures and didn't care for the way it looked. He suggested keeping the proposed housing type in the Urban Development Areas where it cannot be placed near a single-family home. Chairman Wilmot suggested another approach which had been discussed by the DRRS and that was making this available through a conditional use permit. She said this would allow the county to customize the housing type to fit the land and the environment. Commissioner Light said he would support the use of a conditional use permit for this housing type. Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., came forward to address the Commission. Mr. Sowers stated that the main premise behind this text amendment stemmed from the typical three-story structure with a center stairwell. With only 16 units per building, it is not economically feasible to serve this building with an elevator system. Mr. Sowers said they were bringing this forward in proffered age - restricted developments as a way to cater to the elderly population. Mr. Sowers explained that the active age - restricted development typically has residents in their late 50s and early 60s. As this community ages into their 70s, they look at downsizing even more, which identifies a need for this type of housing. It is more accessible for those who have trouble climbing steps. He further explained that these elderly persons could continue living in their same familiar neighborhood, even if they do need to downsize. Mr. Sowers said the four habitable floors create no issues with him or his client; the 60 -foot comes from being able to accommodate the pitched roof. Mr. Sowers next addressed the parking standards. Mr. Sowers said this housing type will cater to persons who are in their mid 70s, not the 55 to 58 age category. Mr. Sowers said that based on previous experience constructing this type of housing in more urban settings, his client said that parking is typically in the range of a '/Z space per unit to one space per unit. Mr. Sowers said that considering the more rural setting of Frederick County and taking into account the age of the typical user of this particular use, he was proposing parking at 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit. Mr. Sowers believed the two spaces per unit recommended by the DRRS was a bit high; he commented that two spaces per unit would be approximately 90% of the parking that would be required if it were non -age -restricted. Mr. Sowers said the other concern raised by the DRRS was the setback from a roadway, which is currently 60 feet; he said his original proposal was for 35 feet, which is equivalent to the garden apartment standards. He said the fear in terms of having large-scale parking and a large setback is a building set too far from the roadway with a sea of parking in the front. He said it doesn't lend itself towards creating a walkable environment. Furthermore, there were concerns with creating large amounts of impervious surface area for unnecessary parking, and additional issues with water runoff. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 2007 Page 2022 Commission members agreed that parking at two spaces per unit was probably too high. They doubted this age group would have two vehicles per unit and suggested some may not even have one vehicle. They expressed concern about creating a large area of impervious surface that wasn't needed and the water runoff that would result. No action was needed by the Commission at this time. The staff stated they would forward the Commission's comments to the Board. OTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING MONUMENT HEIGHTS Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that staff has recently heard some concerns about the heights of monuments. Ms. Eddy said that monuments are not defined in the zoning ordinance and, therefore, Webster's dictionary was consulted for a definition. She next read the definition of a monument from Webster's dictionary, as follows: "monument — a lasting evidence or reminder of someone or something noble; a memorial stone or building erected in remembrance of a person or event." Ms. Eddy explained that monuments are one of the structures that are exempt from the height restrictions of the underlying zoning district in which they are located, Supplemental Regulations, Section 165-24. She said the height limit in most of the zoning districts is 35 feet and 60 feet in the industrial zones. Ms. Eddy said that other structures which are exempt include: barns and silos, church spires, church towers, etc. Ms. Eddy said a discussion of monument heights took place at the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) on March 22, 2007. She said the DRRS believed the height of monuments should be the same as the underlying district; they couldn't see a reason why monuments warranted an exception from the height restrictions of their particular district. Ms. Eddy said the DRRS endorsed a text amendment to the zoning ordinance that removes monuments from Section 165-24, Exceptions. Commissioner Morris asked what prompted the review of monument heights. Commissioner Oates said the definition of monuments is very open-ended; he said the county has no control over what is erected and this could be a way of preventing abuse. He also believed that a 35 -foot height should be sufficient to accommodate any monument. Other Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Ours suggested the possibility of a conditional use permit for monuments, similar to what is used for cell towers. No other issues were raised and the Commission generally supported the staffs proposal and the DRRS's recommendation for a text amendment to remove monuments from Section 165-24, Exceptions. No action was needed by the Commission at this time. The staff stated they would forward the Commission's comments to the Board. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 2007 Page 2023 ADJOURNMENT vote. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. by a unanimous Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission r` Page 2024 Minutes of April 4, 2007 00 D 4 � UU Vr i �� REZONING APPLICATION #12-06 CARRIAGE PARK Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: April 30, 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. Planning Commission: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Reviewed November 1, 2006 March 21, 2007 April 18, 2007 May 16, 2007 June 13, 2007 Action Tabled by Planning Commission Tabled at request of Applicant Tabled by Planning Commission Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 30.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, and 15.18 acres from MHl (Mobile Home Community) District to RP District, totaling 45.44 acres, with proffers, for up to 249 single family attached townhouses. (Previously the proposal wasfor 165 attached and detached single family homes). LOCATION: The properties are located south and adjacent to Route 7, east and adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55-A-161, 55 -A -165A, 55-A-166, 55-A-167, 55 -A -167A, 55-A-168, 55 -A -174A, 55 -A -174B, and 55 -A -174D PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District and MH1 (Mobile Home Community) District PRESENT USE: Mobile Home Community, residential, and vacant. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential and Agricultural East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential West: MH1 (Mobile Home Community) Use: Mobile Home Community Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 2. PROPOSED USES: Up to 249 single family attached townhouses (45.44 acres @ 5.5 units per acre). (Previously the proposal was for 165 attached and detached single family homes). REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: I have reviewed your proffer statement dated August 10, 2006 and offer the following comments: With the volume of traffic currently utilizing Route 7, existing access points and the additional traffic generated by this site, the Residency feels access to this site provided through the Valley Mill Connector with no direct connection to Route 7 is needed. Item 12.7: The Residency suggests the wording be clarified on this proffer to reflect construction within 180 days of written request by VDOT. We feel this would ensure the installation of the traffic signal based on traffic conditions. Item 12.11: Residency suggests more flexibility should be provided to the County to meet overall transportation needs in this area of the County. The applicant has been open to addressing the needs of the transportation issues arising from this proposed development. However, we are concerned that within the context of the proffers, the desire of the Residency and County to connect this subdivision to Route 7 via the Valley Mill Road Relocation, while mentioned, it does not appear to be a priority. The application is requesting full build -out regardless of completing the connection to Valley Mill Road. Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT provided revised comments (see attached) dated September 29, 2006. Please see attached revised comments dated February 23, 2007from Mr. Lloyd Ingram, VDOT. Fire Marshal: Municipal water supplies for firefighting shall meet the requirements of Frederick County Code Section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company: OK. Note: Area Fire & Rescue Company is Greenwood Volunteer Fire & Rescue Co. Why no access off of Valley Mill Road? Public Works Department: Refer to Summary and Justification: The summary references proposed single family residential development of 165 dwellings. This number does not correspond to the generalized development plan which indicates 161 dwellings. 2. Refer to Site Suitability: The table summarizing environmental features indicates no wetlands and no steep slopes. Based on our site visit and review of applicable topographic surveys, it appears that both of these conclusions are incorrect. A wetlands study should be performed prior to the master development plan submittal with copies furnished to the Corps of Engineers for their review and comment. Also, a more detailed topographic survey should be performed to allow the delineation of the steep slope areas. 3. Refer to Traffic: The discussion states that "The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) indicates that the study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions". Actually, the TIA does reach the above conclusion assuming that the referenced intersection improvements are made along Route 7. Currently, the cross-over at the intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7 is not adequate to accommodate the U-turn traffic anticipated from the proposed development. Indicate what guarantees the applicant will offer to ensure that these intersection improvements will be made prior to initiating construction on this site. 4. Refer to Site Drainage: The discussion indicates that low impact development techniques.... will mitigate adverse stormwater discharge impacts. Elaborate on what is meant by low impact development techniques as applied to this proposed site development. It appears that the proposed development will Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 3 clear a majority of the wooded areas and strip a majority of the topsoil areas. 5. Refer to Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The statement is made that "consideration of curbside pick-up would be an improvement to solid waste issues associated with increased dumpster use in the County". This statement is not satisfactory. Existing dumpster sites in Frederick County are currently at capacity and will not accommodate new residential development. Therefore, any new development will be required via the Homeowners' Association or other means to provide curbside trash pickup. This function will not be an option; rather it will be a requirement. This statement should be corrected accordingly and revised in the Proffer Statement, Paragraph 9.2 iii (Delete "if they decide to use a commercial collection company.") 6. Refer to Proffer Statement, paragraph 12.1: The statement indicates that the applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. Indicate if this offer extends to improvements at/on the Route 7 intersection related to Valley Mill Road or possibly Haggerty Drive. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: The first item of concern is the application of a submeter for sewer flows. Based on the number of dwellings, it would seem to be an inappropriate way of measuring wastewater flows. We would like to see more detail relative to the design/construction of such a submeter if it would be acceptable. Sanitation Authority: The Opequon Water Reclamation Facility has sufficient capacity to accept flows from this development. The eight -inch water line through Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park might not provide the added demands of this project's 165 units. The developer will probably need to extend the water line on Valley Mill Road and connect it to this project. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection as long as sufficient public water and sewer service can be provided. Department of Parks & Recreation: Plan appears to offer appropriate monetary proffer to offset this development will have on the parks and recreational services provided by Frederick County. It is assumed that recreational and open space requirements will be addressed in future plans to be reviewed. The Parks and Recreation Department would also like to see a detailed pedestrian/bicycle trails plan which offers an internal network and provides connection to existing and future adjacent development. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 120 single family units will yield 11 high school students, nine middle school students and 25 elementary school students. The 90 townhouses will yield ten high school students, 11 middle school students, and 28 elementary school students for a total of 94 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. Rezoning 412-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 4 Winchester Regional Airport: Whale the proposed development lies within the airport's Part 77 surfaces and airspace, it appears that the proposed site plan should not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. However, residents in this area could experience fly over noise from aircraft arriving and departing the Winchester Airport from the northeast. Frederick County Attorney: It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. While the Generalized Development Plan contains few details, nevertheless the proffer statement should include a proffer that provides that development shall occur in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development Plan. 2. In Proffer 1.1 it is provided that the residential development shall not exceed 165 dwelling units. However, the GDP provides for atotal of only 161 dwelling units. 3. The staff should determine whether the Site Access Point, the Interparcel Connection Point, and the Emergency Access Point are located with sufficient detail on the GDPA. With respect to Proffer 12.3, the staff should determine whether the interparcel connector location is appropriate, given any existing or planned streets on the adjoining parcel. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Mitchell has been provided with the latestproffer statement submitted on February 23,200 7 His comments are pending. _Historic Resources Advisory Board: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of June 20, 2006. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, as well as information provided by the applicant. The HRAB felt that the proffers associated with historic preservationand recognition was adequate, but made three recommendations which included: 0 Protect natural vegetation along Rt. 7 and Valley Mill Rd. to the greatest extent possible. • The backyard of the single family lots abutting the historical Stafford property need a vegetative protection buffer. • Install a roadside interpretive site which the HRAB decided would be more useful along Valley Mill Rd. as compared to placing it along Rt. 7. These recommendations made by the HRAB were addressed at the August 15, 2006 meeting. The HRAB felt that the rezoning application had thoroughly addressed their comments and recommended that this proposal move forward since there were no further issues.. Planning_Department: Please see attached letter dated August 3, 2006 froth Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 5 Planning & Zoning: The Applicant has submitted a revised Proffer Statement dated January 25, 2007. The Generalized Development Plan which is apart of the Proffer Statement has also been modified. The changes are relatively substantial and exceed the scope of what the Planning Commission discussed with the Applicant during the Planning Commission's meeting on November 1, 2006. Staff has attempted to identify the changes to the Proffer Statement and GDP within the staff report. 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the parcels for which the rezoning is being requested as being zoned a combination of A-1 Agricultural and MH Mobile Home zoning classifications. The County's A-1 and A-2 agricultural zoning districts were 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 (Rural Areas) District. The Mobile Home designation encompasses the original boundaries of the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. The most recent Site Plan for the development of the remaining areas of the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park was approved by the County on July 30, 1987. In 2005, a Boundary Line Adjustment Plat was approved by the County that reorganized the parcels that make up this rezoning request. Parcels 55-A-161, 55 -A -165A, 55-A-166, 55-A-167, 55 -A -167A, 55 -A -174A maintained the RA zoning classification. Parcels 55-A-168 and 55 -A -174D maintained the MH1 zoning classification. Parcel 55 -A -174A contains both the MH1 and RA zoning classification. The approval of this rezoning request would place all of the properties entirely into the RP zoning classification. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-11 Land Use The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use map designates the general area in which the Carriage Place property is located for residential land uses. Rezoning # 12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 6 The average overall residential density of the Urban Development Area should not exceed three units per acre. More specifically, the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that properties which contain less than one hundred acres but more than ten acres should not exceed 5.5 units per acre. With the more urban densities envisioned for development in the UDA, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that special effort is made to provide the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the desired land uses and densities. As land is developed in the eastern portion of the Urban Development Area, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the preservation of the stream valleys as environmental open space as an important goal that contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. The goals of the Comprehensive Plan also include protecting the natural environment from damage due to development activity, avoiding development in environmentally sensitive areas, and the identification and protection of important natural resources. A balanced approach to providing necessary transportation infrastructure in the area of the project and promoting the protection of sensitive environmental areas and features is warranted. 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). Route 7 is an arterial road whose character should be fully recognized in any rezoning application. Route 7 is characterized with high volumes of traffic traveling at rates of speed in excess of 55 miles per hour. Access management should be a key consideration. Valley Mill Road is identified as an improved major collector road in the County's Eastern Road Plan. In addition, Valley Mill Road is shown as being relocated to a new location and alignment. In 2005, modifications to the County's Eastern Road Plan occurred in the vicinity of this project. The modifications were completed in recognition of the changing traffic patterns in the area, the recently approved Haggerty project which provided for a new Spine Road parallel to future Route 37, and the need to avoid the historically and environmentally sensitive areas in the vicinity of the one lane bridge over Abrams Creek. Valley Mill Road is designated as a major collector road that traverses south of its existing location, providing a new crossing of Abram's Creek, and connecting with the Haggerty Spine Road in the vicinity of future Route 37. Ultimately, a connection will be made to Route 7 at the location previously determined as part of the Haggerty project, directly opposite the future on and off ramps of future Route 37. This location is immediately west of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Facility. This approach furthers access management goals along Route 7. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 7 New development in the Urban Development Area should only be approved when roads and other infrastructure with sufficient capacity have been provided. The Comprehensive Plan identifies that a level of service "C" should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments and that traffic analysis should be provided by the applicants to ensure that needed road improvements are identified in order to maintain or improve upon the level of service. In some cases, new development may need to contribute to the provision, construction, or improvement of roads that are not adjacent to the development. In such cases, developments should contribute their fair share costs of road improvements needed to accommodate the traffic generated by a particular development. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The Carriage Park site has been identified as a site typical of the Martinsburg Shale Region with steeply eroded side slopes and reasonably level plain areas. This is an accurate identification that presents challenges when planning the development program for this property. Ash Hollow Run parallels Route 7 along the entire frontage of the property. Abram's Creek forms a portion of the eastern boundary of the property. A pond is located central to the property. These features and their associated slopes, natural drainage ways, and floodplains warrant particular attention and may also provide an opportunity for enhanced protection of the riparian corridor. The site is predominantly heavily wooded. The area of this site in floodplain, wetlands, ponds, streams and steep slopes has not been entirely identified in the application. By current County definition, this project contains relatively small areas of steep slopes. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the preservation of the stream valleys as environmental open space as an important goal that contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. The application proposes development of a greater intensity in the reasonably level wooded areas and offers areas that will be set aside for environmental and open space purposes. The revised road layout proposes access to the site directly from Route 7 immediately west of Abrams Creek. Previously the road layout included access to the site from Valley Mill Road via a crossing ofAbram's Creek and its associated floodplain, in an area that contained the steepest slopes on the property. As proposed, the projects only access road includes the crossing of Ash Hollow Run. Protection of the integrity of the pond, environmental open spaces, and the riparian areas along Abram's Creek and Ash Hollow Run, especially during the construction phases, remain a concern and should be a greater consideration of this application and as part of the proffer statement. To help achieve this, the location of the limits of disturbance could be extended beyond the proposed 100'proffered natural vegetative buffer to cover the protection of the identified environmental features, including the floodplain. Presently, the limits of disturbance do not entirely cover the creeks and their associated floodplain. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 8 Initially, the Applicant provided for a 15 foot no cut vegetative buffer along the southern portion of the project boundary with Valley Mill Farm which was shown on the GDP. A portion of this proposed buffer was shown on the GDP in a location where no vegetation existed. As noted, current County Ordinance recognizes that a 50 foot woodland strip could be utilized as a desirable and effective alternative to typical buffer and screening standards. It should be recognized that no buffer and screening requirements exist between the proposed development and the property to the southeast, Valley Mill Farm. The Applicant has the ability to address this issue in the Proffer Statement. The revised Proffer Statement and GDP provides no consideration for buffering the adjacentproperties in particular the property to the south east as recommended by the HRAB. The relocation of the road directly adjacent to this property line further eliminates the ability to buffer the adjacent property from the proposed development. It would be appropriate for the application to more thoroughly address the preservation of the existing tree lines and wooded areas as a desirable buffer to the surrounding properties along with the location and composition of any new buffer areas. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The latest Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this project, dated February 23, 2007, was prepared as an addendum to the September 8, 2006 TIA. The initial TIA projected that the development of 165 residential units (53 single family detached and 94 single family attached residential units) would generate 1,348 vehicle trips per day. The new TIA projects that the development of 240 single family attached townhouse units would generate 2,088 vehicle trips per day. The report was developed with access to the site provided via a signalized site driveway along the south side of Route 7. The TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Carriage Park application are acceptable and manageable, assuming suggested improvements are in place. Suggested improvements include the signalization of the intersection of the site access road with Route 7. The TIA identifies that this intersection will function at an unacceptable level of service without the suggested improvements. Previously, access to the project was being provided via a single site driveway onto existing Valley Mill Road, Route 659, immediately south of Valley Mill Road's intersection with Route 7. Transportation Program. The Generalized Development Plan for Carriage Park delineates the general public road system that will serve the residential development. This consists of one road that runs from Route 7 to the southern corner of the property directly adjacent and parallel to the southeastern property line. This provides the ability to connect to the property to the southwest of the site. TheApplicant has proffered that this road will be constructed as a two lane rural undivided collector roadway on a 50 foot right of way. Further, that no direct lot access shall be permitted on the road. No other internal streets have been identified in the GDP and no public inter parcel connections to the adjacent property to the west are proposed Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 9 Background. Initially, the applicant designed the public road system with on site access to and from Carriage Park via Route 7. Establishment of a new entrance onto Route 7 was strongly discouraged. Due to significant concerns with this approach, the applicant redesigned the road system. The revised road system presented to the Planning Commission in November provided for primary access from existing Valley Mill Road, immediately south of its intersection with Route 7, and north of the existing one lane bridge crossing of Abrams Creek. The existing section of Valley Mill Road in this area was identified as being insufficient to accommodate the traffic from this, and adjacent projects, as was the existing intersection on Route 7 without significant improvements and environmental impact. As noted previously, the Comprehensive Plan promotes an effort to enhance and relocate Valley Mill Road so that it serves as a major collector road. This enhancement will provide for a more efficient transportation network that also minimizes environmental and cultural impacts. Valley Mill Road is designated as a major collector road that traverses south of its existing location, provides a new crossing of Abram's Creek, and connects with the Haggerty Spine Road in the vicinity of future Route 37. Ultimately, a connection will be made to Route 7 at the location previously determined as part of the Haggerty project, directly opposite the future on and off ramps of future Route 37. Staff maintains that all efforts should be made to implement the Comprehensive Plan and make a safer and more efficient use of Valley Mill Road, in the manner identified in the Comprehensive Plan, as the primary access route to the development. Since the Planning Commission's Public Hearing on this project, Staff, VDOT, and the Applicant's representative, who also represents two other projects in this general area, have discussed the Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of this project in great detail. A request to revise the Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of Valley Mill Road was submitted but not pursued. Due to the complex nature of the transportation issues in this area it was recognized that a detailed traffic analysis which covers a broader area than the individual site TIA's would be extremely valuable. The revised Proffer Statement and GDP propose a relocated alignment for the future Route 37 on/off ramp. The Applicant asserts that the location of the Route 37 ramps west of Route 7's crossing ofAbram's Creek is dictated by minimum curve radius standards which would preclude this ramp from aligning with existing Valley Mill Road. VDOT has reviewed this revised location and expressed concerns. Frederick County has not endorsed this realignment. Any relocation of this major intersection should be carefully considered. As previously noted, the realignment to this location would impact additional properties and residences on the north side of Route 7that were notpreviously identified as being impacted by the construction of Route 37. The Applicant's assertion that their proposal is better without being willing to fully study would not justify impacting additional homeowners for this ramp configuration. Please see additional comments provide by VDOT, dated March 7 regarding this issue. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 10 It should be recognized that the spacing of the future on and off ramps on both the west and east sides of future Route 37 are approximately the same distance from future Route 37, approximately 600 feet. The previously approved Haggerty Spine Road intersects directly across from the future Route 37 on/off ramp east of future Route 37. The Carriage Place application does not address the intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7 which is located approximately 500 feet east of the proposed signalized intersection. This intersection and existing crossover would remain in place. Please refer to the comments provided by VDOT on February 23, 2007 regarding this issue. Existing Route 659, Burnt Factory Road, located approximately 400 feet west of the proposed signalized intersection should also be a consideration. If it is ultimately determined that the approach proposed by the Applicant is acceptable, the applicant should guarantee the improvements to the intersection of the site driveway and Route 7 occur in a manner thatfully enables the implementation of the future signalization of the Route 37southbound ramps, including vertical and horizontal designs and all turning movements. The Applicant's proffer states that the said entrance and signal shall be designed and constructed with improvements as necessary on Route 7 to accommodate the future construction of the Route 37 ramp as depicted on the GDP. The build out lane geometry shown in the TIA appears to be missing a north bound through lane on the site driveway and a left turn lane from the eastbound Route 7 on to the Route 37 on ramp. The Proffer Statement, GDP, and TIA should be clearly coordinated to complete the ultimate improvements to this intersection to accommodate the Route 37 ramps. The left turn lane is important when considering vehicles making an undesirable u -turn movement on Route 7. This condition presently exists at the Valley Mill Road crossover and is exacerbated by vehicle trips from the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park who don't have the benefit of an alternative way in and out of their development, and by trips utilizing Burnt Factory Road. Consideration should also be given to additional traffic that may ultimately use the proposed road as a collector to gain access to Route 7. Presently, only the trips generated from the actual development, 2088, have been considered in the TIA and accounted for in the build -out lane geometry which achieves a level of service C. The initial TIA. included an additional 3850 trips utilizing Valley Mill Road. The inclusion of additional trips into this intersection would likely have an impact on the level of service of this intersection. As an alternative to implementing the construction of the road network identified in the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant had previously proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000 per single family detached residential unit and $3,000 per single family attached townhouse unit for improvements in the general vicinity of the project, including the connection from this project to Valley Mill Road to the south, and the relocation of Valley Mill Road. This proffered contribution has been eliminated from the Proffer Statement. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 11 It should be evaluated whether the transportation improvements proffered by the Applicant are adequate to address the impacts generated by this rezoning request and will facilitate the long range transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The road layout provides the potential for interparcel connection to the properly to the south. An emergency access interparcel connection is proposed with the adjacent Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. However, this is proposed as a private emergency connection. Inter -parcel connectivity of the public street system is a requirement of the zoning Ordinance and should be extended to the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. Consideration should be given to enabling a public road connection to the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park in the general location of the existing street network. Control of this access point should be at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors. Omitted from the transportation program are any additional accommodations for pedestrian circulation and potential multiuse trails that would provide access internal to the project and ultimately to the adjacent residential developments. The comments offered by the Department of Parks and Recreation relating to this effort have not been addressed. In general, the general transportation program does not promote an approach that furthers the transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Sewer and Water The Carriage Place rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 32,200 gallons per day of water usage and approximately 32,200 gallons per day of wastewater. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester ServiceAuthority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The comment provided by the Frederick County Public Schools should be carefully considered when evaluating the application. The schools evaluation anticipated that the proposed 120 single family units will yield 11 high school students, nine middle school students and 25 elementary school students_ The 90 townhouses will yield ten high school students, 1 I middle school students, and 28 elementary school students for a total of 94 new students upon build -out. The revised housing type would generate at the full allowable density would generate the same Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 12 amount Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Recent planning efforts have identified that the 11"' elementary school opened in the fall of 2006 opened above its programmed capacity. This is based upon the transfer of students currently enrolled in area schools that exceed programmed capacities and the projected build out and occupancy of previously approved residential projects in the UDA. The 12"' elementary school has been identified in the current Capital Improvements Plan for this general area of the UDA. However, no site has been located or construction initiated to address the needs of additional students generated in this area of the UDA. The Frederick County Development Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building have been calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The impacts associated with entirely residential projects are fixed at $23,290.00 for single family detached residential dwellings and $17,732 for single family attached residential dwellings. This application addresses community facility impacts and needs by proffering a payment in the amount of $17, 732forsinglefamily attached residential dwellings to mitigate the impact to the identified communityfacilities. For your information, the following is the breakdown of the projected impacts per dwelling unit for each capital facility taken from the Development Impact Model. For each single family attached unit: $528 for fire and rescue; $14,618 for schools: $1,634 for parks and recreation; $204 for library; $503 for public safety; and $245 foreg neral government; $17,732 for capital improvements No rezoning should be approved unless the net impacts on community facilities are positive, or if the negative impacts can be adequately addressed through proffers or some other means. A request for a rezoning may be turned down even though all fiscal impacts appear to be addressed (Comprehensive Plan 8-17). The comments relating to the impacts to the Frederick County Public Schools in this area of the Urban Development Area should be a significant consideration. Rezoning # 12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 13 5) Proffer Statement — Dated January 25, 2006 and Revised February 2, 2006, May 23, 2006, June 28, 2006, August 10, 2006, and September 12, 2006. Latest Revision Dated January 25, 2007. A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has provided a Generalized Development Plan for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of the street providing access to and through the project, residential land use areas, and open space areas within the Carriage Place development. The GDP may be utilized to a greater extent to address the sensitive environmental features on the property, the buffering of the adjacent residential uses, and the historic context of Berryville Canyon, among other things. B) Land Use The applicants have not proffered a limit to the total number of residential units. Based upon a maximum allowable density of 5.5 units per acre, a maximum yield of up to 249 single family attached townhouse units may be constructed. The applicant has committed to a phased introduction of the residential units over a minimum four year period with the potential for up to seventy five units per year (Previously, the commitment was over a minimum three year period). The Applicant has committed to not make application for more than 75 building permits in any twelve month period. This phased approach specifies that the date of final rezoning would commence the phasing of the issuance of building permits. The intent of phasing is to ensure a timed integration of new development in a manner that would enable the timely provision of the public facilities necessary to serve the new development. It may be more desirable to have the annual allocation occur on consecutive years following the approval of the master development plan for this project. This would be consistent with several other recently approved rezoning applications. Regardless of the phasing approach, the comments relating to the impacts to the Frederick County..Public Schools in this area of the Urban Development Area should be recognized. C) Transportation The applicant has proffered the signalization of the intersection of the site driveway and Route 7. The Applicant has also proffered to construct a two lane rural undivided collector roadway on a fifty foot right of way from the entrance to the southern property prior to issuance of the 125th building permit. Further, that no direct access shall be permitted on the said collector road. This project is located within the Urban DevelopmentArea and all roads should be built with an urban typical section. Sufficient right of way should be provided to accommodate the appropriate road section. In addition, the majority of the length of this road should be completed at the initiation of the project rather than by the I25rh building permit: The monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000 per single family detached unit and $3,000 per single family attached townhouse unit for transportation improvements in the vicinity of the project has been eliminated from the proffer statement. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 14 Historic Resource Protection The applicant has proffered a $25,000 contribution to the County for purposes associated with security fencing at Star Fort. The proffered buffers along Route 7, Berryville Canyon, are not accurately reflected on the GDP. However, this concept and the buffer and screening of adjacent properties, including the historical Valley Mill Farm, should be addressed to a greater extent as part of this application. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 09/20/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Carriage Place rezoning application, while generally consistent with future land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan, does not fully address the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the transportation impacts, the environmental impacts, and the capacities and capabilities of community facilities needed to serve the proposed land uses. At this time, the road improvements identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan are not fully addressed in the application. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 11/01/06 MEETING: The applicant's attorney, Mr. Clay Athey, presented their proposed access out to existing Valley Mill Road and continuing out to Route 7, explaining how Valley Mill will line up directly with the off ramps for proposed Route 37 and their plans to improve the intersection with traffic -control devices. Mr. Athey did not believe this option was inconsistent with satisfying the County's Eastern Road Plan. He noted their provision for a proposed connector, if right-of-way can be acquired across the Stafford property back to Valley Mill Road. He also made note of the applicant's monetary provision towards transportation, which exceeded the proffer model, to help meet the County's transportation goals. The applicant's design consultant, Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., noted that the access alternative described by Mr. Athey was in keeping with the HRAB's desire to create an unbroken vegetative buffer along Route 7. He said the monetary proffer for fencing and improvements to Star Fort, in lieu of interpretive kiosks along Route 7, was also preferred by the HRAB. It was also noted that the proposed layout does affect some of the more environmentally- sensitive areas of the site, but the applicant's reason for doing so was to create a better transportation system. One property owner spoke during the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Tim Stafford, whose family owned the adjacent Valley Mill Farm, said he was opposed to the rezoning primarily because the access described by the applicant's representatives crossed through a floodplain area. Mr. Stafford said that over the years, the development that has occurred around his property has affected his property, causing the creek to flood, with water coming closer to his home with each storm, and trees to fall. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 15 Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT was called to the podium to address numerous questions raised by Commission members. Those questions included the accuracy of the interchange design presented by the applicant; whether VDOT considered the applicant's proposed access a better alternative than direct access to Route 7; the interim impact on Valley Mill Road, if VDOT had concerns about the close proximity of the Haggerty traffic signal on a major arterial highway; and if there were any obstacles that would prevent the applicant from crossing the environmentally -sensitive area. Mr. Ingram replied that the interchange presented by the applicant is basically conceptual and has not yet been engineered. He said it was VDOT's opinion that the proposed entrance alternative was a better scenario than direct access onto Route 7, which in their opinion, was a fatal flaw and presented safety issues for the traveling public and local residents. Mr. Ingram said the one -lane bridge will be a bottleneck, but will keep the flow of traffic through there relatively low; traffic signals will be installed only when warranted and spacing was sufficient to allow a synchronized system. Frederick County's Transportation Planner, Mr. John A. Bishop, presented his views on why this issue was more complex than just whether or not it was safer to go out on Valley Mill Road or to Route 7. He explained that Valley Mill Road is planned to be relocated, so although the Eastern Road Plan does not say specifically this crossover will be closed, it can be inferred by the relocation. He said the primary reason for the relocation is that the geometry would be very difficult to improve to the point where it can adequately meet future development. Further, with the Haggerty and the Adams rezonings, there is a requirement that Eddy's Lane have access through there. Mr. Bishop said it was not just the 1,600 trips from this development, but the additional trips from those new developments would have the opportunity to come up Eddys Lane and Valley Mill through an area that is very hard to adequately fix. He explained that considering the amount of long-term traffic, the one side is unlikely to be able to handle the traffic without some major redevelopment of Valley Mill Road where it currently enters Route 7. He said this, in turn, could affect where the Route 37 ramps need to go. Numerous questions and concerns were raised by Commission members. Commissioners recognized the applicant's work on making the unique situation of this site work; furthermore, they were not completely opposed to something along the lines of what the applicant was proposing, assuming it fits in and compliments the Eastern Road Plan. However, members of the Commission wanted to know more from the applicant about the design of the proposed intersection, not only how things would potentially line up, but also the scope of improvements. They also wanted more information on the environmental impacts. They thought the proposal was much too conceptual at this point and asked the applicant if they could present something that would help the Commission visualize how this will take shape. Members of the Commission said they would also like to see more clarity on what the system would look like relative to the proposed improvements of the Eastern Road Plan. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to table the application for a period of 60 days to allow for additional analysis and information to be provided by the applicant, as follows: to provide the Commission with a design of the proposed intersection, not only detailing how things will potentially line up, but the scope of improvements; to provide additional information on the environmental impacts; and, to provide additional clarification on what the system would look like relative to the proposed improvements of the Eastern Road Plan. The Commission sought clarification and answers to those issues from VDOT as well. (Note: Commissioners Light, Ours, and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning # 12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 16 STAFF UPDATE FOR 03/21/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Commission previously tabled the application for a period of 60 days to allow for additional analysis and information to be provided by the applicant regarding the design of the proposed intersection, the environmental impacts of the project, and what the transportation system would look like relative to the proposed improvements of the Eastern Road Plan. The Applicant has not responded directly to these issues. However, the applicant has substantially revised the application. The changes generally exceed the scope of what the Planning Commission had previously discussed. The Carriage Place rezoning application, while generally consistent with future land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan, does not appear to fully address the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated including the following points. Staff maintains that all efforts should be made to implement the Comprehensive Plan and make a safer and more efficient use of Valley Mill Road, in the manner identified in the Comprehensive Plan, as the primary access route to the development. The revised Proffer Statement and GDP propose a relocated alignment for the future Route 37 on/off ramp. VDOT has reviewed this revised location and expressed concerns. Frederick County has not endorsed this realignment. Any relocation of this major intersection should be carefully considered. If it is ultimately determined that the transportation approach proposed by the Applicant is acceptable, the applicant should guarantee the improvements to the intersection of the site driveway and Route 7 occur in a manner that fully enables the implementation of the future signalization of the Route 37 southbound ramps, including vertical and horizontal designs and all turning movements. It should be evaluated whether the transportation improvements proffered by theApplicant are adequate to address the impacts generated by this rezoning request and willfacilitate the long range transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Inter parcel connectivity of the public street system is a requirement of the zoning Ordinance. Consideration should be given to enabling a public road connection to the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park in the general location of the existing street network. Control ofthis access point could be at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors. This project is located within the Urban DevelopmentArea and all roads should be built with an urban typical section. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 17 The comments relating to the impacts to the Frederick County Public Schools in this area of the Urban Development Area should be a significant consideration. It would be appropriate for the application to more thoroughly address the preservation of the existing tree lines and wooded areas as a desirable buffer to the surrounding properties along with the location and composition of any new buffer areas. The protection of the integrity of the pond, environmental open spaces, and the riparian areas alongAbram's Creek and Ash Hollow Run, especially during the construction phases, remain a concern and should be a greater consideration of this application and as part of the proffer statement. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate (a second public hearing is being held due to the scope of the modifications to the application). The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 03/21/07 MEETING: The applicant requested that their application be tabled for 30 days. The applicant said they were very close to working out the principal issues, but had some property owner details that needed to be solidified and proffers that needed to be checked by the County attorney. Commission members asked the applicant if a 30 -day tabling was realistic with the issues that need to be worked out with VDOT and the surrounding property owners. The applicant replied yes; the applicant intended to work diligently to meet that requirement and he believed 30 days was a sufficient amount of time. There were no public comments. By a unanimous vote, the Commission granted the applicant's request for a 30 -day tabling to April 18, 2007. (Commissioner Unger was absent from the meeting.) STAFF UPDATE FOR 04/18/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff has not received any additional information from the Applicant. A request was provided by the Applicant on April 4, 2007 to continue the consideration of this application for an additional time period (see attached letter). The Planning Commission may address this request at your 4/18/07 meeting. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place April 30, 2007 Page 18 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY .AND ACTION OF THE 04/18/07 MEETING: The Commission reviewed the Applicant's requested continuance of this item and tabled the application for an additional 30 days. There were no public comments. By a unanimous vote, the Commission tabled the request until the May 16, 2007 meeting. The Applicant was not present at the meeting. (Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.) STAFF UPDATE FOR 05/16/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff has not received any additional information from the Applicant. The Planning Commission may address this request at your 5/16/07 meeting. The update and recommendations provided by Staff for your 03/21/07 meeting (seepage 16) remain valid and reflect the most current information provided by the Applicant in support of their request. Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers- Surveyors. Planners- Landscape Architects. R+A CORPORATE Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Bridgewater Chantilly Charlottesville Fredericksburg Leesburg Newport News Virginia Beach Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES: Chantilly Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE Allentown WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540.667.2 139 F 540.665.0493 1 17 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 --, r' _ r ',� } 3 February 23, 2007 HAND -DELIVERED Mr. Michael Ruddy Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Carriage Park Rezoning Application Dear Mike: We have revised the Carriage Park rezoning application in response to issues that were raised at the Planning Commission meeting on November 1, 2006 regarding the proposed transportation network. I've attached a revised GDP and Proffer Statement that provide for a single signalized entrance to the property that will be design and constructed to accommodate the future southbound Route 37 on and off ramp. The location of the Route 37 ramp west of Route Ts crossing of Abrams Creek is dictated by current minimum curve radius standards which would preclude this ramp from aligning with existing Valley Mill Road. The revised proffer also provides for a potential future connection between the internal access road and existing Valley Mill Road. The internal road system has been located by proffer to accommodate expansion as warranted during future development of adjacent properties. I have also attached an addendum to the Transportation Impact Analysis which depicts the proposed impacts of the revised development plan as well as a revised comment from VDOT. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Patton Harris Rust & Associates Patrick R Sowers CC: Clay Athey Chuck Maddox Patrick R. Sowers From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.Ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:51 AM To: Patrick Sowers Cc: Ronald A. Mislowsky; Ingram, Lloyd; Copp, Jerry; Alexander, Scott; cperkins@co.frederick.va.us Subject: Carriage Park - Rezoning - Route 7, Frederick County The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 7. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed the transportation proffers offered in the Carriage Park Rezoning Application dated January 25, 2006, revised January 27, 2007 and offers the following comments: * Proffer 12.2: This proffer raises some concern with VDOT, specifically whether there is sufficient crossover spacing between the proposed crossover and the existing Valley Mill/Route 7 crossover. There is also an access management concern as Route 7 is a primary route designed to carry large volumes of traffic efficiently. This proposed crossover would add an additional potential conflict point. This would also result in three possible signalized intersections on Route 7 within 2500'. With no proposed connection to Valley Mill Road, the existing Valley Mill Road and Route 7 crossover would have to remain in place. Currently, VDOT has not determined if the proposed crossover location will be the connection of the future Route 37 south bound ramp. * Proffer 12.3: Acceptable. * Proffer 12.4: VDOT is disappointed this proffer has digressed from an open connection to the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park to a gated emergency access, thus eliminating residents of the mobile home park the opportunity for access to a safer connection to Route 7. 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. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency - Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Phone #(540) 984-5611 Fax #(540) 984-5607 1 Page 1 of 1 John Bishop From: Alexander, Scott [Scott.Alexander@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 10:33 AM To: Bishop, John A. Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; Funkhouser, Rhonda; 'Eric Lawrence' Subject: Carriage Park Ramp Proposal John: To follow-up on/clarify our conversation on the proposed Carriage Park ramp location: . By moving the proposed southbound (SB) ramps to the west, the geometrics of the on-ramp improve slightly. However, a design exception would likely still be required, as it still does not meet the 70% mainline design speed geometry. ® The proposal negatively impacts the SB off -ramp, inducing a tighter -radius reverse curve and possibly requiring a new design exception not previously required. In general terms, I would expect that it would be more difficult to mitigate the new off -ramp design exception (decelerating from 65 mph into curve) versus mitigating the onramp (entering curve from turn movement off Rt. 7). Additional right-of-way may be necessary to compensate. . While the relocated ramp would eliminate a box culvert, it would increase the amount of property takings/condemnation required in the subdivision opposite of Carriage Park. . The new location results in a crossover spacing (Carriage Park road, Valley Avenue) of approximately 750', much less than the minimum desirable spacing of at least 1,000 feet. In light of the above, I find it difficult to describe the proposal as "beneficial". If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, don't hesitate to give me a call. Scott Scott Alexander Assistant Residency Administrator VDOT - Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone: 540-984-5605 Fax: 540-984-5607 3/7/2007 Ronald A. Mislowsky From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.Ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 1:46 PM To: 'Ronald A. Mislowsky' Cc: Copp, Jerry; Ingram, Lloyd; 'Clifford L. Athey Jr. (clay@npaalaw.com)'; 'Eric Lawrence' Subject: Carriage Park - VDOT Comments to Rezoning The documentation within the revised application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 7 and 659. These route are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT offers the following comments on the recent revised transportation proffers: Safety - The removal of the street tie-in at Route 7 is a positive step for the safety of the public traveling Route 7 as well as the home owners of the proposed subdivision. While the proposed new location for the entrance into this subdivision will be via Route 659 is adequate, it does not address the County's ultimate design of the Eastern Road Plan. This would allow the traffic generated from this subdivision to utilize Route 7 via the relocated Route 659 and the proposed Haggerty Boulevard. Section 12.1 - Agree. Section 12.2 - Agree. if this roadway is planned to be taken into the State's system there appears to be some possible environmental issues that will need to be fully addressed to the satisfaction of the appropriate agency prior acceptance. Section 12.3 - While agreeing with the proposal, the location of this inter -parcel connector should be located at a spot that appears more conducive to fulfilling the long erm transportation plans of the County. This includes the logical access point to the relocated Valley Mill Road from this property. Section 12.4 -, Additional clarification is requested on this issue as the submitted document is somewhat vague in the description of the connection to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park roadway's typical cross section and location and composition. Section 12.5 - The proposed street tie-in at Route 659 (Valley Mill road), while a bit of an engineering challenge is the better location for the movement of traffic to and from the subdivision. The Section 12.5 proffer offers the signalization of the intersection of Route 7 and Route 659 along with improvements to the exiting lanes. Be advised that the intersection will need to meet all current VDOT standards in place at the time of "Road Plan Approval". The terms of when the signal would be required would be better stated as "when the intersection meets signal warrants as determined by VDOT the signal will be installed within 120 days". Section 12.6 - Agree. Section 12.7 - Agree. Section 12.8 - Agree. Section 12.9 - Agree. Long Term - There is some hesitation in fully supporting this rezoning due to it's potential impact on the long term transportation goals identified in the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. While a significant amount of money is being pledged to the County for road improvements, once the rezoning is approved in its current format the incentive for the developer to participate in the relocation of Valley Mill Road will become a mute oint . Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the 1.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all 1 right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. shank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT - Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) signalization, and off - the State's right-of-way by this office and COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 t 3, 2006 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates, 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Preliminary Comments — Carriage Park Rezoning Application Dear Patrick: Thank you for forwarding to this office the Carriage Park rezoning application materials for our continued review. The TIA for this project is dated May 6, 2005, and the version of the proffer statement is dated February 2, 2006. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to address the issues associated with this rezoning application. Please also consider all comments previously offered by Mike Ruddy during various meetings on this project over the past few months. As customary, it is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 1) Preliminary Matters a) The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2204.C. requires that the CEO of the adjacent locality is notified if the property is within 1/2 mile of the boundary of the adjoining locality. Please demonstrate if this provision of the State Code is applicable with this application. 2) Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement a) The introduction to the project in the impact statement identifies a specific mix of housing types (69 single family detached, and 92 single family attached/ townhouse units). The TIA is based on a mix of 53 single family detached and 94 townhouses. The proffer statement simply states that the property will be developed to accommodate a maximum of 165 single family dwellings, types excluded. Please provide clarification and consistency between these three documents (Impact Statement, TIA, and Proffer Statement). b) Please provide clarification as to what elements of the GDP are proffered. The proffer statement states a maximum of 165 single family units, while the GDP offers a housing mix which totals 161 residences. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 2.2601-5000 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Preliminary Comments - Carriage Park Rezoning Application August 3, 2006 Page 2 of 4 c) It is more appropriate, and indeed necessary, to identify and address the environmental features that exist on this site as part of the rezoning exercise. Areas with environmental constraints may exist on the property that warrant particular attention and should be a consideration of the rezoning application. In particular, there appears to be areas with critical slope and drainage issues on the property. d) Access to this property is described to be via a new entrance on Route 7. Route . 7 is an arterial roadway with speed limits of 55 MPH. Establishment of a new entrance onto Route 7 is strongly discouraged. As you are aware, efforts are underway to enhance and relocate Valley Mill Road so that it serves as a major collector roadway. This enhancement will provide for a more efficient transportation network, providing an important link between Senseny Road and Route 7, by way of Haggerty Boulevard. All efforts should be made to implement a safer and more efficient use of Valley Mill Road as the primary access route to the proposed development. e) The proffer statement, in addressing transportation, states that the applicant will privately fund all transportation improvements required for this project. It would be appropriate to identify these improvements within the proffer statement. f) The proffer statement (12.2) describes the right-in/right-out entrance on Route 7. A deceleration lane is offered, but not an acceleration lane. In considering that the traffic on this segment of Route 7 travels at speeds exceeding 55 MPH, it seems appropriate to consider extended length deceleration and acceleration land controls. g) While proffer statement 12.4 offers a gated inter -parcel connector with the adjacent mobile home park, it may be appropriate to offer flexibility in this inter - parcel connection in the event that the mobile home park is redeveloped into a compatible use in the future that would benefit from access through the proposed development. Such a connection would further promote limited and safe access to Route 7. h) The Carriage Park application is adjacent to several developed subdivisions, properties with pending development proposals, and other undeveloped properties. Opportunities for additional inter -parcel connectivity should be evaluated and pursued with this application. In particular, to the property to the southwest. Residential development of this intensity requires pedestrian accommodations. Interparcel pedestrian connectivity should also be a consideration of this application. i) I understand that the applicant intends to offer a fiscal contribution to offset identified road improvements associated with this project. It is important to recognize in the application that, based upon the open mix (not proffered) of Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Preliminary Comments - Carriage Park Rezoning Application August 3, 2006 Page 3 of 4 residential uses proposed in the application, 165 single family attached units would be permitted. This would generate $495,000, as opposed to the $600,000 that has been mentioned during recent discussions. At issue is whether these contributions are adequate to address impacts generated by the development proposal. Clarification should also be considered as to how the transportation funds could be utilized to improve transportation impacts generated by this proj ect. J ) Consistent with County policy, it would be appropriate to ensure that any proffered transportation improvements associated with the application are provided at the beginning of the project. Any monetary contribution should be provided prior to the onset of the project and not at the time of individual building permit issuance. k) Water and wastewater evaluations provided in the impact statement should be viewed in relationship to other previously approved projects within the County. A combined and updated figure for water resources and wastewater capacity would be beneficial when determining the adequacy of the capacity and resources. 1) Recent rezoning applications have proffered that a private refuse collection service will be used to collect the solid waste generated by their particular project. It would be desirable for this application to consider such an approach. This is beneficial, as it potentially reduces the individual usage of the County's convenience sites. Reference to the number of single family attached units in the Solid Waste Disposal section should be removed unless the applicant is willing to proffer a specific mix of residential uses. I understand that modifications to the transportation proffers are forthcoming. Based on our discussion on July 28th, it is expected that the transportation component of this application will address: a demonstrated attempt to work with neighboring property owner on accessing ATalley Mill Road from the proposed development; clarification as to when the proposed development entrance onto Route 7 would be closed or restricted; signalization and lane improvements or contributions you offered for a traffic signal at Route 7 and Valley Mill Road; and the linkage between the Carriage Park proposal and the other development applications your firm represents along the re -aligned Valley Mill Road corridor. Upon receipt of these written modified transportation components, staff will offer review comments on the same. Once you have addressed the above issues, as well as secured approval comments from the review agencies, it would be appropriate to formally submit this rezoning petition for consideration through the public hearing process. Formal submissions include all agency comment sheets, fully executed applications, proffer statements, Power of Attorneys, and review fees. Please refer to the rezoning application process for a complete listing of the elements necessary for formal application submission. Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Preliminary Comments - Carriage Park Rezoning Application August 3, 2006 Page 4 of 4 Please feel free to contact Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director, at any time regarding the above comments or the application in general. 1 look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this application. Sine rely, d Er c Lawrence Planning Director ERL/bad cc: Clifford Athey Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director } 1 ji•r�}+g} it h'3:sf'ry � �§, fd,�(.n �.�,� "..`ti+ 6 r�e�ti`a` 4 `'!n',S�h �w'xrA �.yr .',rf 4Pf A� }r •y� , w,,'.. a t.ca+4 ter, k.` � !•*7". ry' �r e i y dl41 .+d....,n ;i S ax''• f?� : t+•• .... y :�1 .'�._w t ._.- rte'" ,_.�-r•'�.'�f':� - r ? _ Red Bud w ' Ag & Forestral District y RE Tw„ w'•'ll!^ '�:. �..° 1,J 5:.1, • •fir 4 r '» 11111mom IFIv. r - I aad��oa ' u i� s Road cen[erliner" �,. ®xa�ma�as rayls sema n oaaa �o. REZ # 12 - 06 Carriage Bark Aerial Map (55 -A -161, 165A, 166,167,167A, 168,174A, 174B, 174D) 155 A 14o 1-3 DL,%N WNLUIDTFR, mrANF, P gr-SDRN E; Red Bud A IOU Ag & Forestr,7l District RAt38lY GREEK,LPyy A lt-1-1 /47 AIA R14 eTAL5 55 A 1-14L BLUE PIDC-6 PSSDClAT6S MH I -Y ,�- 55 A 1(05D WHALE, MATTHEW 6 VALLEY I -t- FARM, Lr - 55 4 4A es, (-KF-Y, ALICIA F Rs 55- 51P Ak Iq '/ CHA TtiF f-ANYDN U RP 15 A Tile "' NY 55 A20• 0 125 250 500 TOLL VA 1 LP Feet CAll Sneams CDP— Carriage Park Zoning Map 55 -A -151, 165A, 166 167,167A, 168, 174A, 174B, 174D 5w� ♦/'� 55 A i4o ! OIt W oLAN IAMSON, NDRMAN RDSEMARIE 15 t I 55 A 62 - Mf ALL-15T6F, 5zMGALLISTER. SANE P j, 7DHN E ' .� J Red Bud 1-h u 47 ! y� LPP� 55 A Io(P tl , Ag& ForestralDistrict- 9A88IT GREEK, LP Wr��rA 147 �. —q�q -, F5 ,4 -- 6{zP.DFIELD, 61 V-66. EVILS 55 A 1-14[ A-- 1 ti SLUE RIDGE A550GIATES 55 A i(o55 MGHALE, MATTHEW L I � ` T a� VALLEY LL E FARM, LG , L _ —— 55 4 4A fsrO 4 ALIGIA F Rs M�kee ss � z LO k 55 A 2.10 W THE ePNYDN f. fvr THE ANY N 55 A It j �``'w„� q 4 0 125 250 5D0 rDLL VA pV, Lp dAr/Feel // 5(P lA Iq �`"'?Appocawn �ieinaz Road Centerlines ^+.LelreL�enEs PnnaN SAO IIA.rte p'O�,��^:,."y s7..ams PorTenml bemntlary v TmO: C,„ n Re CP.n,va e.,o�aoPm,m Carriage Park Landuse Map ( 55 - A -161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168, 174A, 174B, 174D ) Ca"iage Park Proffer Statement PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # Q RA (Rural Areas) and ME (Mobile Home Community) to RP (Residential Performance) PROPERTY: 45.44 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 55-A-161, 55-A-1 65A, 55-A-166, 55-A-167, 55 -A -167A, 55-A-168, 55 A -174A, 55 -A -174B, 55 -A -174D (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Carriage Place, LLC APPLICANT: Carriage Place, LLC PROJECT NAME: Carriage Park ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: January 25, 2006 REVISION DATE(S): 2/2/06; 5/23/06; 6/28/06; 8/10/06; 9/12/06; 10/29/06; 1/25/07 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 RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rez6ning 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 Supervisors (the "County") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the County'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 County 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 improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. 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, Carriage Park" dated January 5, 2006, as revised on January 25, 2007 (the "GDP"). Page 1 of 6 Carriage Park Proffer Statement 1. LAND USE: 1.1 Residential development on the Property shall be limited to single family attached dwelling units. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Carriage Park Proffer Statement. 2.2 The Property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the GDP provided that minor modifications may occur during the engineering phase of the project. 2.3 Construction of the residential dwelling units shall be phased over a minimum four year period commencing with the Date of Final Rezoning The Applicant shall not make application for more than 75 building permits in any 12 month period. 3. FIRE & RESCUE: 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $528.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 4. SCHOOLS: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $14,618.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 5. PARKS & RECREATION: 5.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $1,634.00 per dwelling unit for parks and recreation purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 6. LIBRARIES: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $204.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. Page 2 of 6 Carriage Park Proffer Statement 7. PUBLIC SAFETY: 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $503.00 per dwelling unit for public safety purposes, payable upon issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 8. GENERAL GOVERNMENT: 8.2 The Applicant shall. contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $245.00 per dwelling unit for general government purposes, payable upon issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 9. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 9.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a homeowners' association (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. 9.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, including the use of a private refuse collection service to collect the solid waste generated by the residents, (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument and (v) responsibility for payment for maintenance of streetlights. 9.3 The Applicants hereby proffer to establish a start-up fund for the Carriage Park Homeowner's Association (CPHOA) that will include an initial lump sum payment of $2,500.00 by the Applicant and an additional payment of $100.00 by the homeowners at closing for each platted lot purchased within the Carriage Park community. Language will be incorporated into the CPHOA Declaration of Restrictive Covenant Document and Deed of Dedication that ensures the availability of these funds to the CPHOA prior to the transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility from the applicants to the CPHOA. The start-up funds for the CPHOA shall be made available for the purpose of maintenance of all improvements within the common open space areas, liability insurance, street light assessments, and property management and/or legal fees. Page 3 of 6 Carriage Park Proffer Statement 10. WATER & SEWER: 10.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. 11. ENVIRONMENT: 11.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Storruwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3 which results in the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 12. TRANSPORTATION: 12.1 Transportation improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent with the study entitled "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Carriage Park Property," prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associated, dated September 8, 2006 (the "TIA") including addendum dated February 23, 2007. 12.2 Access to the property shall be provided via a signalized entrance on Route 7 in the location depicted on the GDP. Said entrance and signal shall be designed and constructed with improvements as necessary on Route 7 to accommodate the future construction of the Route 37 ramp as depicted on the GDP and will be subject to review and approval by VDOT and Frederick County. Said improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of the first building permit. (See 1 on GDP) 12.3 The Applicant shall construct a two lane rural undivided (R2) collector roadway on a 50 foot right of way from the entrance on Route 7 to the Southern property line as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of the 125`h building permit. The roadway shall be designed to accommodate a future connection with existing Valley Mill Road as shown on the GDP. No direct lot access shall be permitted on said collector road. (See 2 on GDP) 12.4 The Applicant shall provide a private, gated connection between the internal road network for the project and the existing road network in the adjacent Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park for emergency access in the location depicted on the GDP. (See 3 on GDP) Page 4 of 6 Carriage Park Proffer Statement 13. HISTORIC RESOURCE PROTECTION 13.1 A minimum 100 foot buffer of natural vegetation, shall be preserved between STA Route 7 and any future residential lots located on the Property. Encroachment of construction activities in this area shall not be allowed except to construct necessary utilities and the proposed collector road. (See 4 on GDP) 13.2 The Applicant shall contribute $25,000.00 to the County for purposes associated with security fencing at historic Star Fort, 15. SEVERABILITY 15.1 In the event any portion of these proffers are subsequently determined to be illegal or unenforceable, the remaining proffers shall continue in full force and effect. 16. BINDING EFFECT 16.1 These proffers run with the land and shall be binding upon all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant. 17. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 17.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the County within 36 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the County after 36 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time the contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage changein the CPI -U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Page 5 of 6 Carriage Park Proffer Statement Respec Tide: n'1A16L STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowled ed before me this �� day (_ of Wb_ Vr .xUC , 2007, by VA_ t :k c Mcommission expires Notary Public �� Z,ti CC} • �-p �� . ca Z +r •a w l w • Page 6 of 6 1 ,.. j S1NGf E FA MI Y••ATTACHFO 14 GENERUZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY, WRG/NIA Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates 117 E. Picodilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 / i / i • ir, 1 . t I; i i �' , a:• OE NATURAL,, GETATION' BUFFER a� :._ BLUE RIDGE" ;.. t t t FUTURE ROUTE .37" ONfOFF RAMP EMERGE / 3 Y CONNEC710N P FER 1�2 1 , 1 ,.. j S1NGf E FA MI Y••ATTACHFO 14 GENERUZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY, WRG/NIA Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates 117 E. Picodilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Frederick County, Virginia 0 CT 6 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CARRIAGE PARK Red Bud Magisterial District August 2006 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540-667-2139 Fax: 540-665-0493 August 2006 Carriage Park_ Table of Contents I. Application Form II. Impact Analysis A. Site History and Project Background B. Location and Access C. Site Suitability D. Traffic E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply F. Site Drainage G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities H. Historic Sites and Structures I. Impact on Community Facilities III. Proffer Statement IV. Agency Comments V. Survey Plat and Deed VI. Tax Ticket January 2006 Carriage Park 1. -APPLICATION January 2006 Carriage Park lie IMPAC' X ALYSIS August 2006 Carriage Park SUMMARY AND JUSTIFICATION The Carriage Park property lies wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County, with direct access to both eastbound Route 7 and Valley Mill Road. The site is located in close proximity to the Haggerty project, which was successfully rezoned for residential land uses. The development of the Carriage Park property will continue to establish the development pattern in the Route 7 corridor and will provide for theintegration of the project with adjacent properties should they develop in a manner harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning of the site for a single family residential development consisting of a maxum of 165 dwelling units is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which expressly calls for suburban residential uses to predominate within the UDA. The site is generally located in an area designated for residential land use on the Eastern Frederick County Long_ Range Land Use Plan map. By using available land within the UDA, this rezoning promotes a dynamic housing market within the county's designated growth area, reducing development pressures in the County's rural areas. The project density of 3.59 dwelling units per acre is well within the zoning guideline of 5.5 dwelling units per acre for parcels between 10 and 100 acres. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate the impacts of this development while providing funding for regional transportation projects. The single family residential land use Jenvisioned for the site is compatible with the development trend emerging in the area and is Map Features /County Boundary Tax Map Boundary Community Centers George Washington National Forest C> Hamlets Lakes/Ponds Streams Sewer Water Service Area Urban Development Area Roads/Transportation Interstates Primary Highways Secondary Roads Named. Private Roads '\,/Unnamed Private Roads 'Proposed Route 37 Railroads Cities/Towns Middletown Stephens City Winchester Agricultural Districts M Double Church Refuge Church South Frederick Zoning B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General District) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) MI (industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MW (Mobile Home Community District) ]NMI MS (Medical Services District) R5 (Residential, Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Areas District) RP (Residential Performance District) M 24 34 35 45 pont F..trf 56 7 66 S1 TE �10 CARRIAGE PARK Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, PC ZONING MAP 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE. (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRCINA August 2006 Carriage Park consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. As such, this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. SITE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The Carriage Park property consists of 45.44 acres of land located in the LMA within the Red Bud Magisterial District. Approximately 15.18 acres of the site are zoned MH1 (Mobile Home Community) while the remaining 30.26 acres are zoned RA (Rural Areas). Two existing homes reside on the site, but will not pose a hindrance to the intended development of the property. The site is located in an emerging residential area wherein public facilities have been installed through prior development and are readily available for extension into the site. Available facilities include water and sewer lines, and road infrastructure. The requested rezoning from RA (Rural Areas) and MHl (Mobile Home Community) to RP 'i (Residential Performance) will enable continued development within the UDA in accord with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. LOCATION AND ACCESS The Carriage Park property is bounded by Valley Mill Road to the East, Route 7 to the North, and Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park to the West (Figure 1). Access will be provided via a single entrance on Valley Mill Road near the intersection of Valley Mill and Route 7. Additionally, an mterparcel connector will be provided at the Southern boundary of the property to facilitate access to both the adjacent parcel and Valley Mill Road in the future (Figure 2). As indicated by the Generalized Development Plan, new entrances on Route 7 will be avoided. An emergency access connection will be provided between the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park to the West to allow two way emergency access. Current designs for proposed Route 37 align the off ramps with the future intersection of the Haggerty Spine Road and the existing intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7. As such, signalization of the Valley Mill intersection, which is proffered as i _J part of this rezoning application, is needed as part of the large scope transportation planning effort 4 11:Jn7: 5{'L'�F MIT` i1 11111 S7Yf e0 r, lye Ph q• ; EF, , , 1 C M In atg ' �o- {fir � � 4'stT.�F k - ,.Y `-'hE''m 4 ,(! :u.�t kj 6,• � - r� � i, i . _ ti� ys #�• � '� v� i � I : `'� � f 3 � 1. �5 r ' �sct JFq t 5 � ,, _,, k A„r ,�, �, � t >-�;: t � .�� Ise i 1•: Vll n v _ ....------� ".,--'"�-_,�,..r�"�`�--;,-_—,-�.�,�_...,-i �. 1 fip'P`".- ° � "'.�"` ,f .r" d i � t ? 1 � 1.� S f � v,,." `• � ' � �� y w -�---_—•�---._`~—'�--�—'-.-���..'_''•°��-�,�� ° � 'rte-., � � � f `---`� f �,4~' #, � s;.� Q. Zz 2t LlAW X "• i—' �? f '"^— � t ` � '� e ti>v \` y .-✓rte- t° f " ' !�-.` .;`+._._....u•• �".._'.„'^" : / _, VA A111 op- So a x? aPA�EC7.6 a` if "-'e - - ` ✓ • Y£CETAT�D pAL%e5trllcj? E� -zo r`Nc �• . �� ��a°' ` - -M . ' ,�� Pk�f OSED 'ZoNING'i ',I?P i IN bECFrA7En, BUFFER (M6FM- — EXE ,-Z6NING -k1Nt � '( Mil _ i > it F l PROP S�Q � t p ` a'a�� A,;� � � � vim'. �. �� e `ti *• ,,� �. f `t _.�-„' l � 1 '.,.:,�„�e•_.,'-.°`�,� � 1 •',^ `....-- - - ..-�-"—....�.r" � f.j 6 j � r�rrff`t4'✓,,l_ ,�..- ^`• �L ,� .�,.y .�_.._...r ,.,��_•��---.'-"-°w,J f � w'^-,.�-'"�,-._.�.r"'y._._ �,��, f �.�••�l �,�"�-`'r % r{�fii}i Si t� �tib� s rV j til y.. Pa k on i socia es, PC O ti= t� LIZ OP d�N_ 17 E Picadilly St Winchester, Virginia 22601 O O VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 s FWRf' 2 J August 2006 Carriage Park along the Route 7 corridor. Future extension of Carriage Park access to Valley NEE Road to the South may allow future interparcel access, depending on future applicant desires should the adjacent property develop. SITE SUITABILITY The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially binder development activities. The following table provides an area summary of environmental features: Carriage Park Property Environmental Features Total Project Area 45.44 acres Area in Flood Plain 10.50 acres 23.1% Area in Steep Slopes .48 acres .01% Area in Wetlands TBD TBD Lakes & Ponds 0.25 acres <.01% The General Soil Map of the Soil -Survey of Frederick County, Vir ' 'a indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association, with the particular geology being Martinsburg shale and slopes ranging from 3% to 25%. Such geology is prevalent on land located east of Interstate 81 and is not identified as prime farmland by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The site is predominantly wooded and no history of agricultural use has been identified. Two stream channels traverse the property, including Ash Hollow Run which runs parallel to Route 7 at the Northern boundary of the property. Ash Hollow Run flows into Abrams Creek which crosses the Eastern boundary of the site prior to crossing under Route 7 and ultimately terminating at Opequon Creek. Riparian buffers required by ordinance will be preserved on either side of the stream channel. Additionally, the design of the project will respect the 100 year flood plain associated with these stream channels (Figure 3). The majority of sensitive environmental areas identified will be placed in permanent open space. The National Wetlands Inventory does not identify any wetlands on the Carriage Park property, however any potential wetlands associated with the stream channels will be located within the project's open space and identified by a wetlands delineation as part of the Master Plan phase of the X57 4' 4 'A It �`. `� ��r/.�r�jry� ��"�'•P Ap �—^,y � r j �?Ff1/�� �+'/r � �'-''�� '1��\`�i'`�'� � L�• �f� ��� �,}(: iV;11\� IM NJ ---- �Of, 0 FIGURE 3 CARR/AGE PARK ji�Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, PC 0 0 0SITE CHARACTERISTICS MAP 117 E. Picadily 4Y St. nchester, Virginia 22601 Q, o, Q VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUN7), WG/N/A FIGURE 3 August 2006 Carriage Park project. A small pond located on the Western portion of the property will be maintained within the open space required for the development as well. Steep slopes comprise a small portion of the Property. County regulations prevent disturbance of more than 50 percent of the identified steep slopes. As such, the proposed development scheme will disturb less than one-quarter acre of steep slopes at maximum. TRAFFIC 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 7th Edition, the TLA projects that the proposed development will produce 1,348 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions. It is important to note that approximately 15 acres of the site are currently zoned MH1 (Mobile Home Community). At a gross density of 8 units per acre as permitted by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the site currently has the potential to yield nearly 120 mobile home units as a by - right use. Using the equation indicated for mobile homes by the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition, the portion of the Property zoned MH1 could yield 700 vehicle trips. Developing the remaining 30 acres of the site zoned RA as by -right residential would yield an additional 60 trips per day from six single family detached homes bringing the potential by -right traffic generation to a total of 760 vehicle trips per day. As such, the proposed development plan would produce only 588 vehicle trips per day in excess of the existing by -right traffic generation potential. Access to the site will be provided via a single entrance on Valley NIL Road. While a right -in right - out entrance to Route 7 would be substantially less expensive, the Applicant has proffered to avoid such a connection to prevent less safe U-turn movements that would result due to the grade separation between the east bound and west bound lanes of Route 7. Project generated as well as background traffic suggests the installation of a stoplight where Route 7 intersects Valley Mill Road. This signal is provided as a component of the Carriage Park proffer package. August 2006 Carriage Park Furthermore, in recognition of the importance of the future transportation system envisioned servicing the area in close proximity to the Property's location, the Applicant has proffered $5,000.00 per single family detached and $3,000.00 per single family attached dwelling towards transportation improvements within the vicinity of the site. Assuming a full build -out as stipulated by proffer of 165 dwelling units, this monetary contribution would total $641,000.00. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY Sewer service will be provided to the site through connection with the existing line located in the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park (Figure 4). Using a standard rate of 200 gallons per day/dwelling unit, it is projected that the proposed development would produce 32,200 gallons of sewer flow per day. Water service will be provided by connection to the existing 8 inch line that serves the adjacent Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. Water consumption for the project will be roughly equivalent to the projected sewage generation of 32,200 gallons per day. SITE DRAINAGE Site drainage collects and leaves the site to the north and east via Ash Hollow Run and Abrams Creek prior to draining into Opequon Creek. It is anticipated that low impact development techniques including a buffer preserving existing vegetation along Route 7 and Valley Mill Road together with good erosion control practice will mitigate adverse stormwater discharge impacts. The preservation of riparian buffers and developing with respect to the existing floodplain will provide significant mitigation of nutrient losses. Actual specification of temporary and permanent facilities will be provided with final engineering and will comply with all County, State and Federal regulations. FIGURE August 2006 Carriage Park SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The following table shows a projection of solid waste generation as a part of this project. Unit !Me Units Waste Generation Total Waste (lbs) Single Family Detached 73 12 lbs/day 876 Single Family Attached 92 9 lbs/day 828 Total 1,704 lbs Proffered curb -side pickup will be an improvement to solid waste issues associated with increased dumpster use in the County. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any structures of historic importance on the subject site. According to the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Vim, the subject site is included in the battlefield study area of the Third Battle of Winchester with the northern portions of the site along Route 7 identified as core battlefield area. The Property's location coincides with the early phases of the battle when General Sheridan's Union troops advanced through Berryville Canyon towards Jubal Early's confederate troops just outside of Winchester. Portions of the battlefield in the vicinity of the site, such as the adjoining mobile home park, have lost integrity according to the National Park Service study. Recognizing the importance of the Property's location with respect to the preliminary phases of the Third Battle of Winchester, the Applicant has proffered to maintain the existing tree coverage on the Property within 100 feet of the Property boundary along Route 7 and Valley Mill Road. Additionally, the Applicant has proffered $25,000.00 allocated for security fencing at historic Star Fort. October 2006 Carriage Park IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Applicant has proffered monies greater than the impact indicated by the newest Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model to mitigate the projected fiscal impact on community facilities attributable to the proposed rezoning. It is important to note that the existing potential for 120 mobile home units would result in a negative fiscal impact of roughly $2,700,000 without the benefit of offsetting proffers. This rezoning application removes the potential for a by -right mobile home park while simultaneously proffering monies above the projected impact of the proposed 165 single family dwelling units. Specifically, the applicant has proffered to contribute $28,290 per single family detached unit and $20,731 per single family attached (i.e. townhome) at the time of building permit issuance. The total contribution is proffered to be allocated as follows: ■ Fire and Rescue: ■ General Government: ■ Public Safety: ■ Library: ■ Parks and Recreation: ■ School Construction: ■ Transportation: TOTAL: Single Family Detached $720.00 per unit $320.00 per unit $658.00 per unit $267.00 per unit $2,136.00 per unit $19,189.00 per unit $5,000.00 per unit $28,290.00 per unit Siniale Familv Attached $528.00 per unit $245.00 per unit $503.00 per unit $204.00 per unit $1,634.00 per unit $14,618.00 per unit $3,000.00 per unit $20,731.00 per unit Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 10212 Governor Lane Boulevard Suite 1007 PH Williamsport, Maryland 21795RAT 68 301.223.4010 • F 301.223.6868 31 To Organization/Company From Memorandum Michael Ruddy, Deputy Director Frederick County Planning Department Michael Glickman, PE Date: February 23, 2007 An Addendum to: A Tra is Imbact Anal .ry i t of Carriage Park, dated Project Name/Subject: September 08, 2006 PHR+A Project file Number: 13554-1-1 Per your request, Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this document as an addendum to the study titled: A Tra ffic Imbact Analysis of Carriage Park, dated September 08, 2006, in order to address modifications in land use and site -access relating to the current Carriage Park development plan. The site will include 240 residential townhouse units with access provided via a proposed signalized site -driveway located along the south side of Route 7 between Woods Mill Road (Route 660) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659). Traffic analyses are provided in this memorandum for the intersection of Route 7/Carnage Park Site -Driveway during 2007 build -out conditions. All methodology remains consistent with that of the September 08, 2006 report. TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trio Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Carriage Park development. Table 1 Proposed Development: Carriage Park Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Carriage Park 230 Townhouse/Condo 240 units 18 86 104 83 41 123 2,088 Total 18 86 104 83 41 123 2,088 2007 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS PHR+A established 2007 build -out conditions in accordance with the methodology set forth in the September 08, 2006 report. Figure 1 shows the 2007 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route Marriage Park Site -Driveway. Figure 2 shows the respective 2007 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 memorandum. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Carriage Park development are acceptable and manageable. With signalized traffic control, the intersection of Route 7/Carriage Park Site -Driveway will operate with levels of service "C" or better during 2007 build -out conditions. Page 1 of 3 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum T o : Michael Ruddy Page 2of3 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) >M EN= t" �ff w� I Figure 1 2007 Build -out Traffic Conditions Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum To: Michael Ruddy Page 3of3 No Scale -u Denotes stop sign control l: Denotes traffic signal control AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 0 Figure 2 2007 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service Engineers • Surveyors a Planners o Landscape Architects J A Traffic Impact Analysis of Carriage Park Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: - Carriage Parr LLC 2022 Meadow Springs Drive Vienna, Virginia 22182 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304-264.2711 F 304.264.3671 September 08, 2006 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Carriage Park development to be located along the south side of Route 7 (Berryville Pike), east of Route 660 (Woods Mill Road) in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to include 94 townhouses and 53 single-family detached residential units with access to be provided via a single site - driveway along the west side of Route 660 (Valley Mill Road). The proposed development will be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2007. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the _proposed Carriage Park development with respect to the surrounding roadway network Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Carriage Park development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Carriage Park development, i • Distribution and assignment of the Carriage Park generated trips onto the completed roadway network, Analysis of capaciy and level of Ser`6ce using the latestversion+� t" .t V l Ule 11111 W ay capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 7/Route 660 and Route 7/Route 659 (Valley Mill Road). In order to demonstrate worst-case conditions, the existing traffic volumes were then balanced between the two intersections. Additionally, PHR+A conducted the eastbound U-turn counts at the intersection of Route 7/Woods Mill Road since planned improvements would require this movement to be diverted to the Route 7/Valley Mill Road intersection in the future. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) were established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 8.0% as determined from traffic count data provided by Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of Route 7/Route 660 and Route 7/Route 659. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A_ Traffic Impact Analysis of Carriage Park PH-]��A Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 1 No Scale RJ ;x 1. � tt SITE yy ,q ;.. ■- T TP T Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Carriage ]Park in Frederick County, Virginia 'HRA A Traffic Impact Analsy is o Carriage Park Project Number 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 2 ■ No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) /\ Dail.Average j I Figure 2 PH+A Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis o Carriage Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 3 No Scale �r 4'"* Unsignalized 7 Intersection ��lfe SITE eb N Unsignalized Intersection Denotes stop sign control * Denotes UnsignaIized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Tra c Impact Analysis of Carriage Park PProject Number: 13554-1-0 + September 08,2006 H Page 4 2007 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to estimate the future growth rates and incorporate trips associated with specific "other developments" located within the vicinity of the proposed site, puu+A utilized the following report: A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Mazgerty Property by PHR+A, dated September 22, 2004. PHR+A applied an annual growth rate of five percent (5%) to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2007 base conditions. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the "other developments" surrounding the site. Figure 4 shows the 2007 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 5 shows the respective 2007 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 "Other Developments" Trim PHR-n A Traflac ImpactAnalysis ofCamape Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 5 J Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total in Out Total ADT Red -Bud Run 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Total 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Toll Borthers-Eddy's Lane 210 Single -Family Detached 80 units 16 49 65 55 32 88 800 Total 16 49 65 55 32 88 800 Other Developments along Channing Drive 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 230 Townhouse/Condo 130 units 11 53 64 50 25 75 1,131 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 Total 172 286 458 570 498 1,069 11,776 Fieldstone Development 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 40 54 45 26 71 630 230 Townhouse/Condo 207 units 16 77 92 73 36 109 1,801 Total 29 117 146 118 62 180 2,431 Chadwell Property 210 Single -Family Detached 30 units 8 23 30 23 13 36 300 Total 8 23 30 23 13 36 300 Haggerty Property 210 Single -Family Detached 180 units 34 102 135 115 67 182 1,800 220 Apartment 60 units 7 27 33 33 18 51 511 230 Townhouse/Condo 60 units 6 28 34 26 13 40 522 Total 46 157 203 174 98 272 2,833 PHR-n A Traflac ImpactAnalysis ofCamape Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 5 e No Scale h h ,r, N ' ~ (37)172 'oxo (123435)1 Sp tid I 19, p8). )13gg 7 v c-�irmri IJI,���6 �Jl l 9 I`ve `� v .AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) I Figure 4 2007 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic ImpactAnalysis of Carriage Park R Project Number: 13554-1-0 H September 08,2006 Page 6 i No Scale 0 Signalized Intersection LOS=B(Q j B SITE Jg� Unsignalized Intersection Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5 2007 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Trak Impact Analysis o{Carriage Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 +A H September 0Page 7 Page 7 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Carriage Park development. Table 2 Proposed Development: Carriage Park Trin ftPnarntinn .qnmmnry TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Carriage Park development. Figure 7 shows the respective development -generated AMCPM peak hour trips and ADT assignments at key locations through out the study area. 2007 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS Carriage Park assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2007 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2007 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2007 build- out ADT and AN"M peak hour traffic volumes at key locations through out the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2007 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Carriage Park development, assuming suggested improvements, are acceptable and manageable. Assuming planned study area intersection improvements, each of the intersections will operate with levels of service "C" or better during 2007 build -out conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Carria ze Park PH J� Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 8 A M Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT Carriage Park 210 Single -Family Detached 53 units 12 35 4,7 38 22 61 530 230 Townhouse/Condo 94 units 8 41 49 38 19 57 818 Total 1 24 76 96 76 41 118 1,348 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Carriage Park development. Figure 7 shows the respective development -generated AMCPM peak hour trips and ADT assignments at key locations through out the study area. 2007 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS Carriage Park assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2007 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2007 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2007 build- out ADT and AN"M peak hour traffic volumes at key locations through out the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2007 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Carriage Park development, assuming suggested improvements, are acceptable and manageable. Assuming planned study area intersection improvements, each of the intersections will operate with levels of service "C" or better during 2007 build -out conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Carria ze Park PH J� Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 8 JL 1 Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages PH R+A A Traffic Impact Analysis of Carriage Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 9 No Scale 660 0 0 0 0 Paa 45(25 (4602' ` l SITEdP 6a� 659 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) n T� AAverage 1 I , rlrt + Figure 7 PHR�n Trip Assignments A Trafdc IMpact Analysis of Cama e Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 10 i No Scale f� 0 o.. ti j �37(I �2) ZO 64(2133) i2$ 35(150) fd 6 l9J��GIJI SITE s1. 3'p-9 rl Le��9 �� 6�92i11 0 o r 191 v AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average Daily IFigure S 2007 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Anal sy is of Carriage Park PR+AH Project Number: 13554-1-0 September Page I I Page 11 I ■ No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS=B(C) L Oar--j r"WAN# V '.Signalized "Suggested I`ntersecfiori: Improvement" LOS=II(Q Sigualization 69i, C —may a 0 Unsignalized Intersection) Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9 2007 Build --out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PHR1� A Traffic Impact Analysis o{Carria eg Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 12 I REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Stq Fee Amount Paid S Zoning Amendment Number 12-o-6 Date Received 4 b o 6 - PC PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date 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: Carriage Place, LLC Telephone: 540.662.7160 Address: 22A Ricketts Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 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: Denver Quinnelly 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Mobile Home Park, Residential & Vacant B) Proposed Use of the Property: SF Detached & Attached 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED. PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 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). South & adjacent to Route 7 east & adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park 2 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 describer) on nnoP 4 of the nnnlirnfinn nnrlrnaP r --a- - -rr r�--�•-a�• 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number: 55-A-161, 55 -A -165A, 55-A-166, 55-A-167, 55 -A -167A, 55-A-168, 55 -A -174A, 55 -A -174B, 55 -A -174D Districts Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: Red Bud Greenwood Greenwood High School: Middle School: Elementary School: Millbrook JW Middle Red Bud 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 30.26 RA RP 15.18 MH -1 RP 45.44 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home 73 Townhome 92 Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Flex - Warehouse Other 9 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County,' Virginia. 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 .s plication and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (o knowl dge. Applicant(s) Date Date Carriage Park Rezoning Application Adjoining Property Owners Tax ID # Name Address Zonin Use 55-A-162 Baylis Investments, LLC 2332 Middle Road, Winchester, VA 22601 RA Residential 55-A-163 Baylis Investments, LLC 2332 Middle Road, Winchester, VA 22601RA Residential 55-A-164 Robert E. & Gladdie R. Carter 1560 Valley Mill Road, Winchester, VA 22602 RA Residential 55-A-165 Valley Mill Farm, LC 8705 C Street, Chesapeake Beach, VA 20732 RA Agricultural 55 -A -165D Valley Mill Farm, LC 8705 C Street, Chesapeake Beach, VA 20732 RA Agricultural 55 -A -168A Brian Scott Williams 2718 Berryville Pike, Winchester, VA 22603 RA Residential 55-A-169 Myron L. & Lorie M. Ace 11240 Cleveland Avenue, Ft. Mers, FL. 33907 RA Retail &Services 55-A-170 David Bra P.O. Box 174, Clearbrook, VA 22624 RA Residential 55-A-171 Three Way Partnership 504 Eagle Place, Winchester, VA 22601 RA Residential 55-A-172 William C. Whitmore, Jr. Etals P.O. Box 550, Purcellville, VA 20134 RA Residential 55 -A -174C Blue -Ridge Associates 2432 Berryville Pike, Winchester, VA 22603 RA Residential 55-A-146 William D. Alexander 2663 Berryville Pike, Winchester, VA 22603 RA Residential 55-A-147 William A.'& aria H. Balling 111 Burnt Factory Road, Stephenson, VA 22656 RA Residential 55-A-159 Thomas R. Ba erl , Sr. 8904 Telford Court, Bristow, VA 20136 RA Residential 55-A-160 William W. & Ruby Lee Beck 2851 Berryville Pike, Winchester, VA 22603 RA Residential 55-A-174 Phyllis B. Holtkam Etals C/O John Bradfield 8225 Cambourne Court, GaithersI MD 20877 RA Agricultural 55-4-1B loseph D. & Amy H. Sowers , 111 Edd s Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 RA Residential Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Piann1mg Web Site: www. co.frederickva.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name)Denver, Quinnelly Carriage Place, LLC _ (Phone) 540-662-7160 (Address) 22A Ricketts Drive Winchester 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 Instrument No.21857 & 21858 on Page , and is described as Parcels: 55 -A -174A, 174D, 161, 166, 167, 165A, 174B, 167A, 168 Parcel. --Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: Name)John Callow, Chuck Maddox, Patrick Sowers, Clay Athey, PHRA Phone: 540-667-2139 (Address)117 B. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: X Rezoning (including proffers) Conditional Use Permits X Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) X Subdivision X 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 authorizati%nshnalliexp re ne year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified.In witness thereh e ereto t my (our) hand and seal this- day of �v `�►s ► b� Signature(s) y of Virginia, City/hof _I'1r h_Q,A-k it ,To -wit: w Notary Public'ij af�o'E�` Miction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appae and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this _day of , 200 LD January 2006 Carriage Park V. SURVEYL�'I' DE E D 55 -((A)) -174A C - \ 55-((A))`1740 `' KiB�•s3� 5-5il- 50 ((A)) -174A /-" { -\--,—•_�f 5`-�"((A))-167 i� •'\ Hyl, \ 55 -((A)) -167A I� AREA ZONED RA: 30.26 ACRES AREA ZONED MH1: 15.18 ACRES TOTAL AREA: 45.44 ACRES l a� -\ -\ 55-((A))-766 �_•' m,N 2�. 4 G i� �«^���Yi, w � p4pt �•!e,'3F�ya gig° �e / 55-((A))-1746 j -T°K•�h�i �r ,os.sY Flo• STATE ROUTE 659 JJJ VALLEY MILL ROAD NIB'11'e¢q \ I Gs5 Carriage Pork O Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc IIS C �1 ZONING BOUNDARIES 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 o (:Z)Q VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Q) FREDER/CA' COUNTY, WRGINM O9rTw E�mmTm � p 0t SLOEaf�AT!•F.7[F�FirF9 ifT3^miPIGF::7 Im.:�uF 01"•f•iF'Lcai11•�ii:�L:1iR'.:-iiL«?ii:� 7 AREA ZONED RA: 30.26 ACRES AREA ZONED MH1: 15.18 ACRES TOTAL AREA: 45.44 ACRES l a� -\ -\ 55-((A))-766 �_•' m,N 2�. 4 G i� �«^���Yi, w � p4pt �•!e,'3F�ya gig° �e / 55-((A))-1746 j -T°K•�h�i �r ,os.sY Flo• STATE ROUTE 659 JJJ VALLEY MILL ROAD NIB'11'e¢q \ I Gs5 Carriage Pork O Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc IIS C �1 ZONING BOUNDARIES 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 o (:Z)Q VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Q) FREDER/CA' COUNTY, WRGINM VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 1,500' AREA TABULATION: OWNER TABULATION: PARCEL ID AREA RECORDING REF CURRENT OWNER(S) 55—((A) —161 f= 0.2709 AC. DB 968, PG 1064 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 55—«A).) -165A 3.3439 AC. DB 968, PG 1064 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 55— (Ay -166 6.5655 AC. DB 968, PG 1064 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 55—((A)j167 2,2610 AC. DB 968, PG 1064 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 55—( A)) -167A 5.0531 AC. INST #030003917 BLUE RITGE ASSOCIATES 5 J(A —168 0.2602 AC. INST #0300229_41 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 55—((A)) -174A 18.5017 AC. DB 968, PG 1064, BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES INST #050020490 & INST #050020491 55—((A)) -174B 4.7592 AC. DB 968, PG 1064 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 55—((A)) -174D 4.4271 AC. DB 495, PG 51 & JERRY L. & INST #050020489 WINIFRED D. UPDYKE TOTAL AREA 45.4426 AC. (THIS SURVEY) ALL AREAS: AS NOW SURVEYED p,LT HCD U CORY M. HAYNES v No. 2539 -( LEGEND: INST # DB PG HPB AC IRF IPF 0 MON N /F CE R/W VDOT DRN SAN SEW ESM T 0 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: kp� I, CORY M. HAYNES, A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR !N THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, HEREBY CERTIFY, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THAT THE PROPERTIES CONTAINED dN THIS SURVEY ARE THE SAME PROPERTIES CONVEYED TO JERRY L. & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE BY DEED RECORDED IN DB 495, PG 51 (ADJUSTED BY BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED AT INST #050020489) AND TO BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES BY DEEDS RECORDED IN DB 968, PG 1064, INST #030003917 AND INST #030022941 (ADJUSTED BY BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS RECORDED AT INST #050020490 AND INST #050020491) AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. INSTRUMENT NUMBER DEED BOOK PAGE HIGHWAY PLAT BOOK ACRES IRON ROD FOUND IRON PIPE FOUND IRON ROD SET (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) MONUMENT NOW OR FORMERLY CENTERLINE RIGHT OF WAY VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DRAINAGE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT UTILITY POLE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES AND JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED: ' SEPT. 8, 2005 SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers_ Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. P117 + WiEast Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 H Winchester, Virginia 22601 j-[/ RAT 540-667.2139 F 540,665.0493 TITLE REPORT REVIEW: EXCEPTIONS listed in Schedule B — Section 2 of the Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation Case No. TC05-1080 & TC05-1081 with an effective date of 08/01/05 at 2:00 PM and received by PHR+A on 09/08/05 are addressed by item number as follows: 1. None of which the surveyor, has been advised, except as may be shown on the survey. AS TO ALL TRACTS: 2. Not a survey matter. 3. See survey. 4.-7. Not survey matters. AS TO TRACT ONE ONLY (PARCEL 174D): 8. R/W to Potomac Edison Co., DB 344, PG 248 — Does not affect Parcel 174D. 9. R/W to C&P Telephone Co., DB 182, PG 308 — Parcel 174D is subject to this esmt. Location is not determined. 10. R/W to FCSA. DB 693, PG 204 — Does not affect Parcel 174D (but does affect Parcel 174A — see survey). AS TO TRACT TWO ONLY (PARCELS 161, 165A, 166, 167 167A, 168, 174A & 174B): 11. Esmt to C&P Telephone Co_, DB 806, PG 1596 — Does not affect. AS TO TRACT TWO, PARCELS 2-9 ONLY (PARCELS 161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168 & 174B): 12. Exact acreage or square footage of land described in Schedule A — as shown on survey. AS TO TRACT TWO, PARCEL 2 ONLY (PARCEL 167A): 13. Matters on plot by Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., DB 459, PG 197 — 12' R/W — shown on survey (also see note 9). 14. Matters on plat by David M. Furstenou, L.S., DB 938, PG 1505 — Powerline — shown on survey (other items not determined by this survey)_ AS TO TRACT TWO, PARCEL 4 ONLY (PARCEL 165A): 15_ Matters on plat by Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., DB 443, PG 188 — Abrams Creek — shown on survey. AS TO TRACT TWO, PARCEL 5 ONLY (PARCEL 166): 16. Matters on plot by Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., DB 280, PG 658-659 — 12' R/W — shown on survey, Abrams Creek relocated (VDOT Project No, 0007-034-101, C-501, PE -101, RW -201). See new location on sheet 4 of survey. AS TO TRACT TWO, PARCEL 6 ONLY (PARCEL 174B): 17. Matters on plat by Lee A_ Ebert, C.L.S., DB 432, PG 263-264 — Abrams Creek — shown on survey. AS TO TRACT TWO, PARCEL 7 ONLY (PART OF PARCEL 167A): 18. Matters on plat by Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., DB 284, PG 515 — see note 10. AS TO TRACT TWO, LINE TABLE PARCEL 8 ONLY AZ TH 0p (PARCEL 167): by LENGTH 19. Matters on plat Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., N61'15'01"E DB 292, PG 412 —. c� S65'42'25"E 19.04' see note 9. O — 93.31' U CORY M. HAYNES 9 N57'07'1 4"W No. 2539 L5 qle fos 162.46' L6 NOTES: 1. FREDERICK COUNTY TAX MAP REFERENCES: 55—((A))—PARCELS 161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168 174A, 174B AND 176D. 2. PARCELS 174A & 174D (AND ADJOINING PARCELS 174C & 174E) DEPICTED HEREIN ARE BASED ON THOSE CERTAIN THREE (3) BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLATS PREPARED BY PHR+A, DATED APRIL 20, 2005, UPDATED JULY 7, 2005, RECORDED AT INST No.'s 050020489, 050020490 & 050020491 AND PURSUANT TO A CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. 3. PARCELS 161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168 & 174B DEPICTED HEREIN ARE DERIVED FROM A CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY (DATE OF LAST FIELD INSPECTION = AUG. 26, 2005) PURSUANT TO RECORD INFORMATION; REFERENCE THE HEREIN LISTED INSTRUMENTS RECORDED AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND THE FREDERICK COUNTY TAX ASSESSMENT RECORDS. 4. CURRENT ZONING: RA AND MH1 (SEE SURVEY). 5. BASIS OF MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREIN IS A FIELD RUN GPS SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THIS FIRM WHICH TIES THIS PROJECT TO NAD 83, VIRGINIA STATE PLANE (NORTH ZONE) DATUM. 6. THE LOCATION OR EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OR DAMAGED AREAS OR WETLANDS (IF ANY) IS NOT DETERMINED BY THIS SURVEY. 7_ ADJOINING PROPERTY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREIN IS DERIVED FROM INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE FREDERICK COUNTY MAPPING SERVICE (INTERNET WEBSITE gis.co,frederick.vo.us) JUNE, 2005. 8. BASED ON THE HEREIN REFERENCED FIELD SURVEY, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN, THERE ARE NO APPARENT GAPS, GORES OR OVERLAPS OF WHICH THE SURVEYOR HAS ASCERTAINED OR BEEN ADVISED. 9. REFERENCE PARCEL 167; DB 968, PG 1064 AND DB 491, PG 264 APPARENTLY OMIT A LESS AND EXCEPT REFERENCE TO DB 459, PG 197 (PART OF DB 292, PG 410) WHICH CONVEYED A PORTION OF PARCEL 167 INTO PARCEL 167A. 10. REFERENCE PARCEL 167A; THE 0.66 ACRE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DB 284, PG 513 IS NOW PART OF (CONTAINED WHOLLY WITHIN) PARCEL 167A. 11. REFERENCE PARCEL 168; INST #030022941 (PARCEL 2, TAX MAP 55—A-168) APPARENTLY OMITS A LESS AND EXCEPT REFERENCE TO THE PLAT OF DIVISION RECORDED IN DB 520, PG 864. CURRENT PARCEL 168 IS IDENTIFIED AS "PARCEL B, 0.260 ACRES" ON SAID PLAT OF DIVISION. BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE NDASSOCIATES JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT_ 8, 2005 SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associatesypc Engineers_ Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects- PH rchitects. I'� IRl� 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 ��r LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 N61'15'01"E 20.46' L2 S65'42'25"E 19.04' L3 S28'24'45"W 93.31' L4 N57'07'1 4"W 39.11' L5 S51'46'30"W 162.46' L6 N52'23'22"E 183.91' L7 N66'41'36"E 94,26' L8 S51'15'39"W 43.10' L9 S15'15'39"W 100. DO' L70 N55'42'24"E 29.06' L11 N78'40'24"E 31.58' L12 575'19'36"E 1 46.95' 1. FREDERICK COUNTY TAX MAP REFERENCES: 55—((A))—PARCELS 161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168 174A, 174B AND 176D. 2. PARCELS 174A & 174D (AND ADJOINING PARCELS 174C & 174E) DEPICTED HEREIN ARE BASED ON THOSE CERTAIN THREE (3) BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLATS PREPARED BY PHR+A, DATED APRIL 20, 2005, UPDATED JULY 7, 2005, RECORDED AT INST No.'s 050020489, 050020490 & 050020491 AND PURSUANT TO A CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. 3. PARCELS 161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168 & 174B DEPICTED HEREIN ARE DERIVED FROM A CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY (DATE OF LAST FIELD INSPECTION = AUG. 26, 2005) PURSUANT TO RECORD INFORMATION; REFERENCE THE HEREIN LISTED INSTRUMENTS RECORDED AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND THE FREDERICK COUNTY TAX ASSESSMENT RECORDS. 4. CURRENT ZONING: RA AND MH1 (SEE SURVEY). 5. BASIS OF MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREIN IS A FIELD RUN GPS SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THIS FIRM WHICH TIES THIS PROJECT TO NAD 83, VIRGINIA STATE PLANE (NORTH ZONE) DATUM. 6. THE LOCATION OR EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OR DAMAGED AREAS OR WETLANDS (IF ANY) IS NOT DETERMINED BY THIS SURVEY. 7_ ADJOINING PROPERTY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREIN IS DERIVED FROM INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE FREDERICK COUNTY MAPPING SERVICE (INTERNET WEBSITE gis.co,frederick.vo.us) JUNE, 2005. 8. BASED ON THE HEREIN REFERENCED FIELD SURVEY, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN, THERE ARE NO APPARENT GAPS, GORES OR OVERLAPS OF WHICH THE SURVEYOR HAS ASCERTAINED OR BEEN ADVISED. 9. REFERENCE PARCEL 167; DB 968, PG 1064 AND DB 491, PG 264 APPARENTLY OMIT A LESS AND EXCEPT REFERENCE TO DB 459, PG 197 (PART OF DB 292, PG 410) WHICH CONVEYED A PORTION OF PARCEL 167 INTO PARCEL 167A. 10. REFERENCE PARCEL 167A; THE 0.66 ACRE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DB 284, PG 513 IS NOW PART OF (CONTAINED WHOLLY WITHIN) PARCEL 167A. 11. REFERENCE PARCEL 168; INST #030022941 (PARCEL 2, TAX MAP 55—A-168) APPARENTLY OMITS A LESS AND EXCEPT REFERENCE TO THE PLAT OF DIVISION RECORDED IN DB 520, PG 864. CURRENT PARCEL 168 IS IDENTIFIED AS "PARCEL B, 0.260 ACRES" ON SAID PLAT OF DIVISION. BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE NDASSOCIATES JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT_ 8, 2005 SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associatesypc Engineers_ Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects- PH rchitects. I'� IRl� 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 ��r N �¢G\N\P SjPj a3 Ap"NOE 174' 74'sOC►ATES (0p))- (( 0�E 2294, R10 0 Ns ZONE: , /� AD✓l/STEO (SEE NOTE Z wr 55-((A)) A174A - 4,9MU5TE0 + /SEE NOTE 24 1 ZONED: MH1 ZONED: MH1_ ------/ ZOND: RA .r' ZONED• !� ,,--SAD✓l/STED 555(( )) zT r17 A 55-��Aj�-765 /V/F klALLEY M/LL FARIV ZiVST. ZOIOOOIJ92 /NST. 2010002874 ZONED.• RA NOTE: SHEET NUMBERS ARE LOCATED THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER OF EACH SCREENED OUTLINE. PARCEL 161 = SHEET 4 PARCEL 165A = SHEET 5 PARCEL 166 = SHEET 5 PARCEL 167 = SHEET 6 PARCEL 167A = SHEET 6 PARCEL 168 = SHEET 6 PARCEL 174A = SHEET 7, 8 & 9 PARCEL 174B = SHEET 4 PARCEL 174D = SHEET 7 , a , 1 AO/llSTEO -0))- o Z zT �'; 170 �7,z�- � a ✓-�� �J �7� �9L UE R/OGE v O ))- SOC/ �a "-1 g_ � D G 6 PO 655 11z101 CEO.• 41hw 1 ' 55-((A)) ZONED: + L. C ZONEDJ70-�� 1 -RA o N z - mom :E 0, 5(A))-167 55-((A))'1161'yA ZONED: �A i i 66 ; � II � LILJ �0 J 55—((A))-165, ZONED: RA ! B 161 p8 'o GKN \� 55 ZONED: ZONED: STATE ROU1 VALLEY MILL ALT N � CORY M. HAYNES a GRAPHIC SCALE O 750 300 600 I 1 inch = 300 ft. No. 2539 q �g�o5 �� Ph-R+A BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGENpSSOCIATES JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT � FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 20D5 SCALE: 1' = 300' DATE: AUG. 26 2005 Patton Harris Rust 8, Associates'pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540 .667.2139 F 540.665.0493 3 N } 0 z ED 0 n M n h SJ^ NFO qc 67 80 ) COMMO IyEAZ TH MON OFF VIRC/N/A fiZ-1141141zqER OF I_ z OB .345, PG 2B N� Mi FfPB 5, PG 252 SAN SEW ESMT J n 3 SEE SHEET 3j DB 580, PC 338 No C2 1 158.67' O cn :T 0c) r,LO O z 56 g z_ D z D o �J m rn LA r D Z CT1 z O W r r- o 1 n00 W O� 1_ z 000� N DO O z W a[),, P4 006 d 55—((A)) -174B _N87-25_04 \N 4.7592 AC C4 ZONED: RA "I EDGE OF PAVEMENT 10 0�, 3 0 p�� N 0) , v ��.N OJ\ Q�v Q A, Z,T H op Co a,�-- z 1 w 00 !�� �t 0 NIzo 6./ GRAPHIC SCALE CORY M. HAYNE. No. 2539 L 91 e)0 S S 9 � .� SUR�,►�'' BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES AND JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. O 50 100 200 PH /A\ 1.17 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 +[ 1Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 1 inch = 100 ft F 540.665.0493 SHEET 4 OF _S11'1�3_�w 174A / 352, 3 IPF 174, / �` ' �••• \ Gi rl' \ - f VIRGINIA STATE PLANE NORTH / NAD 83 \ IRF \ i \IPF 55—(CA))-1 1' 6.5655 AC ,;v \ ZONED_ R/ 1 \ 55—((A)) -165A 3.3439 AC \ ZONED: RA \ a ABRAMS CREEK .^1/6 Aj S0431'18"W Il---4Ai? _• 166.36' 1748 NI -T H 0; Gf� t, CORY M. HAYNES 9 No. 2539 q1a GRAPHIC SCALE II0 50 100 100 I ®� 1 inch = 100 ft_ CGM1W01VWEAL Tir ,SREMA1rUDE,9 0/- '95 F05 .345, PC 2B //PH 5 PC 252 (SEE SHEET .3J 1 m .S g A,4A, & of m O fro J4VQ� 0 L 4� n BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES ,AND JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & AssociaYes,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Pf 4-1z,+A Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 SHEET 5 OF 9 55-��AJJ-17,fE N/F BLUE f?/OGE IRF ABB.9 g "go' �n ASSOC/ATES 1 �P i'16 0 - OB 690, PG 655 � a,55—� 60 °' o ONED- MHt A 188 8 IPF -L --z t S�8p7 ESMTtl LA No VDO� 2, PG 669, 0 �� �'� n Lp Co. IPF 0 fT� Z w 174A �* ^lo �1� L S3234'20"W N IPF 135.05 iPF 535'17'48 'W 55—((A))-167 _ 206.06' IPF 2.2610 AC ZONED: RA S � Qp46'0 „w � 8 i 01� W C� LC w Q Z� rq j 55—((A)) -167A M ` 5.0531 AC ZONED: RA -a z a3 Y^\ IPF 1(0 W Q5 226.87 , 166 Q OD of OB 280 ATE PC R�W OB 45997 N37-41— G�C� 180.45 24' E a �P o v CORY M. HAYNES o GRAPHICSCALE 50 o 200 1 inch = 100 ft_ No. 2539 9 �aJds lQ OR' BO! N:DARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES AND E JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust 8, Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, HRA Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 SHEET 6 OF 9 174C 174Z- -----.L76-46 -48" 74E -----S76`46'4g.. 460.76.---, — M i ADJUSTED �N (SEE NOTE 2) 55—((A)) -174D CY) 4.4271 AC o `r ZONED: MH1 U) I w z cn 0 �N a, o z W.lio-2 w z N N Co Z J � a � w o a a z ~ w V-^ ¢ N' O^ cp N z rn ? O to N of � IF / Cy �Z _ _S84'17'10"E_ 320.55' do ADJUSTED 00 (SEE NOTE 2) W 55—((A)) -174A X / 18.5017 AC i 1, / ZONED: MH1 & RA / w cn f .0e Nil 0�, J S' O� SCALE: 1" = 1000' Gf. tx V CORY M. HAYNES �� 1,- No. No. 2539 sh��1 '6FPR�' -t � S URV,((4�opp2S1 55OppoRPBOiNDARY SURVEYplE' o4 CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF _ , 1'F 105 Zp BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES N7 _ IV AND 4 71'26.,w746-9�,6, JERRYREDLB&D WINIFRED D MAGISTERIAL TRUPDYKE ICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 30" OAK SCALE: 1" = 100'UP DATE AUG. r 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc GRAPHIC SCALE Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. o so 100 200 I I 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, H -i- Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 1 inch = 100 ft F 540.665.0493 «r 3 N 0 z m 0 4 386.55 _ I ADJUSTED (SEE NOTE 2) 55 -((A)) -174A 18.5017 AC ZONED: MH1 & RA I DO ir1 d - N O t C-4 Q I U W (0I oo <, p _j o AoV) QNwtl W X cl) in in 0C-) Cf) rn Li O aLiQm o� Qolnp z I GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 zoo ■I inch = 100 174E I I TV SCALE: 1 " = 1000' W < (� z F- I' U) Q z 0 Cr BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES AND JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY,VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris -Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 WinPf 4 chester, Virginia 22601 -R+A T 540.6672139 F 540.665.0493 SHEET 8 OF 9 '74A F w w vwwi NA T H pF �1� G Ld z J CORY M. HAYNES 9 2 No. 2539 Q BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES AND JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY,VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris -Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 WinPf 4 chester, Virginia 22601 -R+A T 540.6672139 F 540.665.0493 SHEET 8 OF 9 16B IRF IPF 77.98 IPF 556774 E 167 S72 05'58"E 158.05IPF / ADJUSTED G (SEE NOTE 2) =I 55-((A))-174ANPO Z- QI 18.5017 AC 6 Of ZONED: MH1 & RA CO R o / �o O N N PO 2 �h C/) o� 2 `t -I 16'Z4 o- 101 L _ IPF NWO ZO u Z r.3P lfn Q1 OO O ? Z • 6? N 0 174D °' w 166 � m �0�G v 1 z - - IPF `S5324 . 654 25.' / i 28 8 E �y IRF ti SCALE: 1" = 1000' GRAPHIC SCALE 'i 0 50 100 zoo �I I� 1 inch = 100 fG y' AJ,TH 0; Gj CORY M. HAYNES 9 No. 2539 9 (815 \BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES AND JERRY L & MNIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 -- ____ F I L E COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planniag acid Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 546/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator RE: Waiver Request — The View Subdivision DATE: April 27, 2007 On behalf of The View Subdivision, Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, is requesting a waiver of Article V Design Standards, § 144-17 Streets, (G) (1), Cul-de-sac, of the Code of Frederick County, Chapter 144 Subdivision of Land to allow cul-de-sac length of approximately 1,650 feet, 650 feet more than the allowed length of 1,000 feet. The property is located on the western side of McDonald Road (Route 616) approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the intersection of McDonald Road and Wardensville Grade (Route 608), in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 51-A-116. Chapter 144 Section 17 (G) (1), of the Code of Frederick County specifies that: Cul-de-sac permanently designed as such, shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) feet in length. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement in cases where extreme topography or other factors make it impractical. In no case shall the street serve no more than twenty five (25) lots. The turnaround provided shall have a right -a -way radius of not less than fafty (50) feet and a paved radius of not less than forty-five (45) feet. Loop streets are preferred to cul-de-sac, where possible. The proposed roadway named Pennyroyal Lane has exceeded the cul-de-sac length requirement of 1,000 feet as allowed by the Code of Frederick County. The applicant believes a deep ravine that provides drainage in a northerly direction through the site prohibits construction of any proposed intersecting roadways. This portion of the property is unusable to accommodate a cul-de-sac less than is required by County Code. To achieve full use of this property, a waiver request is needed due to a deep ravine along the proposed roadway and, whose side slopes are too steep for loop roads. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 292 m 'Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Waiver Request — The View Subdivision April 27, 2007 Page 2 The proposed cul-de-sac will serve fourteen (14) lots and have a right-of-way distance of not less than fifty (50) feet and a paved radius of not less than forty-five (45) feet. VDOT and the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department had no adverse comments regarding this proposed waiver, as this road will be built to state standards. The applicant has attached details of this waiver request to be evaluated by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should evaluate this proposed waiver request to insure justification of cul-de-sac more than 1,000 feet, is warranted due to the extreme topography of this property. A recommendation from the Planning Commission is requested. MRC/bad Attachments The View J'L1bd*v* l lv-,uclI`LlK %-.UUnLy, VA Wavier Request WAV # 04 - 07 Application The View Subdivision Parcel ID: 51 - A - 116 Location in the County Map Features Application Lakes/Ponds Streams Streets --,.. Primary '�. Secondary '�- Tertiary, .9 Urban Development Area SWSA chess �� i W'nehealo _ vrgr i Location in 5urrcunding Area 0 125250 50F0 qw ' -• 2� LET Case Planner: Mark iviap Document: (N:\Planning_And_Development\ 1_Locator_Mps\TheViewSubdivision_WAv04O7N. _041107.mxd) 4/11/2007 -- 9:16:53 AM LINCOLN £STAT£5 �6 4 a�u � 50 ik P .50 TO 00 5 A MAtrtC NTAIN ao 4' FRULAND 4a LEO .7 ;c G /i �a a �O rN9 u Q no t 3 a v D. is . R. IT£, lr 6' n G� Ett9100D VIL ,. 7 (nEARY XRIRk PERTIES 0 £ HI l lv-,uclI`LlK %-.UUnLy, VA Wavier Request WAV # 04 - 07 Application The View Subdivision Parcel ID: 51 - A - 116 Location in the County Map Features Application Lakes/Ponds Streams Streets --,.. Primary '�. Secondary '�- Tertiary, .9 Urban Development Area SWSA chess �� i W'nehealo _ vrgr i Location in 5urrcunding Area 0 125250 50F0 qw ' -• 2� LET Case Planner: Mark iviap Document: (N:\Planning_And_Development\ 1_Locator_Mps\TheViewSubdivision_WAv04O7N. _041107.mxd) 4/11/2007 -- 9:16:53 AM Frederick County, Wavier Request WAV 4 04 - 07 Application The View Subdivision Location in the County Map Features ® Application Zoning f� Lakes/Ponds B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) ^— Streams Streets - B2 (Business, General District) Primary OW B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) �. Secondary +F EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) Tertiary lift HE (Higher Education District) 6f Urban Development Area 4M M1 (Industrial, Light District) - M2 (Industrial, General District) 4W MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) 40 MS (Medical Support District) - R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) 110 R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RAZ (Rural Area Zone) RP (Residential Performance District) 6i4 SWSA Location in Surrounding Area -r --i—L. (rx.,rranning_Hna_uevelopment\ 1_Locator_Mps\TheViewSubdivision_WAV0407_041107.mxd) 4/11/2007 -- 9:13:46 AM Frederick Subdivision Location in the County Map Features [__-I Application e>^ Lakes/Ponds --- Streams Streets Primary �. Secondary '�- Tertiary ,f Urban Development Area SWSA Location in Surrounding Area Map Document: (WPlanning_And_Development\_1_ Locator _Mps\TheViewSubdivision_WAV0407_041107.mxd) 4/11!2007 -- 9:13:46 AM COUNTY of FREDERICK AFF -qui Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street 0 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 WAIVER/EXCEPTIONS REQUEST APPLICATION .1. Applicant: (( Name: /�?�A p.L¢ �' �e"GG E,u,� �J �Rvt yc.Ys, �e.cTelephone: Address: .5 0'd2r �4�yt7� v�J Kiri 2 ZC.aI 2. Property owner (if different than above): Name: V-V1.S1cA I. L �- L Telephone: SX/,0 -7Z3- Yy Address: 21- ,=2E6 —7 3. Contact person (if other than above): Name: / �LFiJ �` L -L- Telephone: 7- 619M 4. Waiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): uM yisiom q , 6kli er `/0 Y 1000`S4u1p� d/ jr c•_ e - clue -5 4C. Cu /- de -sac see J dc,3 f6.�o sec�ea�k-4&dxlieef. `descfl-4L 5. Property Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers):O r i5 Id��4ijeal o r �, set'; s; C - d,,—. e . i;/ c /', ' r� i�ule, A4 ih e11�c 4K A J�*2u1W A'v6d -q-11W r R. /4e. 6o8(4h,- v;//e 6. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number Magisterial District:E 7. Property zoning and current use: Zoned: &A J�k �EK District Current Use: 6-4/CL14. 7-0n19L G`NDC{fL &,ape 9. List of Adjoining Properties: The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the waiver or exception is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application. NAME Y Address Z30 Lc/AhOec4 Cort 1,kicl"41-, 11/,4ZZG�a Property ID # -5- /-- Z3 - /Z - Address ZZO 1-,V�t lwocW Cowl` z1'`iEQCles4^' V14chy Property ID # f _ Address /,/0 kl'#-er jZGctd, Property ID # 2;3-16 � Address / /Z �Z 6eir Dal g 6f, 4144 W, //, V4 20il i Property ID # 5-/ - A - % l5 /- _ �h`J �1et C J� �e�t.sc� ia-J - ji`xcrc , Address (,,q6 %Wc�071tc jd lg6t, MI"IC4esk%; VA ZZ�,OZ MI Property ID # Sl- A _ au jse,i, K,Via: j . Address ��V�cDbnti l� , filrlrc%s�e,^, �� ZZ�ra? PropertyID # ,� 1`'cIl7�1es�y�t,---"`ir�y /�. Address ,�`GIG� ��U l� G6�cGfzsd��^,114 2Z66Z Property ID # % Address l9� j �% %�� r� s�1,vj VCi�� ' Kuli�i- Property ID # $/-A- // r/ C— /c—' tau/.5 i✓ Address /5jdj7 iG//leu�7�i/1 �d. li L'Aeskr ?, Property ID # Address Z3 ` edvzr /1.11 /, Property ID # Ufa 1/G anit / url l Le / Address ;3, (© /%jc fill act J, Aces A -, V4 ZZ �o Property ID # Sf - x-5 %r - Page 2- 0,\La d Use Applicadons\Application Forms\waiver request fo=.wpd 9. List of Adjoining Properties: The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the waiver or exception is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application. ►�� /Address rif ~ego! y Al. .31 d Ac rdl-lo W Rd., IJIA l es-k/ri 114Z � 2 26U Pro e ID #- p m' .5- Address /,7/q i� i� Id WY, 4)i;id e d r, VA 22603 Property ID # ��"/ % . /6k,4 y 41® Address Slel /fir VA 2Z o Property ID # Address 'f¢ 2-&6oZ PropertyID # 51-4-67 Address Property ID # Address - Page 2- OALa d Use ApplicationslApplication Fotms\waivcr request for —pd WAIVER EXCEPTIONS REQUEST Valley View, LLC The View Subdivision Preliminary Sketch Plan 4. Waiver Request Details: The purpose of this waiver request is to allow for a greater length of cul-de-sac street to create RA 2 -acre minimum residential lots as a part of The View Subdivision Preliminary Sketch Plan, which subdivision is situated on a 190 -acre parcel with a 76 -acre rural preservation lot. The View Subdivision has access to Virginia Secondary Route 616 (McDonald Road) by way of a future Westmeath Drive. Westmeath Drive would serve two cul-de-sac roads (Hinterland Drive and Pennyroyal Lane). Pennyroyal Lane is a proposed residential street with a 50 -foot right of way that would serve 12 lots numbered Lots 23 through 34, and two additional lots at the intersection with Westmeath Drive are corner Lots 22 and 35. The proposed lots along Pennyroyal Lane exceed the minimum road frontage of 200 feet and these lots would have building areas positioned along a suitable ridgeline with a drainfield site on each lot that would be created in a configuration to eliminate any required drainfield easements. The rear lot lines of Lots 22 through 27 would be positioned along a deep drainage ravine, which would be situated in an area that could remain unimproved. Pennyroyal Lane would serve as a terminal cul-de-sac street creating a village cluster environment with no additional intersecting streets. Preliminary planning of this subdivision did review other alternatives to allow for intersecting streets at the 1000 -foot interval. However, the deep ravine that provides drainage in a northerly direction through the site prohibits construction of any proposed intersecting roadways. The rear lot lines of Lots 28 through 35 would be the boundary line of the preservation lot preserving the farm structures and pond in a contiguous 76 -acre tract. The extension of Pennyroyal Lane would also allow for 4 -acre and 6 -acre larger residential lots at the end of the cul-de-sac to eliminate a strip of non -usable preservation land along the subdivision. The extension of Pennyroyal Lane does not greatly increase the number of lots on a cul- de-sac street or the trips per day along this roadway. Extension of this cul-de-sac allows for a more suitable and less invasive lot configuration for the subdivision. Consideration and approval of this waiver request for this subdivision is greatly appreciated. L 0 ��cx co SUBDIVISION REQUEST # 08-06 FAIRWAY COURT Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: May 2, 2007 Staff Contact: Bernard S. Suchicital, Planner JB This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 05/16/07 Pending Board of Supervisors: 06/1.3/07 Pending LOCATION: Oakridge Lane (Route 1201) at the intersection of Senseny Road and Oakridge Lane. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 54-A-136 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoning: RP (Residential Performance) ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) South. RP (Residential Performance) East: RP (Residential Performance) West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Vacant Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of 4.94 acres into seven single family detached urban lots. This will create a density of 1.41 units per acre. Subdivision Application #08-06 May 2, 2007 Page 2 i?WX77FW AV-VNCV COMMENTS - Department of Transportation: This is to acknowledge receipt of your revised plans with latest revisions dated 3/23/07 for the referenced project. The plans appear satisfactory and are approved. Fire and Rescue: Plans approved as submitted. Winchester Regional Airport: The above proposal was reviewed and it appears that the proposed subdivision plan will not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. This proposed site does lie within Part 77 surfaces airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport. Potential homeowners should be advised of the proximity to the Airport, and residents in that area may experience noise from over flights of aircraft arriving and departing the airport. Sanitation Authority: Approved as noted. Public Works: Upon review of the revised subdivision plan submitted January 9, 2007, all of our previous comments have been addressed. Therefore we recommend approval of the subject subdivision plan. Please be aware that a revised land disturbance application shall be submitted and approved prior to any land disturbance activities. GIS: The following road names have been approved and added into the Frederick County Road Naming and Structure numbering system: Bogey Way. Parks and Recreation: Plan appears to meet open space requirement. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 7 single-family homes will yield 1 high school student, 1 middle school student, and 3 elementary school students for a total of 5 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this project on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Staff Review: Public Meeting Requirement: The Subdivision Ordinance requires that land divisions in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, without an approved master development plan, be presented to the Board of Supervisors for review (Chapterl44-12-B). The Master Development Plan (MDP) requirement Subdivision Application #08-06 May 2, 2007 Page 3 may be waived under Section 165-134A of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provided: 1) A proposed subdivision contains ten (10) or less traditional detached single-family dwelling units. 2) The proposed subdivision is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development. 3) The proposed subdivision is harmonious with the surrounding properties and land uses. 4) The proposed subdivision does not affect the intent of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and Code of Frederick County Chapter 144; Subdivision of Land. This proposed subdivision appears to meet the requirements for a waiver from the MDP requirements. The applicant has a waiver of the MDP requirements by the Director of Planning. This project contains land zoned RP and does not have an approved MDP; therefore, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors' review and action on the Subdivision request is necessary. Staff is seeking administrative approval authority. Background: These proposed lots are allowed in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, under Section 165-65B of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Public water and sewer will be utilized by the proposed lots. Project Scope: The proposed Fairway Court will create seven single-family detached urban lots on a 4.94 acre parcel, at the corner of Senseny Road and Oak Ridge Lane. The proposed Bogey Way (a public road), intersecting Oak Ridge Lane 230 feet south of Senseny Road, will provide access to these lots. Sidewalks, curb and gutter are required on Bogey Way. Design plans call for a 40' R.O.W. strip, fronting Senseny Road, to be used for street improvements. o Staff note: As per Section 144-19 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, a streetlight is required to be installed at the intersection of Senseny Road and Oak Ridge Lane. Requested Waivers: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires that subdivisions which result in lots less than 15,000 square feet must provide: curb and gutter, and sidewalks. The applicant has sought an exemption from these requirements, as the adjacent properties are of similar size and do not have these identified requirements. Therefore, the applicant has requested a waiver of the sidewalks, curb and gutter. • The applicant is seeking an exemption from the: curb and gutter requirements (Section 144-17L); and sidewalks [Section 144-18(1)]. The applicant is willing to make a comparable cash contribution to Frederick County Public Schools in lieu of installing these improvements. These exemptions may be granted by the Board of Supervisors (Section 144-5), with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. o Staff note: Cash contribution should be comparable to the value of the waived improvements. Subdivision Application #08-06 May 2, 2007 Page 4 o Staff note: The subdivision design plan before you is what the applicant is proposing without waiver approval. Should the wavier be granted, there will be no sidewalks, curb and gutter installed within the project site. • The applicant is seeking an exemption from: road efficiency buffers [Section 165-37(3)]. A woodland strip of 50 feet may be allowed if the intent of the section is met. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 05/16/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposed subdivision appears to satisfy agency and ordinance requirements. Access to these seven (7) proposed lots will be directly onto proposed Bogey Way, via Oakridge Lane (Route 1201). This property is located within the UDA and SWSA as indicated in the 2003 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. When considering the waiver requests, the Planning Commission should consider the surrounding properties and their existing improvements. Staff is seeking administrative approval authority; therefore, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the subdivision request is desired. Action on three items would be appropriate: • Curb and gutter, sidewalks (Board waiver) • Road efficiency buffer (Planning Commission waiver) • Granting staff administrative approval authority (Board action) Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this Subdivision request. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Frederick Fairway Court Location in the County Map Features e!4 Future Rt37 Bypass lC2 Application 8 Lakes/Ponds Streams Streets ti Primary ^. Secondary '�- Terciary .1 Urban Development Area SWSA Location in Surrounding Area 0 0 100 ZQpeet --fl vest UlItent: trv-.wiammng_And_Development\_1_Locator_Mps\FairwayCt_SUB0806_041907.mxd) 4/20/2007 -- 9:34:08 AM AeAl Subdivision SUB # 08 - 06 Map Frederick County, VA eve opmen _ _Locator_Mps\FairwayCt_SUB0806_041907.mxd) 4/20/2007 -- 9:34:08 AM Subdivision SUB # 08 - 06 Application Fairway Court Parcel ID: 54-A-136 Location in the County Map Features 4%, Future Rt37 Bypass '... Application Lakes/Ponds — Streams Streets ^..- Primary �. Secondary '�- Tertiary :1 Urban Development Area SWSA Winchnter vi gine t� Location in Surrounding Area ~ 0 50 100 t� 2� 70Feet w L _ Case Planner: Bernard eve opmen _ _Locator_Mps\FairwayCt_SUB0806_041907.mxd) 4/20/2007 -- 9:34:08 AM APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST MAS S 2006 SUBDIVISION FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Date:. Application # o Pa MDP? yes No If no, has MP requirement been waived by the Planning Director? %-- Yes No If MDP requirement has not been waived, fill in the following public hearing dates: Planning Commission: 5 ` , h7 Board of Supervisors: Applicant/Agent: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Phone: 540-662-4185 Owners Name: Dr. & Mrs. John Neumann Address: 103 Oakridge Lane Winchester, Va 22602 Phone: 662-3598 Please list names of all owners, principals and/or majority stockholders: Contact Person: Stephen McVeigh/Greenway Engineering Phone: 662-4185 NAME OF SUBDIVISION Number of Lots: 7 Fairway Court Subdivision Total Acreage 3.49 Property Location: Oakridge Lane - Route 1201 Corner of intersection of Senseny„Rd. and Oakridge Ln (Give State Rt. #, name, distance and direction from intersection) Magisterial District Shawnee Property Identification Number (PIN) 54-A-136 (Parent Tract) Property zoning and present use: Rp-Vacant Adjoining property zoning and use: RP Residential Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes X No If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? Yes. What was the Master Development Plan title? Yes No Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes No If yes, specify what changes: Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) 0.36 acres Number and types of housing units in this development: 7/ single family detached No I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Planning Department. I also understand that all required material will be complete prior to the submission of my site plan. Si2naturef�(„ Date: ic •7 e Ul Lu gnaw .0 LIN �1 z 1%%L'"v'0�"wGLL tuw "lox A.. w y � t! _ —c— �,.�— ._ s--�.c _��.^� � -_ ,. ,.._.�y,.,.. a.,,.,�;..,. ..,......._,:..�t..,....,,, } rt H ��IUD171�rr}' �, ^`}i 1/i W W ui .j I lu K -lu x % 00- Z9 /T4 N 5A6 m . 1 1&SAIL. 8 z A < op wr a 0.82 ACRES po 1.10 op 50.79 3+ op lj�'' o UK F� Tw m lamiusm IV Ja- Of &*NWPAL 4e AMM Larm 40 'am MAL ro :1 'A'W CE 0. C) (MEWAL OWN w-mim, OPEN SPACE a w 0.80 ACRES I ko., 31'3Cr E . ..1907'. v car_ 4 418," , -OP R�110-9394 D15* mwFom 2v &AN LAN 290 OAKRID w0m .......... W4 T;" Ida, FGSA TO IINSPECT AM OWN WATEFiJINE CITSETo INSPECT AND OWN INSTALLATION OF WATER METERS Y OF W240HEWER STER UNE BOTH WATER AND SEWER LANES SHALL BE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE+15EFOF;r= gram SUBSTANTIALLYFCSA'S ENGINEERING DEPT [SUES A on vim I SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION.PLETION., DATE: APF14 W06 FC5A CUSTOMER SERVICE SHALL ISSUE A Sea& I* - W WOW ORDER To SET A METER ONLY . X11NOTE: FINAL CiAUF;Vf;ZAIL LOCATION AND AFTER RECEIVING PROOF OF PAYMENT OF DEMNED Br SEWER CZMECTION FEES TO THE CITY. F= NO. 2MN TYPE SHALL BE MADE BY THE VDOT INSMCTOR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, 30 60 SHEEr 7 OF 14 I SCALE..50, 06-37 , D :-7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director `a - COu JNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development RE: Discussion; 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan Update. DATE: April 30, 2007 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Enclosed for the Planning Commission's review and discussion is the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan Update. Staff is seeking additional input and endorsement from the Planning Commission regarding the collective update of the Comprehensive Policy Plan for 2007. This effort is a compilation of several policy elements that have been approved by the Board of Supervisors since the last update of the Comprehensive Plan which occurred in 2003. The effort also includes several reformatted maps, and an update to the Community Facilities and Services and Parks and Recreation Chapters of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The scope of the Planning Department's preparation of the 2007 update to the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan has been limited to include a compilation of Comprehensive Policy Plan amendments that were approved by the Board of Supervisors since the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan was approved. A summary of these amendments is provided. This effort also includes updated map products that have a consistent format. The content of the maps has not been significantly modified. However, the format has been improved to ensure that the most current information is provided in the Plan. The most significant of the map products will be the new Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. As noted, included in the 2007 update are revisions to the Community Facilities and Services and Parks and Recreation Chapters of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. This element of the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan was endorsed by the CPPS at their February and April 2007 meetings. It was recommended that the Parks and Recreation Chapter be merged into the Community Facilities and Services Chapter of the Plan. In addition, the CPPS recommended that the language describing the Tuscarora Trail is included in this section. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 262 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Planning Commission Discussion - 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan Update. April 30, 2007 Page 2 The effort to update the Community Facilities and Services and Parks and Recreation Chapters of the Plan, included the direct input of the relevant departments who were asked to review the description of their facilities and services as currently found in the plan. They were then requested to draft a new version and forward this to the Planning Department, The CPPS initially reviewed the information provided by the relevant departments at their November 2006 meeting. A subsequent joint meeting was held in December with representatives from the Parks and Recreation Commission. This meeting advanced the discussion and coordination from the Community Facility providers and also included a representative of the School Board. Over the past couple of months, Staff in the Planning Department has taken the opportunity to review the chapters that make up the 2003 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The review has highlighted a variety of issues and opportunities which need to be addressed. The CPPS also recognized the need to address the ongoing maintenance of the Comprehensive Plan and recommended that the various Committees and Advisory Boards established within the County review the Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan under their purview and provide recommendations to the CPPS. This review could occur throughout the next year as time permitted with each Committee and would be independent of the 2007 update. The 2007 update is timely and reflects previously approved changes to the Comprehensive Policy plan, and the update to Community Facilities and Services. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) recommended the 2007 update to the Comprehensive Policy Plan as presented and has forwarded the update to the Planning Commission for review and discussion prior to review by the Board of Supervisors. Comments received from the Planning Commission will be incorporated into the proposal and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors as a discussion item at their May 23, 2007 meeting. MTR/bad Attachments Planning Commission Discussion - 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan Update. April 30, 2007 Page 3 Summary of Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments. The following Comprehensive Policy Plan amendments have occurred from October 1, 2003 through April 1, 2007. Amendments: Eastgate - 178 acres SWSA BOS approved 11/10/04 Eastern Road Plan 2005 — Spine Road BOS approved 05/11/05 Tasker Woods Land Use Plan Tasker Woods — 57 acres UDA / 79 acres SWSA BOS approved 07/13/05 West Jubal Early Land Use Plan Bridgeforth — 267 acres UDA/ SWSA Expansion BOS approved 01/11/06 Round Hill Community Land Use Plan Round Hill Community — 251 acres SWSA Expansion BOS approved 05/10/06 UDA/ SWSA Boundary Modification Exercise BOS approved 09/13/06 Eastern Road Plan 2006 — General Update BOS approved 11/08/06 UDA/ SWSA Land Use Policy Modifications BOS approved 11/08/06 UDA Study Land Use Policy Text — Addition to Existing Land Use Policies BOS approved 02/28/07 Community Facilities and Services As development continues in Frederick County, there is a need to carefully plan for the facilities and services that will be required. Planned development will effect the expenditures and facilities that will be needed. it will also effect the location and -types of facilities that must be provided. There is a need to carefully monitor growth and to plan land use and facilities in a coordinated fashion. This can be accomplished through annual comprehensive planning and capital improvements planning. Schools Frederick County Public Schools is the 22"d largest of the 134 systems in the state of Virginia. There are over 2,000 full time employees as of 2007, thus making the Frederick County School Board the second largest employer in the Winchester -Frederick County Area. The >~fede,.i , high seheals sefving gfadesnine through twelve. The school district has 11 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, 3 high schools, and l alternative educationleareer & technical school. The school division also owns and operates two regional special education facilities: Northwestern Regional Education Program (NREP), housed in NREP Center, and the Robinson Educational Center. The NREP is a regional program that provides special education services to students from Frederick and Clarke Counties and the City of Winchester. rr addition themain JVhV VI f4lLli1CIIIIG+L i j Other supportfacilities inclatde the administration building, the maintenance%varehouse facility, and the transportation facility. In addition to the 24 schools and administrative support facilities, there are 32 modular units and two Sprung Instant Structure units maintained as classrooms and offices. The school system also provides building maintenance services for the county government. During the past several decades, the student enrollment in the school division has increased steadily. Historical data shows student membership grew by 1,540 students over the past five years. This was an increase of 14.5% when comparing FY2006 to FY2001. Student membership from FY 2006 to FY2007grew 2.7% with a net increase of 326 students. The most signifieant inefease has eeetiffed thfeughetA the 1990s with sehool ei-&ellmefA gfewing by 2,318 studet4s. This , ftem 8,223 students in 1990 to 10,408 studeffts iii 1999, fepr-esefAs a 28,0,o' gr-evAh in student state r'kvefa a whieh . 11. 3I% fef the same 0 ed of time. In order to meet the need for additional space, a number of school construction and renovation projects have occurred t>7,-,,,,,.hout the 19906 over the past decade. Despite the completion of these capital facilities projects, overcrowding is still a problem in a number of Frederick County's Public Schools ° 0 indian 14allow 0 94o), Senseny Frederick County " 1 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services Read (105%) and Stenem,all 0 ). C;onstf�uefiaaefelassfe additions to A.-ffiel and Nliddletew 2000 d Robinson1 +_ will be el es` d In order to meet the need for projected membership over the next decade, a number of new constructionn and renovation projects have been proposed through the capital improvements plan (CIP). With the completion of the replacement Gainesboro Elementary School in 2007, the 12'1',13"', and 14th elementary schools are projected to open between FY2010 and FY2016. A renovation to Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School and an addition to Bass -Hoover Elementary School are also projected within this same time period. As students matriculate from elementary to the middle and high school levels, the need to provide additional space for the increase in student population and to meet changing education requirements will become a necessity to + h _* edueational fequife FtepAs will iieeessitffle th development Plan fefleets the need to addfess spEtee Fe juife iefAs fef middle and high seheel enf ollmei:A that exeeeded 0 Between FY2011 and FY2013, it is projected that a 5tr' middle school, a 4"' high school, a renovation to James Wood High School, a renovation/addition to Robert E. Aylor Middle School, and an addition to Bass -Hoover Elementary School will also occur within the same time period In addition to the space need to accommodate student growth, there is also a need for larger administrative and operation support facilities. The current transportation site can no longer adequately accommodate work performed at thisfacility, and the current location is not sufficient to expand the existing facility to safely maintain a bus fleet approaching 175 school buses. The central administration building is over 40 years old and the current number of staff exceeds the building's safe -carrying capacity. This issue will require attention within f the next ew years. A plan for the replacement of Frederick County Middle School in the proposed CIP and the renovation of thatfacility to house the central administration offices will address this issue. As Frederick County looks toward the future, it will need to plan for new school facilities that are Frederick County " 2 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services strategically located to help mitigate overcrowding for staff and students. The rate of residential growth continues to impact the school system as subdivisions are developed within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Additionally, it is important to monitor residential growth outside of the UDA that has Historically accounted for a least one-third of the new residences in Frederick County. Along with growth in student enrollment, the school is faced with the responsibility of providing instruction in order to prepare students to work and live in the 21" century. The use of technology as a tool in nearly every facet of education has dramatically changed the way in which instructional services are provided to students. Required technology -related instruction at all levels will continue to necessitate increased expenditures for computer and computer related hardware and software. Mandates from the federal and stated governments, particularly in special education services, will require localities to expend additional financial resources to meet educational requirements. The requirements associated with technology -related instruction and the provision of appropriate special education services to students will create the need for investment in future capital projects within the school division. The school division and the Board of Supervisors have made major efforts to consolidate services in order to serve the residents of Frederick County more effectively which include thefollowing: • Cooperative agreements relative to sharing school facilities for recreation use by a wide range of community organizations • Maintenance of school grounds, provided by the Department of Parks and Recreation, which has resulted in greater utilization of space. • Maintenance of Frederick County's office complex provided by the school division's Building & Grounds Department • Warehouse space in the Buildings and Grounds Department's Facility, provided by Frederick County School Board, for other local government departments • Fueling services to other local government departments provided by the school division's transportation department. Also, whenever possible, the school board has endeavored to support other Frederick County departments by making school facilities available during non -school hours for community and recreational use. Frederick County " 3 Comprehensive Plan Communitv Facilities and Services Parks and Recreation The purpose of this section of the chapter is to outline the County's recreational policies and identify implementation methods to accomplish the stated goals for recreational facilities, programs, studies, and plans. This narrative is a broad overview of parks and recreation goals, needs and standards, and serves as a guide to decision making. This overview is a part of the County's continuing planning process. Facilities The County currently owns and operates two district parks. Clearbrook Park, located five miles north of Winchester on Route 11, consisting of approximately 55 acres (44 which are owned by the Count}) and Sherando Park, located two miles east of Stephens City on Route 277, consisting of approximately 334 acres. Both district parks currently serve the County's population with active and passive recreational programs and facilities. in addifiefttothese fegional p fks, rive neighbe�a pafk i ha-ve been devele �ed whieh sep,,C��ifie gr-eup with mefe limited f4eilites than thes in the r-egienal-�. The four County neighborhood parks are located at: the Reynolds Store Fire Company and Gainesboro Fire Company in the Gainesboro District, aPA Round Hill Fire Company in the Back Creek District, and the Frederick Heights subdivision in the Shffvffiee Red Bud District. These neighborhood parks consist primarily of playground equipment for young children. The Parks a eefp.,:ntffiity use. In 1987, master development plans were adopted for both Clearbrook and Sherando Parks. These master plans established development goals for each park, identified unmet recreational needs, provided unified facility plans, and proposed a development program for each park. The Master Plans for both Clearbrook and Sherando Parks reflect the recommendations of the County residents and national standards as outlined in the Virginia Outdoor Plan. These plans emphasize the development of a swimming pool complex, and additional sports venues, picnic areas, and maintenance support facilities. Tly,_ a a + b eemre +e r„ i m 3n 300 in 2001, the Sherando Park Master Plan ivas revised and adopted. y Since the adoption of the Master Plans, the County has completed the construction of: two outdoor swimming pool complexes, four irrigated soccer fields, a maintenance building, three shelters, a gazebo, two playground areas, two sand volleyball courts and two fields of a four field softball complex. The County has also purchased an area to house the maintenance operation for Clearbrook Park. Additional recreational facilities currently provided are athletic fields, playground, and picnic areas with a variety of recreational opportunities such as horseshoes, fishing, paddleboats, volleyball, Frederick County " 4 uomprenensive rian Community Facilities and Services open space areas, and support facilities. Clearbrook Park, Sherando Park, neighborhood parks and all public schools are maintained by the Parks Division of the County Parks and Recreation Department. Asa result of ajoipA opefating agFeemefft with the County Seheal Board, the Parks and not in use by the sehealt lighted football field and > baseball field, room, eight Outdoof lighted teffflis- Community GepAef, w-hieh was built adjoining Sher-afide High Sehool, opened in September- of 1993 - The Residential Per-fbfmanee Zoning fegulations fequife that open spaee be pfavided in most types development whieh eofitains !at sizes of less than 5, 000 square feet. it is fequir-ed that sueh open and ffail system. One need that has been indeptiffived is �ffiee development of a bikeway and t -fail system. To date, the County has constructed a 2.4 mile bicycle/pedestrian trail to serve several residential areas east of Stephens City. The County has also committed to the construction of a .6 mile (3,200 1. r ) bieyel e f eil y trail to serve residential areas on the northern perimeter of Sherando Park. These bicycle facilities will link those residential areas with Sherando Park and Sherando High School. Additional trails would provide residents the ability to travel safely from their homes to schools, stores, work or recreation areas without having to share the overcrowded arterial and collector roads with automobiles. Alsoft, fegulations to deteffnine whether- the feefeational Heeds of the single family hemeownef are b Programs The Recreation Division of the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department was created to provide a comprehensive and accessible program of recreational services and activities for the residents of Frederick County. A diverse range of recreational and enrichment programs is provided for all age groups. This broad base of activities includes, but is not limited to, instructional classes, outdoor adventure programs, sports and athletics, lifetime leisure and fitness programs, cultural and community events, as well as, trips and excursions. _ . ,. ._ Programming responsibilities are assigned within the Division's four interest sections: 1. Community Events 2. Before & After School Programs Frederick County " 5 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services 3. Sports & Athletics 4. Lifetime Leisure and Fitness Staff members work together to identify, develop, and implement those activities which most closely meet the interests and desires of the community. The Division typically implements programs within age categories such as preschool, youth, teen, adult and senior adult; howevef,� The majority of recreation programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department are held within the 45 18 public schools in Frederick County and the Parks and Recreation Department's Community Centers. Consequently, a this wide variety of recreation offerings has maximized the use of county school buildings. The joint efforts of the Frederick County Public Schools and the Parks and Recreation Commission/Department resulted in the inclusion of recreational facilities within Sherando High School. The Parks and Recreation Department's Community Center, which was built djein adjoins Sherando High School, opened in September of 1993 and contains two racquetball courts, a weight room and a multipurpose room with kitchen. O "ugidS*''a, 2000, the View ElemefAar-y Seheel, will have a fall size gynfrnasitffn that will be pr- 3 ed during n seheal Neuf . Building upon the Sherando concept, the Orchard View Community Center, which is attached to Orchard View Elementary School was opened in August 2000. This facility features a full. -size gymnasium available for recreational activities during non -school hours. The Evendale Coinmunio� Center, our third center, opened in 2006 includes two multi purpose rooms and a full size gymnasium. The Tuscarora Trail The Tuscarora Trail is a 249 mile hiking trail situated generally along the mountain ranges to the west of the Shenandoah and Cumberland Valley. It connects to the Appalachian Trail in Shenandoah National Park and in Pennsylvania northeast of Carlisle. Frederick County " 6 Comprehensive Flan .. The Tuscarora Trail The Tuscarora Trail is a 249 mile hiking trail situated generally along the mountain ranges to the west of the Shenandoah and Cumberland Valley. It connects to the Appalachian Trail in Shenandoah National Park and in Pennsylvania northeast of Carlisle. Frederick County " 6 Comprehensive Flan Community Facilities and Services Approximately 26 miles of the Tuscarora Trail is in Frederick Count (see map). Of this total, approximately 11.25 trail miles are protected by easements on private property, 3.75 trail miles are on unprotected private property and 11 trail miles are on public roads. This trail is an important feature in the county for recreation and for the promotion of tourism. For safety reasons, the county supports the relocation of the trail off of the public roads wherever possible. The county also supports voluntary trail easements for sections of the trail on private property to insure the long-term viability of the Tuscarora Trail. Current Needs and Future Demands To Delp meet present requests and plan for future leisure service demands, the Parks and Recreation Department has completed Master Plans for the County's two fegional District Parks through community involvement; studies of national standards provided in the Virginia Outdoor Plan; and surveyed information relating to the provision of leisure services. Through utilization of these and any other available resources, it is projected that the following areas must be addressed if we are to meet leisure demands: 1. Land acquisition to meet minimum standards. 2. Facility development to meet minimum standards. 3. Development of recreation centers. 4. Increased programming for special populations. 5. Increased programming for teens. 6. Greater diversity of programming to better meet the needs of the entire community. 7. Expansion of trail systems and bikeways. To serve our current population and ensure adequate public park land and recreational facilities are available for future generations of Frederick County residents, the Parks and Recreation Commission supports an approach which would require developers to set aside open spacefor use by the Home Owners Association and encourage a proffer which would enable the county to accomplish a master planned urban park system. With the required open space set aside provided by the developer, the Home Owners Association would have the option of developing recreational amenities of their choosing The developer would also have the opportunity to include features which may help market their property. The county would then encourage a proffer, based oil the approved urban park master plan, of land if determined suitable. If land within a certain development does not conform to the urban park master plan, a monetary proffer to help offset the cost of completing the plan could be considered. The Parks and Recreation Commission would also advocate developers being required to offer easements and construct pedestriarrlbicycle trails through their developments. Maintenance and upkeep of these public trails would then become the responsibility of the Home Owners Associations. The acquisition of these public trail easements would be necessary to provide an array of non vehicular access to the public parks, Frederick County - 7 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services schools, libraries and commercial establishments. The Parks and _R_ecreati.on. Commission also recommend the county actively pursue land acquisition and facility development through appropriations, bond referendums, donations, partnerships and bequest. Additionally, the Parks and Recreation Commission would support the monetary proffers for parks and recreation being put into an interest barring account with all interest earned being added to the proffer intended for parks and recreation capital development_ Area Standard As suggested by the 44% 2002 Virginia Outdoor Plan, the area standard for local recreation and park sites in Virginia is ten acres of developed park land per thousand populations. Frederick County has a population of approximately 5 7,000 University , f Virginia Gef4o„ for Publ e Sen4ces) 70,575 (based on 2006 estimates provided by the Planning Department) and currently maintains 494 400 acres of park land. Of the 494 400 acres assigned to the parks, about 249 220 acres would be considered developed. Dep Anient, and additional 166 aeres will be needed and by the yeaf 2010, aflothef 130 w fequired ifwe are to keep paee with the feeefFifaeRded standEffd of the ten aefes per- thousand. It is Using the population projections provided by the Frederick County Planning Department, an additional 286 acres are needed to meet the current demand; another 37 acres by 2010 and 60 acres by 2015 will be required if we are to keep pace with the recommended standard of the tell acres per thousand population. It is estimated by the Parks and Recreation Department that by the year 2020, Frederick County will need approximately 843 acres of developed park land to adequately serve the County's population. 3,,jr-gillia ()tItdaef Plan te eefisidef the fbHowing types of park development. The following are different park types for development: Frederick County " 8 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services MIllrl PAPX .Size 0 — 4 acres ,service Area -% mile Administrative Responsibility Local Unit of Government Purpose The Mini parks offer close to home open space and limited recreational amenities which are typically accessible by bicycle/pedestrian trails. Mini Parks have a service area of approximately 4 mile and are less than five acres. It is important for these parks to be accessible by bike/pedestrian trails. In most cases, it is not practical to include athletic fields or major facility development in a mini park. As a result, these areas offer very little in terms of design elements which create a selfpolicing environment. These areas can become attractive to the occasional/drop—in visitor and supervision is often necessary to ensure the park remains an asset to the community. Mini parks are the least desirable type of park for inclusion into a public park system because they are small, inefficient to maintain and difficult to police. Tj picallj,, file amenities found in the Mini Park are file same as found in home owner association open space areas. However, if strategically located and offering a unique value not available as a Horne Owners Association recreational unit, the Mini Park may be considered. Frederick County „ 9 Comprehensive Plan. Communi NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Size: 5-20 24 acres Plan at 3 acres/ 1000 Population Facilities and Services Service Area: Approximately 5 — 15 minutes walking distance or 1/2 mile to 1 1/2 miles Administrative Responsibility: Local Unit of Government or Heffieewners " s i; tier Purpose: The primary function of the neighborhood park is to provide limited types of recreation for the entire family within easy walking distance. Facilities should be provided for all age groups. Character: Intensive use and easy access are characteristics of this classification. Ideally, the site would have areas that are level to gently rolling to accommodate the intensive use facilities, with shaded areas for passive recreation. Location: If possible, the neighborhood park should be located near a school and/or the neighborhood center and away from railroads, major streets and other hazardous barriers. Potential Facilities Playground Badminton Courts Ball Diamonds Swimming Pool Basketball Courts Volleyball Courts Tennis Courts Fishing Pond Shuffleboard Courts Recreation Center Picnic facilities Trails Horseshoe Pits Bikeway Football/Soccer Field Play fields usually serve a dual purpose in this type of facility. They provide an area for sports and running games and also serve as open space. Intensive use areas (the playground area and hard surfaced courts) are buffered from other activities by passive natural areas and pedestrian access corridors. Programmed activities such as organized athletics are often suitable in neighborhood parks. Although limited parking facilities are provided, site design should encourage pedestrian access to the greatest extent possible. Rural communities may want to consider deleting neighborhood parks and include their function in larger community parks which could better serve the needs of widely dispersed local population. From an economic standpoint, stfa4egiea4ly laeated, well designed larger- faeilites than to inv st in sevef-al small sites and Hot ha -V well designed, larger facilities are likely to be less expensive to maintain than several small sites. Frederick County v 10 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services COMMUNITY PARK Size: -20 50 aefes 25-99 acres Plan at 3 acres/1000 population Service Area: Approximately 15 minutes driving time Administrative Responsibility: Local Unit of Government Purpose: Community parks should primarily support active recreation activities and be capable of withstanding intensive use, while still containing a fair amount of open space. Character: The site usually varies from relatively flat open space to moderately sloping wooded area. Such a park should be adaptable to a wide variety of recreational activities. Access is gained by auto, bicycles, or walking. Location: Locate when possible near the center of the community with good access and serviced by a public transportation system. Potential Facilities: Playground Badminton Courts Ball Diamonds Swimming Pool Basketball Courts Natural Areas Parking Areas Volleyball Courts Tennis Courts Fishing Pond Shuffleboard Courts Recreation Center Lake or Stream Golf Picnic facilities Trails Horseshoe Pits Bikeway Football/Soccer Field Boating/Fishing Beach Area Frederick County - 11 Comprehensive Plan w• •• i ' PIN Frederick County - 11 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services DISTRICT #egiWW PARK Size: cn !So " fes 100-999 acres Plan at 4 acres/1000 population Service Area: 15-25 minutes driving time 5-15 miles service radius Administrative Responsibility: Local Unit of Government Purpose: District Parks should serve the recreational needs of large portions of the local population. They should contain a wide variety of intensively developed areas for day use recreation, while providing ample open space with generous buffers between activity areas. Character: The site could vary from flat open space to moderately to steeply sloping topography. It should be capable of hosting a diversity of activities, effectively buffering natural areas and open space from active recreation areas. A site location along a stream or lake is highly desirable. The regional park needs to be accessible by auto, as well as, pedestrians and bicycles. Location: Where possible, regional parks should be located near the center of the service area, and on or close by an arterial or major road providing good access to the facility. In urban or suburban situations, easy access to mass transit is highly desirable. The site should also be accessible by pedestrians and bicyclists. Potential Facilities Playground Badminton Courts Ball Diamonds Swimming Pool Basketball Courts Natural Areas Parking Areas Volleyball Courts Tennis Courts Fishing Pond Shuffleboard Courts Recreation Center Lake or Stream Golf Picnic facilities Trails Horseshoe Pits Bikeway Football/Soccer Field Boating/Fishing Beach Area Frederick County v 12 Comprehensive Flan Community Facilities and Services GREENWAY Any length, preferably longer than one mile Typically 75-100 feet or wider Service area Dependant upon the location, size and significance of the corridor Administrative Responsibility Federal, state, local or public/private partnership Purpose Greenways are established to protect, preserve, and maintain existing natural and cultural corridors; to link population centers with recreational, educational and business areas and other population centers; and to provide recreational and non -motorized transportation opportunities along these corridors by using natural features (ridge -lines, steep slopes), utility rights-of-way, and watercourses (streants, rivers, canals, etc.). Character Depending on the location, it can range from rugged terrain with scenic views and extensive vegetation to open level meadows. The greenjvay can be a separate entity ora portion of airy of the other park categories. Potential facilities Access Points Canoeing Camping Fishing Picnic Facilities Trails Parking Areas )sinter Sports Historic .Sites Boating Natural Area Frederick County `" 13 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services COMMUNITY CENTERS Community Centers are facilities which provide a multi purpose room, kitchen area, and afitness or gymnasium element. These facilities are usually constructed between 15,000 and 20,000 squarefeet. Thesefacilities may be reserved for the general public. Community Centers may be a stand alonefacility within. a Neighborhood or Community Park, or may be co -located with other County Agency Buildings. RECREATION CENTERS mu , .�u..�.u. u -- —_- - - , erhoo feet,50,000 1 000 square and will kielude seN,eralmalfip��� r-eefeation f4eilities is to rY Recreation Centers are typicallyfound in District or Regional Parks. These 100,000-150,000 sq feet facilities provide an indoor aquatic venue, gymnasium,fitness, multi picrpose rooms, a kitchen, lobby area, and significant locker room space. In providing Recreation Centers, one should consider adequate storage. These facilities are open to the general public for drop-in use. E�ds+' Regional D - T,'. �� ilifie i t' ' i t a Frederick County " 14 Comprehensive Flan Commicnity Facilities and Services Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department Comprehensive Plan Facility Standards Frederick County " 15 Comprehensive Plan 2006 2020 Needs Needs Facility Existing Gap Gap Park Land 400 286 443 I/4 Mile Track 1 3 4 Baseball Fields Diamonds 8 6 9 Basketball Courts 5 9 12 Bike Trails/ Roadways 2.4 66 82 Greenway Fishing (bank) 69 84 Amphitheatre 0 2 2 Horseshoes 8 -1 0 Outdoor Swimming 2 1 2 Volleyball 3 11 14 Football 1 6 8 Picnicking 400 286 443 Community Centers 6 1 3 Recreation Center 0 1 1 Skateboard Park 0 1 3 Soccer Fields 4 10 13 Softball Fields 5 9 12 Tennis Courts 62-3 11 36 Special Use Facility As needed As needed Ice Skating/Hockey 0 1 1 Frederick County " 15 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY As the population of the Winchester-Frederick County area continues to increase, there will undoubtedly be greater emphasis placed on the County's Parks and Recreation Department. As indicated by the standards provided in the 4-996 2002 Virginia Outdoor Plan, referred to in this chapter, there exists a need to concentrate on developing facilities to meet present minimum standards, and an even greater need to establish a long range capital improvement program to ensure the provision of the physical amenities required to meet future leisure demands. At this tifne, p Fier-ity should be giveti to bring otir ' I - awA�nended minim needs while desifeable &peft­spaee is still available a� a r-easenable eost. The County has already begun to address long terns multi-tcse trail needs as discussed in this chapter with a strategy which involves the creation of a complete network of transportation modes, including non-motorized and pedestrian use. In addition, the UDA study of Apri12005 sets as one of its goals to examine "providing adequate area for district, community, and neighborhood parks and ensure broad access to a variety of recreational opportunities." It is increasingly important to integrate development of parks and recreation facilities and programs into the overall County plan to make Frederick CounoJ all attractive place to live and work. Since the existing parks and recreation facilities are below the recommended minimum standards for a locality of our size, priority should be given to bringing our system up to standard.. Strong consideration should also be given to the acquisition of park land to meet future needs while desirable open space is still available. To complement the strategies and standards identified, the Parks and Recreation Department staff is creating a blue print which will strategically locate areas for park land acquisition to meet existing and future demands. It is anticipated a draft of this plan will be completed by July 1, 2007. In addition to the facilities that are needed to meet current and future demands, the Parks and Recreation Department will also need additional professional staff to accommodate an already increasing demand for recreational programs. Frederick County v 16 Comprehensive Flan Coniniunity Facilities and Services Emergency Services The Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department was established in 1990 to provide support and guidance for the eleven volunteer fire and rescue companies that provide fire suppression and emergency medical services to the citizens of Frederick County. Each volunteer fire and rescue company provides fire suppression service, ten provide EMS transport services, eight provide advanced life support emergency medical service, one provides basic life support emergency medical service and two one provides first responder level medical care. The County fire and rescue companies are as follows: Company 11 - Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company Company 12 - Middletown Fire and Rescue Company Company 13 - Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company Company 14 - Gore Fire Company Company 15 - Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company Company 16 - Gainesboro Fire and Rescue Company Company 17 - Star Tannery Fire Company Company 18 - Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company Company 19 - North Mountain Fire and Rescue Company Company 20 - Reynolds Store Fire and Rescue Company Company 21 — Millwood Station Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company Most of the apparatus operated by the companies are owned by and have been purchased through the fiend raising efforts of each company. The County has purchased a ladder truck which provides truck service throughout the county. This vehicle is housed at Company 13, Clearbrook Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company and is staffed by a combination of career and volunteer personnel.. In addition, the county owns and operates twoALSfirst response vehicles, which are stationed at Company 18, Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company, and Compan}% 16, Gainesboro Fire and Rescue Company. Company 12, Middletown Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company owns an ALS vehicle, which is operated most of the time by the county. Staffing of the fire and rescue stations is accomplished by a combination of volunteers from each community and is supplemented by twenty-four career fire and rescue personnel employed by Frederick County. The volunteers provide 24 hour a day, seven day a -week coverage in all of the fire and rescue stations. The career fire and rescue personnel staff nine of the eleven stations, ten hours a day, five days a week as well as providing 24 hour coverage on two advanced life support response vehicles. These vehicles operate from Company 16 and 18. The Fire and Rescue Department office is divided into three divisions. These divisions are Operations, Training, and Life Safety. The office is headed by a full-time Director who is employed by the County. The Director is responsible for supervision of all of the Departments operations. Frederick County " 17 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services This includes the supervision of all career personnel, coordinating the service delivery of the volunteer companies, overseeing emergency services planning, providing volunteer and career ,•rnnr/llnattnn and managing Department training programs, aisaster and hazaruous,7 ���atef�al -� g g resources. seefe The Operations Division is divided into three battalions, have a Fire/Rescue Lieutenant — Field Supervisor to oversee the career fire and rescue personnel. These Field Supervisors also work with the volunteer chiefs to coordinate daily activities within each company. The Life Safety Division is responsible for fire prevention, life safety education programs, fire code enforcement and fire investigations. The Life Safety Division is headed by a full time Fire/Rescue Battalion Chief- Fire Marshal employed by the County. The division is support by a full time Fire/Rescue Lieutenant -Assistant Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshals are on call on a 24-hour basis to provide fire investigations, technical support to volunteer companies, and to respond to emergencies. The Training Division is responsible for developing, providing, and overseeing training programs for the volunteer and career fire and rescue personnel. This Division is headed by a full-time Fire/Rescue Battalion Chief— Training Officer employed by the county. The training officer is also the Career Development Advisor, responsible for overseeing the administration of the Career Development Program. Future challenges for the Fire and Rescue Department include meeting fire and rescue equipment needs, maintenance and expansion of fire and rescue stations, developing water systems for fire protection, meeting training and certification requirements, increasing emergency medical service, improving radio communications, providing service for the regional airport as required by the Federal Aviation Authority regulations, and developing additional fire and rescue stations to meet future growth within the county. The Couffty of Ffeder-iek had a paptilation of 3 4,150 in 1980 and an estimated popula4ion E)f 57,000 iner-ease E)f 22,850 vAth fie development of new fife and r-eseue stfftiens. This gfevAh has inefeasedd the fespense time for- exis ig fire and feseue statiefis and will ttHdaubtedly lead to the need additiewd fife , asnems rie=s-. Planning for future fire station locations and equipment needs has been accomplished by developing a five-year strategic plan. This plan identifies future station sites and equipment needs based on projected service demands and response times. The plan encourages the dedication of sites for new fire and rescue stations within the identified areas during the rezoning process. A recent response study was conducted and concluded the need for five additional fire and rescue stations in the next five years. These stations are to cover the areas of - Frederick County " 18 Comprehensive Flan Community Facilities and Services Green Springs/albite Hall Rt. 522 South/ Rt. 277 East Middle Road/Cedar Creek Grade Apple Pie Ridge/ Rt. 522 Route 7/ Redbud Road The response study justifies the need for new fire and rescue stations. The study indicates that in many areas a ten minute total response time is not being met. The increased calls to each fire station create a situation where the 2"d due station has to cover additional areas while the 1St due station is still out. Non-residential areas such as retail, office, and industrial areas require increased fire protection because specialized equipment is necessary to insure safety for these land uses. Other land uses identified as target hazards continue to grow. These include land uses such as schools, i ' F -. These In � • s have_ a 1 er r1CIc n ni lry nursing homes, daycare centers, an industlia� �acih«es. ���.,se gun.. ,zse� �,u... � h:gh.,� �..,._ .,fi� due to the specific demographics of person utilizing these facilities. Existing road conditions, primarily those with gravel or dirt surfaces and horizontal and vertical curvatures, located outside of the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) create longer response times. The greatest factor contributing to the need for new fire and rescue stations is the rapid population growth and increases in dwelling units within and outside of the T D ^ the County. The development of new fire and rescue stations could provide an opportunity to extend satellite services provided by other county departments and agencies. Allocation of space could be created within new fire and rescue stations for community services provided by the Sheriff's Office, the Treasurer's Office, the Voter Registrar's Office, and the Commission of the Revenue's Offices Airport The Winchester Regional Airport is a 375 -acre, all weather, 24-hour general aviation airport with a 5,500 foot runway located southeast of Interstate 81, Exit 313A. The facility currently has 75 tie down spaces, two 12,000 square foot public common hangar, 52 T -hangars, and three private corporate hangars. Based aircraft total 80, and range in size from single engine to large cabin class business aircraft. Services available include 24-hour U.S. Customs and Immigration, 24-hour on call line service, automated weather observation system, computerized weather and flight planning equipment, full instrument landing system, and rental car service. The Winchester Regional Airport Authority (WRAA) was formed by the Virginia General Assembly on July 1, 1987. The Authority consists of representatives from the City of Winchester and Frederick, Clarke, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties. Since its formation, the WRAA has embarked on an extensive airport improvement program. Major capital improvements have been accomplished in order to comply with Federal safety and design standards. Completed construction projects include: a 1,100 foot runway extension, pavement resurfacing of the entire runway, relocation of the Frederick County " 19 Comprehensive Plan C.-mmunity Facilities and Services taxiway, the creation of safety areas at each end of the runway, and the remarking of the runway and taxiway. New buildings constructed under this program include a modern general aviation terminal, a 12,000 square foot clear span hangar, a maintenance hangar with Fixed Base Operator offices, and 62 T -hangar units. Other completed projects include the airfield lighting upgrade, installation of a 4 0,000 gal 60, 000 gallon above ground fuel storage facility, a security fence around the Airport's perimeter, and the installation of a precision instrument approach to provide better all weather access to the Airport. Collaborating with Frederick County and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Authority has also made improvements to primary access roads for the Airport. Also completed was the relocation of Airport Road to remove a portion of the road which infringed on controlled airspace. Sewer and Water service is also established for the Airport. To date, more than $19 million dollars has been invested in the Winchester Regional Airport's capital improvements, equipment, and promotions through funding received from the Federal Aviation Administration, Virginia Department of Aviation, and the local jurisdictions. Remaining capital projects include the acquisition of land along Bufflick Road for noise abatement, development of the northern side of the runway, renovation of the l7 year told terminal building and construction of an aircraft wash rack. Through the support of the member jurisdictions, the Airport will continue to evolve into a modern, first class air transportation facility which will assist economic development endeavors in the attraction of new industrial and commercial businesses to the region. Frederick County " 20 Comprehensive Plan Coniniunity Facilities and Services Handley Library Library service is provided to Frederick County through the Handley Regional Library, which also serves Clarke County and the City of Winchester. Currently, there are 21,107 active registered library card holders in Frederick County. The regional system supports education, preschool through post -secondary, by providing assistance and research materials for projects and papers, and by being open weeknights, Saturdays and some Sundays. The library is also open during the summer when schools are closed. It is also an important resource for adults seeking to improve their skills and for introducing preschoolers to books and reading. The library also provides the business community and the general public within information for their research needs as well as recreations reading. ' ••_ ME The regional library system continues to be below per capita state standards in the areas of books, square footage, seating, and periodical holdings; however, important steps have been taken to remedy this. The predominant project, through the County's CIP, is the construction of a Northern Frederick County Branch. This project entails the acquisition of 3 to 4 acres and the construction of a 7,000 square foot library branch with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet along Route 522 Nnear Cross Junction. Initial parking would accommodate 35 vehicles. There is no library in this area of the county to serve residents. The residents of the Gainesboro District comprise the largest population group the greatest distance away from a library. The library would serve members of the population from toddlers to senior citizens. Also included in the CIP is the need for library branches in the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road area and on Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South). These projects entail the acquisition of 3 to 4 acres each and the construction of a 7,000 square foot library branch at each location with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet. This branch would serve citizens living in this rapidly growing area. A library in these locations will reduce traffic into the Winchester Library(s). These branches would also help fulfill a community center need within this area, by providing a meeting room. Another important capital project for the Library will be the expansion of the parking lot and sidewalks at the Bowman Library Branch. This proposal would expand the parking lot on the Lakeside Drive side of the library from 101 to 221 parking spaces, and to provide a sidewalk that will extend approximately 400 to 500feet beyond the sidewalk that now borders the parking lot to Frederick County " 21 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services connect to the sidewalk on Lakeside Drive. The parking lot expansion is needed to relieve overcrowding and to accommodate library patrons. The sidewalk is necessary to provide safe access for pedestrians to the library. Planning consideration for alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle connectivity should also be considered. County Offices 5 5 100,000 Most ef the 7 ee 5 GeffHfiissiener of the Re�venue's offiee, and the ShefifPs-Depwtffie�The provision of these and provide mefe- 5 5 ' . In addition to the County's main 100,000 squarefoot adniiiiistrative office complex in downtown Winchester, construction began on a 68,000 square foot for Public Safety Building was in the summer of 2006. The newfacility, which is scheduled to open in spring of 2007, is located south of Route 50, adjacent the regional airport, and will house the Fire and Rescue and Sheriff's departments. This facility is anticipated to accommodate the space needs of these two departments for 15-20 years. The building and site were also designed to allow for future expansionn of an additional 30,000 square feet. Refuse Collection, Landfill, and Recycling Tvvel Eleven refuse collection stations are located throughout Frederick County. Nine refuse collection stations consist of hydraulic compactors with separable roll -off containers and collection facilities for recyclables, and th.-ee sites eensis*-_-- ften_ ____ Two sites consist of front end dumpsters and collection containers for recyclables. The County converts dumpster sites to compactor stations when warranted by tonnage levels. When practical, the consolidation of sites during the conversion process is also desirable. Based en r-esear-eh by the GaveffflHeRl 12 StAideR efFfedef - - 43—.For residents who prefer curbside refuse collection., service Frederick County v 22 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services is provided by a number of private haulers. The Frederick County Landfill is a regional facility which receives refiase from Frederick and Clarke Counties, as well as the City of Winchester. The landfill is operated by Frederick County as an enterprise fund and the landfill operation is fee sustaining. The management and planning of landfill operations are solely the responsibility of Frederick County, with input from an oversight committee comprised of representatives from Frederick and Clarke Counties and the City of Winchester. Closure of the older section of the landfill, which opened in 1976, was completed in 1994. A new 160 -acre tract of adjacent land, purchased in 1986, was opened for landfilling in 1993. Approximately 90 acres of this tract have been permitted for landfilling under the new4y adopted current Subtitle "D" Solid Waste Regulations. Both the closure of the old section and the construction of the section were carried out in accordance with state regulations that require sophisticated environmental protection measures, including: composite impermeable liners, a complete leachate collection system, leachate treatment facility, groundwater monitoring, and gas monitoring. In an effort to extend the useful life of the municipal solid waste landfill, a 109 acre wooded tract was purchased from Ryland Carper for the future development of a construction debris landfill. The permitting, design, and construction of this new CDD landfill were completed in 1998. Through diversion of bulky, construction debris to aseparate landfill, an amendment to the state permit allowing vertical expansion, and improved compaction technologies, the life of the landfill has been extended to approximately 40 years. A new program to recirculate leachate or liquids through the landfill will also increase decomposition and extend the life of the municipal solid waste landfill. The County should continue to evaluate new methods for waste reduction and support recycling programs, both of which will extend the life of the landfall. During the 1990s, the County placed collection boxes for recyclable materials at each of the citizens' convenience areas located throughout the County. In 2004, containers were also added at dumpster sites. Through this voluntary collection effort, the County was able to meet the 1995 state recycling mandate of 25 percent mandated by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Due to the rapid growth in the Frederick County, additional programs have been implemented to enable the County to maintain the 1995 r-eeyel n g mandate of 25 pe. ee at exceed the State's 25 percent recyclinggoal. These programs Frederick County " 23 Comprehensive Plan ••� In an effort to extend the useful life of the municipal solid waste landfill, a 109 acre wooded tract was purchased from Ryland Carper for the future development of a construction debris landfill. The permitting, design, and construction of this new CDD landfill were completed in 1998. Through diversion of bulky, construction debris to aseparate landfill, an amendment to the state permit allowing vertical expansion, and improved compaction technologies, the life of the landfill has been extended to approximately 40 years. A new program to recirculate leachate or liquids through the landfill will also increase decomposition and extend the life of the municipal solid waste landfill. The County should continue to evaluate new methods for waste reduction and support recycling programs, both of which will extend the life of the landfall. During the 1990s, the County placed collection boxes for recyclable materials at each of the citizens' convenience areas located throughout the County. In 2004, containers were also added at dumpster sites. Through this voluntary collection effort, the County was able to meet the 1995 state recycling mandate of 25 percent mandated by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Due to the rapid growth in the Frederick County, additional programs have been implemented to enable the County to maintain the 1995 r-eeyel n g mandate of 25 pe. ee at exceed the State's 25 percent recyclinggoal. These programs Frederick County " 23 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services include: brush and yard waste mulching, composting, waste oil recycling, oil filter recycling, cardboard and phone book recycling; tire shredding, household hazardous waste collection, and electronics recycling. It is essential that new residential developments needoe are provided with an appropriate means of solid waste collection. Either private collection or new collection stations, including land, should be provided by developers. Sewer and Water Facilities The location of public sewer and water lines determines where urban development will occur. The same as the seFviee areas for- pubfie se ef and water-. Beea-use sewef and watef f4eility leeatie I - ^^iaed, The Urban DevelopmentArea defines thegeneral area inwhich more intensive forms of residential development will occur. Commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses are also encouraged within the Urban DevelopmentArea. The Sewer and Water Service Area is consistent with the Urban DevelopmentArea in many locations. However, the Sewer and Water Service Area may extend beyond the Urban DevelopmentArea to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses in areas where residential land uses are not desirable. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has the responsibility for the treatment, transmission, and distribution of potable water and the collection and transmission of wastewater. Most of the sewer and water mains and laterals in the County are owned, operated, and maintained by the Sanitation Authority. Frederick County and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) have executed a Facilities Planning Agreement which sets forth procedures for the planning of sewer and water mains in the County. The agreement includes provisions for adopting a water and sewer facilities plan as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, specifying the location of mains over eight inches in size, and includes provisions for review and update of the plan and for including sewer and water facilities projects in the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan. The City of Winchester owns and maintains sewer and water lines in portions of the County adjacent to the City corporate limits. Such lines have been extended into the County following a previous agreement between the City and the County. The Frederick -Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) has the sole responsibility of providing wastewater facilities to serve the FCSA and the City of Winchester's treatment needs. The FWSA currently owns the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility, And t Pafkins Mills l D' A and " n4fae+" n k ' s Mills the Parkins Mills Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Crooked Run Wastewater Frederick County 24 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services Treatment Plant and has operational agreements with the City and the FCSA for their operation. The City operates and maintains the Opequon Facility while the Sanitation Authority is responsible for operation and maintenance of Parkins Mills and Crooked Run Facilities. Treatment of wastewater generated in the Ce Opeque W -ate . Re l.,,.,.,ation F,,eili -„ a the Pafkins Mill PlHt-from within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) is undertaken at all plants. The Opequon Plafft serves Service Area is comprised of the Abrams Creek drainage area which includes the City of Winchester and adjacent drainage areas located east, west and north of the City of Winchester. All wastewater coming from the City of Winchester is transported to and treated at the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. The Parkins Mills Wastewater Treatment Plant serves Sanitation Authority customers located in the upper Opequon Creek, Wrights Run, and Stephens Run drainage areas along with the Town of Stephens City. The Crooked Run Service Area services the Shenandoah Community in southeastern Frederick County. The Opequon Water Reclamation Facility presently has a seasonal hydraulic capacity of 8.4 millions gallons per day during summer months and 16.0 million gallons per day during the winter months. The facility has 18,000 pounds per day of biological capacity and also provides for biological nutrient removal of nitrogen and phosphorus. Based on the projections contained in the 1997 Opequon Water Reclamation Facility Capacity Needs Evaluation Report the present treatment configuration will meet both hydraulic and biological demands through 2007- 2008. The Frederick Winchester Service Authority Inas already begun design for an expansion and upgrade of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility to meetfuture gro wth needs and regulatory requirements requiring dramatic reductions of nutrient discharges from treatment facilities located in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The initial expansion and upgrade will increase the hydraulic capacity of the facility to a maximum of 12.6 million gallons per day. Obtaining this capacity will depend on the final wasteload allocation for nutrients assigned to the Opequon Facility under the Water Quality Management Plan Regulations adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Present planning would anticipate the expanded facility would be operational by 2010-2011. The Parkins Mills Wastewater Treatment Plant which serves the upper Stephens Run, Wrights Run, and Opequon drainage areas has a present rated capacity of 2.0 million gallons per day. The current average daily flow of this plant is about 75% of the design capacity. This facility also will be limited in it ultimate capacity by nutrients. Design of an expanded and upgraded facility is complete and construction of thatfacility began in early 2007. When construction is complete in 2009, the Parkins Mills Wastewater- Treatment Plant will have a capacioJ of 5.0 million gallons per day. Frederick County v 25 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services eetAef. The intention is that additional extensions of sewer and water service will reflect the boundaries of the UDA. The extension of mains into areas not included in the sewer and water service areas described by the facilities plan will require an amendment to the comprehensive plan. In this way, the County will maintain an orderly process of development. All sewer and water mains extended should be publicly owned mains. 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 0 5.00 C O R C7 4.00 c 0 a 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Ip 9� �^ Ary °�� �'a �'h 96 �',\ Aa �� O� �^ o� o� Oa �h O6 �$ �^ Aa 0h A6 Al �$ �ry �'S OA Oh Opequon Water Reclamation Facility Sewer Flow Versus Capacity Fiscal Years a+�OWRF County ���City —Capacity Frederick County V 26 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services Capital Improvements Plan The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is the community's plan for public facilities. It provides a list of projects planned for five years and is updated each year as projects are completed and new projects added. In general, projects on the Capital Improvements Plan are relatively expensive, fixed assets that require expenditures that do not recur annually and last for a relatively long time. The first year in the Capital Improvements Plan should provide a capital budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The scheduling of projects needs to be coordinated with plans for development contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan should be used as a tool to aid in determining priorities among projects, for estimating required funding, and for scheduling projects. The Capital Improvements Plan helps to guide development, to achieve the most efficient use of funds, and to maintain a stable financial program. The County's procedures for reviewing and adopting the CIP need to be improved. The CIP needs to have a direct link to available or projected funds. Projects need to be systematically reviewed against established standards in order to determine priorities. These standards need to be developed and reviewed on a regular basis. The County Finance Department should play an active role in the CIP development process. Facility Cost Impacts Rezoning requests should be evaluated to determine their potential impacts on the community facilities. Costs to the County should be estimated in terms of what impact the development, which could result from the proposed rezoning, would have on facilities and infrastructure. These costs are estimated in terms of facility use per unit of development. The estimated facility use is determined through the use of established multipliers which use averages derived from existing development. These multipliers set out such factors as: expected numbers of vehicle trips, school children, gallons of sewer and water usage per dwelling unit, square footage of commercial use, or person. The demand on various facilities resulting from a proposed rezoning can then be estimated based on the costs of facilities listed in the Capital Improvements Plan. Initially, costs are estimated in terms of the actual costs of providing facilities to support the potential development. In 1991, Frederick County's first impact model was developed. The fiscal impact model was utilized to project the fiscal impacts of rezonings on public schools, paries and recreation, and fire and rescue services for capital facilities costs. In 1998, a revised version of the impact model was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This new model was designed to project the fiscal impacts of miscellaneous public facilities, as well as the public agencies that were accounted for in the previous impact model. The impact model projects the gross potential costs of the facilities that would be needed to support a new development using the basic formula described above. In 2005, the Board ofSupervisois endorsed for use a new Development Impact Model (DINI) designed specificallyfor Frederick County. This model projects the capital fiscal impacts that would be associated with Frederick County " 27 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services specific developmentprojects on the budget of Frederick County Government and the Frederick County School Board. The DIM was developed to represent the budgetary structure of the County and could be used to evaluate future land use planning scenarios. No rezoning should be approved unless the net impacts on community facilities are positive, or if the negative impacts can be adequately addressed through proffers or some other means. A request for rezoning may be turned down even though all fiscal impacts appear to be addressed. If there are other impacts which are not addressed by the rezoning application, or if the request does not conform to this plan, a similar method should be developed for determining the impacts of proposed developments on transportation systems and other public facilities. Issues: There is a need to carefully monitor school enrollments and to plan for school capacity to deal with overcrowding, replacement of outdated facilities, and population growth in the County. There is a need to continue supporting fire and rescue squads and to develop policies to deal with growing emergency service demands. telephene-sys : ► The County should support improvements at the Winchester Regional Airport as a part of the overall economic development efforts. ► The County should continue to monitor refuse collection sites and should make improvements or add sites as needed. / The County should continue to monitor landfill recycling efforts should be suppefte . ► The County should maintain a process of careful Capital Improvements Planning coordinated with Comprehensive Planning. ► Frederick County and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority need- to should continue coordinated planning of sewer and water facilities following the procedures described by the Facilities Planning Agreement. ► Additional information is needed on the impacts of new development on community facilities. ► Frederick County and the City of Winchester need to maintain coordinated planning of sewer and water facilities in the County through the Sewer Agreements. Frederick County " 28 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services ► Together with the County and the City, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority should carefully plan needed sewage treatment capacity based on trends in usage. The Service Authority needs to develop a capital improvements plan that is coordinated with City and County plans. Water and sewer service should be provided to service areas in the urban development areas through an orderly process following the Facilities Planning Agreement and using the Capital Improvements Plan. Community Facility and Service Policy GO4L --Appropriate services and facilities shall he provided to serve planned land uses and development. GOAL — Facilities and services should be carefully planned to meet projected needs Strategy I - Plan sufficient school capacity to meet projected enrollment trends and to meet appropriate facility standards Strategy - Recognize the changes occurring in demand for emergency services and develop policies for dealing with those changes Strategy 3 - Support expansion plans for the Winchester Regional Airport. Strategy - Monitor refuse collection and landfill use and continue to develop plans for future improvements. Pursue recycling methods and other methods to extend the life of the landfill. Strategy - Carefully monitor sewer and water use and develop up-to-date improvement plans for sewer and water facilities. Strategy 6 - Develop and maintain formal and regular relationships and procedures between the County and providers of facilities and services, including the Sanitation Authority, the City of Winchester, the Service Authority, the School Board, the Regional Airport Authority, and the Fire and Rescue Squads. Strategy 7 - Use the Capital Improvements Plan to carefully plan community facilities and to coordinate facilities planning with land use plans. Frederick County V 29 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services Strategy - Require that the impacts of new developments on facilities be described and require that the impacts are addressed through proffers and other means. Implementation Methods: 1. Carefully monitor school enrollments and plan facilities according to enrollment and development trends. Update the Capital Improvements Plan each year based on trends. 2. Continue to support fire and rescue squads and plan to increase support according to development in the various service areas. 3. Develop plans for new emergency facilities. 4. Continue to convert dumpster sites to compactor sites. Monitor usage. Plan for new refuse collection sites according to use and planned development patterns. 5. Monitor landfill use. Plan for additional landfill capacity on adjacent land. Explore alternative disposal methods and new technologies. 6. Continue to plan for sewer and water main extensions according to the agreements established with the Sanitation Authority and the City of Winchester. Include planned extensions in the Capital Improvements Plan. 7. Provide for recycling at collection stations and support a regional recycling center. Encourage private haulers to offer recycling services to their customers. 8. Carefully monitor sewer and water use and develop a Capital Improvements Plan to accommodate projected development. 9. Consider means to provide water service to Brucetown. 10. Consider alternative sources of water supply. 11. Minor extensions of sewer and water service to business and industrial uses beyond the service area may be considered if such uses conform to other County standards. Such extensions should be reviewed by the Planning Commission for conformance with the Plan. 12. Require that information be provided with rezoning proposals on the impacts of development on community facilities. Impacts should be addressed through proffers and other means. No rezoning should be approved unless all impacts are adequately addressed. 13. Any sewer or water main six inches in diameter or larger, extended or existing within an area proposed for inclusion within the County's Sewer and water Service Are or Urban Development Area, should be dedicated as a public line to be owned and maintained by the County Sanitation Authority or City of Winchester when appropriate. 14. Plans for new facilities should be based on demand projections as derived from population projections in the Comprehensive Plan. Recreation Policy Goal - Contribute to the physical, mental, and cultural needs of the community, its economic and social well-being, and its sense of civicpride and social responsibility through the implementation of an integrated plan for recreation programs and parkfacilities. Frederick County " 30 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services Strategy l - Identify the recreational, parks, and open space needs of the County. Strategy 2 - Make available a wide range of year-round recreational opportunities. Strategy 3 - Seek alternative funding methods for the provision of existing and identified recreational needs. Strategy 4 - Encourage cooperative efforts with private, semi-public, and public providers of recreational opportunities. Implementation Methods: 1. Promote the completion of a County -wide recreation plan which identifies recreational, park, and open space needs. 2. Continue to solicit public opinion in planning parks and recreation. 3. Continue to encourage the participation and financial support ofcivic groups businesses, and other organizations and individuals for recreational needs. 4. Continue to utilize State and Federal grants and loans for financing and programming County recreational needs and especially for major capital projects. 5. Continue to expand our cooperative relationship with the Frederick County School Board in jointly meeting identified County recreational needs. 5. Continue to cooperate with the private sector, the semi-public sector and other public providers of recreation in meeting identified recreational needs. Goal - Continue to develop the County's regional parks as the major source ofrecreational facilities and activities. Strategy 1 - As finances are available, improvements to the Sherando and Clearbrook Parks should take place according to the adopted master plans. Implementation Methods: 1. Use the capital improvements planning process to provide improvements to the regional parks. 2. Seek alternative sources of funding for park improvements. Goal - Ensure that appropriate recreational facilities are provided in urban and rural areas. Strategy 1 — Promote the completion of a County -wide plan to ensure that appropriate open space and recreational facilities are provided in association with new urban development. Frederick County V 31 Comprehensive Plan Communitv Facilities and Services Strategy - Provide for suitable recreational opportunities for all portions of the County. Strategy 3 — Promote the development of a comprehensive trail system and bikeway plan. Implementation Methods: 1. Use a County -wide recreation plan to develop standards for open space and recreational facilities in new urban development. 2. Use a County -wide recreation plan to identify the recreation needs of residents in all portions of the County. 3. Identify recreation needs associated with the Rural Community Centers. 4. Review land development regulations to ensure that appropriate standards are provided for open space recreational facilities in new developments. Goal - Provide recreational programs and activities based on identified needs and available funding. Strategy 1 - Identify recreational program needs. Strategy 2 - Solicit public opinion on recreational programs to be provided. Strategy 3 - Coordinate with the Frederick County School Board, the public sector, the semi-public sector, and private organizations for the provision of recreational program funds, services, and facilities. Implementation Methods: 1. Prepare a County -wide recreation plan identifying program needs. 2. Develop and maintain citizen participation in the identification of recreational program and program facility needs. 3. Actively solicit contributions for the provision of recreational programs and program facility needs, from all segments of the community, both private and public. 4. Structure the provision of all program facilities, such as indoor community centers, to recognize land use decisions and policies. S. Actively utilize public, semi-public, and private facilities for the provision of recreational programs. Frederick County " 32 Comprehensive Plan Year Civil War Battlefields 1 1862 First Winchester 2 1862 First Kemstown 3 1863 Stephensons Depot 4 1863 Second Winchester 5 1864 Third Winchester 6 1864 Third Winchester 7 1864 Cedar Creek 8 1864 Third Winchester 9 1864 Second Kernstown Sites (Fortifications) 10 parkins Mill Battery 11 1864 Winter Line 12 Carriesbrooke Redoubt 13 Hillandale Works 14 19th Corps Entrenchments 15 Star Fort 16 Fort Collier 17 Zig-Zag Trenches [�!j Civil War Sites Civil War Battlefields 0 0 0 O 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 I I I I I I I Miles Civil Battlefields f{ And Sit e s n 0 (As Defined by the NPS Shenandoah Valley Civil War Sites Study) 0 0 1/3f 0 r 0 1s 4 x 16 � s � 8 0 2� � 9, I 1. 13 10 1� 17 x S ens,�Clty , .0 /,•" 0 O ,, / 7 �� Z 1. x � GX c�G Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Map Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development w '� 107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 v°r• WWW. COFREDERICK.VA.US 540-665-5651 1 Bartonsville 2 Brucetown 3 Cedar Creek Battlefield 4 Gravel Springs 5 Green Spring G Kemstown Battlefield 7 Kline's Mill 8 Marlboro 4 Middletown (on National register) 10 Opequon 11 Star Tannery 12 Stephens City ( on National register) 13 Third Winchester Battlefield 14 White Hall 4W Possible Historic Districts O 0 �11 0 00.51 2 3 4 5 6 I I I I I I I Miles Possible Historic ,\,, Districts 0 0 a 5QR X14 �. 0 8 0 13 0 10 D `_ `� �o 12 0 0 Cr2 Oti�K BGG Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Map �.�, Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development % 't 107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 WWWCO.FREDERICK.VA.US 540-665-5651 0 Geologic ]Formations And • Sho •sville Aq_ui ers k�,,rmlds .s,e e Geologic Formations & Aquifers < `D Valley and Ridge Formations Limestone/ Carbonate Aquifers Martinsburg Shale Whr,acre _ '•��� Cross Junction Sunimic - Lake Holiday Gwen $,Prim Gore yaVlBSbei'h QrytNl1 CL a rVlau:"Fucc l- 7vun Hayfield sigh View skcphilft"n - Lsarnwn AWw )ordai-prings Shawneeland �• . Leh- Pk Mill 1 rrt Factory .Winchester P Opaq�.an G,,enwdvd gild¢ Pers Mt W,Ihams i 44, 4 Ahdunta�nFells 1 f�ir�unr.vd0. j( Iters Cily eta 'ia 'f Arm®I inr�✓el Senn �v ' Qdub=+ tollgate ' Ifol., ions Q.1,(d,l'srbury Ml�dl@t4�tVr1 do ,illy, FLJ,n.t•, hM1li-'..i2idgeway 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nineveh I I I I I I I Miles e`�x SOU Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Map Frederick County Dept of Planning &Development 107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 WWW.CO.FREDERICK.XA.US 540-665-5651 P-h-X7-QiOqI I I I Miles SLK rO Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Map 'y,� Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development '� 107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601K WWW.CO.FREDERICVA.US 540-665-5651 • i Abmrns Ort!ek 2 Back Cret-k Major Buffalo Lick Run 4 Ce. -Jar c 5Ci"rtw-ok 7 11 i a t - 6 Di-mR7��-. , bDrainage I-R,,z �-w 2 il- 9 Sef.Ee4Y Alea " t S�eopy Cre6. i2 Stepheni R�n 131 &-'7pfiPr Springs 14 Up;)er Opec'uoi. reas 15 Wrigh.'s Run 0 s- -!0- p 'q, 1' 'tary I 17 Opequ.p 766utacy 2 4wLakes & Ponds 0 f Streams ;G`'7 Iry r 2( 06 N� 0 A LAil., 0 17 it 62 14 60 A -.0. v: 16 C- 11SI, J 5 10 27 0 0. 011162 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 6=L=6=L="mL=I Miles Frederick County Comprehensive Plan n= Frederick County Dept of Planning .:n, 107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 WWW.CO.FREDERICK.VA,US 540-665-5651 00 Frederick - Winchester Bicycle Flan t� 4 r -z``_ Long - Term Designation Short - Term Designation Vit.. Proposed Designation .,4 O ° X60 i . �j7 ° `y ° °i ( ( 2 9 1 37 y�, f % J O ;v Ij lot `;\ r `' ° 2z OO 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 I I I I Miles ``��_r'--�-.�,�----------------- ^ 4�GK CO Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Map h„ 1 Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development W '� 107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Wc° WWCO.FREDERICKNA.US 540-665-5651 School Names 0 Northwest Regional Education Program (NREP) I Dowell J Howard Center 2 Admiral Richard E. Byrd Elementary 3 Frederick County Middle School 4 James Wood Middle School 5 Robert E Aylor Elementary 6 James Wood Middle School 7 Milbrook High School 8 Sherando Hgh School 9 Armel Middle School 10 Bass - Hoover Elementary 11 Evendale Elementary 12 Apple Pie Ridge Elementary 13 Gainesboro Elementary 14 Indian Hollow Elementary 15 Middletown Elementary 16 Orchard View Elementary 17 Redbud Run Elementary 18 Senseny Road Elementary 19 Stonewall Elementary 20 Shenandoah University 21 Lord Fairfax Community College Current School Locations . Elementary School Middle School A High School _ Vocational +� Community College University gg f Frederick County Schools y 0 Stephens pity 27 0 D§,�i#tetcwn 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 I I I I I I I Miles AGK COG Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Map �, Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development m '� 107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 va. WWW. CO.FREDERICK.VA.US 540-665-5651 Map Created by Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development 12/11/06 2007-2008 New School Locations Capital Improvements Plan Elem School Elem School N WF. S 0 1 2 4 Miles 'l#12 Elem School #5 Middle School School School Locations Are Most Appropriate Within the UDA Existing Elementary Schools Existing Middle Schools Existing High Schools l_ 4 New School Location Alternatives / — 0 Urban Development Area i SWSA �J City/ Town Bounday ' Streets Primary i Secondary J Winchester Rds -r • Replacement FCMS �% Map Created by Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development 12/11/06 2007-2008 New School Locations Capital Improvements Plan Elem School Elem School N WF. S 0 1 2 4 Miles 'l#12 Elem School #5 Middle School School School Locations Are Most Appropriate Within the UDA r flill 101111 -n i +A 7 I I I I I Miles S Frederick County Comprehensive Plan MapFrederick County Dept ofPlanning&Development IN N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 WWW.CO.FREDERICK.V4.1JS 540-665-5651 1 Tuscarora ,l rail /***,o Tuscarora Trail % F ✓�" Lakes & Ponds Streams y City /Town Boundary 0 �`�' > jam. - .. t. .♦ .. .. rj'.� _ Q� '�` r•.%` � ~ 4`' - � Jew �r - � 7" �_p _- �y 0 2 #Y'' �• 37 1 r S ,.'50 22 Ar 1Y '11 !�C \ O 22 r 0 ti 00.51 2 3 4 5 6 1 Y Miles 06� Frederick County Comprehensive Plan MapFrederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 W W W CO.FREDERICK. VA.US 540-665-5651 e Urban Development Area r ederick County Current Zoning "'b Sewer & Water Service Area with Agricultural 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 I I I I I Miles c� �o Am Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Map R� v -i Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development w 4A 107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 w MI. www.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US 540-665-5651 pastern F"Le dewri �ounty Range Lard Use Plan 37 W Eastern Frederick County Future Land Use Plan a• . Urban Development Area Sewer & Water Service Area Residential Business Industrial Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development Institutional Recreation Historic Developmentally Sensitive Areas Rural Community Center 0 0.5 1 2 3 � 4 I I J Miles Approved May 2007 eat f Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Map �tiGK Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development 107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 w WWW.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US 540-665-5651 In N Z�p POAenti*al Nel*ghborhood age & Urban Centel Locations y N 1 rc •. ` I a. , t, r moo' B� onsvl�., ��'"� �'• 9 ` ,-. ..a \..._.... ullgaLe .I, Con Potential Neighborhood Village & Urban Center Locations F Neighborhood Villages 4 i(with Ped Sheds (.25 & .5 miles)) ler Urban Centers (with Ped Sheds (25 & .5 miles)) • e _ , Urban Development Area Sewer & Water Service Area This Land Use policy may be used in relationship with the Easetern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 1_ 1 I 1 Miles Adopted Feburary 28, 2007 `4w Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Map M�IFrederick County Dept of Planning & Development w MR 107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 2260101 w WWW.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US 540-665-5651 me Eastern Fredericv ',,County Road Plan- ti City Adopted Nov 11, 2006 �i amok L- L.", Sp: ings U B,,—t—1 Eastern Road Plan 40%01 New MajorArterial Improved Major Arterial New Minor Arterial Improved MinorArterial New Major Collector Improved Major Collector 618-1114e,P New Minor Collector Improved Minor Collector ONO Ramp s • � �9 • • Urban Development Area ga Sewer & Water Service Area 0 0.250.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 I I I I 1 I Miles Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Map Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development 107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 w Cit www.CO.FREDERICK.VAUS 540 - 665•- 5651 p rias A Eastern lirederick County Road Plan • b, • . f, - , b:-ook Lee town x Bn—t—, Awl Cross Sections R4D ephens U2 city U4D U6D f Proposed interchanges 22 Adopted Urban Development Area Ar I Nov 11, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . g. Sewer & Water Service Area 0 0.250.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Miles Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Mlapn Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development W 107 N Kent St, Winchester, Virginia 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 �7 i C.. MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner SE COUNTY of FREDERICK Depaa ment of Planning and Development Subject: Planning Commission Discussion — Business Overlay District Date: April 30, 2007 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 This is the first draft ordinance to begin implementation of the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study, adopted on February 28, 2007. Since February, a small working group has been meeting to develop preliminary ordinances for review by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). Many ordinance amendments are needed to enable traditional neighborhood design as a development option in various forms in the UDA. In order to get an ordinance on the books quickly, per the direction of the Board of Supervisors, the working group opted to draft a small business overlay district first. This overlay district (Attachment # 1) would be relevant only for properties zoned B 1 (Neighborhood Business) District or B2 (Business General) District. Existing B 1 and B2 zoned properties could seek this overlay through a rezoning. Other properties could seek the overlay at the same time they sought a B 1 or B2 rezoning. This overlay would be an option and not a requirement. The intent of the overlay is to allow traditional neighborhood design in the Neighborhood Villages and Urban Centers (Attachment #2) as per the UDA Study. Features of traditional neighborhood design include: Mix and integration of a variety of uses Increased density in an urban form Connectivity High quality architecture and urban design Smart transportation Community focal points Mix and diversity of housing opportunities Walkability Traditional neighborhood structure Sustainability and environmental quality Integrated community facilities Enhanced design and planning Differences with this overlay compared to the existing B 1 and B2 regulations include: • Shallow front setbacks; • Wide sidewalks; • Required windows and entrances on the first floor; 107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 1.2601-5000 Business Overlay District Planning Commission Discussion April 30, 2007 Page 2 • Housing allowed, but not required, on the second and third floors; No required recreational units for the residential units; o Greater waiver opportunities from MDP requirements; ® Greater variety of allowed sign types; and Calculating wall -mounted signs based on linear frontage, not on area. The DRRS considered this ordinance at their meeting on April 26, 2007. DRRS Members were supportive of the ordinance. A number of changes were recommended by the DRRS and these changes are included in the draft ordinance attached. Changes endorsed by the DRRS include: requiring primary entrances on any sidewalk, not just those sidewalks owned by a public body; changing the requirement for first floor clear windows to just windows to discourage roll -up blinds to keep out the sun; and allowing a waiver to the front yard setback to allow public spaces such as pocket parks. Comments made by individual DRRS members, but not endorsed by all included: requiring sidewalks to be brick or stone to decrease the amount of impervious surface; placing residential access solely in the rear of buildings; allowing this district for up to 50 acres; and allowing similar residential uses in industrial zones for worker housing. This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Once consensus is reached on the ordinance, it will be formatted in a style consistent with the existing ordinance. Staff Note: Another key element of neotraditional development is the structure of the streets. VDOT allows neotraditional street standards in lieu of the VDOT generic standard. In the case of Willow Run, the applicant had to ask the County and VDOT for permission to deviate from the VDOT standards. In the long run, the County should try to adopt its own neotraditional road standards, as allowed by VDOT, so that individual applicants do not have to go through the same extra process as did the Willow Run applicant. Staff will need to work with both the DRRS and the Transportation Committee to draft such standards. It is staff's belief that this would go a long way towards encouraging neotraditional development. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Potential Neighborhood Urban Centers and Neighborhood Villages SKE/bad PC Draft TNDB Overlay District Article XXIII TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood Design -Business) Overlay District Intent. The TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood Design -Business) Overlay District is intended to implement the comprehensive plan goals of supporting a business climate conducive to economic activity and orderly economic growth, providing a variety of housing types and locations to meet the varied needs and income levels of the county's present and future population, providing for adequate and safe pedestrian and bicycle travel and promoting traditional neighborhood design in urban centers and neighborhood villages, all of the foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public and the orderly development of Frederick County. The TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood Design -Business) Overlay District provides parcels within an area identified as a potential urban center or a neighborhood village the ability to utilize traditional neighborhood design criteria that are different from the criteria specified in §165-82 and §165-83 of this chapter. This flexibility is provided to enable traditional neighborhood design which includes a mix and integration of uses, a mix and diversity of housing types, increased density, walkability, connectivity, traditional neighborhood structure, high quality architecture and urban design, sustainability and environmental quality and enhanced design and planning. District boundaries. Properties that are included within the TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood Design - Business) Overlay District shall be delineated on the Official Zoning Map for Frederick County. This map shall be maintained and updated by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. Establishment of districts. A. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors may apply the TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood Design -Business) Overlay District, following the procedures of ARTICLE II of this Chapter, to B 1 Neighborhood Business District and B2 Business General District properties less than 20 acres upon concluding that: 1. The property is in an area designated as a potential urban center or neighborhood village in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The requirements of this section will not have an adverse impact on adjoining properties whose primary use is residential. B. The TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood Design -Business) Overlay District shall be in addition to and shall overlay all other zoning districts where it is applied so that any parcel of land within the TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood Design -Business) Overlay District shall also be within one or more zoning districts as specified -1- PC Draft TNDB Overlay District within this chapter. The effect shall be the creation of regulations and requirements for the TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood Design -Business) Overlay District that are in addition to, or supersede, as the case may be, those for the underlying zoning district(s). General regulations. A. Use. Any use allowed in the underlying zoning district shall be allowed. Residential dwelling units shall be permitted within the same buildings as other permitted uses, provided that such dwellings units shall be located above the ground floor of the building so as not to interrupt the commercial frontage in the district. B. Residential density. Maximum gross density shall be 10 units per acre. C. Dimensional and intensity requirements. The following dimensional and intensity requirements shall supersede those of the underlying zoning district: TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood Requirement Design -Business) Overlay District Minimum front yard setback on 30 primary or arterial highways (feet) Maximum front yard setback on 50 primary or arterial highways (feet) Maximum front yard setback on 20 collector or minor streets (feet) Side yard setbacks (feet) Rear yard setbacks (feet) Floor area to lot area ratio (FAR) 1.00 Minimum landscaped area 15 (percentage of lot area) Maximum height (feet) 40 Maximum (number) of habitable floors 3 D. A waiver from the maximum front yard setback on collector or minor streets may be granted by the Board of Supervisors at the time of rezoning to enable areas open to the public such as pocket parks and outdoor seating. -2- PC Draft TNDB Overlay District E. All other dimensional and intensity requirements of § 165-83 of this Chapter shall apply. Off-street parking; parking lots. Off-street parking shall be provided on each lot or parcel on which any use is established according to the requirements of this section. A. Required parking spaces. 1. Required parking spaces for residential dwelling units shall be dedicated and delineated solely for use by the residents and their visitors. 2. Number of required off-street parking spaces for residential dwelling units: Number of bedrooms Efficiency 2 plus Off-street parking spaces 1.0 1.0 2.0 Required parking spaces for commercial uses shall be in accordance with § 165-27 of this chapter. The Zoning Administrator may allow some variation in the standards for required parking for the commercial uses based on detailed parking demand studies provided by the applicant. B. Location of parking and circulation areas. Areas devoted to parking or circulation of vehicles shall not be located between a primary structure on a lot and the street, nor shall such areas be located closer to the street than the primary structure on the lot. C. All other regulations concerning off-street parking and parking lots shall be as required in § 165-27 of this chapter. Design Standards. A. A harmonious coordination of uses, architectural styles, signs and landscaping shall be provided to ensure the aesthetic quality and value of the development. B. Door and entrances. Buildings must have a primary entrance door facing any sidewalk. Entrances at building corners may be used to satisfy this requirement. Building entrances may include doors to individual shops or businesses, lobby entrances, entrances to pedestrian -oriented plazas, or courtyard entrances to a cluster of shops or businesses. C. A minimum of 60% of the street -facing building facades between two feet and eight feet in height must be comprised of windows that allow views of indoor space or product display areas. -3- PC Draft TNDB Overlay District Buffers and screening. Buffers and screening requirements shall be as required in §165-37 of this chapter for the underlying zoning district. Any residential dwelling units shall be treated as commercial floorspace solely for the purpose of buffers and screening requirements. Street trees. One street tree shall be provided for every 30 feet of street frontage. Street trees shall be planted no more than 10 feet from rights of way. Acceptable trees shall be based on the list of street trees include in §165-36B of this chapter. Street trees shall be a minimum of three inch caliper at the time of planting. Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways. Sidewalks shall be installed along all streets. Sidewalks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet wide. Trails. All planned bike trails as identified in the Comprehensive Plan for the site shall be provided. Trails shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and have an asphalt surface. Master Development Plan (MDP) A. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirements of a master development plan in the TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood Design - Business) Overlay District for sites less than 10 acres in accordance with §165- 134(C)(2) through §165-134(C)(6) of this chapter. The Director of Planning and Development may also waive the requirements of a master development plan in the TNDB (Traditional Neighborhood Design -Business) Overlay District provided that a proffer statement, accepted by the Board of Supervisors, associated with the development contains a plan which shows: 1. The proposed location and arrangement of all street and utility systems. 2. The proposed location of entrances to the development from existing streets. 3. A conceptual plan for stormwater management and description of the location of all stormwater facilities designed to serve more than one parcel. 4. The location and treatment proposed for all historical structures and sites recognized as significant by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors or as identified on the Virginia Historical Landmarks Commission Survey for Frederick County. B. All other regulations concerning master development plans shall be as required in Article XVIII of this chapter. Signage. A. Projecting signs. Signs which project from the face of the building shall be permitted subject to the following: 1 Maximum sign area shall be six (6) square feet on any side of the building. 2 Distance from the lower edge of the signboard to the ground shall be eight (8) feet or greater. -4- PC Draft TNDB Overlay District 3 Height of the top edge of the signboard shall not exceed the height of the wall from which it projects for single story buildings, or the height of the sill or bottom of any second story window for multi -story buildings. 4 Distance from the building to the signboard shall not exceed six (6) inches. Width of the signboard shall not exceed three (3) feet. B. Awning signs. Where awnings are provided over windows or doors, awning signage is permitted with the following provisions: 1 Maximum eight (8) square feet of signage area on an awning. 2 No backlit awnings are allowed. C. Wall -mounted signs shall be permitted to encompass 1.5 square feet for every 1.0 linear feet of building frontage, provided that the total area of the wall -mounted sign does not exceed 150 square feet. Wall -mounted signs shall not exceed 18 feet in height. D. Freestanding business signs shall not exceed 50 square feet in area. Freestanding business signs shall not exceed 12 feet in height. E. All other signs regulations shall be as required in § 165-30 of this chapter for the underlying zoning district. ARTICLE XXII Definitions §165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Amended 11-13-19911 HABITABLE FLOOR — Any floor usable for living purposes, which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking, or recreation, or a combination thereof, except for a floor used only for storage purposes. The definitions below are taken from the Subdivision Ordinance — Chapter 144 of the Frederick County Code STREET, COLLECTOR - A street, so classified by the Virginia Department of Transportation or by the standards of Frederick County, that may be required to serve as access to adjoining properties or to connect with streets in adjoining subdivisions. STREET, LOCAL — A street, so classified by the Virginia Department of Transportation or by the standards of Frederick County, designed to serve as access to adjoining properties or to connect with streets in an adjoining subdivision. -5- A. Neighborhood VIIIAg+ & Urban Center -L®cations �. j,,,III �13h ♦ .. � `� + � �� ^v....� � 37 ., ✓ _ �•: j / �OW 60 y l � Inc esfe y� Sr 37 Neighborhood Village & Urban Centers `37 r,-" '� Updafe Map with Currenf UDA & SWSA Neighborhood Villages (with Ped Sheds (.25 &.5 miles)) 60 Urban Centers ' (with Ped Sheds (.25 & .5 miles)) SWSA ( I7 ''� N Stephens Cdy E _ • �.�� �� S 0 05 1 2 K i FYederrck County Dept ofPlannutg&Development W7 Went St -et W;nd40,66. V6 24603 r/ - '77 Jam`' !,' • www 651 CO FREDERICK V"k US �1 ?\ Ortobec t7, 2006