The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 06-21-06 Meeting AgendaFILE COPY AGEN FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia June 21, 2006 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) May 17, 2006 Minutes..................................................................................................... (A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Rezoning #07-06 of Senseny Road Rentals, LLC, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone two acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers, for four single family homes. The property is located on Senseny Road (Route 657) approximately 350' west of Ashley Drive (Route 63), in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 65-A-46. Mr. Ruddy....................................................................................................................... (B) 5) Rezoning #08-06 of Shawnee Drive (Webb) Property, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone .94 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (General Business) District with proffers, for office use. The property is located on Shawnee Drive, approximately 250' east of the intersection of Route 11 & Shawnee Drive, on the right side of the road. The property is located in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 63-A-104. Ms. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (C) 6) Consideration of modifications to the boundaries of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The UDA and SWSA boundaries are components of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. An evaluation of the UDA and SWSA boundaries has identified eight general areas where differences with the boundaries occur or where inconsistency with the land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan has been recognized. The modifications to more appropriately reflect the Comprehensive Policy Plan would result in a reduction of approximately 6,624 acres to the UDA and a reduction of approximately 1,495 acres to the SWSA. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (D) 7) Conditional Use Permit #10-05 of William Broy for an Off -Premise Business Sign. This property is located at 3605 Valley Pike, and is identified with Property Identification Number 63-A-84 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Mr. Henry...................................................................................................................... (E) PUBLIC MEETING 8) Master Development Plan #06-06 for White Hall Business Park, submitted by Urban Engineering & Associates, Inc., for a Caterpillar Maintenance and Sales Facility. The properties are located approximately 950' west from Interchange 323 off I-81, approximately 2,560' south of Rest Church Road along proposed Zachary Ann Lane, and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 33-9-6, 33-9-7, and 33-9-8, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Ms. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (F) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 9) Planning Commission Bylaws Mr. Lawrence................................................................................................................... (G) 10) Other MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on May 17, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee 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; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Mark R Cheran, Zoning Administrator; John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner; Candice E. Perkins, Planner Il; Bernard S. Suchicital, Planner I; Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of April 5, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS studied the UDA/SWSA boundaries over approximately seven different locations in the County and a recommendation will be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for those clean-up items. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2006 Page 1746 LN A" -2 - Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 05/16/06 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed the upcoming rezonimg for Redhawk Estates. He said the HRAB was concerned about the amount of traffic and development along Sulphur Springs Road; however, the HRAB thought the applicant had gone to satisfactory lengths to preserve the rural character of the existing neighborhood and they recommended approval. Sanitation Authority (SA) — 05/16/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the SA elected new officials and Robert Mallory was elected as the Chairman. Commissioner Unger reported three inches of rainfall for the month of April, which is about normal. He said there was one point in April when there was a heavy amount of rainfall at one time and it put considerable strain on the Parkins Mill plant; however, it performed well. He reported that water usage for the month of April was about normal, approximately 4.9 mgd. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chainnan Wilmot called for citizen comments; however, no one came forward to speak. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion of Subdivision 904-06 of Tyson Drive Extension, from McGhee Drive to Welltown Road, located in the Stonewall Industrial Park No Action Required Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that this item is being presented to the Planning Commission due to its implications on the planned route for Route 37. Mr. Cheran said plans for the Stonewall Industrial Park do not accommodate the Route 37 right-of-way. He said the proposed road extension will occur from McGhee Drive to Welltown Road and the property is located near the proposed path of Route 37. Mr. Cheran said that in an effort to keep the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors apprised of the Route 37 right-of-way, site plans and subdivisions which impact the Route 37right-of--way will be presented for information. Commissioner Oates reiterated comments he made at a previous meeting for the Board of Supervisors to establish a centerline, have it surveyed, and incorporate it into the County's Capital Improvements Plan. Other Commissioners agreed. Frederick County Planning Commission p 0 g Page 1747 Minutes of May 17, 2006 101 FAI l V -3 - PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #17-05 of Russell-Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 31.1851 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers for 45 single- family homes. The property is located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663). The property is further identified by P.I.N. 43 -A -15B in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Sent to Board of Supervisors Without A Recommendation Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy stated that the Planning Commission previously considered this application on April 5, 2006, and voted to recommend denial of the waiver to lift the preservation parcel restrictions on Parcel 43-A-16. She said the Board of Supervisors sent the application back to the Planning Commission for clarification on the rezoning action. Since that last Planning Commission meeting, however, there have been changes made to the application by the applicant. Ms. Eddy proceeded to explain the differences and fundamental issues between the previous application and the one before the Commission this evening. Ms. Eddy stated that the applicant is currently seeking to rezone just the 31 acres from RA to RP to allow 45 single- family houses; the density of the proposal is 1.44 dwelling units per acre, which is higher than the previous application; and, the application no longer includes the preservation parcel. Moving on to land use issues, Ms. Eddy reported that the subject site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and most of the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). She said that any lots formed outside of the SWSA will not be eligible for public water and sewer service. Ms. Eddy said the site is not located within the boundaries of any small -area land use plans. In addition, she said the site has no particular land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long -Range Land Use Plan. She said that in absence of any specific plans for this area, a careful evaluation of the general policies in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the surrounding uses is necessary. Ms. Eddy reported there is orchard use to the north of the proposed site on two sides and industrial land is adjacent to the south and east. She noted that the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for separating industrial uses from residential uses; however, this proposal would accomplish the opposite and considerably increase the number of residences directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. Regarding transportation, Ms. Eddy reported that the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan shows the future Route 37 passing south of the property, although it does not touch the property. She said the final alignment of Route 37 has not been engineered and it is possible that the alignment could shift. She noted that placing houses near a planned road would prejudice the County's ability to adjust the alignment of the road, should it be necessary. Ms. Eddy said that the results of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) indicated a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better on surrounding roads. In addition, she said there are visibility concerns at certain locations along Glendobbin Road and there is challenging topography on the site, particularly on the west side. She added that the applicant will have to demonstrate that acceptable driveways can be accommodated. Ms. Eddy next reviewed the applicant's revised proffer statement with the Commission. Ms. Eddy also mentioned that the Planning Department received a considerable number of letters, emails, petitions, and phone calls concerning this rezoning, both in supportand in opposition. She said that since the last Planning Commission meeting, she has continued to receive more, but many of these were from repeat senders. In conclusion, Ms. Eddy believed the application was not consistent with Comprehensive Policy Plan and furthermore, the applicant is seeking a housing type not called for in the County's Long Rand Land Use Plan, nor Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2006 Page 1748 -4= found in this area; she said the site is located adjacent to industrial -zoned and developed land and an active orchard; she said a dense, residential development is incompatible with these uses and could impact their future operations. Mr. Clay Athey, with the law firm of Napier, Pond, Athey & Athey, was representing his clients, Mr. and Mrs. Glen Russell and the Russell-Glendobbin rezoning application. Mr. Athey talked about the generations of Athey family members who have been in the construction business and the numerous jobs they have supplied for the people in Frederick County. Mr. Athey commented that the property under consideration is clearly within the SWSA and the UDA, which is an indication for persons in the development community that residential housing can be constructed. Mr. Athey said that based on the previous public hearing and comments received from the public and the Planning Commission, his clients modified the application to remove the rural preservation lot from their development plans. Mr. Athey next asked all of the persons in the audience who were in support of the application to stand and approximately 50 people stood. Mr. Charles Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Senior Vice President of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, the design and engineering company for this project, came forward to address some of the issues raised by the staff. Mr. Maddox pointed out their plans to use the private access easement serving the preservation parcel as a gated, all-weather alternative access for emergency vehicles. Regarding the separation between residential and industrial uses, he believed the future Route 37 bypass will provide a new planning boundary; he said the design and construction community are in support of Route 37 and are providing for it within their plans. Mr. Maddox described the project as providing transitional lots and was a good planning approach for hierarchal zoning in this area. He said the overall density is 1.45 units per acre, while the traditional single-family neighborhood in the UDA is 2.3 to 2.5 units per acre. He noted that the UDA allows for up to 5.5 units on a parcel of this size. Mr. Maddox believed this project was low density for RP development, especially with public water and sewer. Commissioners raised the issue of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; it was pointed out that 27 homes could potentially back up to the existing eight or nine homes on Union View. The Commission and staff discussed whether the compatibility issue or the UDA designation would be the most predominant element of consideration for this rezoning. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Gregory G. Smith came forward to speak in support of the Russell's project because the Russells were local builders who supported local businesses. Ms. Suzanne Schneider, a resident at 259 Glendobbin Road in the Stonewall District, came forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning application. Ms. Schneider believed the rezoning was inconsistent with the surrounding area, based on the increased density. She predicted that the entire property would be developed because the cul-de-sac was drawn directly up to the preservation tract. She questioned the adequacy of the roads to handle the additional traffic. She said poor visibility and the posted 55 mph speed limit would lead to accidents. Ms. Schneider believed that safety and the welfare of County residents should be of utmost importance. Mr. Kevin Sites, a resident at 821 Giendobbin Road in the Stonewall District, spoke in support of the rezoning application. Mr. Sites said that he was one of the first residents on Glendobbin Road, when it was a dirt road, and probably 100 houses have been built since then. He did not think people should oppose additional development after they have moved into an area. He said that Mr. Russell's project was designed and presented within the County's requirements and should be approved. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2006 Page 1749 -5 - Mr. Jeff Smulovitz, a resident at 166 Jennifer Courtin the Stonewall Magisterial District, spoke in opposition to the rezoning application. Mr. Smulovitz suggested that Mr. Russell made a bad investment on this property and this should not be a reason for the Commission to approve his rezoning. Mr. Richard Mason, a resident at 356 Chimney Hills in the Gainesboro District, spoke in support of the rezoning application. Mr. Mason said this project will provide proffered money which will benefit the schools, the roads, and basic infrastructure in Frederick County. He also mentioned the tax dollars that the new homes would provide. Mr. Mason believed that VDOT was capable of taking care of the road deficiencies mentioned by those who previously spoke. He stated that the project will provide jobs for the community. He spoke highly of the Russells' integrity and about how they cared about the quality of their homes; he asked the Commission to show support for local builders. Mr. Eric Reid, the Sales Manager for Shenandoah Building Supplies located in the Stonewall Industrial Park, spoke in support of the Russells and the rezoning application. Mr. Reid said that he lives in Hampshire County, West Virginia, and along with other activities, he shops, banks, and recreates locally, and his children go to .school here. Mr. Reid questioned why 15,000 square foot lots on water and sewer were not acceptable here when lots can be as small as 8,000 square feet in other areas. Mr. Bradley Katz, a homeowner in the Stonewall District, said that he has been asked by a group of his neighbors to talk about why they are okay with the Russells building homes, but not okay with the density proposed. He said the two major problems are land use and lot size. Mr. Katz said the neighbors believe RP Zoning in the middle of working orchards, agricultural areas, a thriving industrial park, and into the path of Route 37 was not consistent with the existing land use. Regarding lot size, he said the proposal seeks a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet, or 1/3 acre; he said the neighboring Glendobbin Ridge subdivision has a two -acre minimum lot size and an average five -acre lot size. Mr. Katz noted that directly on Glendobbin Road, there are approximately 26 homes on 162 acres, which averages to 6.22 acres per property. Mr. Katz said 1/3 -acre lot sizes are not seen anywhere in this local rural area. Mr. James Chapman, a resident at 193 Quaker Lane in the Stonewall Magisterial District, said that he lived on a one -acre lot in this area. Mr. Chapman said it was his understanding that the alignment for Route 37 had not yet been determined and he questioned the appropriateness of approving lots so near to the proposed right-of-way. Mr. Chapman also pointed out that seven of the 31 acres were not within the SWSA; he asked if these lots would be served with well and septic or if the SWSA was going to be extended to cover the additional acreage. Ms. Diane Kearns, a resident at 766 Echo Lane in the Gainesboro District, came forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Kearns said that her family is the adjacent agricultural landowner and she had concerns about the compatibility of agricultural use adjoining RP use. Ms. Kearns recommended that the Commission look at the big picture and ask whether this proposal was in the best interest of Frederick County. Mr. Rickie Thweatt, a resident at 148 Orchard View Lane in the Opequon District, was in support of the rezoning. Mr. Thweatt said he looked at the property and he didn't think much else could be done with this property other than building houses. He said with the steep topography, he didn't think anyone could see the houses if there were a few trees. Mr. Thweatt believed this project would be good for the community and local businesses. Mr. Jon Miles, a resident at 222 Union View Lane in the Stonewall District, came forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Miles believed the reduction from 130 homes to 45 homes was not voluntary; he said the application went from 60 homes on one -half -acre lots to 45 homes on one -third -acre lots. He believed the new road ending at the preservation lot was intended to serve additional homes. Mr. Miles read a portion of the vision statement in the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. He pointed out that aerial Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2006 Page1750 Z. photographs outlining existing properties clearly showed a sharp contrast with the Russell proposal. Ms. Melissa Shade, a resident at 147 DeHaven Drive in the Stonewall District, spoke in support of the rezoning application. Ms. Shade said that Winchester was ranked as the 17''' fastest growing City in the nation; she argued that progress can not be stopped. She said that progress in and of itself brings a diversity of cultures, an influx of revenue, and jobs to the local area. Ms. Shade said that there are already several projects underway in Clearbrook and she did not understand why this one is being treated differently. Mr. Ralph Henderson, a resident at 320 Union View Lane in the Stonewall District, came forward to speak in opposition. Mr. Henderson said the emergency access going into Union View Lane wasn't necessary when this property was first subdivided and it was not necessary now; he believed it would only promote additional construction in the area. He wanted to see the preservation parcel remain as a preservation parcel. Mr. Henderson added that the existing homes on Glendobbin Ridge would be looking down into the back yards of the proposed homes. He said those particular eight lots in Glendobbin Ridge were sold as premium lots and there is wooded area behind them. Mr. Henderson said the wooded area adds to the preservation of wildlife in the area. Ms. Sandy Mills, a resident at 115 Marshall Lane in the Opequon District, came forward to speak in support of the rezoning application. Ms. Mills was in favor of the project because the monetary proffers designated for schools would benefit the school system.. Ms. Mills believed that controlled and organized growth was good for the community. She said this proposal represents a compromise and she hoped the Commission would consider it with an open mind. Mr. Raj Parmar, a resident at 247 Union View Lane in the Stonewall District, came forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning application. Mr. Parmar said that if this proposal is approved, the view from his backyard will be of 27 rooftops. He pointed to aback area which was densely wooded and commented that it buffers the entire street and neighborhood from the industrial park. Mr. Parmar didn't think the homes could be constructed without tearing down all of the woodlands and eliminating the entire buffer. Ms. Sherry Tomblin, a resident at 3070 Apple Pie Ridge Road in the Stonewall District, came forward to speak in support of the Russell family. Ms. Tomblin said that Frederick County is not currently supporting the area youth with good affordable housing; she believed the proposed project would fill that need_ Mr. Rodney Huff, a resident at 181 Quaker Lane in the Stonewall District, came forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning application. Mr. Huff said his neighborhood community is opposed to the high density and the small lots. Mr. Ulmer, a resident at 368 DeHaven Drive in the Stonewall District, came forward to speak in support of Mr. Russell and his project. Mr. Ulmer said that placing smaller lots next to larger lots is done all of the time; for example, townhouses next to single-family homes. He did not think a decision should be based on Route 37, since no one was certain where and if the road would be built. Ms. Kimberly Salata, a resident at 132 Wilton Drive in the Stonewall District, came forward to speak in opposition to the high=density development of this project. She said she was representing a large number of residents in the Glendobbin area who were also opposed to this action and will be directly and adversely impacted, should this project be approved. Ms. Salata said the reasons for their opposition were that the project was incompatible with the existjng neighborhood, roads and schools could not support additional development, and there were safety issues. She said the persons who support this project do not live in this area and she did not believe this project was crucial for the survival of their jobs. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2006 Page 1751 -7 - Mr. Ron Strosnider, a resident at 814 Payne Road in the Stonewall District, came forward to speak in support of the rezoning application. Mr. Strosnider said that he was employed by Mr. Russell and he supported Mr. Russell in this project. He pointed out that Mr. Russell compromised on this project by removing the preservation parcel from the request. Mr. Strosnider thought that using public water and sewer for the lots was better than serving the lots with wells and septic systems. Ms. Donna Strosnider, a resident at 814 Payne Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District, was in support of the project. Ms. Strosnider wanted to speak about the issue of nonconformity. She said that 7/10 mile down to Payne Road, there are homes on half -acre lots; she said an industrial park, several mobile homes, and homes on half -acre lots can be seen from Union View Lane. She said to say this project was non -conforming was a falsehood. Ms. Strosnider requested that the Commission consider the best use of land and prevent urban sprawl. She said these homes would serve a broader base in the community and not cater to the few that would want to close the door on future housing behind them. Mr. Larry Knox, a resident at 465 Glendobbin Road in the Stonewall District, came forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning application. Mr. Knox believed there were many facts that have not been presented to the Commission and should be considered. He said many of these issues involve the previous assessments that were done by the Fire Marshal, VDOT, and the School Board on infrastructure. He said that the uncertain location of Route 37 would also have an impact on the community. Mr. Christian Schweiger, Executive Vice -Present of the Top of Virginia Building Association, came forward to speak in support of this project, especially because it offered affordable housing. Mr. Schweiger raised the question of where starter homes are to be located in Frederick County, if not here. He asked where a starter home at $100,000 - $150,000 could be found when most of the lot prices are $200,000. He said people need housing, especially teachers, policeman, and the young people coming out of school. Ms. Darla Barrett, a resident at 307 Cottonwood in the Stonewall District, came forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning application, primarily because of the overcrowding in the County's public schools. She talked about the use of trailers for classrooms in some of the overcrowded schools. Ms. Barrett was concerned that infrastructure in Frederick County was not keeping up with its population. She stressed the importance of schools in the viability of any community. Ms. Cathy Thompson, a resident at 505 Glendobbin Road in the Stonewall District, came forward to speak in opposition. Ms. Thompson believed this was not the area for starter homes; this was an established five -acre neighborhood. She commented that Mr. Russell's Union View property was sold to an outside developer, not a local builder. Ms. Thompson added that this project would not benefit the County or the neighbors. Mr. Robert Duck, a resident of the Stonewall District, presented a sideview mirror from a Ford Explorer that landed in his yard on May ]Oat 3:00 p.m. He said the Ford Explorer that ran into his yard was out of control for approximately 80 yards before it came into his side yard. He said a vehicle approaching from the other direction would have less visibility and would have been helpless to avoid the careening Ford Explorer. Mr. Duck believed Glendobbin Road was an unsafe road based on the six previous incursions into his yard. He said any additional traffic on this road, aside from causing the little inconveniences he now deals with, such as picking up glass, mowing over the ruts, and repairing his fence, will turn into head-on, fatal collisions. Mr. Duck said the access road for the proposed subdivision cones in on a very steep section of Gliendobbin, about 300 %'-L from the entrance to Union View. He noted that the visibility was very poor and the stopping distance would be about 300 feet. Mr. Duck said this project made no compromise for safety. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 17. 2006 Page1752 ME Ms. Roxy Osten, a resident on Union View Lane in the Stonewall District, doubted the applicant's claim that the project would consist of starter homes; especially since the applicant could not provide the intended square footage. Ms. Osten again mentioned the subject of the legal issues, raised by attorney Steve Petler of Harrison & Johnston, regarding the applicant's proposed second access, via the 50 -foot private access, and the fact that at this point in time, Mr. Russell is not assured the right to use this property for a second access. Since everyone who wished to speak had been given the opportunity to do so, Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Maddox returned to the podium to address some of the citizens' comments. Mr. Maddox said the two 200,000 -square -foot lots outside of the SWSA, are planned to have on-site septic fields and wells, if the Sanitation Authority can not serve the lots. He added that the single-family traditional home being proposed for this project is the largest lot outlined in the RP Zone with water and sewer. Mr. Athey returned to the podium to state that the decisions made by the Planning Commission with respect to the Comprehensive Policy Plan are relied on by investors; he said the Comprehensive Policy Plan is a statement by the governing body that this is an area where developers can invest money and realize a return, if procedures are followed. Mr. Athey pointed out that the Russells purchased property within the UDA; he commented that he knew of no rezoning petitions in the recent past that have been turned down when they were clearly within the UDA. Mr. Athey added that this project was a viable compromise, from 130 lots to 45 lots, and insures that concerns expressed at the initial meeting, centering on the development of the Rural Preservation Lot, have been addressed. Commissioner Oates explained to the citizens that they could not expect an adjoining property owner to forfeit their property rights after the existing residents have constructed their home; he assured them additional homes will be constructed. Referring to the woodlands strip, Commissioner Oates commented that it provided a beneficial screen between an industrial park and a residential area. He said he did not see anything in the applicant's proposal indicating that a portion of the woodlands screen would be saved. Commissioner Oates doubted the possibility that this project's homes would be starter homes because ofthe amount of money it would take to develop the property. In conclusion, Commissioner Oates said his final concern was the density and he did not believe there was a compromise because the project area was reduced. Commissioner Oates said that he could not support the project at its current density. Commissioner Moms said the issues of consistency and compatibility remained for him, especially in light of the fact that the RP Zoning classification allows a broad range of development options. He said that because RP can contain everything from apartment buildings to mansions, interpreting the subject of compatibility was difficult. He thought the Commission was being asked to ignore the compatibility and consistency issues in order to accommodate a return on investment. He suggested that a returnofthat investment could be at the expense of the neighboring high-value land owners, as well as the adjoining agricultural property. He was not in favor of 27 homes backing up to eight existing lots. Commissioner Light stressed the importance of using the Comprehensive Policy Plan for making decisions on development, especially regarding the issue of compatibility with the surrounding area. On the other hand, he pointed out the UDA designation in this area, which provides the opportunity for development. Commissioner Light suggested a possible scenario would be for the applicant to use both tracks of land, including the residual parcel, and develop those two parcels into two -acre lots under the RP Zoning. He explained the RP Zoning would provide the protection of buffers and screening and the ability to utilize water and sewer. Commissioner Light said if he lived in this area, he would be more comfortable with a well-maintained two -acre development rather than a scrubland area with an uncertain future. He said this would provide the developer with a viable density and guarantees how the area will develop. Frederick County Planning Commis I n Page 1753 Minutes of May 17, 2006 ME Commissioner Unger did not think it was fair to tell an applicant they had to develop two -acre lots within the UDA; he said the UDA and S WSA were intended to accommodate smaller lots. He said he would have preferred less than 45 lots, but would go along with the proposal because the preservation lot was removed from the project. In addition, he wanted to see a 200 -foot protection area from the orchards. Commissioner Triplett expressed concern with mandating a certain sized lot within the UDA when the County has previously urged the use of smaller lots within the UDA, where water and sewer are available. Commissioner Triplett said that he was opposed to developing the preservation parcel and since that has been removed from the project, he felt he could go -along with the proposal. Commissioner Kerr did not believe this development would have a large impact on the school system, based on the impact model's 31 projected students and dividing them up between high, middle, and elementary schools. Commissioner Kerr added that the County has indicated that residential housing should go within the UDA and the applicant is following the rules the County has set forth. Commissioner Oates made a motion to deny the rezoning application because it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan's guidelines for compatibility, particularly with placing a high- density housing adjacent to an established two -acre lot development and with placing residential lots adjacent to M1 Zoning. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Light. The motion was defeated, however, by the following tie vote: YES (TO DENY THE REZONING): Light, Oates, Morris, Watt, Wilmot NO: Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Manuel, Unger (Commissioners Thomas; Ours, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) A new motion was made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kerr to approve the rezoning application because the property was within the UDA and the SWSA. This motion was defeated, however, by the following tie vote: YES (TO APPROVE THE REZONING): Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Manuel, Unger NO: Light, Oates, Morris, Watt, Wilmot (Commissioners Thomas, Ours, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) Another new motion was made by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and unanimously passed to send the rezoning application forward to the Board of Supervisors without a recommendation. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to send Rezoning Application 417-05 of Russell-Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 3 i . 1851 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residentiai Performance) District with proffers for 45 single-family homes, to the Board of Supervisors without a recommendation. (Commissioners Thomas, Ours, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Minutes of May 17, 2006 Page 1754 -10 - ADJOURNMENT There being no further items for consideration, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2006 Page 1755 REZONING APPLICATION #07-06 SENSENY ROAD RENTALS, LLC Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: June 8, 2006 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, 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: June 21, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: July 26, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 2 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers, for 4 single family age restricted homes LOCATION: Senseny Road (Route 657) approximately 350' west of Ashley Drive (Route 63) MAGISTERIAL, DISTRICT: Redbud PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 65-A-46 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District PRESENT USE: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential PROPOSED USES: 4 Single Family Detached Residential Dwellings Rezoning 907-06 — Senseny Road Rentals, LLC June 8, 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 Route 657. This route is the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Carl Hales rezoning application dated March 15, 2006 (revision) 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 ight- ofway 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: Plan approval recommended. Greenwood Volunteer Fire & Rescue: We disagree with impact model as to impact on fire & rescue, but must approve. Department of Inspections: No Comment. Public Works Department: Refer to page 3, Drainage: The storm drainage analysis for the proposed 4 lot subdivision shall include an evaluation of the adequacy of the downstream culverts in the Senseny Glen Subdivision as well as the impacts of the storm flows from Dell Court. Refer to Page 3, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion references the citizens' trash convenience facility at the Greenwood Fire Hall as the closest site for trash disposal. Unfortunately, this site is currently overloaded and possibly slated for closure in the near future. Consequently, we are requesting that all new subdivisions provide curbside pickup in their homeowners' covenants. This issue is generally addressed in the proffer statement which was not including in your rezoning application. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No Comment. Sanitation Authority: I have reviewed the rezoning proposal and agree with its statements on water and sewer. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: No objection if public water and sewer is provided. GIS: No Comment. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proposed monetary proffer appears to address the impact this development will have on this department's capital facility needs. Rezoning #07-06 — Senseny Road Rentals, LLC June 8, 2006 Page 3 Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 4 single family homes will yield 1 high school student, 1 middle school student and 2 elementary school students for a total of 4 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. Even with only 4 new students upon build -out, the cumulative impact of this project and others, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. Winchester Regional Airport: The rezoning request was reviewed and it appears that the rezoning should not impact operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 surfaces; therefore special requirements relative to airport operations will not be requested. 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. As you have indicated in your impact statement, 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: Form and content previously approved by County Attorney. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the parcel as being zoned A-2 Agricultural. The County's A-1 and A-2 agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA (Rural Areas) District. Parcel 65-A-46 maintains this RA zoning classification. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Rezoning 407-06 — Senseny Road Rentals, LLC June 8, 2006 Page 4 Land Use The parcel comprising this rezoning application is 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 Plan Map identifies this general area with future residential land uses. Other elements of the Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the evaluation of this property include the identification of environmental resources and the development of methods to protect these sensitive areas. Also, the determination that the capacities and capabilities of community facilities needed to serve the planned and proposed land uses are fully addressed. This would include addressing issues relating to the water and sewer treatment facilities, public school facilities, and other community facilities. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). Senseny Road is identified as an improved major collector road and should be addressed accordingly. In addition, Senseny Road is recognized in the Frederick County Bicycle Plan with a short term designation for bicycle accommodations. Access to the site would be via a new street that would be in the form of a cul-de-sac. As located in the Generalized Development Plan for this project, the proposed cul-de-sac is located to provide access to the adjacent property to the east. 3) Site Suitability/Environment This site does not contain any areas of the following identifiable environmental features; wetlands, floodplain, steep slopes, and mature woodlands. According to the Soil Survey of Frederick County, the site contains the following soil types; Clearbrook Channerry Silt Loam and Weikert-Berks Channery Silt Loam. The Frederick County Engineer will require a storm drainage analysis of the adjacent drainage area with the development of this property. There are no identified historic resources on, or in the immediate vicinity of, the site. Rezoning #07-06 — Senseny Road Rentals, LLC June 8, 2006 Page 5 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The applicant's transportation analysis is minimal due to the limited scope of the proffered development plan. Based upon the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the four lot single family detached residential project will generate approximately 40 vehicle trips per day. Senseny Road, Route 657, is a two lane facility in this location. The existing Senseny Road right-of-way in this location is approximately 100 feet in width in front of this property. Transportation Pro ram. The applicant will be constructing a new street to provide access to the four lot subdivision which will traverse the adjacent property to the east. The location of the access point onto Senseny Road is approximately three hundred feet from the closest road, Ashley Drive. The location of the proposed road would assist in reducing the number of future street entrances onto Senseny Road. The applicant's proffer statement includes a commitment making the required frontage improvements to Route 657, Senseny Road, in support of the proposed development, including any necessary right-of-way dedication. Anticipated frontage improvements include lane widening of Senseny Road to achieve the full section of Senseny Road across the frontage of this property and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. Also provided by the applicant in the proffer statement is a commitment to provide a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000.00 per residential lot to address transportation general needs in the vicinity of this project. At the time of preparation of this rezoning application the applicant was aware of the approach of other projects in the vicinity of Senseny Road with regards to the establishment of a monetary fund to assist in the implementation of future area transportation improvements such as the widening of Senseny Road and the Spine Road. The County's acceptance of proffers in this manner prompted the applicant to proffer a similar commitment to area transportation improvements. In recognition of the limited scale of this rezoning request, this approach was initially believed to be more appropriate than physically constructing widening improvements in such close proximity to the interchange with Route 3 7 and the proposed Spine Road. The proffered frontage improvements in support of this development in combination with the monetary proffer would achieve the desired transportation enhancements in the immediate vicinity of this rezoning request. Very recent projects along Senseny Road have proposed the implementation of a 10 foot wide hiker/biker trail along the north side of Senseny Road. This approach should be a consistent consideration as projects are proposed along the Senseny Road corridor. This project has the ability to provide such an improvement as part of the frontage improvements. Rezoning #07-06 — Senseny Road Rentals, LLC June 8, 2006 Page 6 B. Sewer and Water The applicant's impact to the water and sewer infrastructure and capacities will be minimal due to the limited scope of the proffered development plan. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. The initial review of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the Frederick Winchester Service Authority offered no comment. As you are aware, 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 ofFrederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities 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. This application addresses community facility impacts and needs by proffering a payment in the amount of $23,290.00 per residential unit to mitigate the impact to the identified community facilities. For your information, the following is the breakdown of the projected impacts per dwelling unit for each capital facility taken from the Development Impact Model. Capital facility Single Family Fire And Rescue $720 General Government $320 Public Safety $658 Library $267 Parks and Recreation $2,136 School Construction $19,189 Total $23,290 Rezoning #07-06 — Senseny Road Rentals, LLC June 8, 2006 Page 7 5) Proffer Statement — Dated October 16, 2005 and revised on January 11, 2006, March 15, 2006 and April 19, 2006 The Applicant's Proffer Statement seeks to address specific commitments and the identified impacts associated with this rezoning request by providing for the following commitments: A commitment to the development of four single family detached residential dwellings. The provision of a generalized Development plan for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of the four single family detached lots and the location of the proposed subdivision street serving the residential lots. The commitment to making the required frontage improvements to Route 657, Senseny Road, in support of the proposed development, including any necessary right-of-way dedication. An off-site transportation mitigation proffer in the amount of $5,000.00 per residential lot to address transportation general needs in the vicinity of this project. A monetary contribution in the amount of $23,290.00 to Frederick County, to be provided at the time of building permit issuance, is proffered in an effort to mitigate the impacts associated with this development on community facilities. The creation of a Homeowners association for the purpose of managing common open space and providing curb -side pick up of solid waste. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 06/21/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Senseny Road Rentals rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention the nature of the transportation mitigation proffer that has been proffered by the applicant. 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. Followink the requirement for a ;public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate.' The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. SSM 4,v 4p 91498 le 11ww 40 I � Imo` 11pp Am o. g ` r 440 Q Q Alt,� 1 m � Qjn,' � i ♦ � �` i d7l � ..,•t ` ��' 1 ,fir` int �.,�` `u l uQ b nom` � e aQ jjj 1 •SeIlse ,165 A 1946 • n�� r,_ .Z CUSSEN, REMINGTONJ I f e I 65 A 192 POE, ALMN S. 8 NANCY J. yr fi5 f p A 199 4 A�ON,HILDAPER 65 A 55 y� Ry QUINNELLY GROUP, LLC m= 65"A 190 � DAMS, WIL'MER R & DONNA N Senseny Road Rentals LLC �r�, Pi.nri°kC°ontyD9p,°t Stroets / Ternary Roads 7 wit Plannin0 & D9 N K-9' Primary Roads frMnchester City Roads (R EZ 07 - 06) 107 N Kent St N.FRED tar, VA 22601 L N Secondary Roads Buildings w w+CO FREDERICK , 2 US 65 — /� — 46 May i7, 2006 sora .v-.�a. zanir.p .a�MWm.a..«.o..ar Senseny Road Rentals LLC V Frederick County Dept of t Ptanning 8 Development 7 11* I: 107 N Kent fin CfA onfEacnm...xur..vm. o.sm ;�• as r...,.mm:. .s.m��,ms.M"-".�y REZ 07 — 66 W,chesler, VA 22601 ' Mw. .Kw.�, u.m.a as m..�rm. amw S w .CO.FREDFRICK. VA.l1S r� �M ,a. A �� ti ��.� o,a� ( 65 A 46 ) m m May 17, 2006 IT '�>r /� � - _ - '"�`�*•.Y+. _ 4 n _ *fir. �ry� '��e+r -AIL iF*. �' ■ Itart 49 AP U ap lo ! EE�i WF 3 f Q4 l ,r OV mo 4 IWO a ��.� „. _.. "S -•� � � x��$,'� '" is -ti_•d o� "-!-' - F . * OL - ^Y �` �x +fir �� '� � ��• .'! „fir "+�Y - .. �-.: R *moi ..a• . "� _ r r 1' C3 r7 r V f Senseny Road Rentals Proffer Statement Rezoning #: Property: 2.0 acres PARCEL ID - 65-A-46 Recorded Owner: Senseny Road Rentals, LLC Applicant: Mr. Carl Hales Senseny Road Rentals, LLC 2400 Valley Avenue, Suite 8 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Project Name: Greg Allen Realty Senseny Road Rentals Original Date of Proffers: October 16, 2005 Revision Date(s): January 11, 2006 March 15, 2006 April 19, 2006 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540) 662-5792 email: office@painterlewis.com Job Number: 0502018 PROFFER STATEMEi-. PARCEL ID 65-A-46 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 # 97-o(- for the rezoning of parcel TM# 65-A-46 from RA to RP, 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 terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the owner of the property with the permission from the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Frederick County codes. These proffers shall be binding on the owner and their legal successors or assigns. PROFFERS 1.) Single Family Homes The applicant will develop the parcel to support four single-family, detached residential dwellings. 2.) Home Owners' Association The applicant will facilitate the creation of a Home Owners' Association for the proposed development. At a minimum, the HOA will establish covenants to (1) manage common open space, and (2) require all homeowners to pay for curb side pick up of solid waster. 3.) Fiscal Impact Mitigation The applicant agrees to cause the payment of $23,290.00 for each lot to the Treasurer of Frederick County, as per the Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model, to mitigate fiscal impacts associated with residential development. (Emergency Services; $720.00, Parks and Rec; $2,136.00, Public Library; $267.00, School Construction; 1,989.00, Public Safety; $658.00, and General Government; $320.00 per lot). Payable at time of issuance of building permit. 4.) Frontage Improvements on Route 657 The applicant will make the necessary dedication of right-of-way and the required frontage improvements to Route 657 in support of the proposed development. The dedication and improvements will be designed and submitted for approval to the Virginia Department of Transportation during the subdivision review process. 5.) Generalized Development Plan The applicant agrees to proffer a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of four (4) single-family detached lots and road/subdivision street location. 6.) Offsite Transportation Mitigation page 2 PROFFER STATEMEIN PARCEL ID 65-A-46 The applicant agrees to proffer monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000.00 for each detached single-family dwelling to mitigate impacts to future development. Payable at time of issuance of building permit. The conditions proffered above shall be assigns, and successors in the interest County Board of Supervisors grant this r proffers shall apply to the land rezone Frederick County Code. Submitted By: for Senseny Road Rentals, LL binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, of the owner. In the even that the Frederick ezoning and accepts these proffers, then these J in addition to the other requirements of the City/County of L, Commonwealth Of Virginia. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 day of aL � - , 200 (fl tary Public My commission expires: 10 -3 0 page 3 N.- 8,232 y W _ - CANYON Rou o� , 1 t2- , Al I �i6lT �-1 Q- �1t9�I IrM7A8DbuW4 %ESrr A� I 11 I 65F-22-5111'2 I p 65F- 1 f 1,I L- LJ �-- J '1 �.._ 77 Pa: 4 I z I t_ _J ` E -F Y USE S1NGL£ FMDLY USE SiN(XE FANNY RE9'nEEUDENTUL ° R�11AL � RES70ENifAL-..,,, � r GREGORY &rAAGlY uAOYE °mDzcw%m X149'} rl 4 f USE zir FANNY / RESIDENAAL 45 JMIE'S EDMONDS f / �� ► 1 1 0 65-A-45 s 1 0.6: ]ZONED.• RA fJ07 USE- 9NME FAUXDENI DENNIS LO GMEAU CONSJR. Ua 1 AA�RM ZOO 11 RN,* 65F-4 1-3 I 4,( ! DEEDl -04-9892 ' J ` O ZONED., RP ti \ ! ~ \ �_ — - 1 I ` USE' S1WQE-FANNY RE31DE7V11ALI — i ?3!P I I ACRES am _ �. ;L � � � F,.1 __ I SEN7M PINS: 65-A-RO�D'RENTI - ILC, 46 Ncp ALEKANDER HAu\.. OECD: -02-13145 Q L I mle d.5F-4 1-4 ZONED: RA S a. DEM, -04-5972 USE SINGLE FAMILYa ` ZONED. • RP RESIDENTIAL USE swan FANNY µ , ACRES 2.00 m f ;,- RESFDFN71AL 1 AORM a68 _ SENSMVY ROAD WAVES suRDoar & El ASWUEY KNUPP I, i \-, KENN R. DEINERS PlN� 65D-6 7-19 �� 1 IXENYONF.GY=SSOIXATlON 650-6 7 - JB D.d:-a2-��729PFNi =5 O ., D.B.. -02-11746' I I I DEED: Bl( 674 Pa: 802 \ ZONm:,RP WSE S9JCfE FANNY \ ZANEIt. RP sTNdE uNr �1 I I I I L,CE L87_ •,ACIPES 1.67 •'K ,y � ` I ... 10 CR 0 'x �; 10� Ashley Circle - I w 1 i / \ DRAWN BY: GREG ALLEN REALTY PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. GENERALIZED D D N EOPMNY RD T PLAN 116 South Stewart Street WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 CALF: 1•=100' DRAWN BY: CBS TELEPHONE (540) 662-5792 DATE: 05/21/05 JOB #0502018 FACSIMILE (540) 662--'5793PRELIMINARY DRAWING NO.: EMAIL: off ice@painterlewis.com GENERALIZED SITEPLAN EXHIBIT 1 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT A PROPOSED REZONING for PARCEL ID - 65-A-46 Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia April 19, 2006 Prepared for: Mr. Carl Hales Senseny Road Rentals, LLC 2400 Valley Avenue, Suite 8 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540)662-5792 email: office@painterlewis.com Job Number: 0502018 IMPACT ANALYSIS S. ATEMENT PARCEL ID 65-A-46 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS section pay 1. INTRODUCTION 3 A. SITE SUITABILITY 3 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES 4 C. TRAFFIC 4 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT 5 E. WATER SUPPLY 5 F. DRAINAGE 5 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES 5 H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES 5 I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 6 J. OTHER IMPACTS 6 APPENDIX 7 page 2 A IMPACT ANALYSIS S, ATEMENT PARCEL ID 65-A-46 L INTRODUCTION The parcel is not included in any study plans of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Recent development in the Senseny Road area is characterized by large subdivisions containing single family lots. The surrounding properties are generally residential and generally zoned RP. A. SITE SUITABILITY The subject parcel is within the Urban Development Area and Sewer and Water Service Area as established by Frederick County. The site has access to public water and sewer service. The addition of 4 single family lots on this property will reflect the type of residential housing found in the current Senseny Glen. Senseny Glen borders the subject parcel to both the north and east. The two parcels to the west of the subject property have been subdivided and developed as an extension of Dell Court in Senseny Glen. The subdivided lots on the subject parcel would not be serviced via the Senseny Glen Development or Dell Court, but would have its own entrance from Route 657, Senseny Road. The parcel to the north and northwest of the Senseny Glen development is also currently being developed under the name of Twin Lakes Overlook. The subject property is bordered to the south (across Route 657, Senseny Road) by Glenmont Village. For a preliminary, generalized site plan see Exhibit 4. 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN FIRM Community Panel Number 510063 0120 B shows the subject area to be outside of any flood hazard zone. WETLANDS No wetlands have been identified on the site. STEEP SLOPES According to the soil survey information and a visual inspection of the subject parcel there are no steep slopes present on the property. 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: • Clearbrook Channery Silt Loam: 9B (2-7% Slopes). This soil is moderately deep, gently sloping, and somewhat poorly drained. A soft shale bedrock can usually be found at a depth of about 27 inches. The unified soil classifications are CL -ML, CL, GC, and SC. • Weikert-Berks Channery Silt Loam: 41C (7-15% Slopes). This soil is moderately deep, slightly strong sloping, and well drained. Acid shale bedrock can usually be found page 3 IMPACT ANALYSIS %S-ATEMENT PARCEL ID 65-A-46 at a depth of about 15 inches. The unified soil classifications are GM, ML, SM, GP -GM, GC, and SC. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The subject parcel is bordered to the north by three (3) lots that are part of the Senseny Glen development. These lots are TM#s 65F-22-110, 65F-22-111, and 65F-22-112 and are all zoned RP and are used for single family residences. To the west are three (3) lots that were developed on an extension of Dell Court, which is part of Senseny Glen. These parcels are TM#s 65F-4 1 -2, 65F-4 1-3, and 65F-4 1-4. These parcels are also zoned RP and currently in use for single family residences. The subject parcel is bordered to the south by Route 657, Senseny Road. Immediately across Route 657, Senseny Road, the subject parcel is adjacent to three (3) lots in the Glenmont Village development. The lots are TM#s 65D-4 5-65A, 65D-6 7-18, and 65D-6 7-19. TM# 65D-4 5-65A is owned by the Glenmont Village Homeowners Association, is zoned RP, and is used as open space for the development. The other two (2) parcels to the south are zoned RP and used as single family residences. The subject parcel is bordered to the east by TM# 65-A-45; this parcel is zoned RA and its use is listed as single family residential. Additional adjacent property owner information can be found in Exhibit 1. C. TRAFFIC The subject parcel in this rezoning request is located on Route 657, Senseny Road. The property is located approximately 575 feet east of the intersection of Route 657, Senseny Road and Senseny Glen Drive. This intersection is the main entrance to the Senseny Glen development. Because of the location of this intersection and an existing driveway, a waiver to relax VDOT requirements will be necessary to create the street intersection. The 2002 VDOT Mobility Management Division estimates that the annual average daily traffic volume on this section of Route 657, Senseny Road, is 1,800 vehicles per day (between Rossum Lane, Rt. 736, and the Clarke County Line). The ITE Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition, was used to approximate the average daily traffic that will enter and leave the subject parcel. The owner of the subject parcel has indicated that the intended use for the subject parcel upon rezoning would be for single family residences. We have selected land use 210, Single -Family Detached Housing to model the traffic count for the site. The ITE Trip Generation Manual describes the Single -Family Detached Housing use as follows: "all single family detached homes on individual lots. A typical site surveyed is a suburban subdivision". The parcel contains 2.0.acres. The preliminary generalized siteplan for this site (Exhibit 4) shows that the layout and number of proposed lots. An amount of $5,000 per lot will be generated to help mitigate the impacts of future development. Single Family Detached Housing Code 210 Based on four (4) dwelling unit development: ■ Weekday: 9.57 trips per dwelling unit = 39 trips page 4 IMPACT ANALYSIS S .,-xTEMENT PARCEL ID 65-A-46 ■ Weekday A.M.: Peak Hour: 0.75 trips per dwelling unit= 3 trips ■ Weekday P.M.: Peak Hour: 1.01 trips per dwelling unit = 4 trips ■ Saturday: 10.10 trips per dwelling unit = 41 trips ■ Sunday: 8.78 trips per dwelling unit = 36 trips D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The site is inside the Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area and would be served by the municipal water supply. E. WATER SUPPLY The site is inside the Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area and would be served by the municipal sewer system. F. DRAINAGE According to the USGS topographic map and the Frederick county soil survey it appears that this site has gentle slopes. Drainage appears to flow toward the Senseny Glen Subdivision. Senseny Glen has an existing network of culverts and storm water management facilities. Subdivision plans for the proposed four lot development should include an analysis to determine the adequacy of the downstream culverts and the impacts of off-site runoff from Dell Court. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The nearest citizens' trash convenience facility is located at Greenwood Volunteer Fire Department on Route 656, Greenwood Road. According to the Public Works Department, this site is currently overloaded and possibly slated for closure in the near future. Each individual homeowner would be responsible for their own solid waste removal. Please refer to the attached Proffer Statement. There would not be a substantial increase in solid waste disposal costs imposed on the county by the rezoning and subsequent subdivision of this parcel. H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The site contains no known historic sites or structures as listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register. There are 13 sites, two (2) being potentially significant sites, identified in the Frederick County Rurai Landmarks Survey, within a mile of the site. The potentially significant sites are the Fuller -Chapman House and Ford -Braithwaite. The remaining identified sites and their proximity to the subject parcel can be seen in Exhibit 2. page 5 IMPACT ANALYSIS S . , ,TEMENT PARCEL ID 65-A-46 The subject property is also not located in an area considered 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. COMMUNITY FACILITIES EMERGENCY SERVICES Police protection is provided by the Frederick County Sheriffs Department. The nearest fire and rescue facility is the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company located on Route 656, Greenwood Road. No additional fire and rescue facilities will be required as a result of the proposed rezoning. The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates that the projected capital cost for emergency service facilities attributable to this development is $720.00 per lot, or $2,880.00. PARKS AND RECREATION The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates that the projected capital cost for public park facilities attributable to this development is $2,136.00 per lot, or $8,544.00. J. OTHER IMPACTS The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates the following additional fiscal impacts attributable to this development: v Public Library - $267.00 per lot, or $1,068.00; v School Construction - $19,189.00 per lot, or $76,756.00; v Public Safety - $658.00 per lot, or $2,632.00; v General Government - $320.00 per lot, or $1,280.00. The net capital facilities impact is $23,290.00 per lot, or $93,160.00. page 6 IMPACT ANALYSIS S. ATEMENT PARCEL ID 65-A-46 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT APPENDIX item EXHIBIT 1 - PROPERTY MAP 1 EXHIBIT 2 - HISTORIC STRUCTURES MAP 2 EXHIBIT 3 - CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD MAP 3 EXHIBIT 4 - PRELIMINARY GENERALIZED SITEPLAN 4 EXHIBIT 5 - FUTURE ROUTE 37- SENSENY ROAD INTERSECTION 5 EXHIBIT 6 - PROPERTY DEED 6 EXHIBIT 7 - CURRENT TAX STATEMENT 7 EXHIBIT 8 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL 8 EXHIBIT 9 - PROFFER STATEMENT 9 page 7 IMPACT ANALYSIS S. ATEMENT PARCEL ID 65-A-46 EXHIBIT 1 - PROPERTY MAP page 8 01V R 0 42Vr4,0 ... ...... RASA?-- C 112 ill 109- /� . .. . ..... .. . IFI -3- 1 ,ANITA; A. HINfS dr 10 LWPRAW-F__H��E? 11 A j L_ H1PA511 'SIA IDEED� 6- Z-4,12 T6 21-1111/ '11, L" 65F �22 71 17 D.8 L _j ZaVM`RP 'ZoNra-Rp USE, SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE- FAUX 0� I 0� 11 5 USE' LRESIDEN77AL I'L GREGORY. &` MAXE 55F-4 1-2 DEED' -04-25140 ZONEED., RP usc. swar FAMILY""' RESIDEIV71AL ACRES 0.65 45 JAMES EDMONDS S_A_45 SENSLWY ROAD TALA LLC: 59 PC_ 1 307 -/Af/`A ZONED: RA - 65 -45 usn siNa-- FAMILY DEED. 13145 RA RESIDENIIAL DEW Il L&OERREAM CaVSTR. LLC USE: aE F4 UIL Y ACRE!' 2.00 PIN/ 651:4, �-J 1 44 L ZONED: RP USE., SSINGLE FA ME Y Rl� A�V,17& A CR D E EED. -04-9891' • ALEXANDER HOMES PhVik 65F-4 1-4 DEED., -04-5972 . . ...... ZONED: RP USE- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ACRES 0.68 SE JV S E V Y ROAD 4.9 —7= JAMES P1,119OW A, KNUPP GLEAWON r OLLA GE ASSOCIA 77ON KEVIN R. DOWD\RS P"V/ 651-6 7-' PINI. 65D-6 7-18-- D IN 6�74 5-65A ZFNE76.- RA V 4 D.B.: -02-1174&. \U 110 PC.: 802 RP � X' SNOLE FAMILY ZONED., RP 57NGLE FA UX r ZONED. L USE, OTHER', RESID�N77AL 100 nL (b li0o, 0 ScaleCircle_Rt -1-146 q(,)/ ft GREG ALLEN REALTY DRAWN BY: 2659 SENSENY RD. PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 116 South Stewart Street CALF: 1"=100' DRAWN BY; CBS WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 # 1ELEPHONE (540) 662-5792 DATE JOB0502018 05/21/051 FACSIMILE (540) 662-5793 OVERALL SITE DRAWING NO.: EMAIL: off ice@pointerlewis.com MAP I EXHIBIT 1 IMPACT ANALYSIS S. ATEMENT PARCEL ID 65-A-46 EXHIBIT 2 - HISTORIC STRUCTURES MAP page 9 36 KNOLLS 1 1 423 DEM. 11 NOTE: ** INDICATES A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT SITE AS DENOTED BY THE RURAL LANDMARKS CLARKE SURVEY REPORT OF FREDERICK COUNTY COUNTY i 1 SUR •'A1T1 _- NA DRA 1200 0 1200 SEM SCA of zElf JW W Z_ Z 0 O Z 0 W NONE BY: Mpg NO.: + 0502018 DATE: ® 1"=1200' 09/28/05 f Scale 1' = 1200 ft SHEET: ' EX. 2j 01 HISTORICAL PROPERTY KEY 108 — VALLEY MILL FARM** 396 396 — HOUSE, ROUTE 659 397 — ADAMS FARM 398 — HAGGERTY HOUSE 423 — BRAITHWAITE HOUSE 1133 — FULLER—CHAPMAN HOUSE** 1 MILE RADIUS FROM 1134 — CARPENTER HOUSE 397 CENTER OF SITE 1150 — CARTER—LEE—DAMRON HOUSE 1151 — FORD—BRAITHWAITE** 398 1152 — OUTBUILDINGS, RT. 657 1153 — CARPER HOUSE 1154 — TICK HILL 1150 1155 — HOUSE, RT. 657 0 NOTE: ** INDICATES A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT SITE AS DENOTED BY THE RURAL LANDMARKS CLARKE SURVEY REPORT OF FREDERICK COUNTY COUNTY i 1 SUR •'A1T1 _- NA DRA 1200 0 1200 SEM SCA of zElf JW W Z_ Z 0 O Z 0 W NONE BY: Mpg NO.: + 0502018 DATE: ® 1"=1200' 09/28/05 f Scale 1' = 1200 ft SHEET: ' EX. 2j IMPACT ANALYSIS S. ATEMENT PARCEL ID 65-A-46 EXHIBIT 3 - CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD MAP page 10 11 CIVIC, WAR SITES 11 2' Frederick County Planning S Development Civil War Battle gilds and Sites Winchester, Wirginio (As Defined by the NPS Shenandoah Valley Civil War Sites Study) I A F 12-10-97 IMPACT ANALYSIS S. ATEMENT PARCEL ID 65-A-46 EXHIBIT 4 - PRELIMINARY GENERALIZED SITEPLAN page 11 RA?3A? _ _w CAN_YDN ROW—D--, `_ 11 911 fii4 Q8 --r- 4,07-) - _ T �_NTc� Ar !D A H BATES-HE�} �! rx 65F-22- 2 I PRJE 65F 1n I /r I G I t,. _! I �__. , B.: 877 Pa: 524 bR. a�PG -lz U�eu-oz-nJ61 I L 1 zcwm RPiI zoN itp I Y�7EDT tiP SINGYE FAMILY USE SINGYF FAMILY I` RESIDENRAL R777AL R£SfDE AQ, .._ QWWRY h TAMMY MAGE PBrE. 65F-4 i_2 . \ DEED.• -04-251 ZONED: RP • USE,• SING(F FAMILY / \ -� A • \ RESMENRAL ACRES 0.65 ,. 45 I KME ' EDMONDS y,.-�.._A PINE• 65-A-45 0.&: 759 PG.: 1307 �- — - \ uses EN�rcr I DENNIS LLWGERB£AM COHSIR. LLC ACRES' 2.00 -j 65FI 4 ,, .. jt -4 J-344( DEED: -04-9892 P/N,O \ ZONED. RP RP aNGLE-FAmr, ACRES a86 ��... `. SENSENY RdD`RENTA�LS, LLC. o � PIN#:65-A-46 EHOUEl- DEED: -02-13145 I TOZRZONED: RABEy1 USE SINGLE FAMILY D 72 ' RESIDENTIAL ~ ACRES: 2.00 USe SINGLE FAMILY .. ,. ,.. RESIDENRAL ,.N r ZONED. ACRES 0,68 +.O •ti SENSENY ROAD \ ;... ......._..,,._ " TIN'roil R. DEMER\ PIN/t 65D-6 7--19[�� ASHLEY & --[ JAMES Bt�� Upp a NMONT VILLAGE ASMARON 65D-6 7-18 0.8.: -02-12729P/NbVSW-4 5-65A ZOM' RPD£E0. BK.? -614 P&. 802 ..: -02-11746 \ ti, ZONED. RP f ZONELk-.RP W SINGLE FAMILY r ._ .._...... GSE srNGLF 8 Y REs�EENRAt7 I W — ,..\ 7� - I 4 AL`s 10 \ o Ashley 711 _ DRAWN BY: GREG ALLEN REALTY PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2659 SENSENY RD. 116 South Stewart Street WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 SCALE: 1•=100' DRAWN BY: CBS TELEPHONE (540) 662-5792 DATE: 05/21/05 roe #0502018 FACSIMILE (540) 662-5793 PRELIMINARY DRAWING NO.: pp vp EMAIL: off ice©painterlewis.com GENERALIZED SITEPLAN JEXHIBIT 1 IMPACT ANALYSIS S. ATEMENT PARCEL ID 65-A-46 EXHIBIT 5 - FUTURE ROUTE 37 - SENSENY ROAD INTERSECTION page 12 Lh I'EIJ`\t� 07 \ / -I \ \ /�I ' }/�r,> \r\\ tit/,C� l\\ / { f ?�\✓ b \t I IVi�i\i/ )1"lEy, < !` `:� • ! /" J \ < Y — � ��_-ffi Z I f II r fly I � ter' � �` � •1i/S /..`� � � `i, MW J L�It � L_J u� (2 / 1 r-1 �' I SENSENY ROAD �/ 4-- �� `-LJ �- I RENTALS. U.C. �J I �_�•�- \ •.� i-�-^ PIN/: 65-A-46 r"~' i -© 5o DEED: -02-13145 li 4 %�• - �-� �Z - ZONED: RA USE: SINGLE �'\ -I 1 aL�� L. r / 1 •�� \ rp I \ FAMILY I Lt R.I.A. ACRES: 2.00 1 i • \_-`�. •�� _ _----- \ � \ \J� \\ �—,I �dG\ 1 � i— `F�!—•\ _- _\.smvvss�vl-Naeo._��_ "7'b I El (-1 >�1Lr—�tf 1 \� \�Ev� I-- , i ��J 11 �i'r— �� ,` //,+� i C t \ r•. \ \ � --- l.,d=^�;'. JI r Y \ tom-. iLL L t 11 tt l \ �\ - •-, f jI Y- / .�\. �`+-/� -. !kA II{ 1 siM _' r' f Q O Z c c� Of Q > W z W zzQz W W< D .I U O QI{—� P r4-) Z_ Y W W th O 0 W � W L� Of LL - -0 v+ 200 200 ft 0 � z J w W Z� Zz ow v SURVEY: C.I.:I FRED. CO. 1' DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: CBS 0502018 SCALE: DATE: 1"=200.0' 3/14/06 SHEET: Development Impact Model On October 12, 2005, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors directed staff to use the Development Impact Model (DIM) to project the capital fiscal impacts that would be associated with any rezoning petitions containing residential development, replacing the existing Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model. The DIM was created by an economic consultant who evaluated and analyzed development within the County in an effort to assist the County in planning for future capital facility requirements. Critical inputs to the DIM are to be reviewed and updated annually to assure that the fiscal projections accurately reflect County capital expenditures. The DIM projects that, on average, residential development has a negative fiscal impacts on the County's capital expenditures. As such, all rezoning petitions with a residential component submitted after December 1, 2005 will be expected to demonstrate how the proposal will mitigate the following projected capital facility impacts: Single Family Dwelling Unit = $23,290 Town Home Dwelling Unit = $17,731 Apartment Dwelling Unit = $ 9,064 The following is a breakdown of the projected impacts per dwelling unit for each capital facility. Capital facility Single Family Town home Apartment Fire And Rescue $720 $528 $540 General Government $320 $245 $245 Public Safety $658 $503 $503 Library $267 $204 $204 Parks and Recreation $2,136 $1,634 $1,634 School Construction $19,189 $14,618 $5,940 Total $23,290 $17,731 $9,064 A "read-only" copy of the Development Impact Model is available on the public workstation within the Planning and Development's office. A user manual is also available. 12/1/05 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff. Fee Amount Paid $ .3 d oning Amendment Number Date Received /S ob PC'Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date- The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: i� -2- 1-cw►s. Pic - - 1s Telephone: 6-40-6(-Z- 5-79a Address: 1 sr, A. :2&01 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name:e�vr�t��J�.&r,rr�c Telephone: �cn-�r2- X380 ---- �rn�114a.les Address: 2,400 1%+u.� 7 26b1 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Telephone: 4. Checklist: Check the following items t at have been included with this application. Location map Agency Comments Plat Fees Deed to property ✓ Impact Analysis Statement f . Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement 11 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: P�se_ny Rc rl R��a s , (-Lc 6. A) Current Use of the Property: /iWLj, iAr,,;ty Sf7j�N B) Proposed Use of the Property: /,,N. EF lrAM LV Z �o rrs�nL �I�lulk Lo -r) 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER S -A-4-4 5--- �SF ilk USE �// xP� l=s+nsl.J iLcs. ZONING TLA M RV 2� 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): 11 .eS Loe,n-[ T --p ,6i(s JEu2Tt4 ��,= of 'ZO'-,TF (-'-5-74tY�iLa,c�fAPT e.4 SAO rr �'L'a 6V ko rN A -,"L i� V -VD tC 21 �o S - 12 formation 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 Number 6-5-,4 - 4& p� Districts Magisterial: Fire Servicer Rescue Service: High School: 1A < L-WooK Middle School: q,)M„L4L V-1�. -Mltzo Elementary School:.' 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested ,2 c 1 A G C� Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Office: Retail: Restaurant: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station: 13 Manufacturing: Warehouse: Other: 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(s :_ 4)�—u Lma �0 Date: 17 Date: Owner(s): /� /�i�" ` Z—'! c" Date: //-/ U� y Date: 14 Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning 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 Address Name Property # Name �l�t.�.:�t'f=�'%2,VA• �bbQ Property #z-;- A — Name Z 40o VAI -Li V PSV.. WLR( ItH �i STE91 V.R. 224v! Property # 5 F ZZ Name i9 . _ _ � I Z CAw V q4 iza- 15 03/16/2006 0E:59 5406625793 PAINTERL.EWIS Special Limited Power of Attorney County ofWieriick Virginta PAGE 02 plau.aing Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 187 North KsAf Stract, Winchester, Vir&EIL 22601 rhone 540-665.5651 f F2eidmile W -665:6f95 KIWW All Me -a By These Premr-nts: That I (WB) (1va,�) 4jS'✓t.� LS L!�a.(>Plon�j (Address) fL5i the ownrs(s) of all those tract`s or -parcels of lanai ("Prop ") conveyed to me (us), by dzed recorded is the C1crk°s Wfice of the CirrUi't Court of the County of Frederick; Virginia, by In.strun%=No_ 1-3I 45 —on Page , and is desanbed as Parcel: 6 fat:Dlack: Section.- 6 Subdivision: -- do hereby make, constitute Md appoint: (Name) fgdofe1� L!!1 �..�`, (Phone) 546' W. TM (Address) . Stewo r + St. 22 bo i TO act a.a zuy ix ua and 14wful atts =Y -in -fact fax and in my (ouc] name, place and, shead with fall power and 8uthority I (we) would have if acting personally to file p1mming applications for my (our) above dcsaribed P-wpertyy, including: Lie Rezoning (Including proffers) 13 Cnndltiional Use Permits 0 Master Development plan, (preliminary and Final) 0 Subdivision D Site Plan 'AY attornc-y-an-fact she ll have the authority to offer proffered oonditions and to mala, amendments to prelio=ly approved pru:ffi=6 conditions except as follows: This authariaation Shall expire sire year from the day it is sip, 4 or until it is otherwise rescindod or modified, -�' In witness ihmof, Z (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this%7 �rTay a£ �°' , 2G0 , .f 8ignat rre(s) i Smote of Virginia, /County of i , To -wit. 1, i k i _ a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the peraon(s) who signed to the foregoing instttunent and who is (are) known to me, personally appoarad before m , an,d, has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this J-7 day of t%240 . My Com=ission Expires. /0 3 y pr,CK PACE 535 MAGNETICS 1971 };'• fool .50' 0 Imo' SCALE IN FEET DE HAVEN'S ' OTHER LAND ROAD NO. 657 , The "above tract of land; located on the North side 'of Road No. 657' .- ;.::.about 3 i 'miles Eastof Winchester, and situate in Shawnee' P•iagi steric. District;, Frederick County,..Yirginia, is bounded as follows: Beginning at (l)' an 'iron peg bn•th3 ,North.'•side of Road..Igo. I ' b57y. said.,point being $00.00 feet West of tYr� West Gina of t1n Land .. _ of Patton .& Eskridge;/thence with the :North . side. of Road No. 60.``!'' N;6b' deg. lb min. 0'$ sec. W 92.39 feet to (A) thence r r N 66 `db' 56•min.'' 3$'aec.`':W 107.62 fent to: (2) an iron pe gf thencs taitY� 3`nes� dl nisi .on liri®o.through the lard of Mrs. T�eHavera , r W t,.,U 23:deg i�3 min. '52 sec:, E: 436.68 feet: to (3) .� iron, peg thence r .'3 6d deg: 16 min.: '08 sec.! $ 200.00 'feet to • (i�) an iron` peg; thence i - °, \:-5.23• dep-. 43 min 52sec..W: 1+35.60 feet to the :point of beginning:: containing.'•. 2.00.' Acres more'. or le ss. Richard U. Goode,' Certified Surveyor June 8, 1971. RIGHARis�I �(fO Dt COUNTY, SCT. �_ . t .. 4 - _ _ _ r .......... ,.• ...11•:,-erl In me nn .v.e irav nllA iRJ ,C LALL . /'L 3s66.16'0e"E 200.00' 4 .. y'` J `a PORTION OF LAND o r W W OF s I t Y MRS. DE HAVEN c 1'21001 ACRE Z Uj z Ln Ln QT i, o M W } t 107.02�..A 92.39' 000.00' T' THE L ® r...,J, .:<' :, ; ',ir PW N6�°50'30"W N68'!f5'Of3 OF PATTON& ESKRIDGE ROAD NO. 657 , The "above tract of land; located on the North side 'of Road No. 657' .- ;.::.about 3 i 'miles Eastof Winchester, and situate in Shawnee' P•iagi steric. District;, Frederick County,..Yirginia, is bounded as follows: Beginning at (l)' an 'iron peg bn•th3 ,North.'•side of Road..Igo. I ' b57y. said.,point being $00.00 feet West of tYr� West Gina of t1n Land .. _ of Patton .& Eskridge;/thence with the :North . side. of Road No. 60.``!'' N;6b' deg. lb min. 0'$ sec. W 92.39 feet to (A) thence r r N 66 `db' 56•min.'' 3$'aec.`':W 107.62 fent to: (2) an iron pe gf thencs taitY� 3`nes� dl nisi .on liri®o.through the lard of Mrs. T�eHavera , r W t,.,U 23:deg i�3 min. '52 sec:, E: 436.68 feet: to (3) .� iron, peg thence r .'3 6d deg: 16 min.: '08 sec.! $ 200.00 'feet to • (i�) an iron` peg; thence i - °, \:-5.23• dep-. 43 min 52sec..W: 1+35.60 feet to the :point of beginning:: containing.'•. 2.00.' Acres more'. or le ss. Richard U. Goode,' Certified Surveyor June 8, 1971. RIGHARis�I �(fO Dt COUNTY, SCT. �_ . t .. 4 - _ _ _ r .......... ,.• ...11•:,-erl In me nn .v.e irav nllA iRJ ,C LALL . /'L • • C: REZONING APPLICATION #08-06 SHAWNEE DRIVE PROPERTY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: June 5, 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 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: June 21, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: July 26, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone .94 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to 132 (General Business) District with proffers, for office uses. LOCATION: The property is located on Shawnee Drive, approximately 250' east of the intersection of Route 11 & Shawnee Drive, on the right side of the road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 63-A-104 PROPERTY ZONING: RP (Residential Performance) District PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) & B2 (Business General) South: M2 (Industrial, General) East: RP (Residential Performance) West: B2 (Business General) PROPOSED USES: Office Use: Residential Use: Commercial - Bank Use: Commercial/Industrial Use: Residential Use: Commercial — Car Sales Rezoning #08-06, Shawnee Drive Property June 5, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 652. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Shawnee Drive Property rezoning application dated March 15, 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: Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: No comment Public Works Department: We have no comment at this time but reserve the right to perform a detailed review at the time of the site plan submitted. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: I believe that property would be serviced by the City of Winchester; sewer and water connection I believe are already installed to property. Sanitation Authority: This site will be served by Winchester City. Department of Parks & 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. 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 noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley identifies the property as being located within the core areas of the First and Second Battles of Kernstown and the study area of the Second Battle of Winchester; however, due to the development in this area, it has been deemed to have lost its integrity. Frederick County Attorney: It is my opinion that the proposed proffer statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. I would suggest, for uniformity and easy -reference purposes, that the details of the zoning, owners, property, etc., be summarized at the beginning as set forth on the Rezoning #08-06, Shawnee Drive Property June 5, 2006 Page 3 attached format. This format has been used in 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 is substantive paragraphs of the proffer statement. 3. The last sentences of the first paragraph, beginning with the word "Therefore" should be deleted, as the actual proffers are set forth in the itemized proffers. 4. In the second paragraph, I would recommend that the words "development of this property would require the owner to meet the conditions set forth in this document" be revised to state "development of this subject property shall be done in strict conformity with the conditions set forth below". 5. The words "and the Code of Virginia" should be added at the end of the second paragraph. 6. With respect to Proffer No. 1, as I was not provided with a copy of the Generalized Site Plan, the staff should review the site plan shown on Exhibit 4 of the Impact Statement to determine if it is sufficiently detailed to govern the development of the site. 7. Proffer No. 3 may not, in fact, be a proffer. If this development would require a commercial entrance and require the owner to install improvements required by VDOT, then this proffer is offering nothing beyond what is already required. 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. Staff Comment: The proffers have been revised to reflect the comments provided by the county attorney. Winchester City Planning Department: No objections to the rezoning request. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies this property as being zoned B2 (Business General), the property was then included in the County's comprehensive downzoning and was changed from B2 to R-3 (Residential General). The zoning changed to RP (Residential General) District on September 28, 1983 when the R1, R2, R3, and R6 zoning districts were reclassified. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The 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 Rezoning #08-06, Shawnee Drive Property June 5, 2006 Page 4 intensive forms of planned commercial and industrial development will occur. The Shawnee Drive property is located within an area that the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan identifies with an industrial land use designation. The applicant is requesting a B2 (business/commercial) designation which might be more compatible with the surrounding area. The site is located adjacent to an existing automobile sales facility (zoned B2) as well as existing RP residential property. Transportation The site will be accessed off of Shawnee Drive (Route 652) which is classified as a local road; the applicant has proffered to prohibit the site from being accessed off of Route 11. The traffic analysis provided with the applicant's impact statement shows that the relevant section of Route 11 has 17,000 average daily vehicles per day and Shawnee Drive has an average 5,200 vehicle trips per day. The site has been proffered to develop with a maximum of 9,000 square feet of office space which would generate approximately 100 trips per weekday. 3) Site Suitabilitv/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains, wetlands or woodlands. 4) Proffer Statement — Dated October 16, 2005 and revised on January 16, 2006, March 15, 2006 and May 9, 2006 Generalized Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan that restricts the development of this property to a 9,000 square foot office building. Access to Route 11 The applicant has proffered to prohibit access onto Route 11. This site will only be accessed off of Shawnee Drive Frontage Improvements A five foot sidewalk is proffered along Shawnee Drive Monetary Contributions In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community to the Fire and Rescue Services, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $1,000 to be paid to the Stephens City Volunteer Fire Company for impacts to fire control services. This sum will be paid upon receipt of the first building permit issued subsequent to the approval of the rezoning. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 06/21/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This application is a request to rezone approximately .94 acres of land from the RP (Residential Performance) to the B2 (Business General) District. The property is located within the S WSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) as well as the UDA (Urban Development Area). The Eastern Frederick \ Rezoning #08-06, Shawnee Drive Property June 5, 2006 Page 5 County Long Range Land Use Plan indicates that the property should be used for industrial land uses, however, due to the subject site's location adjacent to the B2 and RP zoned properties, a rezoning from a RP zoning to a B2 zoning may be supported to continue the consistency and compatibility of the area. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. # Winchester, VA City of Wt=;hester l�- -- �63 A 23 CE2€EKSIDE VILLAGE LC 6i A 102 First National Bank ..Er<<6.xrpr Lrl of Strasburg vp, fiar�� 44 40 1C y0A 24 es SeCD-id Clarke Properties 63 A 26 63 A 2'� A e a i FREHLICH Valle ;AIA � � 0.25 Rental Propelt,a�,: j4W o' 47 a O T 2Q. j Yo w63 A 211�r. ' j- 11,111, AV111111131 Prep PValle,AVeRentalPrepeI m w am w 63 A 29 � q VALLEY AVENUE RENTAL PROPERTIES.LLC 0.68 63 A 30 Q FOREMAN INVESTMENTS, LLC y �Iwl 0.5 63 A 31 r LIGHT, WILLIAM P & SANDRA H 0.25 ++ O�w 0�7 rr A 0 63 A 32 STINE, BETTY BARTON TRUSTEE m 0.75 63 r 63 A 33 z STINE, BETTY B TRUSTEE o53oyvk n 0.75 63 A 34 c� CARTER, MARY FRANCES am sa 9 7'S SOO G 63 A 35 ,s ROY, CLARENCE E JR 8 LrOROTHY L 0.75 1i rcyu�C h 63 A 37 63 A 95 0 MINOR DAVID DAVID L L CFSM, LLC 3.42 +osan epn« /V sewRd.rc Rmae Zoning - Mz nna„w�a, Den«.I De1rL ) .�!lGii / f Te,deM Rpede r, � et (eueMea. Neghb«nnm pb,ldl �' Mnt IMpblb nom. Commundy Dlmdm) ^� Pnmery Ruue "a✓ MAnphem« M, Rued. B] Iaeenvea. 0aneml DMra) AMS IMeWwI Supppn pYlndl .y auddlnpe C.",F ai 1-6—, InJumn.l Tmmllmn Ob id) Fe (Reeldenlml. PY,med Wmmuniry L,W o) Razenk,p Y99AY_• (e�Mt 1` --. Me w—nw.xli 1411 Rs j— -. Reum1i 1Wmmunbv DeW) 'HE{Hpn« Emuulpn OW,ldl-(R-1---) 'OM1 (IndumrY 1, Lipbl tlimdd) RP (RevNanlol Pedommme Dludpq 63 A 107 CFSM,LLC 3.71 - � OQ v�P /o„ pGOt�.o� o-�J�v e 5 m�J � 63 A 109 CFSM,LLC 6.3 Shawnee Dr. Property n e Rezoning # 08 - 06 Fradenpk County Dept Of Planning 8107NlopmnL Kam 31 s 63 - Q - 104) 01 A S .CO.FREDE:RICKVVA w US May 30, 2008 # Winchester, VA APCity of N ester - — Snyder Ln V A 23 CIREEKSIOE VILLAGE LC 1.82 N AA U ei � lIZ 1.2 AGF,4C ;. 4410'�4 2m x 24 Clarke Properties 63 A 26 63A. 2 I FREHLICH Valley Av 1 Je <! 0.25 Rental Propedlee � � o co 63 A 28 E W � Valley Ave Rental Propertica "A 4 Aw m +d .-. w w 63 ...A 29 VALLEY AVENUE RENTAL PROPERTIES,LLC 0.88 a i 63 A 30 FOREMAN INVESTMENTS, LLC 05 63 A 31 LIGHT, WILLIAM P & SANDRA H 0.25 w ti 63 A 32 STINE, BETTY BARTON TRUSTEE z 0.75 m M w 63 A 33 �m STINE. BETTY B TRUSTEE z 0.75 63 1 34 CARTER, MARY FRANCES 1 63 A 35 � ROY, CLARENCE.7JR &�)OROTWJAa0.75` 63 A 3 MINOR, DAVID L 0.5 ~]506—r AV SewnGetlR.— strAAe1E .1./ Temlary R -d. /v 011-, R -d. - VuSeG,nler CAy Roetle � a.nema. AAAAAArA�e��o f�lAe:e„ ea •oe-oe 63 A 102 First National Bank of Strasburg 63 A 107 CFSM,LLC 3.71 6i d! ?Dr��J s, �SJOy'1'4 �F y �P h'SG�y o,y1 63 A 95 CFSM,LLC I 3.42 63 A 109 CFSM,LLC 6.3 Shawnee Dr. Property Frederick County Dept of W' e Rezoning # 08 - 06 Planning &Debarn n 7 t 5 (63 - A - 104) Winchester, VA 22601 www.00.FREDERICK.VA. US May 30, 2006 X Shawnee Dr. Property Fredenck County Dept of e•e Rezoning # 08 - 06 Planning&Development a.I., /V oson /�/ s.wm.,r a.,a. `1,'� 107 N Ked St s (63 -A - 104) Winchester, VA 22601 /\wrirr.n aeoe. _v wn.oi..mcn�ada. w .CO.FREDERICK.VA.US m May 30, 2006 os.ae Shawnee ®rive Property Proffer Statement Rezoning #: Property: .94 acres PARCEL ID - 63-A-104 Recorded Owner: Mr. Linden Vann Applicant: Mr. Jim Webb Mitchell & Webb, LLC 19 First Street, Suite 202 Berryville, Virginia 22611 Project Name: Shawnee Dr. Property Original Date of Proffers: October 13, 2005 Revision Date (s): January 16, 2006 March 15, 2006 May 9, 2006 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. 116 South Stewart Street Xn./inchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540) 662-5792 email: office@painterlewis.com Job Number: 0506012 PROFFER STATEML.. r PARCEL ID 63-A-104 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,Y -O& for the rezoning of parcel TM# 75-A-91 B from B3 to B2, the use and development of the subject property shall be done 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.) Generalized Site Plan The applicant agrees to proffer a Generalized Development Plan (Exhibit 4) dated May 10, 2006 for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of an 9,000 square foot Office Building. 2.) Restriction of Direct Access to Route 11 The applicant agrees to prohibit direct access to Route 11 from the subject parcel. 3.) Frontage Improvements The applicant agrees to provide a five foot sidewalk along Shawnee Drive. (Exhibit 4) 4.) Monetary Contribution to Frederick County Service Organizations The owner will donate or will cause to be paid to the Stephens City Volunteer Fire Company the sum of $1,000.00 for impacts to fire control services. This sum will be paid upon receipt of the first building permit issued subsequent to the approval of this rezoning for any proposed structure. The conditions proffered above shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in the interest of the owner. In the even that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant this rezoning and accepts these proffers, then these proffers shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to the other requirements of the Frederick County Code. Submitted By: Mr. Linden Vann, owner page 2 Date PROFFER STATEML_ . r PARCEL ID 63-A-104 i^,r City/@y of UIQ'Commonwealth Of Virginia. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 12000 (ko tary Public My commission expires: page 3 1MP'ACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT for PARCEL ID - 63-A-104 Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia May 9, 2006 Prepared for: Mr. Jim Webb Mitchell & Webb, LLC 19 First Street, Suite 202 Berryville, Virginia 22611 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540)662-5792 email: office@painteriewis.com Job Number: 0506012 MAY g 2006 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PARCEL ID 63-A-104 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS section page L INTRODUCTION 3 A. SITE SUITABILITY 3 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES 4 C. TRAFFIC 5 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT 5 E. WATER SUPPLY 6 F. DRAINAGE 6 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES 6 H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES 6 I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 7 J. OTHER IMPACTS 7 APPENDIX 1 8 page 2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PARCEL ID 63-A-104 i. INTRODUCTION Mitchell & Webb, L.L. C. (the applicant) is interested in rezoning a parcel of land located on Shawnee Drive off of Route 11, Valley Avenue in Frederick County. The parcel is identified in the tax records of Frederick County as TM# 63-A-104 (see Exhibit 1). The parcel contains 0.94 Acres and is currently zoned RP, Residential Performance. It is the intent of the applicant to have this parcel rezoned to B2, Business General District. According to Frederick County staff, the parcel is included in the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan he Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The parcel appears to lie between land planned for business use and land planned for industrial use. The current development and growth pattern of this area, just outside of the southern border of the Winchester City limits, would indicate that commercial growth is preferred in this vicinity. The description of 132 zoning in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that general business areas are located at major intersections, involve frequent and direct access by the general public but not heavy truck traffic, should have direct access to major thoroughfares, and should have adequate frontage. The applicant plans to construct an office building on the site. The parcel is not large enough to accommodate an industrial use. The close proximity of the parcel to the intersection of Route 11 and Shawnee Drive would make high volume traffic to and from the site somewhat problematic. The office use will typically generate fewer vehicle trips than a retail use and reduce regular delivery truck access. The office use will create less impact on the existing adjacent residential parcels. A. SITE SUITABILITY The subject parcel is within the Urban Development Area established by Frederick County. The surrounding parcels that have road frontage on Route 11, Valley Avenue, are utilized for commercial uses. The parcel would have an entrance off of Shawnee Drive (see Exhibit 4). There is currently a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 11, Valley Avenue, and Shawnee Drive. There is a 7-11 convenience store, bank, car dealership, and the entrance to Creekside Village retail center currently located at this intersection. There are also turning lanes onto Shawnee Drive from Route 11, Valley Avenue in both directions. 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN FIRM Community Panel Number 510063 0115 B shows the subject area to be outside of any flood hazard zone. WETLANDS No wetlands have been identified on the site. page 3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PARCEL ID 63-A-104 STEEP SLOPES According to the soil survey information there are no steep slopes present on the property. 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 type: Carbo Silt Loam: 5B (2-7% Slopes). This soil is moderately deep, gently sloping, and well drained. Depth to bedrock is around 26 inches in these soils. The unified classifications for this soil type are CL and CH. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The subject parcel is bordered to the north by Shawnee Drive with 3 parcels being adjacent across the road. To the northeast and fronting along Route 11, Valley Avenue, is TM# 63-A-102. This parcel is 1.20 acres and owned by First National Bank of Strasburg and is zoned B2. The current use for this site is a bank. Directly to the north of the subject parcel is TM# 63-A-103, a 0.50 acre parcel owned by A. Jay Jr. and Fray E. Low. This parcel is zoned RP and is used for a single family residence. To the northeast is TM# 63C-1-9, owned by James C. and Dusti Jill Likens. This parcel is also zoned RP and used as a single family residence. Located to the east is TM# 63-A-105, a 0.45 acre parcel owned by David R. Miller Jr. This parcel is zoned RP and used for a single family residence. The subject parcel is bordered to the south by TM# 63-A-99, a 1.58 acre parcel owned by James J. Lantz. This parcel is zoned M2 with a listed use of commercial and industrial. A small portion of the subject parcel has frontage along Route 11, Valley Avenue. This portion has 2 properties adjacent to it. The southern most parcel is TM# 63-A-28, a 0.41 acre parcel owned by Valley Avenue Rental Properties, LLC. This parcel is zoned B3 and has a listed use of commercial and industrial. The property just to the north of that parcel is TM# 63-A-25, a 0.50 acre parcel owned by Valley Avenue Rental Properties, LLC. This parcel is zoned RP and has a listed use of commercial and industrial. The 2 properties owned by Valley Avenue Rental Properties, LLC. are located on the opposite side of Route 11, Valley Avenue from the subject parcel and have frontage along Route 11, Valley Avenue, as their eastern property limits. The remaining two (2) parcels bordering the subject parcel to the east remain to the east of Route 11, Valley Avenue, with frontage on Route 11 as their western property boundary. Of these parcels the southernmost one is TM# 63-A- 100, a 0.37 acre parcel owned by Phillip R. Yount. This parcel is zoned B2 and is currently the location of a car lot. Just to the north of that parcel is TM# 63-A-101, this parcel is at the southeast of the intersection of Route 11, Valley Avenue, and Shawnee Drive. This parcel is 0.38 acres and is owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia, is zoned B2, and its listed use is State Government use. The surrounding properties can be seen on Exhibit 1. page 4 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PARCEL ID 63-A-104 C. TRAFFIC The property is located approximately 250 feet southeast of the intersection of Route 11, Valley Avenue, and Shawnee Drive on the southern side of Shawnee Drive. This intersection is signalized and Route 11, Valley Avenue, has turning lanes to enter Shawnee Drive from both directions. The proposed use for this property is for use as office space, the traffic impacts foreseen by the rezoning of this parcel are outlined below. The latest traffic analysis of the area shows that the current daily average number of vehicles on this section of Route 11, Valley Avenue, is 17,000 vehicles per day. The daily average for Shawnee Drive is 5,200 vehicles per day. This information is from the traffic data published by the Virginia Department of Transportation on their website. This data is dated 2004. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition, was used to approximate the average daily traffic that will enter and leave the subject parcel. Upon rezoning, the parcel would be used for general office space. We have selected land use 710, General Office Building to model the traffic count for the site. The ITE Trip Generation Manual describes the _General Office Building use as follows: "A General Office building houses multiple tenants and is a location where affairs of businesses, commercial or industrial, organizations, or professional persons or firms are conducted." The parcel contains 0.94 acres. The preliminary generalized siteplan for this site (Exhibit 4) shows that the estimated floor space of the 2 -story office building proposed is approximately 8,960 square feet. General Office Buildinq, Code 710 Based on a projected gross leasable area of 9,000 square feet: Weekday: 11.01 trips per 1000 sf = 100 trips ® Weekday A.M.: Peak Hour: 1.55 trips per 1000 sf = 14 trips Weekday P.M.: Peak Hour: 1.49 trips per 1000 sf = 14 trips ■ Saturday: 2.37 trips per 1000 sf = 22 trips ■ Sunday: 0.98 trips 9 sf = 9 trips D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The site is inside the Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area and would be served by a municipal sewer works. The location of the existing 15" sewer line is shown on the Generalized Site Plan, Exhibit 4. page 5 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PARCEL ID 63-A-104 E. WATER SUPPLY The site is inside the Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area and would be served by a municipal water supply. The location of the existing water line is located on the Generalized Site Plan, Exhibit 4. F. DRAINAGE According to the USGS topographic map and the Frederick county soil survey it appears that this site has gentle slopes. Its location would also infer that drainage problems would not be a major concern at this site. The site is surrounded by developed lots and roads. According to the USGS map it appears the majority of the water flow across the parcel would go from south to north. There the water would be collected in the Shawnee Drive ditch system. Upon development of a siteplan for the construction of the office buildings greater attention is warranted to provide the storm sewer system required to control the increase in runoff created by the addition of impervious area on the site. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES This commercial development will be responsible for the cost of solid waste collection and disposal. No additional solid waste disposal facilities will be required for the proposed development. The amount of solid waste generated by the development can be estimated based on one pound per employee per day. Using a figure of 40 employees per acre, the estimated number of employees is 38. The annual amount of solid waste generated is estimated to be 7 tons. H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES 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. This property is located within the core areas of the First and Second Battles of Kernstown and study area of the Second Battle of Winchester. However, due to development in this area, it has been deemed to have lost its integrity. There are 22 identified historic sites, four (4) being potentially significant sites, shown in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey that lie within a mile of the site. The potentially significant sites are Opequon Presbyterian Church, Tenant House at Brightside, Hopes Ordinary, and the Mervel Adams House. The remaining identified sites and their proximity to the subject parcel can be seen in Exhibit 2. A copy of the Civil War Battlefields and Sites map has been attached as Exhibit 3. page 6 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PARCEL ID 63-A-104 I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL The new Developmental Impact Model (D.I.M.) is utilized primarily for residential rezoning requests. It is anticipated that that capital facility impacts of commercial and industrial rezoning request are ultimately fiscally positive to the County by policy. Accordingly, the D.I.M. does not apply a fiscal impact to commercial rezoning. EMERGENCY SERVICES Police protection is provided by the Frederick County Sheriffs Department. The nearest fire and rescue facility is the Stephens City Fire Company located in the town limits of Stephens City. No additional fire and rescue facilities will be required for the area proposed to be rezoned. PARKS AND RECREATION The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates the projected capital cost for public park facilities attributable to this development is $00.00. J. OTHER IMPACTS The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates the following additional fiscal impacts attributable to the development: Public Library - $00.00 • Schools - $00.00 • Sheriff's Office - $00.00 • Administration Building - $00.00 • 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 63-A-104 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT APPENDIX item EXHIBIT 1 - PROPERTY MAP 1 EXHIBIT 2 - HISTORIC STRUCTURES MAP 2 EXHIBIT 3 - CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD MAP 3 EXHIBIT 4 - GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4 EXHIBIT 5 - PROPERTY DEED 5 EXHIBIT 6 - CURRENT TAX STATEMENT 6 EXHIBIT 7 - PROFFER STATEMENT 8 page 8 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PARCEL ID 63-A-104 EXHIBIT 1 - PROPERTY MAP page 9 rRUHERIIE , LLC. IN 63- -25 0.50 AC ES ZONED : RP USE : COMM. INDU`. PIN 63-A-28 0.41 ACRES ZONED : B3 USE : COMM./INDUST. r' AMES J. LANTZ�l, PIN 63-A-99 1.58 ACRES ZONED : M2 COMM /INDUST \�e `-DAVID R. MILLER JR. YSOINNEILE 3-A-105 ACRES D : RP USE FAM. RES. IES C. & DUSTI JILL LIKENS PIN 63C-1-9 ACRES ZONED : RP USE : SINGLE FAM. RES. )0 0 — 100 Scale V = 100 ft A. JAY JR. & FRAY E. LOW - PIN 63-A-103 0.50 CRES ZONE RP USE : SIN E FOAM. RES. \ C/ FIRST NATIONAL BANK -e OF STRABURG \ ek PIN 63-A-102 Sl ae 1.20 ACRES ZONED : 82 aOe USE : COMM./INDUST. COMMONV EALTH OF VIRGINIA 63-A-101 38 ACRES NED : B2 LUSPE1STATE GOVT. � Sh CL ow NO PHILLIP R. YOUNT N 4 -10 PIN 63-A-100 UR ZO R2 0.37 ACRES Po NI 62 USE :ZCCOMM./INDUSTR.ANT _ R NT U V FF CE / PIN 63-A-28 0.41 ACRES ZONED : B3 USE : COMM./INDUST. r' AMES J. LANTZ�l, PIN 63-A-99 1.58 ACRES ZONED : M2 COMM /INDUST \�e `-DAVID R. MILLER JR. YSOINNEILE 3-A-105 ACRES D : RP USE FAM. RES. IES C. & DUSTI JILL LIKENS PIN 63C-1-9 ACRES ZONED : RP USE : SINGLE FAM. RES. )0 0 — 100 Scale V = 100 ft IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PARCEL ID 63-A-104 HIBIT 2 - HISTORIC STRUCTURES MAP page 10 HISTORICAL PROPERTY KEY z O O ck: 003 - BRIGHTSIDE 009 - OPEQUON PRESBYTARIAN CHURCH** 007 - KERNSTOWN BATTLEFIELD N a ci 021 - WILLOW BROOK -*s Q 487 - TENANT HOUSE AT BRIGHTSIDE** IY x CL0 Q 971 - HOPES ORDINARY ** 972 - SAVAGE - SEAL HOUSE m co W Q Y - HOUSE IN KERNSTOWN W 973 Z C- U 974 - LANTZ HOUSE 975 - HOUSE IN KERNSTOWN Ld 976 - 3248 VALLEY AVENUE Q Q 0 977 - LORING RITTER HOUSE U (_ 978 - 3328 VALLEY AVENUE wC 979 - 3400 VALLEY AVENUE = LL 980 - MERVEL ADAMS HOUSE** 0 981 - HANOVER HOUSE a- 982 982 - HOUSE, RT. 11 SOUTH 983 - HOUSE, RT. 11 SOUTH V 984 - VILLAGE AUTO SALES ■ 1191 - RUSSELL HOUSE #2 ,J 1192 - RUSSELL HOUSE #1 ' 1379 - FLETCHER HOUSE a N m(o rnrn cnN ^ n ` N I TOTE: ** INDICATES A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT V)o� i N SITE AS DENOTED BYTHE RURAL LANDMARKS o v cCOo i. SURVEY REPORT OF FR DERICK COUNTY .0O W 'c o ^' r V) N t W (O L r C ~ Z 3 Li a z; �I Z 0I: SURVEY: C.I. NA NON DRAWN BY. JOB NO.: 1200 0 1200 SEM 050601: SCALE: DATE 1"=1200' 09/27/0!. SHEET: ry P Scale 1' = 1200 ft IMPACT ANALYSIS S I-ATEMENT PARCEL ID 63-A-104 EXHIBIT 3 - CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD MAP page 11 -AS --De Civil War Battl elds and Sites Frederick County Planning fi Devetopnent Vlnchestar, Virgir+c — I (As Defined by the NPS Shenandoah Valley Civil War Sites Study) 12-10-97 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PARCEL ID 63-A-104 EXHIBIT 4 - GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN page 12 ToxLOT Map I: 63-A-104 L-' Existing Zoning: RP Parking Requirements: Proposed Zoning: 82- Highway Commercial District Existing Use: Vacant Parcel Area: 0.897 acres (39,073 sq. fl) Proposed Use: Two Story Office Building Proposed Building: 40'x112'=> 4,480 sq. ft. x2 Building Restriction Lines: Front Yard Setback: Required- 35' Rear Yard Setback: Required- 0' Side Yard Setback: Required- 0' Maximum Building Height: Allowed- 35' Open Space Required: 15% 5,860 sq. H. Open Space Provided: 4BR 18,616 sq. fl. Building and Impervious Are Coverage: Building Footprint Mea: 4.480.00 sq. It. Asphalt Pavement Are.: 74,693.00 sq. 11. font i P- t o 1 28100 TOTAL IMPLWOUS AREA: 20,457.00 sq, fl. Property Line Setback: Front Yard Setback Required- 5' Rear Yard Setback: Required- 5' Side Yard Setback: Required- 5' Spaces Required: OlRce: (1) per 250 sq. ft. 8,960250- 36 spaces required Total Parking Spaces Provided: 35 - (2) HDCP spaces included Loading Required- None 28.64' (Tl m 3 .3i a z ��I I ��t I I\ , 'm I ,a I I - 30' INTERPARCEL I ACCESS EASEMENT 30 PROFFER #3 0 30 Scale 1"= 30 ft I EX. REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff Fee.Amount Paid Zoning Amendment NuiTIber Date Received .55 � aL PC Hearing Date Zt BOS Hearing Date F The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name:�`pec. Telephone: Address: %txcl�ESiEri2 VA. 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: !utche.1 j * .UYW, LLL - ��n Lk.N--bb Telephone: S4 -G - 'r55 - ,rzba Address: SL- 2p2— :Fr,zaVV1i !K' ✓A.m' (1 3. Contact person if other than above Name: JDhrl Le o -vs P. L Telephone: Gjo- 'cpw2 1539 2 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application Location mapAgency Comments Plat -�— Fees Deed to property ;/ Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement 11 M AY n 2006 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: 1-AI+Che 11. -5 lc�ebb, LLC - _a in-) l,A�r-joh 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: a- S-�v2y oyr(e. 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING Z,- A- 93 iSE t;Ac Zx,ra,c M is -A - I Db 6, n nos / ( A01, 17 -171A A - 16111 nn's-VA Z E t'rr. A � IbQ LDMM54L1l,z L ZuTk)"AL i7e'0�s l�1— q �ll4eyE FM[' AM,LW A - 1 O� 2f ISJ,L5 FAM �makLV iJy �3-f}- l03 �7tri�iLE FAMILY �'{� G3- A - Za �ME¢ca� �rhu�5rztac Qr> 3 - /a - Zg a'r�NtF�2CiAL f Zrip S7�i/i� S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance frons nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): lUg-rl. DtIF Or (T. 1 QWR 614A rZ r P2iV�Z I A,-r-ZbIATN UW i ri - wr-LT' ion 6p tt ,5- I on 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 Number' – 104 Districts Magisterial:1�.--�- High School: _ Fire Service: :.�'- V — IS CST VO�.FJ,;'FtC–p-,,Middle School: _ Rescue Service gj@fE s e,7y koL• Fier Ec-pr Elementary School: 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested ,q Q. q4 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Office: 8,9(0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses O 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 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. (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s Owner(s): 14 Date: �� 5 Date: Date: Date: Adjoining ]Property Owners Rezoning 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 _M% Ks -S, Property # 6 2-S, - A - q Name LJ Property # A - 10 c Name Property # / . d Name F,VsT N14Ti&NRL f3 ,k of Srzt5patui Property # 6S-14- ib a Name _ A. Property# / z- a _ n� Name AZ4a, Property # / 2 - .4 Name Za�5i'ta Property # Name Property # Name Property # 15 Address �q53 M;aAk6 28. Aidkrhurl, VA. M --9s STCAUN'DN, V,4- Name ,4• I►Z W !<1N(, sT. VA. 9a6'ff-7 33/1 4 SH'4wrlEE R? WNc€tFsfE, dA. 22602 3;'? :5�5- WaVeRc57"-g �35b S1�tWrl�c �rz Vt�ll�1CFFFsirtZ, VA. Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Vtrginta 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) L't ojet " A. V A (Phone) 5L4 O- Lo a 5 9 O (Address) ) O G ,A e 1. n+ lie s -C,- Z U �_I. 9,;L t. 01 the owners) 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. on Page , and is described as Parcel: 10 q Lot: 16 q Block: Iq Section: � 3 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Poi n L t r— 1...t W l j C (Phone) 5q d' jd CO - 5 G% a (Address) _ bt�U�lLt rt Vit. 1 i1 Gii e t� r, �%/a o� (� 0t _ --- To act as my true and lawful attorney -m -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: Y Rezoning (Including proffers) 11 Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: `1'hJ s authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this 2 8 day of 200 O6 Signature(s) (4,A,,&,,,. G_ State of Virginia, City/County of W _ _ , To -wit: T t�I l 1 UtL ��iQ� + 7' +'nr afnrn narfi�t�t 1 i , a NGtaay Public in and for the jurisdic�:.++a aLbresald, „ . f that .he 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 .28 day of FtAo ,2�00 Ok,. My Commission Expires: -Oyf N Public 7 0 boo P-93 PACE 7 SCALE IN FEET / STICKLE Y SOUTHERN BA KERY 56.3' 4 31 539°OIrW 236.0' 2 J . Lj Q 40 N rn _ tell O KATIE LANTZ to LINDEN VANN O O � Z Z 1.03 Acres N o Q cr 'O _ O O —4 0a'E MESSICK z63.6r 5 The above lot, located on the Soutl: side of Road No. 652 a short I distance East of U.S. Highway No. 11, at Kernstown, and sitate in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, is bounded as follows: Beginning at (1) a post in a fence comer on the South side of Road No. 652, a corner to the land of Stickley; thence with Stickley S 38 deg. 15 min. W 56.3 feet to (2) a post a corner between Stickler and the land of the Southern Bakery Co., thence with the land of the South em Bakery Co.,, S 39 deg. 01 ruin. W 236.0 feet to (3) a post in a fence corner; thence v4th a new division line through the land of Katie Lantz S 62 deg. 13 min. E 153.3 feetto (4) a post in a fence corner a corner to Messick ; thence with -Messick and along a wire fence N 44 deg. OB min. E 263.6 feet to E5) a postin a fence corner on the South sideof Road No. 652; thence with the South side of Road No. 652 N 51 deg. 02 min. W 174:6 feet to the point of beginningcontaining 1.03 Acres more or less. "• Q'J u ,- Richard U. Goode, Certified Surveyor, #4677 May 17, 1963. VIRGINIA FREDER'CK COUNTY, SCT.�-� Thi: Instrument of writing was produced t0 rna on the day of at o (n , and w.Th urtii.co 0 of knowwdgment thereto annexA was admitted to r°cord• - Cb COUNTY Of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-6651 MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395 N TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: UDA Study — UDA/SWSA Boundary modification exercise and Land Use Policy Public Hearing. DATE: June 8, 2006 The UDA and SWSA boundary exercise is a component of the on-going UDA Study. Prior to moving forward with the more creative and proactive land use policy efforts of the UDA Study it was determined that as an initial step, the UDA and SWSA boundaries should appropriately reflect the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In addition, the UDA and SWSA boundaries should follow logical and consistent boundaries or features and relate to each other. Upon completing this exercise, the foundation will be in place from which to frame the recommendations of the UDA Study. In general, the following graphic represents the three major components of the County's land use policy and how they relate to each other: RA (areas outside of the SWSA and UDA) Expected land uses based on policy: *Agricultural and large lot residential uses without public water and sewer 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 SWSA UDA and SWSA Expected land uses Expected land uses based on policy: based on policy: 'RP uses on public water and sewer *C & I uses on public water and •C & I uses on public water and sewer sewer • Institutional uses on public *Institutional uses water and sewer on public water and sewer 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Planning Commission UDA Study June 8, 2006 Page 2 Enhancements to the Land Use policy language of the Comprehensive Policy Plan are included in this package of information which more accurately reflect and describe current County policy and historical application of the policy. The UDA/SWSA Boundary modification exercise seeks to ensure consistency with the above Land Use Policy of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In addition, the revisions to the Land Use Policy Language affirm the understanding of the County's UDA and SWSA policy. At their June 7, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundary modification exercise. The consensus of the Planning Commission was favorable and the Commission forwarded the proposed boundary modifications to the Board for discussion. It is anticipated that the Board of Supervisors, at their June 14, 2006 meeting, will forward this effort to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing. Previously, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee at their May 8, 2006 meeting endorsed the UDA/SWSA Boundary Modification Exercise with two suggestions, both of which have been incorporated into the mapping and policy language. The UDA and SWSA boundaries had been discussed at the 01/17/06 joint work session between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission and again at the Planning Commission Retreat on February 4, 2006. The modifications of the UDA and SWSA boundaries to more appropriately reflect the current land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan will result in an approximate reduction of 6,624 acres in the UDA and a reduction of approximately 1,495 acres. The proposed UDA would be 16,220 acres in size and the proposed SWSA would be 25,504 acres in size. A more detailed view of the specific areas of modification is described and illustrated in the following breakdown and attached mapping. Staff will be available to discuss the proposed modifications to the boundaries and policy in greater detail at the June 21, 2006 Planning Commission Public Hearing. A recommendation on the proposed UDA and SWSA boundary modifications and accompanying land use policy language to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. Please contact me if you have any questions. MTR/bad Attachments UDA and SWSA Boundary Modification Analvsis Current UDA area is 22,822.481 acres (28,717.481— 5,895 acres adjusted for Winchester) Amount Reduced is 6,624.28 acres UDA area post -reduction is 16,219.96 acres Current SWSA area is 27,000 acres (32,895 — 5,895 acres adjusted for Winchester) Amount Reduced is 1,495.17 acres SWSA area post -reduction is 25,504.83 acres The following results are from the identified areas where the UDA and SWSA are being recommended for adjustment. Please refer to the attached maps which are labeled to correspond with each area. Area #1 North of Route 37 including the area known as Apple Pie Ridge, Spring Valley, and the Stonewall Industrial Park. Boundaries to reflect existing land use designations. Extension of SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. UDA: 3425 acres reduction SWSA: 564 acres reduction 136 acres addition 428 acre net reduction Area #? Northeastern section of UDA, including part of the land that is adjacent to the Stephenson Village project. Consistent boundaries that follow property line. Retention of SWSA to include B2 portion of Monastery Property. UDA: 79.7 acre reduction SWSA: 58.5 acre reduction Area #3 Eastern section of UDA including a proffered State conservation area and part of land adjacent to and north of Route 7. Route 7 consistent northern boundary. UDA: 85.3 acre reduction SWSA: 101.2 acre reduction Area #4 South East section south of Senseny Road, east of Greenwood Road, and north of Sulpher Spring Road. Boundary consistency. Property lines. UDA: 47.66 acre reduction 22.9 acre addition 24.76 acre net reduction SWSA: Same Area #5 East of Route 522, South of Route 50, and north of Justes Drive. Winchester Regional Airport, Carpers Valley Area. Also includes area north of Route 50 and South of Sulpher Springs Road. Extension of SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. UDA: 1,766.3 acre reduction SWSA: 0.83 acre reduction 43.5 acre addition 42.67 acre net reduction Area #6 Stephens City area. Removing County policy lines from within Town of Stephens City. Joint Land Use Plan provides guidance for the Town's future annexation and provision of sewer and water. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary of UDA/SWSA. UDA: 69 acre reduction SWSA: 864.8 acre reduction Area #7 Kemstown Area. Route 11 South and Shady Elm Drive. Land use designation conformance. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary to the UDA. Policy language recognition of Echo Village residential area to be noted within the plan UDA: 1104.75 acre reduction SWSA: Same Area #8 Route 50 West at the Route 37 interchange. Land use designation conformance. UDA: 47.7 acre reduction SWSA: Same Land Use - Comprehensive PolicE Plan UDA and SWSA Land Use Policy U date This plan contains general land use concepts for the future development of Frederick County. It describes the general development patterns that are presently taking place and those that are anticipated or planned. As planning efforts continue, more specific concepts will be developed for interchange areas, rural community centers, and other areas. Such plans will combine planning for land use with planning for roads and facilities. The primary land use concepts in this plan is are the Rural Areas (RA), the Urban Development Area (UDA), and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). These land use concepts seek to clearly define whiek i ff effect divides the County into rural and urban areas. The Rural Areas of the couLiV can be defined as all areas outside of the Urban Development Area and Sewer and Water Service Area. The Urban Develo ment Area and Sewer and Water Service Area are envisioned to be more urban in character. It is expected that the land uses within the UDA and SWSA will be on public water and sewer. The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. Commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses are also encouraged within the Urban Development Area. The Sewer and Water Service Area is consistent with the Urban Development Area in mgny locations. However, the Sewer and Water Service Area may extend beyond the Urban Development to promote commercial industrial, and institutional land uses in areas where residential land uses are not desirable The relationship between the three primary land use concepts in this plan is further illustrated in the following-raphic. RA (areas outside of the SWSA and UDA) Expected land uses based on policy: f °Agricultural and large lot residential uses without public water and sewer UDA and SWSA Expected land uses based on policy: ORP uses on public water and sewer @C & I uses on public water and sewe SWSA \ Expected land uses based on policy: °C & I uses on public water and sewer Institutional uses on public *Institutional uses water and sewer on public water and sewer Land Use - Comprehensive Policy Plan UDA and SWSA Land Use Policy Update Echo Village is an existing residential neighborhood at the intersection of Valley Pike (Route 11) and Route 37 It is zoned RP (Residential Performance) and the residences are served by public water and sewer. This area is not included in the UDA but the existing lots will continue to have access to public water and sewer. The existing residential land uses and residentially zoned lots would be able to continue pursuant to current County Ordinances. The wider area is planned and zoned for commercial and industrial uses so expansion of the residential development would not be supported Any future request to change the land use should be consistent with current commercial and industrial land use designations. PUP--• - - UDA - Current 0 0.5 1 2 ®® Miles UDA (current) eel'ly SWSA (current) I �1 City/Town Boundary SWSA - Current 0 0.5 1 2 Miles w 1 a8 I c i � a {r J I z 3425.7ac reduction r , T n Ij.-, G Id II;II•Ra� l'n� S / � > 4 If / kd� U tiFr WIR,doubtz a`� �, n ri\A ♦ c;' i t 'H �• i 37, f"tt hitr �r,P � ��♦`far\ �,y�° D • F,1•+ ., 7'Stt c° . f 4 k ' _ ° fr•�� nom[[ ,� ! ° \ '� �* ! r I �,. 7 ,' �- Cyt sEd�'er anrk ° t k t di U DA -Area 01 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 rest SWSA (proposed) Parcels Lri City/Town Boundary SWSA -Area 01 0%0* UDA (proposed) Adjusted Area 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 Feet N W* S Saber y • u � j \ A 70.9 ac '-+ reduction go 0 8.8 ac I r o 0 reduction • °� s�`` �' i , .ee,oQ r U / �4h & \ 7 U DA -Area 02 o soo 1,000 2,000 SWSA (proposed) Parcels SWSA -Area 02 N Feet Og%ge UDA (proposed) Adjusted Area o soo 1,000 2,000 WE Feet S 3.9 ac reduction 81.4 ac reduction 7 U DA -Area 03 D 500 1,000 2,000 Feet SWSA (proposed) Parcels **%o LIDA (proposed) Adjusted Area SWSA -Area 03 N 0 500 1,000 2,000 W* �� Feet S khan ; GSC I ,Jird 14.6 ac ------- additt ion 8. 3 ac additI ion L 2.8 ac reduction .56 ac u ac] red �,,_._,_Lduction 916 Le 44.3 ac reduction eduction] educ U DA -Area 04 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet SWSA (proposed) Parcels O%o* UDA (proposed) Adjusted Area SWSA -Area 04 0 500 1,000 2,000 wa Feet `//'fin v.F D, U DA -Area 05 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 — — Feet 'SWSA (proposed) Parcels 10%ee UDA (proposed) E -F-] Adjusted Area 43addition Usrr SWSA -Area 05 N 0 5001,000 2,000 W* Feet S 11 69 ac_ q" reduction` x 1 *.Sr o ,i 71 i i 54 5` U DA -Area 06 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet SWSA (proposed) ` Parcels �,.1 City/ Town Boundary 00%o* UDA (proposed) Adjusted Area SWSA -Area 06 N 0 5001,000 2,000 we Feet s • M� o .y e U DA -Area 06 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet SWSA (proposed) ` Parcels �,.1 City/ Town Boundary 00%o* UDA (proposed) Adjusted Area SWSA -Area 06 N 0 5001,000 2,000 we Feet s 1 Rd � I l 'f � C� R okfield Dr S�� i �� Pd �',♦ t Kd Y X J 7 '- �♦♦ ♦� N. .14 j tj rrld +' v" '�\ \ �,� ]ray .�• s 1 4 \ i t - n U DA -Area 07 SWSA(proposed) Parcels��1 City/Town Boundary SWSA -Area 07 0 750 1,500 3,000 v �"r`" Feer 0%0 UDA (proposed) [d'Adjusted Area 0 501,000 2,000 w s Feet s 47.7 ac reduction 4 • 50 Pik, f ?37 Dutron et 0 UDA - Area nP 0 250 500 ONO SWSA (proposed) Parcels SWSA - Area 08 1,000 r,�[ City/Town Boundary Feet UDA (proposed) Adjusted Area 0 250 500 1,000 Feet 0 37 ,,VeW StAmherst St N W* S yf N W* S U DA - After 0 0.5 1 2 Miles "� UDA (proposed) `� ✓ SWSA (proposed) r" City/Town Boundary SWSA - After N 0 0.5 1 2 we Miles s • C: • 41�" °O�tia CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #10-05 w� WILLIAM BROY w Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: June 5, 2006 Staff Contact: Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. LOCATION: This subject property is located at 3605 Valley Pike. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 63-A-84 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: B3 (Industrial Transition) South: B3 (Industrial Transition) East: BI (Neighborhood Business) West: B2 (General Business) Zoned: B3 (Industrial Transition) Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Commercial Land Use: Commercial Land Use: Commercial PROPOSED USE: Erection of an off -premises business sign REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia rept. of Transportation: in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, no private advertisement sign can be placed on the State's right-of-way. Prior to erection on private property, a permit may have to be applied for through our District Office in Staunton. Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 02/01/06 Tabled Planning Commission: 06/21/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 07/26/06 Pending LOCATION: This subject property is located at 3605 Valley Pike. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 63-A-84 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: B3 (Industrial Transition) South: B3 (Industrial Transition) East: BI (Neighborhood Business) West: B2 (General Business) Zoned: B3 (Industrial Transition) Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Commercial Land Use: Commercial Land Use: Commercial PROPOSED USE: Erection of an off -premises business sign REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia rept. of Transportation: in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, no private advertisement sign can be placed on the State's right-of-way. Prior to erection on private property, a permit may have to be applied for through our District Office in Staunton. Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended. CUP #10-05, William Broy January 18, 2006 Page 2 Inspections Department: Sign shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, use group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of The International Building Code/2003. Structural plans submitted for permit application shall be sealed by a Va. Licensed Design Professional. Sanitation Authority: The installation of the sign will not impact our sewer easement. Planning and Zoning: This proposed off -premises business sign will stand 10 feet in height and have a sign face area of 50 square feet. The sign will be located on a property adjacent to Valley Pike (Rt. 11). Careful consideration of this Conditional Use Permit may be warranted due to the location of this sign along the Rt. 11 highway corridor. Section 165-30D of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance specifies when considering a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an off -premises business sign, additional performance standards should be considered to promote orderly economic development. These performance standards are to ensure that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas, and properties of significant historic values are not negatively impacted. In addition, standards shall include: height and size limitations of signs, placement of signs along highway corridors, and illumination of signs to mitigate any negative impacts to adjoining properties and uses. Furthermore, the appearance along the Rt. 11 highway corridor would be further enhanced by the use of a brick ground monument style sign. Though other land use actions such as Rezonings; Frederick County has regulated the location, height, size, and number of signs on properties located along its highways corridors. In addition to these type of land use actions; the 2003 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan states that one of the most effected methods to preserve the appearance of this corridor is to: "limit or prohibit the use of off-site signs along the corridor and encourage the use of monument style signs." (Pg. 6-26). Therefore, approval of this proposed off -premises business sign presented by the applicant; is consistent with the goals identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, by allowing monument style signs to enhance this established corridor. Should the Planning Commission act on an off -premise business sign on this property; Staff would recommend this sign to be an externally illuminated brick ground monument type sign. This sign shall not exceed a total height of ten (10) feet and a sign face area of fifty (50) square feet, which the applicant has agreed upon. This proposed off -premises sign will only serve the businesses located along Cornmonwealth Couxt. This sign if approved by the Planning Commission would be in keeping with the goals identified in 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick Com for this highway corridor. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06/21/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1) The sign shall be no more than 10' in height. Any sign approved with a height greater than 10' would not classify as a monument sign. 2) This is classified as a development entrance sign, and is to provide advertisements strictly for businesses along Commonwealth Drive. 3) The sign is not to display any material that would constitute it as being classified as a directional sign (messages concerning the distance or direction to particular locations). 4) The sign will consist of a brick base and shall be properly maintained. 5) All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. SCHENCK FOODS COMPANY, INC. 63 1 A SCHENCK FOODS COMPANY, INC. 63 A 66A ADAMS, T G & ROSALIE 63 A 62 SCHENCK FOODS CO., INC. 63 A 67 EMMART, W H & SON, INC 63 A 66 ADAMS, T G 8 ROSALIE F 63 A 65 Map Features Application "v Bridges "vu arts LakeslPonds V Dams ^ Streams s Retaining Walls Buildings Road Centerlines Tanks parcels O 0 SWSA Trails ��r�UDA H P HOOD, INC 63 A 868 THE MLR COMPANIES, LLC 63 A 82 H PHOOD, INC 63 A 86C H P HOOD, INC 63 A B6A Lp� 6 JOHNS)), O�� r�Q , 11JOBgR8�8SYCV/gT P9 cy ROY PYL63C1AM 0 z 84 UNDAL f): g' W Commonw PRELIP, M G PROPERTIES LLC eahh Ct, 75 A 91E � O OIN Q h VALLEY PROPERTIES LIMITED PR G 63 A 85 r 6FyGq� F dr n P 0� �s ti 9 d C 9°y�srF Zoning CUP # 10 - 05 \ B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) a MS (Medical Support District) B2 General (Business, District) <� R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) William B ro B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) * R5 (Residential Recreational community District) y` 10 EM(Higher i facturrict) trio) 0 RA(Rural ® HE Education (Higher d,catf District) 0 RP (Residential Performance District) -rd-Areas Performance (63 A 84) Mi (Industrial, Light District) (� M2 (Industrial, General District) N ' MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) 0 75 150 "*E 300 S Feet ADAMS, T G & ROSALIE 63 A 62 Zoning RP SCHENCK FOODS CO., INC. 63 A 67 / EMMART, W H d SON, INC 63 A 66 l ADAMS, T G d ROSALIE F 63 A 65 Map Features APPlication Bridges * R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) N Culverts Lakes/Ponds ^� Dams w— Streams f,r° Retaining Walls Buildings Road Centerlines Tanks s ! i� Parcels ,v W g \,. Trails C3SWSA UDA .j 63 Law Zoning <<' B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) a MS (Medical Support District) Zoning 82 c� B2 (Business, General District) `J R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) ® B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) * R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) ?8 EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) O RA (Rural Areas District) ® HE (Higher Education District) 0 RP (Residential Performance District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) H PHOOD,INC M2 (Industrial, General District) N MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) W g S CUP #10-05 William Broy (63-A-84) 0 75 150 300 Feet Zoning HPHOOD, INC M2 63 A 86A Y \� H P HOOD, INC 63 A 86C \ \\ H PHOOD,INC 63 A 86B CUP #10-05 William Broy (63-A-84) 0 75 150 300 Feet Zoning HPHOOD, INC M2 63 A 86A BI (Business, Neighborhood District) MS (Medical Support District) <� B2 (Business, General District) R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) (� B3 (Business, Industrial Transit- District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) Q RA (Rural Areas District) HE (Higher Education District) Q' RP (Residential Performance District) M7 (Industrial, Light District) �> M2 (Industrial, General District) N I> MW (Mobile Home Community District) 411X 0 75 150 300 Feet _ AI Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. AAnblicant (The applicant if the � owner other) NAME: G mac` ADDRESS: TELEPHONEj1Z90 2� Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) r/ 'Y-17 f 4. The property has a road frontage of l� ' feet and a depth of &_5�0 / feet and consists Of 9_ acres. (Please be exact) 5> The property is owned by GL as evidenced by deed from AE91 c r2V ,,r elfla2es Lvif2!A recorded (previous owner) rz in deed book no. on page._, as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Tax (Parcel) Identification (I.D. )No. Magisterial District Current Zoning Z3 -3 7. Adjoining Property: USE North EastE L41-��/_R_ i South ✓ s v ry �f"s.S West ZONING -1 B. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) &SF jC.5*14N1 esrm sr/dgS 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: #41 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: Yj,TN aTow,✓ NAME v6NWJJA), RMXR-tQ. I . XLluA T ADDRESS � � ,4ZL�X 14 fE02 PROPERTY ID# 6 3 4 8S NAME ,vim we ADDRESS /0 O gajO ggol 7 GuIA16 X dG i PROPERTY ID#_ 6:1 ,4 6(l NAME SG?VENc K F000 co, MAIC ADDRESS Pc) A?,L X,4 98 LrilwC U l�o y' PROPERTY IDI 6 3 fJ ( q NAME F /,/ tt- t7 JI �% CA.PGtiiv� A/ADDRESS �T111�/� ' i'e i, , PROPERTY IDI 75 A 9/,C (C.4,41 [due sr) NAME OAlzt v I''2r�P�-�Pn-s L /,. /-r&-z;) PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# �G 3SNt/u/�,t�ov.� Ro ADDRESS &4s-1CH iv, C. 157 0� ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY IDI Imo__ PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 6A/ li FUNK ZONED: 5-3 1 w U8E: FmSiD wiAL // X 1441 1 TM 63-A-83 / 1 z I � jj� 145 � _—y jj j? CURB S OY / IOPENNG ZONED: 5- � ui USE: REST - TIAL � ?A[dE' x 144.9 1 '9 jloust � �° I i Ell I 16'i•'14' "' 22655' EX 54N.MH 33• EX. 5AN. 5EUER �� r7;- iAt EX PI I 3r3 4;6 N�16'g6'00" l!3 35.4"1' rn X} HM'i STM_ a X 148.41 j %� \ d > EX- OPINV - IN X 141. �' 1. X 141.1( X 149 _ 'u mm OUT = r- ° "' ° CO1"Ih ONWALTW DRI 1 x c �9 (Aye CP tij tT' b r RIGHT-CF-WAY VARIES Wm r �` EX. STM. STI � � ____ INV OUT s 14 i'✓7U13a' w G�3.l �7'�4N�:�/ cow G E' . ; .'y4 /#'�•,� e the abovelit, boated on the JRaet eid�e t+f H ' � x� ast South - of Sernstown and ai taate is Sjtkawaee Ha�'i s! ri a1� .� 3atr3et�_a`re�eriat CaastT* �ir�3.aia, is beiendsg`as�l.s=.n.�: Befinniug at Aa:irtate in tri Bast lino of V,� •_ Hi , ' ; : said point 'being -316,4- feetSoath�of the..Har#a�est�lQOrara* +rr original tract owned b* =Sen4 ;Brom.: said Southwest corner of the- Funk ' lat;.'6e.nee `mlt'h *►i#h 44414 , Vot :t di taaae of 290.0 feet %. @' Z tees 4liai--� peg �5a��_�, @t;��.n-`•.t�.�;`: r thel�.d With Coo Ley " -fo r the following point i8ttr�ei ' ;� 19 ted:;':;@ 6o.a Leet -to � �.: �.-. � p -tea a J ®�` � isoae�pet�.. thesa�,�:` i7a de® sin. H 258.0 feet : to ] oa. In peg In the i a of .8. Highway He•. 11; thence .with the `= of fins vt U. ., a 0.::.._ Highway Ro • -11 D 19 deg. 3$ aln. s 60.0 feet to the point Rt&ard Q, oei• cert Irl ed . 8ar grew SSP .. BROY 309 WENTWORTH DR. 6 r -e, WfNCHESTER, VA 22601 G �RD COREMC C3RE! RICHARD U. 40 DDS . / lAGAJE 71Cs M V _S Y 'vv C �1 j• Zoo. Lot ,_ UYXOND -am LL i'✓7U13a' w G�3.l �7'�4N�:�/ cow G E' . ; .'y4 /#'�•,� e the abovelit, boated on the JRaet eid�e t+f H ' � x� ast South - of Sernstown and ai taate is Sjtkawaee Ha�'i s! ri a1� .� 3atr3et�_a`re�eriat CaastT* �ir�3.aia, is beiendsg`as�l.s=.n.�: Befinniug at Aa:irtate in tri Bast lino of V,� •_ Hi , ' ; : said point 'being -316,4- feetSoath�of the..Har#a�est�lQOrara* +rr original tract owned b* =Sen4 ;Brom.: said Southwest corner of the- Funk ' lat;.'6e.nee `mlt'h *►i#h 44414 , Vot :t di taaae of 290.0 feet %. @' Z tees 4liai--� peg �5a��_�, @t;��.n-`•.t�.�;`: r thel�.d With Coo Ley " -fo r the following point i8ttr�ei ' ;� 19 ted:;':;@ 6o.a Leet -to � �.: �.-. � p -tea a J ®�` � isoae�pet�.. thesa�,�:` i7a de® sin. H 258.0 feet : to ] oa. In peg In the i a of .8. Highway He•. 11; thence .with the `= of fins vt U. ., a 0.::.._ Highway Ro • -11 D 19 deg. 3$ aln. s 60.0 feet to the point Rt&ard Q, oei• cert Irl ed . 8ar grew SSP .. 12. Additional comments, if any: e- 412 ?-M Uc'S.r I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address C,^ ✓c °';� O/ Owners' Telephone No. /_S 0-6 TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.- USE DMINISTRATOR: USE CODE RENEWAL DATE: Dimensional Wow & f-WU Signs j ivionLancaL ivkeioeu �6, (shipped in PrIc—e: $6170 image for more detail Model 17 ize: (5') x (10") x (8") (2 colors) Price: $3020 Model 19 Size: (5') x (10') x (12") Price: $3120 Select image for more detail hucv:/'/i-w-.w--w--.Baliubl?Stwd. omj:on ymP Y-vodejs.�iLuiICustom Model 16 Size: 00') x (8') x (18") Price: $3860 Select image for more detail Model 18 Size: (6') x (8') x (22") Price: $2850 Select image for more detail Model 20 Size: (7') x (7') x (20") (2 colors) Price: $2965 Select image for more detail 10/26/2005 C: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-06 WHITE HALL BUSINESS PARK Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: June 2, 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 be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 06/21/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 07/26/06 Pending LOCATION: The property is located approximately 950' west from Interchange 323 off I-81, approximately 2,560' south of Rest Church Road, along proposed Zachary Ann Lane. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 33-9-6,33-9-7 & 33-9-8 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: M1 (Industrial, Light District) Use: Vacant ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES: North: B3 (Industrial Transition) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: Interstate 81/M1/RA West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Vacant Use: Residential Use: Business Park/Residential/Vacant Use: Orchard PROPOSED USE: M1 (Light Industrial) District Uses - Caterpillar Maintenance and Sales Facility (Alban Tractor) MDP #06-06, White Hall Business Park June 2, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The preliminary master plan for this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 669, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. This Master Development Plan is acceptable to VDOT. 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 a master development plan. Frederick County Public Works: The revised White Hall Business Park MDP dated March 16, 2006, has adequately addressed our previous review comments dated December 15, 2005. Therefore, we grant our approval of the subject MDP. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Approved Frederick County Inspections Department: No comment required at this time. Will comment on site plan when submitted. Department of Parks & Recreation:_ No Comment Frederick County — Winchester Health Department_: Health Dept. has no objection to the request as stated so long as public water and sewer are used. GIS Department: Zachary Ann Lane was previously approved roadway. Has been entered into county centerline file. Planning & 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 property is located approximately 950' west from Interchange 323 off I-81, approximately 2,560' south of Rest Church Road, along proposed Zachary Ann Lane. MDP #06-06, White Hall Business Park June 2, 2006 Page 3 C) Site History On December 12, 1990, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #009-90 of Whitehall Business Park for the rezoning of 15.03 acres from RA (Rural Area) to M-1 (Light Industrial) and 34.25 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-3 (Industrial Transition). A Master Development Plan, MDP 4003-96, was subsequently approved for the development of the Whitehall Business Park on June 6, 1996. The Master Development plan identified the development of the Whitehall Business Park within two phases and also envisioned the creation of eight lots. The first five lots were identified as being within the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and the remaining three lots, lots six, seven, and eight, within the M1 (light Industrial) District. Lots six, seven, and eight totaling, 15.03 acres, are one part of this rezoning application. On October 12, 2005, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #14-05, which revised the proffers for Rezoning #009-90 which pertained to 15 acres as well as rezoned five additional acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. D) Intended Use M1 (Light Industrial) District Uses - Caterpillar Maintenance and Sales Facility (Alban Tractor) E) Site Suitability & Project Scope 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-I] Land Use Compatibility: The parcels comprising this MDP application are located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Sewer and Water Service Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of planned commercial, and industrial development will occur. In addition, the White Hall Business Park property is located within the area encompassed by the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan envisions commercial land uses on the property. The 20 -acre site has approximately 1,940' of frontage along Interstate 81. Located about 350' south of the intersection of Rest Church Road (Route 669) and Zachary Ann Lane, and in the immediate vicinity of Exit 323 of Interstate 81, the subject property is ideally located to take advantage of the business development opportunities provided by the interstate. The development of such an opportunity is an objective of the Northeast Land Use Plan. MDP #06-06, White Hall Business Park June 2, 2006 Page 4 Environment: The acreage that makes up this property does not contain areas of steep slopes. The property does contain areas of mature woodlands, primarily on lot 8. With Rezoning 914-05, the applicant proffered to continue the buffer along the southern 50' of the property, as well as maintaining an area of existing trees on lot 8 along Interstate 81. Transportation: The Frederick County Northeast Land Use Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the Northeastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). With Rezoning 414-05, the applicant proffered to work with VDOT to develop a lane striping plan to improve traffic conditions at the existing entrance at Rest Church Road and Zachary Ann Lane, as well as complete the construction and paving of Zachary Ann Lane. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06/21/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The preliminary master development plan for White Hall Business Park depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. The preliminary master development plan is also in accordance with the proffers of the rezoning and has addressed all of staffs concerns. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors 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. OR hh f SL 4 fJ #OV 3508 Buffer Secondary Roads St---,ary Roads ~P,i..,yRoads Winchester City Roads IOMC'POBOSLWhiteHaliBusinessPark r.% oto i- am kko White Hall Business Park MDP # 06 - 06 (33-9-6,7,8) Fredenck County Dept of Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester. VA 2.2601 8 w .CO FREDERICK -VA US 77-2rJ.- May 31.2008 23 A 17 OR • INTERSTATE CHARD, INC., THE 2.46 i� t • ryO0 y p •�♦1 n W' / i i � � • a r= R�4t� PMHB.INC � hp Ih N a � 33 A -96q 2 Campton f r33 9 o t JCA IU 33 A 97 Am ^� WHITE HALL, LLC_ Reirrers Eleoma ' 33 A 90 l COQ j fn> ry W O� J v4 • �• 34 A 4 QO^^. HILL FRUIT ORCHARD, INC + U • t SEMPELES, GEORGE M. 107.27 33 A 09 FRUIT HILLORCHARD, INC 9 1 =U' r mzL �s�... r r ✓/ o QTc P ti PROPERTIES 7.04 LLC %' .� A `!A ✓ O „? W - n= An 0 33 9 4 ` HALL, 33 Int` CLARK, P ULS SrB 3HIRLfY ii F AS WHITE c o n1 a fca`r r o i � � • a r= R�4t� PMHB.INC � N a S 33 A -96q Campton f r33 9 o t JCA IU 33 A 97 Am WHITE HALL, LLC_ Reirrers Eleoma ' Reimers FI^ Crra Steam QO^^. 33 33 A 09 FRUIT HILLORCHARD, INC ,.Ojq 106.56 mzL rSC � BURKHART o ti PROPERTIES 7.04 LLC %' c f 4 „? W - n= 0 33 Int` CLARK, P ULS SrB 3HIRLfY ii F c o r o ^�cr" o= • 10. G'A�L 33 A OEHAVE.� AlC ¢ o aw r T EL -C. Fa�2 s poi r r ' , x02'6 � s�� 8 , • 331, ,j"'SA MAR -FRE ENTERPRISES, 9,P�� LLC 11.02105 • ,j o u5MPpO%C' K � O P 10 � a mti DRNDGFF, CHARLES W SR & JOUNE 5 24 33 A 108 CLINE, DONALD S. BRI A 105C 20.82 ROOK W".y 53.5 S7OR 8.52 AGE, LLC �S i4L /350fl Buser Secondary Roads White Hall Business Park R Frederick County Dept of Streets %" Tertiary Roadg f Planning & Deuelopment Primary Roads , ' W nehester City Roads MDP # 06 — 06 a e 107 N Kent St N Kent i Buildings1 6 WinChBS10 22 1l www CO.FREDERICK VA US J=MDP0608_WhIMHallBusrneesPark 33 - 9 - 6f •/J 18 / rl--�r� May 31, 2006 Frederick Cou;;ty, Virgmlis Master Didopinent Plan t.2plicaflon Packsgvc A-PPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENTPIAN Department of Planning and Development Use Only Date application received Application # Complete. Date of acceptance, Incomplete. Date of return: 1. -Fivied Title: WHITE HALL BUSINESS PARK - AMENDMENT 2. Owner's Ifni-ne: JCA IV White Hall, LLC (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) 3. ApplReant JCA IV White Hall, LLC Address. 8531 Pulaski Hi y�a Robert Marano gh yBqljirrore, MD 21237 Phone Number. 1410) 780-7200 4. Desi gro C-Omnpany: Urban Engineering & Associates Inc. Address: 210 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 ,Phone Number, (540) 450-0211 Contact Name; Dave Lellock Page I I Frederick Ccujaiy, VirgWa Master Dievelopyneat Plan Application Packpge__, APPLICA T 10-N cont'd MASTS -k DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Locatiaia of ?YoperO: Approximately 950 feet west from Interchange 323 on 1-81 then approximately 2560 feet south along proposed Zachary Ann Lane C. Total Acreage: 20.035 7. Prop" Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): b) OxTent Zoning: C) Present Use. d) Proposed Uses: C) Adjoining Property Information: Property.1dentification Numbers - North RA (Rural Area) South RA (Rural Area) Fast MI (Industrial - Light District); West RA (Rural Area) 33-A-89 & 33-A-90 MI Light Industrial Vacant Caterpilar Maintenance and Sales Facility Property Uses Orchard Residential Business Park Orchard 0 Magisterial District: Stonewall 3. Is ►b, is xi, orig.,aal or amendled Mumte.- DeveLipment Plan? original Amended X I have read dic, niatcrial included in thii package and undcrstand what is required by the Frederick. ('oittity.Departti-tentof.Planning acid De-velopjiic.nt. I also -undersumd that the master development plan shall 1110.ude alt contipoits, land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete pig- the submission of my master development plan application. Date. Page 12 05/31/2006 14:57 5404500210 URBAN ENGINEERING PAGE 02102 Limited Power County of Frederick Virginia planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Nortli Dent Skreet, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All aMen By These Presents: That I (ire) (� 1 (Name) (Phone)lh- a- (Address)�'� �3�`�� e�� '•� �nS `�_ �� 2--.k Z� � 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 2-5-ci Instrument No..`'r 0602 15 1 c13 on Page and is described as 33(C��8g, 33(CA))9o> 33((9)) (o, 33 ��-7) S3((q)), Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: _ do hereby make, constitute and appoint; (Name) bay, �elc�ne�.in arty QsSoc l --f (Phone). X40-950 (Address) Z t F tong Rod c Q P; iJ�iot�a�� SVA 2-ZU 0Z To act as nay true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and aauthority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including - 0 Rezoning (Including proffers) G Conditional Use Permits G Master Development Plan (preliminary and Meal) G Subdivision 6 Site Plan MY attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to pre`riously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is other. prise rescinded or rnodified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this 2 day of D►c , 200 ; Signature(s) (1 t, U State of Virginia, To -wit: I_ u' t —, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who siped to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before xne in the_jurisdiciion aforesaid this a day _ of°„MSQ, ,,,20E1142- My Commission Expires: Notary Public IlES LII T IODN'� FOR AUT HHO PW�ZED SIGNATORY IMN—D-POSIT' ED -D, constituting the sole General Manager of JCA IV White Hall, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company (the "Company"), hereby consents to and approves the following action_ iE +:.S, the General Manager desires to permit certain individuals to sign various documents on his behalf, as General Manager of the Company, as he shall direct them to do so. NOW, THER E YCRE, BE IT AND 14-0—F RKBY YS: > , that Robert A.. Marano and James Sweeney shall be, and each of them acting alone is hereby, authorized, empowered and directed for and in the name and on behalf of the Company to execute and deliver any and all documents that the General Manager shall direct either or both of them to execute and deliver on his behalf, as General manager of the Company, as may be deemed necessary or desirable in order to carry out the business and affairs of the Company. x nY :i i '_4 J ' `TI -E, t., that all of the acts and doings of Robert A. Nia ano or James Sweeney, whether heretofore or hereafter taken or done, which are taken in good faith within the scope of their authority, and which are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this resolution, shall be, and the same hereby are in all respects, authorized, approved, ratified and coed. T Hr SE REN L TPDNS may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same document. The signature of any party to any counterpart shall be deemed a signature to, and may be appended to, any other counterpart. 1 \� ;Tames C. Alban IV BA -006135.01 The Resolution for Authorized Signatory is hereby approved by the Management Committee of JCA IV White Hall, LLC, this S—,,A day of. uly, 2005. NIANAGETVIENT COMMIT TEE - James Alban, IV 6XIIA6ft�-- Eileen T. Alban BA31306135.01 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Adjoining Property Owners MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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 I st floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street. NAME ADDRESS / PR0PF.RTY N17MRFR Name David K. & Brenda S. Gray Address P.O. Box 40 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Property # 33-A-88 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 33-A-89 & 33-A-90 CFJ Properties - DBA Flying J Travel Attn: Tax Dept. P.O. Box 150310 Ogden, UT 84415 33-9-1 A B White Hall, LLC. c/o 8531 Pulaski Highway 33-9-4 JCA IV White Hall,LLC. 8531 Pulaski Highway, Baltimore, MD 21237 33-9-6; 33-9-7 & 33-9-8 Robin L.V. & Joan F. Kibler 172 Ruebuck Road, Clearbrook, Va 22624 33-5-21 & 33-5-22 Roy A. Cooper 224 Ruebuck Road, Clearbrook, Va 22624 33-5-23 Page 18 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Name Greggory S. Grove aaar280 Ruebuck Road, Clearbrook, Va 22624 Property # 33-5-24 The Interstate Orchard, Inc. P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 23-A-17 Edward L., Jr. & Nancy Lee Bulter 1333 Rest Church Road, Clearbrook, Va 22624 23-A-14 Edward L. Bulter, Jr. & ETAL 1333 Rest Church Road, Clearbrook, Va 22624 23-A-13 Basma Khalid 1287 Rest Church Road, Clearbrook, Va 22624 23-8-14 Kevin L. & Tammy F. Enns 114 Ruebuck Road, Winchester, Va 22624 23-8-15 Manuel C. Dehaven 4273 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, Va 22624 33-A-100 Paul E., Sr. & Shirley Clark 4317 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, Va 22624 33-A-101 D & 33-A-101 C Burkhart Properties, LLC P.O. Box 37 Clearbrook, VA 22624 33-A-101 B Reimer Electra Steam, Inc. P.O. Box 37 Clearbrook, VA 22624 33-A-97; 33-A-98; 33-A-99 & 33-A-101 A Robert W. & Virginia G. Compton 4455 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, Va 22624 33-A-96 & 33 -A -96A Page 19 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package 44F9 Aflartinchi irn Pike ('.IAarhrnnk \/a 77F9d Name Timothy William Johnson Address J Property # p y 33-A-95 Professional Mobile Home Brokers 1790 Berryville Pike Winchester, VA 22603 33-9-5 Page 19 • J COUNTY of F G4 DERIC;K Department of Planning aiad Dec elopment MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 FAX: 546/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director fir SUBJECT: Amending the Planning Commission's Bylaws Creation of Roles and Responsibilities DATE: June 8, 2006 Earlier this year, a Bylaws Committee was established and tasked with reviewing the Planning Commission's Bylaws. This committee considered the existing bylaws and other areas in which the operations of the Planning Commission may be enhanced. The Committee's discussion resulted in two proposed documents: a revised Bylaw, and a new Role and Responsibilities document. These proposed documents will be presented for an initial review by the Planning Commission during their June 21, 2006 public meeting. As the Planning Commission's Bylaw states that the "bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice" (Bylaws, Section 9-1), no action will be expected during the June 21, 2006 meeting. This item will be scheduled for a second Planning Commission review, and action, during a future Commission meeting. Attachments ERL/bad 107 North akeat Street, Suite 201 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 DRAFT .................. DRAFT ....... 05/16/06 ............. DRAFT ............ DRAFT Changes identified: New text t1\1�111V VliRex�C PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS County of Frederick, Virginia Revisions discussed by Bylaws Committee 04124106 (rev. 5116106) ARTICLE I -AUTHORIZATION 1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section 15.2-2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Frederick County Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission." ARTICLE II - PURPOSE 2-1 The primary purpose of the Commission is to advise the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and to carry out all duties and functions described by the Code of Virginia, as amended. ARTICLE III -MEMBERSHIP 3-1 The membership of the Commission shall be determined by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as specified in Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick Coup . 3-2 Within the first month of initial appointment new Commissioner appointees shall 1) participate in an orientation to familiarize themselves with the operations of the Department and the Commission and 2) meet with planning staff representatives in an - 1 - effort to review and better understand specific . en da items prior to pxrticipatin in their first hvo (2) Planning Commission meetings ARUCLE IV -OFFICERS 4-1 Officers of the Commission shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The chairman and vice-chairman must be voting members of the Commission. The secretary shall be a member of the Commission or a county employee. 4-2 Selection 4-2-1 The officers shall be elected by the voting members of the Commission at the first meeting of the calendar year. 4-2-2 Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor at the first meeting of the calendar year. Elections of officers shall follow immediately. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire voting membership shall be declared elected. 4-3 Duties 4-3-1 The Chairman shall: 4-3-1-1 Preside at meetings. 4-3-1-2 Appoint committees. 4-3-1-3 Rule on procedural questions. A ruling on a procedural question by the chairman shall be subject to reversal by a two-thirds majority vote of the members present. 4-3-1-3 Report official communications. 4-3-1-4 Certify official documents involving the authority of the Commission. 4-3-1-5 Certify minutes as true and correct copies. 4-3-1-6 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission. 4-3-2 The Vice -Chairman shall: 4-3-2-1 Assume the full powers of the chairman u1 the absence or inability of the - 2 - chairman to act. 4-3-2-2 When acting as Chair, the Vice Chairman shall carry Gam out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission Chairman. 4-3-3 The Secretary shall: 4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings. 4-3-3-2 Ensure that the minutes of all Commission meetings are recorded. 4-3-3-3 Notify members of all meetings. 4-3-34 Prepare agendas for all meetings. 4-3-3-5 Maintain files of all official Commission records and reports. Official records and reports may be purged in accordance with applicable state codes. 4-3-3-6 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public meetings. 4-3-3-7 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the Commission. 4-3-3-8 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and functions of the Commission. 4-4 Term of Office 4-4-1 Officers shall be elected for a one-year term or until a successor takes office. Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the Commission. In such cases, the newly elected officer shall serve only until the end of the calendar year or until a successor takes office. 4-5 Temporary Chairman 4-5-1 In the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from any meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members a temporary chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice- chairman. ARTICLE V -COMMITTEES 5-1 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose. - 3 - 5-2 In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose for each committee. 5-3 Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman and will serve_ for a_term o one year. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or committee members on committee appointments. 5-4 Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or citizen volunteers. 5-5 The committees will elect a chairman and vice-chairman annually, 5-6 The chairman and vice-chairman of the Planning Commission shall be ex -officio members of every committee. 5-7 The committees_mav establish ad-hoc grouvs to assist in specific. carefully -defined tasks Lor a limited period of time. Important considerations for membership on the ad-hoc ,croup are skills and experience necessary to assist in providing acceptable solutions. Membership will be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee with concurrence b the Commission Chairman. ARTICLE VI - MEETINGS 6-1 Regular meetings shall be held at the time and place set by the Commission at the first meeting of each calendar year. 6-2 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and publication by the secretary. 6-3 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days before the meeting. 6-4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for Closed Sessions held in accordance with the provision specified under Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 6-5 Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. ARTICLE VII - VOTING 7-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or motion made unless a quorum is present. - 4 - 7-2 7-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting. ARTICLE VIII - OPERATING RULES 8-1 Order of Business for a regular meetin 8-1-1 Call to Order 8-I-2 Adoption of the Agenda 8-1-3 Consideration of Minutes 8-1-4 Committee Reports 8-1-5 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda 8-1-6 Public Hearings 8-1-7 Public Meetings 8-1-8 Planning Commission Discussion 8-1-9 Other 8-1-10 Adjournment 8-2 Minutes 8-2-1 The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting. The Chairman and Secretary shall sign all minutes following approval by the Commission certifying that the minutes are true and correct. Minutes made available to the public prior to formal approval by the Commission shall be clearly identified as a draft version of the meeting. 8-3 Procedures 8-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures. 8-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite recommendation is made. If a motion has been made and defeated, additional, different motions may - 5 - be made concerning the item under consideration. 8-3-3 The initial motion on an agenda item shall be made by a member representing the application's Magisterial District. If either District representative is absent or declines to make the initial motion, then any other Commissioner may act. 8-3-4 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures: 8-3-4-1 Report by County Staff 8-3-4-2 Presentation by Applicant 8-3-4-3 Citizen Comment 8-3-4-4 Rebuttal by Applicant 8-3-4-5 Discussion by Commission 8-3-4-6 Motion and Action by Commission 8-3-5 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the Chairman may allow public comment. 8-3-6 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information after the staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-7 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting may be made part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the Commission and are to be kept on file by the secretary. Such items need not be made part of the published minutes. 8-3-8 Public Hearings 8-3-8-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which hearings are required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or by the Code of Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and notifications provided as required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 8-3-8-2 The Chairman may establish special rules for any public hearing at the beginning of said hearing. These rules may include limitations on the time of staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-8-3 In addition to those required by law, the Commission may hold public hearings on any matter which it deems to be in the public interest. In such - 6 - cases, the public hearings shall follow all procedures described for public hearing in these bylaws. 8-3-9 Tabling 8-3-9-1 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to table agenda items if any one of the following situations occurs: A) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. B) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Frederick County. C) Insufficient information has been provided for the agenda item. D) Issues or concerns that arise during formal discussion of the agenda item warrant additional information or study. E) The applicant provides the Frederick County Planning Department with a written request to table the agenda item. F) The Frederick County Planning Department is advised of an emergency situation that prevents attendance by the applicant. G) The applicant fails to appear at the meeting in which the application has been advertised to appear. 8-3-9-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from a scheduled Planning Commission meeting one time. The Planning Commission shall table the application for a specific period of time to ensure that the requirements of Section 165-10 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are not exceeded unless the applicant requests a waiver from this requirement. 8-3-9-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall be re -advertised for consideration by the Planning Commission once the following steps have been completed: A) The applicant has requested in writing that the agenda item be considered by the Planning Commission. B) The applicant has provided all required information to the Frederick County Planning Department which addresses all concerns of the Planning Commission. - 7 8-3-84 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to act on an agenda item that has been tabled one time when the agenda item has been readvertised for a subsequent Planning Commission agenda. 8-3-10 Work sessions 8-3-10-1 The Commission may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of these bylaws shall not apply. 8-3-10-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. 8-3-10-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at least five days before the session. 8-3-10-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and discussion. 8-3-10-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session. 8-3-10-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required at a work session. 8-3-10-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all work sessions and the items discussed. 8-3-11 Adjournment 8-3-11-1 In no case shall the Commission consider any new items after 10:30 P.M. and in all cases the Commission shall adjourn by 11:00 P.M. ARTICLE IX - AMENDMENTS 9-1 These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting tne»zr5ersirip 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. 9-3 At +h first I a the �i.�L meeting o� the calendar year the By -Laws will be adopted. 8 .... DRAFT......... 05/16/06........... DRAFT.. FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (rev. 5-16-06) This document has been prepared to assist Frederick County Planning Commissioners in understanding what their role and responsibilities are in the myriad of activities that they accept as a member of the Planning Commission. This compilation is a companion document to the Commission's By -Laws. APPLICATION COMMUNICATIONS There are three primary sources of information gathered by and weighed by the Planning Commission in order to make quality planning recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. They are ex -parte communications, staff reports and public input. Ex -Parte Communications: Individual meetings between Commissioners and an applicant/developer regarding a specific application shall follow the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. During this discussion or at any other time prior to action taken by the Commission on the application, a Planning Commissioner should make no commitments or endorsements. Any new written materials provided by the applicant to any one Commissioner shall be made available to all commissioners and staff by the applicant prior to the application appearing on the agenda. To not do so will result in the application being tabled at the Planning Commission public hearing. Staff Application Briefing.: Prior to a public hearing being held, staff will hold a briefing for the Planning Commissioners regarding any application deemed sufficiently complicated/controversial to warrant detailed explanation. The purpose is to appraise the Commissioners regarding the details of the application, both those items that meet the ordinance and those that do not. This provides the opportunity for the Commissioners to have a common understanding of the application prior to the public hearing. The decision to hold a briefing on a specific application will be made jointly by the Director of Planning and the Chairman of the Planning Commission. In addition to complexity, the application shall be basically complete prior to scheduling the briefing. The applicant may attend, but will not have an active role in the briefing The briefing will follow the format of a Planning Commission work session as identified in paragraph 8-3-9 of the Commission's By -Laws. In no case will the scheduling of the staff briefing change the legal timeline for consideration before the Planning Commission before action is taken. Public Hearing/Meeting- Efficient and effective public hearings are an essential part of enabling the Commission to make reasoned recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Every attempt will be made to obtain focused and broad representation of opinion or information from the public. When possible specific time limitations will not be used. However, both rules of order as well as time constraints most appropriate for the specific application will be implemented when there is either large interest in or controversy regarding an application. One constant during this process on both the part of the public, the applicant and the Commission itself is civility and respect for information offered or a differing opinion. Deviation from this behavior is unacceptable. COMMISSIONER DEVELOPMENT: Each Commissioner shall be committed to preparing for and keeping knowledge current in order to do the most effective job for the community. New initial appointees should strive to obtain Planning Commissioner certification from an acceptable training program within the first year of appointment. This training is supported by the Planning Department budget Further continuing education through many offerings should be pursued and will be supported by the Planning budget as possible. These opportunities should be shared amongst the number of Commissioners who are serving. Examples include CPEAV's annual meeting, other special offerings as well as the American Planning Association's readings and meetings. A library is maintained by the Planning office. COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE Commissioners are expected to participate in 80% of the regularly scheduled 1"71P_Pt.."_ 11 vaar. 11/�e�mborJ ��11 cannot a lelld a IIICetllly` UUP to Illness, �Q nc. y business, other governmental or family reasons should attempt to notify the Commission Chairman and staff Administrative Assistant prior to the scheduled meeting in order for the absence to be noted. It may affect quorum considerations. Especially essential is preparation and readiness for each of the Commission's meetings in order to use not only the Commission's but the staff's and public's time wisely. COMMISSION COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: Appointments to a Commission committee or liaison assignments are made by the Chairman and shared by the membership. Generally, they involve a once per month meeting. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Each Commissioner needs to be familiar with Commonwealth of Virginia information on conflict of interest. If a Commissioner is unsure if there is conflict, the County's Attorney is the correct resource. Upon determination that there is or might be perceived to be a conflict, the Commissioner should state immediately after the agenda item is read that recusal action is necessary (with, preferably, stating the reason) then step down from the dais until the item is concluded. APPEARANCE BEFORE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: Commissioners are citizens, too. If there is an item before another public body that is of interest, the Commissioner should participate, but not identify themselves as members of the Frederick County Planning Commission unless acting in an official capacity.