The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 04-19-06 Meeting AgendaFILE COPY AGEN. FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia April 19, 2006 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) March 15, 2006 Minutes...................................................................................................(A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Rezoning #05-06 of Commonwealth Business Park, Ventures I of Winchester, LLC, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 12 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition Business) District to B2 (General Business) District with proffers. The property is located on Commonwealth Court (Route 1167), north of the Route 11 and Route 37 Interchange, in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 75- A -91B. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B) 5) Rezoning #06-06 of Cedar Meadows (Age -Restricted Community), submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 29.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers, for 140 single family homes. The properties are located on the west side of White Oak Road (Route 636), approximately 0.6 miles south of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road (Route 642), in the Opequon Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 75-A-106, 75-A-107, 75-A-114, 75-A-115, 75-A- 116 and 86-A-153. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (C) 6) To consider a request to revise the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan, including expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Round Hill area includes land generally located north and south of Northwestern Pike (Route 50), west of Route 37, and east of Crinoline Lane in the Gainesboro and Back Creek Magisterial Districts. Mrs. Edd ............ (D) PUBLIC MEETING 7) Master Development Plan #02-06 for LLE, LLC Route 11 Property, submitted by Potesta and Associates, Inc., for commercial uses. The properties are located on Valley Pike (Route 11), near the intersection of Apple Valley Road, and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 63-A-89, 63 -A -89A and 63-A-92, in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Ms. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (E) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 8) Ordinance Amendment — Article VI — RP Residential Performance District, 165-64 — Recreation Facilities - Waiver of Community Centers in Single Family Small -Lot Subdivisions Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (F) 9) Planning Commission Bylaws Mr. Lawrence................................................................................... . ............................... (G) 10) UDA Update Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (H) 11) Other • C: • 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 March 15, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary R Oates, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At - Large; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice Perkins, Plainer II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. TWIMMTES Upon motion made by Conunissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of the February 1, 2006 Planning Conunission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 02/23/06 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed signs and recreational units in small - lot developments. Conunissioner Thomas said the small -lot development amendment will come before the Planning Commission within the next month; he said the sign issue will take much more discussions. Frederick County Platnning Cora nission Pae 1699 Minutes of March 15, 2006 ® g -2 - CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments; however, no one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning 902-06 of Shenandoah University, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) to rezone 1.2 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to HE (Higher Education) District with proffers. The properties are located on the east and west sides of Tulane Drive (Rt. 797), approximately 650 feet north of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50). The property is also identified with P.LN.s 64-A-109 and 64-A- 110 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval With Proffers and a Caveat Commissioner Ours said that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this rezoning application, due to a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the properties are located within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and within the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. He said the Eastern Frederick County Land Use Plan recognizes the institutional character of the university in this area and, therefore, the HE (Higher Education) land use designation would be an appropriate application to the properties in this general area, with the appropriate recognition of the adjoining residential subdivision. Referring to a letter from VDOT, dated May 2, 2005, Mr. Ruddy said that VDOT recommended that the applicant proffer all access via Tulane Drive as opposed to the Price Drive location. He stated that no additional measurable transportation impacts are anticipated from the development of this site. Mr. Ruddy said that in recognition of the adjacent residential subdivision and in order to ensure that the anticipated HE (Higher Education) land uses are appropriately integrated with the adjacent residential land uses, the zoning ordimance enables the Planning Connnission to require distance buffers and landscape screening. He noted that staff has previously encouraged the applicant to be proactive with regards to any landscaping and screening that could be applied to this property in anticipation of any future long-term land uses above and beyond what might be on the property today. Mr. Ruddy added that the proffer package submitted with this rezoning contains only one proffer which seeks to address access to the site; however, it does not appear to limit site access in any real fashion and does not address the comment provided by VDOT. He recommended a more desirable approach may be to limit the traffic from future uses of this site to Tulane Drive in order to assure that Price Drive remains residential in character. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., a member of the Board of Trustees at Shenandoah University and a member of the university's building committee, came forward and introduced himself and Patrick Sowers with Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A), who would be presenting this rezoning to the Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 15, 2006 -, 0 i J Page 1700 -3 - Mr. Patrick Sowers explained that the property in question was cut out of the larger 114 -acre tract in the 1980's and is not a portion of Pembridge Heights, which begins with the lot immediately north; he said that none of the restrictive covenants of Pembridge Heights would apply to this parcel. Mr. Sowers stated that the size of this property limits the intensity of the use for the property and, furthermore, the ultimate use of the property has not yet been decided. He said that once the use has been decided, appropriate screening could be determined and addressed at the site plan stage. Mr. Sowers added that the current access is via Tulane Drive with a four-way intersection on Route 50 East. Commissioner Kriz asked why the applicant doesn't proffer out the entrance to Price Drive. Mr. Sowers replied that since the use has not yet been determined, the applicant would like to maintain as much flexibility as possible. Mr. Sowers stated that any commercially -designed entrances will have to be approved by VDOT and, if VDOT chose not to have an entrance of this type on Price Drive, then it would not be allowed. Commissioner Oates inquired why the B2 parcel immediately to the west, which is owned by the University, was not a part of the rezoning to the HE District. Mr. Sowers replied that because the B2 Zoning enables parking capabilities that could relate well with higher education -type uses, it was not necessary to rezone that particular area; however, the RP area needed to be rezoned. Commissioner Thomas commented that any type of educational building, such as a laboratory building, a dormitory, or a recreational facility, could be placed on this property after it was rezoned to HE District, since there were no proffers restricting its use. Commissioner Thomas did not think a multi -story college dormitory would be compatible with the residential area and he asked if Shenandoah University had looked at what uses would be compatible. Commissioner Thomas also questioned why the applicant was hesitant about proffering out the Price Drive access. Mr. Maddox assured the Commission that Shenandoah University would be a good neighbor; he said the site, by scale, is limited to what can be put there. Mr. Maddox added that there is no near term need to access Price Drive, but they wanted to maintain their flexibility for whatever the future =_night bring. Chainnan Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Christopher Miller, a resident at 106 Price Drive, was concerned about whether the proposed use would be compatible with the existing residences and how the proposed use might affect property values. He recognized that the college has been an asset to the area, but he did not think a dormitory would be appropriate. Mr. Miller said it was his understanding that the house on the property was used as a hospital back in the Civil War years; he said that some of the structure is comprised of logs. He suggested the historical value be investigated before the structure is torn down. In addition, Mr. Miller spoke about a lot on Price Drive that was turned down for a rezoning a short time ago; he complained the property was an eyesore because of the large dirt piles it contained for the past six to eight months. No other citizen wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Maddox returned to the podium and stated that a good niumber of the concepts considered for this site included keeping the house structure and building on it. Mr. Maddox said the proposed uses considered are light uses and the intent is not to construct five -story buildings, etc. He said the use of the property will be coming back to the Planning Commission in the form of a master development plan revision Chairman Wilmot commented that the ordinance calls for landscaping and buffers. Mr. Maddox agreed that landscaping between residential and HE is a requirement and if a future use needs additional landscaping, they will provide it. He said the idea is for the use to blend into the community. Frederick County Planning Commission NTiniIles of March 15 2006 Page 1701 -4 - Commissioner Thomas had questions regarding the proposed width of Tulane Drive through this area and, in addition, he asked about the timing for development of the two lots in relation to the extension of Tulane Drive. Mr. Maddox explained the transportation plan for the area; he said they've planned on Tulane being a 40 -foot, three -lane road through this area with a center turn lane and two through lanes. He added that the road work has been done along the frontage of the property. Chairman Wilmot recognized another citizen in the audience who wished to speak. Mr. John Haines, a resident at 114 Price Drive, questioned whether Shenandoah University would carry through with planting a screen; he said Shenandoah University promised to plan three rows of trees along his property line, but they only planted two rows. He was opposed to allowing access to Price Drive. Commissioner Mohn asked the staff what the buffer requirement would consist of between HE and RP. Mr. Ruddy replied there was no buffer requirement specified in the ordinance today. Mr. Ruddy said there are buffer matrixes which deal with commercial land against residential, but there is nothing specified for the HE; it is up to the discretion of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Morris made a motion for a recommendation of approval with a caveat that expresses the Planning Commission's desire to see access to Price Drive restricted. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoiring Application #02-06 of Shenandoah University, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) to rezone 1.2 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to HE (Higher Education) District with proffers and with the Planning Commission's desire to have access to Price Drive restricted. (Commissioners Ours and Light abstained from voting; Commissioners Unger and Watt were absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION Site Plan 982-05 of McClung -Logan Equipment for the development of 4.9656 acres for industrial use; the property is located in the Stonewall Industrial Park, Lot 24, Kentmere Court, off of McGhee Road, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. No Action Required Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the McClung -Logan Equipment site plan is being presented to the Plarming Commission for informational purposes due to its implications on the planned route for Route 37. Ms. Perkins explained that the plans for Stonewall Industrial Park and the McClung -Logan property do not accommodate the planned route for Route 37 and the anticipated right-of-way will possibly cover a large portion of this site. She added that staff met with the engineer in December to determine if any of the buildings could be shifted on the site to lessen the impact of the planned right-of-way; however, the engineer stated they could not shift the buildings. Planner Perkins stated that the staff is only seeking input from the Planning Commission and no action is required. Ms. Perkins said the Planning Commission's comments will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. She noted that the site plan is represented by Mr. Denny Dunlap of Triad Engineering. Frederick County Planning Commission Miniites of March 15. 2006 Page 1702 -5— Planning Commission members had questions for their legal counsel on whether any restriction in the use or access of this property directed by the Planning Commission because of a planned transportation route could be construed as a "taking" of land. Mr. Lawrence R. Ambrogi, legal counsel for the Planning Commission, pointed out that, at this point in time, there is no specificity as to when Route 37 will be started nor is a definitive route officially identified. Under these circumstances, Mr. Ambrogi believed it would ultimately be up to a court to decide whether any action would be considered as a "taking." He added that the staff is presenting this to the Commission for informational purposes. Commissioner Mohn asked when the lot was created and Ms. Perkins estimated it was created in 2005. Commissioner Mohn observed that the path of the roadway, the preferred alternative, was indeed known during this time frame and the County approved the subdivision with the road going through it. He said the site plan has now been submitted and it is being brought to everyone's attention; he said he was not sure how the Commission was to advise the Board, since the subdivision was approved with that knowledge. Planning Director, Eric R Lawrence, responded that Route 37 has been on the books for about ten years now at the "Alternative C" location and it has only been in recent months that development proposals within the Route 37 corridor, on by -right zoned property, are coming in. He said that in working with the County Administration's legal staff, it was decided that anytime a subdivision or a site plan comes before staff that is in a by -right situation, the staff is going to take it through the public process so the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors can be aware of what is being proposed within the Route 37 alignment. Mr. Lawrence stated that this subdivision was the first to raise significant concern. He explained that the policy established by County Administration calls for all affected subdivisions presented to the staff to be reviewed by the Comuussion and the Board; and furthermore, all site plans for property within the corridor will be reviewed solely by the Planning Commission. He said that since this particular site did not get a subdivision review, the staff opted to inform the Commission and the Board. Mr. Lawrence explained the goal of this effort is to make everyone aware, so no one is surprised that something is in the corridor when the time comes to build the road. Commissioner Morns had several points to make: First, he said that no one knows how long it will be before the first bit of ground is turned for Rt. 37; he said it could be a long time. Second, he wondered how long a business constructed here could exist before it becomes non-existent, either in its current form or as a renovation or a rebuilt structure. Third, he speculated that if someone knowingly builds in an area where Route 37 is going to be constructed, the potential outcome of litigation might possibly be a "taking" or an imminent domain situation. Cominissioner Oates believed it was time for the County, and the Board of Supervisors in particular, to specifically define the true survey centerline of "Alternative C," adopt it, and stick with it. He commented that there is a broad area that Route 37 could or couldn't be constructed within and this building may or may not be in its path. Commissioner Oates believed it was time, since all this has come to light, that the County finally nail dorm the exact path of Route 37; he recommended that the Board of Supervisors send this to the Transportation Committee and get this issue resolved as soon as possible. Connnissioner Mohn wanted to take Commissioner Oates' recommendation a step further and recommend that the Board consider placing Route 37 on the Capital Improvements Plan, so the County will be able to focus some investment; he also agreed a right-of-way needed to be identified and the County should begin working towards acquisition, in fairness to all of the property owners and future users of property who might be in its path. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1703 Q. It was Commissioner Light's opinion that there is a by -right use on this property for the present time and the immediate future; he said that if someone wants to use the property, they should be able to because there is nothing officially on the books delineating anything else. He said this was no different than any other parcel in the County traversing RA where someone is building a house; he said they have a by -right, they have the ability to use it, and there is no plan. Commissioner Light did not think this application should be held up; in fact, he believed that if there were a designated centerline, it would complicate matters more. He added that if Route 37 goes through there, VDOT is going to have to buy the property and take it, just like all the other properties in the path of Route 37. No action was needed or taken by the Planning Commission on this discussion item. PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS: ARTICLE IX REVISIONS Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission established an Ad -Hoc Committee, consisting of members of the Planning Commission, to review and evaluate the Commission's bylaws. He said the first item identified by the Ad -Hoc Committee is the provision of a 30 -day notice before making any changes to the Planning Commission Bylaws. Mr. Lawrence explained that for tonight, the Commission will officially go on record that at the April 19, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission will have a proposal before them to modify the process by which its bylaws are amended. Mr. Lawrence said this simply means that tonight's notification is starting the clock to follow the bylaws and when the Commission meets again next month, the Ad -Hoc Committee will have a proposal that explains how the Commission can modify their bylaws. This process was acceptable to the members of the Commission. 2006 PLANMNG PROJECTS PRIORITIZATION Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, reported that as a part of the Planning Commission's 2006 Annual Retreat, members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors were given an opportunity to prioritize long-range and short-range planning projects for the upcoming year. Mr. Lawrence said that staff has tabulated the responses and has provided the tabulation total to the Commission. Mr. Lawrence reviewed the priorities with the Commission for consensus or modification. In addition to the priority list, he said the agenda package also contains the Planning Department's 2006 Work Program and a retreat summary. Commissioner Morris commented that under both the long-range projects and the current planning projects, it calls for a complete comprehensive review and revision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. He believed contractual support may need to be solicited because of the major undertaking involved with these projects. Mr. Lawrence replied that funding is not available to contract the work in the current fiscal year, nor the next fiscal year. He said the last revision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan was in 2003; he noted some modifications were made over the previous few _years with the Stephens City Land Use Plan and the ongoing RA Frederick County Planning Conunission K Minutes of March 15, 2006 C N Pagel704 and UDA Studies. Mr. Lawrence said the goal, upon completion and closure of the UDA and RA Studies, is to go back through the Comprehensive Policy Plan and incorporate these small studies and possibly, along with that addition, go through and make sure the capital facilities and demographics are all up to date as well. He agreed, however, that an overhaul of the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances would require outside assistance. Comments were made by members about the zoning and subdivision ordinances supporting the Comprehensive Policy Plan and that the Comprehensive Plan should be revised first. Members commented that the Comprehensive Policy Plan has gotten way out ahead of the zoning ordinance; they didn't believe the existing, outdated zoning ordinance allowed the Commission to implement the Comprehensive Policy Plan in its fullest form. Mr. Lawrence said that if the current UDA Study and the Urban Village Concept are successfid and ultimately adopted as a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, that implementation will trigger the need to examine the zoning and subdivision ordinances because of the complexity of the issues; he said a new zoning district will have to be created. Cominissioner Mohn commented about some of the outdated information in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, noting that some of the demographic data and projections are based on 1980s data, so the most current information about the community is not being published. He said it was difficult to start fitting together long-range visions when data is outdated. He also agreed that the zoning ordinance needs considerable work to keep up with where the Comprehensive Policy Plan is today; he said that both are huge jobs. Cormnissioner Oates said he would like to see Project 49, the GIS database, under long-range projects, ranked a little higher because all of the information gathered depends on that system working efficiently and accurately. Commissioner Ours was pleased to see the corridor improvements design standards back on the priority list. The Chairman suggested greater utilization of the County's web site for distribution of information. 07, HER FREDERICK COUNTY UNIFICATION PROJECT PUBLIC MEETINGS Conunissioner Kriz reminded everyone about the two remaining meetings of the Winchester - Frederick County Unification Project's Public Opinion/ Public Input Discussion. Those meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, March 21, at Millbrook High School, at 7:00 p.m. and Thursday, March 23, at James Wood High School, at 7:00 p.m. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1705 Minutes of March 15, 2006 IJ I 4! CONSERVATION EASEMENT AUTHORITY PUBLIC MEETINGS Commissioner Light announced that the Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) will have a public informational meeting on April 3, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room in the County Administration Building, to provide presentations and opportunities to answer questions about the use of conservation easements in Frederick County; he said that all landowners are invited to attend. Commissioner Light added that the CEA also has a brochure available on conservation easements in the County; COMPREHEI+ISIVE PLANS & PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENT Chairman Wilmot was pleased to make the appointment of Mr. H. Wellington Jones, the Engineer/Director of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, to the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcoirm-uttee (CPPS). Chairman Wilmot stated that Mr. Jones brought Mr. Skip Braden, the Sanitation Authority's Vice Chairman, to the meeting and Mr. Braden will act as Mr. Jones' alternate. Chairman Wilmot commented that the CPPS also has Mr. Al Orndorff from the Frederick County School Board; she said the CPPS is fortunate to have these representatives, who provide excellent input in the discussions. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Plamiing Commission Minutes of March 15, 2006 Page 1706 C' • • REZONING APPLICATION #05-06 VENTURES I OF WINCHESTER, LLC COMINMONWEALTH BUSINESS CENTER LOT 2 Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: Apr -;l 2, 2000` 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: April 19, 2006 Pending Beard of Supervisors: May 10, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 12 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition Business) District to B2 (General Business) District with proffers LOCATION: Commonwealth Court (Route 1167), north of the Route 11 and Route 37 Interchange MAGISTERIAL D�, STRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75 -A -91B PROPERTY ZONING: B3 (Industrial Transition Business) District PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROP'ERT'Y ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: B3 (Industrial Transition) District Use: ' Commercial South: B3 (Industrial Transition) District Use: Vacant East: B3 (Industrial Transition) District Use: Interstate 81 West: B3 (Industrial Transition) District Use: Industrial PROPOSED USES: Business and Commercial Uses Rezoning #05-06 Ventures I, Commonwealth Business Center Lot 2. April 2, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Franspertation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 11 and 1167. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Commonwealth Business Park — Lot 2 rezoning application dated February 13, 2006 address transportation concerns associated with this request. 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 Marshal: Site plan shall provide municipal water supplies for firefighting to meet the requirements of Frederick County Code Section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: No Comment. Public Works Department: Refer to page 1, Introduction: The extension of Commonwealth Court will require the relocation of the existing cul-de-sac to the property line shared with Winchester 81, LLC. The final approval and design of this extension will be the responsibility of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Refer to page 1, Introduction: We strongly support the use of a regional stormwater management facility provided there is a mechanism indicated in the proffer statement for maintenance of this facility. Off-site stormwater easements will be required to accommodate point - source discharges derived from the stormwater management facility. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments Sanitation AuthGrity: I have reviewed this rezoning request and concur with the Water and Sanitary Sewer remarks. Frederick Wirtchester health Department: No Comment. CIS: No Comment. Department of Parks &i Recreation: No comment. 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. Winchester Regional Airport: Allowed uses under this rezoning should not effect airside operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Rezoning 405-06 — Ventures I, Commonwealth Business Center Lot 2. April 2, 2006 Page 3 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, 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 any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact. It is noted that this property is within the study area of the First and Second Battles of Kernstown and the First and Second Battles of Winchester; however, due to the development in this area, it has been deemed to have lost its integrity. Frederick County Attorney: Please see the attached letter dated January 27, 2006, signed by Robert T. Mitchell, Jr., Esquire. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The Frederick County Planning Department administratively approved the Commonwealth Business Center Master Development Plan on July 19, 1999. Previously, the Board of Supervisors approved the plan on July 14, 1999. The Commonwealth Business Center Master Development Plan called for the industrial/commercial development of an Industrial Park on a 37 acre site. The subsequent subdivision of the site resulted in the creation of eight lots. Lot 2, totaling 12 acres, is the lot for which this rezoning request is being made. The site is currently vacant. The other lots within the Commonwealth Business Center have developed as a combination of industrial and commercial uses and include the Carquest Distribution Center, Sportsplex, Boyce's Martial Arts, Prelip's Home Center, Ultimate Automotive Group, and Robbie's Auto Body. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plait 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 parcel for which this rezoning is being requested is located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area and Sewer and Water Service Area define the general area in which more intensive forms of planned commercial and industrial development will occur. In addition, the Rezoning 405-06 — Ventures 1, Commonwealth Business Center Lot 2. April 2, 2006 Page 4 Commonwealth Lot 2 property is located within an area that the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan identifies with a Business/Commercial land use designation. This designation is consistent with the expressed desire to locate commercial uses on arterial highways, at major intersections, and at interchange areas. Transportation In general, the Comprehensive Plan states that a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments within the County. The applicants Traffic Analysis seeks to address the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request. The subject property is located adjacent to the Interstate 81 right-of-way and is in close proximity to the Interstate 81 and Route 37 Interchange, and the Route 11 interchange with Route 37. Access to the site would be from Route 11 via Commonwealth Court, Route 1167. Significant improvements to the above mentioned transportation network are envisioned in County and State Transportation Planning documents. Further, the preliminary design plans for the proposed improvements indicate additional right-of-way needs which should be addressed in conjunction with the planning and development of the adjacent properties. The need for additional right-of-way along this property's frontage with Interstate 81 has been identified and is addressed in this rezoning application. The adjacent property to the south Parcel 75 -A -10A is presently limited by the limits of access lines associated with the adjacent highway system. In order to facilitate future access to this property, and to address the goal of providing interparcel connectivity, it is appropriate for the development of Lot 2 to provide public road access to this adjacent parcel. The Ventures 1, Commonwealth Business Center Lot 2 rezoning application addresses this issue. The intersection of Commonwealth Court, Route 1167, and Route 11 is not presently signalized. In order to ensure that an appropriate level of service is achieved, the rezoning application addresses the signalization of this intersection. 3) Site Suitabilit />Enviromment The Ventures I, Commonwealth Business Center Lot 2 site contains no identified environmental features and does not contain any historic resources. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. The County Engineer strongly supports the use of a regional stormwater management facility in conjunction with the development of this property. Rezoning #05-06 — Ventures I, Commonwealth Business Center Lot 2. April 2, 2006 Page 5 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation In order to address the transportation impacts associated with the rezoning and development of this property, the applicant has been coordinating with the Virginia Department of Transportation and has provided for the following: The applicant has identified the area presently acknowledged as being needed to facilitate the construction of a new traffic ramp from Interstate 81 southbound to Route 37. A proffered condition has been provided that reserves this area, restricts development activity from occurring in this area, and ultimately facilitates the dedication of this area to the Virginia Department of Transportation. The area identified for future dedication totals approximately 1. 11 acres. The applicant has addressed the extension of Commonwealth Court to the adjacent parcel identified with PIN 75 -A -10A to ensure that ultimately this parcel will be provided with access to the public street system. Access to this parcel is presently limited by the limits of access lines associated with the adjacent highway system. It should be recognized that adjustments in the alignment of this public road connection may be made to accommodate the ultimate development of Lot 2 provided that the extension of the road as a public street to the adjacent property is in place prior to the occupancy of any structure on the Lot 2 property. As previously noted, the intersection of Commonwealth Court, Route 1167, and Route 11 is not presently signalized. The applicant has provided a proffered condition that states that they will enter into a signalization agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation to construct a traffic signal at this location. It may be desirable to provide an additional mechanism in the proffer statement that ensures that the traffic signal will be in place prior to the occupancy of any structure on the Lot 2 property. This would ensure that an appropriate level of service is achieved and maintained at this intersection immediately. B. Community Facilities and Impacts The community facility impacts associated with the development of this property under the B2 (Business General) District compared with the development of this property under the existing B3 (Industrial Transition) District are relatively similar. In evaluating the community facility impacts of new development proposals, it is recognized that the new Development Impact Model is utilized primarily for residential rezoning requests. It is anticipated that the capital facility impacts of commercial and industrial rezoning requests are ultimately positive to the County. By policy, the Development Impact model does not apply a fiscal impact to entirely commercial or industrial rezoning applications. Rezoning #05-06 — Ventures I, Commonwealth Business Center Lot 2. April 2, 2006 Page 6 In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community to Fire and Rescue services, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $1,000.00 to the Stephens City Volunteer Fire Company for impacts to fire control services. 5) Proffer Statement— Dated September 9, 2005 and revised December 9, 2005, January 12, 2006, February 13, 2006 and March 24, 2006 The Applicant's Proffer Statement seeks to address the identified impacts associated with this rezoning request by providing for the following commitments: The extension and construction of the extension of Commonwealth Court, Route 1167, to the adjacent property to the south identified with PIN 75-A-1OA. The reservation and ultimate dedication of approximately 1. 11 acres of land, the right-of-way presently identified by VDOT as being needed to facilitate the construction of a new ramp from Interstate 81 southbound to Route 37. The signalization of the intersection of Route 11 and Commonwealth Court, Route 1167. The provision of regional stormwater management facility as requested by the County Engineer. The donation of a $1,000.00 monetary contribution to offset the impacts to fire control services. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/19/06 PLANNING COlbl<MISS%OT,11 MEETING: The Ventures I, Commonwealth Business Center - Lot 2 rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Further, it would appear as though impacts associated with this rezoning request have been addressed by the applicant; in particular, the identified transportation impacts. The Planning Commission should ensure that any additional concerns or identified impacts are fully addressed by the applicant. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a rrecornmen"U11vot by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezon e application would- be appropriate.The applicant should be prepared to adequatll ely address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. HALL, MONAHAN, EAGLE, MAHAN A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE O. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. ,.LAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Lz MITCHELL I a 7 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST B05CAWEN STREET LEE5BURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 703-777 1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 FAX 540-562-4304 E-MAIL Iawyers@haIlmDnahaD.Com January 27, 2006 Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Lynch Property Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Susan: 005 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 2a604-0848 I have reviewed the above -referenced proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a fonn to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. I would suggest, for uniformity and easy reference purposes, that the document be titled "Proposed Proffer Statement" and the details of the zoning, owners, property, etc., be suininarized at the beginning as set forth on the attached format, This fonnat has been used on all recent proffer statements. 2. The heading "INTRODUCTION" should be deleted at the beginning of the proffer statement, as the content of the initial paragraphs are substantive paragraphs of the proffer statement. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN :, MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy January 27, 2006 Page 2 3. The first paragraph makes reference to a proposed layout and division of the parcel as set forth on Exhibit 1 of the Rezoning Application. If the proposed layout division of the parcel is material to the rezoning of the property, then there should be an affinnative proffer included in the proffer statement that the property will be developed in substantial conformity with the layout and division as set forth in the exhibit, which should be attached to the Proffer Statement. 4. In the third paragraph, instead of the language development of this property would require the owner to meet the conditions set forth in this document" at the end of the first sentence, I would suggest the following language: If ... the use and development of the subject property shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions set forth in this proffer." 5. In the third paragraph, the second sentence should be deleted, and the following should be added to the end of the first sentence (as hereinabove amended): If 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." 6. In the second sentence of the third paragraph the word "codes" should be changed to "ordinances". 7. A paragraph should be added to the initial paragraphs which contains a description of the property, to include a description of the general location of the property, the title owner, the acreage, and a citation to the land records (deed book and page number, or instrument number) where the owner of the property acquired title. 8. With respect to Proffer #l, the proffer should contain a requirement as to when the construction of the road will be completed; for example, before occupancy of any structure on the property. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN ux MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy January 27, 2006 Page 3 9. The second paragraph in Proffer #1 is misplaced. This is a paragraph that should apply to all proffers, and should be inserted at the end of the Proffer Statement. 10. It is noted that there has been no Generalized Development Plan submitted with these proffers. Therefore, it is noted that this proffer does not commit the applicant to any specific development plan. (See paragraph 3, above) It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. Very truly yours, —1i�4 Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. RTM/ks Enclosure 63 A 86C H P HOOD, INC ck" I I.y0OO "'9 75 A 10A WINCHESTER -81 L L C k 'PA. Rezoning # 05 - 06 Ventures I 75 - A - 91 B) 75 A 90 GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC [ANN lk I.y0OO "'9 75 A 10A WINCHESTER -81 L L C k 'PA. Rezoning # 05 - 06 Ventures I 75 - A - 91 B) 75 A 90 GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC [ANN 63 A 86C H P HOOD, INC b ::11"N � C Oh��1th,t --- � c FaY•,St 4 63 HP OF`Fl p�� F'vrs SNC Zoning RP 75 A 90 \ GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS; INC Zon�g 11 � r fi ie�� m�o� - 0 6 MsiM.mm sw�no=bw Rezoning # 05 - 06 N 37! q w p c Ventures I y�'"' II'^' (w MH IMamervpme comm,nNPstnal ....,.... 49 MAN 63 A 86C H P HOOD, INC 16 CO RQ fps 75 A 10A WINCHESTER -81 L L C 37 Rezoning # 05 - 06 Ventures I (75 - A - 91B) ,. y 63 A 86C C" H P HOOD; INC 4: y f .r r ^+• . O�4°S 63.. A 86A HPHOOD,!INC ! r i/ 662, Kr U � L w 4 li ', hh t OC 2 O �Q ) e - "' S 77 t1 •oyA p Y 75 A ' yi.;i •..` WINCHL"SIEI3$1,L'LC - + 327 7 '37 • - X37 •s 75 A 90 I GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, IN .i1 i� ! � ✓-k � y i' Rezoning # 05 - 06 37" - ° °'.-•• Ventures I ,. (75-A-91 B) Commonwealth Business Park, Lot Proposed Proffer statement Rezoning #: Property: Recorded Owner: -05--04 12 acres PARCEL ID — 75-4-91B Ventures I of Winchester, LLC Applicant: Venture I of Winchester, LLC 124 W. Piccadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 Project Name: Commonwealth Business Park, Lot 2 Original Date of Proffers: September 9, 2005 Revision Date (s): December 9, 2005 January 12, 2006 February 13, 2006 March 24, 2006 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWN I«, P. .C. 16 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540) 662-5792 email: office@painterlewis.com Job Number: 0502016 PROFFER STATEMENT PARCEL ID 75-A-91 B Ventures I of Winchester, LLC (the applicant) is the owner of a parcel of land which contains approximately 12 acres of land currently zoned B3. The parcel is located on Route 1167, Commonwealth Court, off of Route 11. The applicant proposes to rezone and subdivide the parcel of land, TM# 75-A-91 B, also referred to as Lot 2 of Commonwealth Business Park. This parcel is a 12 acre tract that is currently zoned B3. The owner wishes to have this property rezoned to B2 to accommodate preferred land uses within a future subdivision of the land. The proposed layout and division of the parcel can be seen in Exhibit 1 of the rezoning application. The applicant recognizes that good planning practice demands that consideration be given to local traffic patterns and to the management of storm water runoff. Therefore, Rt. 1167, Commonwealth Court will be extended to the adjoining parcel to the south. See Proffer 1. Land will be reserved for the future construction of a new interchange between Interstate 81 and Route 37. See Proffer 2. The applicant will enter into an agreement with VDOT to provide funding for a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 1167. See Proffer 3. To the extent practicable, a storm water management facility will be constructed on the land to provide storm water control for the entire development. See Proffer 4. 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 # 0!5-:-0(- for the rezoning of parcel TM# 75-A-9113 from B3 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. PROFFERS 1.) Extension of Route 1167, Commonwealth Court The applicant will pay for the extension of Route 1167, Commonwealth Court, from the existing cul de sac through the subject parcel and terminating at the property boundary between the subject parcel and TM# 75 -A -10A. This will be completed before occupancy of any structure on the property. The road will be designed to VDOT standards for acceptance into the VDOT Secondary Roads System. 2.) Reservation of Land for a Future Interchange The applicant will reserve a portion of the TM 75-A-91 B for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a new traffic ramp from Interstate 81 southbound to Route 37. Development of TM 75-A-91 B will be restricted from the areas shown on Exhibit 1. The area of restricted development contains approximately 48,375 square feet (1.11 acres). Upon receiving 180 days notice from the Virginia Department of Transportation, the page 2 PROFFER STATEMENT PARCEL ID 75-A-91 B applicant will dedicate the reserved land to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the proposed interchange improvements. 3.) Signalization Agreement The applicant agrees to enter into a contractual agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation for the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 1167. The application understands that Signalization Agreements typically allow the development of the land to proceed without the installation of signalization and that VDOT will secure actual traffic counts or other traffic study to provide the warrants initiate the design and construction of the traffic signal. The applicant also understands that he may be required to commit a certain percentage of the overall costs of the traffic signal based on past or future agreements between VDOT and adjacent property owners. 4.) Storm Water Management The applicant agrees to construction a storm water detention facility in accordance with the design standards of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The facility will, to the extent practicable, provide storm water detention for the entire development area. The detention facility will be owned and maintained by an association of local land owners. The association will be established by the applicant. 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. 5). Monetary Contribution to Frederick County Service Organizations The owner will donate or will cause to be paid to the Stephens Company the sum of $1,000.00 for impacts to fire control services. upon receipt of the first building permit issued subsequent to rezoning for any proposed structure. Submitted By: for Venture I of Winchester, LLC Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, To -Wit: page 3 City Volunteer Fire This sum will be paid the approval of this PROFFER STATEMENT PARCEL ID 75-A-91 B The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of by Notary Public page 4 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT A PROPOSED REZONING for Comrnenwealth Business Park, Lot 2 Back Creek Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia March 24, 2006 Prepared for: Ventures I of Winchester, LLC 124 W. Piccadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEW159 P.L.C. 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540)662-5792 email: office@painterlewis.com Job number: 0502016 IMPACT ANALYSIS — i'ATEMENT PARCEL ID 75-A-91 B IMPACT ANALYSIS STATE M E NT TABLE OF CONTENTS section pad i. INT.RODUC T ION 3 A. SITE: SUITABILITY j 3 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES 4 C. TRAFFIC 5 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREAT MEH-T 6 E. WATER SUPPLY d 6 F. DRAINAGE 6 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES 6 H. HZIM ORIC SITES MHD 5TFUCTURE5 6 I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 7 OTHER IMPACTS . 7 .8 _3. APPENDIX page 2 IMPACT ANALYSIS , I ATEMENT PARCEL ID 75-A-91 B L INITRODUCTION Ventures I of Winchester, LLC (the applicant) proposes to rezone and subdivide the parcel of land, TM# 75-A-91 B, also referred to as Lot 2 of Commonwealth Business Park. This parcel is a 12 acre tract that is currently zoned B3. The applicant wishes to subdivide the current 12 acre parcel into 6 lots varying in sizes of 1 to 2 acres, and a re- gional storm water management lot of approximately 1 acre. Commonwealth Court, Va. Route 1167 will be extended from the existing cul-de-sac to the south to provide access to the adjacent parcel owned by Winchester -81, LLC. The applicant would like to rezone the tract to B2, Business General District from the current B3, Industrial Transition Zone. The proposed use is not known for all the lots. The surrounding parcels are all currently zoned B3. The existing, adjacent parcels have been developed generally for light com- mercial uses rather than transitional industrial uses. These uses include an indoor sports facility, auto sales and service facilities, contractor offices, and a manufacturer of precision instrument components. Chapter 165-82 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordi- nance says that B2, General Business District, areas should be located on arterial highways, at major intersections, and at interchange areas. The location of this parcel, at the interchange of 1-81 and Routes 37 and 11, is in conformance with the guidelines stated for B2 zoning areas. A. SITE SUIT IL ITIS The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan does not include the subject parcel in any of its current study areas. The parcel does lie within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The parcel is cur- rently zoned B3 and is located adjacent to an existing business park. The surrounding parcels of land are also zoned B3. The existing lots in the Commonwealth Business Center and have been developed. The surrounding property location and information can be seen on Exhibit 1. 900 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN FIRM Community Panel Number 510063 0200 B shows that the property is not within any floodplain. WETLANDS No wetlands have been identified on the site. STEEP SLOPES The property generally slopes from the northeast to the southwest. There appear to be no areas of concern with regards to steep slopes. Slopes on the site appear to be within the 2-7% range. page 3 IMPACT ANALYSIS,-, FATEMENT PARCEL ID 75 -A -91B MATURE WOODLANDS There are no mature woodlands located on this site. SOILS According to the Soil Survey of Frederick County, the site contains the following soil types: Q Carbo-Oaklet: 6C (2-15%). These silt loam soils are generally moderately deep to deep very rocky soils that are well drained. This soil type is often found on side slopes, hilltops and ridge tops. The unified soil classifications are CL, CH, and CL -ML. © Chilhowie: 8B (2-7%). These soils are generally moderately deep, gently sloping, and well drained. These silty clay loams commonly follow hilltops and are long and nar- row regions. The unified soils classifications are CL, CH, GC, MH, and GM. 0 Frederick-Poplimento: 14B (2-7%). These loam soils are generally very deep, gen- tly sloping, and well drained. These soils generally form along valley sides and are usu- ally long and narrow regions. The unified soil classifications are CL, CL -MH, CH, GC, and SC. B. SURROUND114C PROPERTIES The subject parcel is bordered to the south by a 23.17 acre vacant parcel owned by Winchester -81, LLC, TM# 75 -A -10A. This parcel is currently zoned B3. It is assumed that this parcel will most likely be developed in much the same manner as the nearby lots in Commonwealth Business Park with light industrial or commercial development. Its location, most notably its proximity to the Route 11, Route 37, and Interstate 81 In- terchange, demands a use benefiting from high visibility such as restaurants, retail, or hotel usage. To the west, the parcel is bordered by TM# 63-A-85, owned by Valley Properties Lim- ited PR. This parcel is 9.27 acres, zoned B3, and is the site of an auto parts distribution store. To the east is the Interstate 81 right-of-way. To the northeast is TM# 75-A-91 C, a 6.02 acre parcel zoned B2 and the site of an indoor sports facility (Sportsplex). This parcel is owned by Hodgson Construction, LLC. To the north of the subject parcel and directly west of the Sportsplex is TM# 75-A-91 D, owned by R&P Rentals, LLC. This parcel is 1.59 acres, zoned B3, and is the current site of an auto body repair shop. Moving to the west is TM# 75-A-911, owned by David B. Holliday. This parcel is 1.31 acres, zoned B3, and is the site of an automobile sales and service lot. TM# 75-A-91 G is the west of the Holliday lot and is owned by Spiderweb Technology, LLC. This parcel contains one acre and is zoned B3. Spiderweb Technology, LLC manufactures cross hairs for precision instruments. To the west of the Spiderweb Technologies parcel is TM# 75-A-91 H, owned by Prelip, MG Properties, LLC. This parcel contains 1.21 acres and is zoned B3. The site is used for general contractor offices. Please see Exhibit 1. It is important to state that most of the uses of the surrounding lots are not used for transitional industrial uses and that the character of the traffic consists generally of light- duty vehicles. This coupled with the fact that the location of this property is in agreement page 4 IMPACT ANALYSIS , FATEMENT PARCEL ID 75-A-91 B with the guidelines set for in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan for B2 zoning make it an appropriate property for the B2 zone. C. TRAFF C The extension of Commonwealth Court, as described herein, will result in a cul-de-sac length which exceeds 1000 feet. The Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance prohibits the construction of cul-de-sacs which exceed 1000 feet in length. A waiver from this provision, 144-17-G-(1), will be required from the Planning Commission prior to final approval of the subdivision plans. The extension of Commonwealth Court to the south will provide the only access to the 23.17 acre vacant parcel owned by Winchester -81, LLC, TM# 75 -A -10A. No access will be permitted from this parcel directly to Route 11. It was necessary to make some assumptions about the future uses of the subject parcel in this rezoning request before a traffic analysis could be performed. First of all, a land use needed to be selected. Since the actual land uses are unknown at this time for the lots in question, we selected a retail use, which we believe will generate the most traffic intensive land use. Land use 814 - Specialty Retail Center was chosen from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition to perform this traffic analysis. The second as- sumption made was the percentage of each lot area that would be built out into gross floor- space for a retail store. We felt that an average of 25% of the lot acreage would be an accurate portrayal of the gross square footage of retail area on each of the lots. With this assumption the estimated gross square footage of retail space on this parcel would be 130,680 square feet. The current traffic conditions in the immediate area of the Commonwealth Business Park was also considered. According to figures published by the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Average Annual Daily Traffic on Route 11, Valley Avenue, in 2004 was 17,000 vehicles at the intersection with, Route 1167, Commonwealth Court. The Average Daily Traffic on Route 1167, Commonwealth Court, in 2004 was not available. Traffic impacts from the proposed rezoning will be estimated using the figures in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition. Since no specific land use is being proffered for the site, the category of Land Use which will be applied to the 12 acres (6 lots) pro- posed for rezoning reflects the most intensive use, that is, retail sales. The type of retail use that will serve as a model for traffic impacts will be Specialty Retail Center, Code 814. Specialty Retail Centers are generally small strip shopping centers that contain a variety of retail shops and specialize in quality apparel, hard goods, and services such as real estate offices, dance studios, florists, and small restaurants. Specialty Retail Center, Code 814 Based on a projected gross leasable area of 130,680 square feet: Weekday: 44.32 trips per 1000 sf = 5,792 trips Weekday A.M. Peak Hour: 6.84 trips per 1000 sf = 894 trips © Weekday P.M. Peak Hour: 5.02 trips 1000 sf = 657 trips page 5 IMPACT ANALYSIS oTATEMENT PARCEL ID 75-A-91 B ® Saturday: 42.04 trips per 1000 sf = 5,494 trips Sunday: 20.43 trips per 1000 sf = 2,670 trips D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT This site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is therefore eligible to connect to the public sanitary sewer system. The public sewage system currently in- cludes an 8" line that extends to the end of the cul-de-sac of Commonwealth Court and extend to the northwest to service the Sportsplex. E. WATER SUPPLY This site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is therefore eligible to connect to the public sanitary sewer system. The existing public water system includes an 8" line that extends to the end of the cul-de-sac of Commonwealth Court and extend to the northwest to service the Sportsplex. F. DRAINAGE The surface water would generally move from the northeast in the southwestern direc- tion across the parcel and then across the parcel to the south of the site, TM# 75-A-1 OA until reaching a low point at the edge of Route 37. It appears that the water is piped under the highway from this point. There appear to be several localized high points just to the north of the subject parcel. It appears that there is not a large amount of offsite water draining across the site. The slopes are also gentle across the site helping to keep runoff velocities below erosive velocities. The applicant is also proposing to construct a regional storm water management facility in the southwest corner of the property. The storm water management facility should be owned and maintained by a lot owners association. Please refer to the Proffer State- ment. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES It can be assumed that the tenant on each lot will use dumpsters to service the needs of that particular business. It would therefore be of the responsibility of the individual lot owners to pay for the removal of the dumpsters accordingly. hl. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The site contains no known historic sites or structures as listed on the Virginia Land- marks Register and the National Register. According to the Comprehensive Policy Plan, there are 22 identified historic sites as shown in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey that lie within a mile of the site. Of these 22, 3 are considered a potentially sig - page 6 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PARCEL ID 75-A-91 B nificant site by the Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County. These 3 sites are Carysbrook, Carysbrook Redoubt, and the Mervel Adams House. The location and proximity of all the historic landmarks can be seen in Exhibit 2. The southeastern corner of the Kernstown Battlefield is just outside the -1 mile radius from the center of the subject parcel. The battlefield location with respect to the subject parcel can be seen in Exhibit 2. The subject property is not located in an area consid- ered to be a historic Civil War battlefield region by the NPS Shenandoah Valley Civil War Sites Study. A copy of the Civil War Battlefields and Sites map has been attached as Exhibit 3. I. COM MU14ITY FACILITIES EMERGENCY SERVICES Police protection is provided by the Frederick County Sheriff's Department. The nearest fire and rescue facility is the Stephens City Volunteer Fire Company just off of Main Street in Stephens City. No additional fire and rescue facilities will be required for the area proposed to be rezoned. The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model cal- culates that the projected capital cost for emergency service facilities attributable to this development is $00.00. Please refer to the attached Proffer Statement for additional in- formation. PARKS AND RECREATION The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates that the projected capi- tal cost for public park facilities attributable to this development is $00.00. 3. OTHER YMP C'TS The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates the following additional fiscal impacts attributable to this development: v Public Library - $00.00; v Schools - $00.00 v Sheriff's Office - $00.00; v Administration Building - $00.00; v Other Miscellaneous Facilities - $00.00. After adjustments for tax credits, the net capital facilities impact is $00.00. page 7 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PARCEL ID 75 -A -91B IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT APPENDIX ! MI -1 EXHIBIT 1 - PROPERTY MAP 1 EXHIBIT 2 - HISTORIC STRUCTURES MAP 2 EXHIBIT 3 - CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD MAP 3 EXHIBIT 4 - PROPERTY DEED 4 EXHIBIT 5 - CURRENT TAX STATEMENT 5 EXHIBIT 6 - PROFFER STATEMENT 6 RIS LEWIN L ACRES ED: B-3 040010445 63((A))83 ERT D. JOHNSON - ,VIA T. JOHNSON 0.28 ACRES ZONED: H-3 [ST. 030010351 63((A))84 WILLIAM E. BROY- LINDA L. BROY 0.33 ACRES ZONED: B-3 D.H. 790, PG. 556 75((A))91F \ LOT 6 PCE MICHEAL D & CAROLINE N ZONED: B-1 PRELIP, MG PROPERTIES, LLC 1.21 ACRES ZONED: B-3 EX. USE: COMMERCIAL INST: 000009444 63((A))85 VALLEY PROPERTIES LIMITED PR 9.27 ACRES ZONED: B-3 EX. USE: COMMERCIAL DB: 959, PG: 829 75((A))91I LOT 4D THE MLR COMPANIES, LLC ZONED: B-3 EX. USE: AUTO 1 SALES/SERVICE INST: 05004507 75((A))91D LOT 4C -R&P RENTALS, LLC ZONED: B-3 SE: OFFICE/WAREHOUSE LOT AREA: 1.59 acres DH: -04-26882 - 75((A))91C LOT 3A HODGSON CONST., LLC ZONED: B-3 USE: COMMERCIAL LOT AREA: 6.0238 acres DB: -02-22812 LOT 1\ 87,120 S.F. \ 2.0000 ACRES \ LOT 2 \ 87,120 S.F. 2.0000 ACRES J�TREGIONALATER LOTTE 46,619 L0702 AC'. 75((A))IOA WINCHESTER -81, LLC 23.17 Acres ZONED: B-3 USE: VACANT DB: 721, PG: 190 DB: 813, PG: 593 ROP. ROADWAY ) EXTENSION I: \34,372 S.F.- 0`7891 ACRE LOT 4 , 87,120 S.F. 2.0000 ACRES I � LOT 5 1 65,340 S.F. ' ' 1.5000 ACRES LOT 2 VENTURES I OF WINCHESTER, LLC 522,713 s.f. 11.998 Acres ZONED: B-3 VACANT INST. 050016459 LOT 6 73,492 S.F. 1.6872 ACRE ra bs Y LIMITS OF I-61 IMPROVEMENTS 1-81 IMPROVEMENT'S 12,685.02 S.F 0.291± ACRE I-81 OdPROVEMENTS 12,039.73 S.F. 0.276± ACRES 1-81 IMPROVEMENTS 23,651.48 S.F. 0.543± ACRES U' may. QQH 4' �Zi— W IL0)W=) Z V a �V if) 0Z^WY (n U Umg'w o �'W aw LL. �t 0 E �/y�n N O m M O `// N N h cn'Ln' N 11� m rr f CD N .,�+ C O O o rn't't a L 0 ° O o 07 L uj D L N U U Q O C: f E zw O (n Z J W W Z_ Z0 OZ O W SURVEY: C.I.: NA NONE DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: RD 0502016 SCALE: DATE: 1"=200' 12/09/05 SHEET: Exhibit 1 63((A))86A H. P. HOOD, INC. 63((A))86B ZONED: M-2 EX. USE: INDUSTRIAL H. P. HOOD, INC. DB: 300, PG: 9390 ZONED: M-2 DB: 935, PG: 739 EX. USE: INDUSTRIAL DB: 300, PG: 9390 DB: 935, PG: 739 RIS LEWIN L ACRES ED: B-3 040010445 63((A))83 ERT D. JOHNSON - ,VIA T. JOHNSON 0.28 ACRES ZONED: H-3 [ST. 030010351 63((A))84 WILLIAM E. BROY- LINDA L. BROY 0.33 ACRES ZONED: B-3 D.H. 790, PG. 556 75((A))91F \ LOT 6 PCE MICHEAL D & CAROLINE N ZONED: B-1 PRELIP, MG PROPERTIES, LLC 1.21 ACRES ZONED: B-3 EX. USE: COMMERCIAL INST: 000009444 63((A))85 VALLEY PROPERTIES LIMITED PR 9.27 ACRES ZONED: B-3 EX. USE: COMMERCIAL DB: 959, PG: 829 75((A))91I LOT 4D THE MLR COMPANIES, LLC ZONED: B-3 EX. USE: AUTO 1 SALES/SERVICE INST: 05004507 75((A))91D LOT 4C -R&P RENTALS, LLC ZONED: B-3 SE: OFFICE/WAREHOUSE LOT AREA: 1.59 acres DH: -04-26882 - 75((A))91C LOT 3A HODGSON CONST., LLC ZONED: B-3 USE: COMMERCIAL LOT AREA: 6.0238 acres DB: -02-22812 LOT 1\ 87,120 S.F. \ 2.0000 ACRES \ LOT 2 \ 87,120 S.F. 2.0000 ACRES J�TREGIONALATER LOTTE 46,619 L0702 AC'. 75((A))IOA WINCHESTER -81, LLC 23.17 Acres ZONED: B-3 USE: VACANT DB: 721, PG: 190 DB: 813, PG: 593 ROP. ROADWAY ) EXTENSION I: \34,372 S.F.- 0`7891 ACRE LOT 4 , 87,120 S.F. 2.0000 ACRES I � LOT 5 1 65,340 S.F. ' ' 1.5000 ACRES LOT 2 VENTURES I OF WINCHESTER, LLC 522,713 s.f. 11.998 Acres ZONED: B-3 VACANT INST. 050016459 LOT 6 73,492 S.F. 1.6872 ACRE ra bs Y LIMITS OF I-61 IMPROVEMENTS 1-81 IMPROVEMENT'S 12,685.02 S.F 0.291± ACRE I-81 OdPROVEMENTS 12,039.73 S.F. 0.276± ACRES 1-81 IMPROVEMENTS 23,651.48 S.F. 0.543± ACRES U' may. QQH 4' �Zi— W IL0)W=) Z V a �V if) 0Z^WY (n U Umg'w o �'W aw LL. �t 0 E �/y�n N O m M O `// N N h cn'Ln' N 11� m rr f CD N .,�+ C O O o rn't't a L 0 ° O o 07 L uj D L N U U Q O C: f E zw O (n Z J W W Z_ Z0 OZ O W SURVEY: C.I.: NA NONE DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: RD 0502016 SCALE: DATE: 1"=200' 12/09/05 SHEET: Exhibit 1 75((A))91G LOT 4A SPIDERWEB TECHNOLOGY, LLC 75((A))91E ZONED: B-3 EX. USE: COMMERCIAL LOT 5 DB: 954, PG: 1648 PRELIP M G PROPERTIES LLC ZONED: B-3 DB: 950, PG: 704 RIS LEWIN L ACRES ED: B-3 040010445 63((A))83 ERT D. JOHNSON - ,VIA T. JOHNSON 0.28 ACRES ZONED: H-3 [ST. 030010351 63((A))84 WILLIAM E. BROY- LINDA L. BROY 0.33 ACRES ZONED: B-3 D.H. 790, PG. 556 75((A))91F \ LOT 6 PCE MICHEAL D & CAROLINE N ZONED: B-1 PRELIP, MG PROPERTIES, LLC 1.21 ACRES ZONED: B-3 EX. USE: COMMERCIAL INST: 000009444 63((A))85 VALLEY PROPERTIES LIMITED PR 9.27 ACRES ZONED: B-3 EX. USE: COMMERCIAL DB: 959, PG: 829 75((A))91I LOT 4D THE MLR COMPANIES, LLC ZONED: B-3 EX. USE: AUTO 1 SALES/SERVICE INST: 05004507 75((A))91D LOT 4C -R&P RENTALS, LLC ZONED: B-3 SE: OFFICE/WAREHOUSE LOT AREA: 1.59 acres DH: -04-26882 - 75((A))91C LOT 3A HODGSON CONST., LLC ZONED: B-3 USE: COMMERCIAL LOT AREA: 6.0238 acres DB: -02-22812 LOT 1\ 87,120 S.F. \ 2.0000 ACRES \ LOT 2 \ 87,120 S.F. 2.0000 ACRES J�TREGIONALATER LOTTE 46,619 L0702 AC'. 75((A))IOA WINCHESTER -81, LLC 23.17 Acres ZONED: B-3 USE: VACANT DB: 721, PG: 190 DB: 813, PG: 593 ROP. ROADWAY ) EXTENSION I: \34,372 S.F.- 0`7891 ACRE LOT 4 , 87,120 S.F. 2.0000 ACRES I � LOT 5 1 65,340 S.F. ' ' 1.5000 ACRES LOT 2 VENTURES I OF WINCHESTER, LLC 522,713 s.f. 11.998 Acres ZONED: B-3 VACANT INST. 050016459 LOT 6 73,492 S.F. 1.6872 ACRE ra bs Y LIMITS OF I-61 IMPROVEMENTS 1-81 IMPROVEMENT'S 12,685.02 S.F 0.291± ACRE I-81 OdPROVEMENTS 12,039.73 S.F. 0.276± ACRES 1-81 IMPROVEMENTS 23,651.48 S.F. 0.543± ACRES U' may. QQH 4' �Zi— W IL0)W=) Z V a �V if) 0Z^WY (n U Umg'w o �'W aw LL. �t 0 E �/y�n N O m M O `// N N h cn'Ln' N 11� m rr f CD N .,�+ C O O o rn't't a L 0 ° O o 07 L uj D L N U U Q O C: f E zw O (n Z J W W Z_ Z0 OZ O W SURVEY: C.I.: NA NONE DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: RD 0502016 SCALE: DATE: 1"=200' 12/09/05 SHEET: Exhibit 1 ERSNTOWM a" \�/ a� BATILEFIELll RL -.. \ 1379 HISTORICAL PROPERTY KEY 021 - WILLOW BROOK 1060 LLD),6 126 - HILANDALE '°s �b li P 319 - CARYSBROOK** 320 - CARYSBROOK REDOUBT** �� >P 321 - HILANDALE EARTHWORKS \' c' 519 - CHURCH OF CHRIST HOUSE AND BARN 974 - LANTZ HOUSE 975 - HOUSE IN KERNSTOWN 79 9 976 - 3248 VALLEY AVENUE 977 - LORING RITTER HOUSE r s�ioF 1ck 978 - 3328 VALLEY AVENUE / 979 - 3400 VALLEY AVENUE �O 980 - MERVEL ADAMS HOUSE** 981- HANOVEP. HOUSE 982 - HOUSE, RT. 11 SOUTH 983 - HOUSE, RT. 11 SOUTH \ 984 - VILLAGE AUTO SALES 10 _ 985 - HORTON'S NURSERY O \ 1� �/f FROM = p i 1042 - HOUSE OFF RT. 651 CEN TE j 1191 - RUSSELL HOUSE #2 ( A 1192 - RUSSELL HOUSE #1 RLE RADI1339 - STEELE-CLARK HOUSE ENTER OF S NOTE: ** INDICATES A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT SITE AS DENOTED BY THE RURAL LANDMARKS '1041 0 ` J� e^ S�1'E� / ✓/ SURVEY REPORT OF FREDERICK COUNTY 042 9 Rf. Q> M } F— ¢J Oj W Z N a0 m Z QV U _ U RX mOW p o W w = LL - 0 c✓ Plri ^ ■is to N 11 to � N Lu3 c O a�•��o a C '� O +U L E O n N Lui E z IZ �W �W - z� o0 W SURVEY: C.I.: NA NONE DRAWN BY. JOB NO.: 1200 0 1200 SEM 0502016 _ SCALE: DATE: 1"=1200' 08/23/05 Scale 1' = 1200 ft SHEET: EX. r Frederick County Planning E D- evelopment i 'y/iv66 War'Battlefields and ,S-7i"Ps .. �linchester, Virgirro ,,,,�� I (As Defined by the NPS Shenaondoah ?Talley Civil War Sites Study) 12-10-97 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff Fee Amount paid oning Amendment N tuber Date Received r a C Hearing Date `� l3OS .Hearing Date'11q /a' 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: Name7c n �' - Le_vs s, Pt - C_ • Telephone: (S40 ) tc102. - 519 Z Address: 11 Lr- \(A 2�_, Lc c 1 2. Property Owner (if differen-€ than above) Name: le.r-4LLres D o �'Nu 1oe5} r. LLC, Telephone: " 7gty) 9-1q. _ 0jo(r '2_ Address: •12A W ►rc_c -cl j I I.' S� i QC.hC-54e-f VA Z2-Zc0 1 3. Contact person if other than above Name: )—e-0iS Telephone: (SqO) Lcix2.-S'1 -12L 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map ,/ Agency Comments Plat Fees Deed to property �/ Impact Analysis Statement ✓ Verification of taxes paid _� Proffer Statement e/ 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: e�ltcs e 5 l a� Wvr-1C-he-sk Lt_e 6. A) Current Use of the Property: 'Vck-ce.—r-� + B) Proposed Use of the Property: i. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER '15 ` A - in A t�3 -A -a?S `75 -A -c; c -15°iiC, �5 A-Rl p USE BLL5ine5S ---Ccst"w E. CiAL Corvi nF-2ciA-t,, co ryuricrc a R .A,�#e-SleS%Scrvtcer c P F t r- E. / 1lrFrj e r'1 O lJ--se_. ZONING (15-3 �'-3 r 3 d -3 1.3-3 Q.-5 i3-3 S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): L �Cc- ecL a 1 ��CL o� „�rr2onu��c�1 Fbl it0wr+ U -7)' R+. It * R2-1 • 3-7 12 formation to ire Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact fi/iodel 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 or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number -1 j -- A - 9 10 Districts Magisterial: 6"K C cce_K Fire Service: V i Rescue Service:,S pre.,js City i�ci �,re- High School: Middle School: Elementary School: 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current ZZoning Requested is C"c. 6-5 1 1 6/,-, Z c -C . 'Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the Lyne 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: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other: 13 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at Ieast 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. LLC App4e-afft(s): ` VAC v Date: Date: Owner(s): fWLfur Lp-mA. r LL 14 Date: 3 POO(a Date: 10 Special Limited Power of Attorney -c� County of Frederick, Virginia 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) V eti l uk(z _ fit? W (� Cly ! e+� f I_LC_ (Phone) s"VO. " 7. 693( (Address) Iii ,/1i,oce" 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 Rcc.orcl k Instrument No. 'ib`?59 o+� 313r731 , and is described as Parcel: Lot:g16 Block: IQ Section:r7.5 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) F201I' fCt— LtW1'5_ i. L6 (Phone) 5q6' 663 -S-7C)Q (Address) 116 S. S-tcwort -St,- W)- n Lhes fcr, vA --,?a i0( 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: IV* Rezoning (Including proffers) 0 Conditional Use Permits Isdlaste Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) G Subdivision 0 Site ?I?n My attomey-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. hl witness th ereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this 7 3p'3ay of i"A &,a4- 200 , Signature(s) r DIS i✓r,�C !. _ LLC ,ray; State of Virginia,-e-47/County of To -wit: I, l) a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the forego' g instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this ,-2�rc� day of Atfa ilt '2006 My Commission Expires:%ur,c Notary Public C: • • REZONING APPLICATION #06-06 CEDAR MEADOWS Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: April 2, 2006 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County .Manning .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 ;here relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: April 19, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: May 10, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 29.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers, for 140 single family age restricted homes LOCA'1 O,N: West side of White Oak Road (Route 636), approximately 0.6 miles south of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road (Route 642) MAGISTi ERIAL DxSTRECT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 75 -A -106,75 -A -107,75 -A -114,75 -A -115,75-A-116 and 86-A-153 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District 'RESENT USE: Residential and Agricultural AD.1rOfNING PROPE11RTY ZONING R PRESENT USE.: North: RA (Rural Areas) District South: RA (Rural Areas) District East: RA (Rural Areas) District West: RA (Rural Areas) District RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential/Agricultural Use: Sherando Park Residential (under development) PROPOSED USES: 140 Single Family Small Lot Homes (Proffered Age -Restricted Community) Rezoning #06-06 — Cedar Meadows April 2, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 636, 642 and 277. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Cedar Meadows rezoning application dated July 1, 2005 address transportation concerns associated with this request. 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 Marshal: Access shall meet the minimum requirements of NFPA 1141. Extension of municipal water for firefighting shall meet the requirements of Frederick County Code Section 90.4. Plan approval recommended. Departmi:nt of Inspections: No Comment. Public Works Department: Refer to page 4, Wetlands: The discussion indicates that the existing pond will be incorporated as a central feature in the proposed development. Future designs of this feature should include a detailed evaluation of the existing earth dam to insure its stability during 100 year storm flows. Additional wetland studies might be required downstream of the existing pong to delineate potential wetland areas. These studies should be submitted with the master development plan. Refer to page 8, Site Drainage: We concur with the proposed stormwater management controls. However, we recommend that agreements be established with the parks department to allow point source discharges and possible regarding of stormwater channels to facility site grading. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments Sanitation Authority: A 12" waterline will need to be extended through the site toward VA at 277. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: No Comment. GIS: No Comment. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proposed monetary proffer does not appear to offer Frederick County the funds to offset the impact the residents of this development will have on the services provided by the Parks and Recreation Department. The maintenance access easement, for use by the Parks and Recreation Department, should not be included as usable open space for this development. Plan does not appear to indicate the minimum lot size for this development. Because the soils in this area have an extremely slow percolation rate, staff recommends the pedestrian trail, Rezoning #06-06 — Cedar Meadows April 2, 2006 Page 3 identified on the plan as a nature trail, be hard surfaced and a minimum of six feet in width. This will ensure a safe and usable path for the population being served. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 140 single family homes will have no impact on the school division upon build -out due to the units being age restricted. Winchester Regional Airport: The Master Plan has been reviewed and it appears that it should not have an impact on operations of the Winchester Regional Airport as the proposed site falls outside of the airport's Part 77 surface. However, the site does lie within the airport's airspace and residents could experience fly -over noise from aircraft within that area. Fistoric 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, 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 any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact. Frederick County Attorney: (Please see attached letter from Mr. Bob Mitchell dated March 27, 2006). planpi:ig & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City, VA Quadrangle) identifies the property for which the rezoning is being requested as being zoned R -I (Residential Limited). The parcels were re -mapped from R-1 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. 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 Pian 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 Rezoning 906-06 — Cedar Meadows April 2, 2006 Page 4 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] T""d TNo 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 Cedar Meadows 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. As presented, the Cedar Meadows project would develop at 4.7 units per acre. 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 and 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). White Oak Road is identified as an improved major collector road and should be addressed accordingly. While not presently designated as a bicycle route on the County's bicycle plan, this section of White Oak Road warrants consideration for the inclusion of bicycle accommodations consistent with the recently constructed siection of White Oak Road north of this property. This northern section of White Oak road was completed as part of the Canter Estates development. The integration of additional bicycle facilities along the frontage of this project would provide a future linkage with the existing multi use trails, adjacent residential developments, and Sherando Regional Park. The connection along White Oak Road was identified during the on- going bicycle and pedestrian planning update efforts. Further consideration of this enhancement should be considered by the applicant and potentially incorporated into the proffer statement. 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 insure that needed road improvements are identified in order to maintain or improve upon the level of service. Rezoning #06-06 — Cedar Meadows April 2, 2006 Page 5 3) Site Suitzbility jnvironment The Cedar Meadows site contains a man-made pond, approximately 0.85 acres in size, which is considered an area of wetlands. The Cedar Meadows project incorporates this environmental feature into the design of the development as a focal point to the community that affords additional protection to the wetland area. Minor slopes associated with the natural drainage of the property have been identified on the site. No additional environmental features have been identified on the site that would limit the development of the project as proposed by the applicant. According to the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. The Sherman -Rogers -Sargent House, identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey, is located approximately 0.4 acres north of the site. It has been determined that the Cedar Meadows project would not have a detrimental impact on this identified resource. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application projects that the development of 140 age restricted residential units would generate 721 vehicle trips per day. The report was developed with access to the project being provided from White Cak Road and included an evaluation of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road. The TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Cedar Meadows application are acceptable and manageable. The site driveway and the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road will maintain levels of service of C or better during the build out conditions. This is assuming the identified signalization improvements are provided at the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road are implemented. Transportation Program. The Generalized Development Plan for Cedar Meadows delineates the general private road systems that will serve the residential development. The applicant has designed the road system as a private road system with controlled access. Cedar Meadows is proposed to be a gated community. The private street system proposed in the Generalized Development Plan would not meet the requirements of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance with regards to lot access (Section 144-24C). Rezoning #06-06 — Cedar Meadows April 2, 2006 Page 6 Waiver Request: The Board of Supervisors recently amended the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 144, Section 24C, Subdivision of Land, to provide an opportunity for a waiver for Public Road Requirements to allow for proffered age -restricted gated communities with a complete system of private streets. This waiver may be requested by the applicant during the consideration of a Rezoning Application or during consideration of the Master Development Plan. The applicant is required to provide a conceptual design which demonstrates the proposed private street system layout and provide for the cross section dimensional base and pavement detail that meets or exceeds VDOT standards as a condition of requesting approval of a waiver by the Board of Supervisors. The Cedar Meadows project is requesting a waiver described above to address Section 144- 24C of the Subdivision Ordinance. The result of granting the waiver request would be to facilitate the proffered road layout identified in the Generalized Development Plan which includes individual lots greater than 800 feet from a State maintained Road and provides for a gated community with one individual access to White Oak Road. The Planning Commission shoidd determine if the waiver requested by the applicantpurs"antto this rezoning req nest is appropriate. The Cedar Meadows application has proffered to design and construct right turn lanes on White Oak Road. In addition, the application proffers to ensure that the design of the main entrance accommodates an area for vehicular turnaround in advance of the proposed main gate to the facility. In coordination with the Department of Parks and Recreation, the applicant has proffered to provide an additional entrance on White Oak Road for park maintenance purposes and a 30 foot easement for the purpose of providing access for park maintenance operations along the southern boundary of the property. White Oak Road's designation as an improved major collector road requires that the applicant address the need for additional right-of-way to enable the improvement of White Oak Road. If warranted, improvements to White Oak Road should also be provided. The applicant has proffered the dedication of an additional twenty feet along the frontage of their property to facilitate the ultimate right-of-way needs associated with an improved major collector road. At this time, it is not anticipated that additional improvement to White Oak Road are warranted. The intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road warrants signalization based upon the conclusion of the applicant's TIA. To that end, the applicant has proffered the signalization of this intersection. Flexibility has been provided in this particular proffer to enable Frederick CvLiniy to leverage additional trai'ispoil ation fandirtg Uased'u'pon the arrwui.t of the signalizati0n funding. Rezoning #06-06 — Cedar Meadows April 2, 2006 Page 7 Omitted from the general transportation program is an enhanced accommodation for pedestrian and bicycle circulation along the frontage of White Oak Road to facilitate access along White Oak Road between the adjacent residential developments and Sherando Regional Park. Internal pedestrian circulation will be provided and access will be provided to the adjacent park property for the residents of Cedar Meadows. The section of White Oak Road along the frontage of this property warrants consideration for the inclusion of bicycle accommodations consistent with the recently constructed section of White Oak Road north of this property. B. Sewer and- Water The Cedar Meadows rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 38,500 gallons per day of water usage and approximately 31,500 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 Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. The initial review of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority identified that a 12" waterline will need to be extended through the site toward VA at 277. The applicant should ensure that this improvement is incorporated into the project. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities and Impacts The Frederick County Development Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building have been calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The impacts associated with entirely residential projects are fixed at $23,290.00 for single family detached residential dwellings. It is recognized that the community facility impacts to schools may be negated when considering the very nature of proffered age - restricted communities. When subtracting the project school impact of $19,189.00 from the total impact amount, the balance remaining to be addressed by the applicant is $4,101.00 distributed among the other impacted community facilities. This application does not address this balance but rather proposes a $1,500.00 monetary contribution to be utilized for fire and rescue services. Rezoning #06-06 — Cedar Meadows April 2, 2006 Page 8 The distribution and deficit in the monetary contribution provided by the applicant should be evaluated by the Planning Commission to determine if this alternative approach is appropriate. As currently presented, the community facility impacts to the following entities have not been fully addressed; Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriffs Office, and County Administration. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated December 28, 2005 and revised March 9, 2006 General Development Plan. The applicant has provided a Generalized Development Plan for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of the private street systems, age restricted community center facility, and park area. The GDP is also provided to clarify the requested waiver to Section 144-24C, Subdivision of Land, for a waiver to the Public Road Requirements to allow for proffered age - restricted gated communities with a complete system of private streets. Residential Uses and Age Restricted Community. The applicants have proffered to limit the total number of residential uses to 140 Single Family Small Lot detached dwelling units. Further, the applicant has proffered that the property will be developed as an age restricted community. Requirements detailing the specifications of the age restricted community have also been proffered. Recreational Amenities. The applicant has provided for the construction of a community center in conjunction with this project, the provision of a complete system of pedestrian sidewalks and trails, and the provision of accessibility enhancements to the Sherando Regional Park for purposes of pedestrian and maintenance facility access. Consideration should be given to additional external pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. Transportation. The applicant has proffered to limit the number of entrances along White Oak Road, to gate the access to this community, to dedicating additional right-of-way along White Oak Road to enable the future improvement of this major collector road, and to the signalization of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road. Community Curbside Trash Collection. Commercial trash pick up has been proffered, the responsibility of which will be with the Cedar Meadows Home Owners Association. Rezoning #06-06 — Cedar Meadows April 2, 2006 Page 9 Monetary Contribution. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $1,500 for each residential lot that is platted to be utilized for Fire and Rescue Services. Consideration should be given to the community facility impacts that have not been addressed by the applicant. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/14/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Wave- Reauest : The Planning Commission should determine if the waiver requested by the applicant pursuant to this rezoning request is appropriate. The Cedar Meadows project is requesting a waiver described above to address Section 144-24C of the Subdivision Ordinance. The result of granting the waiver request would be to facilitate the proffered road layout identified in the Generalized Development Plan which includes individual lots greater than 800 feet from a State maintained Road and provides for a gated community with one individual access to White Oak Road. Rezoning Request: The Cedar Meadows rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant, including the following issues which were identified in the staff report: Consideration should be given to additional external pedestrian and bicycle accessibility along White Oak Road. Consideration should be given to the community facility impacts that have not been addressed by the applicant. The Commission should recognize that if the above Waiver Request for lot access is not be approved, the rezoning application and proffer statement would have to be modified from its current form to provide for lot access meeting the requirements of Section 144-24C of the Subdivision Ordinance. 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. Followin- the requirement fora public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the hoard of Supervisors concerninz this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be pmPared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Manning Commission. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS March 27, 2006 HA D DELIVLPtED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Cedar Meadows Age -Restricted Community (Jasbo, Inc. & Sparks Property, L.L.C.) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. I assume that the second paragraph under "Preliminary Matters" is meant to constitute a legal description of the properties involved in the rezoning. However, on its face it would appear to be inconsistent with the identification of the record owners as Jasbo, Inc. & Sparks Property, L.L.C., as the description in the second paragraph seems to reference all of the land being owned by Jasbo, Inc. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG. VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0, LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540-662-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. March 27, 2006 HA D DELIVLPtED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Cedar Meadows Age -Restricted Community (Jasbo, Inc. & Sparks Property, L.L.C.) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. I assume that the second paragraph under "Preliminary Matters" is meant to constitute a legal description of the properties involved in the rezoning. However, on its face it would appear to be inconsistent with the identification of the record owners as Jasbo, Inc. & Sparks Property, L.L.C., as the description in the second paragraph seems to reference all of the land being owned by Jasbo, Inc. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 2 2. My primary comment with respect to this Proposed Proffer Statement is that while it states in Section A that the property will be developed in substantial conformity with the attached Generalized Development Plan, the second sentence, in describing what the Generalized Development Plan shall identify, suggests that the GDP is not currently available. Since I was not provided with a copy of the GDP, I cannot tell from these Proffers whether the GDP has been submitted. It certainly needs to be submitted as a part of these Proffers. If it has been, then the various Proffers addressing items which are shown on the GDP should specifically reference the GDP. For example, paragraph D 1 could identify the location of the community center as the location shown on the GDP, rather than stating that the community center "will be located within the park area along the pond." 3. The last sentence in paragraph D3 states "The maintenance access drive shall not be utilized as a public access drive for the Sherando Regional Park." This seems to present a question about how that Proffer will be enforced. Does the GDP suggest a design for the access drive to deter utilization as a public access to the park? Is the Applicant to take other measures, such as gates or signs, to implement this provision? 4. Throughout the Proffer Statement, there needs to be included the time by which a specific item will be performed, including, without limitation, construction of the trails (D2) conveyance of the easement (D2), construction of the maintenance entrance and access drive (D3), dedication for future road widening (D3), and construction of right turn and taper lane (D3). It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. HALL, 'IONAFIAN, ENGLE, MiAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 3 If there are any questions concerning the foregoing continents, please contact me. Very ly yours, 1 "� RTM/msp-ks I ) A 75 A 107 JASBO, INC ab 37-- Z6,4 C- 86 08 '1 76- 'A A2 SARGENT, M ELIZABETH TRUSTEE 86 A m "o 'N' 773 764 m Map F. -- Rezoning # 06 - 06 Cedar Meadows .0 T— 40 Land Use Cat,g*rt,, (75-A-106,107) o 125 250 5oo 86 A - 114, 115,116, 153Feet 'N' m 75 Al 13 LEONARD PROPERTY, LLC j Map F. -- Rezoning # 06 - 06 Cedar Meadows .0 T— 40 Land Use Cat,g*rt,, (75-A-106,107) o 125 250 5oo 86 A - 114, 115,116, 153Feet IL /61 86 A 143C COUNTY OF FREDERICK 75 A117 JASBO , INC 75 A 117A COUNTY OF FREDERICK map FaaWres T[ NanLand Use CatagOrm, L—j —d --i- 108 oQ Qa 75 A 107 JASBO, INC 75 A 116 JASBO, INC 4 C) 40t • 40' 616 Rezoning # 06 - 06 Cedar Meadows (75 - A -106, 107) (86 - A -114, 115, 116, 153 ) 76 A 42 SARGENT, M ELIZABETH TRUSTEE • 75 A 113 LEONARD PROPERTY, LLC 86 A 155 FERTIG, JUANITA wE 0 125 250 500 Feet I I % 75 A 117 JASBO, INC 75 A 117A COUNTY OF FREDERICK wp Features O—A *lb ao� Zoning RP Lana Use Catag.11- as a '08 ew4 �1 0 Q` Qa -.186 A 109 oh e 86Jw 75 A 107 JASBO, INC as 75 A 116 q • JASBO, INC h � cy q �Sy � U *yM v V ♦ y + e as q O 'SS q L Rezoning # 06 - 06 Cedar Meadows ( 75 - A -106, 107 ) ( 86 - A -114, 115, 116,153) \ \V eOW�q & G�/IF tC. 76 A 42 SARGENT, M ELIZABETH TRUSTEE • 75 A 113 LEONARD PROPERTY, LLC 86 A 155 FERTIG, JUANITA wE 0 125 250 500 Feet "5 AS BO, INC7642 4 "�,•, � :-. � yyv ' SARGENT, M ELIZABETH TRUST€€ .- q 109 i y+ ti �,'r 75 A 107 JASSO, INC IV b. e1<r a 75 A 116 . se q • ;''.-".7� i _f r� JASBO, INC 75 A 113 ^qc- tl LEONARD PROPERTY', LLC L] 75'A 117A `off �yv �, COUNTY OF EREOEtiICK � Q, r ¢�. , ad 5 a yQ I V- } _. Y _ •�* i - FERTIG�GANITA% ' $6 A 14$C �' �'� r5`F � �•� COUNTYOFFRI9UERICii . ; V+� ►� - moi«'. �• .,.,� - •�. �� ,r i; � �y . Map Features tips �` Rezoning # 06 - 06 ' Nn• ,.ra. Cedar Meadows ws .e.anv Roetl CaMarlines Tl- N(75 - A - 106, 107 wE �v,n,a Land Use Catagories ) (86 -A -114, 115, 116, 153) 0 125 250 500 Feet Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 CEDAR MEADOWS PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# D 4—a 6, Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Performance (RP) PROPERTIES: 29.70 -acres +/- Tax Parcels 75-((A))-106; 75-((A))-1.07; 75-((A))-114; 75-((A))-115; 75-((A))-116;& 86-((A))-153 RECORD OWNERS: Jasbo, Inc. & Sparks Property, L.L.C. APPLICANT: Jasbo, Inc. & Sparks Property, L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Cedar Meadows Age -Restricted Community ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 28, 2005 REVISION DATE: March 9, 2006 Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, (the "Carle") and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordfnapce") with respect to conditional zoning, Jasbo, Inc., and Sparks Property, L.L.C. (the "A ppllcaat") hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 04 for the rezoning of 29.70± -acres (the "Property") from the RA, Rural Area District to RP, Residential Performance District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity 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 be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon these applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject Property, identified as Cedar Meadows, and more particularly described as the lands owned by Jasbo, Inc., being all of Tax Map Parcels 75-((A))-106, 75-((A))-107, 75-((A))-114, 75-((A))-115, 75-((A))-116, and 86-((A))-153 and further identified by plat and survey dated June 7, 2004, prepared by Mark D. Smith, L.S., of Greenway Engineering, entitled "Boundary Survey of the Land of Chloe Juanita Sparks, recorded as Instrument Number 040022470, additionally by Deed, recorded as Instrument Number 050007167 and Instrument Number 050029421, File ##4074/EA W Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 A. Generalized Development Plan The Applicant hereby proffers to develop the Property in substantial conformity with the attached Generalized Development Plan ("GDP") dated December 28, 2005 that will be approved as part of the rezoning application. The GDP shall identify the general location of the internal private road system and the general location of the age -restricted community center facility and park area. B. Residential Land Use 1. The Applicant hereby proffers that the Property shall be developed as an age - restricted community pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section C — Age Restricted Community of this proffer statement. 2. The Applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of age -restricted residential structures tol40 total single-family small lot detached dwelling units. C. Age -Restricted Community The Applicant hereby proffers that the following language shall be included in the deeds conveying real property designated as age -restricted housing on that portion of the Property. All residential units shall be occupied by at least one person fifty-five (55) years of age or older and within such units the following conditions shall apply: 1. All other residents must reside with a person who is fifty-five (55) years of age or older, and be a spouse, a cohabitant, an occupant's child of nineteen (19) years of age or older, or provide primary physical or economic support to the person who is fifty-five (55) years of age or older. Not withstanding this limitation, a person hired to provide live-in, long term or terminal health care of a person who is fifty-five (55) years of age or older for compensation may also occupy a dwelling during any time such person is actually providing such care. 2. Guests under the age of fifty-five (55) are permitted for periods of time not to exceed sixty (60) days total for each such guest in any calendar year. 3. If title to any lot or unit shall become vested in any person under the age of fifty-five (55) by reason of descent, distribution, foreclosure or operation of law, the age restriction covenants shall not work a forfeiture or revision of title, but rather, such person thus taking title shall not be permitted to reside in File #4074/EAW 2 Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 such lot or unit until he/she shall have attained the age of fifty-five (55) or otherwise satisfies the requirements as set forth herein. Notwithstanding, a surviving spouse shall be allowed to continue to occupy a dwelling unit without regard to age. Recreational Amenities 1. The Applicant hereby proffers to construct a Community Center Facility for the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community pursuant to § 165-64, which shall be a minimum of 2,000 square -feet and will be located within the park area along the pond, which shall count towards the required recreational amenity requirement. 2. The Applicant hereby proffers to construct a complete system of pedestrian sidewalks and trails that provide access from all residential dwellings to the Community Center Facility and park area, of which the trails shall count towards the required recreational amenity requirement. The Applicant shall provide an easement adjoining the internal trail system along the Sherando Regional Park property to allow for a future trail connection that will allow residents of the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community access to the regional park. 3. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide an easement upon a portion of the Cedar Meadows Property sufficient to accommodate an entrance off of White Oak Road (Route 636), transitioning to a 30 -foot easement for the construction of a private access lane for the exclusive use of the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department for maintenance access only. The Applicant further proffers to apply for the required VDOT entrance permit for the maintenance access drive at the time that the main VDOT entrance permit is applied for and to construct the maintenance entrance and access drive from White Oak Road (Route 636) to the western limits of the subject property following approval of the VDOT entrance permit. This maintenance access easement shall be incorporated as a component of the subdivision and open space plats for the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community. The maintenance access drive shall not be utilized as a public access drive for the Sherando Regional Park. E. Transportation Enhancements 1. The Applicant hereby proffers to develop the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community with a complete system of private streets and as a gated community. 2, The Applicant hereby proffers to limit the number of entrances along White Oak Road (Route 636) to one main entrance in addition to the Sherando Regional Park maintenance access entrance described in Section D(3) above. The main entrance File #4074/EAW 3 Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 shall be gated and the ingress and egress lanes into the community shall be designed and sized to allow for emergency access on either lane and for a vehicle turn around area between the public street and the gated main entrance. 3. The Applicant hereby proffers to dedicate a 20 -foot strip along the existing 40 - foot White Oak Road right-of-way frontage on the subject site for the purpose of future road widening. The Applicant shall be responsible for the construction of a right turn and taper lane to provide safe access to the Cedar Meadows age - restricted community. 4. The Applicant hereby proffers to enter into a signalization agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) that will fully fund the installation of traffic signalization at the White Oak Road (Route 636)/Tasker Road (Route 642) intersection. These funds shall be made available to Frederick County for use as a local match for Revenue Sharing Funds or other applicable transportation enhancement funds. in the event that VDOT determines that traffic signalization is not warranted at the White Oak Road (Route 636)/Tasker Road (Route 642) intersection, these funds will be made available to Frederick County unconditionally for other transportation improvements as determined by the Board of Supervisors. 5. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for advanced warning signs along White Oak Road (Route 636) to the south of the subject site to advise motorists of the Parks and Recreation private maintenance access drive if desired by VDOT. Additionally, the Applicant proffers to gate the private maintenance access drive during the construction process as described in Section D(3) of the proffer statement. F. Community Curbside Trash Collection The Applicant hereby proffers to provide commercial trash pickup and waste removal service for the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall be established by deed covenant and shall be assigned to the Cedar Meadows Home Owners Association (HOA) at such time as identified in the legal documents setting forth the guidelines for the Cedar Meadows HOA. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall remain in effect and be the responsibility of the Cedar Meadows HOA until such time as this service is provided by Frederick County. File #4074/EAW 4 Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 G. Vicaetary Contribution to Offset Iu> rlact of l-eveiopmernt The undersigned contract owner of the above-described property hereby voluntarily proffers that in the event rezoning application # is approved, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia $1,500 for each residential lot that is platted, to be utilized for Fire and Rescue Services. This monetary contribution will be paid at the time of the building permit issuance for each residential lot. 1_ Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the Applicant and its assigns and successors in interest. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the proffered conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Ordinance. Respectfully Submitted: Beverley B. Shoemaker, Presi entU Date Jasbo, Inc. & Sparks Property, L.L.C. Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of -recce r%G„ To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -_day of HG1rCl 200b by \7�) P_Ve_(- fjA ,. Notary Publ' My Commission Expires bYP.h1/r°JZ �� `?�a File .44074JEAW Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 CEDAR MEADOWS REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of a 29.70± -acre age -restricted community identified as Cedar Meadows owned by Jasbo, Inc., and Sparks Property, L.L.C. The subject site is comprised of six contiguous parcels, including Tax Map Parcels 75-((A))-106, 75-((A))-107; 75-((A))-114; 75-((A))-115; 75-((A))-116; and 86-((A))-153. The subject site is located on the west side of White Oak Road (Route 636), approximately 0.6 miles south of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road (Route 642). The Applicant proposes to conditionally rezone the 29.70± -acre subject site from RA, Rural Areas District to RP, Residential Performance District. The six contiguous parcels comprising the 29.70± -acre subject site are further identified by plat and survey dated June 7, 2004, prepared by Mark D. Smith, L.S., of Greenway Engineering, entitled "Boundary Survey of the Land of Chloe Juanita Sparks, recorded as Instrument Number 040022470, additionally by Deed, recorded as Instrument Number 050007167 and Instrument Number 050029421. Basic information Location: Located on the west side of White Oak Road (Route 636), approximately 0.6 miles south of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road (Route 642). Magisterial District: Opequon Property D Numbers: Tax Map Parcels 75-((A))-106; 75-((A))-107; 75-((A))-114; 75-((A))-115; 75-((A))-116 & 86-((A))-153 Current Zoning: RA, Rural Areas District Current Use: Residential and Agricultural Proposed Use: Residential Age -Restricted Community Proposed Zoning: RP, Residential Performance District Total rezoning area: 29.70± -acres Proposed build -out 140 Single-family small lot detached residential units File #4074/EAW Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 COWREHENSBTE PGrLICY PLAN The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan dated January 2004 identifies the land area on the west side of White Oak Road (Route 636) between Tasker Road (Route 642) and the Sherando Regional Park property as residential land use. The 29.70± subject site is located within the current boundaries of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); therefore, expansion of the UDA and the SWSA beyond the existing boundaries is not required by this application. The location of the subject site in relation to the UDA and SWSA boundaries is provided on the map exhibit entitled Urban Development Area/Sewer and Water Service Area Map Exhibit that is included as a component of this rezoning application. COIF WNIITY LANDSCAPE CONCEPT The Applicant plans to develop the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community under the landscape provisions specified in § 165-36A(2)(b) and §165-3613 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. These sections of the Zoning Ordinance specify the plant selection, planting procedures and maintenance responsibilities for the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community. The Applicant has discussed this community landscape concept with and will work closely with staff to distribute the required plantings throughout the community to include landscaping on each residential lot, landscaping along the community main street and landscaping within the open space areas and the community park area. To accomplish this, the Applicant has prepared community landscape concepts that have been provided to staff for review. The residential lot landscaping is proposed to be in substantial conformity with the Cedar Meadows Residential Lot Typical Landscape Plan prepared by J. Duggan & Associates P.C. dated December 28, 2005. Additionally, landscaping along the community main street and park area is proposed to be in substantial conformity with the Cedar Meadows Community Center and Park Schematic Landscape Development Plan and the Cedar Meadows Main Street Schematic Landscape Development Plan prepared by J. Duggan & Associates P.C. dated December 28, 2005. The distribution of the trees and shrubs that will be planted along the community main street and within the park area will not be counted towards the buffer and screening landscaping requirements for the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The 29.70± subject site is accessible along White Oak Road with approximately 1,500 feet of state road frontage. The Cedar Meadows age -restricted community proffer limits the number of entrances along White Oak Road to one main entrance that will be gated to provide for the File #4074/EAW 3 Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 privacy and security of the residents. The main entrance will be located in close proximity to the current location of Pewter Lane to ensure that appropriate sight distance is maintained for vehicles traveling north and south along White Oak Road. The Applicant has worked with the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department to identify a location along the southern boundary line of the subject site for the purpose of providing a future private maintenance access drive for the exclusive use of the Parks and Recreation maintenance staff. The location of this private maintenance access drive is identified on the proffered Generalized Development Plan dated 12/28/05 for the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community. Flnnrl Plninc The 29.70± -acre subject site is located on FEMA NFIP Map #510063-0200-B. The entire site is designated as a "Zone C" outside of the 100 -year flood plain limits. The closest flood plain area is associated with Wright's Run and is located approximately 500 feet to the south of the subject site. The location of the subject site in relation to the Wright's Run flood plain area is provided on the map exhibit entitled Environmental Features Map Exhibit that is included as a component of this rezoning application. Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data identifies an area of wetlands on the western- most portion of the subject site. This wetland area is a man-made impoundment pond that is approximately 0.85 -acres in size. The design for the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community will utilize the existing pond as an enhancement for the community park area. Enhancements will include incorporating the pond as a feature for the community center facility, developing a pedestrian trail system around the pond and introducing plantings within the park area around the pond. The location of the NWI wetlands feature is provided on the map exhibit entitled Environmental Features Map Exhibit that is included as a component of this rezoning application. Additionally, the location of the community park and pond area is depicted on the proffered Generalized Development Plan dated 12/28/05 for the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community. Steep Slope The 29.70± -acre subject site does not contain areas of steep slope as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The steeper areas of the subject site are generally located in the southern and southwestern portions of the property associated with existing drainage swales. The areas in which the existing drainage swales are located are approximately 15% to 25% slope. File #4074/EAW 4 Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 Soil Types The Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia identifies four soil types on the 29.70± -acre subject site. These soil types are identified on the map exhibit entitled Soils Map Exhibit and are identified as follows: 1B Berks channery silt loam 2-7% slope 3B Blairton silt loam 2-7% slope 9B Clearbrook channery silt loam 2-7% slope 4 1 C' Weikert-Berks channery silt loams 7-15% slope 41E Weikert-Berks channery silt loams 25-65% slope Table 5 on page 123 of The Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia, identifies soils that are classified as prime farmland. The Clearbrook channery silt loam (913) is identified as prime farmland soil. The soil types that comprise the subject site are the same soils types that are located on adjacent residential developments including The Camp, Musket Ridge and Old Dominion Greens; therefore, these soils will not create construction difficulties or hazards. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: RA, Rural Area District South: RA, Rural Area District East: RA, Rural Area District West: RP, Residential Performance District U. TRANSPORTATION Use: Residential Use: Sherando Regional Park; Residential Use: Residential and Agricultural Use: Sherando Regional Park; Residential The Cedar Meadows age -restricted community proffer limits the number of entrances along White Oak Road to one main entrance that will be gated to provide for the privacy and security of the residents. The main entrance will be located in close proximity to the current location of Pewter Lane to ensure that appropriate sight distance is maintained for vehicles traveling north and south along White Oak Road. The proposed main entrance will be designed to separate ingress and egress lanes into the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community to provide two means of access for emergency service vehicles, as well as a turn around area for vehicles that do not have access to the age -restricted community. File #4074/EAW 5 Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 A detailed Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the Cedar Meadows age - restricted community by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc dated May 25, 2005. The TIA accounts for the build -out of 140 age -restricted dwelling units within the Cedar Meadows community and provides detailed traffic count and traffic movement for AM and PM conditions, as well as lane geometry for existing traffic conditions, background traffic conditions and build -out traffic conditions. Traffic generated by the Cedar Meadows age - restricted community will access White Oak Road (Route 636), with 70% of the traffic movement assumed to travel north on White Oak Road to access Tasker Road (Route 642) and Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South), while the remaining 30% of the traffic movement is assumed to travel south on White Oak Road to access Fairfax Pike (Route 277). A Virginia Department of Transportation project is in process, which will provide for traffic signalization at the intersection of White Oak Road and Fairfax Pike. It is anticipated that this signalized intersection will be functional in January 2006. The Institute of Traffic Engineer Trip Generation Manual, 7`h Edition (page 453) identifies single-family detached adult housing as generating an average of 3.71 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA utilizes a more conservative estimate of 5.15 VPD for the 140 age - restricted dwelling units within the Cedar Meadows community. Therefore, the proffered 140 age -restricted dwelling units would produce an average daily traffic volume ranging between 520 and 721 vehicle trips. Furthermore, the TIA assumes that these vehicle trips will be generated during the AM and PM although it is realistic to expect that the majority of the vehicle trips will be generated outside of peak hour. The TIA demonstrates that the existing lane geometry for the unsignalized White Oak Road/Tasker Road intersection functions at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for all traffic movements during the AM and PM peak hour. The addition of background traffic and the 5% projected annual growth rate on White Oak Road Tasker Road reduces the AM peak hour movement on the White Oak Road northbound approach to a LOS D, although the overall unsignalized intersection still functions at an acceptable LOS. The TIA demonstrates that the build -out of the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community further decreases the LOS at the unsignalized intersection on the White Oak Road southbound approach to a LOS D during AM peak hour movement, while all other movements maintain acceptable LOS or are not further reduced from background traffic LOS. The TIA provides for an analysis of the White Oak Road/Tasker Road intersection based on a signalized condition for both background traffic impacts and build -out condition impacts. The TIA identifies traffic signalization as a suggested improvement at this intersection, which demonstrates an acceptable LOS for all traffic movements during the AM and PM peak hours. The applicant has proffered to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT to fully fund a traffic signal at this intersection. Therefore, the development of the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community will mitigate the projected transportation impacts associated with background traffic, as well as the build -out of the Cedar Meadows age - restricted community. File #4074/EAW 6 Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The 29.70± -acre subject site is located in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). There are existing 8" sanitary sewer lines that are located within The Camp Subdivision to the north of the subject site and new 8" sanitary sewer lines that are being installed immediately adjacent to the subject site that will serve the Old Dominion Green Subdivision. The Cedar Meadows age -restricted community will provide a 4" sewer force main that will connect to this infrastructure, which flows to a 12" sanitary sewer main along Tasker Road and Front Royal Pike to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant has a current hydraulic capacity of 2.0 MGD, and is currently operating at approximately 80% capacity. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority Board has approved a plan to expand the capacity of the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility to 5 million gallons per day (MGD). The 5 MGD expansion of the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility is projected to begin near the end of calendar year 2006 and is anticipated to be complete in calendar year 2009. The sewer conveyance and treatment impacts associated with the development of 140 age - restricted dwelling units can be based on comparable discharge patterns of 225 gallons per day (GPD) per dwelling for residential land use. The figures below represent the projected impacts that the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community will create for sewage conveyance and treatment at full build out: Q = 225 GPD per dwelling unit Q = 225 GPD X 140 dwelling units Q = 31,500 GPD The proposed zoning is projected to increase flows to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant by 31,500 gallons per day at total build -out. The Cedar Meadows project is anticipated to be built -out by calendar year 2008, which can be accommodated by the current capacity that is available at the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant during the 5 MGD expansion. The total build -out of the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community will require less than one percent of the expanded capacity at the Parkins Mill Waste Water Treatment Plant; therefore, adequate capacity and infrastructure will be available for the development of the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community during the initial phases of construction and at build -out. L. WATER SUPPLY The 29.70± -acre subject site is located in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). A 12 - inch water main serving The Camp residential subdivision to the north of the subject site has been extended through the first phase of the Old Dominion Greens residential subdivision and stubbed to the subject site for water service. The water conveyance and treatment impacts associated with the development of 140 age - restricted dwelling units can be based on usage of 275 gallons per day (GPD) per single - File #4074/EAW 7 Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 family detached unit. The figures below represent the projected impacts that the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community will create for water conveyance and treatment at full build out: Q = 275 GPD per dwelling unit Q = 275 GPD X 140 dwelling units Q = 38,500 GPD The projected water usage for the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community is 38,500 gallons per day at total build -out. Water service will be provided by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) from the Stephens City quarry system that is treated at the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant. This treatment plant provides approximately 4.0 MGD of potable water; therefore, the projected water demands for the Cedar Meadows age - restricted community will require less than 1% of the current water source. The on-site water infrastructure required to convey potable water to the proposed residential dwelling units will be developed by the applicant to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance Therefore, adequate capacity and infrastructure will be available for the development of the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community during the initial phases of construction and at build -out. F. SITE DRAINAGE The 29.70± -acre subject site is gently rolling and generally drains towards the southern property boundary, while a small area in the northern portion of the site drains towards White Oak Road (Route 636). The Cedar Meadows age -restricted community will be designed to provide for an on-site storm water management pond near the southern property boundary to control stormwater run-off and to channel stormwater to White Oak Road in the northern portion of the project. Stormwater management controls will be designed to meet all applicable State and County ordinance requirements and will require approval by the County Engineer. Therefore, the development of the 29.70± -acre subject site will not have an adverse impact on the community regarding stormwater management. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual residential consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per household (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4"' edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on the 140 residential units that will be developed in the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community. AV = 5.4 cu. yd. per household AV = 5.4 cu. yd. X 140 households AV = 756 cu. yd. at build -out, or 530 tons/yr at build -out File #4074/EAW 8 Greenway Engineering December 28, 2005 Cedar Meadows Rezoning March 9, 2006 The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The projected build -out of the Cedar Meadows age - restricted community subject site will generate on average 530 tons of solid waste annually. This represents a 0.2% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year. The Applicants' proffer statement provides for curbside trash pickup service in the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community; therefore transportation and increased volume impacts at the County citizen convenience centers will be mitigated and tipping fees will be generated that will create a continuous revenue source for the Regional Landfill to further mitigate the impacts of solid waste disposal by the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community. FA. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES There are no properties or structures that are identified as potentially eligible for the National and State Register of Historic Places within proximity of the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County identifies the Sherman -Rogers -Sargent House (#34-1345) as a potentially significant property within proximity of the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community, which is located approximately 0.4 miles to the northeast. The Sherman -Rogers -Sargent House is not visible from the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community, nor will there be structures developed on the 29.70± - acre site that are of a height that will impact the viewshed from the Sargent property. Therefore the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community will not have a negative impact on the Sherman -Rogers -Sargent House. I.OTHER IMPACTS The Frederick County Board of Supervisors adopted the new Development Impact Model (DIM), which was implemented December 1, 2005. The DIM projects the capital facilities fiscal impact of a single-family residence at $23,290.00, of which $720.00 is projected for fire and rescue services. The Applicant's proffer statement provides for a $1,500.00 monetary proffer for each residential unit to mitigate impacts to fire and rescue services, which is more than double the fiscal impact projected by the DIM. Additionally, the Cedar Meadows age -restricted community is proffered to provide for a community park area that will contain a community center facility and trail system for the benefit of the residents. The Applicant has worked in cooperation with the Department of Parks and Recreation to execute agreements that will enhance the Sherando Regional Park property, including the removal of existing structures, connectivity for future maintenance vehicle access, and connectivity to the future park trial system. The Cedar Meadows development is proffered to be an age - restricted community; therefore, there will not be impacts to the public school system. No other impacts outside of those discussed in this Impact Analysis Statement are anticipated for this development proposal. File #4074/EAW 9 t_=A IVB a0 RINI ORNAMt"NI AI IAND5CAPE RFOIIIREMENTS w({b�1.k .. �.ly iweFnw�uw IOSlnA1/Hb) ! hrrnl . et: •Aalwv . bwe W l t+i 4:1 lylw It N.gul!Ni ,,, nb, 1 e,.r Mwwl. ma n.e. Nwgw.w ur.1 W040 Shrub. Nequbw ProN.IbA M.+t, 9bb.1 rhan 1-1u for ft—ldw • .. I.Infl Oen 4a1 rn.a,rd ,1 V Lawr>J f 1 0 —Lawd PARK ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS Provided TREESShade. Flowedng, eM Evergreen Trees- 154 154 PhbWded SHRUBS: Shrubs- 440 aso Provided Note: PlanBinot Identliled are not part of Proffer Packa e n Parking —'O SMO O?w d0�` .R+ eeepOp+•,000eee ,C YG t QiDwO �Ow`0 p ■ _ Arg �1t:,,' Tel _� Shade Tree, FO-hai, Tree, or Evergreen Tree All shade arM fil Imes N be minimum of z" c.cat olanAng All evergreens le be minimum of 4' in height at O olen. = Shmhs All ShrubS to he minimum of 3 galbn —131 MM at planting. Perimeter NOTE: ALL PLANTINGS TO MEET SELECTION AND SIZE CRITERIA OF FREDERICK COUNTY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE SECTION 165-36B ALTHOUGH PLANT COUNT WILL REMAIN THE SAME. ACTUAL SELECTION AND LOCATION OF PLANTS MAY VARY DUE TO SITE FEATURES/CONTSTRAINTS, FINAL ENGINEERING, AND PLANT AVAILABILITY. Nature Trail --Lawr CD Date Z_ _m W 0 d/�- n LL Q W Z_ -0 2 P- - % W^te^ll C) a v W Q U � U) 03 C J W E U 0 m o U m UU) 3 Z a 8 3� (7 J "a $ c � w� No. Date Revisions _m Ile L U) 0 d/�- n LL Q 0 -0 2 % W^te^ll ��1 W Q U � U) 03 C J E U 0 m ^, U m UU) Project Title Drawing Title Project Manager J Duggan RLA Drawn By Scale TM NTS Reviewed By Drawing No. JD Date 12/28/2005 CAD File- Tor°I Shaer, ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS eA(2)lol � a � ael�mm� rosea oe hl rype H 2040 swW.w Mmpartun rpunk 000 TSO,- .q.. d PiO APW 400 :A t ]tl0 241 40 ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS PrvNOed TREES: 50a0n, Fbwsnng,aM Evorgreon Trees- 139 ]9 P,- SHRI%S: Siwbs- 24] 247 PwvlAea e.- PIarN nol IJeMlOxd aye iwl paH of Proper arka0e T zn emroe.Fne nnesrlre�e.mee�mr�ee un a MlnO e m to N m�Mmum of < In Mit el O All SnNM� mNmma el partllrglo 1]gdlon mnlalners NOTE: ALL PLANTINGS TO MEET SELECTION AND SIZE CRITERIA OF FREDERICK COUNTY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE SECTION 165-36B ALTHOUGH PI ANT COUNT WILL REMAIN THE SAME. ACTUAL SELECTION AND LOCATION OF PLANTS MAY VARY DUE TO SITE FEATURESICONTS TRAINTS, FINAL FNGINFERIN(i. AND PLANT AVAILABILITY. CD Z_ W W Z_ � U W o Q s 06 z m W a 3CIO 3 J 1 No. 1 Date 1 Revisions ZOJ 3: C CO 0 m C E N M = Q (D L W U) a) ) > N D Cn � 0- C: C(d CO U) n ' C W J U Project Title Drawing Title Project Manager J Duggan RLA Drawn By Scale TM NTS Reviewed By Drawing No. JD Date 12/28/2005 CAD File Toll dA«1• C, Shade Tree FAlkilrhum. size 2" C.c. 1 ................. i i Foundation Shrubs cc minimum size 3 gallon container t' • i Flowering Tree minimum size 2" c.c. Drivewav A Patio Walk Foundation Shrubs • minimum size 3 gallon container Shade Tree minimum size 2" c.c. F2 ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS r Per F=rederick County Ordinance 165-36A(2)(b) Using calculations based on lot type H ;equAred 5 trees per 1 unit equals 680 Trees Required 15 shrubs per one unit 2040 Shrubs Required Pro+/idad Trees Lot Plan 408 Park Plan 154 Main Street Plan 139 701 Provided Shrubs Lot Plan 1360 Park Plan 440 Main Street Plan 247 2047 Provided INDIVIDUAL LOT ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS Provided TREES: Shade Trees- 2 Flowering Trees- 1 ti Evergreen Trees- 0 3 Provided SHRUBS: Shrubs- 10 10 Provided Note: Plants not identified are not pari of Proffer Package NOTE: THIS PLAN IS FOR FOR ILLUSRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY ALL PLANTINGS TO MEET SELECTION AND SIZE CRITERIA OF FREDERICK COUNTY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE SECTION 165-36B. ALTHOUGH PLANT COUNT WILL REMAIN THE SAME ON EACH LOT, ACTUAL SELECTION AND LOCATION OF PLANTS MAY VARY DUE TO HOUSE SELECTION, IAT FEATURES/CONSTRAINTS, AND AVAILABILITY. 00 n LIU % U l'•7 � cv < C-6 T 6) (V so No. r Date 9 itevismns 1 �%� o 0) (� PCZ cri m; C: -0 70 CZ {� Co U Project Title Drawing Title Project Manager J Duggan RLl f< saran m 31 qScaie w9t NTS y'Zevi' ed uv Zr Ening No. GG JD Date 12/28/2005 G CAD Fele --- -- 1 7etal Sheets � Urban Development Area/Sewer & Water Service Area Map Exhibit Cedar Meadows Age -Restricted Community Rezoning r s r all 7 CZ�� 0 /1. 0\_1 �a Qo o \ O EEC: S 70 j a) LL 06 CO o �" °' Sherando Regional Cedar Meadows LOPark Subject Site CD _ N / 29.70 +/- Acres U) 0 0 a� 3 N E y Z3 0 255 510 1,020 U +� Fee Legend Cedar Meadows Age Restricted Community Sewer Line U Water Line U) Frederick Count Sewer & Water Service Area Line 7 Far• Prepared by JTP SfaxFrederick Count Pike Y Urban Development Area Line-NO 12/28/05 Environmental Features Map Exhibit Cedar Meadows Age -Restricted Community Rezoning g t, 4 O aQ, o LO0 Cf) Regional Cedar Meadows � Park Subject Site o— \ 29.70 +/- Acres E 3 Wrights Run -_ -- 0 ��00 1,U0, 2,000 0 Feet Ile Legend ( 0 Cedar Meadows Age Restricted Community LL 7 NWI Wetlands & Waterbodies ` ! Flooplain o Farb fax — - `� Asket '°�= Streams Major Roadways Prepared by: JTP Secondary Roadways 0ONFO AY MU$ k R3NO 12/28/05 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff - Zoning Amendment Number Date Received. PC Dearing Date `f 9 dG� 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, heal Estate Division, 107 North Dent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Jasbo, Inc. & Sparks Property L.L.C. B everley B. Shoemaker, President Address: P.J. Box 480 Stephens City, VA 22655 Contact person ff other than. above Name: Evan Wyatt, AiCP Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Telephone: (540) 896-1800 Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement �X._ 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Jasbo, Inc. & Sparks Property, L.L.C. — Beverley B. Shoemaker, President 5. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential & Agricultural B) Proposed Use of the Property: Age -Restricted Residential Community 7. A.djoinhig Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER 75-((A))-108 75-((A))-109 75-((A))-110 75-((A))-111 75-((A))-113 75 -((A)) -I 13A 75-((A))-117 75 -((A)) -117A 86-((A))-151 86-((A))-152 86-((A))-154 86-((A))-155 86 -((A)) -155A Please see attached USE ZODJING Residential RA Residential RA Residential RA Residential RA Residential RA Residential RA Residential RP Regional Park RA Residential RA Residential RA Residential RA Residential RA Residential RA S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): Located on the west side of White Oak Road (Route 636), approximately 0.6 miles south of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road (Route 642). Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model 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 or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Numbers 75-((A))-106, 75-((A))-107, 75-((A))-114, 75,-((A))-115, 75-((A))-116 & 86-((A))-153 Districts Magisterial: Opequon High School: Sherando High School Fire Service: Stephens City Middle School: Admiral Byrd Middle School Rescue Service: Stephens City Elementary School: Armel Elementary School 19. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zolalr ,, Requested 29.70± RA RP Other. 0 29.70± Total acreage to be irezoned I?. The foiloRwing informatien should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 140 Townhome: 0 Multi -Family: 0 Non -Residential Lots: 0 Mobile Home: 0 Hotel Rooms: 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: 0 Manufacturing: 0 Warehouse: 0 _ 0 Retail: 0 Restaurant: 0 Other. 0 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant: -� u a� Date: i f Owner(s): jasbo, Inc. & Sparks Property, L.L.C. B r9 le I " -6 B. BeverleShoemaker, 1 y Presi nt Date ku,y,*,,6 6 -oz,, -Y ak&,li ln&y�, , X4"M Adjoining Property Owners Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the 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 Name Baylis Investments, LLC 2332 Middle :goad Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 75-A-106 Name Buracker, Grover Elwood 396 White Oak Road White Post, VA 22663 Property # 75-A-108 Name Buracker, Grover E. and Judy Kay 396 White Oak Road White Post, VA 22663 Property # 75-A-109 Name Buracker, Lynwood and Linda 432 White Oak Road White Post, VA 22663 Property # 75-A-1 i OA Name Strosnider, Holmes P. and Catherine J. 444 White Oak Road White Post, VA 22663 Property # 75-A-111 Name Leonard, Robert D. and Wendy L. 471 White Oak Road Property # 75-A-113 White Post, VA 22663 Name Abrell, Madeline K. 519 White Oak Road Property # 75 -A -113A White Post, VA 22663 Address Name and Property Identification Number Address Name JASBO, Inc c/o James 1. Bowman 448 Fairfax Pike Stephens City, VA 22615 Property # 75-A-117 Name County of Frederick 9 Court Square #601. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 75-A- 117A Name Chapman, Edgar P. and Jennifer D. 600 White Oak Road White Post, VA 22663 Property # 86-((A))-151 Name Chapman, Edgar P. and Jennifer D. 600 White Oak Road White Post, VA 22663 Property # 86-((A))-152 Name Fleming, Madeline P. 519 White Oak Road White Post, VA 22663 Property # 86-((A))-154 Name Fertig, Juanita 557 White Oak Road White Post, VA 22663 Property # 86-((A))-155 Name Coates, Christopher D. and Dixie D. 587 White Oak Road White Post, VA 22663 Property # 86 -((A)) -155A • • �7 MODIFICATIONS TO THE ROUND HILL c4Gy� COMMUNITY LAND USE PLAN w° Pe Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meet -Ing Prepared: April 3, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of .Supervisors to assist them in the discussion of this request It may also he useful to others interested in this comprehensive planning matter. CPPB: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Reviewed 01/09/06 02/01/06 (Discussion) 02/22/06 (Discussion) 04/19/06 (Public Hearing) 05/10/06 (Public Hearing) Action Recommendation forwarded Comments forwarded Directed scheduling of public hearing Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To modify the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan, including expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) by 171.3 acres. PLANNED USE: Commercial and residential LOC'ATIGN: The properties are generally located north and south of Northwestern Pike (Route 50), west of Route 37 and east of Crinoline Lane. MAGISTERIAL DISTRACT: Back Creek and Gainesboro PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District, B2 (Business General) District & B3 (Industrial Transition) District PRESENT USE.: Agricultural, Residential, Commercial, VDOT Facility, Automobile Junk Yards & Vacant. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & P'RESE14T USE: North: RA (Rural Area) Use: Residential and Agricultural MS (Medical Support) Use: Vacant SWSA Expansion — Round Hill April 3, 2006 Page 2 South: RA (Rural Area) Use: EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Use: East: City of Winchester Use: RP (Residential Performance) Use: West: RA (Rural Area) Use: PLANNING STAFF EVAILUATION: Expansion Request Residential, Agricultural & Golf Course Quarry Winchester Medical Center Residential Residential and Agricultural The Board of Supervisors at its meeting on December 14, 2005 passed a resolution directing the Planning Commission to undertake a study to consider the expansion of sewer and water service to incorporate properties adjacent to and east of Poorhouse Road in the Round Hill Community. Attached is a map specifically identifying the properties noted in the resolution (the Bishop property, the other properties bisected by the current SWSA, Emmanuel Baptist Church and Rosedale Baptist Church). The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) considered this request at their meeting on January 9, 2006 and recommended a SWSA expansion of 33.5 acres west to the VDOT site on Route 50, including those parcels bisected by the current SWSA line. The Planning Commission considered this as a discussion item on February 1, 2006 and concurred with the CPPS recommendation. The Board of Supervisors considered this as a discussion item at their meeting on February 22, 2006. Board Members agreed to extend the SWSA further west, for total of 171.3 acres, to include the two churches noted in the original Board resolution. The proposed SWSA expansion is shown on the attached map, labeled Proposed Round Hill SWSA Expansion. Board Members also had concerns with design standards along the Route 50 corridor and the Board resolution to advertise this item for public hearing, included language to extend design standards in the area of the SWSA expansion. Enhanced design standards for the Route 50 corridor have been included with this request. The proposed Round Hill Plan is attached. Also attached, for your convenience, is a version of the text showing the proposed changes with bold text and strikethroughs. Staff Note: Expanding the SWSA is a policy decision that amends the Comprehensive Policy Plan. It is not a commitment to run water and sewer lines. Expansion of the SWSA would allow future extension of water and sewer lines and connections to water and sewer for non-residential uses and for existing residences in the Round Hill Community. It would not allow access to water and sewer for new residences; this would require extension of the Urban Development Area (UDA). SWSA Expansion — Round Hill April 3, 2006 Page 3 Comprehensive Policy Plan Land Use Plan The area proposed for SWSA expansion and design standards is within the boundaries of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. As noted above, attached to this agenda is a proposed revision to that plan. Also attached is a zoning map of the area. Phase I of the Round Hill Plan and the eastern section of Phase II of the Round Hill Plan are being implemented. Some properties, including the Wal-Mart site, the Winchester Medical Center site and the Marathon Bank site, have been zoned for commercial uses. Phase 1 of the plan calls for business/office development. Phase II of the plan calls for commercial uses and specifically discourages residential uses. Phase III is very long term and calls for business/office uses along Northwestern Pike (Route 50) and residential uses in the residential core area. The Round Hill Plan recommends that the substantial investment needed to fund expansion of central sewer westward be funded by the businesses that would eventually be enabled by this plan and subsequent rezonings. An important aspect of the Round Hill Plan is design standards. Included in the revision are enhanced design standard to minimize the visual disruption to the Route 50 corridor. These include standards for shared entrances, green space along Route 50, screening, controlling the size, number and location of signs, and standards for landscaping. Staff note: Any future rezoning in the expanded SWSA area would be dependent on the applicant extending water and sewer lines at his own expense, providing the road infrastructure called for in the plan, mitigating the impacts of development, and providing the design features called for in the plan. Water and sewer lines would need to be sized to ultimately include residential land in the community center core area. Transportation The proposed expansion area is not covered by the Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Round Hill Plan calls for collector roads to channel traffic to and from key intersections along Route 50. Individual business entrances are discouraged along Route 50. The plan also calls for green space along Route 50 for a pedestrian/bikeway. Community Facilities and Service The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) does not currently serve the expansion area. Water and sewer lines have been extended on the north side of Route 50 to the Wal-Mart site. Sewage from this area is currently treated at the Opequon Plant. Water and sewer lines are set to go south of Route 50 at Ward Avenue in 2006. SWSA Expansion — Round Hill April 3, 2006 Page 4 Ultimately, sewage from most of the Round Hill area, including the residential portion, will be sent to a pumping station in the Willow Run area and treated at the Parkins Mill Plant. These plans include a new trunk line on the Bishop property immediately west of the VDOT site. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has advised that the Parkins Mill Plant is being expanded to 5 MGD with completion in 2009. Further, the Opequon Plant is starting an expansion plan which is hoped to be completed in 2010. The Sanitation Authority has stated that there are capacity issues at present. They, therefore, recommend that the expansion of the SWSA to cover the Round Hill area not occur until 2009 at the earliest in order not to impact current capacity issues. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has confirmed that they have enough current capacity for a minor expansion of the SWSA westward to the VDOT site. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE (C?PS) SUMMARY & ACTION OF 01/09/06 MEETING: The CPPS had some concerns with this SWSA expansion request. Members discussed the comments from the Sanitation Authority on the capacity issues at the sewage treatment plants and the timing of improvements to those plants. Members discussed previous efforts to extend sewer and water to existing residents in the Stephenson and Brucetown communities. Members were unsure how many residents in the Round Hill area would connect to water and sewer. Members discussed the continued need for design standards along Route 50 and the need for a new district in the zoning ordinance to accommodate residential infill in the Round Hill Community. Members unanimously recommended that the SWSA only be extended west to the VDOT site (to include the VDOT property as well as those properties east of VDOT, most of which are partially in the SWSA), and that any expansion further west be postponed until further studies had taken place and design standards and a new ordinance adopted. Members also recommended that the UDA boundary in the Round Hill area be pulled back to Route 37, as all land currently in the UDA in Round Hill is planned for commercial, not new residential, development. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 02/01/06 MEETING: Commission members preferred to have the UDA issue considered at another time, completely separate from this SWSA consideration, to avoid confusion. They believed the CPPS's decision to include the small area down to VDOT was as far as the SWSA should go based on the capacity constraints of the Sanitation Authority and until a comprehensive study could be completed of the entire area. This small extension would resolve the confusion with those SWSA Expansion — Round Hill April 3, 2006 Page 5 property owners whose land is currently bisected by the SWSA line and it would clear the way for those residents who wanted public water and sewer. In addition, Commission members wanted to be certain they had effectively addressed all of the points in the Board of Supervisors' resolution and, in particular, they wanted to be sure the two churches, which had prompted the request, had all of their questions answered. The staff offered to include this additional information in the report, as well as the need for a comprehensive study of the area, the implementation of design standards, and ordinance revisions. Members also pointed out that there was still plenty of time for public involvement in the process, in light of this item being within the discussion phase. (Commissioners Thomas, Watt, Oates, and Ours were absent from the meeting.) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUMMARY &z ACTION Di 02/22/06 I!/fiH+ ETING: Board Members expressed concern over the lack of design guidelines and the uncertainty over sewer capacity. Members were concerned that their initial request to study water and sewer for the churches was not adequately addressed. Supervisor Dove moved to hold a public hearing on the expansion of the SWSA to include the south side of Route 50 including the Emmanuel Baptist Church property, but not those properties on the North side of Route 50, to also include the northernmost property line of Emmanuel Baptist Church to Poorhouse Road then south on Poorhouse Road to old Route 50 East to the existing SWSA line. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Van Osten. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he did not have a major concern, but the Board should initiate corridor design standards and extend them to the new SWSA boundary. Supervisor Fisher stated that he was opposed to this expansion because the design standards should be looked at and he also had problems with running a sewer line down a major corridor but omitting properties on the north side of the route. Supervisor Lemieux thought the design standards were in place, but he felt there were capacity issues; therefore, he was not in favor of moving forward. Supervisor DeHaven moved to amend the original motion to include the requirement to extend existing corridor design standards to coincide with the new SWSA line. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Van Osten. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he would like to see staff hither define those standards. There being no further discussion, the Board approved Supervisor DeHaven's motion to amend the original motion to include the requirement to extend existing corridor design standards to coincide with the new SWSA line. The Board approved the amended motion to advertise the proposed expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area for public hearing. Followinz the required public hearinz a recommendation rggardhig this Comprehensive Policv Flan revision to the Board o(Supervisors would be a ro riate. Qo- C 41 A 55 !" 151.98 ac 52 A r 25 Round Hill 2 A 1 41 A 170 1 Sac - P @�. -- 42 A 180 274.16 ac. \ Community R �"� 105.26 -ac l� 52 A 47 - 4g 156.67 ac 52 P c.- N 52 2 A 1 2p 5 a / 53 A i - 3 �f 96.69 as w 55 8A -, s 0 Feet va ry ems. 6 �. * ` hry.bb� �`'a 0 750 1,500 0 53 A 69 EmmanualBaptist Church P �' ? o{ ya °` \h 52 A 92A \'"- o C�'� ,� 55 Rosedale Baptist Church A 4 ac a Streets ' 'ti'4� - •� �� Pbs° rb fo,�' � Primary Roads A `---� 'F ! N Secondary Roads b #100VJ x.52 13Op, - „� �'. W, ! et`i ' - i... Tertiary Roads -. L•� _,y •f ..,,t.. �,OS , . yry�n S?alinar6�F 0 „ Winchester City Roads /V railroads � .-.. � Lakes 52 A i22 ppq -- - 14.2ac. v Qom / ? .Sa,{y ?'IA Streams R 7 � hry a �. Parcels f} s m I% Urban Development Area SWSA 52 .6124 y y Community Centers 115.66 as c a ,� -� ®Round Hill Landmarks 52 A 261.- Bishop } - 135.87ac caa d� dao D r' .'Weitze p! N r 53 .1 88 r 52 A 256 235.1 ac Ca 425.9 " � P e �o %@ { 52 A313A Jr 52 .4 300 112.35 as - ,..�' .�... Frederick County Dept of 305.43 ac "t? ` Planning & Development 5z P 31a 7gS441�a?1 107 N Kent St 5gG Winchester, VA 22601 9 0 www.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US 13 � t. 0. 53 A 92A a� 145.84 ac December 2005 *.'1-41 -0 M AF Existing SWSA d � Proposed w€j. <' SWSA aX` r - - ; i`; Expansion , , Z' --' v7'�� +•do thk ste -tits` /r'� j 1 .. iTal Fre rp P w 1 marYJ I--," t 4 50 4 h. ��r r + r _r . �, i..• ti• +ti,'r' .# 'rye --. y } �+ y + A�JO-+. ► +",,.. t _ •-�.s-4 pV. *�1�'k k 4, 3 �QjG { lS� r '` *► ` RoundHill:Rd VDOT I , . Stonewall.Dr" I 414. + �, +!`¢�'; • s Of t, � � � �► � �/ , tt-4.Go 1111qq ��. • .v I` j wejtiellt � J 37 I ti Dutton\Pi; 37 _-' SWSA Proposed SWSA Expansion Pro o s e d Round Hill p � I Urban Development Area County Streets ^/ Primary Roads NOTE: �� T T�� W Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development r Proposed SWSA Expansion p an s i o n 107 i Kent St., Suite 202 j Secondary Roads Approximately 171.5 acres Winchester, VA 22601 .�✓ Tertiary Roads 540.665.5651 .—CO. FREDERICK. VA.US Winchester City Roads Feet 0 470 940 1,880 2,820 3,760 N t Nis ♦�oo } f Mr f - w 4 *.'1-41 -0 M AF Existing SWSA d � Proposed w€j. <' SWSA aX` r - - ; i`; Expansion , , Z' --' v7'�� +•do thk ste -tits` /r'� j 1 .. iTal Fre rp P w 1 marYJ I--," t 4 50 4 h. ��r r + r _r . �, i..• ti• +ti,'r' .# 'rye --. y } �+ y + A�JO-+. ► +",,.. t _ •-�.s-4 pV. *�1�'k k 4, 3 �QjG { lS� r '` *► ` RoundHill:Rd VDOT I , . Stonewall.Dr" I 414. + �, +!`¢�'; • s Of t, � � � �► � �/ , tt-4.Go 1111qq ��. • .v I` j wejtiellt � J 37 I ti Dutton\Pi; 37 _-' SWSA Proposed SWSA Expansion Pro o s e d Round Hill p � I Urban Development Area County Streets ^/ Primary Roads NOTE: �� T T�� W Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development r Proposed SWSA Expansion p an s i o n 107 i Kent St., Suite 202 j Secondary Roads Approximately 171.5 acres Winchester, VA 22601 .�✓ Tertiary Roads 540.665.5651 .—CO. FREDERICK. VA.US Winchester City Roads Feet 0 470 940 1,880 2,820 3,760 / R 1' 41 A 55 151.98 x $2 �� ' Round Hill A 2 A 1S 29;, s 91 _ 41 A 170 42 A 180 1 Sec: Pew` `-'�� 274.16 ac 105.28 dc.' Community P Zoning x b`v F6e 52 A 47 N c. 156.67 as 5q gc, � \\\ \/ ) 9 A 1 • s 52 2 A 24 f 96.69 ac w a 55 ac. 52 •"' �/ s . f re, ��y7e � �' o �c \ Feet m 0 750 1,500 pbsa w c, hry�b �l. 0° 53 A 69 120.9 ac -10 A p_ d. Streets 4 0 .S`� Y, •; - s� ;4 H Primary Roads f"q /�/ Seconds Roads 52 A 92A t, *AS fir' i 55 ac __ �S e v ice\ Terciary Roads _;-"1 „re 53 A A Winchester City Roads Oo g ood\Lm �� bb 73.34 ac /`/ railroads o — r -,i" s '. 52 A C 0 Lakes b Streams 119 � l'. �'? '^^'r S ms 5'2- 1Z Parcels C7 62 �p et �� Urban Development Area e�eT.53aoV� AOISWSA Comm unity Centers m 3. 52 122 n C ° 142ac. m - - * 61 (Business, Neighborhood District) {� k % r {11{{=r C, J _ 7 �2 A �ry 'V� b4 B2 (Business, General District) P'�� B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) 52 A 124 '-7:- - - - _ HE (Higher Education District) 1115.668c. 52 A 261 M1 (Industrial, Light District) 135.87 ac M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) N d MS (Medical Support District) 0 - R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) 535A a88 <0 R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) A 256 ' RA (Rural Areas District) 4�b,9 ac �R _ 1 RP (Residential Performance District) P O� 52 A 313A �- - Frederick County Dept of 52 A 300 112.35ac .16 q ' Planning & Development 305.43 ac %, a.. x 1e,54 107 N Kent St P 310 )� V QC Winchester, VA 22601 www.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US sz, 3 o 1>, A , '� 3 53 A 92A °6aC 145.84 ac December 2005 P `f an d Use Round Hill The process of formulating a plan for the Round Hill Community began on May 8, 1995 when the Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC, a subcommittee of the County Planning Commission) and staff from the Department of Planning and Development, conducted a public meeting at the Round Hill Fire Hall. The CPPC held a second meeting on September 25, 1995 to present the draft Land Use Plan. In response to the opinions expressed by residents of the community throughout the process, and the desires of the Board of Supervisors, the plan recommends leaving portions of the Community Center designated as rural land use. In all, of the 1,100 acres within the community center, roughly 400 to 500 is designated to remain rural land. In conjunction with the recommendation to maintain large amounts of open space adjacent to the core area of the Community Center, the plan also calls for the development of a new zoning category tailored to accommodate rural community uses and building patterns. This recommendation is discussed in more detail later in the report. Modifications were made in 2006 to reflect a revised Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundary and enhanced design standards for the Route 50 Corridor. It will ultimately be up to the Board of Supervisors to determine when it is appropriate to include other areas of the community within the Sewer and Water Service Area, a necessary first step to extending utilities. Development of any area would be dependent on the availability of appropriate infrastructure; therefore, the plan does not recommend rezoning land within the community for commercial development prior to the provision of central sewer and water. It is also recommended that as land is developed over time and infrastructure extended, that consideration be given to how this development might further the long range goal of providing sewer to the core area of the community. There are a number of recommendations that are important elements of the proposed phasing. First, given the fairly uniform response from residents of the community, no area is proposed for high density residential development. As mentioned previously, the plan recommends that a new zoning category be adopted prior to development within Phase III, which, among other things, allows residential development within the Community Center at a density in keeping with traditional development patterns for the community. The intended purpose being to permit the continuation of favorable building patterns, styles, and mix of uses found within the community rather than utilizing existing regulations which were not written with small rural communities in mind. Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1Y. design Principles to he Established for the Round Hill Core Area Curb -side parking Low speed limit Shade trees on both sides of street Modest front yard setback 15-30 feet Large amounts of open space - 50% Modest size commercial\retail uses Large predominance of single family dwellings within core area of community Discreet signage - maximum 10% of facade area Underground utilities In the case of the core area, the plan suggests that a minimum lot size in the range of one half, to one acre be established. The plan proposes that this would go into effect as part of Phase III of the land use plan. This lot size change would only take place as part of an overall zoning change for the core area of the Community, and would be dependent on the installation of a central sewer system. The smaller lot size is not proposed for the entire Community Center. Areas on the periphery of the community should be developed on larger lots. There should also be an effort made to preserve large contiguous parcels of open land around the perimeter of the Community Center as a means of maintaining the rural atmosphere. 1>a iit!ure 13A rte 150 C J `+- a L 100 a) -0 E Z 50 U Re ill rt d Hill Community Number of Lots by Acreage (1985) 0-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0 2.0-5.0 5and up Lot Size Land Use Standards have been developed that will minimize the visual disruption to the Route 50 corridor. This includes standards for shared entrances, requiring a green space along Route 50 which will include a 10' asphalt bike trail on the north side, and a 5' concrete sidewalk on the south side of Route 50 screening of structures and parking areas and their location in relation to Route 50 itself, controlling the size, number and location of signs, requiring underground utilities, and finally, minimum standards for landscaping. The objective is to prevent the creation of a typical commercial strip along this route. The regulations discourage individual business entrances on Route 50 both for aesthetics reasons as well as transportation efficiency. Commercial establishments should front feeder roads which connect to Route 50 at signalized intersections. M IMS I Desi n Princiyles for the Round Hili Route 50 Corridor Street trees in the median, along both sides of the ditch; Freestanding signs — one monument sign per development (maximum size - 50 feet, maximum height —12 feet); No off -premise business signs; Crosswalks at signalized intersections, with signals for pedestrians; Interparcel connectors required between all properties planned for commercial development (even if currently zoned RA and used for residential purposes) to encourage shared entrances; Commercial entrance spacing — 200 feet if speed limit is 35 mph or less, 250 feet if speed limit is greater than 35 mph, to encourage shared entrances; A row of evergreens in addition to the ordinance required buffer and screening adjacent to areas planned to remain residential; Underground utilities; Encourage the placement of buildings close to Route 50 with landscaped parking lots in the rear; North side of Route 50: 50 foot landscaped strip, within the landscaped strip a 10 foot asphalt bike trail, ornamental shrubs and street trees along Route 50 South side of Route 50: 50 foot landscaped strip (20 feet for small tracts), within the landscaped strip a 5 foot concrete sidewalk, ornamental shrubs and street trees along Route 50 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Description of Phases Phase I The first phase in the proposed plan contains approximately 110 acres. The area within the first phase is bounded on the west by a natural drainage divide which runs north -south across Route 50, approximately one half mile west of Route 37, and roughly parallel to 37. The southern limit of the phase also follows a natural drainage divide. This divide runs in a southeasterly direction beginning near the intersection of Route 803 and Route 50, to a point on Route 37 approximately mid -way between the interchange with Route 50 and the railroad crossing. This phase calls for the establishment of a Business/Office Area immediately adjacent to the Route 37 interchange. Implementation of this phase is anticipated to begin within the near term. For our purposes we have assumed a five-year time frame. Business/Office development would- require ouldrequire the extension of public sewer and water. Phase II The second phase of the proposed plan involves an area designated for additional business and office uses. The total area in this phase amounts to just over 180 acres. There was a great deal of discussion at the Committee level regarding the best category of use for this portion of the community. It was finally determined that the prospect of residential development of any sort in this area should be avoided in favor of commercial uses. Phase III The third phase encompasses the core area of the Community as well as some additional business\office uses along Route 50 for a total area of roughly 300 acres. The plan calls for infill residential development within the core area along with some appropriately scaled commercial uses. This portion of the phase involves roughly 250 acres. As mentioned above, it is not recommended that residential development take place under the current Residential Performance regulations, but rather that new regulations be developed that enable the continuation of the rural community atmosphere. It is also recommended that the development be predominately single family residential with the possibility of some small scale businesses aimed at serving the immediate community. As with other phases, the type of development anticipated would require the availability of central sewer. Since the provision of public utilities will involve a substantial investment, this phase also proposes further expansion of business\retail westward out Route 50 as a means of funding the extension. The business area in this phase contains roughly 50 acres. This commercial development should be permitted only if it addresses the specific design standards for Route 50. The Phase III portion of the Land Use Plan should be considered long range. Permitting the extension of public utilities would involve a considerable investment and will likely have to be undertaken through private investment. �- 42 A 155 104 ac. -- Y 55 151.98 %rr Round Hill i 151.99 8 ac. i° 52 ))) 41 A 170 1 A 180 Community 52 A i 22'S�` �� w 274.1 ac. ` 105.28 ati: 71n25 ac. - c ,,-yry69a ,. Land Use Plan p. 5 ff x?{ v I 1` 52 A 47 Total Study Area { q8 _. --d .66 ac ,I �i 156.67 ac. 52 P a 53 A , - 1180 Acres 245 c 96.69 ac. e 52 2 A w 53 96.6 s 4A h ry, 6aa '( qo a 4 *ham c,'E a4ac 4a 53 A 69 Feet 12 .9a 10 J 0 750 1,500 y „�0 vc.fi --� ,• C e„r�. J.. a''m 63 1a`_ � .om , Proposed Traffic Signal G{ t b 52 A 92As,,p 55 ac_ �� Proposed Collector Roads cz y�99� Phase 1 - 110acres ` ! Phase 2 - 180acres Phase 3 - 300acres •,}� 19 ti�$� _ "arse®p_�+ _ • • ' ' / Streets z s3ac° j / /N/ Primary Roads Secondary Roads 52 A S2 Tertiary Roads 14.2 p 1� h Winchester City Roads railroads . f 52 A 124 '�+` - _ _ Lakes 9 J 115.66 ac, h ' ry �� 2 52 A. Streams Parcels Urban Development Area SWSA C 53 A 88 --_ • / y 52 A 256 235.1 ac. Catow Community Centers 425.9 ac. r 0 %� am DRAFT l 52 A 313A 4�l Frederick County Dept of 4\ _ -. 112.35ac. Planning & Development 52 'A 300 �' J6 ,1 305.43 9 107 N Kent St qac. / P g10 \ � N x . �, S4 ac ? 62 5a°' d9i Winchester, VA 22601 WWW.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US 52 53 A 92A June 1996 h��Og ac, d 145.84 ac. PN dt Updated as of April 2006 �b � A Land Use Infrastructure Sewer An agreement, signed in 1984, between the City of Winchester and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority reserves 953,600 gallons of capacity within the sewer line which terminates just east of Route 37 for use by the County to serve the Round Hill Community. Despite this agreement, it appears that the actual capacity currently available is only 200,000 gallons per day. Even with the restriction eliminated, there would be a significant private investment required to extend the line to the western limits of Phase II and into Phase III. For the purposes of determining whether the limits of Phase I can realistically be served by the estimated 200,000 gallon capacity available, a hypothetical list of uses that might be expected to locate within the phase was developed. An estimated water demand was then generated using standard multipliers obtained from the Virginia State Health Department. The totals indicate that the 200,000 gallons would be adequate for the type and amount of development that could be expected in the near future within Phase I. t iii_ As with development proposals within the current Urban Development Area, construction of new collector roads and the installation of sewer and water within the Community Center would be the responsibility of the developer. Each of the phases contains segments of collector roads which are intended to channel traffic to and from a few key intersections along Route 50. These collectors are seen as a preferred alternative to permitting an excessive number of individual business entrances on Route 50. The locations of collectors roads shown are not intended to be precise. Development proposals submitted for specific areas would be expected to provide for roads which make the connections indicated and serve the intended function, but would not necessarily follow the precise alignments shown. As the areas develop, signalization and crosswalks will be required where collectors intersect Route 50. Procedures already in place would require that development pay a pro rata share toward the cost of such facilities. The recommendations contained within the Round Hill Land Use Plan attempt to allow for growth within the Community Center without overwhelming, and ultimately destroying, the features that distinguish the community from the surrounding County. Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Land Use In particular, the plan: > calls for the development of a variety of regulations that would protect the appearance of the corridor and limit uses within the Community, ➢ directs large scale commercial growth away from the core area of the community, A minimizes residential development, ➢ maintains large amounts of open space, ensures that new development within the core area is in keeping with the scale of the community, calls for a transportation network that would feed traffic to and from Route 50 at controlled intersections, and discourages a proliferation of entrances along Route 50 itself. While the plan does not offer specific land use regulations, it suggests features that should be examined and calls for the development of a new zoning district that is tailored to Round Hill. Route 50 West should not become a typical commercial strip. A green space should be maintained along either side of the road and a pedestrian/bikeway should be incorporated into development plans. It is hoped that many of the standards proposed will be applicable to other Community Centers throughout the County. • • i Land Use Round Hill The process of formulating a plan for the Round Hill Community began on May 8, 1995 when the Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC, a subcommittee of the County Planning Commission) and staff from the Department of Planning and Development, conducted a public meeting at the Round Hill Fire Hall. The CPPC held a second meeting on September 25, 1995 to present the draft Land Use Plan. In response to the opinions expressed by residents of the community throughout the process, and the desires of the Board of Supervisors, the plan recommends leaving portions of the Community Center designated as rural land use. In all, of the 1,100 acres within the community center, roughly 400 to 500 is designated to remain rural land. In conjunction with the recommendation to maintain large amounts of open space adjacent to the core area of the Community Center, the plan also calls for the development of a new zoning category tailored to accommodate rural community uses and building patterns. This recommendation is discussed in more detail later in the report. Modifications were -made in 2606 to reflect a revised Sewer and W, -ter Service Area (SWSA) boundary and enhanced design standards for the Route 50 Corridor-. it shetAd be neted that epAy Phase 1 and a small peFfion of Phase 11 is inside the euffent Sewer and WateF Ser -vee n,.o It will ultimately be up to the Board of Supervisors to determine when it is appropriate to include other areas of the community within the Sewer and Water Service Area, a necessary first step to extending utilities. Development of any area would be dependent on the availability of appropriate infrastructure; therefore, the plan does not recommend rezoning land within the community for commercial development prior to the provision of central sewer and water. It is also recommended that as land is developed over time and infrastructure extended, that consideration be given to how this development might further the long range goal of providing sewer to the core area of the community. There are a number of recommendations that are important elements of the proposed phasing. First, given the fairly uniform response from residents of the community, no area is proposed for high density residential development. As mentioned previously, the plan recommends that a new zoning category be adopted prior to development within Phase III, which, among other things, allows residential development within the Community Center at a density in keeping with traditional development patterns for the community. The intended purpose being to permit the continuation of favorable building patterns, styles, and mix of uses found within the community rather than utilizing existing regulations which were not written with small rural communities in mind. Frederick County 6-47 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1L Desikn Frinciples to be Established for s1ie Round Hill Core Area Curb -side parking Low speed limit Shade trees on both sides of street Modest front yard setback 15-30 feet Large amounts of open space - 50% Modest size commerciallretail uses Large predominance of single family dwellings within core area of community Discreet signage - maximum 10% of facade area Underground utilities In the case of the core area, the plan suggests that a minimum lot size in the range of one half, to one acre be established. The plan proposes that this would go into effect as part of Phase III of the land use plan. This lot size change would only take place as part of an overall zoning change for the core area of the Community, and would be dependent on the installation of a central sewer system. The smaller lot size is not proposed for the entire Community Center. Areas on the periphery of the community should be developed on larger lots. There should also be an effort made to preserve large contiguous parcels of open land around the perimeter of the Community Center as a means of maintaining the rural atmosphere. Figure 13A 200 150 Round Hill Comnat rAt Number of Lots by Acreage (19 85) F1, 0-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0 2.0-5.0 5and up Lot Size Land Use The plan r-eeenffflend Standards olss be have been developed that will minimize the visual disruption to the Route 50 corridor. This would invelve includes standards for shared entrances, requireing a green space along Route 50 which will include a 10' asphalt bike grail on the north side, and a 5' couerete sidewalk out the south side of Route 56 might inelud a bike and "'^"long trai , address screening of structures and parking areas and their location in relation to Route 50 itself, controlling the size, number and location of signs, requiring underground utilities, and finally, set, minimum standards for landscaping. The objective is to prevent the creation of a typical commercial strip along this route. The regulations shei4 discourage individual business entrances on Route 50 both for aesthetics reasons as well as transportation efficiency. Commercial establishments should front feeder roads which connect to Route 50 at signalized intersections. Figure 13B Desi, n Principles for tete Rotund Hill Route 50 Corridor Street trees in the median, along both sides of the aitch; Freestanding signs — one monument sign per development (maximum size - 50 feet, maximum height —12 feet); No off -premise business signs; Crosswalks at signalized intersections, with signals for pedestrians; Interpareel connectors required between all properties planned for commercial development (even if currently zoned RA and used for residential purposes) to encourage shared entrances; Commercial entrance spacing — 200 feet if speed limit is 35 mph or less, 250 feet if speed limit is greater than 35 mph, to encourage shared entrances; A rove of evergreens in addition to the ordinance required buffer and screening adjacent to areas planned `to remain residential; Underground utilities; Encourage the placement of buildings close to Route 50 with landscaped parking'lots in the rear; North side of Route 50: 50 foot landscaped strip, within the landscaped strip a 10 foot asphalt hike trail, ornamental shrubs and street trees along Route 50 South side of Route 50: 50 foes; landscaped strip (20 feet for small tracts), within the landscaped strip a 5 foot concrete sidewalk, ornamental shrubs and street trees along Route 50 Frederick County 6-47 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Description of Phases Phase I The first phase in the proposed plan contains approximately 110 acres. The area within the first phase is bounded on the west by t +' •+ f tArea.Thv ServiceArea boundary fails along a natural drainage divide which runs north -south across Route 50, approximately one half mile west of Route 37, and roughly parallel to 37. The southern limit of the phase also follows a natural drainage divide. This divide runs in a southeasterly direction beginning near the intersection of Route 803 and Route 50, to a point on Route 37 approximately mid -way between the interchange with Route 50 and the railroad crossing. This phase calls for the establishment of a Business/Office Area immediately adjacent to the Route 37 interchange. Implementation of this phase is anticipated to begin within the near term. For our purposes we have assumed a five-year time frame. Business/Office development would require the extension of public sewer and water. Phase II The second phase of the proposed plan involves an area designated for additional business and office uses. The total area in this phase amounts to just over I80 acres. There was a great deal of discussion at the Committee level regarding the best category of use for this portion of the community. It was finally determined that the prospect of residential development of any sort in this area should be avoided in favor of commercial uses. Phase III The third phase encompasses the core area of the Community as well as some additional business\office uses along Route 50 for a total area of roughly 300 acres. The plan calls for infill residential development within the core area along with some appropriately scaled commercial uses. This portion of the phase involves roughly 250 acres. As mentioned above, it is not recommended that residential development take place under the current Residential Performance regulations, but rather that new regulations be developed that enable the continuation of the rural community atmosphere. It is also recommended that the development be predominately single family residential with the possibility of some small scale businesses aimed at serving the immediate community. As with other phases, the type of development anticipated would require the availability of central sewer. Since the provision of public utilities will involve a substantial investment, this phase also proposes further expansion of business\retail westward out Route 50 as a means of funding the extension. The business area in this phase contains roughly 50 acres. Again, is reeommended that + This commercial development should be permitted only after the Bien of if it addresses the: specific design standards designed to address the visual impact Land Use The Phase III portion of the Land Use Plan should be considered long range. There is sign fieant work in tefffls of the developmen4 and adoption of regulations that would need to be accomplished before the County would eonsider--Permitting the extension of public utilities, Stich an extension would involve a considerable investment and will likely have to be undertaken through private investment. Frederick County 6-47 Comprehensive Plan Laud Use Infrastructure Sewer An agreement, signed in 1984, between the City of Winchester and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority reserves 953,600 gallons of capacity within the sewer line which terminates just east of Route 37 for use by the County to serve the Round Hill Community. Despite this agreement, it appears that the actual capacity currently available is only 200,000 gallons per day. This means that upAess or- upAil the faeter-s limifiRg eapaeity are addfessed, it will not be feasible to eK4ead sewer- to D?:,.ses TT ,,._;.a M Even with the restriction eliminated, there would be a significant private investment required to extend the line to the western limits of Phase II and into Phase III. For the purposes of determining whether the limits of Phase I can realistically be served by the estimated 200,000 gallon capacity available, a hypothetical list of uses that might be expected to locate within the phase was developed. An estimated water demand was then generated using standard multipliers obtained from the Virginia State Health Department. The totals indicate that the 200,000 gallons would be adequate for the type and amount of development that could be expected in the near future within Phase I. IXS As with development proposals within the current Urban Development Area, construction of new collector roads and the installation of sewer and water within the Community Center would be the responsibility of the developer. Each of the phases contains segments of collector roads which are intended to channel traffic to and from a few key intersections along Route 50. These collectors are seen as a preferred alternative to permitting an excessive number of individual business entrances on Route 50. The locations of collectors roads shown are not intended to be precise. Development proposals submitted for specific areas would be expected to provide for roads which make the connections indicated and serve the intended function, but would not necessarily follow the precise alignments shown. As the areas develop, signalization and crosswalks will be required where collectors intersect Route 50. Procedures already in place would require that development pay a pro rata share toward the cost of such facilities. The recommendations contained within the Round Hill Land Use Plan attempt to allow for growth within the Community Center without overwhelming, and ultimately destroying, the features that distinguish the community from the surrounding County. Frederick County 6-47 Comprehensive Plan Lard Jge In particular, the plan: ➢ calls for the development of a variety of regulations that would protect the appearance of the corridor and limit uses within the Community prior- to any exte sie of sewer- orate, ➢ directs large scale commercial growth away from the core area of the community, ➢ minimizes residential development, ➢ maintains large amounts of open space, ➢ ensures that new development within the core area is in keeping with the scale of the community, ➢ calls for a transportation network that would feed traffic to and from Route 50 at controlled intersections, and discourages a proliferation of entrances along Route 50 itself. While the plan does not offer specific ateg standards or land use regulations, it suggests features that should be examined and calls for the development of a new zoning district that is tailored to Round Hill. Route 50 West should not become a typical commercial strip. A green space should be maintained along either side of the road and a pedestrian/bikeway should be incorporated into development plans. It is hoped that many of the standards proposed, enee deveIepeE�,-will be applicable to other Community Centers throughout the County. C� • • MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #02-06 LLE, LLC ROUTE 11 PROPERTY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Mieeting Prepared: March 31, 2006 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins — Planner II This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also he useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 04/19/06 Pending Board cf Supervisors: 05/10/06 Pending LOCATION: The properties are located on Valley Pike (Route 11) near the intersection of Apple Valley Road. One of the properties is addressed as 3311 Valley Pike. MAGISTERIAL DISTRIC1': Back Creek PROPERTY YD NUMBER: 63-A-89, 63 -A -89A, 63-A-92 PROPERT �J ZONINC & PRESSENT USE: Zoned: B2 (General Business) Use: Vacant B3 (Industrial Transition Business) Use: Vacant & Residential ZONING & PRESENT USE OF AI JOINING PROPER „,YES: North: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Commercial & Residential South: B2 (Business General) East: M2 (Industrial General) Use: Commercial Use: Rail Road & Trex Company West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Commercial (Retail & Gas Station) MDP #02-06, LLE, LLC Route 11 Property March 31, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: Your revised Master Development Plan with latest revisions dated February 28, 2006 has been reviewed by VDOT and is acceptable. The master development plan for this property appears to have a significant measurable impact on Route 11, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. The latest revisions address all of the previous VDOT comments in our February 15, 2006 correspondence. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to construction on the State's right-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work. Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plan approved as submitted. Frederick County Public Works: Your letter dated January 13, 2006 has adequately addressed our previous review comments related to the proposed MDP. Therefore, we grant our approval for the referenced MDP and reserve the right to perform a detailed review of the individual site plans. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Revision 1 - 1 st review — Approved Frederick County Inspections Department: To remove the existing structures, demolition with asbestos inspection is required. No additional comment until site plan is submitted. Frederick County — Winchester Health Department: No objection. Public water & sewer to be provided. Plannir:g & Zoning: A) Master Development Plan Requirement A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. B) Location The properties are located on Valley Pike (Route 11) near the intersection of Apple Valley Road. One of the properties is addressed as 3311 Valley Pike. MDP #02-06, LLE, LLC Route 11 Property March 31, 2006 Page 3 C) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester, VA Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for 63 -A -89A and 63-A-89 being B2 (Business General) and 63-A-92 being zoned MH (Mobile Home). In 1980, 63-A-92 was included in the County's comprehensive downzoning and was changed from MH to B2. Then in 1984, 63-A-92 was rezoned with Application #01-84 (Don Fowler) and the zoning of the property changed from B2 to B3 (Industrial Transition). D) Intended Use Commercial uses are planned for the property, specifically two retail buildings and a GasMart gas station per the site plan that has been submitted by the engineer. E) Site Suitability & Project Scolne 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-I1 Land Use Compatibility: The proposed 3.77 -acre site is zoned B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) and is within the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). In accordance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, "business and industrial areas need to be served by public sewer and water". The subject properties comprising this Master Development Plan are within the study limits of the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan as well as the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. Both land use plans show these properties as located in an area intended to remain business. Therefore, the proposed commercial use is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Environment: The subject site does not contain any known areas of environmental features. Environmental features include areas of floodplains, lakes or ponds, wetlands, natural waterways, riparian buffers, sinkholes, natural stormwater retention areas, and steep slopes. Transportation: Access to the site is proposed via one full commercial entrance and a right -in right -out only Valley Pike (Route 11) which is a major collector road. As required for all major collector roads with a speed limit over 35mph, a minimum entrance separation of 150' is required for all new entrances [Section 165-29.A (4)]. MDP #02-06, LLE, LLC Route 11 Property March 31, 2006 Page 4 The applicant is providing a full -turn lane along the frontage of their property as well as a 10' asphalt hiker/biker path along Route 11. This Master Development Plan also shows the future extension of Apple Valley Road that is depicted in the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. While the MDP shows curb and gutter located within this planned road extension, the site plan depicts this area as "extra" parking. Waivers; The properties are currently zoned B2 and B3 and there is a required zoning district buffer between these two zoning districts. The applicant is proposing to build a gas station on the entire B3 area and a portion of the B2 area and two retail buildings on the remainder B2 area as indicated on the 8 '/z" x 11" site plan included in the agenda. Gas Stations are classified as SIC 55 and are allowed in both the B2 and the B3 zoning districts. The applicant is requesting a waiver of §165-37D(7) of the Frederick County Ordinance. This section of the ordinance states that "where B3 zoning adjoins B2 zoning on land contained within a master development plan, the Planning Commission may allow for specific modifications in screening requirements". The modifications are allowed at the Planning Commission's discretion and must meet the following conditions: (1) property line for which the modification is requested is internal to the land and contained within the master development plan, (2) a specific use is proposed on the parcel for which the modification is being requested, (3) the modifications shall not involve a reduction to required buffer distances, (4) the proposed components of the buffer are clearly indicated on a site plan for the parcel, (5) the site plan is reviewed by the Planning Commission. With this waiver request, the applicant in not requesting that the distance or content of the buffer be waived. This waiver requested would simply shift the buffer from between the B2 and B3 zoned properties which are located near the full commercial entrance, and place it at the northern property line. A note has also been placed on the MDP that states "only uses allowed in both the B2 and B3 zoning districts will be allowed on the B3 portion of the site". Staff would note that while this application is for a Master Development Plan and not a Site Plan, the applicant has already submitted a site plan to the County and is currently in review. The applicant has met conditions set forth by the Zoning Ordinance to be considered for the modifications, with the exception of review by the Planning Commission. At the public meeting, the Planning Commission needs to decide if they feel the requested modification is appropriate. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04/19/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEIETING: The preliminary master development plan for LLE, LLC depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has addressed all of staff's concerns and any issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. With this application the applicant is also requesting a waiver from the Planning Commission to allow them to shift a buffer on the site. This is strictly a Planning Commission Waiver; action from the Board of Supervisors is not required. Staff would note that there are two actions required with this application, one for the MDP and another for the waiver request. MDP #02-06, LLE, LLC Route 11 Property March 31, 2006 Page 5 Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Board of Super cors regarding this MDP conformance with County codes and review agency comments. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. It \ / �'�� ri" wt sN73;s h•,;; 1% ° 90 Ian({ ( 2.375 ° �` s°' •:, a"rGrcT<, BEE .; i.E~£ � Inv.In�+,,L°@ .a•.OM1=495.7.1' i lRRI(O 60Kif0'3N�•T°E®� MALL (s1� a c� iE A + STORM 1\ 'N", \\ HE r , Q� IN 9TO M`\ ) ) \\ r cuam Amo 'A.'V,STORM.• �, E_%' V�'c A -•(?. O = ; LINE 3NNNN @ n //�( d lY`•' ' IF t1OD \\ DMD \ \ ^\ a ..,'i,'•a Of or i; Vim( ° , , IN \ � MID \\`' / BN�'msiti3'� i •� �+ 49 'I-, \`U IS \`\\ / 1. \\ `\ , If 'uyE e v / LI N31•S1'00"E 329.00 \y; _`T\ t2 558'29'20"E 23.81 /► iii , / , L. NSB'Iz'00"W BS.25 L �MpDB fG11 of & A�Oa ON YGg Ky ALS S F YYM `\ \Fp \`il�/ / u 5srae'OD'w t0.0D L DLR Smu fLLYA TO I OF CATO to em ts5 AI! 60.11 SLMYA. Sia tS9FBR FiJY \ iy4� y \::dYY1AA \ -� / r L' sse•Iz'DO"w e0.zz A ALL II141 ARL m a T D IXI UI NAMk 6T. \ III, L6 531•s1'00"W 129.00 4 CDNIRACIOR lIRIL ARAILF OaIL10 IIAIDIOItD TO IQf htOPOS6D RiOBi °D2RX iI / LINE I MENaWAYY AN NID�tArnjMINEI=L1• \ \\ / LINE t V N58'29'00"W 35.00 S PE OWNEpS 6 THE CONSOUnAT[O LOTS 6JM-B9 v Bl -A -89A (REFA'l BUILDINGS) III BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF \ \ WtdAETC � THE UNOE....O STORMWII DE CNTION FACILITY. _^_��ff� f TT' ( , Rp 6. EACH FUEUNG AREA Wllt HAVE A EONIVETE PAD SLOPING TO A TRENCH DRAIN \ \ 0J`E� / �s�) SRlIi IHUNE TO AN OIL d WATER SEPARATOR. THE SPARATOR WILL OWPALL TO THE \ \ ,•D\, Ii: :)•, rRe9R•c B.us NEAREST DROP INLET. till111lI •{ ). PIPE DUIW t%OIimm ). EXISTING MANHOLES iO BE RAISED TO FIT PROPOSED CRAVE. DV1LLT ry S 8. EXISTING SEWER CtEANOViS TO BE RAISED TO PROPOSED GRADE. , \ RB1C DIIOOIA BIfVJOR \ 9. DIESEL FUEUNG PUMP (SINGLE HOSE) WILL SERVE PASSENGER STYLE VEHICLES. , \ CUIYQT 7D° zARY 10. WATER AND SEWER TO BUILDING A TO BE INSTALLED BY FCSA. SEE FCSA CONSTRUCTION NOTE 8 IN SHEET 02. gyp[ \ I 119pY RWbtl! gIiYD1R E \ 'ii'W ` SAX Y INN) WAS PROAREY BY P°IESFA a ASWCKRA NC. LLtr BASED ON SURVEYS COMM N OCTOBER ! DECOM 200L BVIATION SM ARE ASStAIED" CDIYYR 70' L.A. \ \'ti��ss.__._...__._....._...__._._.._.._.._..._...__.___..._.._.._........... _._...... 19 ' .-- ' -- ' / / / , .If 4W CuLvcff....~ / to cun 62 SDNH 41 TOR —HER AND —UlEAp0pWL""tS F THE CONSOLIDATE LOTS 63-A-59 & "-A-89A (RETAIL BUILDINGS) SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF 6EACH FUEU 0 AREA WILL HAVE A CONCRElE PAD SLOPING TO A TRENCH GRAIN INUME TO AN OIL Ik WATER 5EPARATOR. THE SPARATOR WIM OUTFALL TO THE NEAREST DROP INNE1. EX � ING MANHOLES TO BE RAISED TO FIT PROPOSED GRACE - 8. 1XIS ING SEWER CLEANOUTS TO BE RAISED TO ROFOSED GRADE. to 9. DIESEL FUELING PUMP (SINGLE ROSE) WILL SERVE PASSENGER STYLE VEHICLES. em Ia. WATER AND SEWER TO BUILDING A TO BE INSTALLED BY FGSA. SEE FGSA CONSTRUCTION NOTE IT IN SHEET 02, , -/ —~nPC am 21 / { _~ = F If - , -/ —~nPC am 21 / { _~ = F If 63B 3 f Z FLEENORNINA+ b a J^`IC oo� ww 0 A 5M Zoning KEMPER GROUP, LLC RP A , Zoning L1GN31MG:4LC: M1 RTER, PEGGTy LIm I m <inlfeld13 L —� A W j °° suba AO REYN, R n �. !A 9 DORTOq. iROMAS Eg R� 1 63 A SEA GRIM, PATRICIA ANN 83 A5da WALKER, WJRA MAk'Y f. 63 A 55 so FRISTOE INVESTMENTS, LLC 63 A SE Zoning i BANK OF CLARKS COUNTY B2 Zoning r 63 63 A 11 LLE PROPERTIES, LLC 63A ETA SAGER, B. J., INC. 63 A 55 CFSM, LLC 63 A 67 TREX COMPANY, INC mm MDP #02-06 LLE, LLC Route 11 Property ( 63 - A - 89, 89A, 92 ) s 0 75 150 3DO Feet Map FeaNres Neaao•= B1 (Business, Neighborhood District ) MS (Metl � '<al Gu pport District) NB2 = (Business G D' t' t) es 'J Rd (Rdental, Planned Csmmun ty Dstnct) Hp•mm cw=s B3 (Business Ind t IT f' District) + R5(Restlenfa( Recreational Community District) ava•o= f+ dCenterlines EM (Ext—five Manufactur ng District) Q RA (R11.1 Areas District) s ® HE(Higher Education District) Q RP(Residential Performance District) a •v., n. •N.e*wi M1 (Industrial, Light D,,hid) �msn fir♦ uon <N M2 (Industrial, General District) Mill (Mobile Home Community District) 63 A 55 CFSM, LLC 63 A 67 TREX COMPANY, INC mm MDP #02-06 LLE, LLC Route 11 Property ( 63 - A - 89, 89A, 92 ) s 0 75 150 3DO Feet 63B i NIN� F'SERGR 9 Opel �4 6 638 1 17 S, JERI L A y BITTER, PEGGyL 11! 83 A 85 CFSM, LLL W 93 FRYE, ANNA LEE t 83 A 91 LENGYEL, GEORGE ..atntield\v�,/ o5 A 6 2' Z, �C me �mF e 9�NQ II 83 A 82 9 DORTOR RQ7�PROPERTIES. LLG )ROMASE, 83 A 53A KEMPER GROUP, LLC + 83 p 63A GRIM, PATRICIAANN 83 A 54� WALKER 4"111-111 4WJR8NANrE �� 11 'a* �aft 11 A11 83 A 55 40LLE PROPERTIES, LLC FRISTOE INVESTMENTS, LLC • ' s 83 A 9OF CLARKE COUNT) v 1 83 A 57 GE LIGHTING, LLL Ti `- X34 T1' o v my W ;SWI opW j• lO 13 A 8TA Yy jfiF SAGER, &J., INC. Q U eti Map Features .. a°n •.> B1 (Bus ness Neghb h dD-mt) MS pp.rt Dstrid) N anew• (Med cal Su Nary°M J B2 (BUness, Ge ID-tct) Q8 R4(Residenlial Plan— Community Distrct) B3 (Bus ness Intl t' IT silt., Di-ct) td RS(Residential Recreat.nal Community Dst,mt) R.sads.e C -.11s '� EM (E.t—w. Ma factumistric , Dt) Q RA(Rural Areas D'stdct) � ° � r HE(HMI,e, Education D-strct) Q RP (R..- Pert.rmance District) M t (Industral, Lght Distrct) (Intlustrial, General Distri.t) MHi (Mobile H.me Community Distrkt) \� I 63 A W TREX COMPANY, INC MDP #02-06 LLE, LLC Route 11 Property D ( 63 - A - 89, 89A, 92 ) 5 150 ,GD Feet Em 1 ,ThA31 II) �. Y EC' t, ( 3 A B5 ' � r h.�FYT','4 Y• � w -« ..1. .`i ♦ % FHYE AVNA LCF �� r� f 7r� wIf � W x ti`g a1.U�j i I itE f 1G-G..,p p63 A 92 LLE PROPERTIES, LLC 4 r. e3 A ng { ((8yA 83 A 52A f TRE%COMPANY; INC , KEMPER GROUP, LLC A 6V 7 r 9ti11X6f, NAL J 83 A BB � f LLE PROPERTIES, LLC FR. -5 DEIN LSl Jf B, r"V9� - r 1 – 83 T B A TREX CO87 INC 4 C – P 83 A 87A SAGER,BA,INC. MpF es ,m BI (BuSnesa N yhb h dD- t t ( pp.d Distrct) N sneer. ) MS Med cal Su 62 (Bus ness G ID t -t) V R4(Resvtlentlal Plannetl Community D,,d) ~O 41 B3(Busness, T-0on Distrct) + R5(Resdentia1 Recreat°nal Cpmmunty District) Rosaacanter9n.s '& EM (ExtraM!ve Manutaclur ng Distrct) Q RA(Rural Areas Distr.) r-41 HE (Higher Educ t' D t' t) Q RP(Residentml Pert°rmance Distrct) ?–" H Q MI (hd-Mlinf, Lght D' tr t) M2 Vdustral, General Ds,mt) + MHi (Mobile H°me Community District) H v nG_m!y c MDP #02-06 LLE, LLC Route 11 Property ( 63 - A - 89, 89A, 92 ) 0 75 150 300 0.♦ Feet IBM- !■ Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Department of Planning and Development Use Only. Date application received �� Application #-�C� Complete. Date of acceptance. Incomplete. Date of return. LLE, LLC Route 11 Property 1. Project Title: 2. Owner's Name: Mr. David Ervin, President of Ervin Development Mr. Gurcharan Lail, President of GASMART (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: LLE, LLC Address: 1830 Plaza Drive Wa ti t Phone Number: (540) 722-9799 4. Design Company: Address: Phone Number: Contact Name: Potesta and Associates, Inc. 508 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 450-0180 K. Joe Knechtel, P.E. Page 11 Frederick Coenty, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: 3311 Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) Winchester, Virginia 22601 6. 7. S. 3.77 acres Total Acreage: Property information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): b) Current Zoning: C) Present Use: d) Proposed Uses: e) Adjoining Property hnformation: 63-A-89, 63 -A -89A, 63-A-92 B2, B2, B3 Vacant, Vacant, Occupied (Rental) Commercial (ALL) Property Identification Numbers North 63-A-91 South 63-A-88 East 63-A-110, 63-A-87 West 63-A-56, 63-A-55, 63 -A -5A, 63 -B -1-D1, 63 -B -1-C 0 Magisterial District: Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original X Amended Property Uses Business Industrial Industrial Business, Business, Residential Residential Back Creek I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Plaruning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. Signature: Date: Dece er 15, 2005 Page 12 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia 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) Mr- Dave Ervin (Phone) (540) 722-9799 (Address) 1830 Plaza Drive, 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 No. 050021884 on Page , and is described as Property Identification Number (PIN): 63-A-89, 63 -A -89A, 63-A-92 Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Potesta & Associates, Inc. None (Phone) (540) 450-0180 (Address) 508 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, Virginia 22602 To act as my true and lawful attomey-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits 29 Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) 9 SubdivisiGH AX 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,4herwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of ,4r'ry , 200, Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/Caupt3�of. 1�1�4 �! < ' � � , To -wit: h , 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 l_p day of %h LW 4200 . My Commission Expires: q� . 2Q.9.D—, Notary Public • J y� COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator'! RE: Discussion: Ordinance Amendment — Changes to Article VI — RP Residential Performance District, 165-64A —Recreation Facilities - Waiver of Community Centers in Single Family Small -Lot Subdivisions DATE: March 31, 2006 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its February 23, 2006, meeting discussed a request from Greenway Engineering to amend Article VI — RP Residential Performance District, 165-64A —Recreation Facilities - Waiver of Community Centers in Single Family Small -Lot Subdivisions. This proposed change to this section will allow the waiving by the Board of Supervisors of the community center requirement for subdivisions having less than fifty (50) lots, provided an equivalent of three age-appropriate recreational units for each thirty (30) dwelling units can be demonstrated. The DRRS was in favor of this proposed ordinance change as presented. The subcommittee believes that any subdivision with less than fifty (5 0) lots will still have to provide an equivalent recreational value and would satisfy the requirement. This section of the ordinance was recently changed to allow the community center waiver in proffered age -restricted projects; the current amendment would include the waiver in all single family small -lot subdivisions. The current and proposed (highlighted in bold) ordinance section(s) are included for your review. (See attachment) Staff will be available to respond to your questions. Comments raised during this discussion will be forwarded to the Board of ,Supervisors for their consideration. MRC/bad Attachment 107 North Kent Street, Smite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5600 Proposed Community Center Text Amendment § 165-64. Recreational facilities A. Housing types with lot sizes of less than 5,000 square feet shall provide the following recreational units or equivalent recreational facilities for each 30 dwelling units. All such developments shall contain at least one such recreational unit. In addition, developments containing single-family small lot housing shall provide a community center that provides for the equivalent of three age- appropriate recreational units for each 30 dwelling units. The facilities shall be in a configuration and location that is easily accessible to the dwelling units that they are designed to serve. The design and amount of facilities shall be approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the Administrator and the Department of Parks and Recreation, using the following recreational unit as a guideline. The design of such facilities shall be approved at the time of site plan review. I) The Board of Supervisors may provide a waiver for the community center requirement specified in §165-64A in single-family small lot subdivisions which contain less than 50 lots. This waiver may be requested by the applicant during the consideration of the Master Development Plan, or during the consideration of the Subdivision Design Plan if no Master Development Plan is required. The applicant is required to demonstrate how an equivalent recreational value of three recreational units far each 30 dwelling units is being provided within the project, to the County, or a combination of both as a condition of requesting approval of a waiver by the Board of Supervisors. • '_7 • COUNTY of F ))ER.ICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 549/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Amending the Planning Commission's Bylaws DATE: April 6, 2006 Article IX Amendments of the Frederick County Planning Commission Bylaws states that the "bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice." The ad-hoc bylaws review committee suggests that we begin the review by changing the process by which the bylaws may be amended. These amendments were discussed briefly on March 15, 2006. The proposed amendments are included below. Action concerning adoption of the changes by the Commission is appropriate at this time. ARTICLE IX — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 9-1 These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice at any time during the calendar year. 9-2 Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of these bylaws in November of each calendar year to ensure their accuracy. A44 ameadments to these bylaws shall be eensidered by the Planning Commission in -Novembef—o€—eaeh calendar Th ni g Gefrifnissien shall adopt their bylaws during tke first ffieeting of eaeh ea4 9-3 At the first meeting of the calendar year the By -Laws will be adopted. ERL/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 s Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000