The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 10-03-07 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia October 3, 2007 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adoptthe Agenda for the meeting............................................................................ (no tab) 2) September 5, 2007 Minutes ..... 3) Committee Reports ........................... 4) Citizen Comments .............................. ....................................................................... (A) ............................................................ (no tab) ............................................................ (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #07-07 for Florence Heflin, for an Adult Care Residence. This property is located at 215 Stafford Drive (Route 1226), and is identified with Property Identification Number 54E -4-B-2 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Ms. Krempa...................................................................................................................... (B) 6) Authorization to Apply for a Virginia Department of Transportation Enhancement Grant to Implement Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in the Vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. Mr. Bishop....................................................................................................................... (C) 7) Ordinance Amendment — Zoning, Chapter 165-156. Definitions and Word Usage. Single Family. Mr. Lawrence............................................._..................................................................... (D) 8) Other FILE COPY 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 5, 2007. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chair nan/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director, Transportation Division; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Plamler; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Comrmissioner Ours, the Planning Commnission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting. MEETING MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Coni nissioner Ours, the minutes of August 1, 2007 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Rel4ulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 08/23/07 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS discussed a proposed subdivision ordinance amendment pertaining to sidewalk requirements; he said the intent was to develop a standard width. Commissioner Unger said the DRRS also discussed a proposed subdivision ordinance amendment dealing with the expansion of existing right-of-ways. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2099 Minutes of September 5, 2007 Ifil -2 - Transportation Committee — 08/27/07 Mtg. Corimussioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee discussed and took action on the following items: 1) The WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for adoption. There was discussion about the funding and the timing of construction. The committee stated that it should be funded from development, grants, and designated funds, and with tax dollars only if there were certain connections that needed to be made. Business sponsorship was suggested. 2) The VDOT Chapter 527 Regulations regarding Traffic Impact Analysis will be implemented on January 1, 2008. Frederick County will be affected only slightly, if at all, because of the current relationship with the Staunton District. 3) Staffwas instructed to proceed with writing a new enhancement grant. $140,000 was received last year, which is 20% of the total requested. Staff was instructed to proceed with preparing a grant for Safe Route to Schools Funds, which is funded at 100%. These grant monies will be used on Senseny Road. 4) The Transportation Committee will begin work on the Access Management Plan as directed by the Board of Supervisors. Access management is the systematic control of the location, spacing, design, and operation of driveways, median openings, interchanges, and street connections to a roadway. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 08/21/07 Mtg. Conmussioner Oates reported that the HRAB received a presentation by staff on updates to some sections of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and also some items for revisions. He said the HRAB studied those items and discussions will continue. Conunissioner Oates said a suggestion was raised for a county museum and library combination. He said Handley Library has received several donated items over the years and this would be a place to display these items. Commissioner Oates said a field trip is scheduled for Tuesday, September 11, 2007, to visit cormnunity centers and examine their surrounding historic features in order to determine how these could be integrated into the historic districts. He said the HRAB is also brainstorming on ways to make historic districts more appealing to landowners, with benefits similar to those in Agricultural Districts. Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) Commissioner Light reported that the CEA is working on their ongoing project for a gala to be held at the Discovery Museum on October 27, 2007. He said the purpose of the event is to enhance public awareness and raise money for the CEA for future programs. City of Winchester Planning Commission Chairman Wilmot reported that the Planning Commission for the City of Winchester discussed issues relating to home care, as well as over -crowding. She said a rezoning to expand some commercial areas was Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2100 Minutes of September 5, 2007 @1 AFT, also considered. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan 09-07 for Annandale Allied Industrial Park, submitted by Urban, Ltd., for industrial uses near the intersection of Shady Elm Road (Route 651) and Dawson Drive, adjacent to Route 37. This property is identified with P.I.N. 63-A-61 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this master development plan (MDF) is a proposal to develop 67.7 acres of M1 -zoned land with industrial land uses. No proffers are associated with the property. Ms. Perkins said the new development will be accessed off a new public street onto Shady Elm Road. She said the new road will be the only access point onto Shady Elm Road; all other entrances are prohibited. Ms. Perkins stated that the Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies Shady Elm Road as an improved major collector road. She noted this MDP will be providing improvements to Shady Elm Road, which will upgrade the road to a pavement width of 36 feet and provides curb, gutter, and sidewalks along the front of the property. Slie said the Eastern Road Plan also identifies anew interchange plan for Route 37 at Shady Elm Road; this MDP provides a land reservation for the interchange which will be dedicated without compensation within 180 days of a request from VDOT or Frederick County. Mr. Joe Johnson with Urban, LTD, the design and engineering firm representing the applicant, was available to answer questions from the Commission. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #09-07 for Annandale Allied Industrial Park, submitted by Urban, Ltd., for industrial uses near the intersection of Shady Elm Road (Route 65 1) and Dawson Drive, adjacent to Route 37. (Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2007�-44 Page 2101 -4 - Master Development Plan #10-07 for Renaissance Commercial Center, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for commercial uses on Valley Pike (Route 11), 200 feet south of its intersection with Prosperity Drive. This property is identified with P.I.N.s 75-A-2, 75 -A -2B, 75 -A -2C, and 75-A-211 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this master development plan (MDP) is a proposal to develop four tracts of land, which consists of 22.10 acres, for commercial land use. She stated that the 22.10 acres is comprised of 10.39 acres of B2 (Business General) -zoned property and 11.26 acres of B3 (Industrial Transition) -zoned property. Ms. Perkins said the primary access into the site will be from Renaissance Drive and the new drive will connect to Valley Pike_ She noted that the Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies Renaissance Drive as a new major collector road which will connect Valley Pike to Shady Elm Road; this MDP provides for the dedication of an 80 -foot right-of-way to accommodate the new major collector road and is constructing two lanes of the road through the development. The MDP also accounts for the extension of Prosperity Drive from its current cul-de-sac to connect into the new road. Ms. Perkins added that the MDP contains a note stating that only one full entrance will be permitted on Valley Pike, which will be the Renaissance Drive connection, but an additional note on the plan states that right -in, right -out entrances will not be prohibited. She pointed out that Valley Pike is classified as a minor arterial street and since this property will have direct access to Renaissance Drive, staff believes individual access to Valley Pike should be prohibited with this MDP. Ms. Perkins further added the applicant is requesting the Planning Commission grant a modification for the zoning district buffer, action from the Board of Supervisors on the modification is not required. She explained the applicant is proposing to take 60 required buffer plantings shown in the area of the distance screen and use those plantings to supplement the remainder of the buffer. She said the area of the requested modification is internal to the development, the buffer distance has not been reduced, and the number of trees has not been reduced, only shifted. In conclusion, Ms. Perkins stated that two actions are required for this MDP; one action is needed for the buffer modification and another action for the MDP, itself. Commissioner Thomas asked if the Planning Staff was agreeable to the applicant's proposal for a right -in, right -out on Valley Mill Road. Ms. Perkins said that it was not a desirable situation from the staff's point of view; however, the applicant can meet the entrance spacing requirements. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was representing the MDP for Renaissance Commercial Center. Mr. Wyatt explained that Prosperity Drive is an existing road segment which was built to serve the Kernsto Am Business Park. He said the properties and the road system associated with Kernstown Business Park are not a part of the Renaissance Commercial Center; He said the applicant is simply making a road connection to their road system at the staff's request. In addition, Mr. Wyatt said that VDOT was concerned about making sure their entrance was set to align with the Don Beyer Volvo entrance across Route 11. He said the applicant field -located the Don Beyer Volvo entrance, which was critical because the applicant agreed to fully fund traffic signalization at their main road entrance and this provides the Don Beyer Volvo entrance across the street an alignment for the future traffic signal. Mr. Wyatt said the MDP provides full frontage improvements along Route 11, which includes an additional travel lane and a taper/ turn lane into their entrance. Regarding the questions concerning the right -in, right -out, Mr. Wyatt said the ordinance sets entrance spacing requirements for full entrances. He said the applicant is willing to commit to limit the access on the north side of Renaissance Drive to a "right -in -only" and the access on the south side of Renaissance Drive as a "right -out -only." Mr. Wyatt believed the right -in, right -out options would assist traffic movement by Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2007' �„ Page 2102 n -5— eliminating the single point where all traffic is required to go to and from, thereby eliminating stacking and queuing problems. Mr. Wyatt stated that the applicant's reasons for shifting the buffer elements were based on the potential for shared parking and better land use planning between the two properties. Commissioner Unger had questions for Mr. Wyatt about extending Renaissance further north and possibly getting closer to Shady Elm, which will provide another travel way for traffic. Mr. Wyatt responded that the property line is the closest to Shady Elm as the applicant could get. He explained that the property immediately to the north is only an acre -and -a -half in size and it would severely limit the use of the property. In addition, both the Carbaugh and Brim properties are zoned agriculture. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Bishop, the County's Transportation Planner, to comment on the subject of a road extension to Shady Elm Road. Mr. Bishop replied that the Eastern Road Plan calls for a major collector roadway between Shady Elm Road and Route 11 and that is why the applicant has set aside the 80 feet. Mr. Bishop said that although the recent activity on the Carbaugh property did not come to fruition, he was confident that another user would come along and the road would eventually be built. Commissioner Oates asked for Mr. Bishop's opinion about the right -in, right -out situation. Mr. Bishop replied that access management recognizes a hierarchy of roads. He said the highest priority road at this location is Route 11 and that is the road to keep traffic moving with minimal delays. In addition, he said this area was not median -controlled. Mr. Bishop said the applicant can meet entrance spacing per the current code; however, the staff's preference is to have Renaissance be the sole access for those two parcels. Commission members next spoke with Mr. Bishop about other traffic signals planned for this immediate area. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Conunissioner Morris asked Mr. Wyatt to describe the lane markings for the right -in, right -out portions. Mr. Wyatt stated that pavement arrows would show the movement of Route 11; he said there was a significant 250 -foot turn -taper lane going into Renaissance Drive. Mr. Wyatt believed it was more beneficial to have the right -in, right *out, rather than limiting all the traffic to one access point. He said if it was done correctly, It would provide traffic opportunities to get in and out without loading everything to one point. It was Commissioner Oates' view that any additional entrances other than Renaissance Drive should have its own taper lane to get traffic out of the movement going into Renaissance Drive. Mr. Wyatt said that they will do whatever is required for a safe design at site plan and will follow VDOT's standards. Commissioner Light said he preferred having the same style of entrance on Renaissance as there was on Prosperity, particularly the green space, the open front area and building setback, so there is some consistency of design in this area. He said if Renaissance is ever extended to Shady Elm, a safer situation would be created by Renaissance controlling all of the traffic, rather than having multiple entrances and exits from Prosperity to DMV. Commissioner Morris said that given the current ordinance, the applicant is making a compromise on what is allowed and what the situation could be with regards to entrance spacing. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2007 Page 2103 Conunissioner Unger made a motion to approve the buffer modification as requested by the applicant and also recommended approval of Master Development Plan 410-07 of Renaissance Commercial Center. This motion was seconded by Coirunissioner Manuel. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby approve the buffer modification request for Master Development Plan 410-07 for Renaissance Commercial Center and does also recommend approval of Master Development Plan 410-07 for Renaissance Conunercial Center, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for commercial uses on Valley Pike (Route 11), 200 feet south of its intersection of Prosperity Drive. The majority vote was as follows YES (TO APPROVE): Molm, Kerr, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Light, Morris, Manuel, Unger NO: Oates, Wilmot (Note: Conunissioners Triplett and Watt were absent from the meeting.) REVIEW OF THE WINFRED MPO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY PLAN Action — Recon mended Transportation Deputy Director, John A. Bishop, reported that the WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan was grant -funded and wider development for more than 18 months. Its purpose is to elevate bicycle and pedestrian mobility plarming in the Frederick County, Winchester, and Stephens City area. Mr. Bishop said the project has been undertaken by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), of which Frederick County is a member. The plan has now been released for public continent and staff is in the process of taking it through the Cowity's committee structure to allow the Board to choose whether or not to endorse, prior to the MPO's Policy Committee's vote scheduled to take place on September 19, 2007. He said the Transportation Connnittee has provided their endorsement. In addition to the County's committee structure, he said there is also a public meeting scheduled for Thursday evening, September 6, 2007, from 4:00-7:00 p.m., at the Our Health Center on North Cameron Street. Conunissioner Oates said it was his understanding that the County has no money set aside for this plan at this time; however, by creating the plan, the County will be able to seek funding sources. Mr. Bishop replied that within the implementation chapter, Chapter 6, there is a listing by locality of projects and time frames in which those projects are reconunended to be undertaken_ Currently, the language is somewhat cloudy and appears to promise something that current budget actions are not actually able to promise; therefore, that language is in the process of being clarified. Mr. Bishop said that when applying for a grant, one of the first questions on the grant application is whether there is an adopted plan that supports the seeking of grant money. He said that an adopted plan is very beneficial to the funding process. Commissioner Morris commented that implementation of the plan would be a long-term effort, but this was a great first start. He asked how this plan would be incorporated within the Comprehensive Policy Plan and County codes. Mr. Bishop said that after the plan is adopted, the staff would begin working on what goes into the Comprehensive Policy Plan; he said only those portions of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan dealing with Frederick County would go into the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In addition, not all of Frederick County is covered in the plan. Mr. Bishop said the Frederick County portion would be expanded, key points Frederick County Planning Commission f-, �, al I Page 2104 Minutes of September 5, 2007 F -7 - would be extracted, and those portions would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Chairman Wilmot inquired about the priorities within the document. Mr. Bishop said that some of the short-terin priorities identify areas in the County that are either reaching a built -out or areas that may be gaps. For example, a portion of Senseny Road, from I-81 towards Greenwood Road, is built out and is without the amenities sought. He said it is unlikely the County will be able to come from behind and get developer - sponsored improvements. Mr. Bishop said these are the targeted areas, along with the gaps, where suggested treatments are identified. Commissioner Morris connnnented that committee members who worked on the plan were focused on a transportation solution, rather than a recreational opportunity. Commissioner Mohn commented there will be multiple methods used to implement this plan and he believed it was completely achievable. In addition, it would provide the framework for the County, the City, the Town, and the development community to work together. Chairman Wilmot next called for public continent and the following person came forward to speak: Ms. Joanne Leonardis, a resident of the Red Bud District and a member of Preserve Frederick, came forward to speak in favor of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan. Ms. Leonardis read a statement for the Cominission in favor of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the community. She said that currently, roads in Frederick County are not accessible to pedestrians. Ms. Leonardis said that many children do not have the option of biking or walking to school and County schools and their recreational facilities are not accessible to children. She spoke about the correlation of overweight children and the lack of exercise; she said making the County schools accessible to children should be made a priority and it is where the Mobility Plan should begin. Ms. Leonardis said all possibilities needed to be explored to implement this Mobility Plan. She said that pedestrian mobility offers the opportunity to connect on a hunnan scale to nature, to other people, and to the community; she believed pedestrian mobility was essential to citizens' health, well-being, and happiness. Connnussioner Kriz made a motion to endorse the WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan and to forward it to the Board of Supervisors with the Planning Conic nission's endorsement. This motion was seconded by Coimnissioner Manuel and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commnission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the WinFred MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan and forwards the plan to the Board of Supervisors with a positive endorsement. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Residential Performance District, Section 165-65, Dimensional Requirements. This proposed amendment deals with detached accessory structures on single-family small lots. Senior Planner Candice Perkins reported that the staff has recently received inquiries from the public regarding the pennissibility of detached accessory buildings on lots created under the single-family, small - lot housing type. Ms. Perkins said the zoning ordinance prohibits detached accessory structures on this type of lot. She said within the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, the single-family small lot is the only Frederick County Planning Commission IQ! j 1 1 H Page 2105 Minutes of September 5, 2007 +( u1` Wa housing type not permitted to have this type of structure. She said the ordinance amendment proposed is to permit single-family small lots to have one detached accessory structure that does not exceed 150 square feet. Ms. Perkins said the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS), at their meeting on July 26, 2007, endorsed the text amendment, as well as the limitation on the size of the detached accessory structure. Commissioner Oates commented that this Ite,a. had le..gthy discussion at the DRRS meeting. Other Commission members believed the amendment was reasonable. No issues or areas of concern were raised. The Commission instructed the staff to forward the amendment to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 165-82, District Use Regulations. This proposed amendment deals with grocery/food stores in the B3 (Industrial Transition) District. Colrunissioner Oates said that he would abstain from all discussion on flus item due to a possible conflict of interest. Senior Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the Plaluling Staff has received inquiries regarding the allowance of grocery or food stores within the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District. Ms. Perkins said the zoning ordinance permits SIC 54, which is food stores, in the B 1 (Neighborhood Business) District and the B2 (Business General) District. She read the list of allowable uses in the SIC 54 category. Ms. Perkins said the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered this item at their meeting on July 26, 2007. She said there was discussion on allowing family-oriented businesses into an industrial area and whether it would be compatible. She said there was also discussion on the size of the food and grocery stores that would be appropriate in a B3 (Business General) District. Ms. Perkins said the consensus reached was that SIC 54, with a size limitation of 10,000 square feet, excluding storage and warehousing, would be appropriate. She noted that the size limitation would allow small, convenience -type stores which could serve the surrounding area, but would preclude larger operations. Ms. Perkins stated that the proposed ordinance amendment is to pen -nit SIC 54, un its entirety, in the B3 District, with a supplementary section that would limit the building square footage used for retail sales of grocery or food products to 10,000 square feet, and would not include areas used for storage and warehousing of products. Commissioner Thomas said when the DRRS originally discussed this, his perception was that the focus was on small convenience stores to serve people working in a designated area, and would strictly be limited to SIC 54-11, not bakeries, fruit and vegetable markets, confectionary stores, and others. Commissioner Thomas said he would like to see this amendment limited to just SIC 54-11, not the entire SIC 54, because he did not believe the other uses were appropriate in industrial parks. He said the DRRS was referring more to convenience stores that would supply the employees in an industrial park, and not to pull traffic in from outside of the industrial park. Other Commissioners who were members of the DRRS agreed. No other issues were raised. The Commission instructed the staff to forward the amendment to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2007 Pag62106 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2007 Page 2107 CO�� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #07-07 w� FLORENCE HEFLIN Staff Report for the Planning Commission •w Prepared: September 10, 2007 Staff Contact: Lauren E. Krempa, Planner I This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter: Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 10/03/07 Pending Board of Supervisors: 11/14/07 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 215 Stafford Drive (Route 1226) in the Frederick Heights Subdivision. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 54E -4-B-2 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential Dwelling ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential& Pump Station South: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: This application is for a proposed adult care residence, to be located within the existing residential dwelling on the property. CUP #07-07. Florence Heflin September 10, 2007 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 1226, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT commercial standards. Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plans approved as submitted. Frederick County Inspections: Adult care facility with five or less occupants shall remain in the same use group without a change provided the structure complies with the occupant load limits approved on the existing Certificate of Occupancy. Adult care facility that accommodates more than five shall require a change of use building permit to (Residential) R-4 use group in accordance to the International Building Code/2003. A floor plan shall be submitted for review at the time of permit application and a new certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior to operation. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: House appears to be serviced by public water and sewer. If so, the Health Department cannot comment as it does not regulate public water and sewer. If the house is serviced by private well and drainfield, the owner must provide records of such usage before comments can be given. Winchester Regional Airport: No comment — would not impact airside operations. City of Winchester: No comments. Plannine and Zoning. Convalescent and nursing homes, adult care residences, and assisted living facilities are permitted in the RP (Residential Performance) zoning district with an approved conditional use permit. This application is for an adult care residence to be located within the existing residence at 215 Stafford Drive. The applicant has proposed a small scale operation which appears to have little measurable impacts on the surrounding properties. In an effort to eliminate any impacts on surrounding residents, all elements of this care facility should take place within the existing residence located on the property. In conformance with the County's regulations regarding accessory dwellings, the area within the existing house which will be set aside for the purpose of this adult care facility should be no more than 25 % of the total square footage of the house. This would permit an apartment suite within the existing house or the use of existing bedrooms for the purposes of the proposed facility, depending upon the needs of the CUP #07-07, Florence Heflin September 10, 2007 Page 3 applicant. To eliminate the impacts associated with the presence of visitors on the property, staff feels it is appropriate to limit the visitation hours and require that all vehicles associated with this facility be parked on the property of 215 Stafford Drive. This eliminates disputes over on -street parking, as well as confining the impacts of visitation to the applicant. The applicant is a Certified Nursing Assistant and the co-owner of the property is a Licensed Practical Nurse. Therefore, no outside employees other than the residents of 215 Stafford Drive have been requested. The applicant originally intended to care for a maximum of two adults at a time; however, based upon the Building Official's comment, staff feels that a maximum of five care receiving occupants is appropriate. In addition, there should be no more than one care receiving occupant per bedroom. Given the small scale of this proposed application, staff feels that additional employees are unnecessary and would only create an impact to surrounding property owners. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 10/03/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. The adult care residence facility shall take place entirely inside the existing residential dwelling, located at 215 Stafford Drive. 2. No more than 25% of the existing residential structure shall be used for the purposes of this adult care residence and no more than five occupants shall be allowed on the property for the purpose of the adult care residence at any time. There shall be no more than one care receiving occupant per bedroom. 3. No signs shall be posted on the property advertising the adult care residence. 4. Visiting hours for the adult care residence shall be limited to between the hours of 10 am and 9 pm. All visitor vehicles should be parked on the property of 215 Stafford Drive. 5. No employees, other than residents of 215 Stafford Drive, are permitted on the property. G. One business vehicle shall be permitted on the property for the transport of occupants. 7. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. Frederick County, VA Conditional Use Penn it CUP 4 07 - 07 Application Location in the County Map Features O Hamlets +!+ Future Rt37 Bypass 0 Application 0 Lakes/Ponds Streams Streets a Primary ^. Secondary '�- Tertiary Winchester Rds Urban Development Area SWSA •0 Greeriwo;: Florence Heflin Parcel ID: 54E -4-B-2 Location in Surrounding Area 0L50 5np ��Gti CpG�. Case Planner: Lauren r ----•••—•°• vim•• •-••n•^a.^ "�•�r�l�rrrcrn� r w�at�r rvtjJsvtUtenGerleTlln I.VYU/U/ u9u/u/.mxd) 9/13/2007 -- 10:33:o0AM - I- - ._. _..__. ._....._,.,,. ,,, .,, _v;..,r vr.0 inu I a1 ioicvur -- [U:JJ:UU HM 1 - 07 r 14 •-�-•—� CAMFFI�CD,.LLC .,'. - .55 '!$fi ■ « Frederick County, VA ,A _ CAMPFfELf), LLC K CAh1pF1ELU, LLC ,,.. Conditional Use % Permit CUP 4 07 - 07 Application ' S4 3 t �' '•' - CAlllf FlEkfl, LLC -- 3 Florence ce Heflin y ,, - , �'",. ,,•" Parcel ID: II - i 54E - 4 - B - 2 rA& Location in the County Map Features y +rte O Hamlets Future Rt37 Bypass . R i wr-�`. �: ¢ ® Application • r I. ` 1 '� / ti_ _ �(t'' v - ,: .,.• Lakes/Ponds ^— Streams streets Primary Secondary ,_ « a - '�• Tertiary - - Winchester Rds .1 Urban Development Area SWSA -� Greeo,n a 1 � S « v ..................... r CARPER FARM NQRfiH, LLC::Y - -' - L ' y Location in Surrounding Area - - _ Urecna;rjvJg4F COG AGK 0 1.110 500 t I wGO Case Planner: Lauren Min rinr,imn..i• /AI•\DL. A—A n. -•••••••y—•,...._.......wp.nicnn_�_�.vx.alVi_1v1t1JxrIVIC1IVCrlCr111I �,uru./ur uau/u�.mxgla/�i3i;�UU/--�0:33:COAM - --- Iui uyuIuI.Inxu) W Ia/zuUI -- "IU:33:UUAM Submittal P/C BOS APPLICATION FOR CONDI FREDERICK COUNT adline eeting eeting / r IONAL USE PERMIT , VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner NAME: , Flo rt,n C,u M f/c Fll-h ADDRESS: �f ,* o r i( X01-1 1,4/, in CJ,d -r it K4t TELEPHONE ) 7J 10f other) 2. Please hist all owners, occupants,or parties in interest F/of the property: i Aw 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road ori street) rC I U 1 Ff Q rd ✓ 1 y C �l�/ n cls: C T/ L- o+/ 1y� �� C 0 R- Z V- r ICA ICA Ac.44 5. 0 /-1 4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of /4/S, b,' feet and consists of 3.la 3 acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by C� as evidenced by deed from Ge rrecorded SEP 5 2", _ (previ `us owner) in deed book no. a i5 on page as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Ci cuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification Nq. Magisterial District 1 G.' s lL Current Zoning / D Frei L(ii L 4.[� 7. Adjoining Property: USE iZONING, North - �0145�. East re� f' 'i . c South West P, PL < L- 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before I completing) L'T,-n,4, I I I 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to broth sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These peo le will be notified by mail of this application: NAME -r-- ►� 7 "r ADDRESS r v PROPERTY ID# Z-, 7L L i NAME o ADDRESS PROPERTY ID#T NAME A,4 ADDRESS I/ -c PROPERTY IR NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS Lot 1 11. Please use this page for your sket'h of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all prop$rty lines. N Y0 f 7 --- 6 /fini l a, n -I '0 ✓ t U L13 f �Ot 25, 10' Unurr EASEMENT fvubv 590 t TO U"'W D&W N J93000" E 90.001 LDT 2 13,104 S0. FT. F-1 Ld'Wo14 qL�k sz r' e 15Ti7RY e � iQ RESIMNCE 9 j 215 v WIRES q i ' WWWAY Ovh WRES S 3930100' W 90.00' "yrN 1- p I STAFFORD Dill VE 56' R-0— W 2 4 2 VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COU�1TY' SCT. HOUSE LQCAi10.�J SURVEY Thls instrument of writing iso produced �to�" me on tho ON �vtlay of 'P^ i 9 , s! �{�.�1 J�I71 �0% and with corlillcato of ack ovvlodgment �lhnruto annoxed was admitted to record. Tax Imposod by Sec. SA.1•602 of SEC 7701V .B �.. �� and 58.1.1301 havo boon paid, 11 assessable. FREDERICK HEIGHTS DEED BOA'! 295 PAGE J14 SHAWEE DISTRICT CIRrIS FREDERICK COUNTY, 149GYNIA THIS PLAT HAS BEM PREPARED YATHWT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT DA TE. FEBRUARY 9, 194 SCALE.• 1' --JO' AND DOES NOT NEMSSAMLY INDICATE AU ENCz WBRANCES W THE PROPERTY - OWNER: CANNON PURCHASER, HEFLIN W..0. 4 94048 �'V OF' � FLOOD NOTE — r.Q ZONE, C COMMUNITY NO. 51006) PANEL: 07158 DATE• 07--17-78, ARCHIL ECTS ENGINEERS U 9 PLANNERS Ch e Jr. & A-E=TES SURVEYORS No. 001945 12. Additional comments, if ny: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby resp and petition the governing body of Fred allow the usedescribed in this applica the sign issued to me when this applica placed at the front property line at le to the first public hearing and maintai: until after the Board of Supervisors' pi application for a Conditional Use Permi- of the Frederick County Planning Commis, Supervisors or Planning and Development your property where the proposed use wi= �ctfully make application !rick County, Virginia to :ion. I understand that :ion is submitted must be Lst seven (7) days prior ed so as to be visible blic hearing. Your authorizes any member ion, Board of Department to inspect 1 be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner .� Owners' Mailing Address J J Z� Slee W, n Ar 54(r Owners' Telephone No. L) 17 d -I lb - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: :_7 • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation RE: Enhancement Grant Application DATE: September 17, 2007 County staff has been working to refine an application for a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Enhancement Grant for the current application cycle. Enhancement Grants are federal funds that are awarded by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on an annual basis for improvements to bicycle and pedestrian transportation. This is a grant with a local match component of 20%. As is the case with many VDOT grant programs, the application process itself does not obligate County funds. In the event that the County receives an award, the Board of Supervisors would determine at that time whether to commit funds with the hope that private funds would be available to cover the match requirement. For this year's application cycle, staff has recommended an application for enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. This is a continuation of this project which was awarded $140,000.00 based upon last year's application. The proposed project would add paved multiuse paths to the northern and southern sides of Senseny Road between I-81 and the Orrick Commons project. The project would also include improvements to the crossovers of roadways traversed by the paths and an additional crossover of Senseny Road at Senseny Elementary. Attached, please find a graphic depicting the project area. This project would serve as an important cornerstone for a future pedestrian and bicycle system extending further East along Senseny Road and into the City of Winchester. The Transportation Committee is considering this proposal at their September 24, 2007 meeting. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 A Affillbli-1. -qq EC.1'011.h COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Use TAB KEY to reach each field. FY 2008 - 2009 PROJECT APPLICATION FORM *'AAPPLICATION DEADLINE NOVEMBER 1, 2007** Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 9/16/07 In.ctructionc for cam nletinu each field nnnear an the etntnc har at the hnttnm of thn art;- .. ...a .., 'P-_ vi r— , A I:L: G. Transportation Enhancement Categories (Check all that apply — See Enhancement brochure for details of categories) I. ® Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 2. ❑ Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Education 3. ❑ Acquisition of Scenic or Historic Easements and Sites, including Historic Battlefields 4. ❑ Scenic or Historic Highway Programs, including Tourist and Welcome Centers 5. ❑ Landscaping and Scenic Beautification 6. ❑ Historic Preservation 7. ❑ Rehabilitation and Operation of Historic Transportation Building, Structures, or Facilities 8. ❑ Preservation of Abandoned Railway Corridors and Conversion to Trails 9. ❑ Inventory, Control, and Removal of Outdoor Advertising 10. ❑ Archaeological Planning and Research 11. ❑ Environmental Mitigation of Runoff Pollution and Provision of Wildlife Connectivity 12. ❑ Establishment of Transportation Museum H. Relationship to a Previously I First critical step in developing key network connections to the city of Winchester which has Funded Enhancement Project had a number of enhancement grants for the Green Circle. L Critical Milestone Dates and Endorsements (Attach copy of the public notice and all resolutions endorsing the project) a. Public Hearing 10/15/2007 b. Local Government Endorsement 10/15/2007 c. MPO Resolution Endorsement ❑ Check if not applicable 10/17/2007 Name: Frederick County, VA Department of Planning and Development A. Applicant (Group, Agency, etc.) Address: 107 N. Kent Street Suite 202 City, State Zip Winchester, VA 22601 Telephone: 540-665-5651 Email Address: jbishop@co.frederick.va.us Name: B. Project Sponsor (if different from A.) Name and Address Address: City, State Zip Telephone: Email Address: Name: John Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation Telephone: 540-665-5651 Fax: 540-665-6395 C. Responsible Person/Title — Sponsor: Email: jbishop@co.frederick.va.us Name: John Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation Telephone: 540-665-5651 Fax: 540-665-6395 D.' Project Manager' Email: jbishop@co.frederick.va.us E. Project Title: Senseny Road Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements F. Project Description: Installation of asphalt multiuse paths along Senseny Road in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary G. Transportation Enhancement Categories (Check all that apply — See Enhancement brochure for details of categories) I. ® Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 2. ❑ Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Education 3. ❑ Acquisition of Scenic or Historic Easements and Sites, including Historic Battlefields 4. ❑ Scenic or Historic Highway Programs, including Tourist and Welcome Centers 5. ❑ Landscaping and Scenic Beautification 6. ❑ Historic Preservation 7. ❑ Rehabilitation and Operation of Historic Transportation Building, Structures, or Facilities 8. ❑ Preservation of Abandoned Railway Corridors and Conversion to Trails 9. ❑ Inventory, Control, and Removal of Outdoor Advertising 10. ❑ Archaeological Planning and Research 11. ❑ Environmental Mitigation of Runoff Pollution and Provision of Wildlife Connectivity 12. ❑ Establishment of Transportation Museum H. Relationship to a Previously I First critical step in developing key network connections to the city of Winchester which has Funded Enhancement Project had a number of enhancement grants for the Green Circle. L Critical Milestone Dates and Endorsements (Attach copy of the public notice and all resolutions endorsing the project) a. Public Hearing 10/15/2007 b. Local Government Endorsement 10/15/2007 c. MPO Resolution Endorsement ❑ Check if not applicable 10/17/2007 J. Federal Enhancement Funds Requested in this Application, (Maximum 80%) $1,517,600.00 K. Match Required AU'TOMAT1C FI for details I (Minimum 20%) 1 $379,400.00 L. Match Breakdown by Source (include value of in-kind/donations) Status (check appropriate status) Amount County Staff Support and Management of Project ® Confirmed El Anticipated $130,000.00 Donated Right of Way along Corridor ❑ Confirmed ® Anticipated $5,000.00 County General Funds ❑ Confirmed N Anticipated $244,400.00 ❑ Confirmed ❑ Anticipated THIS TOTAL MUST MATCH ENTRY IN ITEM K TOTAL $379,400.00 M. Other Funding Sources Available (beyond match Status (check appropriate status) Amount ❑ Confirmed ❑ Anticipated ❑ Confirmed ❑ Anticipated TOTAL $0.00 N. Project Budget: As Attachment A, enclose a complete project budget. If the project includes multiple phases, show each phase. Budeet nroiections should reflect the total Droiect cost, including that for federal and non-federal funds. O. Selection Criteria: Complete Attachment B — Include pictures, maps and support documents. Attach additional sheets as needed. By signing below, Project Sponsor indicates their understanding that these are federal funds, that project development must comply with all federal and state guidelines, and that they are responsible for future maintenance and operating costs of the completed project. P. Sponsor Signature (person responsible) Date MAILING ADDRESS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Please mail FIVE copies of your completed application package to the following address: For Technical Assistance Contact: Mr. Michael A. Estes Winky Chenault (804) 786-2264 Toll Free: (800) 444-7832 Local Assistance Division Pamela Liston (804) 786-2734 Fax: (804) 371-0847 Virginia Department of Transportation Erica Jeter (804) 786-9125 1401 East Broad Street Cynthia Clark (804) 371-6289 Richmond, Virginia 23219 EnhancementPrograi-n@VDOT.Virginia.a-,ov Attachment A Anticipated Project Budget Preliminary Engineering Phase Engineering\Design\Survey Fees...............$218,250.00 VDOT Review Fees..............................$101,850.00 Grant Administrative Costs .....................$72,750.00 Total PE Costs...................................$392,850.00 Right of Way Phase Right of way costs/utility relocation .......... $1,242,650.00 Total ROW Costs................................$1,242,650.00 Construction Phase Construction Costs...............................$436,500.00 Total CN Costs....................................$436,500.00 Total Costs ................................................$2,072,000.00 FY 2008 - 2009 ATTACHMENT B f n.4 p ,; r N x, r i o n SELECTION CRITERIA E L�l�itCliritl�ri>� THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICANTS COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA A. Applicant (Group, Agency, etc.) Name: Frederick County, VA Department of Planning and Development Address: 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 202 City, State Zip Winchester, VA 22601 B. Project Title: Senseny Road Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements f C. Complete the following questions providing as much detail as possible while including examples when available. Responses will automatically expand to additional sheets as needed. 1. Relationship to Transportation — What service or function will this project, or has this project, provided for the traveling public? How will it impact transportation? This improvement provides the opportunity for a number of subdivisions to access amenities along Senseny Road including Senseny Road Elementary, Church Services, and Convenience shopping without being forced to use their vehicles. In addition improving this access would reduce automobile trips on a very heavily traveled facility. This project has been expanded since the last fiscal year application and now includes an extended length which attaches to a newly approved shopping center with anchor grocery store and their proffered trail system. This will give added convenience to the surrounding localities and give them access to a full service grocery store in addition to the convenience shopping opportunities along this planned path. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Demonstrated Need — What need(s) will this project fulfill within the community? The Senseny Road corridor is a heavily traveled roadway at the heart of one of the most densely populated areas of Frederick County. Though it offers a number of amenities mentioned above, it does not have so much as a sidewalk to offer the residents opportunity to access those amenities. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Project Usefulness and/or Benefit — What purpose will this project serve and how will it benefit the community? Is there strong community support? In addition to giving the pedestrian a bicycle alternative to travelers to shopping, it will also offer families the opportunity to walk their children to and from school and church services. The improved access also grants greater community access to the elementary school which really serves as a park for these neighborhoods which lack park facilities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Amenities/Support Facilities — What facilities are available and/or included in this proposal? What means of access will be available? This proposal would bring better access to Senseny Road to a number of subdivisions as shown in the included map. These subdivisions, individually, do not have significant traffic on their local streets which makes those streets fairly safe for bicycle and pedestrian activity. However, this link would allow those residents to safely travel via foot or bicycle beyond the borders of their subdivision, thus improving their quality of life and reducing automobile trips on this corridor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Educational/Historical — Explain the history and/or scenic significance of this project. What educational experience will be rovided? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Project Resources — How has the community involved itself in this project? What support has been provided? Has funding and/or land been secured? Is this a continuation of an existing project, and if so, what is the status of that project? This corridor has long been planned for this type of improvements and the surrounding community has always been very supportive. This segment is seen as a critical first link of a bicycle pedestrian corridor that will run from the city of Winchester to Clark County. County staff has worked and will continue to work to further this project and the Board of Supervisors has given their support. `. If this project has received Enhancement funds in prior years, complete the following: Lnhancement Award by Year (include Federal Enhancement funds only; do not include applicant match or other non-federal participation). Identify if the award was applied to a prior phase of a multi -phased project. Year Award Applied Toward/Phase 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 140,000.00 Not yet applied, agreement not yet completed. Total 140,000.00 +►',. aY � _ , S.� CFCIM AfJ?E4 i, � � � � ,- `u.. _ • _ ti �.. liERtlAr;F HILL$. , ,'�•, ; ,,kms-� c.,,;,{ - 't- ABRAMSPUINI . m •'�'•fb�I;.LIN{: r If r�[tc •e J. y . , ,_ . , i • r' �I wl- Ikk `.. * IRF-Bf Rft: It Ti 1 1,1.i �F ti CkIISSING - - -� - - ORRICK COMMONS '.le ,, ��x_C rr. Caa'' � ,H FATION "�.AIkYlt4YF_'$TATE � �+� -:;y�s _ � - a • I •. r ' - L?•,' =' - - ' Ga!-[ralatlUJ HI [r:firr % ,a. '!• YI * : �, ..fes r y r � � f •„` �,'r 34 Ila ti' ON Iliilr•ATS - 'r _ �• 1° d + r y s ” 1 � t '�' . F , ♦��. a � 'FA * - - �'�_'*�.�AYEfd FYtdMdk�1 ._.>` n 0 0 OtJNTY of +RED IN(-' Department of P!.anning and Developwent MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director�� SUBJECT: Public tearing — Zoning Ordinance Amendment Section 165-156 Definition of Single Family DATE: September 18, 2007 At the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 12, 2007, staff was directed to proceed to a public hearing at the Planning Commission and seek the Commission's recommendation regarding a definition of Single Family. This public hearing has been scheduled for the Planning Commission's October 3, 2007 meeting. The Commission's recommendation regarding the adoption of the definition into the Zoning Ordinance will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Proposed amendment to the definition section of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance: 165-156. Definitions and word usage. SINGLE-FAMILY- Two (2) or more persons related by blood or marriage occupying a dwelling, living together and maintaining a household, which may include not more than one (1) unrelated person; however, not more than three (3) unrelated persons occupying a dwelling, living together and maintaining a household shall be deemed to constitute a single-family. Background The County's Public Works Committee, a Subcommittee of the Board of Supervisors, has been evaluating the safety concerns with the occupancy loading of residential structures. On August 28, 2007, the Committee forwarded a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that would result in amendments to the County Code in relation to Property Maintenance (Chapter 54, which is enforced by the Building Official) and creating a definition of Single Family within the Zoning Ordinance. The Board has directed the Planning Commission to consider the Zoning Ordinance amendment during a public hearing. Please contact staff should you have questions. ERL/bad 107 forth bent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000