The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 11-07-07 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FILE COPY The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia November 7, 2007 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for the meeting............................................................................ (no tab) 2) September 19, 2007 Minutes........................................................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Frederick County Zoning, Article VI, RP Residential Performance District, Chapter 165-65, Dimensional Requirements. Detached accessory structures on single family small lots. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (B) 6) Frederick County Zoning, Article X, Business and industrial Zoning Districts, Chapter 165-82(C), District Use Regulations. Grocery/Food Stores in the B3 (Industrial Transition Business) District. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (C) 7) Rezoning #09-07 of Clearbrook Property, submitted by German Engineering, to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business), with proffers, for Commercial Uses. The property is located on the west side of Route 11, approximately 2,200 feet north of Hopewell Road (Interstate Exit 321) and south of Cedar Hill Road (Route 671), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 33-A-125. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (D) 8) Rezoning #11-07 of 1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone 2.2 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for a Pharmacy. The properties are located at 1932 Senseny Road (Route 657) at the intersection with Greenwood Road (Route 656), in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 55-A-196 and 65A-2-1. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (E) 9) Rezoning #08-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to Ml (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for Office and Warehouse Uses. The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37 in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 75-A-1. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (F) 10) Rezoning #12-07 of Opequon Crossing, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 70.15 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 325 single family attached and detached residential units. The property is located south of the existing terminus of Eddy's Lane (Route 820), approximately 2,400 feet south of Route 7 and 1,650 feet west of Opequon Creek, in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 55-A-210. Mr.Ruddy......................................................................................................................... (G) 11) Other 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 September 19, 2007. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Sha«mee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Jolun H. Light, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; 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 stated that two of the applicants on this evening's agenda have requested a postponement. The first is for the public hearing for Rezoning 409-07 of. the Clearbrook Property and the second is for the public meeting of Master Development Plan 411-07 of Glendobbin. Chairman Wilmot asked if there was anyone in the audience that came specifically to speak about either of these two applications. No one came forward. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting without the two specific applications mentioned. MEETING MINUTES Upon motion made by Conunissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of August 15, 2007 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission N_Page 2108 Minutes of September 19, 2007 1 AA T -2— COMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 09/18/07 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed, proof-read, and edited the fmal version of their changes to the History chapter of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Conunissioner Oates said the HRAB will meet next month to review the completed package before sending it on to the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcornnittee. Sanitation Authority -09/11/07 Mtg. Conunissioner Unger reported that the Sanitation Authority discussed Dr. McAllister's right-of- way where the Sanitation Department will have to go through a portion of his property. Conunissioner Unger said that Dr. McAllister is requesting that the easement through there be narrowed and the Authority talked at length about narrowing it as much as five feet, so not too many trees would need to be removed. Commissioner Unger said rainfall for August was five inches; plants are operating about 80%; floe is up because of the amount of rainfall; and service charges were raised 2%. The Authority is bidding out a project at Abrams Creek west to Apple Valley Road. Comprehensive ehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 09/10/07 Mtg. Conunissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed ways to improve the CPPA (Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments) process and is seeking public input from those who use the process. Also discussed was the beginning of the Route 522 South Triangle to Route 277. Conunissioner Light said this has been on the books for numerous years and the CPPS is beginning to move forward with the study. In addition, he said the Bicycle Plan was presented. Sian Ordinance Workinj7 Group — 09/4/07 & 09/11/07 Mtgs. Conunissioner Thomas reported that the Sign Ordinance Working Group will be meeting every Tuesday evening wail the revised ordinance is updated. He commented that significant progress is being made. He said the working group has four representatives from area industries: the gasoline, automobile, hotel and industrial parks industries are represented. Conunissioner Thomas said height and square footage le signs were discussed at the last meeting and a draft proposal was developed_ He believed the revisions will clear up many existing inconsistencies in the sign ordinance. City of Winchester Planning Commission — 09/18/07 Mtg. Conunissioner Oates reported that Winchester Planning Conunission discussed and/or acted on the following four items: 1) Approved a site for a building addition and parking lot on Medical Circle. Frederick County Planning Connussion Minutes of September 19, 2007 vageziv7 -3- 2) Discussed the Handley High School Site Plan. The Conunission approved a portion of the plan pertaining to the parking and entrance improvements on Jefferson Street. They tabled the portion of the plan dealing with a bus pull -off area on Handley Boulevard that would destroy three mature trees and wanted to consider alternatives. 3) Received the MPO Mobility Plan. The Commission just received their plans prior to the meeting and decided to postpone making a recommendation until they had time to review the plan. 4) Discussed the City's Comprehensive Policy Plan Update. They divided the process out into 30 detailed steps and will be starting the process soon. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chainnan Wilmot called for citizen continents on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #05-07 of the Catholic Diocese of Arlington, submitted by Greenway Engineering for a spirituality retreat center on a 150 -acre property at 125 Old Kitchen Road. The property is located at Armel Road (Route 642) and Old Kitchen Road and is identified with P.I.N. 76-A-129 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval With Conditions Deputy Plamling Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the proposed conditional use is for a spirituality retreat center within the existing facility on a 150 -acre property, zoned RA (Rural Areas). Mr. Ruddy said the proposed use is classified as 165-51.0 and is consistent with the county's zoning ordinance. He said the historical uses of the property included a monastery, a friary, and later as a residence and care center for elderly friars, however, it has not recently been in operation for some time. Mr. Ruddy said the Catholic Diocese of Arlington (CDA) is proposing to use the facility as a spirituality center for reflection, worship, retreats, and meetings. The facility includes a chapel with approximately 100 seats, a cafeteria, meeting rooms, a library, sleeping rooms, and supporting areas; there are also plans for using the property for outdoor passive recreational trails. He said the CDA projects that as many as 160 people may use the facility at any one time; however, such large scale gatherings would occur infrequently. More frequently, the facility would be used for small retreats. A limited number of resident staff, no more than five, is anticipated. Mr. Ruddy stated that the scope of the use should be based around the existing building and the current health system and health limitations of the property. He said the existing facility currently operates under a VPDES Permit and utilizes a zero discharge limit sewage lagoon. Future options that may be available to the CDA include constructing an alternative waste water system on-site for their use that would meet current standards. Although the CDA has expressed a desire to ultimately connect to public water and sewer, the property falls well beyond the area in which public water and sewer is available by policy. Mr. Ruddy said the responsible permitting agencies, both the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), have been working with the CDA over recent months to evaluate the request and to evaluate the health systems. He said the DEQ foresaw no problems for the CDA to operate within the parameters of their existing penult. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 2007 Page 2110 -4 - In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy stated that a site development plan will be required prior to use of the site and several site improvements would be required. The staff has also suggested that signs on the site be limited in order to maintain the character of the facility and to ensure the facility continues to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Ruddy read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was present to represent the CDA. Mr. Wyatt stated that the site has been actively used since 1960 and originally was a training facility for young priests. He said in 1972, it functioned as a spirituality retreat center for almost 20 years; however, the use has not been continuous since 1972. Mr. Wyatt stated that the structure's in good condition and has been viewed by both the fire marshal and the building official on several occasions. He said the building is partially sprinkled and the CDA plans to sprinkle all rooms that would be occupied by residents, overnight guests, and the meeting rooms. Mr. Wyatt next spoke about the history of the water system and the associated permitting through the DEQ and the VDH. Mr. Wyatt said the DEQ will monitor the use monthly to verify the 1,600 gpd limitation is not exceeded. He said the CDA's water system is not classified as a public system; however, the CDA is going to follow recominended guidelines and conduct quarterly testing. Mr. Wyatt said a community meeting was held and was well -attended. He said a conceptual site plan with some of the proposed improvements was presented and input was received from the residents. Mr. Wyatt wanted to mention a few things for the record. He said evergreen screening was proposed along Armel Road and the desire of the community was actually not in favor of that, but instead to do some flower and deciduous trees to enhance the appearance of the property; they wanted to maintain an open view of the property. Mr. Wyatt said the residents were also advised that the parking lot would have the landscaped screening with a three-foot high opaque element surrounding. Another concern centered on the proposed passive trail systems on the 150 -acre site. He said there are a few large -acre parcels surrounding the property and those adjoining property owners requested that the trail systems do not get too close to the perimeter of the property line for privacy reasons and safety. Commissioner Light inquired if any single -event outdoor activity would draw greater than 160 people; he was concerned about any potential traffic situations. In addition, Commissioner Light asked if multiple structures were proposed to be constricted. Mr. Wyatt replied said the CDA did not foresee exceeding 160 people at a single event. Mr. Wyatt said no additional structures were planned; he said if the existing building was expanded, they would have to come back with a modified CUP. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speaks Ms. Teresa Settle, Shawnee District, said her property was the field directly across from the monastery. She was concerned about the constant influx of people attending daily events, Monday through Friday. Ms. Settle was concerned about whether the roads or the area could handle the volume. Mr. Ken Brooks, a consultant with the Office of Planning, Construction, and Facilities for the CDA, stated that the proposed program was an attempt to show what the maximum possible use might be of any of their facilities. Mr. Brooks said they are totally constrained and will be operating under the pen -nit from the DEQ, as well as the limitations on the water plant. He commented that on average, they are projecting about 20 people per day. Conunissioner Oates asked if any road or access improvements were planned out to Route 522. Mr. Wyatt replied that they will be relocating the entrance drive across from an existing driveway on Armen Road; he said the only improvement along Armel Road will be a new commercial entrance design. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 2007 Vage 21 1 1 -5- Conunissioner Manuel said it was important to consider the alternatives; he said this CUP provides significant contribution to green space conservation. Commissioner Manuel next made a motion to recommend approval of the CUP with the recommended conditions. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanunously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Conunission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 405-07 of the Catholic Diocese of Arlington, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for a spirituality retreat center at 125 Old Kitchen Road, off Armel Road (Route 642), with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be followed at all times. 2. An engineered site plan for the expansion of the parking area and access to the site shall be approved by Frederick County and the improvements completed prior to starting this use. 3. No expansion of the existing building shall be pennitted with this conditional use pen -nit. Any expansion of the use or building would require a new conditional use permit. 4. The resident staff shall not exceed five (5) people living in the facility at any one time. 5. No transit user or guest will be permitted to stay longer than thirty (30) days. 6. The maxinluin number of guests allowed to use the facility at any one time shall be one hundred and sixty (160). 7. When required by the use of the facility, all federal, state, and local regulations applicable to public waterworks, wastewater disposal, and restaurant operation will be complied with at all times. 8. CDA will operate the facility to comply with VPDES Permit No. VA 0089010 with Modification Date of January 10, 2007 and Expiration Date of March 31, 2010 and further direction of the Conunonwealth of Virginia Department of Enviromnental Quality. 9. Only off-site food preparation from a pennitted facility will be allowed in conjunction with this conditional use pennit, exclusive of resident staff. 10. No more than one (1) entrance shall be permitted to access this property from Annel Road, Route 642. 11. No more than one (1) sign shall be pernutted on this property. This sign shall be limited to 50 square feet in size and shall be a monument style sign. (Note: Commissioners Molm, Morris, and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 2007 Page 2112 PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #12-07 of Revised Eastgate Properties, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC (PHR&A) for industrial and commercial uses. The properties are located west of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South), immediately north and south of Maranto Drive on 111.49 acres, and north and south of Tasker Road. The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 87-A-34, 87 -A -34B, 87-A-35, 87-A-36, 87-A-37, 76-A-53, 76 -A -53A, 76 -A -53C, and 76-A-4813 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recoimnended Approval With Contingencies Senior Planner Candice Perkins reported that this master development plan (MDP) is a proposal to develop 111.49 acres, which consists of nine tracts of land, zoned B2 (Business General) and M1 (Light Industrial), with commercial and industrial land uses. Ms. Perkins reported that the Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Tasker Road as an improved major collector road. With this development, the applicant will be providing additional lanes on the east -bound and west -bound Tasker Road, making Tasker Road four lanes from Route 522 to Rainville Road. In addition to the signalized entrances shown on the plan, the applicant proposes two right -in, right -out entrances on Route 522; one of those entrances was proffered with Rezoning 402-07 and the other connection is a new entrance. Ms. Perkins said that an additional new right -in, right -out is proposed on Tasker Road, near its intersection with Route 522. The two new right -in, right -out entrances shown on the MDP are subject to VDOT's approval at the site plan stage. Ms. Perkins stated that staff is reconnnending that the two new right -in, right -out entrances be eliminated and the access into the properties should be from signalized entrances only. She said the MDP shows the connection of Maranto Manor Drive to Rainville Road, -,vhich was proffered with Rezoning 402-07. In addition, the MDP shows a ten -foot bicycle path along Route 522, as well as the northern side of Tasker Road, from Route 522 to the path that will be constructed with the Tasker Woods development. In conclusion, Ms. Perkins said the MDP for the revised Eastgate Properties depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the MDP is in a form that is administratively approvable. She noted that the MDP is in accordance with the proffers for Rezonings #02-07, 404-97, 401-98, and 402-07. Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Harris, Rust, & Associates (PHR&A), PC, pointed out the locations for the right -in, right -out accesses: south of Maranto Manor on Route 522; north of Maranto Manor on Route 522; and on Tasker Road, all subject to VDOT approval at time of site plan. Conunissioner Oates asked Mr. Sowers if he would have any objection to include an additional note on the MDP, along with the statement that all right -in, right -out accesses will be subject to VDOT approval at site plan, stating that the site plan is subject to approval by Frederick County according to the ordinance in existence at the time. Mr. Sowers said that he would not have any objection to doing so. Chairman Wilmot called for public continents. No one came forward and Chairnian Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Conunissioner Manuel stated that based on VDOT's approval and the MDP's consistency with the requirements of the ordinance, he would make a motion to recommend approval of MDP #12-07 of the Revised Eastgate Properties with the inclusion of two notes on the MDP, specifically: !)access will be subject to VDOT approval at site plan and, 2) the site plan is subject to approval by Frederick County according to the ordinance in effect at the time of site plan submittal. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 2007 Page 2113 -7— BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan # 12-07 of Revised Eastgate Properties, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC (PHR&A) for industrial and commercial uses on properties located west of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) with the inclusion of two notes on the MDP, specifically: 1) access will be subject to VDOT approval at site plan and, 2) the site plan is subject to approval by Frederick County according to the ordinance in effect at the time of site plan submittal. (Note: Commissioners Mohn, Morris, and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) COMMISSION DISCUSSION INFORMATIONAL UPDATE — SITE PLAN 957-07 OF WESTVIEW BUSINESS CENTER Senior Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that staff is presenting the site plan for the Westview Business Center Lot 16 to the Planning Connnission for review and discussion. Ms. Perkins said the site plan is being presented for informational purposes only, due to its implications on the planned relocation of Independence Drive as shown on the Eastern Road Plan. She said the site is located on the existing Independence Drive, near its intersection with Victory Road within the Shawnee Magisterial District. Independence Drive, which is a planned major collector road, is planned to be realigned to connect with Victory Road at a location further south and then extended to Justes Drive. Ms. Perkins said the Commission's comments and suggestions will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors at their meeting next Wednesday. A member of the Commission stated that access to Lot 16 looks like a driveway out to Independence Drive and he did not see any problems. No problems or issues were raised by the other Commissioners. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY Senior Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the requirement for right-of-way dedication for existing roads within Frederick County is covered under the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144-17E Expansion of Existing Right -of -Way. Ms. Perkins stated that this portion of the ordinance requires dedication only when property is proposed for subdivision. She read the section of the ordinance for the Conninission. Ms. Perkins said this section of the ordinance has become problematic in some circumstances due to the fact that it only requires right-of-way dedication when property is being subdivided. Therefore, if a development proposal is submitted for a property on an existing street that does not have adequate right-of-way, Frederick County cannot require it to be dedicated, unless the applicant is willing to provide the right-of-way. Ms. Perkins explained that while staff has worked with engineers, surveyors, and developers to ensure they are providing adequate right-of-way for all projects, the wording has created problems and could potentially lead to some developments not dedicating needed right-of-way. Ms. Perkins next read the proposed amendment for the Commission. She said this proposed amendment was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting on August 23, 2007 and the DRRS endorsed the text amendment as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 2007 Page 2114 Chairman Wilmot raised the issue of describing the right-of-way as, "one half." She questioned if that was an appropriate description when discussing expanding a road; she said it may not necessarily be one half Chairman Wilmot asked for suggestions on an alternative description. Commissioner Oates stated that in practice, the engineering and surveying community understands that it is typically 50 feet, if not more, and the developer is responsible from the centerline back to the property owner's side_ He did not think the language as proposed would present a problem with the surveying and engineering community. Continission members were in favor of the proposed amendment. DISCUSSION OF A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING SIDEWALKS CURB AND GUTTER, AND STREET LIGHT REQUIREMENTS Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that in an effort to revise portions of the Subdivision Ordinance for greater clarification, the proposed amendment has multiple aspects and includes sidewalk requirements; lot size triggers, curb and gutter, and street lights. Ms. Perkins proceeded to review each of the proposed amendments with the Commission. Ms. Perkins stated that Section 144-18, Sidewalks and Pedestrian Wal",ays, requires sidewalks with certain development activities. She said this section of the ordinance has become problematic in some circumstances because it only requires sidewalks on proposed streets and not existing streets. She explained that staff has worked with engineers and developers to ensure the provision of sidewalks for all developments when appropriate; however, the language of the ordinance has lead to some developments not providing sidewalks. Ms. Perkins noted that four separate amendments are being proposed for this section and she read those to the Commission. Ms. Perkins said that Section 144-33, Commercial and Industrial Design Standard Exemptions, provide exemptions for connnercial and industrial properties for curbs and gutters, sidewalks and pedestrian walkways, and streetlights. She said this exemption allows cominercial and industrial properties located on collector and arterial streets to not provide sidewalks. Ms. Perkins explained the proposed amendment will remove the exemption for sidewalks, but will leave the curb and gutter and street light exemptions. Ms. Perkins said the Development Review and Regulations Subcormnittee (DRRS) discussed these proposed ordinance amendments at their meeting of August 23, 2007, and all of the revisions were supported. She noted that continents and suggestions from the Planning Conunission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Oates spoke in favor of five-foot sidewalks in lieu of four -foot sidewalks and he believed it should be the standard across the board. He couldn't think of any instance where a sidewalk couldn't be made five feet. Continissioner Thomas said there was considerable discussion on this subject at the DRRS. Commissioner Thomas agreed with five-foot sidewalks across the board, however, there was difficulty with some of the small lots and small frontages. He explained that some of the small lots are planned so tight that an extra foot could be a challenge for some developers. He noted a possible inconsistency in that local streets are a minimum of four feet, but a collector or arterial requires five feet. He thought there would be more pedestrians on a local street rather than an arterial, but there could be persons riding bicycles along collector and arterials. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 2007 Page 2115 WE Conunissioner Light commented that with all of the effort that has been put into the WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan and trying to get connectivity, it would seem that a five-foot sidewalk across the board would interplay with any bicycle programs. Conunissioner Oates said that VDOT was in the process of reviewing this issue. OTHER CANCELLATION OF THE NOVEMBER 21, 2007 REGULAR MEETI_NG Chairnian Wilmot announced that the second regularly scheduled meeting in November falls on the evening before the Thanksgiving holiday. Chairman Wilmot received consensus from the Conunission to cancel the November 21, 2007 meeting. RIGHT -IN, RIGHT -OUT ACCESS Commissioner Oates expressed concern about the frequency that right -in, right -out accesses were coming up at recent Planning Commission meetings. He was most concerned about this type of access on the major roads, such as Route 11 and Route 522. Commissioner Oates believed that if this issue was sent back to the Transportation Coimnittee, it might take considerable time to get resolved. He asked the other Commissioners for their thoughts on whether the subject should be sent back to the DRRS. Commissioner Thomas stated that in some incidences, right -in, right -out accesses were appropriate. However, he was not sure whether the Planning Commission or VDOT had clear criteria on when it was reasonable to have a right -in, right -out versus a full intersection. Commissioner Thomas said that on an arterial road, with a 55 mph speed limit, the right -in, right -out access may not be appropriate. Although this issue was on the agenda to be examined during the access management studies, members of the Commission believed something may be needed in the short term to address the more recent occurrences. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to make a request to the Board of Supervisors for the Transportation Committee to take up the issue of right -in, right -out accesses for discussion. SIGN COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP Conunissioner Thomas commented that the Sign Committee Working Group is having excellent interchanges with industry representatives and the subject of parking lots was raised at the last meeting. Commissioner Thomas said he would like the Planning Commission to reconsider specifications for commercial parking lots. He said he was not certain why the county should specify the amount of parking spaces required per square foot when the business itself is who should determine parking lot size for their customers and the purpose of their business. Conunissioner Thomas said it seemed to him that the majority of parking lots in Frederick Frederick County Planning Conm7ission Minutes of September 19, 2007 Page 2116 -10 - County were 90% empty on any given day. He commented about the excessive amounts of impervious surface that creates run-off, pollution, and maintenance problems_ He suggested alternatives such as pervious paving or green areas. Other Commissioners agreed and the staff said they would gather information for discussion at the next working group meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m_ by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chainnan Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 2007 Page 2117 C • COUNTY of F1C EDERiiCK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner` �.� Subject: Public Hearing - Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment- Detached Accessory Structures on Single Family Small Lots Date: October 18, 2007 As Planning Commissioners are aware, staff has had inquiries from members of the public regarding the permissibility of allowing detached accessory buildings on lots that were created under the single-family small lot housing type. Currently §165-65F of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits detached accessory structures on lots created under this housing type. A text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was endorsed by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting on July 26, 2007. This proposed text amendment was discussed by Planning Commissioners at your meeting on September 5, 2006. Members were supportive of the amendment. Members of the Board of Supervisors were sent copies of the proposed ordinance amendment and staff received two positive comments on the proposed amendment. The attached documents show the existing ordinance, the proposed change to the ordinance (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added), and a clean version of the text as it is proposed to be adopted. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions. Attachments: 1. Existing ordinance. 2. Existing Ordinance pertaining to side and rear setbacks for accessory structures. 3. Existing Ordinance with proposed deletions shown in blackline and additions shown in bold italics. 4. Proposed ordinance (clean. version). CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5009 ATTACHMENT 1 I § 165-65 ZONING § 165-65 (c) A maintenance easement of eight to 10 feet in width must be obtained on the lot adjacent to the zero lot line side. F. Single-family small lot. Single-family . small lot housing shall be a single -fainly detached or attached residence on an individual lot. No more than two units may be attached together. The intent of this housing type is to provide an alternative to conventional single-family lots that can be tailored to the unique needs of specialized populations such as those of the older person. [Amended 10-27-1999; 8-9-2000] (1) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows: (a) Minimum lot size: 31750 square feet. (b) Off-street parking spaces: 2. (c) Setback from state road: 25 feet. (d) Setback from private road: 20 feet. (e) Rear yard: 15 feet. (f) Side yard: Zero lot line option may be -used with this housing type. If chosen, the minimum side yard shall be 10 feet for that yard opposite the zero lot line side. If not chosen, the minimum side yard shall be five feet. (g) When the attached option for the single-family small lot housing unit is chosen, the minimum building spacing requirement shall be 20 feet. (h) Supplementary setbacks: [1] With the single-family small lot housing type, decks may extend five feet into rear yard setback areas. [2] Where single-family small lot housing abuts open space, decks may . extend up to 12 feet into rear yard setback areas. [3] Front porches, stoops and steps may extend eight feet into front yard setback areas. (2) A minimum of 20 landscape plantings shall be provided on each individual lot. At least 1/4 of the landscape plantings shall be trees, with the remainder being shrubs. The trees shall be a minimum of two inches in caliper at time of planting, and the shrubs shall be a minimum three -gallon container at time of planting. (3) Maximum building heights shall not exceed 35 feet in height. 5 (4) Detached accessory buildings shall not be permitted. G. Duplex. A "duplex" is a single-family semidetached residence, having one dwelling unit from ground to roof and only one wall in common with another dwelling unit. The two ---dwelling units in a duplex building may or may not have individual outside access. 165:85 06-15-2007 ATTACHMENT 2 § 165-65 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-65 dF / i GARDEN APAFF MENT S (5) Minimum yards shall be as follows: (a) Front setback: [1] Thirty-five feet from road right-of-way. [2] Twenty feet from parking area or driveway.. (b) Side: 50 feet from perimeter boundary. (c) Rear: 50 feet from perimeter boundary. , (6) ' Minimum on-site building spacing shall be 50 feet. (7) Maximum number of dwelling units per building shall be 16. (8) Maximum building height shall be as follows: (a) Principle building: 40 feet. (b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet M. Setbacks for accessory structures. Accessory structures shall be set back from all property lines a minimum of five feet, except for uses with a required enclosed yard. N. Setbacks for other uses. The following setbacks shall apply to uses not otherwise specified: 165:92 06-15-2007 ATTACI.BVIENT 3 F. Single-family small lot. Single-family small lot housing shall be a single-family detached or attached residence on an individual lot. No more than two units may be attached together. The intent of this housing type is to provide an alternative to conventional single-family lots that can be tailored to the unique needs of specialized populations such as those of the older person. [Amended 10-27-1999; 8-9-20001 1) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows: (a) Minimum lot size: 3,750 square feet. (b) Off-street parking spaces: 2. (c) Setback from state road: 25 feet. (d) Setback from private road: 20 feet. (e) Rear yard: 15 feet. (f) Side yard: Zero lot line option may be used with this housing type. If chosen, the minimum side yard shall be 10 feet for that yard opposite the zero lot line side. If not chosen, the minimum side yard shall be five feet. (g) When the attached option for the single-family small lot housing unit is chosen, the minimum building spacing requirement shall be 20 feet. (h) Supplementary setbacks: [1] With the single-family small lot housing type, decks may extend five feet into rear yard setback areas. [2] Where single-family small lot housing abuts open space, decks may extend up to 12 feet into rear yard setback areas. [3] Front porches, stoops and steps may extend eight feet into front yard setback areas. (2) A minimum of 20 landscape plantings shall be provided on each individual lot. At least 1/4 of the landscape plantings shall be trees, with the remainder being shrubs. The trees shall be a minimum of two inches in caliper at time of planting, and the shrubs shall be a minimum three -gallon container at time of planting. (3) Detached accessory structures may not exceed 150 square feet. (4) One detached accessory structure shall be permitted on each lot. (3) TrT.,x:,,,,,,., building ing heighis shall tie! , eed 35 F .tet in height_ (4) Detaehed aeeessefy buildings shall nat be permitted. (3) (5) Maximum building height shall be as follows: (a) Principle buildings: 35 feet. (b) Accessory Buildings: 20 feet. ATTACHMENT 4 F. Single-family small lot. Single-family small lot housing shall be a single-family detached or attached residence on an individual lot. No more than two units may be attached together. The intent of this housing type is to provide an alternative to conventional single-family lots that can be tailored to the unique needs of specialized populations such as those of the older person. [Amended 10-27-1999; 8-9-20001 (1) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows: (a) Minimum lot size: 3,750 square feet. (b) Off-street parking spaces: 2. (c) Setback from state road: 25 feet. (d) Setback from private road: 20 feet. (e) Rear yard: 15 feet. (f) Side yard: Zero lot line option may be used with this housing type. If chosen, the minimum side yard shall be 10 feet for that yard opposite the zero lot line side. If not chosen, the minimum side yard shall be five feet. (g) When the attached option for the single-family small lot housing unit is chosen, the minimum building spacing requirement shall be 20 feet. (h) Supplementary setbacks: [1] With the single-family small lot housing type, decks may extend five feet into rear yard setback areas. [2] Where single-family small lot housing abuts open space, decks may extend up to 12 feet into rear yard setback areas. [3] Front porches, stoops and steps may extend eight feet into front yard setback areas. (2) A minimum of 20 landscape plantings shall be provided on each individual lot. At least 1/4 of the landscape plantings shall be trees, with the remainder being shrubs. The trees shall be a minimum of two inches in caliper at time of planting, and the shrubs shall be a minimum three -gallon container at time of planting. (3) Detached accessory structures may not exceed 150 square feet. (4) One detached accessory structure shall be permitted on each lot. (5) Maximum building height shall be as follows: (a) Principle buildings: 35 feet. (b) Accessory Buildings: 20 feet. C • MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner COUNTY of FREDERICK Departinent of Piannhig and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Subject: Public Hearing - Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Grocery/Food Stores in the B3 Zoning District Date: October 18, 2007 As Planning Commissioners are aware, staff has had inquiries regarding the permissibility of allowing grocery or food stores in the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance permits SIC 54 (Food Stores) in the B I (Neighborhood Business) District and the B2 (Business General) District_ SIC 54 as a whole would permit grocery stores, fruit and vegetable markets, meat and fish markets, candy confectionary stores, dairy product stores, retail bakeries and miscellaneous food stores. The proposed text amendment would be to permit SIC 5411 in the B3 Zoning District with a size limitation of 10,000 square feet (excluding storage and warehousing). A text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was endorsed by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting on July 26, 2007. This proposed text amendment was discussed by Planning Commissioners at your meeting on September 5, 2006. Members were supportive of the amendment. Members of the Board of Supervisors were sent copies of the proposed ordinance amendment and staff received one positive comment on the proposed amendment. This ordinance revision would require changes to the following ordinance sections: Article X -Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, § 165-82C Industrial Transition District • Article VI - Supplementary Use Regulations The attached documents show the existing ordinance, the proposed change to the ordinance (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added), and a clean version of the text as it is proposed to be adopted. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions. 107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Frederick County Planning Commission Re: Food Stores in the B3 October 18, 2007 Page 2 Attachments: 1. Existing ordinances. 2. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Major Group — 54. 3. Existing Ordinance with proposed additions (§ 165-48.11) in bold italics. 4. Existing Ordinance with proposed additions (165-82C) in bold italics. 5. Proposed Ordinances (clean versions). CEP/bad § 165-82 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE (a) Such uses shall be located at least 2,500 feet from the property line of existing adult retail uses, schools, churches, parks, day-care facilities and residential uses and districts. (b) Such uses shall not be permitted in shopping centers and/or multi -tenant buildings. (c) All merchandise display areas shall be limited to enclosed structures and shall not be visible from the outside. (d) Business signs shall not exceed a maximum of 25 square feet_ No wall - mounted signs or window displays shall be permitted_ (e) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 9:00 a -m_ and 11.00 p_m_ r -i t z 1 �tiJv�li'I' I §,165-82 C. B3 Industrial Transition District The intent of this district is to provide for heavy commercial activities, involving larger scale marketing or wholesaling, in locations that are separate from but in the vicinity of business and industrial areas. In some cases, such areas may be transitional, located between business and industrial, areas. In these areas, there will be a mixture of automobile and truck traffic- Some of the uses in this district will require large areas of land and may have outdoor storage and display. It is intended that the uses in this district shall not be sources of noise, dust, smoke or other nuisances. Such industrial transition areas shall be provided with safe and sufficient access. Allowed Uses Veterinary services with all activities and animals kept within the fully enclosed primary structure [Amended 1-10-20011 Animal speciality services, except veterinary, with all activities and animals kept within the fully enclosed primary structure [Added 1-10-20011 Landscape and horticultural services Offices and storage facilities for building construction contractors, heavy construction contractors and special trade contractors Commercial printing Local and suburban transit and interurban highway passenger transportation Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 074 752 078 15, 16 and 17 275 41 165:114 06 - is - 7007 § 165-82 ZONING § 165-82 165:115 06 - 15 - 2007 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Mowed Uses Motor freight transportation and 42 warehousing Transportation by air 45 Transportation services 47 Communication facilities and offices, including telephone, telegraph, radio, television and other communications Electric, gas and other utility facilities and 49 offices and trucking and warehousing, excluding the following. 495 Sanitary services Advertising specialties - wholesale (added 5199 8-24-2004) [Added 8-24-20041 Building matenals, hardware, garden 52 supply, mobile home dealers and retail nurseries 55 Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations Wholesale trade businesses Restaurants [Added 5-26-20041 58 Laundry, dry-cleaning and garment services, 721 excluding the following: -opratd laundries Coinee 7215 Linen supply [Added 8-24-2004] 7213 Dry-cleaning plants [Added 8-24-20041 7216 73 Business services Outdoor ad services [Added 8-24-20041 7312 Automobile recovery service [Added 7389 8-24-2004] Automobile repossession service [Added 7389 8-24-2004] Product sterilization service [Added 7389 8-24-2004] Repossession service [Added 8-24-2004] 7389 Automotive repair, services and parking 75 N iscellaneous repair services 76 Agricultural equipment repair [Added 7699 8-24-2004] Dental and medical instrument repair 7699 [Added 8-24-2004] 165:115 06 - 15 - 2007 § 165-82 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-82 Allowed Uses Farm machinery and tractor repair [Added 8-24-2004] Laboratory instrument repair [Added 8-24-2004] Precision instrument repair [Added 8-24-2004] Repair of optical instruments [Added 8-24-2004] Repair of service station equipment [Added 8-24-2004] Scale repair service [Added 8-24-20041 Surgical instrument repair [Added 8-24-2004] Drive-in motion picture theaters Amusement and recreation services operated indoors Self-service storage facilities Vocational schools Business associations Professional membership organizations Labor unions and similar labor organizations Engineering, accounting, research, management and related services Testing laboratories [Added 8-24-2004] General business offices Model home sales office Accessory retailing Public buildings Public utility distribution facilities Business signs Directional signs Building entrance signs Residential uses which are accessory to allowed business uses Parks Flex -Tech [Added 2-11-1998] Fire stations, companies and rescue squads [Added 10-27-1999] Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 7699 7699 7699 7699 7699 7699 7699 75 79 824 861 862 863 87 8734 165:116 06 - is - 2007 ATTACHMENT 2 319 Major Group 54.—FOOD STORES The Major Group as a Whole This major group includes retail stores primarily engaged in selling food for home prepa- ration and consumption. Establishments primarily engaged in selling prepared foods and drinks for consumption on the premises are classified in Major Group 59, and stores primari- ly engaged in selling packaged beers and liquors are classified in Industry 5921_ Industry Group Industry No. No. 541 GROCERY STORES 5411 Grocery Stores Stores, commonly known as supermarkets, food stores, and grocery stores, primarily engaged in the retail sale of all sorts of canned foods and dry goods, such as tea, coffee, spices, sugar, and flour; fresh fruits and vegetables; and fresh and prepared meats, fish, and poultry. convenience food stores—retail Grocery stores, with or without fresh _ Food markets --retail meat—mom Frozen food and freezer plans, except supermarkets, grocery—retail meat—retail 1:542 MEAT AND FISH (SEAFOOD) MARKETS, INCLUDING FREEZER PROVISIONERS I 5421 Meat and Fish (Seafood) Markets, Including Freezer Provisioners Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of fresh, frozen, or cured meats, fish, shellfish, and other seafoods. This industry includes estab- lishments primarily engaged in the retail sale, on a bulk basis, of meat for freezer storage and in providing home freezer plans. Meat markets may butch- er animals on their own account, or they may buy from others. Food locker plants primarily engaged in renting locker space for the storage of food prod- ucts for individual households are classified in Industry 4222. Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of poultry are classified in Industry 5499. Fish markets—retail Meat markets—retail Freezer food plans, meat—retail Seafood markets—retail Freezer provisioners, meat—retail Frozen food and freezer plans, meat— retail FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MARKETS 5431 Fruit and Vegetable Markets Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of fresh fruits and vege- tables. They are frequently found in public or municipal markets or as road- side stands. However, establishments which grow fruits and vegetables and sell them at roadside stands are classified in Agriculture, Major Group 01. Fruit markets and stands—retail Vegetable markets and stands—retail Produce markets and stands—retail A l 320 Industr,r Group industry Nn. Nn - 5914 5441 545 546 549 5451 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CL SSrFICATION CANDY, NUT, ,AND CONFECTIONERY STORES Candy, Nut, and Confectionery Stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of candy, nuts, popcorn, and other confections. stores—retail Confectionery _ Candy stores—retail Nut storms—retail = Confectionery, produced for direct sale popcorn stauds—retail ' on the premises—retail DAIRY PRODUCTS STORES 5461 Dairy Products Stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail. sale of packaged dairy prod- ucts to over-the-counter customers. Ice cream and frozen custard stands are classified in Industry 5812, and establishments selling ice cream and similar mproducts from trucks or wagons are classified in Industry Establish- ments 5963primarily engaged in processing and distributing milk and cream are classified in Manufacturing, Industry Group 202_ lce crew (packaged) stores—retail Butter and other dairy Product stores— IM and other dairy products stores— retail retail Cheese stares—retail Dairy products stores --retail RETAIL BAKERIES 5499 Retail Bakeries s Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of bakery products The products may be purchased from others or made on the premises. Establish- trade are classified in Manufac ments manufacturing bakery products for the ttg, Industry Group 205, and those purchasing bakery products and selling house-to-house are classified in Industry 5963. Doughnut shops --retail Bagel stores—retail Pretzel stores and stands—retail Bakeries --retail Coolide stores—retail MISCELLANEOUS FOOD STORES Miscellaneous Food Stores '- Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of specialized foods, not' elsewhere classified, such as eggs, poultry, health foods, spices, herbs, coffee;` and tea- The poultry stores may sell live poultry, slaughter and clean poultry- - and their own account, and sell dressed fowls, or sell fowls cleaned and dressgd. by others. Spice and herb stores—retsil Coffee stores—retail Tea stores—retail Dietetic food stores—retail V-,tamin food stores—ret-1 Egg dealers—retail Water, rnineral—retail _ = Health food stores—retail Poultry dealers—retail . '�' ATTACIEIMENT 3 § 165-48.9. Streets; Inter -parcel connectors. [Added 6-22-20051 All residential subdivision of more than. 10 lots in the RP, R4, R5 and MS (with residential uses) Zoning Districts shall have streets connecting to adjoining parcels. If adjoining parcels are developed or have had a subdivision plat approved, the connecting street shall coordinate with the existing or platted streets in the adjoining parcel. If an adjoining parcel is undeveloped, the location of the connecting street shall be as shown on the Master Development Plan (MDP) approved by the Board of Supervisors. This requirement for inter -parcel connector streets may be waived by the Board of Supervisors upon approval of the Master Development Plan (MDP) if the Board finds: i) that a connector street to an adjoining parcel is not likely to be needed; ii) that the connector street would be required to be placed in a location which is impractical for location of a street; iii) that an adjoining undeveloped parcel is not likely to be developed in a manner to make a connector street necessary or appropriate; or iv) other good cause shown by the applicant not contrary to good planning policy. All inter -parcel connectors, public or private, shall be built to the Virginia Department of Transportation engineering standards. § 165-48.10. Government services office. [Added 9-14-2005] Government services office located in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District shall be subject to the following requirements: A_ Government services office uses shall be located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), as identified in the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. B. A transportation impact analysis (TIA) shall be conducted and the improvements identified as necessary to achieve, or maintain, a minimum Level of Service (LOS) C shall be constructed in conjunction with the facilities. C. The facility shall be served by public water and sewer. D. The use and site shall adhere to, and implement, Business General (B2) Zoning District design standards. §165-48.11. Grocery and Food Stores. Grocery or food stores located in the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District shall meet the following requirements: A. Maximum building square footage used for retail sales of grocery or food products shall not exceed 10,000 square feet The 10,000 square feet shall not include area used for storage warehousing of products. Attachment 4 C. B3 Industrial Transition District. The intent of this district is to provide for heavy commercial activities, involving larger scale marketing or wholesaling, in locations that are separate from but in the vicinity of business and industrial areas. In some cases, such areas may be transitional, located between business and industrial areas. In these areas, there will be a mixture of automobile and truck traffic. Some of the uses in this district will require large areas of land and may have outdoor storage and display. It is intended that the uses in this district shall not be sources of noise, dust, smoke or other nuisances. Such industrial transition areas shall be provided with safe and sufficient access. Allowed Uses Veterinary services with all activities and animals kept within the fully enclosed primary structure [Amended 1-10-2001] Animal specialty services, except veterinary, with all activities and animals kept within the fully enclosed primary structure [Added 1-10-20011 Landscape and horticultural services Offices and storage facilities for building construction contractors, heavy construction contractors and special trade contractors Local and suburban transit and interurban highway passenger transportation Motor freight transportation and warehousing Transportation by air Transportation services Communication facilities and offices, including telephone, telegraph, radio, television and other communications Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 074 752 078 15, 16 and 17 275 42 45 47 48 Electric, gas and other utility facilities and offices 49 and trucking and warehousing, excluding the following: Sanitary services 495 Advertising specialties — wholesale (added 8-24-2004) 5199 [Added 8-24-20041 Building materials, hardware, garden supply, mobile home 52 dealers and retail nurseries Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations 55 Whole trade businesses - ood Mores 547 11 Restaurants [Added 5-26-20041 58 Laundry, dry-cleaning and garment services, excluding 721 the following: Coin-operated laundries 7215 Linen supply [Added 8-24-2004] 7213 Dry-cleaning plants [Added 8-24-20041 7216 Business services 73 Outdoor ad services [Added 8-24-20041 7312 Automobile recovery service [Added 8-24-20041 7389 Automobile repossession service [Added 8-24-2004] 7389 Product sterilization service [Added 8-24-2004] 7389 Repossession service [Added 8-24-20041 7389 Automotive repair, services and parking 75 Miscellaneous repair services 76 Agricultural equipment repair [Added 8-24-20041 7699 Dental and medical instrument repair [Added 8-24-20041 7699 Farm machinery and tractor repair [Added 8-24-2004] 7699 Laboratory instrument repair [Added 8-24-2004] 7699 Precision instrument repair [Added 8-24-2004] 7699 Repair of optical instruments [Added 8-24-20041 7699 Repair of service station equipment [Added 8-24-20041 7699 Scale repair service [Added 8-24-2004] 7699 Surgical instrument repair [Added 8-24-20041 7699 Drive-in motion picture theaters 75 Amusement and recreation services operated indoors 79 Self-service storage facilities - Vocational schools 824 Business associations 861 Professional membership organizations 862 Labor unions and similar labor organizations 863 Engineering, accounting, research, management and 8'! related services Testing laboratories [Added 8-24-2004] 8734 General business offices - Model home sales office Accessory retailing Public buildings Public utility distribution facilities Business signs Directional signs Building entrance signs Residential uses which are accessory to allowed business areas Parks Flex -Tech [Added 2-11-19981 Fire stations, companies and rescue squads [Added 10-27-19991 ATTACHMENT 5 § 155-48.9. Streets; Rater -parcel connectors. [Added 6-22-2005] All residential subdivision of more than 10 lots in the RP, R4, R5 and MS (with residential uses) Zoning Districts shall have streets connecting to adjoining parcels. If adjoining parcels are developed or have had a subdivision plat approved, the connecting street shall coordinate with the existing or platted streets in the adjoining parcel. If an adjoining parcel is undeveloped, the location of the connecting street shall be as shown on the Master Development Plan (MDP) approved by the Board of Supervisors. This requirement for inter -parcel connector streets may be waived by the Board of Supervisors upon approval of the Master Development Plan (MDP) if the Board finds: i) that a connector street to an adjoining parcel is not likely to be needed; ii) that the connector street would be required to be placed in a location which is impractical for location of a street; iii) that an adjoining undeveloped parcel is not likely to be developed in a manner to make a connector street necessary or appropriate; or iv) other good cause shown by the applicant not contrary to good planning policy. All inter -parcel connectors, public or private, shall be built to the Virginia Department of Transportation engineering standards. § 165-48.10. Government sex -vices office. [Added 9-14-20051 Government services office located in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District shall be subject to the following requirements: A. Government services office uses shall be located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), as identified in the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. B. A transportation impact analysis (T1A) shall be conducted and the improvements identified as necessary to achieve, or maintain, a minimum Level of Service (LOS) C shall be constructed in conjunction with the facilities. C. The facility shall be served by public water and sewer. D. The use and site shall adhere to, and implement, Business General (B2) Zoning District design standards. § 165-48.11. Grocery and Food Stores. Grocery or food stores located in the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District shall meet the following requirements: A. Maximum building square footage used for retail sales of grocery or food products shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. The 10,000 square feet shall not include area used for storage warehousing of products. Attachment 5 C. B3 Industrial Transition District. The intent of this district is to provide for heavy commercial activities, involving larger scale marketing or wholesaling, in locations that are separate from but in the vicinity of business and industrial areas. In some cases, such areas may be transitional, located between business and industrial areas. In these areas, there will be a mixture of automobile and truck traffic. Some of the uses in this district will require large areas of land and may have outdoor storage and display. It is intended that the uses in this district shall not be sources of noise, dust, smoke or other nuisances. Such industrial transition areas shall be provided with safe and sufficient access. Allowed Uses Veterinary services with all activities and animals kept within the fully enclosed primary structure [Amended 1-10-20011 Animal specialty services, except veterinary, with all activities and animals kept within the fully enclosed primary structure [Added 1-10-20011 Landscape and horticultural services Offices and storage facilities for building construction contractors, heavy construction contractors and special trade contractors Local and suburban transit and interurban highway passenger transportation Motor freight transportation and warehousing Transportation by air Transportation services Communication facilities and offices, including telephone, telegraph, radio, television and other communications Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 074 752 078 15, 16 and 17 275 42 45 47 48 Electric, gas and other utility facilities and offices 49 and trucking and warehousing, excluding the following: Sanitary services 495 Advertising specialties — wholesale (added 8-24-2004) 5199 [Added 8-24-20041 Building materials, hardware, garden supply, mobile home 52 dealers and retail nurseries Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations 55 Whole trade businesses - Food Stores 5411 Restaurants [Added 5-26-2004] 58 Laundry, dry-cleaning and garment services, excluding 721 the following: Coin-operated laundries 7215 Linen supply [Added 8-24-2004] 7213 Dry-cleaning plants [Added 8-24-2004] 7216 Business services 73 Outdoor ad services [Added 8-24-20041 7312 Automobile recovery service [Added 8-24-20041 7389 Automobile repossession service [Added 8-24-2004] 7389 Product sterilization service [Added 8-24-2004] 7389 Repossession service [Added 8-24-20041 7389 Automotive repair, services and parking 75 Miscellaneous repair services 76 Agricultural equipment repair [Added 8-24-2004] 7699 Dental and medical instrument repair [Added 8-24-20041 7699 Farm machinery and tractor repair [Added 8-24-20041 7699 Laboratory instrument repair [Added 8-24-2004] 7699 Precision instrument repair [Added 8-24-20041 7699 Repair of optical instruments [Added 8-24-20041 7699 Repair of service station equipment [Added 8-24-20041 7699 Scale repair service [Added 8-24-2004] 7699 Surgical instrument repair [Added 8-24-20041 7699 Drive-in motion picture theaters 75 Amusement and recreation services operated indoors 79 Self-service storage facilities - Vocational schools 824 Business associations 861 Professional membership organizations 862 Labor unions and similar labor organizations 863 Engineering, accounting, research, management and. 87 related services Testing laboratories [Added 8-24-2004] 8734 General business offices - Model home sales office Accessory retailing Public buildings Public utility distribution facilities Business signs Directional signs Building entrance signs Residential uses which are accessory to allowed business areas Parks Flex -Tech [Added 2-11-19981 Fire stations, companies and rescue squads [Added 10-27-19991 J • REZONING APPLICATION 909-07 CLEARBROOK PROPERTY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 23, 2007 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Planning Commission: 11/07/07 Board of Supervisors: 12/12/07 Action Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located on the west side of Route 11, approximately 2,200 feet north of Hopewell Rod (Interstate Exit 321) and south of Cedar Hill Road, Route 671. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 33-A-125 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Residential and agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Vacant East: ' B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Vacant RA (Rural Areas) Residential West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural/Interstate 81 PROPOSED USES: Commercial, Office, and Retail Uses. Rezoning #09-07 — Clearbrook Property October 23, 2007 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virl4inia Department of Transportation: Please see attached correspondence from Mr. Lloyd Ingram, VDOT, dated August 22, 2007. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Clearbrook Fire & Rescue: Based on square footage, the amount of $0.05 to the Clearbrook Vol. Fire Co. we feel is not enough for the service that we will have to provide. Also, the money that goes to the Fred. Co. Fire & Rescue does not help this station for the cost of services. Department of Inspections: No Comment. Department of Public Works: 1. Refer to the Impact Statement, Physical Impacts, on Page 1: The discussion indicates that the site is not located near any 100 -year flood plains. However, a review of available topographic surveys and the wetlands study performed by Triad Engineering, Inc. indicates that Thomas Run flows through the site. It will be necessary to evaluate the 100 -year storm associated with Thomas Run to determine the impact on the proposed site. The discussion of physical impacts should be expanded to include a description of the soils and underlying geology. It should be noted that the site is underlain by karst limestone which could be susceptible to the development of sinkholes. The discussion of physical impacts should also include a reference to the wetlands study performed by Triad Engineering, Inc. It should be noted that this study does not address the wetlands potential on the northern half of this site. Therefore, an amendment to this report will be required with the master development plan submittal. 2. Refer to the Water Supply paragraph on Page 2: The narrative indicates that this development will "generate" 1,000 gallons per day per acre. This misuse of words should be corrected. 3. Refer to the Drainage paragraph on Page 2: The discussion indicates that this site drains from I-81 to the site. This statement is not entirely correct. A portion of the site drains to the north towards Cedar Hill Road. A detailed stormwater evaluation will be required to insure that this site does not adversely impact any off-site properties. This evaluation may lead to off-site drainage improvements including, but not limited to, upgrading the culvert located under Route 11. The site developer will be responsible for funding these improvements. 4. Refer to Solid Waste Disposal on Page 2: Provide an estimate of solid waste generated by the proposed development. This estimate should be presented as tons per year. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority Department: We have capacity and will be able to provide sewer and water service to this site. Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objection as long as adequate central water and sewage systems are to accommodate the proposed development and use of the property. Applications for Rezoning #09-07 — Clearbrook Property October 23, 2007 Page 3 permits and plans are required for any proposed restaurant or hotel/motel. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning application. Allowed uses under this rezoning should not impact airside operations at the Winchester Regional Airport therefore we have no further comment regarding this rezoning request. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey Report, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify a core battlefield within this area. Attorney Comments: I _ I world suggest, for uniformity and easy -reference purposes, that the details of the zoning, owners, property, etc. be summarized at the beginning as set forth on the attached format. This format has been used in all recent proffer statements. 2. The first sentence under "Preliminary Matters" ends with a period after the word "District". That is not the end of a sentence, and a comma should go after the word "District" with the sentence continuing with the word "development". 3. The proffer request involves a single parcel of 14.53 acres, a portion of which is sought to be rezoned B2, and a portion which is sought to be rezoned B3. However, the Proffer Statement does not include a Generalized Development Plan, and there was no other information submitted with the materials which I had to indicate where the boundary line is to be drawn between the proposed B2 and B3 zoning districts. 4. In Proffer 1(a)(i), I would recommend that the words "provided by" be changed to words "limited to". 5. In Proffer I (b)(i), further clarification should be given with respect to the "12' lane", as to whether it is a travel lane, turn lane, etc., and to set forth that it will be constructed to VDOT standards. 6. In Proffer 1(c)(i), the word "designate" is vague or inappropriate. This should be clarified. I would recommend consideration to replacing the word "designate" with the words "design and construct". In addition, the proffer should provide that the inter -parcel connection be designed and constructed prior to the first occupancy permit issued for the property. 7. In the last sentence of Proffer 1(d)(ii), it should be stated that the proffer of an additional $2,500 is to the County. Also, it is not clear what the word "prorated" means with respect to this $2,500 lump sum proffer. Also, the timing of when this proffer amount will be paid should be set forth. 8. In Proffer I (e)(i), I would recommend that the last sentence be reworded to state as follows: "This will be started when requested by Frederick County, and, in any event, will be completed before the approval of the first site plan on the property." 9. 1 would recommend that Proffer 1(f)(i) be reworded to state as follows: "The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate to the Commonwealth of Virginia a strip of land ten feet in width along the frontage of the site on Route I 1 prior to the approval of the first site plan on the property." 10. In Proffer I (f)(ii), I would recommend that the words "to dedicate" be inserted after the work "proffers" in the first sentence. In addition, this proffer should set forth the time by which the easement will be dedicated. 11. In Proffer 2(a), I would recommend that the words "for Fire and Rescue purposes" be inserted in Rezoning #09-07 — Clearbrook Property October 23, 2007 Page 4 place of the words "to be disbursed to the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department". 12. In Proffer 4(a), the limitation of not more than 12 fuel pumps "per business" is not clear. I assume this is meant to limit the number of fuel pumps per service station, and not to permit a service station to have the number of fuel pumps equal to 12 times the number of businesses on the property. In any event, it would appear that this portion of the proffer is covered by Proffer 6. 13. The staff should review Proffer 4 to determine whether all uses which should be prohibited on the site are listed in this proffer. 14. In Proffer 6(a), I would recommend adding the words "on the property" be added after the word "business". 15. The Proffer is prepared to be signed by "MV Winchester, LLC" (which I assume is the developer). However, the current owner of the property is "Mohebatullah Vahidi", and the Proffer Statement should be signed by him as the owner of the property. Planning Department: Please see letter dated April 5, 2007, signed by Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. Transportation Planner: Please see letter dated April 6, 2007, signed by John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Inwood Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 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-]J Land Use The parcel comprising this rezoning application is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (S W SA) and the site is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan designates the site for business use. The plan states that "Business and commercial land uses are proposed along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, on the east and west side of Interstate 81 exits 317, 321 and 323. It is envisioned that commercial uses which cater to the interstate traveler will be developed along the three Interstate 81 interchanges, while retail, service and office land uses will occur along the Martinsburg Pike corridor". The B2 zoning request is consistent with this plan. Rezoning #09-07 — Clearbrook Property October 23, 2007 Page 5 Transportation Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does include this portion of the County. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for Martinsburg Pike to be improved to a four -lane facility. The Plan also states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. This application does not provide that Level of Service. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan designates Route 11 as a short-term designated route. Site Access and design. The Northeast Land Use Plan discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter -parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. Pedestrian accommodations have been addressed with this project with the construction of a bike and pedestrian path along Route 11. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplain or woodlands. This area is also known for karst topography. The Frederick County Engineer has identified that a detailed geotechnical analysis will be needed as part of the detailed site plan design. 4) Potential Impacts Proposed Uses: The application's proffer statement limits the amount of commercial development to 190,000 square feet of building floor area and further limits the development of gasoline service stations to only one with no more than twelve pumps. A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The TIA for this project evaluated the development of 30,000 square feet of office, 150,000 square feet of retail, 10,000 square feet of restaurant and a 12 pump gas station with convenience mart with site access being provided by a single site driveway along the west side of Route 11. The trip generation figures projected for this project, 12,592 average daily trips, appears reasonable given that the applicant has proffered a maximum floor space of 190,000 square feet, has proffered out truck stops, and limited the number of gas pumps to 12. It is comparable to 190,000 square feet of retail use, the scenario required to be modeled in the rezoning application. Rezoning 409-07 — Clearbrook Property October 23, 2007 Page 6 The TIA indicates that a Level of Service C condition will be maintained at the intersection of Route 11 /Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road with the suggested improvements in place. The TIA- suggested improvements at this intersection include: signalization, an eastbound left- turn lane, an eastbound right -turn lane, a westbound left -turn lane, and a southbound right -turn lane. With regards to the intersection of Route 11 /Rest Church Road, an unsatisfactory level of service D will be maintained with the suggested improvements in place. None of the above improvements identified in the TIA as being needed to achieve either a Level of Service C or D have been addressed by this application or provided for in the proffer statement. Transportation Program. The Applicant's transportation program is limited to providing for right-of-way dedication along Route 11, the construction of a 12 foot travel lane across the frontage of the site along Route 11 and a right turn lane into the site, limiting site access to one commercial entrance from Route 11, and the designation of inter parcel connection to the south and north. The Applicant has designated an area for an easement along the front of the property in which a bicycle trail will be constructed along the frontage of this property. The application addresses the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell Road, Route 672, by proffering to enter into a signalization agreement at this location and participating in a share of the cost of this signalization in the amount of $50,000. An additional monetary contribution in the amount of $2,500 is provided to further assist in right-of-way acquisition for future turn lanes at this intersection. The Applicant has included a commitment to provide to the County a transportation study of the Route 11 corridor from Hopewell Road to the West Virginia State Line. Unfortunately, the timing of this study may not be of benefit to the County. Alternately, the Applicant has proffered to provide for the design and construction of one additional left turn lane at the intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road. In general, the Applicant's transportation program falls short of addressing the transportation impacts generated by this request, as identified in the Applicant's TIA. C. Design Standards The Northeast Land Use Plan recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. The site is surrounded on the north side by RA (Rural Areas) zoned property which is used residentially. While it is possible that these uses may change in the future, in line with the Northeast Land Use Plan, for the moment, screening should be addressed. To that end, the Applicant has provided screening above what would be required by Ordinance adjacent to these properties. The project's location on a major corridor warrants particular attention. Initially, this was not fully provided for in the application. The Applicant has since included additional proffer language that provides for additional landscaping and signage restrictions along the Route 1 I frontage of the property in addition to the provision of a split rail fence. The application has provided for additional landscape screening along Interstate 81. Consideration could be given to extending the building material commitment along Route 11 to the building facades along Interstate 81. Rezoning #09-07 — Clearbrook Property October 23, 2007 Page 7 D. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services. However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $0.10 per building square foot for Fire and Rescue Services. 5) Proffer Statement — March 15, 2007, Revised through September 18, 2007 A) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has not proffered a Generalized Development Plan B) Land Use The application's proffer statement limits the amount of commercial development tol90,000 square feet of building floor area and further limits the development of gasoline service stations to one with no more than twelve or fewer pumps. The Applicant has prohibited Truck Stops and Mobile Home Dealers from existing on the property. The Applicant has limited the signage along Route 11 to one monument style sign. No other signage restrictions are offered. The Applicant has provided additional landscape screening, above that required by ordinance, adjacent to the neighboring residential properties. In addition, the Applicant has proffered a 10 foot wide landscape screen as defined in the zoning ordinance along the properties frontage along Interstate 81. The Applicant has proffered a split rail fence along Route 11, landscaping along Route 11, and has prohibited parking, signage, or outdoor storage within 50 feet of Route 11. C) Transportation The proffer statement provides for right-of-way dedication along Route 11, the construction of a 12 foot travel lane across the frontage of the site along Route 11 and a right -turn lane into the site, limiting site access to one commercial entrance from Route 11, and the designation of inter parcel connection to the south and north. The Applicant has designated an area for an easement along the front of the property in which a bicycle trail will be constructed. The application addresses the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell Road, Route 672, by proffering to enter into a signalization agreement at this location and participating in a share of the cost of this signalization in the amount of $50,000. A monetary contribution in the amount of $2,500 is provided to further assist in right-of-way acquisition for future turn lanes at this intersection. The Applicant has also included a commitment to provide to the County a transportation study of the Route 11 corridor from Hopewell Road to the West Virginia State Line, or as an alternative, to provide an additional left tern lane on Route 11 at the intersection of Rest Church Road. D) Community Facilities This application proffers a monetary contribution in an amount of $0.10 per building square foot for Fire and Rescue Services. Rezoning #09-07 — Clearbrook Property October 23, 2007 Page 8 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land use proposed in this rezoning is consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. However, the impacts associated with this rezoning request have not been mitigated by the Applicant. In particular, transportation improvements have not been provided that would achieve an acceptable level of service (Level of Service C or better), most significantly, at the two major intersections identified in the Applicant's TIA. 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 The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. uomcast wedmaii - -r-man iviessage From: "Ingram, Lloyd"<Lloyd.ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov> To: <germaneng@comcast.net> CC: "Eric Lawrence" <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us>, "Copp, Jerry" <Jerry.Copp@VDOT.Virginia.gov>, "Ingram, Lloyd"<Lloyd.ingram@VDOT_Virginia.gov> Subject: Clearbrook Property Rezoning - Route 11, Frederick County Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:36:49 AM The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 11. 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 Clearbrook Property Rezoning Application dated March 15, 2007. VDOT offers the following comments: This rezoning is one of several that has been reviewed by this Residency in the Route 11/Clearbrook area. The key intersection of Routes 11 and 672, continues to fall below a Level of Service "C". While it is realized that this one rezoning cannot mitigate the entire needs, the applicant has provided several proffers in an attempt to lessen impacts created by this rezoning. The value of the offsite proffered improvements is extremely difficult to determine as presented in these proffers. With the potential generation of approximately 12,500 trips per day, the proffers do not appear to adequately address either conclusion found in the TIA, Page 13 of August 28, 2006 submittal. The Residency is confident the value of the offsite improvements is not sufficient to mfigate the traffic generated by this proposed rezoning. The Residency is not satisfied with the proffers offered in this rezoning. 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 http://mailcenter3.comcast.net/wmc/v/wm/46CC3FAD0005507DO0004C 1 C22165579960... 8/22/2007 April 5, 2007 Mr. Claus Bader, P.E. German Engineering, PLC 102 Whipp Drive Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Clearbrook Property Dear Claus: OUNNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: S40/665-6395 I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Clearbrook Property. This application seeks to rezone land from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) Districts. Staff's review comments are listed below for your consideration. 1. Requested Zoning. It is unclear to staff why the applicant is requesting 132 and 133 zoning. The uses proposed (office, retail, restaurant, hotel and gas station) are all allowed in the 132 District, but the hotel and some retail uses are not allowed in the 133 District. If the applicant continues to seek a split zoning, a plan with metes and bounds for each district will be needed. Staff has no idea at present which portion of the site is planned for 132 and which is planned for 133. 2. Northeast Land Use Plana The site is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The plan designates the site for business use. The plan states that `Business and commercial land uses are proposed along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, on the east and west side of Interstate 81 exits 317- 321 and 323. It is envisioned that commercial uses which cater to the interstate traveler will be developed along the three Interstate 81 interchanges, while retail, service and office land uses will occur along the Martinsburg Pike corridor". The proposed B2/133 uses are generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. 3. Northeast Land Use Plan. The Northeast Land Use Plan discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter -parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. The site is surrounded on the north and east by RA (Rural Areas) zoned properties, which are in residential use. Screening along these properties has been addressed. Consideration should also be given to screening along Interstate 107 North bent Street, Suite 202 e Winchester, Virginia 22601-501919 Page 2 Mr. Claus Bader, P.E. RE_ Proposed Rezoning of Clearbrook Property April 5, 2007 81. Future inter -parcel connections also need to be considered. An inter -parcel connector was proffered with the Clearbrook Business Center property to the south, and the applicant should work with that property owner to coordinate the location of that connection. The applicant should also consider at least one inter -parcel connection to the north as this area is also planned for business use and the County would not want to see any commercial entrances close to the intersection of Route 11 and Cedar Hill Road. 4. Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan calls for Level of Service Category C or better for proposed industrial and commercial development. This application does not provide that Level of Service. See TIA comments below. 5. Eastern Road Plan. The Eastern Road Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, calls for Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) to be upgraded to a four lane, divided median section. The proffers provide ten additional feet of right-of-way along Route 11, construction of a 12 foot travel lane, and a 20 foot easement along the frontage of Route 11. This aspect of the application conforms to the Eastern Road Plan. 6. Bicycle Plan. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan identifies Martinsburg Pike as a short-term designation. Address the provision of a bike trail on the frontage of this site. 7. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for properties along business corridors. While some design features have been proffered, the applicant should seriously consider limiting the size and number of signs. 8. Impact Analysis. The application must address all environmental features, including soil and bedrock conditions. The site contains a significant amount of soil type 32B (Oaklet silt loam, two to seven percent slope) which is classified as prime agricultural soil in Frederick County. 9. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA background information does not include the already approved Clearbrook Business Center and the Woodside Commercial Center. The TIA background information does not include accurate data for Rutherford Crossing, formerly known as the Rutherford Farm Itidustrial Park. include data from the most recent Rutherford Crossing TIA, dated September 7, 2006. Page 3 Mr. Claus Bader, P.E. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Clearbrook Property An-il 5.2007 10. Traffic Impact Analysis. The TIA proposed development trip generation was based on 30,000 square feet of office, 150,000 square feet of retail, 10,000 square feet of restaurant and a gas station with 12 gas pumps. Given that the applicant has proffered a maximum floorspace of 190,000 square feet and also given that the applicant has proffered out truck stops and limited the number of gas pumps to 12, the projected 12,592 average daily trips appears reasonable. It is comparable to 190,000 square feet of retail use, the scenario required to be modeled in the rezoning application. 11. Traffic Impact Analysis. As stated previously, the Northeast Land Use Plan calls for Level of Service C or better. The application does not provide Level of Service C. The TIA-suggested improvements at the intersection of Route II/Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road include: signalization, an eastbound left - turn lane, an eastbound right -turn lane, a westbound left -turn lane, and a southbound right -turn lane. This application does not address any of the improvements needed at this intersection. The TIA-suggested improvements at the intersection of Route I1/Rest Church Road include: a westbound leg, signalization, one eastbound thru-lane and one eastbound left -turn lane, one northbound right -turn lane, an additional northbound left -turn lane and one southbound left -turn lane. Most of these improvements were proffered with the Sempeles Property rezoning and many are already in place. The additional northbound left -turn lane has not been proffered by anyone. 12. Proffer Statement lai. It appears this proffer is trying to limit the number of entrances on Martinsburg Pike. It is recommended that the word "limit" be used. It would be beneficial for the County and VDOT to agree on the location for this entrance. 13. Proffer Statement 1bi. Given the projected traffic from this development, a right -turn lane into this site would be beneficial in addition to the proffered through lane along Route 11. 14. Proffer Statement lei. As noted in comment #3 above, consider an inter - parcel connection to the north and coordinate the inter -parcel connection to the south with the adjoining property owner. 15. Proffer Statement ldi. The County has not sought a traffic signal at the entrance to this proposed development. In the future, the County may need a signal at the intersection of Cedar Hill Road/Woodside Road and Route 11. A signal at the entrance to this development would be too close to that intersection. The proffered monetary contribution to install the traffic signal at Page 4 Mr. Claus Bader, P.E. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Clearbrook Property April 5, 2007 the site entrance would be better spent addressing other road improvements needed in the area. 16. Proffer Statement 1 dii. In light of the many improvements that have recently been put in place at the intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road, it is very unclear what improvements are being proffered with this rezoning. Please provide greater detail. This proffer also needs a timing element, such as before the first building permit. Consider a proffer that addresses the needed improvements at the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road. 17. Proffer Statement le. In light of the many improvements that have recently been put in place at the intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road, including new signalization, it is very unclear what is being offered with this proffer. Provide greater detail. 18. Proffer Statement. It is clear that the applicant is trying to proffer road improvements commensurate with the development proposed. Some of the proposed improvements are already being provided by others. The applicant will need to work with County staff and VDOT to better establish appropriate improvements that can be addressed with this application. 19. Adjoiners. Add details of property 33-A-126 to the list of adjoining properties. 20. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick -Winchester Health Department, Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. 21. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. Page 5 Mr. Claus Bader, P.E. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Clearbrook Property April 5, 2007 All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, 4-ua� T. it Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad cc: MV Winchester, LLC, c/o Mo Vahidi, American Medical Equipment & Services, 794 Center Street, Herndon, VA 20171 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 RAX: 540/665-639S April 6, 2007 Claus Bader, P.E. German Engineering, PLC 102 Whipp Drive Winchester, VA 22602 RE: County Transportation Planner Comment on the Preliminary Rezoning Application for the Clearbrook Property Dear Mr. Bader: As the Transportation Planner for Frederick County, VA in which the proposed rezoning is located, I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis and Rezoning Application for the Clearbrook Property. I have the following comments and concerns to point out: Traffic Impact Analysis The TIA does not include a signed copy of the VDOT scoping sheet. This document aids the County in review of the TIA by detailing what is agreed upon at that scoping session. 2. Staff experience with VDOT has been that Synchro has been required for TIAs in this region. Is there a particular reason that HCS+ was used for this particular TIA? 3. Due to the proximity of this development and the square footage, it seems appropriate to study the intersection of Route 11 and Route 671 which is just 650 feet from the proposed site driveway. 4. Table 1 on page 5, detailing background traffic, shows grossly incorrect traffic generation from the Rutherford's Farm development. This background needs to be updated to the current approved use based upon the updated Rutherford TIA. In addition, the rezoning of parcels 33 -A -124A (Woodside Commercial Center) and 33 -A -123/33 -A -122A (Clearbrook Business Center) has not been included in the background traffic. 5. On page 10 of the TIA which depicts the development -generated trip assignments, 755 trips are shown taking the northbound off -ramp from I-81 to Route 669 (Rest Church Road) and the same 755 trips taking the return trip southbound. I find it unlikely that northbound I-81 trips are going to bypass the interchange at I-81 and Route 672 (Hopewell Road) to take the I-81/Rest Church exit and head south on Route 11 to this proposed development. These 755 trips need to be allocated to the I-81/Hopewell Road interchange. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Claus Bader RE: County Transportation Planner Comment on the Preliminary Rezoning Application for the Clearbrook Property April 6, 2007 Page 2 6. The `new intersection' box and the suggested improvements boxes on page 12 do not meet level of service "C" as required in the Comprehensive Plan's discussion of traffic analysis. In addition, there is no indication of the source of the improvements shown in the `New Intersection' box. More specifically, a second northbound left turn lane on Route 1 I to Rest Church Road is shown, but there are currently no existing agreements to implement this turn lane. 7. In the HCS+ detail reports included in the appendix, a Peak Hour Factor of .88 is used for all analysis except the site driveway where .90 is used. I find it unlikely that traffic will be proceeding more expediently to and from the site driveway than the surrounding road system. Please correct this discrepancy. In summary, the traffic impact analysis, in its current state, makes an accurate determination of impacts and needs in this area very difficult and as such does not meet the requirements outlined in the transportation section of the comprehensive plan fnr impact analysis. Rezoning Application/Proffers 1. Regarding Proffer 1 -a -i, the proffer states that access will be provided by one commercial entrance and that the final location of said entrance will be subject to VDOT review and approval. Better language might be limited to one commercial entrance with that location subject to VDOT and County review and approval. In addition, any entrance implemented ideally would align with the entrance to parcel 33 -A -124A, which was recently rezoned as Woodside Commercial Center. 2. Regarding Proffer 1 -b -i, the proffer states that the applicant will construct a 12 foot lane along the frontage of the site on Route 11 and that the improvement will be built prior to implements the Eastern Road Plan desire for receiving any occupancy permits. One lane two southbound through -lanes in this area, but does not address the right turn lane that will be desired for this site as that Road Plan is implemented. In addition, please consider the planned ten foot bike path for the west side of Route 11. 3. Regarding Proffer 1 -c -i, the proffer states that the applicant will designate one inter - parcel connection along the southern boundary. This does not meet County requirements. Inter -parcel connection to the north should be considered. In addition, the southern inter -parcel connection will ideally be coordinated with the recently rezoned Clearbrook Business Center. 4. Regarding Proffer 1 -d -i, the proffer states that the applicant will install a traffic signal at the entrance to the development. If there is to be a future signal on this section of Route I1 the proper location will be at the intersection of Route I I and Route 671. The entrance to the proposed development is too close to this potential future signal. Claus Bader RE: County Transportation Planner Comment on the Preliminary Rezoning Application for the Clearbrook Property April 6, 2007 Page 3 5. Regarding proffer 1 -d -ii, without the applicant summarizing other proffers to this intersection, it is difficult to determine what this proffer actually adds to the intersection of Rest Church and Route 11. Please clarify. 6. Regarding proffer 1 -e -i, the proffer states that to address off-site impacts of the development, the applicant will provide engineering and design to the intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road. While I strongly agree that there is a significant need to address the impacts of this development on the surrounding transportation network beyond the development frontage, this proffer may not be the appropriate way to address the wider impacts of the proposed development in terms of the Route 11 corridor, this and other significantly impacted intersections. In addition, once again it is unclear what is already proffered at this particular intersection. In summary, it appears that the transportation proffers shown here are just less than those of the rezoning of parcel 33 -A -124A (Woodside Commercial Center). The problem with that is that Woodside Commercial Center has an approved proposal that will generate less than half of the vehicle trips of this development. The submitted proffers fail to mitigate impacts projected by the TIA and that is with a TIA that fails to properly model background traffic, or the flow of traffic created by this proposed development. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this review further, please contact the case planner, Mrs. Susan Eddy, and we can arrange a meeting which I will be happy to attend. Sincerely, John A. Bishop, AICP Transportation Planner JAB/bad cc: MV Winchester, LLC Lloyd Ingram, VDOT Jerry Copp, VDOT Frederick Clearbrook Location in the County Map Features O Hamlets •i, Future Rt37 Bypass 1D Application Streets Primary Secondary '�- Terciary Winchester Rds ► Urban Development Area SWSA Location in Surrounding Area Map Document:(N:\Planning_And_Development\_1_Locator_Mps\ClearbrookProperty_REZ0907_072507.mxd) 7/25/2007 -- 1:34:14 PM Map Document: (NAPlanninn And tlatralnn—nt\ 4 1 ., ; rtn }r r __ ___r_r Frederick County, VA ReZoning REZ#09-07 Application Clea,rbroolc Property Parcel ID: 33-A-125 Location in the county Map Features O Hamlets Zoning 4%, Future RI37 Bypass Bt (Business, Neighborhood District) 0 Application B2 (Business, General District) Streets ek,B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) '�. Primary .: EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) �. Secondary - HE (Higher Education District) '�- Tertiary Ml (Industrial, Light District) Winchester Rds M2 (Industrial, General District) • Urban Development Area u MHl (Mobile Home Community District) ® MS (Medical Support District) R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RAZ (Rural Area Zone) RP (Residential Performance District) SWSA i f b * 4 r pC U r� CI E;I IICFfErY:i 0 Location in Surrounding Area 's ra e..RJ' Case Planner: Candice — — — r-_. .--. .v�.,. . r ry_r.�wavr_vfcuul.nlxu) 77LD7[uuI -- 1:34:14 1'M 07 ► r11 Uf Map Frederick County, VA J`o., y r� i !;" a✓ rs q f` r ✓ 7 fr J J✓✓- ReZoning REZ#09-07 Application x f t-- J >ti, �y✓ ! J r Cleai•b�•oo�c _ - i Yy YJy y V V Y % ✓ Y Y'L,�i � -✓�Y r✓`rY 'l Vr;. ` ✓y JYJ ar Property r J Parcel ID: O Ga�IOn In t{le GO In 33 - A - 125 L �. v<J, .-r,>+ -.� r ."ti _ ✓� .yr. :rs�'r .. $i>r .:.� t i ..J"�• ��J�a✓ �Jy ,Y y 'yr ya5r .4 � Y LEDAV- ii ILL ESTNI E$ � �y� � j JI � C J � y a ✓��✓ '> � y ws J r✓ +�J.rJ K �'t� r`>�a'J'aY�nr'�>' any •� YsiSy� . aY ,Ji��r �y ;� �•c t J w a'' J� ry J✓�'. a.>r,>'r;•",r;, Map Features �Srs'`,''x� ✓ �. .Y -Y •>'v'r 1,rrr O vty x _✓ y t* t>,,r .� Q Hamlets Long Range Land Use JnY��y? v; •'' syi'y,J r oory y,.ryJ'i ��`> Jr '!• Future Rt37 Bypass Rural Community Center JYy .a> ry F. r it �l •2>'YZ�'".>�J J'>JJ � � Application Residential c.,tdEA`4 r''' y, yr J' Z`a'• Z> yr>a',y'''r.y� ✓.ry.?n'y✓aJy✓'y'.rr��yeJ�,rr�.>%',�w,��.ar s..rryr >svt�0 J•S•.t..reets BusinessX>Primary Industrial F- RDOr 5LISWC$4 Secondary rcg Institutional i 66 c ayJ;�aaJc'�y 6 ''Sy>J ,�''ya''✓''"•>'r PUss J J.Y ,r :>�,�ya J ✓ J � 5 J vY sr J� J Tertiary Recreation vys rI t' ee r� y ' ✓arra ., y>'' yJ -25?'Y J, ✓X J' •' ✓ - ✓ �' v J Winchester Res Historic a,� Y >y c' Y '' �•> dy�`'ti iiCa>.r✓a YJ'v '�J .�'>. ✓ ' a J r Urban P ® Mized-Use D SWSADevelo Development Area f d', y .y ,> J ✓ J y r Jr ,+ '>-` Planned Unit Development N �`t'JS'J'y r Yy aY J ✓�.. JYJ- yJ_ j k `�twy� `a Jy �? J r'a ,J✓th• � jJ y J�� Js F ✓ -. � '. rr •fyJ+' �✓�� .;� ,�._.. r.a' rrJ.JJ .• y �! Y` yv� !rr '�Jry✓y ,>' sy `>�'�.J>Y''S>✓y✓J>r. ' �vr✓ �<r �' "21 yx J a KJ" a.;>'>,r ✓ '� wY ,,h tix' {,;. ✓' y Jrrr> '�' aY fir, �n> JrJ'i J ✓ .>ryJ xx ✓ •d� e7 `� �'>a yC�r •>•✓ � J.Jra}air y� Q. "� C r✓ �✓y � > y✓ a rr : r : > >;ri>��r v''✓.r r; o s ' ��hilt;' ✓ .cJ •'>• �: >v i': n. � .> J y .. J '-..� oP � 'i . ,,,y rY yJY•' .r✓ '�'• ..JJ�, > ✓ J `Zr ✓ J ,,' '>< -- i j:: .. J - 'v a +y x>a J .>�a>x a , >✓'.>.. ti .i � u° °� � ,. � yrsy'Z J��x'�a>' '<r .r •cr.>>J'�S� x ' 'c, .r .r 'c, y _ CCC �c`' 'V arY J J ' IIntcctown'Rrt , y� J J yyr yzy r „ Sr ;rJJ,>' > J \v0 _ i� rvLt' �''r�`�`✓�x_ YrJy yY syr' a > a,?' ry JJ •x i.. t,l�y.',r/JOti� 0 Btitcetowt I Qclt' wk&iiy4,, J .r 'xJ'' "�'rr y Z J''>''n .r y�✓��J'>r r 6i c �.t10 x o'r \ ,N \,y� 4 t'• >xy s> U Jy '' 'YJ ?iir� Jr� U. ;rr 't ootJ Location in Surrounding Area a''Z'a;•', Candice tC•K CpG\ i J l :" ate..✓ `y ,,%J''ic .r Js'J '>''�• ;�c>'''>'r?J.''J" � >��s v 'r �r r � I1'!i) <.1 � �,-i '< y oil > J.�rjy �rZar'> 5a'yai rY3 Case Planner: .Y ; Jy'Jv w.•� ,> 1��( 3 �alGr �✓�'"'•;c;' �✓ysy...�. r�.�.>y',�s''�. Y>"� ara.w✓✓ � .�v� a '7 �.p :'�•,>''�..r�•.y'r .. a? yy{ �r r Man r)nrumpnt- An l n —1 — -- -- • -- - ------- -� - �r^• �W. cawe— rrrVOwruolurvUnrlUNelty_mt:Luuuf UrzSU/.mXa) 112512007 -- 1:34:14 PM ntoitUU/ -- 1:34:14 HM GERMAN ENGINEERING PEC 102 WHIPP DRIVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602 540-664-1971 To: Mike Ruddy CC: Mo Vahidi From: Clans Bader Date: 10/12/2007 Re: Clearbrook property Mike, Here are the revised proffers as discussed today. Thanks, Claus Oct 05 07 10:22a Rezoning: Property: Record Owner: Applicant: Project Name: Original Date of Proffers: Reviscd Date Proffers.- Magisterial roffers: Magisterial District: Prelirnirlary Matters p.2 RZ P09-07 Area: 14.53 acres Tax Parcel 33-(A)-125 MV Winchester, LLC MV Winchester, LLC, C/O Claus Bader, P.E. Clearbrook Property March 15, 2007 June .14, 2007 August 22, 20th September 17, 2007 September 18, 2007 Stonewall Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #09-07 for rezoning of 14.53 -acres from the RA District to General Business (B-2) District, development of the subject property shall be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such arc approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the ovent that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject properties are more particularly described as the lands conveyed to Mohebatullah Vahidi from Akbter Sayef and Gous Ahmed as recorded in the Frederick County Circuit Court Clerk's office as instrument 050012825 dated June 15, 2005. Proffers 1. Tra sportation a. Access a. Direct Access to Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11) shall be limited to one commercial entrance to provide ingress and egress to all uses ori Oct 05 07 10.22a p.3 this site. The final location will be subject to VDOT review and approval once a site plan is submitted. b. 'Turn lane a. The applicant hereby proffers to construct a 12° travel lane along the frontage of the site on Route 11 and a right turn lane into the site; fpm Route 11. All road improvements shall be constructed in accordance with VDOT standards. This will be built prior to receiving any occupancy permits. c, Inter -parcel Connections a. Upon construction of a state approved entrance onto Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, the applicant hereby proffers to designate one inter - parcel connection to the propc-ay to the: south and to the north. The final location of the inter -parcel connections shall be determined at the Master Development stage.. d. Sil na,lization a. The applicant hereby proffers to contribute $50,000 toward the sipaliration, improvcmcot at the offset intersection of Routc l i witb Hopewell Road (Route 672) in recognition of ot- site transportation impacts. The final design and location of the, si&malization improvements will be determined by the Virginia Department of 'transportation (VDd'r). `T his agency Nvill also determine when this improvement will be warranted. The, applicant shall enter into a 44signali7ation agreement" with VDOT that provides the $50,000 one time contribution towards the: cost of the signalization. This contribution will be paid to Frederick County upon the issuance of the first occupancy permit in the development. The applicant also proffers an additional $2,500 to be applied towards the right of way acquisition for future turn lanes at the Hopewell RoadlRoute I 1 intersection upon the request of the County. These fiends will be paid to Frederick County upon the issuance of the first occupancy permit inthe devcloprnent. e. Contributions .for Road Improvements in recognition of off-site transportation impacts. The applicant hereby proffers either a or b below, as directed by Frederick County and V DOT as a contribution to mitigate the transportation impacts associated with tbns development. Oct 05 07 10:22a p.4 The applicant hereby proffers to present the County with a transWrtation study of the Route 11 corridor from Hopewell Road to the West Virginia state line. This study will incorporate the approved and pending rezonings along the corridor and the County's Comprchensive Plan to determine the potential improvements needed in the corridor. This study shall start within 12 months of the approval of this rezoning application by Frederick County Board of Supervisor signing. OR a. The applicant hereby proffers to design and construct an additional left turn lane on Route I 1 North at the intersection with Rest Church Road. Work shall begin on this improvement within 18 months of the approval of the first site plan for the property or at the request of VDOT. C. Right of Way Dedication a. The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate to the Commonwealth of Virginia a strip of land tett feet in width along the frontage of the site on Route l l . The dedication will take place as a. part of the approval of the first site plan. b. The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate: a 20' drainage;, pedestrian, and utility easement along the frontage of Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, to Frederick County. The Applicant also proffer's to construct the bicycle trail along the frontage of the subject property within the easement and will. contain the bicycle trail as identified on the County plan. The applicant will retain the right to place the proffered split rail fence (see item 7-A) and a monument sign (see item 7-13) within this easement. The dedication will take place as a part of the approval of the first site plan. 2. Monetary Contributions — Fire & Rescue a. "lite applicant hereby voluntarily protTe;rs a cash contribution to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, of $0.15 per building square foot for Fire and Rescue purposes, to be paid prior to each final site plan approval. The term "building square foot" shall be the combined floor area for each story. 3. The applicant hereby proffers that the combined building floor area on this site shall not to exceed 190,000 square feet. 4. The: applicant hereby voluntarily prohibits the following uses from existing on the subject properties: a_ "Truck Stops -Retail" as noted in SIC 5541. Oct 05 07 10:23a b. S1C 5271 — "Mobile Home Dealers" p.5 S. The applicant hereby proffers a "Full Screen" buffer, as defined by the Frederick County Toning Ordinance, plus an additional row of evergreens trees for a total of four rows to be placed along any neighboring parcels zoned Rn with a residential use at the time of development. The applicant proffers a combination of deciduous trees, planted 40 feet apart and shrubs along; the bicycle trail on the property along Route 11. In addition, the applicant proffers a ten (10) foot wide landscape screen as defined in the zoning ordinance along the property's frontage on Interstate S 1. 5. The applicant hereby proffers the following conditions to "Automobilc Service Stations-, Retail" as defined in STC 5541 -"Gasoline Service Stations". a. Orly one business on the property will. be aJllowed to have retail fuel pumps. b. The total number of pumps will be limited to twelve or fewer. c. Diesel fuel will be restricted to two pumps or fewer and must be located with other pumps. Diesel fuel sales to "over -the -road trucks" will be prohibited. 7. Corridor Enhancements to be completed by prior to the fust occupancy permit. a. The applicant will construct a split rail fcnce along the road frontage. b. The applicant will erect a single monument style sign, not to exceed twelve (12') in height, with the park's name and list of tenants. This monument sign will not exceed -twelve (12') in height or one hundred (100 sf) square in arca. The applicant will not install any freestanding signs between the buildings and Route 11 other than this one monument sign. c. The applicant will not allow any parking spaces or outdoor storage to be constructed within 50' of Route 11. d, The applicant will require each building t'agade along Route I 1 to be constructed of wood, vinyl, glass, masonry, or stucco. However, metal siding will be allowed within the business park and on all sides not facing route 11, 8, Design Standards for parking areas. a. The applicant Shall design the parking areas for this site to incorporate green design standards to reduce the storm water runoff from the pavement through the use of bio retention areas. Oct 05 07 09:14a P. s The conditions proffered above shall be binding lupan heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Hoard of: Supervi,%0TS granas this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code and Ordinance. Respectfully Submitted: MV Winchester, LLC Moltebatullah Vahidi Commonwealth of Virginia., kb -41— oD7 Date City/Cou ity of p a�rkTl To Wit: 1'he foregoing instniment rads acknowledged before me this Y day of . C�c�o r , 2007 By blic My Commission Expires Registration No. LQDemond Pollard Commonwealth of Virginia Notary Public Commission No.: 351325 My Commission Expires 10/31/2008 12648 Vuhidi l A:11001 -Prof drA'GpWmhGr18 Adoc Impact Statement For consideration of Rezoning the lands for the Clearbrook Propefty Stonewall Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia March 15, 2007 Revised June 14, 2007 Tax Map Number 33-(A)-125 Total Area: 14.53 acres Owner: MV Winchester, LLC C/O American Medical Equipment & Service 794 Center Street Herndon, VA 20170 Contact: Claus Bader, P.E. German Engineering, PLC 102 Whipp Drive Winchester, VA 22602 (540)664-1971 Clearbrook Property Rezoning Introduction The site is located between Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11) about 2,200' north of exit 321 in Clearbrook, VA. The site has one house and several storage buildings on it. The Owner is seeking a change in zoning from RA to B2 to create a neighborhood business park that is consistent with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Existing Conditions The majority of the property is now a hayfield and is improved with a single family dwelling unit and three out buildings. Comprehensive Planning The site is intended to be zoned to business/commercial per the comprehensive plan and public water and sewer is available at the site. The benefit to Frederick County by approving this rezoning will be a positive economic impact and employment opportunities for our citizens. Proposed Development The applicant plans to remove all buildings except for the house on the properly. This structure is to be converted to an office use. The site will be graded, landscaped, and a commercial entrance installed that will meet current VDOT regulations. There are no any tenants for the property; therefore, the traffic and fiscal impacts will assume a gas station with food mart not to exceed twelve (12) pumps, a 10,000 sf restaurant, 30,000 sf of office space 150,000 sf of retail and commercial space with associated parking. A portion of the commercial/retail space may be occupied by a 100 room hotel. Physical Impacts The site is not located near any 100 year flood plains. The drainage channel known as Thomas Run will be evaluated as a part if the required site plans for the project. Furthermore, there are not any woodlands or noteworthy landscaping on site to preserve. Due to the karst geology of the area, a study of the geology may be required prior to construction of any facilities on the property. The wetlands delineated by the study preformed by Triad Engineering will be incorporated into the development plans and identified on the Master Plan as required by Frederick County Code. Surrounding Properties The site is bounded by Route 11 to the east and Interstate 81 to the west. The property to the south has been rezoned from RA to B-3. The parcels to the north are residential and parcels are intended to become commercial as indicated by the Comprehensive Plan. Traffic Impact and Analysis See attached report by Patton Harris Rust Associates. Sewer Conveyance and Treatment The FCSA has a 6" sewer force main along Route 11. This commercial development is expected to generate 500 gallons/day/acre for a total of 7,265 gpd. The applicant will build a sewer pump station to be dedicated to the FCSA. The pump station's holding capacity will be designed so that additional pumps can be installed in the future to accommodate neighboring parcels. Water Supply The FCSA has a 12" water main along Route 11. This development is expected to use 1000 gallons/day/acre for a total of 14,530 gpd. Drainage The site currently drains from Interstate 81 to the east and to the north. This development will adhere to the Frederick County Ordinance and to the guidelines set forth by the Department of Public Works for stormwater management quantity and quality. Solid Waste Disposal The Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4t' edition uses a rate of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Given the size of this project, 1,471. tons of solid waste can be expected to be generated by this site each year. The solid waste will be transferred to the Frederick County Landfill Facility by licensed commercial carriers. Historical Impact There are no historically significant structures or features present. Educational Impact This development will not create additional students for the schools. Police Fire and Rescue Impact 2 The development will increase the burden on fire and rescue. The applicant is offering a proffer of $0.05 per building square directly to the Clearbrook Volunteer Fire Department and also $0.05 per building square to the County for fire and rescue services. Parks & Recreation Impact The only impact to the Parks might some of the businesses signing up for shelters for company picnics. This development is not expected to increase population; therefore, no measurable impacts are predicted. 3 0 �e '230 DOB oma_ ac 0 ° OC Bronson ° Spring I Road Rt. 677 9:k - cedar MA k 000d Rt. g71 ° 124 O e /�ryh 123A �2SA S�j 123 ° -9 rz4p s t. 672 Rt. 72 ,+ � BNc own Raa x: shington ring p� �e �G 1 Q CLEARBROOK PROPERTY DESIGN; CSB GERIVIAN ENGINEEHINCT , PEC VICINITY MAP DRAWN; CSB 102 WHIPP DRIVE TAX MAP 33--A-125 CHECKED: CSB FILE: 1001—Mo WINCHESTER, VA 22602 STONEWALL DISTRICT DATE. 3/15/07 540-664-1971 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"=1000' A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Clearbrook Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: MV Winchester, LLC C/O American Medical Equipment and Services 794 Center Street Herndon, VA 20170 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.2642711 PH"+ F 304264.3671 August 28, 2006 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Clearbrook Property located along the west side of Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike), north of the intersection of Route 11/Hopewell Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to be comprised of 30,000 square feet of office, 150,000 square feet of retail, 10,000 square feet of restaurant and 12 pump gas station with convenience mart with access to be provided via a single site -driveway along the west side of Route 11. The project is to be built -out over a single transportation phase by the Year 2010. Figure I is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Clearbrook Property with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Clearbrook Property were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the study area, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Clearbrook Property, • Distribution and assignment of the Clearbrook Property development -generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS+, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike)/Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road, Hopewell Road/ I-81 northbound ramps, Hopewell Road/ I-81 southbound ramps, Route 11/ Rest Church Road (Route 669), Rest Church Road/ 1-81 northbound ramps and Rest Church Road/ 1-81 southbound ramps. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was 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 9.2 % based on the published Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Trips) and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 illustrates the respective existing lane geometry and levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Trak Impact Analysis ofthe Clearbrook Property Project Number: 14623-1-0 PH J August 28, 2006 Page 1 No Scale J r tt; Combs w, Resl Church �d �` r 4 t _ i;hapAV lli�w t7r Rei# @�v. r sBuck Hata 7i �Ceriar J-1 ill X 1 �7 t, SITE -- - r3 1 11� +- HopMedl lid st; r Br_. ,Melo — Rd -8tticeiSowtt..._ fi ■ J -r a -D'1- ! e Figure 1 Vicinity Map s Clearbrook Property in ]Frederick County, Virginia A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Clearbrook Property Project Number: 14623-1-0 PAtH" T +ugus28, 2006 j ---j Page 2 b �v h �y O (248)1g� '16(22 8) No Scale (13S)118 1 a (85) ,n o O �r m \ (322)1.3 7 3�2)137 Rest Church Road (5Q)117� �a O 78(61) (173 9)73 �� 23 (21_9) )263 �4 L SITE Site - 0 11 (27) (,)10 9 �` 32(-169) '' Ha ewel] .Road tea ^� 0 Brucetown ]load CID N _ N h ti (SS)102 Oft- S-1(71) 6) I( 1)6) (14)19 Q ^ /q) A BNcej ( �►39(4� c o o,i �S (Sq)6, t X521 cn (76)5q 1 (53)52 � 1 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) LP, P-4- A Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions PFlrzn A Trak Impact Analysis of the Clearbrook Property Project Number: 14623-1-0 August 28, 2006 Page 3 a fi Signalized -1 tro � Intersection O� Signalized G I LOS B(B) C-0 7` Intersection O LOS-B(B) 1111�11N�VT B, No Scale (A)A 1► *-Z -11(w) CQ Rest Church Road Q �Q Signalized Intersection LOS--B(B) 1i ,Qq 11 � SITE _ Site_ 16riy`e IT Unsignalized p Intersection a� 4 1' Ho ewe" Road * Unsignalized � Intersection o Brucetown Road �Q cetoWJ7 Road Unsignalized A Q Intersection OC 11 cn AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Denotes two-way left turn lane Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service AA Traffic Impact Analysis of Clearbrook Property Analysis of the Clearbrook Proper AProject Number: 14623-1-0 RPH August 28, 2006 Page 4 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data (between years 2002 and 2004) for Route 11 within the vicinity of the site, a growth rate of 3.5 % was calculated and applied to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2010 base conditions. Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 2010 Background Developments Trip Generation Summary Code land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Sempeles Property* 130 Industrial Park 898,425 SF 459 101 559 154 580 734 5,204 820 Retail 73,500 SF 79 51 130 245 266 511 5,559 Total 538 151 689 399 845 1,245 10,763 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park 130 Industrial Park 500,000 SF 292 64 356 90 337 427 3,228 Total 292 64 356 90 337 427 3,228 Stephenson Village 210 Single -Family Detached 215 units 40 120 160 137 77 214 2,145 220 Apartment 120 units 10 53 63 56 28 84 853 230 Townhouse/Condo 195 units 15 72 87 71 35 107 1,697 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 133 units 17 30 47 55 31 86 531 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 36 units 2 1 3 2 1 4 125 Total 1 83 276 359 321 172 493 5,351 * Assumed 50% build -out for Year 2010 A Traffic Impact Analysis o{the Clearbrook Property AProject 14523-1 RPH August 28, 2006 Page 5 Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions PHrzn A Trak Impact Analysis o{the Clearbrook Property Project Number: 14623-1-0 August 28, 2006 Page 6 PH RA A Trak Impact Analysis of the Clearbrook Property Project Number: 14623-1-0 August 28, 2006 Page 7 4 O Signalized G Intersection LOS--B(B) Bim) No Scale (4)4 +y S Signalized O Intersection Cn LOS--B(B) a' Rest Church Road Signalized "New Intersection" Intersection EB - 1 Left tOSG(C) Fourth Leg U 11 - Unsignaiize Cfr) O Intersection SITE .711 �. (4)4 Site- Drive � ai Q v Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" L6S-C(C) Signalization 11 EB - I Left + I Right Ho ewell Road - 11 o� Brucetown Road �' n :r 4(� x- ) Unsignalized * '1 Intersection 1QO:Assmnedl0:'second yellow/ted .:clearance for the eastbound and UnsignaGzed Intersection Q"rfoi - westbound dtrcctionto- account -- the 'ptl;set B eWn Road D(Fj x (�E AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Denotes two-way'left turn lane PH RA A Trak Impact Analysis of the Clearbrook Property Project Number: 14623-1-0 August 28, 2006 Page 7 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tri Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Clearbrook Property. Table 2 Proposed Development: Clearbrook Property Trin (ieneratinn Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 710 Office 30,000 SF 63 9 72 19 93 112 528 820 Retail 150,000 SF 122 78 200 393 425 818 8,839 932 H -T Restaurant 10,000 SF 60 55 115 67 43 109 1,272 945 Gas Sta w/ Mart 12 pumps 60 60 121 80 80 161 1,953 Total 305 202 507 559 642 1,200 12,592 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 Clearbrook Property site. Figure 7 shows the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Clearbrook Property assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Clearbrook Property AProject Number: 14623-1-0 HRAugust 28, 2006 PPage 8 40% 10% No Scale 11 Rest Chu,rh Road SITE Site - Drive 11 No ewell Road Brucetown Road 40% 10% T i, -t- A Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages PHCt1� A Tra is Impact Analysis ofthe Clearbrook Property Project Number: 14623-1-0 August 28, 2006 Page 9 c ry m ey t //rrN Q No Scale r'24(77) 4 tb 11 O CQ Rest Church Road (291)159� o o a� A � b O '81(2S7) (223)122 7) a` 2q(� �► 4J� 11 SITE (39 8)12S Site- (244)7' Drive N 11 0 0 L A 11 *ft'57(180) Ho ewe]] Road b F� Brucetovvri Roa p O ro v ®� 1r�s2(Ta0) AO' h ry B (156)asWN;$ � 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) LT TP+n PfTN JA, A Trak Impact Analysis of the Clearbrook Property Project Number: 14623-1-0 August 28, 2006 Page 10 A Trak Impact Analysis oojethe Clearbrook Prop 0 PH Project Number: t 28, 2 16 August 28, 2006 Page I l Signalized �� Intersection No Scale r� gBI Rest Church Road Signalized: "New Intersection" Intersection EB, NB -1 Left LOS C(D)' WB 4th Leg Signalized Sjte_ ® Intersection )rjve ( LOS B(B) I17 i� e SITE Unsignalized O Intersection O�Q-1% Road * m 'Orucetown Road Unsignalized Intersection A(A) F Unsignalized B Intersection p 'oeFRod E(Jr) rn 11 "Suggested Improvements" Signalization B -1 Left + 1 Right WB - 1 Left SB - I Right n NOTE Assumed lOsecondyellow/red' cle'_ce:fb the eastbound and: westbound drzecnon to account " , forthe.-offset - AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Denotes two-way left turn lane Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Trac Impact Analysis of the Clearbrook ProperRA ty Project Number: 14623-1-0 August 28, 2006 PHPage 12' A Signalized ized O Intersection LOS--B(B)�00G S Signalized: "New Intersection" Intersection EB, NB -1 Left LOS C(D)' WB 4th Leg Signalized Sjte_ ® Intersection )rjve ( LOS B(B) I17 i� e SITE Unsignalized O Intersection O�Q-1% Road * m 'Orucetown Road Unsignalized Intersection A(A) F Unsignalized B Intersection p 'oeFRod E(Jr) rn 11 "Suggested Improvements" Signalization B -1 Left + 1 Right WB - 1 Left SB - I Right n NOTE Assumed lOsecondyellow/red' cle'_ce:fb the eastbound and: westbound drzecnon to account " , forthe.-offset - AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Denotes two-way left turn lane Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Trac Impact Analysis of the Clearbrook ProperRA ty Project Number: 14623-1-0 August 28, 2006 PHPage 12' CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Clearbrook Property are acceptable and manageable. Assuming suggested improvements, all intersections except the intersection of Route I I/Rest Church Road, will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. The intersection of Route l I/Rest Church Road will maintain levels of service "D". The following describes the suggested roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections as shown in Figure 9 during 2010 build -out conditions. • Route 11 / Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road: Traffic signalization along with separate eastbound left and right turn lanes, westbound left turn lane and southbound right turn lane will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service. • Route I 1 / Rest Church Road: Westbound leg along with additional eastbound and northbound left turn lane will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Clearbrook PropRA erty Project Number: 14623-] -0 H August 28, 2006 PPage 13 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA be completed by Planning Staff.- Fee Amount Paid Date Received Hing Amendment Num er DOS Hearing Date 1 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. Applicant: Name: MV Winchester, LLC Telephone: (703)-471-0082 Address:en 794 Center Street H mdon VA 2 170 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Mohebatullah Vahidi Telephone: (703)-471-0082 Address: M Se 794 Center Street Herndon VA 20170 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Claus Bader, P -E., German Engineering Telephone: (640) 664-1971 4. Checklist: Check the following itemAgency Comments that have beenincluded with this application. Location map Plat x Fees Impact Analysis Statement X Deed to property X Verification of taxes paid x Proffer Statement 11 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: MohebaAull 6. A) Current Use of the Property: RA Residential and agricultural n E) Proposed Use of the Property: t 14 5 J A 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING Please see the attached. 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): This propeft is located on the west side of Route 11 approximately 2,200 feet north of Interstate exit 321 (Hopewell Road in Clearbrook, VA. 12 9. The following information should he provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 0 Townhome: 0 Multi -Family: 0 Non -Residential Lots: Max. of 5 Mobile Home: 0 Hotel Rooms: 100 Sguare Footage of Proposed Uses Office: 30,000 Service Station: 12 pumps Retail: 75,000 Manufacturing: Restaurant: 10,000 Warehouse: Other: 75,000 sf, 100 Room Hotel 10. 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 this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): �--�� Date:�� Date: Owner(s): {IL's .D 1./ Date: - -_2- 2 -,9� Date: 13 Adjoining Properly Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified ofthe Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name1631 R & J Land Development, LLC Red Bud Road Winchester, VA 22603 Zone: B3, Use: Vacant Property # 33-A-123 Name Bradely K. Blain 35 Flatt Road Rochester, NY 14623 Zone: RA, Use: Vacant/Agricultural Property # 33-A-124 Name Elaine F. Magee 3703 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, VA 22624 Zone: RA, Use: Residential Property # 33 -A -125A Name Deborah D. Swimley P.O. Box 10 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Zone: RA, Use: Residential Property # 33 -A -125B Name Philip K. Martin P.O. Box 113 Brucetown, VA 22622 Zone: RA, Use: Residential Property # 33 -A -125C Name Robert O. & Joyce Widdows 2042 Cedar Hill Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 Zone: RA, Use: Residential Property # 33 -A -125E Name Mark & Elizabeth Caroline Regan 2000 Cedar Hill Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 Zone: RA, Use: Residential Property # 33 -A -125D Name Silverwolfe, LLC 1073 Red Bud Road Winchester, VA 22603 Zone: B3, Use: Vacant Property # 33 -A -124A Name Open Door Baptist Church, Inc. 2587 Northwestern Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Zone: RA, Use: Church Property # 33 -A -124A 14 15 Special Limited Power of Attorney ' County of Frederick, Virginia e��cot� Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) M0H E-B&TG ZJ,,9 i VR//l P I (Phone) 763 -471- 008 7 N Car e sTQc F� (Address) C o,14j_1o?"' Mffiaguio5ff 1-1�"zylJ.� I/R a0 /76 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. 0$'001;095 on Page , and is described as Parcel: IAS Lot: Block: R Section: 33 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) C6-RuS z PL c (Phone) $40 - 66¢--177) (Address) /OV- 6WIff IllOF 11'-<H r7 oZ X 6d 2 - To act as my true and lawful attomey-in- t 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: G Rezoning (Including proffers) G Conditional Use Permits G Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) G Subdivision G Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this /.24�ilay ofc A,lu 200`% , n Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/County of Fat' r�Er,�4 , To -wit: +tut d% I,yn� 1�' �t lam• _ l �{LtFrT�` ; a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify th person( j wl signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this a0 -ay ofcJ / u , 200_Z. L -id - My Commission Expires: bo I No Public _ Jul 31 07 11:10a E N 0 O r G a z INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 �► ze�2z'o�-I: if56,g4` __ `'- R"R" MAY REMAINING LAND 14.5309 ACRES � -.f / lac,E e EXWF ac o WAT UMc / t', a Z hl n'1� W I w iu 141 Ct❑ Cf lyw ILI lNq QO f .�'a.�� '. P. MAY M.SZ$09 ACRES ND. RRO. _DELTA ARC TAN, CHO. FTil; ►L PLA" CHO. SRG: 1 2 3 4 11499.16' 11499.16' 11499.16' 11499.1G' 02009'38" 00*14'05" 00044'51" 01010'42" 433.G3' 47,12' 150.00' 236.51' 715.84' 23.56' 75.00• 1111.26' 433.60' 47.12' 150-00' 236.50' 5 S 5 S 33023'29"9 34021'15"li 33°51'47"11 32054'01"V E N 0 O r G a z INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 �► ze�2z'o�-I: if56,g4` __ `'- R"R" MAY REMAINING LAND 14.5309 ACRES � -.f / lac,E e EXWF ac o WAT UMc / t', a Z hl n'1� W I w iu 141 Ct❑ Cf lyw ILI lNq QO LOT I A 3,0833 ACRES '. a �,1-�ry•/ hyo N&Y 114 -1 T1 L,,, .ID U-5- ROUTE II MARTINS$�1RG IPIK TABULATION BEFORE ADJUSTMENT LOT I 1,3200 ACRCS MAY 16.2948 ACRES b� R�REs yam/ a�S 3n. a � j 3'19 CJ .2 AFTER ADJUSTMENT -Ilnv LOT I A 3,0833 ACRES '. P. MAY M.SZ$09 ACRES I' FTil; ►L PLA" `„ .. �..... BOUNDARY LINE RDJUSTMENT DCTWEE:N LUT 1 mIL10 A. M44111 IN Lu`i RwD THC LAND OF DENNIS J- L VIF:GINIP B. MAY � 5TONEURL! 015TRIET r7s n-fnCX COUrrm rrr S .f CI:.1..141i I L!v CO.It.i 1 r nrJ n• s r7 ;. .. _J" - - .. mslso'9s• ,`.�jU�1'%1*b�'cv�r,�a ..n ��u - ..,.se,n,rancsvio,srs,e-•.*�*n�a-a�een�.e�-;. ��Iwi�yi{Mnl - rr, IP 11c•,11P J,YwI: lhGri 2n;2 �•d J T3%�.i' ;'.� res 'r"^r-;r t/ ,.:c. 5u }t 1 ...m..raws�.,-- . �..... ,,...,,........ ..,r,.« �.•�►,!•:`. � .✓, .2 REZONING APPLICATION #11-07 1932 SENSENY ROAD PHARMACY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 23, 2007 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/07/07 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/12/07 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 22 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers specifically for a pharmacy with drive through window. LOCATION: The properties are located at 1932 Senseny Road (Route 657) at the intersection with Greenwood Road (Route 656). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55-A-196 and 65A-2-1 PROPERTY ZONING: RP (Residential Performance) PRESENT USE: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: B2 (Business General) Use: Retail South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential B2 (Business General) Use: Retail PROPOSED USES: Retail Use; Pharmacy with drive through window. Rezoning #11-07 —1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy October 23, 2007 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 657 and 656. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed the transportation proffers offered in the rezoning application. While the applicant has attempted to mitigate the traffic impacts, there still is the possibility that there is insufficient left turn stacking room on north bound Route 656 at the intersection of Route 657. The applicant's parcel lacks sufficient depth to allow for adequate right-of-way dedication to elevate the stacking situation. All other impacts appear to have been adequately addressed. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: No comments. Department of Public Works: We have no comments regarding the proposed rezoning. We do, however, reserve the right to perform a detailed review of the site plan. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority Department: We have adequate sewer and water facilities to serve this site. Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Health Department: Health Dept. has no objection to rezoning, as public water and sewer services to be provided. Winchester Regional Airport: While 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. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB considered the rezoning proposal during their meeting of February 20, 2007 and again on April 17, 2007 to discuss the proposed historical monument on the property. The HRAB reviewed the generalized development plan and proposed marker provided by your office and offered no additional comments. The HRAB has endorsed the proposed rezoning Rezoning #11-07 — 1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy October 23, 2007 Page 3 with the historic monument to the Greenwood School House (DHR #34-421). Attorney Comments: In my opinion, all proffers are in proper legal form. However, I would recommend that the language of #3 be modified to make it clear the $1,000 "cash contributions" relates to each permit. PlanninV Department: Please see attached correspondence from Mike Ruddy dated April 12, 2007 Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies this property as being rezoned from A-2 (Agricultural General) to R-3 (Residential) with rezoning application 018-78. Subsequently, the residential zoning classifications were consolidated into the RP (Residential Performance) zoning district, the zoning which the property currently retains. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The site is not within the limits of any small area plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The land use plan identifies the entire Senseny Road corridor for residential uses. However, the Plan (6-72) does call for neighborhood business uses in the vicinity of residential areas. Given this key intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, and the existing B2 zoned properties at this intersection, developing the south eastern portion of the intersection for neighborhood commercial development, if done in a compatible manner, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. While Senseny Road is not specifically a business corridor, the business design standards in the Comprehensive Plan are relevant to this application. The Plan calls for landscaping along the roadway, screening adjoining uses, and controlling the size, number and location of signs. Rezoning #11-07 — 1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy October 23, 2007 Page 4 Recently, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved the land use proposal for the urban areas of the County. This alternative form of land use provides a desirable choice for properties located within areas identified as potential neighborhood villages and urban centers. This property is located in an area designated as a potential neighborhood village. Staff has encouraged this applications consideration of the neighborhood village concept and the principles of new urbanism to the greatest extent practical. However, this is a not a requirement of the Comprehensive Plan, rather a choice that may be utilized by the applicant when considering the future development of a property. Regardless of the above comment, this property is located in a developing area that contains a number of established residential properties. Special consideration should be provided to ensure that the impacts to the adjacent residential properties are considered. The general policies in the existing Comprehensive Plan, which call for high quality design and compatibility between uses and housing types, need to be followed. Given the lack of details concerning the physical construction of the property, the County should be confident that the commercial use of this property will be complementary with area and adjacent residential uses. Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Senseny Road as an improved major collector. This translates to a four -lane divided urban section, such as is being implemented with Warrior Drive within the Wakeland Manor development. The idealized intersection design in the Comprehensive Plan (6-15) illustrates appropriate features including raised medians with landscaping, landscaping along the edge of the right-of-way, and sidewalks. Greenwood Road adjacent to this property is designated as an improved minor collector road. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan designates Senseny Road as a short-term designated route. The applicant is implementing the Eastern Road Plan. On Senseny Road an additional lane is being provided, as is a raised median across the frontage of the property providing additional access management. Greenwood Road is being improved to the standard identified in the Eastern Road Plan. However, the improvements do not fully address the turning movements identified in the Applicant's TIA. Site Access and design. Access to the site is proposed via a right in, right out only entrance on Senseny Road. This restricted movement is further promoted with the construction of a raised median within Senseny Road that extends from Greenwood Road to beyond the eastern property line of the property. The Applicant is proposing a fiat commercial entrance on Greenwood Road at the southern most point of their property. As noted elsewhere in this report, concerns have been expressed regarding the limited ability to accommodate a critical left turn movement on northbound Greenwood Road at its intersection with Senseny Road. This issue was highlighted by VDOT during their review of the TIA. Rezoning #11-07 — 1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy October 23, 2007 Page 5 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. The property is the site of the historical Greenwood School House (DHR #34-421), one of only a few schools constructed of formed rusticated concrete block. Some other attributes of the school included a bell tower that sat on the roof as well as serving as a public school in the "Modern Expansion Era." The site has been used as a residence since the schools closure in 1942. The initial review of this application by the HRAB offered several suggestions to be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources. Please see the attached letter dated February 26, 2007 which describes the original recommendations of the HRAB. The Applicant returned to the HRAB on April 17, 2007 and obtained their endorsement of the proposed rezoning with the construction of a historic monument to the Greenwood School House. A historical monument has been proffered by the Applicant. The construction will generally conform to the sketch included as part of this application (Exhibit 8). 4) Potential impacts Proposed Uses: The application is very specific with the use proposed; a pharmacy with a drive through window has been proffered. Therefore, the potential impacts can be easily evaluated. A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The TIA prepared for this application was based upon the development of a 13,000 square foot pharmacy with a drive through window and evaluated the functionality of the Greenwood Road and Senseny Road intersection. It is anticipated that the use would generate 1,146 vehicle trips per weekday with a weekday p.m. peak hour of 124 vehicle trips. It was projected that the background traffic, in addition to the traffic generated by the proposed rezoning, would degrade the intersection. The Applicant's transportation program seeks to address the impacts identified in the TIA. However, careful consideration should be given to the transportation impacts of the request as they pertain to Greenwood Road and its intersection with Senseny Road. All intersections should reflect a LOS C or better. This is a goal of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Overall, the intersection does not achieve this goal due to the northbound left turn movement on Greenwood Road. VDOT reviewed the application and transportation proffers offered in the rezoning application and offered the following comment: While the applicant has attempted to mitigate the traffic impacts, there still is the possibility that there is insufficient left turn stacking room on north Rezoning #11-07 — 1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy October 23, 2007 Page 6 bound Route 656 at the intersection of Route 657. The applicant's parcel lacks sufficient depth to allow for adequate right-of-way dedication to elevate the stacking situation. All other impacts appear to have been adequately addressed. Transportation Program. The Applicant's transportation program provides for the construction of improvements to Route 656, Greenwood Road, and Route 657, Senseny Road, across both road frontages of the property. This is to include right-of-way dedication and construction generally consistent with that identified on the Generalized Development Plan and required by VDOT. As depicted on the Generalized Development Plan, the proposed improvements to Senseny Road implement the County' s Eastern Road Plan. Access to and from Senseny Road has been restricted to a right in and right out only entrance with additional median separation as identified on the Generalized Development Plan. A full commercial entrance is proposed on Greenwood Road. It is at this location that the possibility exists that there is insufficient left turn stacking room on north bound Route 656 at the intersection of Route 657. The applicant's parcel lacks sufficient depth to allow for adequate right-of-way dedication to elevate the stacking situation. This entrance should be carefully evaluated. In relation to this issue and the request in general, the applicant has proffered to provide $25,000.00 for future transportation improvements within the Route 657 and Route 656 right- of-ways. The Applicant has sought to address inter -parcel circulation and access by proffering a fifty foot easement at the south east corner of the site to allow for access for future redevelopment on the properties to the east of this parcel. B. Design Standards Particular effort should be made to provide for enhanced design of the project to facilitate improved corridor appearance and the sensitive integration of the project into the surrounding community. Signage, landscaping, lighting, and building layout and form should be carefully planned to ensure that this is achieved. Such design elements should seek to exceed those provided on other similar developments (Orrick Commons) to ensure that this project fits in with the surroundings and context of this particular location. The above could be done in context with the historical character of the property and could also recognize the location as a potential neighborhood center. The application provides for a limitation on the commercial signage to a single monument sign. The maximum height of the sign has been proffered at 20 feet. The current ordinance proposal under evaluation for signage may restrict the height of monument signs along collector roads to 15 feet. This application should seek to be consistent with the proposed ordinance. The historical monument provides context as to the historic use of the property and is a positive design element. Rezoning #11-07 — 1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy October 23, 2007 Page 7 C. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on Fire and Rescue Services. However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. The Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount $1,000.00 for impacts to fire and rescue services for the benefit of the Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated January 24, 2007; revised February 22, 2007, April 13, 2007, July 19, 3007, August 20, 2007, September 21, 2007. A) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of the proposed commercial development and locations of site access. B) Land Use The Applicant has proffered that the only permitted use on the property will be a pharmacy with drive through windows. A five foot sidewalk has been proffered parallel to Senseny and Greenwood Roads. Signage has been limited to a single monument sign. The maximum height of the sign has been proffered at 20 feet. ,Staff note: The current ordinance proposal under evaluation for signage may restrict the height of monument signs along collector roads to 15 feet. This application should seek to be consistent with the proposed ordinance. The building is proffered to be constructed using compatible building architectural style and materials and has limited the facades of the building to certain materials. Staff note: A specific design, including building orientation, has not been provided. C) Transportation The Applicant has proffered frontage improvements on Route 656, Greenwood Road, and Route 657, Senseny Road, including right-of-way dedication and construction generally consistent with that identified on the Generalized Development Plan and required by VDOT. Access to and from Senseny Road has been restricted to a right in and right out only entrance with additional median separation as identified on the Generalized Development Plan. A full commercial entrance is proposed on Greenwood Road. Staff note: It is at this location that the possibility exists that there is insufficient left turn stacking room on north bound Route 656 at the intersection of Route 657. The applicant's parcel lacks sufficient depth to allow for adequate right-of-way dedication to elevate the stacking situation. This entrance should be carefully evaluated. The Applicant has proffered to provide $25,000.00 for future transportation improvements within the Route 657 and Route 656 right-of-ways. The Applicant has proffered a fifty foot easement at the south east corner of the site to allow for inter -parcel circulation and access for future redevelopment on the properties to the east of this parcel. Rezoning #11-07 — 1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy October 23, 2007 Page 8 D) Community Facilities The Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount $1,000.00 for impacts to fire and rescue services for the benefit of the Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company. E) Historical The Applicant has agreed to construct a monument on the site commemorating the Greenwood School. This monument will be constructed of materials from the original Greenwood School and generally conform to the sketch shown in Exhibit 8 of the rezoning application. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEE'T'ING: This rezoning application is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, in particular, the long range transportation elements of the plan. However, careful consideration should be given to the impacts generated by this request, in particular, the transportation impacts of the request as they pertain to Greenwood Road and its intersection with Senseny Road. All intersections should reflect a LOS C or better and that is not accomplished with this application. 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 The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: John Lewis FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director RE: Rezoning Notes —1932 Senseny Road, Ervin Development DATE: April 12, 2007 The following points are offered regarding the 1932 Senseny Road, Ervin Development Rezoning application. Please consider them as you continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. The comments reiterate the input I provided at our meeting of Monday March 19' 2007. 1932 Senseny Road, Ervin Development Rezoning — Additional Rezoning Notes. General. Please ensure that all review agency comments are fully addressed in particular those offered by the HRAB. The comments offered by the Frederick County Attorney in review of this application are attached. Land Use. Recently, The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved the land use proposal for the urban areas of the County. This alternative form of land use provides a desirable choice for properties located within areas identified as potential neighborhood villages and urban centers. This property is located in an area designated as a potential neighborhood village. Staff would encourage this applications consideration of the neighborhood village concept and the principles of new urbanism to the greatest extent practical. However, as we have discussed before, this is a not a requirement of the Comprehensive Plan, rather a choice that may be utilized by the applicant when considering the future development of a property. Regardless of the above continent, this property is located in a developing area that contains a number of established residential properties. Special consideration should be provided to ensure that the impacts to the adjacent residential properties are considered. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 1932 Senseny Road, Ervin Development Rezoning — Preliminary Rezoning Comments April 12, 2007 Page 2 Particular effort should be made to provide for enhanced design of the project to facilitate improved corridor appearance and the sensitive integration of the project into the surrounding community. Signage, landscaping, lighting, and building layout and form should be carefully planned to ensure that this achieved. Such design elements should seek to exceed those provided on other similar developments to ensure that this project fits in with the surroundings and context of this particular location. The above could be done in context with the historical character of the property. Impact Analysis. Transportation. Please make sure that the application provides a transportation impact analysis (TIA). The TIA should at a minimum provide an evaluation of the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road and should recognize the recently approved Orrick Commons rezoning, TIA, and proffered transportation improvements, in addition to the traffic generated by the proposed use of this property. Inter -parcel circulation and access should be a greater consideration. It is anticipated that redevelopment may occur on the properties to the east of this parcel. Therefore, inter - parcel connectivity should be accommodated to the adjacent property to the east. The desired typical section for the ultimate upgraded Senseny Road and Greenwood Road should be addressed and incorporated into this application. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Senseny Road as a major collector road with a four -lane divided urban typical section. Greenwood Road is identified as a minor collector road with an urban section. Due to the character of Senseny Road, a right -in -right -out restriction should be designed into the projects entrance on to Senseny Road. This, in conjunction with the raised median should address access management along Senseny Road. Please recognize that pedestrian accommodations should also be incorporated into the project. Particular consideration could be given to this at the signalized intersection of Senseny and Greenwood. Other projects in the general vicinity of this project have contributed additional funding for transportation improvements in the general area. This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in this developing area of the County. 1932 Senseny Road, Ervin Development Rezoning — Preliminary Rezoning Comments April 12, 2007 Page 3 Proffer Statement. The Generalized Development Plan accompanying the Proffer Statement is extremely specific. It may be prudent to be more general on the site development plan but maintain specificity on important elements such as the right -in -right -out entrance, pedestrian accommodations, and building location. It would be preferable to state which specific improvements will be completed by the applicant to satisfy the County and the State at the time of rezoning. This should be done in the language of the statement and should pay particular attention to the proffered transportation elements. The simplification would provide flexibility to implement other designs including future New Urbanist overlays. Other. The impact statement should address the anticipated impacts on solid waste through a landfill impact analysis and should further address the impacts to fire and rescue services. Provide a plat of rezoning that includes a metes and bounds description of the property for which the rezoning is being requested. Also, please provide a deed for the property. It should be confirmed that the deed and covenants for the property, in particular lot 1 of the Greenwood Heights subdivision, contains no restrictions on the use of the property. ! �' 1241 -Green -Park Dr ,. Croce 55 A 201 ORRICK CEMETERY COMPANY, INC. 55 A 194 - 656 �,� ss TEG MANAGEMENT, LLC: �F�9 c' Fr 55 A 201A 657 j ORRICK CEMETERY COMPANY, INC I 71 657 Rd /55 A 196 n 127LOVE, SANDRA N Q 9 d''� S ✓O G� 656 � h �iy� C Qom! Ilk� J QQ a `fpNG,gO "ci "' Q lo� U C) Imam Q' 1277 0� Greenwood -Ave 793 6A-X1A 30 jo q CESNIN�, L JEFFREY T .x 656 � � �,•mQ Q m Man nncnmant. IMAQI—ni� A -A n a __„ Frederick County, VA Rezoning REZ # 11 - 07 Application 1932 Senseny Rd Pharmacy Parcel ID: Location in the County 55 - A - 196; 651- 2 - I Map Features O Hamlets ' *s Future Rt37 Bypass - REZ1107_1932SensenyRdPharmacy 0 Cakes/Ponds ^— Streams I- Buildings Streets Primary `�. Secondary '�- Tertiary Winchester Res ,t Urban Development Area ^s SWSA Topography (5' interval) Creel Location in 5urroun4iny Area r� Y Case Planner: Mike __ ........ _._" �, ,_, ,t „� wc,iacnyr urndnr,dcy_rccZ- I IU! uyZuU7.mxo) U/26/ZU07 -- 4:13:58 PM armacy Map Document: (NAPlannino And nPiialnnrn A -I I —+— Frederick County, VA Rezoning REZ # 11 - 07 Application 1932 Senseny Rd Pharmacy Parcel ID: Location in the County 55 - A - 196; 65A - 2 - l Map Features O Hamlets '%,y Future Rt37 Bypass REZ1107_1932SensenyRdPharmacy Lakes/Ponds Streams Streets Primary '�. Secondary Temiary Winchester Rds �f Urban Development Area SWSA Topography (5' interval) C? Location in Surrounding PRrea I i Case Planner: Mike :A 1 I V! UaZaa/.mxat V/ZtS2UUI -- 4:13:58 PM Map Document (N'1Planninn And r).—I ,n—fi, e r Frederick County, STA Rezoning REZ # 11 - 07 Application 1932 Senseny Rd Pharmacy Parcel ID: Location in the County 55 - A - 196; 65A - 2 - 1 Map Features O Hamlets Zoning !, Future Rt37 Bypass Bt (Business, Neighborhood District) - REZ1107_1932SensenyRdPharmacy B2 (Business, General Distrist) 3' Lakes/Ponds 40 B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) ^– Streams as EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) -? Buildings r, HE (Higher Education District) Streets M1 (Industrial, Light District) - Primary M2 (Industrial, General District) '1. Secondary 4b MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) '�- Terciary 40 MS (Medical Support District) Winchester Rds R4 (Residential Planned Community District) 6Urban Development Area 40 R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) SWSA Topography (5' interval) 0 Grcenwkspd Location in Surrounding Area ®Feet s Case Planner: Mike _ _ ---- —...rte.. --Y'xuvrrarrrl❑oy_r«ILI IU/_Uz1zOU1 Mxa) V2612UU7--4:13:58 PM 1932 Senseny Road Proffer Statement Rezoning #: P._017 Property: 2.2 acres PARCEL ID's: 55-A-196 and 65A-2-1 Recorded Owner: Sandra Love, Power of Attorney Applicant: Mr. David Ervin Ervin Development Corporation 1830 Plaza Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 Project Name: Ervin Development Corporation 1932 Senseny Road Original Date of Proffers: January 24, 2007 Revision Date(s): February 22, 2007 April 13, 2007 July 19, 2007 August 20, 2007 September 21, 2007 Prepared by: PAINTER-LE'116tIS9 P.L.C. 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540) 662-5792 email.- nffice�pQin teriewl:s.colll Job Number: 0611002 PROFFER STATEME,-, f PARCEL ID 55-A-196 and 65A-2-1 Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned applicant proffers that in the event that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of parcels TM# 55-A-196 and TM# 65A-2-1 from RP to B2, the use and development of the subject property shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions set forth in this proffer except to the extent that such conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such are approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Code of Virginia and the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. These proffers shall be binding on the owner and their legal successors or assigns_ PPr)FFFRS 1.) Frontage Improvements on Route 656 and Route 657 The applicant will make the necessary dedication of right-of-way and the road frontage improvements, as required by Virginia Department of Transportation, to Route 656 and Route 657 in support of the proposed development. The dedication and improvements will be designed and submitted for approval to the Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County Planning during site plan review process. 2.) Generalized Development Plan The applicant agrees to proffer a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated 08/20/07 for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of the proposed commercial development and locations of site access. 3.) Monetary Contribution to Frederick County Service Organizations The applicant will donate or will cause to be paid to the Treasurer of Frederick County for the benefit of the Greenwood Community Fire and Rescue Company the sum of $1,000.00 for impacts to fire and rescue services. This sum will be paid upon the receipt of each building permit issued for each building proposed for the site, subsequent to the approval of this rezoning. 4.) Permitted 132 Use The applicant agrees that the ONLY permitted B2 use on the subject property will be a pharmacy with drive through window(s). 5.) Design Features The applicant agrees to construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk running parallel with route 657 and route 656. The sidewalk will be owned and maintained by the property owner. The sidewalk will be completed prior to the occupancy of any structure on the property. 6.) Restricted access to Route 657 The applicant agrees to install a "right in, right out" only entrance on Route 657 eastbound, as required by Virginia Department of Transportation. A median will be installed to ensure proper use of the "right -in, right -out" only entrance as shown on the page 2 PROFFER STATEME,. F PARCEL ID 55-A-196 and 65A-2-1 Generalized Development Plan and as required by Virginia Department of Transportation. The design of the entrance will be shown on the site plan. 7.) Monetary Contributions The applicant agrees to provide $25,000.00, for future transportation improvements within the route 657 and route 656 right-of-ways. This sum will be paid to the Treasurer of Frederick County prior to the occupancy of any structure on the property. 8.) Historical Monument The applicant agrees to construct a monument on the site commemorating the Greenwood School. The monument will be constructed of materials from the original Greenwood School and generally conform to the sketch shown on Exhibit 8. The approximate location of the monument is shown on Exhibit 4. The maintenance and upkeep of the monument will be the responsibility of the property owner. 9.) Signage Freestanding commercial signage along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road shall be limited to a single monument sign. Maximum height for said sign shall be 20 feet. 10.) Building Design The proposed building shall be constructed using compatible architectural style and materials. Design elements shall be compatible with Frederick County and will respect the continuity and character of the existing architectural fabric of the surrounding community. The principal fagade in addition to any fagade fronting Senseny Road and/or Greenwood Road shall be limited to one or a combination of the following materials: cast stone, stone, brick, glass, wood, stucco, or other high quality, long lasting masonry materials. Metal panels shall be prohibited as a construction material for buildings. 11.) Inter -parcel Circulation and Access The applicant agrees to provide a 50 foot easement at the southeast corner of the site to allow for future redevelopment on the properties to the east of this parcel. The conditions proffered above shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in the interest of the owner. In the even that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant this rezoning and accepts these proffers, then these proffers shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to the other requirements of the Frederick County Code. Submitted By: page 3 PROFFER STATEME.. f PARCEL ID 55-A-196 and 65A-2-1 Sandra Love, Power of Attorney City/Coin of W 10 C 11 ((22,S te, , Commonwealth Of Virginia. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this AD day of 200 `7_ N ry Public l My commission expires: page 4 Z I 1 0 ,1 i l 0 ; 1 111 ® i11 C ' 1 1 t � 11 11 ,1 SANDRA LOVE J PIN 55-A-196 r PROPOSED ZONE: 82 PROPOSED USE: BUSINESS / 1,76 AC. r ! r / f / SANDRA LOVE PIN 65A-2-1 r /i PROPOSED ZONE: 82 / r PROPOSED USE: BUSINESS / 0.475 AC. (/I 1 f r j J t / Sp• t I .>..._`� CESS ~ r r ' !40 0 40 I Scale 1" = 40 ft z F w ov Q CL ~ U O w}¢ J Z� Ww = o a 0 0(N> N N U -� z w Z w o a O N7 n o O m ou 11/1 N t\ rn T Nto N 3 N C N N W 3 C O c V) 3 L C O O vo , E 3 w a. V) Z J w � W Z Z z O w SURVEY: 0 , R -L NA DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: RED 0611002 SCALE: DATE: 1 "=40.0' 08/20/07 SHEET: 1/1 �3 iqpvu. lAc- Lel lv�- W;?! IMPACT ANALYSIS T TEMENT A PROPOSED REZONING for Ervin Development Corporation — 1932 Senseny Road Redbud Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia September 21, 2007 Prepared for: Mr. David Ervin Ervin Development Corporation Winchester, Virginia 22601 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540)662-5792 email: offic;e@painterlewis.com Job Number.- 0611002 IMPACT ANALYSIS,— ATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS IMPACT ANALYSIS 5 ATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road i. INTRODUCTION Ervin Development Corporation (the Applicant) proposes to rezone two parcels of land located in the southeast quadrant at the intersection of Senseny Road, VA Route 657, and Greenwood Road, VA Route 656, in Frederick County, VA. The parcels are both currently zoned RP (Residential Performance District) and are identified as TM#'s 55-A- 196 and 65A-2-1. It is the applicant's desire to have these parcels rezoned to B2 (Business General District). The total area requested is approximately 2.2 acres. The description of B2 zoning in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that general business areas are located at major intersections, involve frequent and direct access by the general public, and should have direct access to major thoroughfares. Considering this and that all other parcels at this intersection are currently zoned B2 or contain commercial uses we believe that this site is suited for rezoning to the Business General District. A. SITE SUITABILITY The subject parcels are located at the corner of a major intersection within the Urban Development Area established by Frederick County as shown on Exhibit 2. Although the subject site lies within an area designated as residential, it is also located at a busy intersection where B2 uses would be beneficial and convenient for neighboring residents to access for their daily needs. The properties in the northwest and southwest quadrants of this intersection are currently zoned B2. The property in the northeast quadrant contains a convenience store and gas station. Adjacent to that property is the future "Orrick Commons" shopping center which is currently under construction. On the subject parcels, in the southeast quadrant, the applicant plans to construct a pharmacy with a drive through window. The location, zoning, uses, and owners of the adjacent parcels can be seen in Exhibit 1. There are existing covenants for the subject parcel identified as TM# 65A-2-1 located in the Greenwood Heights subdivision. When the consolidation of the two subject parcels occurs these covenants will be eliminated. 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN FIRM Community Panel Number 510063 0115 B shows the subject area to be outside of any flood hazard zone. WETLANDS No wetlands have been identified on this site. STEEP SLOPES According to the soil survey information there are no steep slopes located on this site. MATURE WOODLANDS There are no mature woodlands located on this site. IMPACT ANALYSIS o (ATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road SOILS According to the Soil Survey of Frederick County, the site contains the following soil type only: • Clearbrook channery silt loam: 9B (2-7%) This soil is moderately deep, gently sloping, and somewhat poorly drained. It is mostly found along heads of drainage ways and in broad upland depressions. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The subject parcels are bordered to the east and south by parcels identified as TM#'s 65A-2-1-2, 65A-3-44, and 65A-3-39 and are all zoned RP. Across Greenwood Road, to the west is a parcel identified as TM#65A-7-7 and is zoned RP. North of that parcel is TM# 65A-7-8 zoned B2. Diagonally across the intersection is TM# 55-A-194 which is zoned B2. Across Senseny Road, to the north, are parcels identified as TM# 55-A-198 and 55-A-197 and are both zoned RA. Adjacent to these parcels is TM# 55-A-201 which is zoned 132. The location, zoning, uses, and owner of these parcels can be seen in Exhibit 1. C. TRAFFIC The property is located at the signalized intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. According to the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan (Exhibit 3) Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, from Senseny Road to the north, are ultimately planned as 4 lane major collectors. Greenwood Road, from Senseny Road to the south, is ultimately planned as a 2 lane minor collector. The proposed use for this property is commercial; the traffic impacts foreseen by the rezoning of this parcel are outlined below. According to figures from the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Average Annual Daily Traffic on Route 656, Greenwood Road, in 2005 from the north to this intersection was 9,500 vehicles/day and from the south to this intersection was 4,400 vehicles/day. The Average Annual Daily Traffic on Route 657, Senseny Road, from the west to the Route 657, Greenwood Road, intersection in 2005 was 12,000 vehicles/day and from the east was 4,500 vehicles/day. These figures are factored to account for all motorized vehicles. Traffic impacts from the proposed rezoning will be estimated using the figures in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition. The type of model used for the traffic analysis is Land Use: 881 Pharmacy with Drive -Through Window. This land use is anticipated for this property and can also be considered on the high end of trip generation for a commercial use. Land Use: 881, Pharmacy with Drive-Throu h Window Based on a projected gross total of approximately 13,000 square feet: • Weekday: 88.16 trips per 1,000 sf = 1,146 trips • Weekday A.M. Peak Hour: 7.87 trips per 1,000 sf = 102 trips 9 IMPACT ANALYSIS o fATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road • Weekday P.M. Peak Hour: 9.51 trips per 1,000 sf = 124 trips ® Weekend Peak Hour: 7.85 trips per 1,000 sf = 102 trips A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed use as part of the rezoning application. The TIA was reviewed by VDOT. The TIA showed that projected background traffic generated by nearby planned projects significantly impacted the functionality of the Greenwood Road and Senseny Road intersection. The addition of traffic which would be generated as a result of the proposed rezoning will contribute to the degradation of the intersection by the addition of turning movements into and out from the site. The applicant can mitigate traffic impacts only to the extent that ownership of the right-of-way allows. In this case, the southern right-of-way line along the parcel adjacent to Senseny Road and the eastern right-of-way along the parcel adjacent to Greenwood Road can be expanded through fee simple dedication. Within this dedication area, turn lanes can be constructed to facilitate traffic movements not only associated with the site, but also general traffic movements through the intersection. As shown on the Generalized Development Plan, the applicant will construct a right turn lane within a 10' right-of-way dedication along Senseny Road. Any access to the site along Senseny Road will be restricted to "right in, right out" only. In order to ensure this type of restricted entrance, a raised median will be constructed in Senseny Road. The applicant will construct a through lane and a right turn lane within a 20' right-of-way dedication along Greenwood Road. The existing through lane in Greenwood Road will be converted to a left turn lane. Please refer to the attached Proffer Statement. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The site is inside the limits of the Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area. The development would be serviced by the county sewer system. The location of the existing 8" sewer line is shown on the Water and Sewer Facilities Maps 55-7 and 65-1, Exhibit 5. E. WATER SUPPLY The site is inside the limits of the Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area. The development would be serviced by the county water system. The location of the existing 8" water line is shown on the Water and Sewer Facilities Maps 55-7 and 65-1, Exhibit 5. F. DRAINAGE According to the USGS topographic map and the Frederick County Soil Survey it appears that this site has gentle slopes ranging from 2 percent to 7 percent. It appears that the water sheet flows across the site from west to east and then down Senseny Road. With the development of this site a storm water management system would be implemented to control any added flow created by the increased impervious areas. 4 IMPACT ANALYSIS,, i'ATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The commercial development will be responsible for the cost of solid waste collection and disposal. Dumpsters will be provided on site as required and will be collected by a private hauler. A typical drugstore accumulates approximately 1.25 cubic yards of waste per 2,500 square feet. Therefore, the proposed pharmacy will accumulate about 6.5 cubic yards per day. With a trash compactor proposed on-site the volume of waste will be reduced by a ratio of 3:1 to approximately 2.2 cubic yards per day. H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES This site does contain one known "potentially significant" historic structure as listed in The Rural Landmarks Survey Report of Frederick County. This structure is listed as 421 -Greenwood School. During the Civil War many schools in the area closed because most of the male students went to war and a lot of the schoolhouses were destroyed. Following the Civil War many new schools were established. This period marked the beginning of public education in Frederick County. The majority of the schoolhouses built during this period were one -room buildings constructed of brick, and later rusticated concrete block. Thirty schools from this time period were surveyed, including the Greenwood School. Most of these structures are now abandoned or have been converted to residences, churches, or commercial uses. The Greenwood School is currently used as a private residence. It is the applicant's intent that materials from the school building will be used to construct a monument on site commemorating the historical building with a plaque describing the history of the structure. The monument will generally conform to the sketch shown on Exhibit 8. Please see the Generalized Development Plan (Exhibit 4) for the monument location. There are several other "potentially significant sites that lie within a mile of the site. These include 417 -Carper House, 420 -Carmen House, 1136-Keyser-Edmonson House, 1148-Brookland, and 1151 -Ford -Braithwaite. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report lists several other structures within approximately one mile of the site as shown on Exhibit 6. A copy of the Civil War Battlefields and Sites map has been attached as Exhibit 7. The subject parcels do not lie on any Civil War Battlefield sites. I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL The new Development Impact Model (D.I.M.) is utilized primarily for residential rezoning requests. It is anticipated that the capital facilities impacts of commercial and industrial rezoning requests are ultimately fiscally positive to the County by policy. Accordingly, the D.I.M. does not apply a fiscal impact to commercial rezoning. s IMPACT ANALYSIS � � ATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road EMERGENCY SERVICES Police protection is provided by the Frederick County Sheriffs Department. The nearest fire and rescue facility is the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company located on Greenwood Road. No additional fire and rescue facilities will be required for the area proposed to be rezoned. PARKS AND RECREATION There are typically no impacts on Parks and Recreation facilities associated with rezoning to a commercial use. J. OTHER IMPACTS Any impact to the adjacent RP lots will be greatly reduced due to the required 25 foot buffer areas that will include all required plantings and an opaque screen fence. It is anticipated that the capital facilities impacts of commercial and industrial rezoning requests are ultimately fiscally positive to the County by policy. Accordingly, the D.I.M. does not apply a fiscal impact to commercial rezoning. 3 IMPACT ANALYSIS — r ATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT APPENDIX EXHIBIT 1 - ADJACENT PROPERTIES MAP EXHIBIT 2 - EASTERN FREDERICK COUNTY LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 3 - EASTERN ROAD PLAN �- EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT 5 GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN - WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES MAP 55-7 AND 65-1 EXHIBIT 6 - HISTORIC STRUCTURES MAP EXHIBIT 7 - CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS AND SITES MAP EXHIBIT 8 - HISTORIC MONUMENT SKETCH EXHIBIT 9 - PROPERTY DEEDS EXHIBIT 10 EXHIBIT 11 - CURRENT TAX STATEMENTS - PROFFER STATEMENT �� IMPACT ANALYSIL STATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road EXHIBIT 1 -ADJACENT PROPERTIES MAP 1 / I TGC Management, LLC TM# 55 A 194 ' Zoned: B2 Stafford, Timothy Use: Commercial ` Kerns, Kathy S. TM# 65A 7 8 65A 7 7 Zoned: B2 Zoned: RP Use: Residential�TM# Use: Residential eenWOO Pr08A Rt. 656 Gr -v \`\� ` \ \\ Greenwood Sen, LLC TM# 55 A 198 zitzcr. Zoned: RA CF) m \ y`� co Use: Commercial J � D \ (,d A \ \ \ \ \ Stafford, Timothy r \\� \ \ TM # 55 A 197 Zoned: RA \ +�L Use: Residential � V A Gum D ofvW ^ v Future 'Orrick Commons' old C �+ ` \\ \ \ `\ \ '\ . \ ` Commercial Site zone 3 44 9e polE. ��\ v V A �+ use. ResidentRP ial Mason Kennefh \ �. Orrick Cemetery Company, Inc. I TM// 654 Shirley A. TM# 55 A 201 USS o�ed1d np/a2 Zoned: �2 Use: Commercial Residential FJO sOD 0 7D0 300 / Scale 1 = 100 ft CONSULTING AINT�R-LEWI , P.LxIL `F'ROJECT. �' ROPERTIES 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone (540)662-5792 Facsimile (540)662-5793 Email: off ice4painterlewis.com ADJACENT P ERVIN DEVELOPMENT CORP. 1932 SENSENY ROAD CVS PHARMACY IMPACT ANALYSI` STATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road EXHIBIT 2 - EASTERN FREDERICK LAND USE MAP a oa �, by Aa 7 ny ai.l Q y v .i ed�rHii/,q •o + 'v1 al fair 52 Q d/erl O ®Y' - --� l CK �� ' �L O �5 1 fyAt, - r Pine Rd \ �� !, i• _a� v+t'"'" "tet '�ar.�15. ,t�l ?D ,• �� 1 Yr E. `' "i ,a✓ Primary Roads Seconds Roads Pheu rJg Rd r`/ Terciary Roads r of r 6 _P__ j Proposed Rt 37 By -Pass ! : / •% Cityfrown Boundary r �, ;l �Xr County Boundary® � Larr�7 s r: ��9UDA f8 ° SWSA Rural Community Center •r.' Residential s0 ] 17 Business 4 West P°rkrns fAinRq r/;',' Industrial Institutional Recreation r` Historic 1 DSA r Mixed -Use � Planned Unit Development .V ,) Eastern Frederick County 52/f Long Range f' Land Use Man Note. �, Crealed by Fradenck County w�4 _ e ^ Planning Department r� January 2004 1� s 7 1 05 0 2 3 4 Mfas I� IMPACT ANALYST— STATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road EXHIBIT 3 - EASTERN ROAD PLAN 10 0 Proposed Interchanges Cross Sections R4D U2 r-wU4D �U6D All. Depicted sections do not eliminate the need for turning lanes or bicycle and pedestrian facilities. N Last Revision w+ E 11/02/2006 S 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Generalized Cross Section Designations EASTERN ROAD PLAN Frederick County, Virginia Department of Planning& Development IMPACT ANALYSIS , FATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road EXHIBIT 4 - GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 71 _ co I � t ' I 6 � SANDRA LOVE . 0 ` PIN 55-A-196 / ,I PROPOSED ZONE: B2 / PROPOSED USE: BUSINESS / 1.76 AC. / .I 8 SANDRA LOVE PIN 65A-2-1 i PROPOSED ZONE: 82 / III PROPOSED USE: BUSINESS / 0.475 AC. I I ,I ry / I` `' zsBlir I / 'ems 1 40 0 - 40 / Scale 1" = An f+ z 5 CL a: F- W ®Q Q- Z U O W> -a W 0 a ttWu� Q� 2 iz WWF �> W N M U w W Z i� W D W U) W ui Z 0 �o Q) CO N UN O m t 151 N O rn 0-) 0 r- I N N o ^ - Lo aD 0 C _ o CL 0o E w 0 zOf J w -w U zz Ow SURVEY: C_I.: P -L NA DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: RED 0611002 SCALE: DATE: 1 "=40.0' 08/20/07 SHEET: / IMPACT ANALYSI, -)TATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road EXHIBIT 5 - WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES MAP 55-7 AND 65-1 12 ar. 1 • •'"� o r/ j>q� B RKRP1Bw TPEx / r / r ys•- Fres,. l w�� 4�1 0 GRID LOCATION MAP -i5-7 u - scwADE METERIuc STARBN p AR - F FnEASE vaFVE O e -MANHOLE •BD BB - BLm(wNTOFANT O _ IE' 1"I Y © - STAo vs - wSTE.MPgTGCSIAII STA—- 1.P— x OFCE uAl 0. RED - RCBBCER p SP - w0.lCR TAN, (STORAGC FACABY) GRAVITY SCwEq wAICR VALK 3- -ITR MNN ® NR FEL[ASC vA[v£ vM - WA1CR uEICR H SEREq vaLVE � AV - AATTUBF vALVF • ws - w lGi SAMPLML STATbN GRAPHIC SCALE 1 IwN -�dool rt WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES MAP POST OFFICE BOX 1877 W CHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 REVISED - NOVEMBER, 2005 MAP REVISED BY.' q Y W ^ IeFd SunePo�, P L[. �u�e�aur.. wr.wry ..nn -..+v. - ss 0.58 ••� Ri�Tce o O 1 0 u - scwADE METERIuc STARBN p AR - F FnEASE vaFVE O e -MANHOLE •BD BB - BLm(wNTOFANT O _ IE' 1"I Y © - STAo vs - wSTE.MPgTGCSIAII STA—- 1.P— x OFCE uAl 0. RED - RCBBCER p SP - w0.lCR TAN, (STORAGC FACABY) GRAVITY SCwEq wAICR VALK 3- -ITR MNN ® NR FEL[ASC vA[v£ vM - WA1CR uEICR H SEREq vaLVE � AV - AATTUBF vALVF • ws - w lGi SAMPLML STATbN GRAPHIC SCALE 1 IwN -�dool rt WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES MAP POST OFFICE BOX 1877 W CHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 REVISED - NOVEMBER, 2005 MAP REVISED BY.' q Y W ^ IeFd SunePo�, P L[. �u�e�aur.. wr.wry ..nn -..+v. - - SenselY R Rd / / e � r � �UI I Qu Y -SEWAGE MCIERING $TALION - ,R RELEASE VwLNL WATER AND SEWER 2 i 6 o MR _ MANNDLE a as _BLOW D a A E EaNNNT GN _ IRE ER MET T FACILITIES MAP O YM MA4P R METER 9 7 8 9 NMF SIA110H O PS - E NG SiaTINN -�° ° G REO - WATER R FM-PFDRCE Y - WATER TwNK (STORAGE FACILITY) z 1 J 6 6 -�— Gxwt4tt XWER- WATER MAM POST OFFICE BOX 1877 NR RELEwX v E AV = WATER PETER WNCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 SEWER VALVE = N,L— —, A' • WS WS - CR SAMPLING —TROW -MARCH. 7004 9 REVISED 1 5 -i7 7 8 GRAPHIC SCALE MAP REVISED....- BT: GRID LOCATION MAP 65-1 IMPACT ANALYSI, STATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road EXHIBIT 6 - HISTORIC STRUCTURES MAP 13 S0 phor j,hn 1.08 S� 79:x, -:brass A 041?** 13 SI - )422 416 -9�ro�s UINriI iG 423 0 i;. 1 MILE RADIUS FROM CEN TER OF SI TE HISTORICAL PROPERTY KEY 317 - ABANDONED HOUSE, RT 659 411 - HOUSE, RT 656 412 - GREENWOOD UNITED METHODIST 413 - HOUSE, RT 656 414 - TAYLOR, SYLVIE HOUSE 415 - BAKER HOUSE 416 - GAYLORD DAWSON HOUSE 417 - CARPER, JOHN HOUSE** 418 - HOUSE, RT 657 AT RD 1213 419 - AMBROSE HOUSE 420 - CARMEN HOUSE" 421 - GREENWOOD SCHOOL** 422 - HOUSE, RT 657 423 - BRAITHWAITE HOUSE 1136 - KEYSER-EDMONSON HOUSE** 1148 - BROOKLAND** 1151 - FORD-BRAITHWAITE** 1152 - OUTBUILDINGS, RT. 657 n O LTJ Q oQ0 Q> U< m of � Z w>- Z o� 1..1� Ld O OW QY W UU 0 o ILL Ld Z 0 � LLI w i � NOTE: ** INDICATES A POTENTIALLY O LTJ SIGNIFICANT SITE AS DENOTED BY THE RURAL LANDMARKS ■ SURVEY REPORT OF FREDERICK COUNTY ■ CL 0J N C/7 I L L N N (D Co L � U � � co CO 00 C W •� o @Q 1 ic o -wo a� 'E o U)(n --C Q0.. WCD -F- (DLo Z E Li-' a CL z� J Lil W ow SURVEY: NA NONE DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: 1200 0 1200 RED 0611002 SCALE: DATE: I"=1200' 11/28/06 Scale 1" = 1200 ft SHEET: CV C IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road EXHIBIT 7 - CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD MAP 14 �1 CIVIL WAR SITES r •. IMPACT ANALYSI, STATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road EXHIBIT 8 - HISTORIC MONUMENT SKETCH 15 F-4J6rlLA-,T7U.P, po i T'3. v? wnL- IMPACT ANALYSI, STATEMENT 1932 Senseny Road EXHIBIT 9 - PROPERTY DEEDS 16 8�923PG�7h� - SENSENY ROAD ROUT 657 VAF'AM.E RIW s1� r8J• = 222 1 S7A4Y RE%MVLF /Yom (p 181' <p.. 221• w� [J r:LxL x STOW H3U.5E DETAIL SCALE.- 1.-80 16:52'10' E 61.85' &t -N 6071'12' E 2,X57' '7J79'21 ' E 50.81' THTs /S TT CERT7FT' 7HAr Liv .d/LY 1, 1993 1 MADE AN ACCURATE SURFEY Li'' INE PREMISES SHOMN HERELYIw, AND THAT 7HERE AR£ NO EASE - fZOGD NOTE ZtWE. C TY NO., 51006J PANEL: 0115 8.:1 :DATE •7-17- 78 . R ENGINEERSEDWARD W. DOVE --- PLANNERS ^^ BC tL7�7V�.tt�tES SURVEYORS CERT. N0. 54-17-3(A) 964 3078 SHAWNEE DRIVE P.O. BOX 2033 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (540)667-1103 I HOU -W LOCA 7701V SURWy MDVIS civ ENLR)AChWEN7S 051BLE Oy 77E GROUND OTHER THAN THOSE S1HOWV (SEW aV fTf�p/9E9pp. PRO/PERTaY Gf- N07M . 1f 1 CORA C. SUIT TAX A�NFNr vAP NO. 65A -7-f (LOr v DEW BMW f9€1 PAGE 441 (PARQL f) 2 CIRRLNT lNsn7UA(ENrW cwA/N Lir naf /S DEED Boc K . 51 PAGr J9R (LOT 1) WU ROCK 68 PALS' 460 .57HAFWEr DISIRHCT fR�QY COUNTY, HRGAV/A .1 RS n R®AR W BE SEr, RF - RIEBAR FOUNR 1pF m 9?LYV PIP£ FOUND THIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARO WITHOUT THE OENEnT OFF REPORTj Lr % fA9B SCALA f' - 60' AND DOES NOT NEL-IL, -=ATE EENCtAiBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY. otavt� 'WITH_ . ""- n?o. $ ... H op t. fZOGD NOTE ZtWE. C TY NO., 51006J PANEL: 0115 8.:1 :DATE •7-17- 78 . R ENGINEERSEDWARD W. DOVE --- PLANNERS ^^ BC tL7�7V�.tt�tES SURVEYORS CERT. N0. 54-17-3(A) 964 3078 SHAWNEE DRIVE P.O. BOX 2033 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (540)667-1103 I r'^ +5 r i_P __ t REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, 1. Applicant::I hn 0. 15 k -r /7 Name: Pa I rlk-, r - Lees ! S Telephone: Ac - (0 (0� "Sq CO Address:` (6 S- �z-.Itcwa rt- St ti'y i 1'lC lies it c VA a alco i 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Ccs cA V. cic rK.� Address: )C/3a 5 W I I -)C /ies fp-k- 3. Contact person if other than above RC3aa Telephone: $ Name:1 dl"�'4 - t d vc Telephone: bojer cif 4HOrnev 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map ✓ Agency Comments ✓ Plat ✓ Pees ✓ Deed to property ✓ Impact Analysis Statement ✓ Verification of taxes paid ✓ Proffer Statement II 5. The _Code of VirginiLallows 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: 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Pp;' Oi s h-[" I B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER 95 -A -d-01 SS - A --Iq-I sG--A- i9IW Sa-A-0 b5/A --I - L6A - -7 ''7 b A-3- 3-1 baA-3-Lf4 A a-1-�?- 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): USE CGwroeY�{aI yeSiC'l�n7i l r�sidG'7 tial Corn rnerc16.4 C'arn m e-1-t:.i CP 115 � cki) na 1^es «tern t-r�- t-es r�i�n trLi ZONING 82 KA Ba r� R� �P C� 1--e(ffl N ood Road (c bhFO -S-k %i lctcIrgP-1) 12 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: 1 �t, of00 nit Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other: 10. 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 this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): 41U Date: Date: Owner(s): Date: t� `l fl 7 Date: 13 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia --- -- - Planning Office, County of-Frederick,_Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22,6 601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 - Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) L --Ove, (Phone) s/b _c am / t� 6 Cif (Address)b the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), y deed recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the County, of Frederick, Virginia, by Dec7d on Page VL10 , and is described as C -A &6-A Parcel: Lot:%�9� Block: Section: S� Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Painter- Lewis FLC (Phone)(S'4) ,(o-5`7�i� (Address) IiG S etAlc�r� 5t ; !�/lllc��e5ter, l;�A �- 60 1 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 actin_g�� /personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: Rezoning (Including proffers) G Conditional Use Permits G Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) G Subdivision G Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this aZb day of —ALP t_, 200 Signature(s) 1I l f� Z,( , To -wit: State of Virginia, City/Cel of '� I �� ('� W 1 L Fr l j , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this Z= day of fS ,3 200-J- �� My Commission Expires: 11—U ary Publi _. Adjoining Property Owners - 1932 Senseny Road Rezoning Name and Property Identification Number Address Name: Orrick Cemetery Company, Inc. 501 S. Braddock Street c/o R.W. Burks Admin. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 55-A-201 Name: Stafford, Timothy V. & Mary McHale 8705 C Street Property # 55-A-197 Chesapeake Beach, VA 20732 Name: Green Sen, LLC c/o Greenwood Grocery 1893 Senseny Road Property # 55-A-198 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: TCG Management, LLC 847 Lake St. Clair Property # 55-A-194 Winchester, VA 22603 Name: Stafford Timothy V. & Mary McHale 8705 C Street Property # 65A-7-8 Chesapeake Beach, VA 20732 Name:Kerns, Kathy S. 918 Greenwood Road Property # 65A-7-7 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Shields, Robert J. & Carolyn L. 927 Greenwood Road Property # 65A-3-39 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Gum, David C. Jr. & Paige E. 3026 Woodside Road Property # 65A-3-44 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Mason, Kenneth L. & Shirley A. 1930 Senseny Road Property # 65A-2-1-2 Winchester, VA 22602 14 • C: REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 23, 2007 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICD, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Planning Commission: 11/07/07 Board of Supervisors: 12/12/07 Action Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to Ml (Light Industrial) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-1 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Agricultural and residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: M1 Use: Industrial South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural East: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Commercial/vacant West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural M1 (light Industrial) Vacant PROPOSED USES: Light Industrial Office and Warehouse Uses (0.4 FAR proffered). Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center October 23, 2007 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virl4inia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 651, 652 and 11. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed several submissions of proposed transportation proffers offered to mitigate the development's potential trip generation. While not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Artillery Business Center. Rezoning Application dated December 26, 2006, revised October 9, 2007, it appears that through a combination of previous proposed proffers, as well as the current proffer by the application the transportation concerns associated with this request can be adequately addressed. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Demolition permit and asbestos inspection shall be required prior to the removal of any structures. No additional comments required at this time. Department of Public Works: 1. Refer to page 2 of 4, Transportation: The discussion of Scenario A indicates that 60 percent of the trips would utilize Apple Valley Road and 40 percent would use Springdale Road. It appears that the existing traffic distribution is approximately 80:20. Considering the current condition of Springdale Road, we conclude that the 80:20 distribution is more realistic than the 60:40 distribution. 2. Refer to page 3 or 4, Environmental Features: a. The narrative indicates that the property does not contain any wetlands. However, a review of available aerial photographs indicates the existence of a pond on the property. A wetland study needs to be performed to verify that this pond does not represent a wetland. b. The discussion of drainage needs to address stormwater management and the potential impact on a karst environment. c. The discussion of soils needs to be expanded to include a review of the karst geology and the potential for sink hole development. This condition is particularly relevant along the eastern property boundary. 3. Refer to page 4 of 4, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Indicate if the solid waste projection is presented as pounds per day or pounds per year. 4. Refer to the proffer statement, Site Development Item 2.2: The dedication right- of-ways should be sized to accommodate sufficient turning radii at the intersection with Shady Elm Road. The discussion indicates that "entrances to the said roadway will be located at a minimum of 400 feet apart". This statement raises the question, "apart from what?" Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority Department: We have capacity and can provide sewer and water service to this site. Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center October 23, 2007 Page 3 Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objections as long as no septics or wells are proposed or existing. If any existing septics or wells are located, please call the Health Department for proper abandonment procedures. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning application. Allowed uses under this rezoning should not impact airside operations at the Winchester Regional Airport therefore we have no further comment regarding this rezoning request. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report and the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. The subject parcel is the site of the Route 651 House (DHR #1042), dated from circa 1880-1910 and representing a typical example of a vernacular I -House. This project also adjoins the Henry Carbaugh property (DHR 34-1040). The Henry Carbaugh House represents a typical vernacular Queen Anne -style dwelling constructed in the early twentieth century and still retains many elements of its original construction, as noted in Frederick County, Virginia: History Through Architecture. Although neither of these two structures is listed as potentially significant by the Rural Landmarks Survey, mitigation of the impacts to these structures should be considered. In addition, a small portion of the property is located in the study area of the 1St Kernstown Battlefield. Although not located in the core area of the battlefield, attention should be given to the potential archeological significance of this property in the battle for Kernstown. The application states that the applicant proposes to construct no more than 327,000 square feet of office space and no more than 327,000 square feet of warehouse space. The HRAB feels that this proposed development can address several issues prior to the rezoning of this property. If the property is developed for commercial use, the HRAB suggests the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: Archeological Survey and Documentation. The HRAB felt that there is a need to document the historic and archeological significance of the property based upon the proximity to the 1 st Kemstown Battlefield area and the location of the historic structure on the property. The HRAB suggested documenting the house and any out -buildings for their historical significance including identifying past owners/occupants, building materials, architectural features, photographs of both the interior and exterior, etc. The HRAB also suggested a Phase 1 one archeological survey would be appropriate to determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the property. Attorney Comments: 1. In Proffer 2.2, at the end of the second sentence I would recommend that the following words be added"..., in the location shown on the Generalized Development Plan." 2. In proffer 2.3, it is not clear who makes the determination that an internal access road is "necessary". That should be clarified. Planning Department: Please see letter dated March 23, 2007, signed by Susan K Eddy, Senior Planner. Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center October 23, 2007 Page 4 Plannin6 & Zonin6: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-]J Land Use The property is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the site is within the limits of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Sewer and Water Service Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of planned commercial, and industrial development will occur. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan designate this area for industrial land use. The Plan recognizes the desire to provide for industrial uses along the CSX Railroad. The proposed Ml light industrial rezoning is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. The application of quality design standards for future development is also an objective of the Plan; in particular, along business corridors. These include landscaping, screening, and controlling the number and size of signs. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center October 23, 2007 Page 5 The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan calls for Shady Elm Road to be improved to a major collector road. In addition, a new east west major collector road connecting Shady Elm Road to Route 11 is identified. The County's Eastern Road Plan further defines the appropriate typical section for these major collector roads as an urban divided four -lane facility. The construction of planned major collector road typical sections, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is not provided for by this application. The Plan also states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. This application does not achieve a level of service C or better on the roads and intersections studied in the application's TIA. It is important to note that the County's Eastern Road Plan does not call for improvements to Springdale Road. Therefore, the Applicant should concentrate any efforts to address their transportation impacts on those roads and intersections identified in the Comprehensive Plan; in particular, Shady Elm Road, the new east west major collector road, and the intersection of Apple Valley Road and Route 11. Site Access and circulation The Comprehensive Plan generally provides for a limitation on the number of entrances that may be located along business corridors. Further, the Plan generally seeks to address pedestrian accommodations. No pedestrian accommodations have been provided internally to the project and, more importantly, along the projects frontage with the planned major collector roads. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. The Frederick County Engineer has referenced the potential for wetlands to exist on this site based upon the presence of an existing pond. Also, the Frederick County Engineer has identified that a detailed geotechnical analysis will be needed as part of the detailed site plan design as this area is also known for karst topography. The property is the site of a historical house, the Route 651 House (DHR #1042), dated from circa 1880-1910 and representing a typical example of a vernacular I -House. This project also adjoins the Henry Carbaugh property (DHR 34-1040). The HRAB suggested the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: the completion of an archeological survey and documentation of the property, and the completion of a Phase 1 archeological survey to determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the property. The application does not presently address the comments provided by the HRAB. Rezoning #08-07 s Artillery Business Center October 23, 2007 Page 6 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application evaluated two scenarios. Scenario A assumes the existing road network with development access to be provided via a single site driveway located on Shady Elm Road. Scenario B assumes, in addition to Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned over the existing railroad and through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. The TIA assumed 326,700 square feet of office use and 326,700 square feet of light industrial use. This was generally consistent with the proffered square footage limitation on the use of the property based upon a 0.25 FAR. However, concern has been raised regarding the trip generation figures used in the TIA. As a result, the inaccuracy of the trip generation figures brings into question the conclusions provided in the TIA. Using trip generation figures from the TIA, the proposed rezoning is projected to generate 3,562 average daily trips (ADT). An addendum to the TIA, dated September 12, 2007, was provided which reflected a change in the land use and FAR. The proffered square footage limitation has been increased to a 0.4 FAR. As a result, the TIA assumes 511,395 square feet of light industrial land use and 511,395 square feet of warehousing resulting in a trip generation of 5,950 average daily trips (ADT). Concerns remain with the TIA, in particular with the land uses used and the trip generation numbers. The TIA may not represent the most intensive use of the property enabled by the M1 zoning or the proffered square footage limitations. The addendum to the TIA continues to indicate that, with the exception of the intersection of Route 11 and Springdale Road, Level of Service C conditions or better will be maintained on study roads and intersections with the following improvements. A level of service D is identified at Route 11 and Springdale Road during Scenario B. 1. The proposed signalization of Springdale Road and Route 11, Scenario A (not a desirable avenue for industrial development traffic). 2. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Apple Valley Road and Route 11. 3. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Renaissance Driveway and Route 11 (Scenario B). 4. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Site Driveway and Shady Elm Road (Scenario A). 5. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Shady Elm Road and Apple Valley Road (Scenario A). The application fails to address the transportation impacts generated by the request as identified in the Applicant's TIA. Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center October 23, 2007 Page 7 Transportation Program. The Applicant's transportation program provides for right-of-way dedication along Shady Elm Drive (45 feet from centerline), construction of the widening of the northbound lane of Shady Elm Road, right-of-way dedication along the southern property line to partially accommodate an east west major collector road (80 feet in width), the design of a rural four -lane road to approximately the railroad bridge, the potential construction of a rural two-lane section (westbound lanes) of this road at such time a fourth building permit may be issued or a bridge crossing of the existing railroad is constructed by others, and a monetary contribution in the amount of $50,000 to the County for the design and construction of a railroad crossing. None of the above improvements identified in the TIA have been addressed by this application. In addition, the Applicant's transportation program does not provide for or advance the County's Eastern Road Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations have not been provided in the applicant's transportation program. B. Sewer and Water Water demand for the site would be approximately 29,350 gallons per day. Sewer generation is projected to be equivalent to the water demand at approximately 29,350 gallons per day. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has stated that they have capacity and can provide sewer and water service to this site. The wastewater from this site would be directed to the Parkin's Mill Wastewater facility. C. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services. However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $5,000. The application also provides for a monetary contribution in the amount of $2,500 for the Sheriffs Office and $2,500 for general government purposes in an effort to address the impacts to these community facilities. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated December 26, 2006; revised through October 9, 2007. A) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has provided a basic Generalized Development Plan which simply illustrates the proffered transportation improvements described in this report. B) Land Use The Applicant has limited the development of the property to a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The Applicant has proposed signage limitations along Shady Elm and the collector road. However, the limitation proposed may be in excess of those signage standards currently being proposed through the DRRS. Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center October 23, 2007 Page 8 C) Transportation This application has provided for additional dedication of right-of-way along Shady Elm Road and the widening of the existing northbound lane along the property's Shady Elm frontage. The application has provided for the dedication of an 80 foot right-of-way along their southern property line for a minimum of 1,100 feet. The Applicant has proffered the design of a rural four -lane divided collector road to connect with proposed Renaissance Drive. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this important road as an Urban four- lane divided road. This should be recognized in this application. The design of the bridge necessary to accommodate this road has not been proffered by the Applicant. Therefore, care should be taken when evaluating the value of designing a major collector road without understanding the design, and ultimately obtaining the approval by CSX, of the bridge necessary to accommodate the road The construction of the westbound two lanes as a two lane rural undivided road is proffered for a minimum of 1,100 feet. Please be aware that the proffer only guarantees that this rural two lane section will be constructed prior to the issuance of the fourth building permit. There is no guarantee that there will be afourth buildingpermit for the property. Therefore, there is no guarantee that this road will be constructed. Any construction of this road by the Applicant is very questionable, and most certainly untimely with the development of this property. A second trigger is provided for the construction of 1,100 feet of this road as an R2, on the Applicant's property, which is at such time construction commences of a bridge over the adjacent railroad. However, no design or construction of the bridge crossing is provided by the Applicant. In lieu of the above, the Applicant has proffered a contribution to the County in the amount of $50,000 for the design and/or construction of a bridge over the railroad or for any other general transportation improvements as may be decided by the County. Presently, the County is not in the road building or bridge design business. It would be more appropriate for theApplicant to undertake this effort to secure the approval of a future bridge crossing,facilitate thefuture development of their property, and help mitigate the transportation impacts associated with the potential development of 58 acres of MI zoned land. The Applicant has proffered a limitation on the number of entrance providing access to the site to two from the east -west collector road and two from Shady Elm Road. In addition, the Applicant has proffered to one tree every fifty feet along Shady Elm Road, and the collector road. D) Community Facilities This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $5,000. The application also provides for a monetary contribution in the amount of $2,500 for the Sheriff's Office and $2,500 for general government purposes in an effort to address the impacts to these community facilities. Rezoning 408-07 — Artillery Business Center October 23, 2007 Page 9 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land uses proposed in this rezoning are generally consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. However, the application does not fully recognize the transportation improvements identified for this area in the County's Eastern Road Plan. Further, the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request, as identified in the Applicant's TIA, have not been mitigated by the Applicant. 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. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. March 23, 2007 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Shady Elm Property Dear Patrick: COUNTY of F FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Shady Elm Property. This application seeks to rezone 58.74 acres of land from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District. Staff's review comments are listed below for your consideration. 1. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site is designated on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan for industrial use. The site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The site is within the limits of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. This small area land use plan calls for industrial uses along the CSX Railroad and specifically designates the site for industrial use. The proposed B3 rezoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Shady Elm area north and south of Route 37 is a thriving industrial area, and its integrity should not be compromised with quasi -retail uses. While the B3 District can function as a transition between business and industrial areas, the Kernstown Business Park immediately to the east, which is Zoned B3, already serves as the transition between the retail uses along Valley Pike (Roi.jte 11) and this planned industrial area. An M1 rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. 2. Comprehensive Policy Plan. A number of road improvements in the vicinity of this site are called for in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. These include a new interchange of Route 37 at Shady Elm Road, Shady Elm Road upgraded to a major collector road, and a new east/west collector road connecting Shady Elm Road to Route 11. The County's Eastern Road Plan further defines these road plans. Shady Elm Road is to be improved to an urban four -lane divided section. This applicant will need to address any right-of-way needed for this road and also address any additional paving needed along their frontage. The new east/west collector road is plamled to be an urban four -lane divided section. The applicant is encouraged to work with the owners of the 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Shady Elm Property March 23, 2007 Renaissance Commercial Center, who will be constructing a section of the collector road east of the CSX railroad line, and work with the CSX to plan for the connection of the new road as it meets their property on the eastern border. The applicant should address any right-of-way and road paving associated with this road as it traverses their property. 3. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service Category C or better to be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments in the County. This application does not provide that expected Level of Service. See TIA comments below. 4. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for properties along business corridors. These include landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs. These design elements should all be addressed in this application. 5. Impact Analysis Statement — Proposed Uses. The application states the rezoning is for 327,000 square feet of office and 327,000 square feet of warehouse space. Unless a specific use and/or floorspace are proffered, the County will assume the maximum possible development as per the County's rezoning application (18,848 square feet of retail use per acre in the B3 District). The applicant will need to base all analysis, including the TIA, on these numbers unless the proffers ensure a lesser scale of development. 6. Traffic Impact Analysis. The proposed development trip generation in the TIA was based on office and light industrial floorspace. See comment #5 above on basing the TIA on the worst case scenario as called for in the rezoning application. Also, light industrial use is not allowed in the B3 District. While I he County is supportive of ;,1114 ,strial uses in tris 1L atign a TTA. fora B3 rezoning should not be based on light industrial use, which is not allowed in the B3 District. Since the application lists the proposed uses as office and warehouse, the TIA should reflect these uses. 7. Traffic Impact Analysis. As stated previously, the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service C or better. While this application would not be the sole cause of the poor levels of service, rezoning should not exacerbate existing or projected failing situations. The TIA lists three intersections where improvements are needed: A. Route 11/Springdale Road: Traffic signalization is required at this intersection. The application does not address this issue. Page 3 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Shady Elm Property March 23, 2007 B. Route 11/Apple Valley Road: Additional northbound and southbound thru lanes are required. The application does not address this issue. C. Renaissance Driveway/Route 11: Traffic signalization and additional lanes are required at this intersection. A new traffic signal at the intersection of Route 11 and the new east/west collector road may be provided by the owners of the Renaissance Commercial Center. Liaise with this property owner on the p.roposed lane configuration and the timing of the traffic signal. The County's Eastern Road Plan does not call for improvements to Springdale Road. Therefore, the applicant should direct their efforts to solving transportation problems at the intersection of Route 11 and Springdale Road and, most importantly, to upgrading Shady Elm Road and providing a new collector road on their property. 8. Proffer Statement 2.1. As stated above, the applicant should be addressing not only right-of-way along Shady Elm Road, but should also be addressing the road improvements called for along their frontage. 9. Proffer Statement 2.2. The Eastern Road Plan calls for the new collector road to be an urban four -lane divided section. The applicant should be addressing half of this road section (with the adjacent property owner to eventually provide the other two lanes) along the entire southern property boundary. The 800 linear feet proposed only covers half of the boundary line. 10. Proffer Statement 2.2. For good access management, access to the site should be lin.ited to onw access point on Shady Elm Road and pan to two access points on the new collector road. The applicant is encouraged to consider limiting access to the site to these three points. 11. Proffer Statement 2.3. Staff assumes this would be a state road built to state standards. 12. Proffer Statement 2.4. Given that the land directly across Shady Elm Road is subdivided for future residential purposes, it would be beneficial to also include street trees along the frontage of Shady Elm Road. Page 4 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Shady Elm Property March 23, 2007 13. Other. Include a copy of the recorded deed and a survey or plat of the parcel. Please use the correct acreage of the site throughout the application. (Both 60 acres and 58.74 acres are used in this application.) 14. Adjoiners. The list of adjoining property owners was not included with this preliminary application. A complete list must be included with the rezoning. 15. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Vistoric Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick -Winchester Health Department, Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. 16. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, �(- clllj_� Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior :Planner SKE/bad cc: Venture I of Winchester, LLC, 827 Armistead Street, Winchester, VA 22601 .REZ R8 07 1W Lw OT II' L®c a� 62 A 81 DAW50N D PAI;K MADIGAN, MAGGIE ti,• 63 A 57 _z GE LIGHTING, LLC a LL �1P�p *F( 4-a t63—A, 61 37 WHITING ROAD, LLC cp 40 - r.: v °a 9se tic a4S` o t�� USB, sr y O o 37 37 � zo a 37 v (f=- _ AiEDGE6900K HILLS 75 A 1 0��4 VENTURE I OF WINCHESTER, LLC e If VEPi L °°� '41, DNi51 ESS 74-A, 68 r CARBAUGH, HENRY J TRUSTEE -e OWN MMONS 75 �ASgQ /'VCtµ/(((� ,s r0 Cs ��C` s 11 140 o. BATTLEFIEL PARTNE HIP 40 z m + TCF , ` . Frederick County, VA Re -Zoning REZ#08-07 Application Artillery Business Center Parcel ID: 75 -A -I Location in the County Map Features O Hamlets 0 Application A*s Future Rt37 Bypass 95 Lakes/Ponds ^— Streams Buildings Streets Primary Secondary '�- Tertiary �v Urban Development Area SWSA Bch co .!1!I V :50500 t.0P0P1 !t ^� Case Planner: Mike Map Document: (N:\Planning_And_Development\_1 Locator_Mps\ArtillervBusinessCentPr RF70807 0779n7 -v 11 7/11)!?nn7 __ ?•+?•+? Baa -__-_-_. I._._ ._.......c_ ...,. N,,,....a..,�_w�Nov�nmciyuua�ncaal,cntC� r«�Uouf Uf ICVf.mxcl) 1/"2/ZUU/--3:IJ:13FIM r a 37 r jai k.. 37 F. 37 I � c booth • f � � ryd 87`a r MONS r 7 O Ot,equon w a..,• o � i Vr�gmu'y U[ SCK CSG 0 26U 600 m aCase Planner: Mike Map Document:(N:\Planning_And_Development\_1_Locator_Mps\ArtilleryBusinessCenter_REZ0807_071207.mxd) 7112!2007 -- 3:13:13 PM J � Re -Zoning �\ REZ # 08 - 07 Application Artillery Business e Center Parcel ID: 75 -A -I Location in the County Map Features O Hamlets Long Range Land Use - Application Rural Community Center 4%. Future Rt37 Bypass Residential 0 Lakes/Ponds Business ^— Streams Industrial ;mak Buildings Institutional Streets Recreation '�. Primary :";^ Historic �. Secondary Mixed -Use '�- Tertiary &9 Planned Unit Development ,1 Urban Development Area SWSA O Ot,equon w a..,• o � i Vr�gmu'y U[ SCK CSG 0 26U 600 m aCase Planner: Mike Map Document:(N:\Planning_And_Development\_1_Locator_Mps\ArtilleryBusinessCenter_REZ0807_071207.mxd) 7112!2007 -- 3:13:13 PM Frederick Location in the County Map Features O Hamlets `I Application e!' Future Rt37 Bypass 43 Lakes/Ponds Streams Streets ti Primary Secondary '�- Tertiary t% Urban Development Area SWSA Location in Surrounding Area U 250 500 7,000 eet Map Document: (N:\Planning_And_Development\ 1_Locator_Mps\ArtilleryBusinessCenter_REZ0807_071207.mxd) 7/12/2007 -- 3:13:13 Pik PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # 08-0q Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (M1) PROPERTY: 58.7 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"] RECORD OWNER: Venture I of Winchester, LLC APPLICANT: Venture I of Winchester, LLC PROJECT NAME: Artillery Business Center ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 26, 2006 REVISION DATE(S): 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1/07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07; 8/1/07; 8/17/07; 9/14/07; 9/19/07; 9/21/07; 10/9/07 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced M1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised October 5, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Monetary Contribution 1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first buildinz permit. 1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1 of 3 Proffer Statement 2. Site Development Artillery Business Center 2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 40 feet of right of way from the center line of existing Shady Elm road along the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. Additionally, the Applicant shall widen the existing northbound lane to a total width of 24 feet of pavement as measured from the center line of Shady Elm Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road. Direct access to the Property from Shady Elm Road shall be limited to a maximum of 2 entrances as shown on the GDP. (See 1 on GDP) 2.2 The Applicant shall dedicate 80 feet of right of way along the Southern Property boundary in the location depicted on the GDP to accommodate a minimum of 1100 feet of a future East-West Collector Road prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. The Applicant shall design said collector road from Point A to Point B and from Point C to Point D as a Rural 4 Lane Divided (R4D) cross section to connect with proposed Renaissance Drive as shown on the GDP. The design shall incorporate a vertical and horizontal alignment that will accommodate a future bridge over the Railroad from Point B to Point C as depicted on the GDP. The Applicant shall then construct the ultimate two westbound lanes of the roadway for a minimum 1100 feet as shown on the GDP prior to issuance of the fourth building permit for the Property. In the event that construction commences of a bridge as shown on the GDP to facilitate the railroad crossing for the collector road, the Applicant shall construct the 1100 foot R2 roadway as shown on the GDP. The Applicant shall construct a maximum of two entrances on the portion of the collector road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. (See 2 on GDP) 2.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $50,000 for design and/or construction of a bridge over the railroad as depicted from Point B to Point C on the GDP or for any other general transportation improvements as may be decided by the County. Said monetary contribution shall be made within 90 days of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any building on site. 2.4 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary, to serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet. 2.5 Street trees shall be located a maximum of 50 feet on center along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road, the 1100' of the proposed east -west collector road and both sides of any internal public access road that may be constructed.. 2.6 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any structures prior to site plan approval. 2.7 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 2.8 Freestanding business signs shall be limited to one monument style sign per lot that shall not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, the Applicant may construct one main entrance/tenant directory sign along either Shady Elm Road or the proposed East-West Collector as a monument style sign that shall not exceed 30 feet in height. 2 of 3 Proffer Statement Artillery , .ness Cerster Venture I of Winchester, LLC, By."4Nt"g,' Ai-"6,(w4gJ4 63o� Date: Vc—% ays L-,4- 11,1-o '7 STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: L The foregoin instrument was acknowledged before me this �dayof ( , 2007, by �i q e AW L r ( My commission expires 3 ie J�u D) Notary Public' eT9 -' 3 of 3 October 2007 Artillery Business Center INTRODUCTION The 58.7 acre Artillery Business Center is comprised of a single tax map parcel identified as 75-A-1. The Property is located adjacent to Shady Elm Road just South of Route 37 with access provided to Route 11 by Apple Valley Road to the North and Springdale Road to the South (See Figure I). Currently, the subject acreage is zoned RA (Rural Areas) but bounded to the North and West by property zoned M1 (Light Industrial) with property zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) bounding the project site to the East (See Figure 2). The Property is located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Recently, Frederick County approved revised boundaries for the Urban Development Area (UDA). Originally, the subject property was located within the UDA. With the adoption of the revised UDA boundary, however, the Property is now located outside of the UDA. The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies that areas located outside of the UDA but within the SWSA boundary are intended for commercial and industrial uses. This application seeks to rezone the Property from RA (Rural Areas) to the M1 (Light Industrial) zoning district in an effort to integrate the site with the surrounding area, particularly those properties along Shady Elm Road to the north. Rezoning the Property from its current residential/agricultural designation to the light industrial zoning classification will provide for an increasingly viable industrial node that accommodates the County's future land use and transportation goals while bolstering the County's tax base. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan (EFCLRLUP) identifies industrial as the intended land use designation for the Property and the surrounding area to the North. The site is also located within the boundary of the Route 11 South Land Use Plan. This small area land use plan does not identify an intended land use for the Property but instead simply indicates its current RA zoning designation. As such, the EFCLRLUP can be considered the guiding document regarding the intended land use for the Property. The proposed M1 (Light Industrial) zoning designation would be in keeping with the intended land use identified by the Comprehensive Plan. ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION Currently, access to Route 11 is provided by Shady Elm Road's connection to Apple Valley Road to the North and Springdale Road connecting Shady Elm Road with Route 11 to the South. The majority of project generated trips will travel north through the existing industrial area fronting Shady Elm Road. The adopted Eastern Road Plan includes a collector road located just South of the subject property that will connect Shady Elm Road with Route 11. This future connection would allow commercial and industrial traffic to avoid using Apple Valley and Springdale Roads as a means of access to Route 11 from Shady Elm Road. The recent Master Development Plan for the Renaissance Commercial Center Property which is located east of the railroad tracks from the subject site has provided the alignment for this planned roadway from Route 11 to the railroad. The Applicant has proffered to design a four lane divided roadway from Shady Elm Road to the planned roadway within the aforementioned Renaissance Commercial Center. The road design would incorporate a 1 of 4 FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 October 2007 Artillery Business Center vertical alignment that would accommodate the future bridge that will be needed to cross the railroad tracks. The Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $50,000.00 for the design and/or construction of this bridge. The Applicant will 80 foot right of way dedication along a portion the southern property line and the construction of a two lane section of the collector for a minimum distance of 1,100 feet to implement the roadway on the west side of the railroad. The Eastern Road Plan also calls for Shady Elm Road to be a major collector. The Applicant has proffered sufficient right of way to along the Property's frontage with Shady Elm Road and also proffered to widen the existing northbound lane of Shady Elm Road to a width of 24 feet to accommodate the two future northbound through lanes. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Th Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 5,950 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TLA uses two scenarios to analyze the impact of the proposed rezoning on the subject area street system. Scenario A assumes access is provided by the existing road network with Apple Valley Road providing access to the North and Springdale Road providing access to the South. Using this scenario, 80 percent of the trips would utilize the northern connection where Shady Elm Road meets Apple Valley Road with the remaining 20 percent of the trips utilizing the Springdale Road — Route 11 intersection. The identified improvements needed to keep the transportation system operating at a Level of Service (LOS) C or better include the following: - Additional northbound and southbound through lanes for Route 11 at Apple Valley Road. - Signalization of Springdale Road — Route 11 Intersection - Signalization of Apple Valley Road — Shady Elm Road Intersection Scenario B assumes access provided by the future connection of Shady Elm Road directly to Route 11 as intended by the Eastern Road Plan. This scenario will serve as the ultimate transportation plan for the subject site as the roadway is currently being planned and provided for on the nearby Renaissance Commercial Center. Under Scenario B, the same improvements found under Scenario A would be needed where Route 11 intersects Apple Valley Road and Springdale Road. In addition, a signal would be needed at the intersection of the new collector road and Route 11. All improvements to this intersection with the exception of an additional northbound through lane are provided by the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center MDP. While the Applicant recognizes that the proposed development would yield increased traffic at the subject intersections, it is important to note that background traffic alone, with the exception of the Apple Valley — Shady Elm intersection, would result in a Level of Service (LOS) that is less than the specified "C" threshold as identified as the goal by the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant is implementing a road connection between Shady Elm Road and Route 11 which will help mitigate traffic congestion at both the Springdale Road and Apple Valley Road intersections with Route 11. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. The Property does not contain any areas of steep slopes, stream channels, flood plain, or 2 of 4 October 2007 Artillery Business Center wetlands. Verification of wetland data would be provided through a wetland delineation which would be required and completed during the master plan phase of the development process. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County. Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. Such geology is prevalent on land located West of Interstate 81 and accommodates commercial and industrial development as evidenced by development on surrounding parcels. Drainage leaves the site to the East where it meets a drainage divide which directs drainage approximately 3,000 feet South into Opequon Creek. A lack of steep slopes on the 58.7 acre site result in little to no issues associated with drainage (See Figure 3). The site is underlaid by karst geology. During design of on site improvements, proffered geotechnicial studies will be completed to ascertain if there are areas of concern. The final design will reflect measures to address any critical geologic features discovered. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY Water service can be provided to the Property by two different scenarios. The first option is to connect to the existing 8" water main on Prosperity Drive, east of the site. The second option is to connect to the existing 12" water main in the Dawson Industrial Park. Assuming a water consumption rate of 500 gpd/acre, water demand for the site would be approximately 29,350 gallons per day. Sewer service would be provided to the site by connection via force main to tap into the existing 6" force main at the Dawson Industrial Park. Sewer flows would be roughly equivalent to the projected water consumption of 29,350 gallons per day. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The following table shows a projection of solid waste generation as a part of this project. Development Type Area (Square ft Waste Generation Total Waste lbs Light Industrial/Warehouse 1,022,790 ft .01 lbs/s .. 10,228 Solid waste would be transferred by private carrier and deposited at the County landfill. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES It is noted that the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies two older structures within the vicinity of the site (See figure 4). One of the structures, identified as "The House off Route 651" (#34-1042), is located on the Property but is not listed as potentially significant. Figure 3 includes an up to date photo of the house. The adjacent property to the South includes the Carbaugh House. (#34-1040). Figure 6 depicts a current photo of the Carbaugh House which is located approximately 1/3 mile south of the subject Property. 3 of 4 I If FF ti ; 3 ( r' SHADY ELM Patton, Harris, Rust & dissociates, pc SITE DRAINAGE 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 � a VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540} 565-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRCIN14 F IGURL J «,zxwm: www, s. .. \j� kilt\ -7: : y�� 2-1 iOJK on, iP lab & on, iP lab & P. _T61 17 rdk October 2007 Artillery Business Center The National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia indicates that the subject site is located well outside of any core battlefield areas. Figure 7 and Figure 8 depict the Property location with respect to the First Kernstown and Second Kernstown Battlefield. As labeled on each of the battlefield exhibits, the land use along Shady Elm Road has been modified substantially since the 1991 study. As existing development separates the Property from the identified core battlefield for First and Second IC-ernstown, development of the site would not pose any detrimental impacts to viewsheds or interpretative quality of the battlefields. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The industrial uses proposed as with this rezoning results in a net positive fiscal impact for Frederick County. 4 of 4 � Ford DistTibuti'.on... enter - r,Pdust'N'a1 DawsonIndustrial Par•�t Use Built—Lip Land Industrlgl Park "—At a „4 Ex i. r Yl Aqr UM _ Fures t t_arnd ti QWfty or strip line S tuJy Area BOWK ry _..�. Cure Arca Unury:Wy Roads _ Strcans and River cr3Lnty or City E3our'63ry ��'HADY ELM I Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates LOCATION MAP Virginia 22601 I 111 E Picadilly 5t Winchester, g o Q FIRST KERNSTOWN BA TTL EFEL D VOICE; (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 V FREDERICK COUMY, WRGIN14 FIGUKL , IR t. 371 JECT TE S� t t �•. t., ......... � � `amu �, p,,,�r_r• s :: 1 i _'Ii 10 �—Dawson 11dv�s: Industrial Use Industrial .Park i EQ -9 1 r 3 ` miles SHADY ELM LOCATION MAP SECOND KERNSTOWN BATTLEFIELD FREDERICK COUNTY, WRG/NIA Ex. r 80 I:•. ibu ia' Center` �ial•• •a k i Retalned Integrity Lost Integrity Study Area Boundary Gore Area Poundary Roads Streams and Rivers County or City Boundary Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FIGURE 8 Patton Harris Engineers. Surveyors. P+A. H Rust & Associates, Inc Planners. Lcndscape Architects. 10212 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007 Williamsport, Maryland 21795 Phone: 301.223.4010 Fax: 301.223.6831 Addendum To: Lloyd Ingram Organization/Company: VDOT — Edinburg Residency From: Michael Glickman Date: —September 12, 2007 An Addendum to: A Trak Imt� ct Anal .ry it of the Lynch -Shady Project Name/Subject: Elm Road RtVent , dated November 29, 2006 PHR+A Project file Number: 14846-1-1 Per your request, Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this document as an addendum to: A Trak Imt_�ct Anallis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property, by PHR+A, dated November 29, 2006. The purpose of this document is to present a revised traffic impact analysis due to modifications in proposed land use and change in FAR (Floor Area Ratio) from 0.25 to 0.4. The revised development includes 511,395 square feet of Light Industrial and 511,395 square feet of warehousing. PHR+A has provided traffic analysis for 2010 build -out conditions. All methodology and existing & background conditions remain consistent with the aforementioned November 29, 2006 report. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data, a growth rate of 5% and 2% was calculated and applied to Route 11 and Apple Valley Road, respectively, to obtain the 2010 base conditions. PHR+A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site -driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, in addition to the site -driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7`'' Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trig Generation Rebort, PHR+A has provided Tables 1a thru 1f to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 1 shows the location of the background developments with in the vicinity of the proposed development. Figures 2a and 2b show the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network during Scenarios A and B, respectively. Figures 3a and 3b show the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service during Scenarios A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Page 1 of 18 Patton Harris Rust A Associates, Inc Addendum Page 2 of 18 Table la 2010 "Other Developments" - Kernstown Commons Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Kernstown Commons (From Limited Access Break Report dated February, 2006) 414 552 435 245 701 310 Hotel 120 rooms 31 20 51 14 38 129 33 194 71 324 45 2,453 , 444 Theater w/ Mat. 16 screens 11 3 56 142 271 294 565 6,134 820 Retail 85,500 SF 87 97 97 194 129 129 258 3,594 853 Convert. Mart w\pumps 4,250 SF 440,000 SF 43 80 80 160 895 912 Drive-in Bank 3,500 SF 24 19 661 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 27 17 44 509 932 H -T Restaurant 4,000 SF 24 22 46 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 186 63 58 121 1,736 934 Fast Food w/ DT 3,500 SF 95 91 Total 477 407 884 856 882 1,738 18,310 *Total Pass By: 25 25 50 62 62 124 1,459 Total "New Trips": 452 382 ..__. -- 833 794 820 1,614 16,851 * Pass By trips are fifteen percent (r)%O) of total retail ueveiupi ,c,n all Table lb 2010 "Other Developments" : Crosspointe Center Development (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 775 units 138 414 552 435 245 679 109 7,750 1,740 230 Townhouse/Condo 200 units 15 74 89 73 36 10 348 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 3 7 6 31 4 150 180 1,224 710 Office 90,000 SF 151 236 21 151 171 386 801 868 1,669 17,673 820 Retail 440,000 SF Total Tris 544 661 1,205 1,346 1,302 2,648 28,735 Total Internal 80 80 159 330 330 660 6,954 Total Pass -by 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 Total "New Trips" 435 553 988 890 847 1,737 19 130 Table lc 2010 "Other Developments": Volvo Car Delarship Trin Generation Summary Engineers • Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total 841 Car Sales 23,446 SF 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Total Trips 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Engineers • Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 3 of 18 Table I 2010 "Other Developments" : Ryland/Russell Property Trip Generation Summary Table le 2010 "Other Developments": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In I'M Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 470,448 SF 410 56 466 61 448 509 3,412 210 Single -Family Detached 233 units 43 129 173 145 85 230 2,330 230 Townhouse/Condo 123 units 10 51 61 48 24 71 1,070 820 Retail 156,816 SF 125 80 205 404 438 842 9,098 Total 588 31.6 904 658 995 1,653 1 15,910 Table le 2010 "Other Developments": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Land Bay A In Out Total 110 Light Industrial 11.20 acres 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 210 Single -Family Detached 102 units 20 60 81 69 40 109 1,017 230 Townhouse/Condo 438 units 29 140 168 135 67 202 3,811 820 Retail 10,000 SF 24 15 39 66 71 137 1,520 Land Bay B 210 Single -Family Detached 37 units 9 27 36 28 16 44 373 Land Bay C 488 Soccer Complex 3 field 2 2 4 43 19 62 214 Total Tris 84 244 328 340 214 554 6,935 Total Internal 1 1 2 16 16 31 107 Total "New Tri s" 83 243 326 325 198 523 6,828 Table if 2010 "Other Developments": Renaissance Commercial Center (Scenario B only) Trip Generation Summary Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total 110 Light Industrial 11.20 acres 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 820 Retail 117,612 SF 105 67 173 334 362 697 7,546 Total 175 82 257 369 486 855 1 8282 Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc No Scale Addendum Page 4 of 18 1 -ffN-1 i Figure 1 Location Map - 2010 Background Developments Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 5of18 No Scale 9A d��y Ade 50(145) Qs�f� 1 23(63) ma� 11 0 SrT Lq �y boQV I Sia / a A N V W N �f7 rs 1ti �y1 (96)76^ (78p)96o--.t r ro2Jamp ♦\fie q a 11 N SITE 11 1 . 4 qNo •., � r9 �Odry rzJ�J Jy q� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) R TP+A - Figure 2a 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 6of18 Figure 2b 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects `" 9AAl No Scale �J29f9� Vft1(242)a 3(63) oil (96)76,.A (254)131 hof ��sr� SrroD qq1 reams tiv 4) 11 N 9 J,2 � oaf �ajs � s e�1 Sr�ak' ti`41 �4d'1r `ro rs� 1a?e Pd � r SITE J, , u ems? de�`�s a n1 ay gbL�1 kN ti ti N ^1 dfJL ��o N-�y oe �9-) dodo r�IJQ q� o`r AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 2b 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 7 of 18 w Q9 Signalized No Scale `� Intersection 1� Overall LOS B(D) (1))C G 9A U °, Aw IP�A(A� N°pP `'° 11 r a J a o2a Si=ized "Suggested c�•0 TI1tCiSCcti0rt Imprnvcments" LOS=Bf13j NB & SB - 1 Thru SOl e m Pf�t ryJ 9 3 SITE it n s Rryale�i' �� r °a JC AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 3a 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & dissociates, Inc Addendum Page 8 of 18 F1 �1 �[ rigure 3b 2010 Background' Lane G-eornetry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects a 44 Signalized Intersection Overall LOS C(F) No Scale ♦/ (E)L 4 U k '7 9.0 11 dj A(A)* °an Sana Signalized"Suggested Interse,tiott Improvements" °tea T 9 s. ` SITE Signalized "New Intersection" Intersection B & WB - New Le NB thru, I left *Q ` -1 L.OS=B(I3) SB -1 thru, I Right , rry.rry0 e 1 Cid y s 11 r�J AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T T A JT T 1 � + / \ * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement F1 �1 �[ rigure 3b 2010 Background' Lane G-eornetry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 9of18 TItIP GENERATION Using the 7t" Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report PHR+A has prepared Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property development. Table 1 Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 511,395 SF 452 62 514 68 500 568 3,718 150 Warehousing 511,395 SF 217 48 265 59 178 237 2,232 Total 669 109 779 127 677 805 5,950 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of revised trips for Scenario A and Scenario B, shown in Figures 4a and 4b, respectively, remain consistent with the November 2006, study. Figures 5a and 5b show the respective revised development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Lynch - Shady Elm Road development assigned trips (Figures 2a and 2b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 6a and 6b show the revised 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 7a and 7b show the corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 10 of 18 CONCLUSION Per HCS+ analysis results, assuming suggested improvements, all intersections will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B, except the intersection of Route 11 /Springdale Road. The aforementioned unsignalized intersection will maintain levels of service "D" during Scenario B. The signal warrants will not be met for this intersection during Scenario B. The following describes the suggested roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections as shown in Figures 7a and 7b. • Route 11 /Springdale Road: Traffic signalization will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. The signal warrants for this intersection will not be met during Scenario B. • Route 11 /Apply Road: An additional northbound and southbound thru lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B. • Renaissance Driveway/Route 11: Traffic signalization along with an additional northbound thru lane, northbound left -turn lane, an additional southbound thru lane and a southbound right -turn lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario B. • Shady Elm Road/Site Drive#1: Traffic signalization along with a westbound right -turn lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. • Shady Elm Road/Applealley Road: Traffic signalization will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. NOTE: Intersections where signalization is suggested in order to meet the Frederick County level of service requirement must satisfy signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) prior to installation. Engineers • Surveyors a Planners • Landscape Architects Latton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 11 of 18 No Scale Figure 4a Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario A) Engineers o Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 12 of 18 No Scale 4 - Figure 4b Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 13 of 18 No Scale r2s �° O -W402(76) Td�p � 11 cq ,,�^rybb AN G a � e SST r I �o 0 Y N (203)33 (203),33 �� rs42 N SITE ti ,1 j J 6� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5a Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors . Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris [fust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 14 of 18 a lI ro No Scale S �1titin (I32t L 4) IQ, ry�1 ti� bq1 (34 )S a` 9p a Ar" t L L 1 J 40 w� 4° s" 1 s° lq.r Sre O. y4��8 #J St E II sr" , Ori`"#z R"o h4^�i " f P b AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) LP_ rD-4-n 11 EM I til X-1 t Figure 5b Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners o Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 15 of 18 a PyA`°lr No Scale �� p C�� ' (13 9) a� � dfiy� r�a�`y`oh1'ti o� a 4 � 1F S'O I ry e ti `,1 a`Y1 ,�L 7rrrs � gL�bti 'prs nn ry b b DIY 5 4 8 (300)I09F,��y�1 (3g3)I29Ae�I w � b `A7 SITE 11 L v 11 ti `v q� r� ryv' r °ad J�J�OY� q AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) P D A Figure 6a 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners a Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 16 of 18 i AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 6b 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners o Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 17 of 18 Signilized "Suggested Intersection Improvementx" LOS=C(CI Signalirntsan Q' Signalized dam„ Intersection ry e Oil Overall LOS QF) No Scales ('y mai,{• �W� 9A a11N 1� GV a v PyA e w� All (A)* aD S. a ¢G 2° � Signalised "Suggested Iniel'SCCLIOn Improvements" aa� * Los=B(C) NB & SB- 1 Thru 5r s Gj Si�Vnalized "Suggested I>nterSectiemImprovements" <a?e T-0,n(B) WB - I Right & * Signalizat-ion ([')$ -hw* SITE rr�r srP �r� W�1� �tte 1 N S r�0 II �a"ie dt� �Oa°, 5ignujirad "Suggested r�'jd IIItCYSCCI:IOIi Improvements" I,IaS-I3��•) Signalira[ion P U *p, l s +d AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T+ A * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 7a 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects Patton Farris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 18of18 F141 Signalized I� Intersection f Overall LOS B(F) No Scale 9AA�e 11 11 L °a7 d eyAle "gyp. Signalized "Suggested tma Intersection Improvements" ■+yy 4 A�A�* LOS=B(C) NB & SB -1 Thru ,O w, a 1 m a *` J, S s Mane �, Y lit J Q� Signalized"New Intersection" 1 EB & WB - New Leg W`F SITE a Cn NB -1 Thru, I Left S N SB • I Thru, l Right � 11 d� 8 p )'o�N fC 1C IN ay �dle4 * °ad �J �Yl AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T T A * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement IJ -r ,P+/ Figure 7b 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1`Ta.36iF1 L.r`kQi� "C:..4`FFd The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicants: Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Telephone: (540) 667.2139 Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Venture I of Winchester, LLC Telephone: 540.247.4974 _ Address: 118 Armstrong Place Winchester, Virginia 22602 3. Contact person(s) if other than above Name: Patrick Sowers Telephone: (540) 667.2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 1 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Paige Manuel Mark Lynch James Lynch Randy Kremer 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential/Agriculture B) Proposed Use of the Property: Light Industria 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED. 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The Property is located East and adjacent to -Shady Elm Road approximately 1,500 feet South of Route 37. In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/L.ocation: Parcel Identification Number: 75-A-1 Districts Magisterial: Back Creek High School: Sherando Fire Service: Stephens City_ Middle School: James Wood Rescue Service: Stephens City _ Elementary School: Orchard View 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 58.7 RA M1 58.7 Total acreage to be rezoned 2 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home Townhome Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant 12. Signature: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Flex - Warehouse Other 511,395 511,395 I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s) e� Date Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) Venture I of Winchester, LLC (Phone) 540.667.9794 (Address) 827 Armistead St Winchester Virginia 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument Number: 24270 and is described as Tax Map Parcel 75-A-1 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates (Phone) 540.667.2139 (Address) 117E Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits X Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of , 200_, Signature(s State of Virginia, C, /County of N_ ,z cofii To -wit: P79 ). (: A JA y L14 I i 1 a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that fhe person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument persona 14y appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me 'vi the jurisdiction aforesaid this _ _day oft rJ'- , 200 _7 . r My Commission Expires: d > f / & , 7 Votary Public PIN: 74-A-68 N/F HENRY J. & NORA CARBAUGH DB 574, PG 537 MILE POST •37• FOUND A7 STATION 1855FB7.9 19(� R �RO� l i. rN PIN:75-A-tA /F SYNERGY VESTMENTS, LLC INST. NO. 11862 PIN: 75 -A -1D N/F FVC PROPERTIES, INC. INST. NO. 17707 PIN: 75-A-1 C N/F COOUGATED CONTAINER CORP. OB 729, PG 929 SEE DETAIL N/F CSX TRANSPORTATION % INC. SAS SHOWN ON VALMAP V-32.1/3 o PIN: 75 -A -1E �70ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER N/F FVC PROPERTIES, INC. 0 b INST. NO. 9679 ZONING BOUNDARY n n mmo � b VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 _ - N -O- Vl NZ -,Z 0 ;D nI PIN: 75-A-18 cox N/F FVC PROPERTIES, INC. Io DB 896 PG 1326 PIN: 75-A-1 N 2,557,592 SF/5&74140 AC w (AS Now SURVEYED) (A PIN: 75-A-1 C N/F COOUGATED CONTAINER CORP. OB 729, PG 929 SEE DETAIL N/F CSX TRANSPORTATION % INC. SAS SHOWN ON VALMAP V-32.1/3 �70ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Patton, Harris, Rust &Associates 0 0 Cb ZONING BOUNDARY 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 � � VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, WG/Nl4 REZONING APPLICATION #12-07 OPEQUON CROSSING - Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 23, 2007 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Planning Commission: 11/07/07 Board of Supervisors: 12/12/07 Action Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 70.15 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located south of the existing terminus of Eddy's Lane (Route 820), approximately 2,400 feet south of Route 7 and 1,650 feet west of Opequon Creek. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-210 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: AgriculturalNacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RP (Residential Performance) East: RP (Residential Performance) West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Agricultural Use: Residential (Twin Lakes) Use: Residential (Haggerty) Use: Residential (Fieldstone Heights) PROPOSED USES: Up to 325 single family attached and single family detached dwelling units (no more than 170 single family attached dwelling units). (4.6 units per acre). Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 23, 2007 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: VDOT is not satisfied Please see attached comments dated April 18, 2007 from Mr. Lloyd Ingram Fire Marshall: Access for emergency vehicles must be maintained at all times during construction. Water supply for firefighting shall be established prior to building material delivery. Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Existing structure shall require demolition permit prior to removal. No additional comment required at this time. Department of Public Works: 1. Refer to the Impact Analysis Statement, Page 1: The discussion indicates that the primary access to the property will be provided via the Haggerty Road with secondary access via Eddy's Lane and Valley Mill Road located across Abrams Creek. We concur that Valley Mill Road should be relocated across Abrams Creek through the proposed rezoning property. This relocation will satisfy the intent of the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. However, we do not believe that Eddy's Lane will be a viable alternative as a secondary access route unless the applicant plans to upgrade the entire road. 2. Refer to Access and Transportation, Page 2: The discussion references the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan and the applicant's intention to proffer a reserve area for the future connection between the East-West Collector Road and the existing Valley Mill Road. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) should be amended to evaluate the impact of the Valley Mill Road relocation on the proposed Village at Opequon development. To date, the County's road plan has not been revised to reflect a shift of the Valley Mill relocation to the north of its current location. Therefore, we recommend deleting the statement "Recent plans and application will likely shift... at the Route 7/Spine Road intersection". The reference to providing a paved connection from Eddy's Lane to the internal road system of The Village at Opequon for existing residents along Eddy's Lane is not included in the proffer statement. 3. Refer to Environment, Page 3: A review of available topographic surveys indicates that the site has a high elevation of approximately 650 and a low elevation approaching 560. The text statement should be revised to reflect current topographic survey date. 4. Refer to Solid Waste, Page 4: Label the units for the total as pounds per day. 5. Refer to the Proffer Statement, Paragraph 9.3: Under item (i), the common open areas are not otherwise dedicated to public use shall be expanded to include the maintenance of stormwater management facilities. Item (iii) shall be revised to indicate responsibility for establishing and managing a common solid waste disposal program. 6. Refer to Paragraphs 12.4 and 12.5: All references or implied reference to Frederick County collecting future proffers on behalf of the applicant should be deleted from these paragraphs. If the applicant wants future prorated reimbursements for proposed improvements, he should take the necessary steps to obtain agreements with the adjacent landowners. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority Department: We will be able to provide sewer and water service to this site. Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 23, 2007 Page 3 Department of Parks & Recreation: The monetary proffer for this development appears to be appropriate to offset the impact the residents of this community will have on the recreational amenities offered by the County. The Parks and Recreation Department proffer item 3.1 is unacceptable. Plan should include accommodations for a bicycle -pedestrian trail to connect and compliment the trail systems of adjacent development. The completion date for all recreational amenities should be clearly stated. Plan must provide for open space and recreational unit requirements. Health Department: Health Dept. has no objection if public water and sewer are provided. Winchester Regional Airport: While 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. Residents should be forewarned that due to the proximity of the site to the Winchester Airport, they could experience noise from over flight of aircraft arriving to and departing from the airport from the northeast. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 155 single family homes will yield 26 high school students, 20 middle school students, 36 elementary school students; and 170 townhouses will yield 16 high school students, 16 middle school students, and 32 elementary school students, which totals 146 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. This rezoning will have a substantial impact on membership upon its build -out. Increases in traffic in this area are very much a concern due to the current access points to Route 7. With the given traffic projections, staff with Frederick County Schools do not feel that Eddy's Lane and the access to Route 7 from Valley Mill Road will provide a safe environment for school bus travel. Currently, there are concerns with school traffic due to the intersection at Route 7 at Valley Mill Road not being signalized. Therefore, in the interest of school bus safety, it would be best if Spine Road be completed with thought being given to the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 7 and Spine Road before the impact of this rezoning is felt. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similarly 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. Consideration should be given to the effect that this rezoning will have on future school needs during the approval process. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB considered the rezoning proposal during their meeting of May 15, 2007. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report. The subject parcel is the site of the Adams Farm House (DHR #34- 397) and is in close proximity to several other structures, including Valley Mill Farm (DHR #34-108) which is on the National and Virginia. Registers of Historic Places. Other propertiesin close proximity to the proposed rezoning project are the Route 659 House (DHR #34-396), the Haggerty House (DHR #34-398) and the Carter-Lee-Damron House (DHR #34-1150). Although only the Valley Mill Farm property is listed as potentially significant, the HRAB did have several suggestions to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the cluster of historic structures in this area. Both the Haggerty House and the Carter-Lee-Damron House are located on adjoining properties which were recently rezoned for residential uses similar to this proposal. The Carter-Lee-Damron House, on the Toll Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 23, 2007 Page 4 Brothers "Twin Lakes" property, will be utilized as a recreational element for that development. The application states that the applicant proposes to construct a residential development of 155 single family homes and 170 townhomes. The HRAB feels that this proposed development can address the following issues in an effort to mitigate impacts on historic resources: Architectural Documentation: The HRAB felt that there is a need to document and research the historic significance of this property. The HRAB suggested documenting the house and any out -buildings for their historical significance, including (but not limited to) researching and identifying past owners/occupants, significant application of building materials, and architectural features associated with the time period of construction, etc. The HRAB felt that photographs of the interior and exterior of the buildings should also be taken to visually document the Adams Farm House. Buffers and Screening: The HRAB suggested an increased buffer along the shared property line with the Valley Mill Farm property (PIN 55-A-165). The HRAB acknowledged the existing woodlands on the Valley Mill Farm Property as well as the topography of the area as natural screening, but felt that the applicant could provide additional pine trees in this area to help mitigate the impact of this new development on the view shed of the Valley Mill Farm since it is on both State and National Registers. Development Name: Due to the fact that the Back Creek Magisterial District of Frederick County already recognizes an areas as the "Historic Opequon Village" and that the Historic Opequon Village area is indicated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as a possible historic district, the HRAB felt that the applicant could consider renaming this development project to maintain the integrity of the potential historic district and eliminate confusion that the new development is a historic area. Attorney Comments: It is my opinion that the 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. According to the records of the State Corporation Commission of Virginia, the proper name of the owner of the property is "The Canyon, LC". This change should be made on the first page of the Proffer Statement, and on the signature page. 2. In Proffer 2. 1, I would recommend that the words "per year" at the end of the sentence be changed to "for each 12 -month period following the DFR". 3. With respect to the monetary proffers contained in Proffers 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2 and 8.2, those proffers all use the language that the proffers are "for capital improvements to capital facilities owned or maintained by (the appropriate department)". I would recommend that the working of all of these proffers be changed to provide that the proffers are for " purposes". For example, Proffer 3.2 would read that the proffers are "for parks and recreational purposes". The purposes in the above -referenced proffers would be parks and recreation purposes, fire and rescue purposes, school purposes, library purposes, public safety purposes, and general government purposes. The manner in which proffers can be used for those various purposes is governed by state law. 4. In Proffer 4. 1, the words "single-family detached" need to be added to the first line after the word "per". 5. In Proffer 4.2, the words "single-family attached" need to be added in the first line after the word "per". 6. In Proffer 6. 1, the word "attached" in the second line needs to be changed to "detached". 7. With respect to the transportation proffers (Proffer 12), these proffers involve land use activities which have take place on other parcels and land use activities which are anticipated to take place on other parcels. The staff will need to carefully review these transportation proffers with respect to other developments in the area. In any event, I would offer the following limited comments with respect to the transportation proffers: (a) In Proffer 12. 1, I would recommend that the words "road Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 23, 2007 Page 5 improvements" be changed to "design and construction of road improvements". (b) In Proffer 12.2, the location of the Private Drive Easement does not seem to be identified on the Generalized Development Plan. (c) Both Proffers 12.3 and 12.4 are conditioned upon, or anticipate, rezoning of the "Eddy's Lane Properties". I presume that the Eddy's Lane Properties are under separate ownership, and it is uncertain what would occur with respect to these two proffers if some of the Eddy's Lane Properties are rezoned and others are not. (d) It should be noted that in Proffer 12.3, that the connection of Eddy's Lane with the anticipated future road would not be a part of the public road, but would be a private access easement under the ownership and control of the Applicant in this rezoning. Further, the last sentence of Proffer 12.3 should read "the Reservation Parcel is depicted on the GDP". (e) In Proffer 12.4, the last sentence of that proffer seems to be redundant and unnecessary. (f) Much of the concept of the obligations of the Eddy's Lane Properties for reimbursement to the Applicant in this rezoning are more the character of a private contract between the Applicant and the owners of the Eddy's Lane Properties than matters to be contained in proffers enforceable by the County. I have serious reservations about this concept being included in the proffers, including, without limitation, a concept in Proffer 12.5 that the County could require proffers on future rezonings to provide for the collection by the Applicant in this rezoning of reimbursement for work on the public road, and the concept in Proffer 12.6 that the Applicant in this rezoning would have the right to set the proffer amount for future rezonings in other cases. (g) In summary, these transportation proffers, and particularly Proffers 12.3 through 12.6, will require further careful staff and legal review. 8. In Proffer 13. 1, the word "which" needs to be inserted after the work "Property". 9. I would note that the property is identified as being owned by The Canyon, LC. However, the Generalized Development Plan identifies the property as "Adams Property". It would seem to me that the Generalized Development Plan labeling should be consistent with the rest of the Proffer Statement. 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, including, without limitation, the transportation proffers, 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. Planning Department: Please see attached correspondence from Mike Ruddy, dated July 2, 2007, and Mr. John Bishop, dated June 20, 2007. Planning & Zoning: This rezoning application, submitted on October 12, 2007, is substantially differentfrom that which was originally submitted at the beginning of 2007 to the various review agencies for comment Careful consideration should be given to ensuring that the responsible reviewing agencies are provided an opportunity to review and provide relevant comments on this most recent submission. 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the property with the A-2 Agricultural classification. 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 Rezoning 412-07 — Opequon Crossing October 23, 2007 Page 6 to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA (Rural Areas) District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The 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 Opequon Crossing property is located for residential land uses. 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. This application would enable a residential density of 4.6 units per acre. 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 and should be achieved with this application. 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 Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 23, 2007 Page 7 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). 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. Relocated Valley Mill Road runs through this property. 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. The adjacent Haggerty property recognizes the comprehensively planned alignment of Valley Mill Road and furthers its construction. 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 project and the 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. 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. Site Access and design. Access to this project is designed to be from the adjacent Haggerty project and ultimately Route 7. Additional access to the site will be from Eddy's Lane. No recognition has been provided in the TIA for the relocation of Valley Mill Road and the vehicle trips that may be projected to traverse this property with the completion of this significant element of the County's Eastern Road Plan. Inter parcel access has been identified in one location to the south providing access to the Twin Lakes project. No additional design of the internal road network Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 23, 2007 Page 8 has been provided with this application and no additional inter parcel connections have been pursued. The potential use of Eddy's Lane as an access point to this parcel without the completion of the relocation of Valley Mill Road should be carefully considered. Any additional vehicle trips utilizing the existing one lane bridge over Abrams Creek should be avoided. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The Opequon Crossing 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. Abram's Creek is located immediately north of the northern property line and generally parallels this property line. A pond is located central to the eastern portion of the property. These features and their associated slopes, natural drainage ways, and floodplains warrant particular attention and provide an opportunity for enhanced protection of the riparian corridor. 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. By current County definition, this project contains relatively small areas of steep slopes. However, protection of the integrity of the pond, environmental open spaces, and the riparian areas south of Abram's Creek, especially during the construction phases, remain a concern and should be a greater consideration of this application and as part of the proffer statement. The site contains areas that are heavily wooded. 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. A greater amount of consideration should be provided to incorporating the protection of areas of mature woodlands into the design of the project to assist in their preservation and create desirable areas of open space. 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. The preservation of these existing trees within a buffer area should be guaranteed in the proffer statement. Disturbance should be avoided. The HRAB reviewed this request and provided several comments. The subject parcel is the site of the Adams Farm House (DHR 434-397) and is in close proximity to several other structures. The Applicant has modified the name of the project. However, the more substantial comments have not been addressed by the application. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this project, dated September 8, 2006, projected that the development of 155 single family detached residential units and 170 single family Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 23, 2007 Page 9 attached residential units would generate 3,029 vehicle trips per day. The report was developed with access to the site provided via a single site driveway along the proposed Haggerty Connector Road that will serve as a connection between the site and Route 7. The report concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Opequon Crossing project are acceptable and manageable. Staff has concerns regarding the scope and validity if the TLA prepared for this application. Please refer to the comments provided by Mr. Bishop and by VDOT. No consideration has been given to the property's location and relationship to the County's Eastern Road Plan. In particular, the relocation of Valley Mill Road, the Spine Road, and the additional volumes that would be projected to utilize this comprehensively planned road network. In addition, no consideration has been provided for the impacts on existing Eddy's Lane, the one lane bridge over Abrams Creek, and the existing intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7. Transportation Program. The Generalized Development Plan for Opequon Crossing delineates the general public road system that will serve the residential development. Primary access to the site is from a proposed connection to the adjacent Haggerty property and indirectly to Route 7, and via Eddy's Lane. One connection with the Twin Lakes property has been identified. Minimal additional detail has been provided regarding the internal street system serving this project and providing connectivity to the adjacent property, in particular to the south. The location of the relocated Valley Mill Road has been correctly identified on the GDP. However, the application fails to adequately address this most significant element of the County's Eastern Road Plan. Proffer 11.2 which addresses Valley Mill Road is unacceptable and in conflict with County ordinances. The road alignment for Valley Mill Road relocation is solely on this property prior to it traversing onto the Valley Mill Farm property. Therefore, it should be anticipated that sufficient right-of-way will be dedicated for the major collector road on this property. Further, it should be expected that construction of the road should occur consistent with the typical section clearly demonstrated in the County's Eastern Road Plan. In addition, the required standard road efficiency buffer should be provided per the County's Zoning Ordinance rather than per the applicant's defined landscape buffer. It is expected that any application for rezoning addresses the design and construction of a road located on their property that is an element of the County's Comprehensively Policy Plan. Simply providing a reserve area for the future construction by others would not typically meet expectations and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In summary, the Applicant's transportation program provides for the following: • Construction of two lanes of this major collector road for a distance of approximately 400 feet and prior to the 100th building permit • The reservation for future dedication of a 90 foot wide reserve area within the property_ Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 23, 2007 Page 10 $3,000 per single family attached dwelling and $5,000 per single family detached dwelling that are to be utilized for road improvements to alleviate transportation problems in the general vicinity of the property. The Applicant's transportation program is insufficient in addressing the transportation impacts of the project and furthering the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 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. Greater effort should be made in designing and providing a trail system with linkages to open space to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation. This should be done at the time of rezoning rather at the time of MDP. This would then ensure its planning is coordinated with the overall transportation improvements and its completion secured through the proffer statement. B. Sewer and Water The Opequon Crossing rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 65,000 gallons per day of water usage and approximately 65,000 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. 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 155 single family homes will yield 26 high school students, 20 middle school students, 36 elementary school students; and 170 townhouses will yield 16 high school students, 16 middle school students, and 32 elementary school students, which totals 146 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 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 11th elementary school opened in the fall of 2006 opened above and is currently operating above its programmed capacity. The 12th 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. Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 23, 2007 Page 11 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 DIM projects that, on average, residential development has a negative fiscal impact on the County's capital expenditures, as such, all rezoning petitions with a residential component submitted after June 27, 2007 will be expected to demonstrate how the proposal will mitigate the following projected capital facility impacts: Single family dwelling unit $22,927 Town home dwelling unit $16,396 Apartment dwelling unit $8,975 The Applicant has proffered a total of $22,098 per single family detached dwelling unit and $15,530 per single family attached townhouse dwelling unit. While the Applicant has changed the application considerably since it was originally reviewed by the various agencies, they have not changed their monetary contribution to reflect the County's DIM. Therefore, this application has not demonstrated how they will mitigate theprojected capitalfacility impacts. 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). 5) Proffer Statement — Dated April 10, 2007; Revised June 28, 2007, August 27, 2007, October 10, 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 the project, residential land use areas, and open space and reservation areas within the Opequon Crossing development. The GDP may be utilized to a greater extent to more clearly address the sensitive environmental features on the property and the buffering of the adjacent residential uses. B) Land Use The applicants have proffered to limit to the total number and type of residential units to allow up to 325 single family attached and single family detached dwelling units. Up to 170 single family attached townhouse units would be permitted. Multi family dwelling units are prohibited. The applicant has proffered a phased introduction of the residential units over a minimum three year period from the date of final rezoning with the potential for up to 109 units per year. ,staff note: This phased approach does very little to realistically address the intent of phasing the issuance of building permits. The intent of phasing is to ensure a timed integration of new Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 23, 2007 Page 12 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 and enable the construction of a smaller number of units. 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. Recognition of recently approved projects in the vicinity of this proposal should also be considered when evaluating the phased inclusion of new residential units into this area of the community. C) Transportation The Applicant has proffered the reservation of a 90 foot wide reserve area for the future dedication of an 80 foot right of way within the property to accommodate the future construction, by others, of the Valley Mill Road relocated major collector road. The Applicant has proffered the construction of two lanes of the major collector road from point A to point B on the GDP for a distance of approximately 400 feet, prior to the 1 OOt" building permit. The Applicant has proffered $3,000 per single family attached dwelling and $5,000 per single family detached dwelling that are to be utilized for road improvements to alleviate transportation problems in the general vicinity of the property. The Applicant has proffered that no building permits will be issued for the property until such time that the property has access to Route 7 via the future Haggerty transportation network. D) Recreational Facility The Applicant has proffered to design and build a recreation building in this project. Please recognize that no definition of what the building is, or design depicting the recreational building, has been provided. Recreational units may be required by ordinance based upon the ultimate housing types utilized in this project. E) Monetary Contribution The Applicant has proffered a total of $22,098 per single family detached dwelling unit and $15,530 per single family attached townhouse dwelling unit to offset the capital costs associated with this request. Please recognize that this is less than the amount indicated in the DIM as necessary to mitigate the projected capital facility impacts of the request. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Opequon Crossing 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. 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. In addition, the application has not adequately demonstrated how they will mitigate the projected capital facility impacts. Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 23, 2007 Page 13 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. In addition, consideration should be given to ensuring that the responsible reviewing agencies are provided an opportunity to review and provide relevant comments on this most recent submission. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planninm Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Eric Lawrence 6 From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:20 AM To: Patrick R. Sowers Cc: Eric Lawrence; Ingram, Lloyd Subject: The Village at Opequon The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 820 and 7. These routes are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in The Village at Opequon Rezoning Application dated April, 2007 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Specifically: * Five of the six transportation proffers reference the closing of Eddy's Lane, Route 820. In Transportation Proffer #12.3, you stipulate the applicant will retain ownership and control of the "reservation parcel". The "reservation parcel" is the access for residents on Route 820 to access Route 7 via Haggerty Boulevard. All of this is based on Route 820 being terminated at Route 659/Route 7. Currently I am unaware of any precedence where VDOT would terminate access from an existing State right-of-way, therefore, requiring affected property owners to cross your private roadway. * Proffer #12.1 in itself will not adequately offset the traffic impacts on the existing roadway that this development would generate. 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 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Patrick Sowers FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Additional Review Points — Villages @ Opequon Rezoning DATE: July 2, 2007 The following points are offered regarding the Villages at Opequon Rezoning application. Please consider them as you continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. Villages at Opequon 71.45 acre RP Rezoning — Additional Rezoning Comments. Transportation. Primary access should be consistent with and further the approved Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. This rezoning application should reflect the comprehensively planned road network and the adjacent projects implementation of this road network. The County's Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of this project identifies the relocation of Valley Mill Road as a major collector road. The desired typical section for a major arterial road should be addressed and incorporated into this application. Any right-of-way dedication should accommodate the right-of-way for its ultimate construction. Consideration of the completion of this comprehensively planned collector road system in the vicinity of the project should be a significant consideration. Please refer to the additional transportation TIA-related comments previously provided by Mr. Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner. Inter parcel connectivity should be provided with this application. Particular recognition must be provided for the adjacent properties with approved master planned roads that connect to this property. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Villages at Opequon Rezoning •- Additional Rezoning Comments July 2, 2007 Page 2 This project is located within the Urban Development Area and all roads should be built with an urban typical section. Proffer Statement. A Generalized Development Plan could be utilized to a greater extent and further incorporated into the proffer statement to better describe the project and to address the various considerations that may be forthcoming from the review agencies. If it is ultimately determined that the transportation approach proposed by the Applicant is acceptable, the applicant should guarantee the improvements to an acceptable level. The reservation areas, reservation parcels, and identified road work reimbursement areas do not provide an acceptable approach to addressing the transportation impacts of this project and the transportation needs of this area. The transportation components of the proffer statement must be revisited (Section 12). The proffer statement may be more specific about the housing types permitted. The proffer as written is inconsistent with the application. Proffer 3.1 is extremely problematic and should be eliminated or significantly revised. The expectation should be that any project addresses the recreational facility needs for their particular project as specified in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and addresses the fiscal impacts identified on the County's parks and recreation system. The wording of the proffers and the administration of the proffered monetary contributions should be in a form acceptable to the County's Attorney. Please find attached to this review the comments provided by the County Attorney. Other. It would be appropriate for the application to more thoroughly address the preservation of the existing tree lines and wooded areas, the integrity of the pond, and the other environmental open spaces, as a greater consideration of this application and as part of the proffer statement. MTR/bad Attachments COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 June 20, 2007 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Attn: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: County Transportation Planner Comment on the Preliminary Rezoning Application for the Village at Opequon Dear Mr. Sowers: As the Transportation Planner for Frederick County, VA in which the proposed rezoning is located, I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis and Rezoning Application for the Village at Opequon. While I understand that a number of land use actions are pending in that area that will likely impact this application, I must limit my comments to what has been submitted as of this time. I look forward to reviewing an updated application should one be submitted. In the meantime, I have the following comments and concerns to point out regarding this application package: Traffic Impact Analysis The TIA does not include a signed copy of the VDOT scoping sheet. This document aids the County in review of the TIA by detailing what is agreed upon at that scoping session. 2. Staff experience with VDOT has been that Synchro has been required for TIAs in this region; is there a particular reason that HCS+ was used for this particular TIA? 3. Build out year for this development is stated as 2007. As of the date of this review, 2007 is nearly half over and this property does not have the zoning required for the proposed development. Lack of proper build out year in the analysis will impact the results of the study by rendering them less accurate. 4. Page three of the TIA shows Berryville Pike traffic to be 26,170 vehicles per day; however, 2005 VDOT projections indicate traffic for this roadway to be 32,000 vpd. This is a significant difference that should be addressed in some form. 5. No traffic is considered from Eddy's lane. Please address. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Patrick Sowers RE: County Transportation Planner Comment on the Preliminary Rezoning Application for the Village at Opequon. June 20, 2007 Page 2 6. An urban peak hour factor of 0.95 was used for this analysis. This rural area justifies no more than 0.88. This difference likely impacts the true levels of service. Please adjust. In summary, the traffic impact analysis, in its current state, is in need of updating and correction to enable a proper view of the impacts. Rezoning Application/Proffers Regarding Proffer 12. 1, the proffer actually states that the applicant will proffer $3,000 per unit at the time of building permit issuance while the application states that $3,000 per attached and $5,000 per detached is being proffered. Though I understand that there is a desire to build out this property quickly, nothing guarantees that, and an escalator clause should be considered. In addition, though the single family attached units generate 87% of the traffic that a single family detached unit generates, just 60% of the detached amount is being proffered for attached units. 2. The remainder of the proffers appear to be concerned with limiting the use of roadways built by the applicant by Eddy's Lane properties that may be developed and trying to obtain funds from those Eddy's Lane properties should they be developed. These proffers are inappropriate, and any transportation contributions made by Eddy's Lane properties that may develop should be paid to the County and\or VDOT to offset their impacts and not to this applicant to offset their proffers.. These proffers set up a spite strip. 3. The application does not accurately reflect the Valley Mill extension as it approaches Abrams Creek or the Haggerty Property. 4. The application and TIA rely on Route 7 for all local traffic. As Route 7 is an arterial roadway, this is not appropriate. Additional east west access is needed and provided via the Valley Mill extension. In summary, it appears that the transportation proffers shown here are significantly inferior to what was proffered with the Haggerty rezoning. The submitted proffers fail to mitigate impacts projected by the TIA and that is with a TIA that fails to properly model background traffic, or the flow of traffic created by this proposed development. Patrick Sowers RE: County Transportation Planner Comment on the Preliminary Rezoning Application for the Village at Opequon. June 20, 2007 Page 3 Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this review further, please contact the case planner, Mr. Mike Ruddy and we can arrange a meeting which I will be happy to attend. Sincerely, John A. Bishop, AICP Transportation Planner CC: Dave Holliday Lloyd Ingram, VDOT Jerry Copp, VDOT JAB/bad 1v1ap Document: (rvANlanning_And_Development\ 1_Locator_Mps\OpequonCrossing_REZ1207_102307.mxd) 10/23/2007 -- 4:24:35 PM I #6 - 07 a�l -REZ ! +W Map �' Frederick County, VA BLUE,RIDGE�AS,SOCIATES BERRYVILLE, Rezoning a / REZ # 12 - 07 6 o, C'y44,,r q Application r i' r-B E=I C84R4F o e uon Crossing P q ng i � Parcel €D: �/ 55 A 165 �► ; Location in the County 55 - A - 210 VALLEY_MILL FARM LC I •� / ... I Map Features 1 55 A 161 O Hamlets '^• Future Rt37 Bypass REZ1207—opequonCrossing /�'d- ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO \.. Mr�ygF `? 4�CD•y Co st ea Bonds iI" ;r, j '9R� �. I s, Buildings GIS STREETS 55 A 210 y ,.-' THE CANYON 820 I / / CLASS Primary Rds Secondary Terciary Winchester Rds .0 Urban CIAZp..�I I i Development Area ', N SWSA Topography (5' interval) << 09 R 1 = t �=T E5A 212 -r THE CANYON LC * ._ ., �' l sr �.,T �, %;, .� �`;� I � :: � SSS'" •� �- � �' �,, ! ! `;� AO _ ! `T --ter I• L r+, , k� i S ^1 .. j �. 65 A 195 Location in Surrounding Area RIGG LE A` LISA ANN & MILDRRED LMW Case Planner: Mike 1v1ap Document: (rvANlanning_And_Development\ 1_Locator_Mps\OpequonCrossing_REZ1207_102307.mxd) 10/23/2007 -- 4:24:35 PM --��-!`l "til Y !''' c ! r.'� � _ _ \�`.,• —"` .ERR47LLppkE iE T-7 7— "ter { a MC Sg 11 Hq�FMgrq �6Sg -y♦ a �t ( � 141 t = � ♦ 55 IA 165 N-- j�� V � d •� VAII-EYMILL FARM LC55 A ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CO 1\ ckFFMC'ygFC 3t `�♦� 55 A 210 THE CANYON 820 d) ! I T INV 55 T TO4t q -'09 ; �o `'q_ �� a RP zoning 55 JA 212 d m, THE CANYON LC17 :+ .i,. ;__ l t- _rte: I P i 65 A 195 RIGGLEMAWLISAANN & MILDRED L e . ` ;j� F < /'� ' +d I ♦"'�~ °<-,e kms. r ■., ♦ d e Frederick County, VA Rezoning REZ # 12 - 07 Application Opequon Crossing Parcel ID: Location in the Gounty 55 - A - 210 Map Features O Hamlets Zoning 41h,. Future Rt37 Bypass Bl (Business, Neighborhood District) C3 REZ1207_OpequonCrossingB2 (Business, General Distrist) 0, Lakes/Ponds 4M B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) -•— Streams ",+^ EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) = Buildings HE (Higher Education District) GIS STREETS M1 (Industrial, Light District) CLASS M2 (Industrial, General District) Primary Rds dw MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) Secondary dO MS (Medical Support District) Tertiary R4 (Residential Planned Community District) Winchester Rds R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) t Urban Development Area - RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) SWSA - ac onr ;4 •t r L R' Oat Location in Surrounding Area ,t;K COG s `rr Case Planner: Mike ,.,.p (r.r.u-rarttIli iy_/Aflu_vevelopinent i_t_ocaior_hips\vpequoncrossing_KE/-1207_102307.mxd) 10/23/2007 --4:24:35 PM lu/ZJ/ZUU! --4:24:35 NM PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. #/A - 07 Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Performance (RP) PROPERTY: 70.15+/ - Tax Map Parcel 55-A-210 (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: The Canyon, LC APPLICANT: The Canyon, LC PROJECT NAME: Opequon Crossing ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: April 10, 2007 REVISION DATE(S): 6/28/07; 8/27/07; 10/10/07 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 or submitted, prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as the rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The 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, Opequon Crossing" dated April 10, 2007 revised August 27, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Page 1 of 8 LAND USE 1.1 No more than 325 dwelling units shall be constructed on the property. A maximum of 170 of the residential dwelling units constructed on the Property may be single family attached dwelling units. Multi -family dwelling units shall be prohibited. 1.2 The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the Generalized Development Plan provided that minor modifications are permitted during the Master Development Plan and final engineering process. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS. 2.1 Construction of the 325 residential dwelling units shall be phased over a three-year period commencing with the date of final rezoning (DFR). The Applicant shall not make application for more than 109 building permits for residential dwelling units per year. 2.3 The above referenced phasing limitations shall be cumulative. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these Proffers, should market conditions dictate a slower pace of construction of the residential dwelling units on the Property, the time schedule for total build out of the Property may exceed three years. 3. PARKS AND RECREATION: 3.1 The Applicant shall design and build a recreation building in the area designated on the GDP. Said recreation building shall be constructed prior to issuance of the 150'h building permit and shall count towards the recreation unit requirement for the Property as specified by Section 165-64 of the Frederick County Code. Other recreation amenities shall be further defined at time of Master Development Plan. 3.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $2239 per single- family detached unit for parks and recreation purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 3.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $1712 per single family attached unit for parks and recreation purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 3.4 The recreation building shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association ("HOA") for the Property. Page 2 of 8 3.5 Use of the recreation building shall be made available to the residents of the adjacent Haggerty Property Subdivision provided the residents contribute on a pro rata basis toward operation and maintenance of the facility. 3.6 A trail system utilizing a 10' wide asphalt surface meeting Frederick County Parks and Recreation standards shall be incorporated into the design of the Property and shall be depicted on the Master Development Plan. Said trail system shall connect residential with open space and recreation areas and will also provide connections with adjacent developments. 4. FIRE & RESCUE: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $790 per single family detached dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 4.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $583 per single family attached dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION: 5.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $17,706 per single family detached dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 5.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $12,192 per single family attached dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 6. LIBRARY: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $372 per single family attached dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $285 per single family attached dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 7. PUBLIC SAFETY: 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $671 per single family detached dwelling unit for public safety purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. Page 3 of 8 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $513 per single family attached dwelling unit for public safety purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 8. GENERAL GOVERNMENT: 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $320 per single family detached dwelling unit for general government purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 8.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $245 per single family attached dwelling unit for general government purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 9. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 9.1 The residential development shall be made subject to an HOA that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including but not limited to the recreation building, excluding any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith which are specifically dedicated to Frederick County (the "County") or others. For each area subject to their jurisdiction, the HOA shall be granted such 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 areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs; (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any 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 Opequon Crossing Homeowner's Association (OCHOA) 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 Opequon Crossing community. Language will be incorporated into the OCHOA Declaration of Restrictive Covenant Document and Deed of Dedication that ensures the availability of these funds to the OCHOA prior to the transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility from the applicants to the OCHOA. The start-up funds for the OCHOA 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 4 of 8 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 ("the FCSA"). 11. TRANSPORTATION: 11.1 The Applicant hereby proffers $3000 per single family attached dwelling unit and $5000 per single family detached dwelling unit in monetary contributions that are to be utilized for road improvements to alleviate transportation problems in the general vicinity of the Property. It is expressly understood that the County may be applying to VDOT for revenue sharing funds and that any monies paid may be utilized by the County for that purpose. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. 11.2 The Applicant shall provide a 90' reservation area in substantial conformance with the location depicted on the GDP to (i) construct the southern two lanes of an East-West collector road, planned to ultimately be an urban four lane divided (U4D) cross section within an 80' right of way and (ii) provide a landscaped buffer or road efficiency buffer as defined in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. (See 5 on GDP) 11.2.1 Within the 90' reservation area, provided that 40' of right of way is dedicated on the adjoining property to the north prior to submission of engineered plans for the East-West collector road to the County, the Applicant shall dedicate 40' of right of way, as measured from the Property boundary and construct the southern two lanes of a U4D roadway from Point A to Point B as generally shown on the GDP. Said roadway shall be constructed prior to issuance of the 100th building permit. Additionally, the Applicant shall construct a 50' reduced distance road efficiency buffer, as defined in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, between any residential lots and said collector road. Buffer plantings and/or screening shall not be required where they are in conflict with required sight distances for roadways as defined by VDOT. 11.2.2 In the event that 40' of right of way is not dedicated on the adjoining property to the north prior to submission of engineered plans for the East-West collector road to the County, the Applicant shall dedicate 80' of right of way, as measured from the Property boundary and within the 90' reservation area, to construct the southern two lanes of a U4D roadway from Point A to Point B as generally shown on the GDP. Said roadway shall be constructed prior to issuance of the 100t`' Page 5 of 8 building permit. Additionally, the Applicant shall also construct a densely planted landscape screen within the remaining 10' of the 90' reservation area. Said landscape screen shall be located between any residential lots and said collector road and shall consist of a double row of evergreen trees, minimum four feet tall at time of planting, spaced a maximum of eight feet apart. No additional screening or buffer distance shall be required between the residential units and said collector road. Buffer plantings and/or screening shall not be required where they are in conflict with required sight distances for roadways as defined by VDOT. 11.2.3 The Applicant shall provide a maximum 90' wide reserve area from Point B to Point C which may be used for right of way and buffer purposes. The alignment of the reserve area shall be in accordance with the planned alignment of future Valley Mill Road per the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. The Applicant shall dedicate said reserve area at no cost to the County within 90 days of receiving written request from the County. The Applicant shall not be required to provide any additional buffer or landscaping adjacent to or within this area. 11.3 The Applicant shall extend Eddys Lane from the north Property boundary to the south Property boundary as depicted on the GDP. Said connection shall be made prior to issuance of the 50'' building permit. 11.4 No building permits shall be issued for the Property until such time that the Property has access to Route 7 via the future Haggerty Transportation Network as identified on the GDP. 12. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY FROM PROFFERS: 12.1 Any portion of the Property may hereafter be dedicated for public street purposes (or otherwise conveyed to a public entity) shall, upon such dedication, be excluded from the terms and conditions of these Proffers and the remainder of the Property shall continue to be subject to the full force and effect of these proffers. 13. ESCALATOR CLAUSE: 13.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Board within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CP -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time of contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the Page 6 of 8 percentage change in 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. SIGNATURE(S) APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) Page 7 of 8 Respectfully submitted, Title: — — T 1-1 STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing inst ent was acknow d d bef( re me this E k -h day of (� �' , 2007, by �,i,6 1r�� i s U r My commission expires: Notary Public Page 8 of 8 11. IMPACT ANALYSIS OPEUQON CROSSING - IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT OCTOBER 2007 The Opequon Crossing Property (the "Property") is ideally situated for residential development. The project, identified by Frederick County records as 55-A-210, totals 70.15 acres of land zoned RA (Rural Areas) and is located at the existing terminus of Eddys Lane in the Red Bud Magisterial District (See Figure 1). The site is wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County and is also identified for residential uses by the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. This rezoning petition seeks to rezone 70.15 acres of land to the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. The rezoning would result in a high quality development with a mixture of single family attached and detached uses with a maximum of 325 dwelling units constructed over a minimum three year phasing plan. Primary access to the Property will be provided by connection with Route 7 via the Haggerty "Spine" Road approved as part of Rezoning 14-04. Secondary access will be provided by a proffered connection with Eddys Lane which then connects to Valley Mill Road. The land use surrounding the site is predominantly single family residential, most of which is actively developing. The site is underlain by Martinsburg shale which is well suited for urban residential communities served by public sewer and water. As the Property is within an actively developing area of the UDA and SWSA, the conditional rezoning of the subject site would provide for a well planned community that promotes the goals established by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES As depicted by Figure 1, the majority of the surrounding properties are currently developing with single family residential developments. Properties located East, South, and West of the site are currently zoned RP (Residential Performance) with tracts 55-A-165 and 55-4-4A, both zoned RA (Rural Areas) bounding Opequon Crossing to the North (See Figure 2). A clear division between the intended residential development and the agricultural uses North of the Property is formed by Abrams Creek and its associated floodplain. Additionally, the embankment found along the southern edge of Abrams Creek within the vicinity of the site provides for a grade separation that acts as a natural buffer between the existing agricultural use near the Property and the intended residential development of the site. ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION A traffic impact analysis (TIA) entitled "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opequon," was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7 h Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 3,029 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that existing and planned study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions. Impact Analysis Statement — Opequon Crossing 1 r� 3 M y ss [ ] \ yf L 41 Ica SUBJECT ; ,r PROPERTY ra .tet{ �r `a Patton Harris Rust & Associates ZONING CONTEXT FIGURE 2 Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. .P117 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 O p e q u o n T -. Winchester, Virginia 22601 i T 540.667.2139 Crossing F 540.665.0493 NOT TO SCALE DATE: 4/10/07 Primary access to Opequon Crossing shall be provided by connection to the planned road network for the Haggerty project as recently approved by Frederick County. This transportation network consists of the extension of the East-West collector as shown by the Eastern Road Plan that will connect the residential development of the subject Property with the Haggerty "Spine" Road. This connection will afford the Village at Opequon access to Route 7 via the Spine Road (See Figure 3). Additionally, in accordance with the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan, the Applicant has proffered a reserve area to provide for the future extension of this roadway to existing Valley NO Road as shown on Figure 3. The road alignment and reserve area shown for the East-West Collector road is in conformance with the alignment depicted by the Easter Road Plan The Applicant has proffered to extend Eddys Lane through the site to connect the existing terminus at the northern boundary of the Property with the final Phase of the developing Twin Lakes project to the south. The proffered connection to Eddys Lane provides multiple access points for traffic entering and exiting both Opequon Crossing and the Haggerty Property. Additionally, the Applicant has proffered $5,000.00 per single family detached and $3,000 per single family attached dwelling unit for transportation improvements within the vicinity of the site which could facilitate this connection should the off site right of way be acquired in the future. This per unit contribution would total approximately $1,250,000 which would offset any transportation impacts associated with the proposed development. ENVIRONMENT The Property does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. The following table provides an area summary of environmental features: Environmental Features Total Project Area 70.15 Acres Area in Flood Plain 0.00 Acres 0.0% Area in Steep Slopes 0.28 Acres 0.4% Area in Wetlands, Lakes, & Ponds TBD TBD Figure 4 depicts the environmental features located on the Village at Opequon site. As depicted, the site drains both North into Abrams Creek and South into the lake within the Twin Lakes Subdivision before flowing into an un -named stream channel. Both Abrams Creek and the unidentified stream channel then direct the flow of water East into Opequon Creek. A small, man-made pond is situated on the Eastern portion of the site. This pond will not pose any issues for the intended residential development program. Impact Analysis Statement — Opequon Crossing 2 SCALE: 1" = 400' 1 DATE: 4/10/07 The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association. The predominant soil types on the site are Berks channery silt loarm, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 1C), Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (map symbol 41D) and Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, 25 to 65 percent slopes (map symbol 41E) as shown on map sheet number 37 of the survey. This soil type is not considered prime farmland as indicated by the Comprehensive Plan. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. The site has a high elevation of 630 feet and a low elevation of 610 feet. Only a small portion of the site contains steep slopes as defined by the Zoning Ordiance (50%). Much of the area containing moderate slopes of 25%-50% would be incorporated into the required open space for the project to maintain the integrity of the natural drainage channels that exist on site. Flood plain data for the subject parcels is delineated on the Flood Insurance Study Map for Frederick County prepared by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Panel #510063-0120B, effective date July 17, 1978. The entire site is located in Flood Zone C, which denotes areas of minimal flooding outside of the 100 -year flood plain. Portions of the 100 year flood plain associated with Abrams Creek are located in close proximity to the Property's northern boundary. Any wetlands that exist on the site would be identified during the Master Plan phase of development. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The proposed Haggerty site sewerage conveyance system is being designed to handle the flows generated by the Village at Opequon. As such, sewer flows would be conveyed to the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant by connection to this planned system. Using a standard rate of 200 gallons per day/dwelling unit it is projected that the proposed development would produce approximately 65,000 gallons per day of sewer flow. Water supply will be provided by way of a 12" water main connecting through the Haggerty project. Water usage of the project would be roughly equivalent to its sewer flows of 65,000 gallons per day. The water system will be designed to provide adequate pressure for potable water service and fire fighting services. SOLID WASTE The following table shows a projection of solid waste generation as a part of this project. Unit T e Units Waste Generation Total Waste lbs Single Family Detached 155 12 lbs/day 1,860 Single Family Attached 170 9 lbs/day 1,530 Total 3,390 Impact Analysis Statement— Opequon Crossing 3 Proffered curbside pick-up will be an improvement to solid waste issues associated with increased dumpster use in the County. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Figure S identifies historic structures located within the vicinity of the site. Each of the identified structures is identified as not potentially significant by the Frederick CountyRural Landmarks Survey with the exception of Valley Mill Farm which was included in the Virginia Landmarks Register in 2005 and the Natioinal Register of Historic Places in 2006. The existing, vacant farm house on the site, identified as structure 34-397, is the "Adams House" (See Figure 6). Pursuant to the National Park Service Stud of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valle of Vir a,the subject site is not included in any battlefield study area and does not contain any core battlefield resources. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The proposed development will have a scheduled and measured impact on community facilities. In addition to monetary proffers in accordance with the latest Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model, the Applicant has proffered additional funds ($5,000 per single family detached unit and $3,000 per single family attached unit) for transportation improvements. The applicant has offered the following monetary contributions to mitigate the impacts of this development: ■ Fire and Rescue: o General Government: ■ Public Safety: • Library: ■ Parks and Recreation: ■ School Construction: ■ Transportation: TOTAL: Single Family Detached $790.00 per unit $320.00 per unit $671.00 per unit $372.00 per unit $2,239.00 per unit $17,706.00 per unit $5,000.00 per unit $27,098.00 per unit Single Family Attached $583.00 per unit $245.00 per unit $513.00 per unit $285.00 per unit $1,712.00 per unit $12,192.00 per unit $3,000.00 per unit Impact Analysis Statement — Opequon Crossing 4 $18,530.00 per unit `"/,�}�'° ��``>�S r='rd�r � ��'��j'�"�-g�..`7,,. "��"'�,�'x'l'i � 9i'f`. "�'��'' �4• - r :. � s �` �1#� - dR r - M. OSE, trr til" l: 1� 3 "✓' ,� !f ! k All .♦j y�.'? ''3? yp C a�CI(l Y It A Rpm 5",IILL'r , Urr-I t 51 04, CT . P " 1.71TL' A w d. tier' 398 ' 4'. J f < p1.y � 6 �;Y c ^4. w�YY73, �.TF F'u7 On r � srii RURAL LANDMARKS POTENTIALLY NUMBER DESCRIPTION SIGNIFICANT 397 Adams House No 398 Haggerty House No 1150 Carter-Lee-Damron House No 108 Valley Mill Farm Yes Patton Harris gust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. HISTORIC STRUCTURES FIGURE 5 4 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 The Village Pf 41 �+j V Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 at O p e q u o n F 540.665.0493 SCALE: 1 " = 500' DATE: 5/2/07 A �'i BOOK wAmm Patton Harris Rust & Associates ADAMS HOUSE (34-397) FIGURE 6 Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. t� 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 The Village Winchester, Virginia 22601 M. T 540.667.2139 (it O p e q u o n F 540.665.0493 DATE: 5/2/07 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at ®pegn®n Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Dave Holliday 205 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc End neers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 —'�<- -- Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 �---- T 304.264.271 1 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 Village at Opequon development to be located south of Route 7 (Berryville Pike), east of Valley Mill Road in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project will include a total of 155 single-family detached residential units and 170 residential townhouses. Access is provided via a single (1) site - driveway along the proposed Haggerty Connector Road that will serve as a connection between the site and Route 7. The development will be built -out in a single phase by the year 2007. PHR+A has provided Figure 1 to illustrate the location of Village at Opequon with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Village at Opequon 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 Village at Opequon development, • Distribution and assignment of the Village at Opequon development -generated trips onto the study area roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS In order to determine the existing traffic volumes along Route 7 at the proposed Haggerty Connection, PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 7 /Valley Mill Road in Frederick County, Virginia. PHR+A established the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of the study area roadway links using an assumed "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10%. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes along Route 7 at the proposed location of the Haggerty Connection. Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry along Route 7. Traffic count data worksheet is included in the Appendix section of this report. PH RA A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opegaeoz Project Number: 12617-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 1 No Scale lovas ria; 73 I BE j H\'L 1 Figur Vicinity Map: Village at Opequon in Frederick County, Virginia A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opequon Project Number: 12617-1-0 PuRA SeptemUer 0Page 21 � Page 2 No Scale &:I)- (72 !j.l (72016g1 �► q* -680(1896) • • �GG•• • SITE a , 4' r s r' AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions PRAH A Traffic Impact Analysis of ojthe Villagee at 617-1-0 Project Number: 12617-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 3 No Scale * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) �1 Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service P- u 1 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opequon Project Number: 12617-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 4 BenYville Pie *ftw 7 0 SITE o; ,%* i' * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) �1 Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service P- u 1 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opequon Project Number: 12617-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 4 2007 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes along Route 7 using a conservative growth rate of five percent (5%) per year through Year 2007. Additionally, PHR+A included all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located along Channing Drive and Valley Mill Road as obtained from the reports titled: A Tra is Impact Analysis of Carriage Park, by PHR+A, dated October 11, 2005 and A Tra is Impact Analysis Fieldstone, by PHR+A, dated November 21, 2003. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2007 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 4 shows the 2007 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 7/Haggerty Connector Road. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2007 background lane geometry and levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary PH A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opequon 17-1-0RA Project Number: 12617-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 5 AM Peak Hour 1'M Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount ADT In Out Total In Out Total 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 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 Haggerty Property 210 Single -Family Detached 128 units 25 74 99 84 50 134 1,280 230 Townhouse/Condo 176 units 14 67 81 64 32 96 1,531 Total 39 142 180 148 81 229 2,811 PH A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opequon 17-1-0RA Project Number: 12617-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 5 No Scale B� (952)1,2 Ajke t�v 788(2243) <89)23 �1 15(59) SITE G� a �b Na ,art ti q` G° q �b AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) L --D- -D -,A 1 w N�1 1 Figure 4 2007 Background Traffic Conditions PH RA A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opequon Project Number: 12617-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 6 No Scale rllePike 7 G Signalized �afi� �G1 Intersection LOS=B(B) SITE 0 e�qa o� fi 0 it ay*(9l� �rooa°a * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement A _ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5 2007 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opeguon 2617-1-0 ProjectRA Number: 12617-1-0 H September 08,2006 PPage 7 PROPOSED TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2 was prepared to summarize the total trip generation associated with the proposed Village at Opequon development. Table 2 Proposed Development: Village at Opequon Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 155 units 29 88 118 100 59 159 1,550 230 Townhouse/Condo 170 units 13 66 79 62 31 93 1,479 Total 43 154 197 162 89 252 3,029 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Village at Opequon trips (Table 2) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2007 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Village at Opequon 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 AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations through out the study area roadway network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2007 build -out lane geometry and AMIPM 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 Village at Opequon development are acceptable and manageable. Each of the study area intersections will achieve levels of service "C" or better assuming the lane geometry shown on Figure 9. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opequon Project Number: 12617-1-0PIu�+1 September 08,2006 Page 8 No Scale L1 ' ge�yvl jfe p'k e 7 ��0 1 G04 SITE Q) 0 o cS°0 d�IGr?� Din Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentage PfR.n A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opeauon Project Number: 12617-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 9 No Scale �e Ife pike (97)26 *0*- 7(65) Ci°��G h �bbry SITE � 0 N o� b h' -q t� D�ivN418J- V 1 (199IS4` $ 3 3� AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average A Daily Figure 7 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the ViLlaee atypequon Project Number: 12617-1-0 HR+A September 08,2006 Pa. -e10 No Scale I Be ( 788 � 86)4,®� WW4- ?3(124) g Lfi 7 .0 ��+► G SITE V o-0 b i 0 b`eb co FjaSc� ®�' q` Cao �I 208 �m jl q b AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) TD-, n Figure 8 2007 Build out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opeguon Project Number: 12617-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 11 No Scale B� ��Ill e 7 . ofi GG GG ^4� SITE d� o drrG� 1 IJ Unsignalized 21Signalized "Suggested Intersection Intersection ILnprovement" LOS=B(B) Signalization WB - 1 Left a e� (0 NB _ 3rd Leg Y D`I �e a(f�-n7S � do6O A(8) (A)n 7 e� c� AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) TT A 1 H N-1 L Figure 9 2007 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Village at Opegnon Project Number: 12617-1-0 ' hRA September 08,2006 Page 12 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff: Fee Amount Paid S Zoning Amendment Number Date Received 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 c/o Patrick Sowers Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street — Winchester Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: The Canyon c/o Dave Holliday Telephone: (540) 667-2120 Address: 420 Jub J Early Dr, Suite 103 Winchester, VA 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 9 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: The Canyon, LC David B. Holliday 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural/Vacant B) Proposed Use of the Property: Residential 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED. 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The Property is located South of the existin terminus of Eddys Lane (Rt 820 approximately 2,400 feet South of Route 7 and 1,650 West of Qpequon Creek. In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number: 55-A-210 Districts Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: Red Bud Greenwood Greenwood High School: Middle School: Elementary School: Millbrook James Wood Redbud Run 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested.__ 70.15 RA RP 70.15 Total acreage to be rezoned 2 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home 155 Townhome 170 Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant 12. Signature: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Flex - Warehouse Other I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowle4ge. Applicant(s) Date '/ �O Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) The Canyon, LC (Phone) 703.820.2500 (Address) 420 Jubal Early Drive Suite 130 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 Number: 06006113 and is described as Tax Map Parcel 55-A-210 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates (Phone) 540.667.2139 (Address) 117E Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits X Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. ik In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my,( gr) hand and seal this 0— day of _10 , 200 , Signature( State of Virginiarelfy/County of ,T I, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has a knowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this i6. Y_ ll day of V1iC, , 200' . "f "'i"" _ My Commission Expires: f 4� - NotaryLP,iibli �Ny N66'20'52'V 436.68' N86'42'3TW 1315,26' N69.29'38'W 8.73' 6.34'14'E 356.02' S65.58'39'E 22368' J N4D'15'18"W 13 .09' N29'20'43'W 90.1 5'n o a n 3 Ri 0 P h N 251332-v 4' by S�j7g 13. e Qo � 034.94, h�b �L h v o OPECQUON CROSS/NG Patton, Harris, Rust Associates, c P II` ZONING BOUNDARY 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 o p Q VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 V FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRCIN14