Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 11-01-06 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia November 1, 2006 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for themeeting............................................................................................................... (no tab) 2) September 20, 2006 Minutes........................................................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Rezoning #12-06 of Carriage Park, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 30.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, and 15.18 acres from MHl (Mobile Home Community) District to RP District, totaling 45.44 acres, with proffers, for 165 single family attached and detached homes. The properties are located south and adjacent to Route 7, east and adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Horne Park in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 55-A-161, 55 -A - 165A, 55-A-166, 55-A-167, 55 -A -167A, 55-A-168, 55 -A -174A, 55 -A -174B, and 55 -A -174D. Mr.Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B) 6) Rezoning #14-06 of Glaize Property, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone 1.38 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The property is located on the southwestern quadrant of the intersection of Northwestern Pike (Route 50)/Round Hill Road (Route 803)/Retail Boulevard, in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 52-A-252. Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (C) 7) Eastern Road Plan. Proposed amendment to the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan to alter the Eastern Road Plan. Mr. Bishop....................................................................................................................... (D) PILE COPY PUBLIC MEETING 8) Master Development Plan #13-06 for Cedar Meadows, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to develop 30.6 acres of RP (Residential Performance) zoned property with 140 single family small lot detached units. The property is located on the west side of White Oak Road (Route 636), approximately 2,600 feet south of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road (Route 642), and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 75-A-106, 75-A-107, 75-A-114, 75-A-115, 75-A-116 and 86-A-153 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Ms. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (E) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 9) Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment 06-06 of Clearview, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to encompass 130.07 acres to enable residential land uses. The four properties are located south of Hopewell Road (Route 672) and west of Interstate 81. The subject parcels are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-75, 44-A-1, 44-A-3 and 44-A-313 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Ms. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (F) 10) Other 0 0 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on September 20, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Christopher M. Mohn, 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; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Candice E. Perkins, Planner II; Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner---- Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of August 16, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Prolzrams Subcommittee (CPPS) — 09/11/06 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed the Eastern Road Plan and they also received an update of the UDA (Urban Development Area) Study, along with a profile of future steps. Commissioner Light said the CPPS discussed two Comprehensive Policy Plan amendments sent by the Board of Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1854 Minutes of September 20, 2006 -2 - Supervisors, which included: Clearview and the Luthern Church on Route 50. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 9/19/06 Mtg. Conunissioner Oates reported that the HRAB had three items on their agenda: The Village of Opequon, an RP subdivision proposal, was postponed because the applicant was not available; an application for a historic plaque for Valley Mill Farm on Valley Mill Road was recommended for approval; and they discussed the proposed extension of power lines from Meadowbrook towards the east and the possible historic impacts associated with that extension. Sanitation Authority (SA) — 9/19/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that Mr. John Whitacre spoke about the various projects the SA has been working on throughout the year. He said Mr. Whitacre reported the SA has reviewed 300 projects this year, 34 projects have been completed, and another 120 projects are underway and currently active. He reported that the SA began work on a gravity water and sewer line in the Senseny Road area; and this month, they are getting ready to start their new 7,000 square -foot headquarters building. Development Impact Model Oversight Committee (DIM -OC) Commissioner Manuel reported that the DIM -OC will meet next Friday, September 22, at noon. He said the primary discussion will be based on the bonded versus pay-as-you-go funding consideration for the model. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chainnan Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 Page 1855 -3 - PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #08-06 of Ronald D. DeHaven for a country general store at 5057 Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50). This property is further identified with P.I.N. 39-A-39 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Planning Technician, Kevin T. Henry, reported that the property has frontage along Route 50 Eastbound as well as South Hayfield Road (Rt. 600). He said the single 2,516 square -foot structure on the property, formerly used as a post office, will be reduced in size by 476 square feet to allow for a loading space; the proposed business will require 11 parking spaces. Mr. Henry said the parking lot will be accessed via the westernmost driveway along Route 50 Eastbound. Mr. Henry added that staff has suggested the applicant establish a driveway along South Hayfield Road (Rt. 600) as well. He said the easternmost driveway will be closed to avoid traffic crossing Route 50 at the Hayfield intersection and entering the property illegally; the applicant has offered to close this entrance by placing grass and a fence along the current entrance. Mr. Henry next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Commissioner Unger commented that this site has been in business for a very long time and entering the business from Route 50 has always worked; he questioned why the staff wanted to change that now. Mr. Henry said the business was originally nonconforming and since it has been vacant for so long, it has to re- establish itself through the zoning ordinance. Mr. Henry said the existing entrance is not safe, even though a vehicle would only be traveling a short distance in the wrong direction. Commissioner Mohn inquired if there will be ample distance from the main road, Northwestern Pike, to achieve the recommended entrance on Hayfield Road. Mr. Henry replied that 70 feet off Route 50 is required and the applicant has about 100 feet. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Cominission members asked the applicant what he intended to sell in the store. Mr. Ronald DeHaven, the applicant, replied that he would like to offer fresh meats, staples such as bread, butter, milk, and fresh fruits and vegetables from local growers. Commissioner Triplett asked the applicant if he could operate satisfactorily with the County's expectations on the driveways. Mr. DeHaven replied no; he said Route 600 has safety factors during the winter; he said a store has been operating at this location for the past decade and the existing entrance/exit has always worked. Mr. DeHaven said the shrubs between the two entrances will have to be removed because they block site distance, but he would prefer to keep the existing entrance/exit. Commissioner Triplett agreed about the length of time the structure has operated as a store and a post office and he didn't think the applicant would get much business traffic heading West. Mr. DeHaven agreed he would not get the business traffic heading West, if the eastern entrance is closed and no other put in; he said people would have to drive '/2 to '/4 mile out of their way to hit the next crossover and come back down. Commissioner Triplett asked if VDOT had comments. Mr. DeHaven said he met with VDOT representatives at the site and an entrance coming in off Route 600, is feasible; however, VDOT was concerned about the winter conditions. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 % I Page 1856 -4 - Commissioner Watt asked the applicant if he was comfortable with Condition 95, "... no outdoor display of merchandise," since he planned to sell fruits and vegetables. Mr. DeHaven said he was not comfortable with that particular condition. He said he would prefer to sell both inside and outside. Chairman Wilmot noted the Health Department's comment that there will be no increase in water usage. She asked the applicant for the anticipated number of employees, if there would be any other operations on the property besides sales, and what was the condition of the septic system. Mr. DeHaven replied that the septic system is in good condition; he anticipated two -to -three employees; and the Health Department calls for the site not to exceed 300-500 gallons of water usage per day. Some Commission members expressed concern about closing the easternmost entrance to the site because they believed it would affect the amount of business traffic Mr. DeHaven would get; they said the existing entrances have been used safely for many years at this site for previous businesses and the old post office. Other Commissioners did not want to see traffic turning onto the eastbound lane of Route 50, even for a short distance, to get into the site because of safety reasons. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, commented that staff was not regulating or placing parameters on what happens on Route 600, but were simply suggesting the applicant try to establish the entrance. Mr. Lawrence said the staff is willing to work with the applicant and VDOT to find a safe location, if they wish to establish the entrance on Route 600. Members of the Commission believed a country store at this location was appropriate and in consideration of the staff's comments to work with the applicant and VDOT to accommodate satisfactory entrances for the site, they were in favor of the conditional use permit with the removal of the phrase within the recommended conditions prohibiting outdoor display. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Watt, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #08-06 of Ronald D. DeHaven for a country general store at 5057 Northwestern Pike (Route 50), with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. An engineered site plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County prior to business activities occurring on site. Parking lot standards and landscape consistent with commercial zoning will be required. 3. One non -illuminated, free-standing business sign shall be allowed on the property; the sign shall be limited to 25 square -feet in area and shall not exceed 10 feet in height. The existing sign is of a permissible size until a new sign is created; at which time, the existing sign would have to be removed. 4. Only one entrance onto Route 50 and Route 600 shall be permitted. The existing easternmost entrance along Northwestern Pike (Route 50) shall be permanently closed. 5. No fuel sales will be permitted. Any expansion or change of use will require a new conditional use permit. Total structural area shall not exceed 2,600 square -feet. Frederick County Planning CommissionD Minutes of September 20, 2006 N I rage i ts� i FV -5 - (Commissioner Ours was absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #11-06 of Abram's Chase, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.25 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers for 14 single-family homes on small lots. This property fronts on the north side of Senseny Road (Rt. 657), adjacent to the Parkwood Manor Subdivision. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 65 -A -27A and 65 -A -28A in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 90 Days Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the Abram's Chase application is a request to rezone 3.25 acres to the RP (Residential Performance) District to accommodate 14 single-family, small -lot units with an overall density of 4.3 traits per acre. Ms. Perkins said the site is within the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan as proposed residential and is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Ms. Perkins next summarized the proffer statement submitted by the applicant. She noted that the recreational amenities provided with the proffer were in -lieu of a community center building, if waived by the Board of Supervisors. She commented that staff believed this proffer is inappropriate because a waiver cannot be sought for the community center until the master development plan (MDP) stage ofthe process. Ms. Perkins also reported that staff has identified a number of issues that still need to be resolved by the applicant. Specifically, this application has not addressed the Senseny Road improvements, the construction of a bike/pedestrian facility, inter -parcel connections, monetary proffers, and the recreational requirements of the development. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering was representing the property owner, Harvest Communities, Inc., in this rezoning application. Mr. Wyatt said that regarding the inter -parcel connectivity, the adjoining developments have been designed in such a fashion where connectivity is not conducive for roads like Park -wood Circle or the roads in their project. Regarding the Senseny Road improvements, he said they were willing to construct both an additional travel lane along the frontage of their property, as well as a turn/taper lane; however, the construction of these improvements would necessitate them eliminating their previous proffer of $1,000 per unit trader Transportation Enhancements. Mr. Wyatt said since the north side of Senseny Road has now been established as the County's designated area for the bicycle/ pedestrian facility, they would be willing to construct the ten -foot asphalt pedestrian trail within their road efficiency buffer. He added that they were also willing to amend their proffer statement to reflect the new fiscal impact model amount that was recently adopted by the Board. Commissioner Unger asked Mr. Wyatt about the possibility of doing an inter -parcel connector at the cul-de-sac to the east, in case that area would develop in the future. Mr. Wyatt pointed out a drainage area through that particular location; he said it could be difficult and expensive to build a road system through there, especially for the few parcels it would benefit. In addition, he said it would compromise the area where they planned to place their recreational amenities. He also pointed out that the other open area on the site was designated for their stormwater detention. Con-.missior_er Derr inquired if the vacant lot on Parkwood Circle could possibly be acquired to tie into Park -wood Circle. Mr. Wyatt said they had not looked into that possibility. Commissioner Oates commented that the wetlands study within the application involved simply examining the County's GIS database, which in his experience, was lacking. Commissioner Oates asked Mr. Wyatt if he had a professional look at the wetlands, since a considerable amount of this property was within the Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 % Page 1858 Q. floodplain. Mr. Wyatt said they assumed the low area of the property will have wetlands; he said the County Engineer is requesting a wetlands delineation study to be submitted with the MDP. Commissioner Oates said that if the wetlands go far enough to the west, the applicant may lose an entire block of housing below the road; he said the applicant may have to think about moving the road and placing homes just on one side. Mr. Wyatt said that as a result of a site -distance study they conducted, the location of the road is pretty much set. Mr. Wyatt assured the Commission the wetland delineation study will be conducted, if the rezoning is approved. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Wyatt if the parcel remaining on Senseny Road was a residence; she asked if there was an opportunity for that lot to tie into this project's road. Mr. Wyatt replied there was a mobile home on the site. Mr. Wyatt said they would not have a problem, if the owner desired to do that. He said they could grant them an access easement to do so. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments. Ms. JoAnn Leonardis, a resident of the Red Bud District, came forward to speak in opposition to this rezoning. Ms. Leonardis said that just because there is a similar development next door, does not mean there should be another one like it and it doesn't mean it is the right thing. She said that just because there are other neighborhoods without connectivity, does not mean another one should be built. Ms. Leonardis said the Planning Department's web site gives ten principles for smart growth and the first one is to create a shared vision of the future; she questioned whether the proposed development supported the County's vision for the future. She noted there was a considerable amount of vacant land adjoining this project and across Senseny Road; she questioned what would be proposed for those areas. Ms. Leonardis said there has been discussion about urban centers and planning for the future; she asked if the 14 homes proposed here was good planning. She noted the second principle for smart growth was to identify and sustain green infrastructure; she suggested the wetlands here be made into something beautiful, with a public place and pedestrian paths. There was no one else wishing to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that the inter -parcel connection is required by an ordinance adopted by the County in approximately June of 2005 and is not a debatable issue. Mr. Lawrence said this issue will have to be addressed, unless the inter -parcel connection is waived by the Board. Mr. Lawrence stated it was also not appropriate for the applicant to adjust the cash proffer contribution at this point in the process; he said when an applicant submits a rezoning application to the county for consideration, that is the model to be considered. Regarding the issue of the waiver of the community center, Mr. Lawrence said the ordinance states the waiver is sought at the MDP stage; however, if there is no required MDP, it is done at the subdivision stage. He explained that the Board of Supervisors will see either the MDP or the subdivision and that is the level where consideration of the waiver should be taken. In addition, Mr. Lawrence addressed the issue of the entrance separation along Senseny Road; he said the VDOT subdivision design manual recommends a 500 - foot separation; therefore, the 200 foot proposed certainly does not meet the desired separation. Commissioners said they were having difficulty finding any redeeming values in the proposal from a planning standpoint. They were also concerned this project may set a precedent for similar developments. The possibility of having six cul-de-sacs within a 1,200 -foot distance, each with 134 trips per day, was reason enough for concern, let alone the existing traffic problems along Senseny Road. They questioned whether approving this rezoning as presented would be good planning for Frederick County. Commissioner Mohn believed all of the comments made were a good representation ofwhere the County would like to proceed with development in the UDA. However, he was concerned about the next step for this particular area, which seemed to be a conglomeration of small parcels. He said this area is within the UDA Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 Page 1959 and it is planned for residential; he questioned how these parcels will be integrated to create good planning. hi fairness to the property owners, he said the County may be waiting a long time for land to assemble and come up with a solution. He suggested the County may be able to help, through the UDA Study, with identifying what the alternative could be and making sure it functions properly. Commissioner Kerr said he would like to see the applicant be given more time to address some of the issues because he believed there was a way to make this project work. He said he didn't support the project as it was presented, but, unfortunately, it is an in -fill situation, which makes it difficult. Commissioner Kerr suggested that the applicant be given the opportunity to go back and address the issues that were raised. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kerr and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby agree to table Rezoning # 11-06 of Abram's Chase, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.25 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District, for 90 days, in order to give the applicant time to address the issues raised. The vote was as follows: YES (TO TABLE): Unger, Watt, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Light, Wilmot, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn NO: Thomas (Note: Commissioner Ours was absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #10-06 of Albin Center, submitted by Artz & Associates, to rezone 2.07 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers for commercial use. The property is located on the east side of Bryarly Road (Rt. 789), approximately 800 feet south of the intersection with Burnt Church Road (Rt. 678). The property is further identified by P.I.N. 42-A-249 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Commissioner Manuel said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning, due to a possible conflict of interest. Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy reported that the applicant proposes to construct a two-story building with 25,000 square feet of floor space and a building height of 60 feet on a vacant site. Ms. Eddy said all of the properties surrounding this site are zoned RA (Rural Areas). She said the site is located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the Urban Development Area (UDA). Ms. Eddy said the site is within the Albin Rural Community Center of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Although the Comprehensive Plan was not specific regarding policies for the Albin Rural Community Center, there were some general policies, which she read for the Commission. One in particular said to promote "village commercial development at a scale and nature that is appropriate for the rural community center." She said typically, expected uses would be general store, bank, and restaurant in a rural community center; however, in this case, the proposal is for office use, which is not necessarily designed to serve the local community. She added that the height and size of the structure will be out of character and overwhelm its surroundings. She further added that the buildings in the Albin Rural Community Center are approximately 25 feet in height with an average of 2,000 square -feet of floor Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 Page 1860 am space. With the aid of a 3-D modeling program, Ms. Eddy next proceeded to show how the proposed building relates in scale to the surrounding community center. Regarding transportation issues, Ms. Eddy said Route 522 is a major arterial road and the Comprehensive Plan discourages private driveways on major arterial roads. She recommended that the access be via Bryarly Road, if the proposal is to function as a part of the Albin Rural Community Center. Also, Ms. Eddy said she was specifically asked by the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) to point out that the applicant did not attend the two meetings when this item was scheduled. She said the HRAB did finally provide comments without the benefit of an applicant presentation. She reported that the HRAB said the development was completely incompatible with the character and the context of the Albin Rural Community Center and they did not support the application. Suggestions given by the HRAB to possibly make the structure compatible were to use a series of smaller structures, instead of one large structure; the use of compatible materials similar to the surrounding area; and not to exceed a maximum height of 25 feet. Ms. Eddy next reviewed the proffer statement supplied by the applicant. She noted that the applicant is not limiting the proposal to office uses. She also noted that the Generalized Development Plan (GDP) is very detailed, which is cause for concern because the Planning Staff and other agencies are not reviewing the GDP for site plan compliance at this time. She said this presents the danger of site details slipping through without meeting zoning requirements. Mr. Michael Artz, with Artz & Associates, PLC, came forward to represent the property owners, Mr. David A. Hicks and Mrs. Linda W. Hicks, Mr. Artz said the GDP was detailed in order to give the Commission the opportunity to see the final site development. Mr. Artz believed the project was a good opportunity to provide employment for county residents; he pointed out this area does not have a lot of this type of use. Mr. Artz explained it was their intention to add some retail uses in order for this to be compatible with the Albin Rural Community Center, which was why the video rental, general merchandise retail, and miscellaneous retail were kept as part of the proffered uses. Regarding the entrances, Mr. Artz said he believed access into the site through Bryarly Road was important; however, at a minimum, there needs to be an exit out onto Route 522 to provide an opportunity to lessen traffic impacts on Bryarly Road. He said discussions with VDOT indicated the possibility for an entrance from Route 522, if an existing cross-over was closed and additional turning lanes were constructed. In addition, Mr. Artz said the Health Department has located a primary drainfield site and a reserve drainfield site and they are satisfied it meets the proposal's needs. He said the applicant is in the process of having these sites engineered for alternative drainfield sites. He stated that areas of the site designated as drainfield have not been disturbed. It was Mr. Artz's opinion that the structure was in character with the surrounding area; he realized it was larger, but it had roof lines and architectural details that separated it from the typical office building. He noted that this particular site was lower than the surrounding area and the height of the building may not be so out of character. He said they proffered not to exceed 60 feet in height, but in all probability the building would be about 50 feet in height. Commissioner Oates inquired about the amount of usage the septic fields could handle; he said that medical office use and restaurant use has much higher water usage than a typical office use. Mr. Oates was concerned about the applicant using an infiltration system, since the site had already been disturbed. Mr. Artz said they will not be installing an infiltration system; he said they will be utilizing underground storage. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Artz why the applicant was asking for a 60 -foot height when it appears the structure is only two stories; he said if the building could be constructed at 35 feet, it would probably be more in scale with the surrounding area. He also inquired about the possibility of building two or three smaller structures connected by walkways so the building would not appear to be so massive. Mr. Artz replied that the 60 feet was the code limitation; however, as they've proceeded with this project, they've determined that the height Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 Page 1861 WON of the building would probably be about 48 feet. He said his client is trying to maintain the architectural facade with the steep roof lines, which they feel is more in keeping with the area. Mr. Artz again noted that the site is lower than the surrounding area. Mr. Artz said he would change the proffer to read 50 -feet in height, instead of 60 feet. Commissioners talked with Mr. Artz about sewage discharge sites. Mr. Artz said there were two locations on the site plan; he pointed out the primary installed drainfield site and the reserve drainfield site. They asked Mr. Artz if the Health Department determined a maximum number of employees within the building. Mr. Artz felt it was too early to know; he said they first need to identify the uses. Commissioners asked Mr. Artz ifhe would be able to meet the maximum parking and buffer criteria, especially since there were no B2 uses proffered out. Commissioners were concerned about the wide range of uses the applicant had requested to be left available and the square footage proposed. They believed a great deal more water consumption and waste production could occur with intensive use of the site. They questioned the appropriateness of putting 25,000 square feet of floor area on a septic system on a two -acre lot because of the unknowns dealing with the septic capabilities, the stonmwater management capabilities, and the parking capabilities. There was also concern about the transportation impact because the range of uses had not been determined. Mr. David Hicks, the property owner, said the drainfield will be under the parking lot. He said Mr. Bob Holmes of Greenway Engineering designed the system and it has been approved by the Health Department. Mr. Hicks said there will be 94 parking spaces and there will be 2,000 square -foot offices. He said the health system is approved for 1,050 gallons per day, times two, because no one will occupy the building at night. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Ms. Cheryl A. Lineweaver, a 13 -year resident of the Albin community, along Bryarly Road, in the Gainesboro District, came forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Lineweaver presented written statements from Albin residents who could not attend this evening's meeting, but who were also in opposition to the structure size and the rezoning. Ms. Lineweaver said the residents of Albin were not interested in restaurants or retail stores. She said this proposal does not fit into their neighborhood. She said the Albin community consists of small homes with country folk. She said they were concerned about any increased traffic on Bryarly Road because of all the people and children that walk and play on their roads. She said they have a problem with the speed limit now at 45 mph. She said Bryarly Road was one of the last roads to be cleared of ice and snow during winter. Mr. Donald Kidwell, a resident at 169 Dunbar Lane, was concerned about the potential for increased storm water run-off onto his property. He said when Route 522 was constructed, part of this ground was held as a water -holding area for Route 522. He thought the proposed structure was too large to be placed on a two -acre parcel. Mr. Kidwell said the neighbors were worried their wells would become polluted; he said the community does not need this building. Mr. Wayne Burr, a resident at 255 Bryarly Road, also commented that the residents of Albin Village do not want this building. He said his family's farm is over 100 years old; he felt the proposed structure would take away from the rustic farm -community look of Albin. He said the residents of Albin believe the existing traffic on Bryarly Road is too heavy. Mr. Burr said the community residents ride horses up and down the road; he said children and pets play on the road. Mr. Burr said he has a tractor and takes care of snow removal for the neighbors and it works out satisfactorily; he said they do not want to see commercial trucks in their community doing this work.. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 Page 1862 -10 - Mr. Ronald L. Lineweaver, the husband of Cheryl Lineweaver who previously spoke, said his parents moved to Albin when he was one-year old and he is now 52. Mr. Lineweaver spoke about the elderly residents who cross Bryarly Road daily to get their newspapers. He described Albin as a country community and the residents wanted to keep it that way. He said the 35 -foot building that was recently constructed in Albin looks out of place and one can not help but notice it; he said this proposal is for a structure much larger. Mr. Lineweaver was also concerned about run-off because he lived in a low area, known as the hollow. Ms. Betty Kidwell, said she has lived in the hollow for 61 years. She said there was an old, three-bedroom house on this site; she was concerned where all the septic would go for an office building of this size. Ms. Kidwell commented that there were convenience stores, fast food restaurants, and grocery stores five minutes down the road and she felt this retail building was not needed. Ms. Kidwell believed such a large building would spoil the neighborhood because it would not blend in with the surrounding homes. Ms. Rita Crosen, a resident of Gainesboro District, was opposed to the project. She didn't believe everything had been thought through with this proposal and that possibly, the whole story had not been provided. Ms. Crosen said she and her husband lived about 3/10 mile up the road from this site for 47 years and raised their family. She said that all ages reside in this community and it consists of average -sized homes. She was concerned about the traffic on Bryarly Road; she said there is very little shoulder room on Bryarly Road for joggers and pedestrians; she mentioned that many children ride their bicycles on the road. Ms. Crosen believed this new structure would add a great deal of traffic to the area. She said there was no public water here. She said because the uses were unknown, no one knows how much water will be pumped out. She was concerned about the residents' wells continuing to function properly. She felt there should be a better place in the county for a building of this size, not in this family-oriented community. Ms. Sharon Robinson, an adjoining property owner, was also opposed to the rezoning. Ms. Robinson was concerned about the hours of operation for some of the proposed retail stores. She was concerned about the amount of traffic into the late evening hours with a retail use. She was also concerned about the water runoff in the low-lying areas. Ms. Rita Hester, an adjoining property owner, said the applicant's reserve septic site was very close to her property and she was not pleased. She said that if there is a problem with the septic, she would be the one to experience it and she did not want to be the one trying to figure out who would fix the problem. She said this area is all residential; she said she would like to see the zoning stay as rural use. She concurred with all the statements made by the Planning Staff concerning the reasons why this use and structure were inappropriate. She said there is considerable existing traffic. She said the entryway at Route 522 and Burnt Church is difficult now. She said that she is concerned with possible crime with retail and general merchandise sales, or even restaurants. She was concerned about rodents, noxious smells, and security lights. She said she can see the security lights from the new Shade Equipment building, nearly one mile away. Ms. Hester said the character of the building does not fit in with the community and the residents do not want the zoning changed on this property. Since everyone who wished to speak had been given an opportunity to do so, Chairman Wilmot closed the public cormnent portion of the meeting. Mr. Artz returned to the podium to address some of the comments that were made. Mr. Artz said he would be willing to eliminate the access on Bryarly Road to satisfy the residents concerns about increased traffic. He said he would also adjust the height of the building. He commented that every site has its particular issues that are unique and they will work within the constraints of the zoning regulations to address the pal u-luiar issues of this site. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 Page 1863 -11 - Commissioner Kriz commented that none of the citizens who spoke were in favor of the rezoning and did not believe the structure or the proposed use fit in with their community. He also thought there were too many uncertainties with the proposal. Commissioner Morris believed the uniqueness of each rural community center should be defined in a. land use plan according to the views of the citizens who live there. Commissioner Mohn added that the Comprehensive Policy Plan does not support this proposed commercial use at this location. Commissioner Kriz moved to deny the rezoning request and the motion was seconded by Commisioner Triplett. The motion passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT The Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of Rezoning #10-06 of Albin Center, submitted by Artz & Associates, to rezone 2.07 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District for commercial use. The vote was as follows: YES (TO DENY REZ.) Unger, Watt, Morris, Oates, Light, Thomas, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn, Wilmot ABSTAIN• Manuel (Commissioner Ours was absent from the meeting.) AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR A VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT GRANT TO IMPLEMENT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY OF SENSENY ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. Action — Recommended Approval Transportation Planner, John A. Bishop, reported that staff has been working on developing an application for a VDOT Enhancement Grant, which is basically federal funds that come through VDOT and are distributed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mr. Bishop explained there is a 20% required match with an award; however, the application itself does not obligate County funds. He further explained that if there is an award, the Board of Supervisors would determine at that time whether to put forth County funds. Mr. Bishop stated that for this year's application cycle, the staff has recommended an application for enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. He said the proposed project would add paved multi -use paths to the northern and southern sides of Senseny Road between Meade Drive and Williamson Road. Mr. Bishop said this is a border area between Red Bud and Shawnee Districts and is at the heart of the most populated districts in the County. Mr. Bishop stated that the plan was reviewed by the Transportation Committee on August 28, 2006 and they gave their unanimous endorsement. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 Page 1864 Commissioner Kriz, a member of the Transportation Committee, said all members of the Transportation Committee were very supportive of this endeavor and he saw no reason why the Planning Commission should not support it. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval for authorization to apply for a Virginia Department of Transportation Enhancement Grant to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. (Commissioner Ours was absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #I1-06 for Freedom Manor, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to develop 26.87 acres of RP (Residential Performance) zoned property with 70 single-family homes. The property fronts on the east side of Papermill Road (Rt. 644), approximately 2,300 feet west/ northwest of the intersection of Papermill Road and Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522). The property is further identified with PIN 64-A-23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that this master development plan (MDP) is an application to develop 70 single-family detached urban dwellings on property which was rezoned to RP (Residential Performance) in 2005 with proffers. She noted that access to the site is proposed via one primary entrance onto Papermill Road (Rt. 644) and one entrance onto Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522) which will use a traffic -calming method to discourage cut -through traffic. Ms. Perkins next reviewed with the Commission some of the significant proffers associated with the rezoning. She concluded by stating that the MDP is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and has addressed all of staff's concerns_ Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering was present to represent the applicant, Steve A. DeBrueler, et als and the Freedom Manor project. Chainnan Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Larry Omps, owner of the adjoining property, Omps Funeral Home, at 1260 Front Royal Pike, said he had no opposition to the MDP. However, Mr. Omps expressed concern about the traffic -calming measure to be incorporated with this development. He said the funeral home can not control the size ofvisitations and through past experience, they have had automobiles parking allover the roads in the evening. Mr. Omps was concerned that emergency vehicles may not be able to get through the traffic -calming area, if vehicles from the funeral home have parked along that part of the street. Since there was no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 Page 1865 -13 - Commissioner Kriz asked Mr. Wyatt if the traffic calming feature could be moved. Mr. Wyatt said the location of the choker was shown on the proffered GDP with a 56 -foot right-of-way throughout the entire lane. Mr. Wyatt said they would be willing to slide the choker up or down, as long as it doesn't impact any lots or impede their ability to locate a driveway entrance on a lot. Upon motion made by Commissioner Moms and seconded by Commissioner Kerr, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #11-06 for Freedom Manor, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to develop 26.87 acres of RP (Residential Performance) zoned property with 70 single-family homes. (Commissioner Ours was absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION Discussion of an amendment to Section 165-55 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance regarding building setbacks in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) is seeking to improve existing setback distances and clarification; he said the DRRS believed the proposed amendments would clear up any confusion regarding adjoining land uses and avoid conflicts with active agricultural uses. Mr. Cheran stated that the proposed changes would also apply to family division lots; he said currently, family lots need only 50 feet for side and rear setbacks, regardless of the adjoining uses. Conunissioner Thomas raised the possibility of revising the second category, Residential/ Agriculture/ Vacant 5.1 acres or more, to 200 feet rather than 100. He raised the example of an existing, vacant agricultural lot; an orchardist, for example, would be required to put in a 100 -foot setback to re-establish his orchard, thereby losing trees originally placed up to the property line. A suggestion was made to add a fourth category, Residential 5.1 acres or more at 100 feet. Conunissioner Kriz agreed. Referring to Commissioner Thomas's example, he said even ifone orchard isn't replaced by another, it could be replaced by a small fruit farm and there would be spraying. He said with the recent changes in agriculture and more niche marketing, it would make sense to increase the setback. Other Commission members agreed agriculture should be protected as much as possible Commissioner Oates questioned whether 5.1 acres of land could be classified as agriculture; he thought 20 acres or more would be more appropriate. Commissioner Oates recommended eliminating the 100 foot setback and using the classification, Agriculture/Orchard/Agricultural & Forestal Districts 20 acres or greater. Commissioner Mohn commented that if a legally non -conforming lot is adjacent to an orchard or agriculture, a 100 or 200 foot setback is required for their dwelling. He said if the non -conforming status makes it difficult or impossible to build with this setback, the owner has the option of going to the BZA with a hardship. He believed the primary objective was a matter of protecting the agricultural uses and potential agricultural lands from encroachment or incompatible land uses, regardless if it was an orchard or a cornfield, all deserved the same protection. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 Page 1866 -14 - Commissioner Morris agreed with the larger setback as well. He suggested the possibility of considering a waiver in the rare occasions when the setbacks can not be accommodated. Commissioner Oates noted that within the City of Winchester, the Zoning Administrator has the ability to grant a waiver up to a certain percentage of the sideyard setbacks. He thought the DRRS might possibly consider this for the County during their discussions. Commissioner Oates said that if it was within the Zoning Administrator's power to grant a waiver, a person may not have to go to the BZA if the footage is close. He anticipated the possibility of a considerable number of cases going to the BZA, if there is no mechanism for an easier solution. Mr. Cheran suggested this item be taken back to the DRRS for fiu-ther discussion and review and to incorporate the comments received from the Planning Commission. Commission members agreed. OTHER REVISED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL Chairman Wilmot announced the distribution of a new, revised development impact model which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 2006. She said it may not be unusual to see these revisions annually as figures change and become further refined. VESTED RIGHTS Chairman Wilmot suggested a discussion be held on the subject of vested rights at the Planning Commission's next regularly scheduled meeting. THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING Commissioner Oates stated that the three-dimensional modeling used by the staff at this evening's meeting was very valuable and he believed the Planning Department needed to look into budgeting money and obtaining that software for future use. Commissioner Thomas suggested the possibility of having the applicants submit it as part of the application. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 Page 1867 -15 - ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned by a unanimous vote at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary &�I Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006 Page1868 REZONING APPLICATION 412-06 CARRIAGE PARK Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 17, 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: November 1, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: December 13, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 30.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, and 15.18 acres from MH1 (Mobile Home Community) District to RP District, totaling 45.44 acres, with proffers, for 165 attached and detached homes. LOCATION: The properties are located south and adjacent to Route 7, east and adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55-A-161, 55 -A -165A, 55-A-166, 55-A-167, 55 -A -167A, 55-A-168, 55 -A -174A, 55 -A -174B, and 55 -A -174D PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District and MH1 (Mobile Home Community) District PRESENT USE: Mobile Home Community, residential, and vacant. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential and Agricultural East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential West: MH1 (Mobile Home Community) Use: Mobile Home Community PROPOSED USES: 165 attached and detached single family homes. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place October 17, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept of Transportation: I have reviewed your proffer statement dated August 10, 2006 and offer the following comments: With the volume of traffic currently utilizing Route 7, existing access points and the additional traffic generated by this site, the Residency feels access to this site provided through the Valley Mill Connector with no direct connection to Route 7 is needed. Item 12.7: The Residency suggests the wording be clarified on this proffer to reflect construction within 180 days of written request by VDOT. We feel this would ensure the installation of the traffic signal based on traffic conditions. Item 12.11: Residency suggests more flexibility should be provided to the County to meet overall transportation needs in this area of the County. The applicant has been open to addressing the needs of the transportation issues arising from this proposed development. However, we are concerned that within the context of the proffers, the desire of the Residency and County to connect this subdivision to Route 7 via the Valley Mill Road Relocation, while mentioned, it does not appear to be a priority. The application is requesting full build -out regardless of completing the connection to Valley Mill Road. Please see attached revised comments dated September 29, 2006.from Mr. Lloyd Ingram. Fire Marshal: Municipal water supplies for firefighting shall meet the requirements of Frederick County Code Section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company: OK. Note: Area Fire & Rescue Company is Greenwood Volunteer Fire & Rescue Co. Why no access off of Valley Mill Road? Public Works Department: Refer to Summary and Justification: The summary references proposed pment of 165 dwellings. This number does not correspond to the single family residential develo generalized development plan which indicates 161 dwellings. 2. Refer to Site Suitability: The table lopes. Based on our site visit summarizing environmental features indicates no wetlands and no steep s m and review of applicable topographic surveys, it appearsaster devth of these conclusions areelopment plan submittal with copies wetlands study should be performed prior to the furnished to the Corps of Engineers for their review and comment. Also, a more detailed topographic survey should be performed to allow the delineation of the steep slope areas. 3. Refer to Traffic: The discussion states that "The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) indicates that the study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions". Actually, the TIA does reach the above conclusion assuming that the referenced intersection improvements are made along Route 7. Currently, the cross-over at the intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7 is not adequate to accommodate the U-turn traffic a� -10—"'t Indicate=ghat guarantees the applicant will offer to ensure anticipated from the proposeu U��e�.,r=-=�=�� - - that these intersection improvements will be made prior to initiating construction on this site. 4. Refer to Site Drainage: The discussion indicates that low impact development techniques.... will mitigate adverse stormwater discharge impacts. Elaborate on what is meant by low impact development techniques as applied to this proposed site development. It appears that the proposed development will clear a majority of the wooded areas and strip a majority of the topsoil areas. 5. Refer to Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The statement is made that "consideration of curbside pick-up would be an Rezoning 412-06 — Carriage Place October 17, 2006 Page 3 improvement to solid waste issues associated with increased dumpster use in the County". This statement is not satisfactory. Existing dumpster sites in Frederick County are currently at capacity and will not accommodate new residential development. Therefore, any new development will be required via the Homeowners' Association or other means to provide curbside trash pickup. This function will not be an option; rather it will be a requirement. This statement should be corrected accordingly and revised in the Proffer Statement, Paragraph 9.2 iii (Delete "if they decide to use a commercial collection company.") 6. Refer to Proffer Statement, paragraph 12.1: The statement indicates that the applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. Indicate if this offer extends to improvements at/on the Route 7 intersection related to Valley Mill Road or possibly Haggerty Drive. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Frederick-Winchester Service Authori : The first item of concern is the application of a submeter for sewer flows. Based on the number of dwellings, it would seem to be an inappropriate way of measuring wastewater flows. We would like to see more detail relative to the design/construction of such a submeter if it would be acceptable. Sanitation Authority: The Opequon Water Reclamation Facility has sufficient capacity to accept floes from this development. The eight-inch water line through Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park might not provide the added demands of this project's 165 units. The developer will probably need to extend the water line on Valley Mill Road and connect it to this project. Frederick-Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection as long as sufficient public water and sewer service can be provided. Department of Parks & Recreation: Plan appears to offer appropriate monetary proffer to offset this development will have on the parks and recreational services provided by Frederick County. It is assumed that recreational and open space requirements will be addressed in future plans to be reviewed. The Parks and Recreation Department would also like to see a detailed pedestrian/bicycle trails plan which offers an internal network and provides connection to existing and future adjacent development. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 120 single family units will yield 11 high school students, nine middle school students and 25 elementary school students. The 90 townhouses will yield ten high school students, 11 middle school students, and 28 elementary school students for a total of 94 new students upon build-out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. Rezoning 412-06 — Carriage Place October 17, 2006 Page 4 Winchester Regional Airport: While the proposed development lies within the airport's Part 77 surfaces and airspace, it appears that the proposed site plan should not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. However, residents in this area could experience fly over noise from aircraft arriving and departing the Winchester Airport from the northeast. Frederick County Attorney: It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. While the Generalized Development Plan contains few details, nevertheless the proffer statement should include a proffer that provides that development shall occur in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development Plan. 2. In Proffer 1.1 it is provided that the residential development shall not exceed 165 dwelling units.. However, the GDP provides for a total of only 161 dwelling units. 3. The staff should determine whether the Site Access Point, the Interparcel Connection Point, and the Emergency Access Point are located with sufficient detail on the GDPA. With respect to Proffer 12.3, the staff should determine whether the interparcel connector location is appropriate, given any existing or planned streets on the adjoining parcel. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Historic Resources Adviso Board: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of June 20, 2006. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, as well as information provided by the applicant. The HRAB felt that the proffers associated with historic preservation and recognition was adequate, but made three recommendations which included: • Protect natural vegetation along Rt. 7 and Valley Mill Rd. to the greatest extent possible. • The backyard of the single family lots abutting the historical Stafford property need a vegetative protection buffer. • Install a roadside interpretive site which the HRAB decided would be more useful along Valley Mill Rd. as compared to placing it along Rt. 7. These recommendations made by the HRAB were addressed at the August 15, 2006 meeting. The HRAB felt that the rezoning application had thoroughly addressed their comments and recommended that this proposal move forward since there were no further issues. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated August 3, 2006 from Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place October 17, 2006 Page 5 Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the parcels for which the rezoning is being requested as being zoned a combination of A-1 Agricultural and MH Mobile Home zoning classifications. The County's A-1 and A-2 agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA (Rural Areas) District. The Mobile Home designation encompasses the original boundaries of the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. The most recent Site Plan for the development of the remaining areas of the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park was approved by the County on July 30, 1987. In 2005, a Boundary Line Adjustment Plat was approved by the County that reorganized the parcels that make up this rezoning request. Parcels 55-A-161, 55 -A -165A, 55-A-166, 55-A-167, 55-A-1 67A, 55-A-1 74A maintained the RA zoning classification. Parcels 55-A-168 and 55 -A -174D maintained the MH1 zoning classification. Parcel 55 -A -174A contains both the MH1 and RA zoning classification. The approval of this rezoning request would place all of the properties entirely into the RP zoning classification. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. I -]J Land Use The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use map designates the general area in which the Carriage Place property is located for residential land uses. The average overall residential density of the Urban Development Area should not exceed three units per acre. More specifically, the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that properties which contain less than one hundred acres but more than ten acres should not exceed 5.5 units per acre. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place October 17, 2006 Page 6 With the more urban densities envisioned for development in the UDA, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that special effort is made to provide the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the desired land uses and densities. As land is developed in the eastern portion of the Urban Development Area, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the preservation of the stream valleys as environmental open space as an important goal that contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. The goals of the Comprehensive Plan also include protecting the natural environment from damage due the identifip tion andent vprotect onavoiding of development in environmentally sensitive areas, and important natural resources. A balanced approach to providing necessary transportation infrastructure in the area of the project and promoting the protection of sensitive environmental areas and features is warranted. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial an collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). Route 7 is an arterial road whose character should be fully recognized in any rezoning application. Route 7 is characterized with high volumes of traffic traveling at rates of speed in excess of 55 miles per hour. Access management should be a key consideration. Valley Mill Road is identified as an improved major collector road in the County's Eastern Road Plan. In addition, Valley Mill Road is shown as being relocated to a new location and alignment. In 2005, modifications to the County's Eastern odPlan occurred f the changing traffic pattern n in the vicinity of this project. The modifications were completed in recognition the area, the recently approved Haggerty project which provided for a new Spine Road parallel to future Route 37, and the need to avoid the historically and environmentally sensitive areas in the vicinity of the one lane bridge over Abrams Creek. Valley Mill Road is designated as a major collector road that traverses south of its existing location, providing a new crossing of Abram's Creek, and connecting with the Haggerty Spine Road in the vicinity of future Route +; ;ill hP mile t0 tCo'ate'! dt ttii iov=^n nrPv"ously determined as t..._ 37. Ultimately, a connection ill part of the Haggerty project, directly opposite the future tnre�Tonas� w ter Treatmenramps of t Facility. Route This This location is immediately west of the Opeq approach furthers access management goals along Route 7. New development in the Urban Development Area en ldonly e Theroved when Comprehenswe Plan n and other infrastructure with sufficient capacity have provided identifies that a level of service "C" should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new Rezoning 412-06 — Carriage Place October 17, 2006 Page 7 developments and that traffic analysis should be provided by the applicants to ensure that needed road improvements are identified in order to maintain or improve upon the level of service. In some cases, new development may need to contribute to the provision, construction, or improvement of roads that are not adjacent to the development. In such cases, developments should contribute their fair share costs of road improvements needed to accommodate the traffic generated by a particular development. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The Carriage Place site has been identified as a site typical of the Martinsburg Shale Region with steeply eroded side slopes and reasonably level plain areas. This is an accurate identification that presents challenges when planning the development program for this property. Ash Hollow Run parallels Route 7 along the entire frontage of the property. Abram's Creek forms a portion of the eastern boundary of the property. A pond is located central to the property. These features and their associated slopes, natural drainage ways, and floodplains warrant particular attention and may also provide an opportunity for enhanced protection of the riparian corridor. The site is predominantly heavily wooded. The area of this site in floodplain, wetlands, ponds, streams and steep slopes has not been entirely identified in the application. By current County definition, this project contains relatively small areas of steep slopes. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the preservation of the stream valleys as environmental open space as an important goal that contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. The application proposes development of a greater intensity in the reasonably level wooded areas and offers areas that will be set aside for environmental and open space purposes. However, the revised road layout proposes access to the site from Valley Mill Road via a new crossing of Abram's Creek and its associated floodplain, in an area that contains the steepest slopes on the property. Protection of the integrity of the pond, environmental open spaces, and the riparian areas along Abram's Creek and Ash Hollow Run, especially during the construction phases, should be a greater consideration of this application and as part of the proffer statement. The Applicant has provided for a 15 foot no cut vegetative buffer along the southern portion of the project boundary with Valley Mill Farm as shown on the GDP. Current County Ordinance presently enables a 50 foot woodland strip to be utilized as a desirable and effective alternative to typical buffer and screening standards. A portion of the proposed buffer shown on the GDP is shown in a location where no existing vegetation exists. It would be appropriate for the application to more thoroughly address the preservation of the wooded buffer areas and the location and composition of any new buffer areas. Rezoning 912-06 — Carriage Place October 17, 2006 Page 8 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Im act Anal sis. A revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared al units (5 application On SePte Ingle family detached and 94 which projects that the dev2006 elopment of 165 residentialrthe single family attached residential units) would g ov ded via rate 1,3a singlvehice driveway one trips per day.to ex sp g was developed with access to the project being p Valley Mill Road, Route 659, immediately south of Valley Mill Road's intersection with Route 7. The TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated improvementsar gePark n place.ication are Suggested acceptable and manageable, assuming suggested improvements include the signalization of the intersection f Valley Mil ll Rof servoad e Routewith7t The TIA identifies that this intersection will function iounacceptable the suggested improvements. Trans ortation Pro ram. The Generalized Development Plan for Carriage Place Pre ouslytthe pplicantldesbgned the pulic road systems that will serve the residential development public road system with on site access to and from Carriage ue to significant te 7. concernlish Establishment this a new entrance onto Route 7 is strongly discourage approach, the applicant redesigned the road system. i tel Doth of e revised es intersectiad system on with Route primary access from exovides for isting Valley Mill Road, immediately 7, and north of the existing one lane bridge crossing of Abrams existing and adjacent section of Valley Mill Road in this area is insufficient to accommodate the traffic f from this projects, as is the existing intersection on Route 7. improvements ofered to be completed by the applo ant Valley Mill Ron of ad would be necessary and have been pr efined. The impact However, the scope of the improvements has not been to aalreafulydshould be evaluated.s of any improvements on the existing residences in this imm As noted previously, the Comprehensive Plan promotesan enhancemeffort to ent will provide for a more hance and relocate Valley Mill Road so that it serves as a major collector road. This efficient transportation network that also minimizes environmental and cultural impacts. Valley Mill Road is designated as a major collector road that traverses south of its existing ine Road at onthe provides a new crossing of Abram's Creek, and connects with the Haggerty Sp vicinity of future Route 37. Ultimately, a connectionproject, directlmodpoosiethe future on and off oute 7 at the location previously determined as part of the Haggerty prod Y p ramps of future Route 37. All efforts should be made t i pie rt the Pla ment mannerhe �dentified in the and make a safer and more efficient use of Valley Comprehensive Plan, as the primary access route to the development. Rezoning 412-06 — Carriage Place October 17, 2006 Page 9 The Carriage Place application has proffered the signalization of the intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7 which is identified in the TIA as having unacceptable levels of service. If it is ultimately determined that the approach proposed by the Applicant is acceptable, the applicant should guarantee the improvements to the intersection of Valley Mill and Route 7 occur in a manner that fully enables the implementation of the future signalization of the Route 37 southbound ramps, including vertical and horizontal designs. Further, should it be determined that the approach is acceptable, all improvements to enable the development and occupancy of the project should be completed at the outset of the project. The critical improvements to the intersection at Route 7 should be in place prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project, rather than by the issuance of the 76'h building permit as proffered by the applicant. This approach to improvements to Route 7 would be consistent with other projects in the vicinity. As an alternative to implementing the construction of the road network identified in the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution to transportation improvements in the general area. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000 per single family detached residential unit and $3,000 per single family attached townhouse unit for improvements in the general vicinity of the project, including the connection from this project to Valley Mill Road to the south, and the relocation of Valley Mill Road. This proffer may generate up to $641,000 and may be used as matching funds by Frederick County. It should be evaluated whether these contributions are adequate to address the impacts generated by this rezoning request and will facilitate the long range transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The road layout provides the potential for interparcel connection to the property to the south. An emergency access interparcel connection is proposed with the adjacent Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. However, this is proposed as a private connection. Inter -parcel connectivity of the public street system is a requirement of the zoning Ordinance and should be extended to the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. Consideration should be given to enabling a public road connection to the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park in the general location of the existing street network. Control of this access point should be at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors. Omitted from the transportation program are any additional accommodations for pedestrian circulation that would provide access internal to the project and ultimately to the adjacent residential developments. The comments offered by the Department of Parks and Recreation relating to this effort have not been addressed. In general, the general transportation program does not promote an approach thatfurthers the transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place October 17, 2006 Page 10 B. Sewer and Water The Carriage Place rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 32,200 gallons per day of water usage and approximately 32,200 gallons per day of wastewater. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester 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 The comment provided by the Frederick County Public Schools should be carefully considered when evaluating the application. The schools evaluation anticipates that the proposed 120 single family units will yield 11 high school students, nine middle school students and 25 elementary school students. The 90 townhouses will yield ten high school students, 11 middle school students, and 28 elementary school students for a total of 94 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Recent planning efforts have identified that the H"' elementary school opened in the fall of 2006 opened above its programmed capacity. This is based upon the transfer of students currently enrolled in area schools that exceed programmed capacities and the projected build out and occupancy of previously approved residential projects in the UDA. The 12`1' elementary school has been identified in the current Capital Improvements Plan for this general area of the UDA. However, no site has been located or construction initiated to address the needs of additional students generated in this area of the UDA. The Frederick County Development Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building have been calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The impacts associated with entirely residential projects are fixed at $23,290.00 for single family detached residential dwellings and $17,732 for single family attached residential dwellings. This application addresses community facility impacts and needs by proffering a payment in the amount of $23,290.00 for single family detached residential dwellings and $17,732 for single family attached residential dwellings to mitigate the impact to the identified community facilities. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place October 17, 2006 Page 11 For your information, the following is the breakdown of the projected impacts per dwelling unit for each capital facility taken from the Development Impact Model. For each single family detached unit: $720 for fire and rescue; $19,189 for schools: $2,136 for parks and recreation; $267 for library; $658 for public safety; and $320 for general government: $23,290 for capital improvements For each single family attached unit: $528 for fire and rescue; $14,618 for schools: $1,634 for parks and recreation; $204 for library; $503 for public safety; and $245 for general government: $17,732 for capital improvements No rezoning should be approved unless the net impacts on community facilities are positive, or if the negative impacts can be adequately addressed through proffers or some other means. A request for a rezoning may be turned down even though all fiscal impacts appear to be addressed (Comprehensive Plan 8-17). The comments relating to the impacts to the Frederick County Public Schools in this area of the Urban DevelopmentArea should be a significant consideration. 5) Proffer Statement—Dated January 25, 2006 and Revised February 2, 2006, May 23, 2006, June 28, 2006, August 10, 2006, and September 12, 2006. A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has provided a Generalized Development Plan for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of street systems, residential land use areas, and open space areas within the Carriage Place development. The GDP may be utilized to a greater extent to address the sensitive environmental features on the property, the buffering of the adjacent residential uses, and the historic context of Berryville Canyon, among other things. B) Land Use The applicants have proffered to limit the total number of residential uses to 165 dwelling units. No more than', 3 single family detached units and no more than 92 single family attached units may be constructed. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place October 17, 2006 Page 12 The applicant has committed to a phased introduction of the residential units over a three year period with the potential for seventy five units per year. This phased approach specifies that the date of final rezoning would commence the phasing of the issuance of building permits. In reality, this approach does nothing to effectively phase the introduction of new residential units. The intent of phasing is to ensure a timed integration of new development in a manner that would enable the timely provision of the public facilities necessary to serve the new development. It may be more desirable to have the annual allocation occur on consecutive years following the approval of the master development plan for this project. This would be consistent with several other recently approved rezoning applications. Regardless of the phasing approach, the comments relating to the impacts to the Frederick County Public Schools in this area of the Urban Development Area should be recognized. The monetary contributions to address the impacts to Schools and Parks and Recreation should more appropriately be directed to be used by the County at their discretion to address the needs of the future residents of this project. The limitation that has been proffered which specifies the Red Bud Magisterial District may not be appropriate. Transportation The applicant has proffered the signalization of the intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7, and a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000 per single family detached unit and $3,000 per single family attached townhouse unit for transportation improvements in the vicinity of the project. Historic Resource Protection The applicant has proffered a $25,000 contribution to the County for purposes associated with security fencing at Star Fort. The proffered buffers along Route 7, Berryville Canyon, are not accurately reflected on the GDP. However, this concept and the buffer and screening of adjacent properties, including the historical Valley Mill Farm, should be addressed to a greater extent as part of this application. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 09/20/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Carriage Place rezoning application, while generally consistent with future land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan, does not fully address the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the transportation impacts, the environmental impacts, and the capacities and capabilities of community facilities needed to serve the proposed land uses. At this time, the road improvements identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan are not fully addressed in the application. Rezoning #12-06 — Carriage Place October 17, 2006 Page 13 Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concernin'- this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission Ronald A. Mislowsky d From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloy [Lloyd.ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 1:46 PM To: 'Ronald A. Mislowsky' Cc: Copp, Jerry; Ingram, Lloyd; 'Clifford L. Athey Jr. (clay@npaalaw.com)'; 'Eric Lawrence' Subject: Carriage Park - VDOT Comments to Rezoning The documentation within the revised application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable as impact one 7 and 65. These property referencedte are the VDOT roadways which has been considered VDOT offers the following comments on the recent revised transportation proffers: Safety - The removal of the street tie-in at Route 7 is a positive step for the safety of the public traveling Route 7 as well as the home owners of the proposed subdivision. While the proposed new location for the entrance into this subdivision illsbberne via Route 659 is adequate, it does not address the County,s ultimate design of the Eaad Plan. This would allow the traffic generated from this subdivision to utilize Route 7 via the relocated Route 659 and the proposed Haggerty Boulevard. Section 12.1 - Agree. Section 12.2 - Agree. if this roadway is planned to be taken into the State's system there appears to be some possible environmental issues that will need to be fully addressed to the satisfaction of the appropriate agency prior acceptance. Section 12.3 - While agreeing with the proposal, the to cationconduif this sfu inter -parcel ng long connector should be located at a spot that app germ transportation plans of the County. This includes the logical access point to the •'relocated Valley Mill Road from this property. Section 12.4 -- Additional clarification is requested on this issue as the submitted document is somewhat vague in the description of the connection to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park roadway's typical cross section and location and composition. Section 12.5 - The proposed street tie-in at Route 659 (Valley Mill road), while a bit of an engineering challenge is the better location for the movement of traffic to and from the subdivision. The Section 12.5 proffer offers the signalization of the intersection of Route 7 and Route 659 along with improvements to the exiting lanes. Be advised that the intersection will need to meet all current VDOT standards in place at the time of "Road Plan Approval". The terms of when the signal would be required would be better stated as "when the intersection meets signal warrants as determined by VDOT the signal will be installed within 120 days". Section 12.6 - Agree. Section 12.7 - Agree. Section 12.8 - Agree. Section 12.9 - Agree. Long Term - There is some hesitation in fully supporting this rezoning due to it's potential impact on the long term transportation goals identified inthe Freto derihe ck County nty for Eastern Road Plan. While a significant amount of money is being pledge road improvements, once the rezoning is approved in its current format the incentive for the developer to participate in the relocation of Valley Mill Road will become a mute Joint. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the 1.T.S. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all 1 dedications, traffic signalization, and off - right -of -way needs, including right-of-way work performed on the state's right-of-way site roadway improvements and drainage. This permit is issued by this office and must be covered under a land use permit• requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. ,'hank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT - Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 ugust 3, 2006 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates . 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Preliminary Comments — Carriage Park Rezoning Application Dear Patrick: Thank you for forwarding to this office the Carriage Park rezoning application materials for our continued review. The TIA for this project is dated May 6, 2005, and the version of the proffer statement is dated February 2, 2006. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to address the issues associated with this rezoning application. Please also consider all comments previously offered by Mike Ruddy during various meetings on this project over the past few months. As customary, it is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 1) Preliminary Matters a) The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2204.C. requires that the CEO of the adjacent locality is notified if the property is within 1/2 mile of the boundary of the adjoining locality. Please demonstrate if this provision of the State Code is applicable with this application. 2) Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement a) The introduction to the project in the impact statement identifies a specific mix of housing types (69 single family detached, and 92 single family attached/ townhouse units). The TIA is based on a mix of 53 single family detached and 94 townhouses. The proffer statement simply states that the property will be developed to accommodate a maximum of 165 single family dwellings, types excluded. Please provide clarification and consistency between these three documents (Impact Statement, TIA, and Proffer Statement). b) Please provide clarification as to what elements of the GDP are proffered. The proffer statement states a maximum of 165 single family units, while the GDP offers a housing mix which totals 161 residences. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Mr. Patrick Sowers arriage Park Rezoning Application RE: Preliminary Comments -C August 3, 2006 Page 2 of 4 c) It is more appropriate, and indeed necessary, to identify and address the environmental features that exist on this site as part of the rezoning exercise. Areas with environmental constraints may exist on the property that warrant particular attention and should be a consideration of the rezoning application. In particular, there appears to be areas with critical slope and drainage issues on the property. d) Access to this property is described to be via a new entrance on Route 7. Route 7 is an arterial roadway with speed limits of 55 MPH. Establishment of a new entrance onto Route 7 is strongly discouraged. As you are aware, efforts are underway to enhance and relocate Valley Miiii Road so that it serves as a major collector roadway. This enhancement will provide for a more efficient transportation network, providing an important link between Senseny Road and Route 7, by way of Haggerty Boulevard. All efforts should be made to implement a safer and more efficient use of Valley Mill Road as the primary access route to the proposed development. e) The proffer statement, in addressing transportation, states that the applicant will privately fund all transportation improvements required for this project. It would be appropriate to identify these improvements within the proffer statement. fl The proffer statement (12.2) describes the right-in/right-out entrance n Route 7. A deceleration lane is offered, but not an acceleration lane. Inc g at the traffic on this segment of Route 7 travels at speeds exceeding 55 MPH, it seems appropriate to consider extended length deceleration and acceleration land controls. g) While proffer statement 12.4 offers a gated inter -parcel connector with the adjacent mobile home park, it may be appropriate to offer flexibility in this inter - parcel connection in the event that the mobile home park is redeveloped into a compatible use in the future that would benefit from access through the and afeopo e s development. Such a connection would further promote limited to Route 7. h) The Carriage Park application is adjacent to several developed subdivisions, properties with pending development proposals, and other undeveloped properties. Opportunities for additional inter -parcel connectivity should the be evaluated and pursued with this application. in particular, to the property to southwest. Residential development of this intensity requires pedestrian accommodations. Interparcel pedestrian connectivity should also be a consideration of this application. i) I understand that the applicant intends to offer a fiscal contribution offset identified road improvements associated with this project. It is impoo rtant to recognize in the application that, based upon the open mix (not proffered) of Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Preliminary Comments - Carriage Park Rezoning Application August 3, 2006 Page 3 of 4 residential uses proposed in the application, 165 single family attached units would be permitted. This would generate $495,000, as opposed to the $600,000 that has been mentioned during recent discussions. At issue is whether these contributions are adequate to address impacts generated by the development proposal. Clarification should also be considered as to how the transportation funds could be utilized to improve transportation impacts generated by this proj ect. j) Consistent with County policy, it would be appropriate to ensure that any proffered transportation improvements associated with the application are provided at the beginning of the project. Any monetary contribution should be provided prior to the onset of the project and not at the time of individual building permit issuance. k) Water and wastewater evaluations provided in the impact statement should be viewed in relationship to other previously approved projects within the County. A combined and updated figure for water resources and wastewater capacity would be beneficial when determining the adequacy of the capacity and resources. 1) Recent rezoning applications have proffered that a private refuse collection service will be used to collect the solid waste generated by their particular project. It would be desirable for this application to consider such an approach. This is beneficial, as it potentially reduces the individual usage of the County's convenience sites. Reference to the number of single family attached units in the Solid Waste Disposal section should be removed unless the applicant is willing to proffer a specific mix of residential uses. I understand that modifications to the transportation proffers are forthcoming. Based on our discussion on July 281h, it is expected that the transportation component of this application will address: a demonstrated attempt to work with neighboring property owner on accessing 'Valley Mill Road from the proposed development; clarification as to when the proposed development entrance onto Route 7 would be closed or restricted; signalization and lane improvements or contributions you offered for a traffic signal at Route 7 and Valley Mill Road; and the linkage between the Carriage Park proposal and the other development applications your firm represents along the re -aligned Valley Mill Road corridor. Upon receipt of these written modified transportation components, staff will offer review comments on the same. Once you have addressed the above issues, as well as secured approval comments from the review agencies, it would be appropriate to formally submit this rezoning petition for consideration through the public hearing process. Formal submissions include all agency comment sheets, fully executed applications, proffer statements, Power of Attorneys, and review fees. Please refer to the rezoning application process for a complete listing of the elements necessary for formal application submission. Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Preliminary Comments - Carriage Park Rezoning Application August 3, 2006 Page 4 of 4 Please feel free to contact Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director, at any time regarding the above comments or the application in general. I look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this application. Sine rely, d Er c Lawrence Planning Director ERL/bad cc: Clifford Athey Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director �3 t 55 A Ao LAMSON, NORMAN 6, RDSEMARIE B 17 r 55 A 15z MLALLISTER TANEp fs7DHN E Red Bud 55 A lob '�� m / Ag & Forestrat Distract RABBIT GREEK, L? �v J Q BA[,�iam.; NG Wlc4 'q' 55 A i74G 6LllE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 55 AiU58 MLHALE, MATTHEW r - V J �Q 0 ¢LJ a to � to S Q 55 A 209 TOLL VA V U 65 55 �A iI�S VALLEY _ LL FARM, LL 55 A 210 THE CANYON s R,eatl Centerlines: ea., ev, awaa. swam. r o ultural8 Foras[ral Diattl Cs oaoln Frecenck Dlsta{ oauele cnur�n D.=mu _ `� Red Butl A t3 DLP,N ac - F! Ld I 55 4 4A 820 GREY. ALILIA f ks T 2 04 MC�e£ ss 4 M,,yq£< � 55/ A 6 l' RAZ .# I A121 -' ,, Carriage Place Location Map ( 55 - A -161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168, 174A, 174B, 174D ) 66 IN Iq ETALS I �u 0 125 250 500 �t14 Feet { l� 5.y y'"A. � f' LAMSDN, NORMAN fr ROSEMAKIE 6 �* E * * 3 S. 55 A 152 MLALLISTER, 7ANEP fiaSOHN E Red Bud 1 `` �' _'�A� . w✓ 55 A told a43 Ag $ Forestral Distnct 659 RA6FiIT G(LEE� , LP rV. `r ' 7 _ -�YIV, 55 A 455 MGHALE, MATTHEW G a V I Z W m � 0. O C j Q � o �'yd ` I � A zoq TOLL VA V, L7 0Ja 55 P tb5 VALLEY ALL FARM. LG 55 A 210 THE C–ANYDN A t3 DLAN 55 4 4A 620 £SrQ (,KEY, Ai -if -IA F ks T 2 �1 i kge4 55 A / RP THE rANYt � I ((�� eros ,yR�o�ayd Genfarines �$ _ Lake✓P^ntle L:dr'Tanks P^ ny'_.. �� 5nams P.r H Tramnaary - ItwalaFureslralole,d��" HL(Higher �1e1en Dis,,) Carriage Place 3 Wh Fraderink Disirlcl M1 (Induetrlal, Light D tict) ' oauele chumh olathm Mz nnauaMai, �a^=ral o�emal) r Red 6Ld i` MHi (N.oelle H.—CommunAy Disrict) Zoning Ma <ia MS (Medical Support Dislriet) ---' B1 (OLslness, Ne hbLrBend Dietric[f' R4(Residen4al. Planned Community olsnia) (55 -A - 161 165A 166, 167, 167A, i 52 (SLdneaa. General Clstricf, R5 (Raaldential Raarea0-1 �,mmL^IN olatriet, 168, 174A, 1748, 174D ) Ic,, sA ial Trensitlon Dlsviq) R (R—I Areas Distrim) EN (EMraellve Manetel—, RP (Residential PeRo^nanee �istrieti R4� UE ETALS r- 5(0 %A iq SIG WINGHE5TER N 1 w D 125 250 500 Feet .r I S'- RSP r i h� �qFr 5 55 A Ao LAMSDN, NDRMAN ixROS£MPARI£ 5 u r'r MGALLISTER, 7AN£ Y £r SOHN E ,yyr Red Bud - -^.� I -F A F K, L4 rig 8 Forestral District RABBIT GREE�V i 65 Q ' wad-�,� . y-•_ � a 55 A 1146 SLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 55 A 1655 WMAL£, MATTHEW G A is DLAN 5 1 114 1, 5-RADRE , 6, R! £ ETAL5 P� = 165_ �w i ..... VALLEY I -L FARM, LG 55 4 4A 820 sT6 f GREY, ALILIA F MC�E£ ss z 1r� M/cHA�< � 55 A z10 j THE GANYDN N 0 N � 4 � TOLL VA V Lp �,ppi ,an as Raatl Cnnterlines�-t e:Y Tank L—, L f Pmnary .Fines / a,�I pen H. +tra s,reams ey,,,,, Pa -ml T�rnneary nWlmra a Farestral Dia�ri�rs due:neas "so�m Frededck oho i ndust,ai D-1, Ch -h D-eo-... .>:r inwnpe onai ` ✓ Red 6W Long Range Land Use Recreation Historic R."I commonly eenler y M1yed Se R-iCentlal anned Unit Devalapment annn�j y 55 A RV-_ ' : 126, Carriage Place Landuse Map ( 55 - A -161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168,174A, 174B, 174D) 56 AA 1q 0 125 2115`00 500 Feet zs kil- RIN A '14 LOA s ';F`�1'� r �_sti'���=+',�. � r ,y *MG�I.I�CGR SrV�lt.}S�yL, ���_v 'S tea,..* Red Bud Ag & Fores6al District Ir 7 fA ki 7W M 'Al KZ VPILLFIY "111. f'Av-m LL r4 Ae ffk 1, 7 REZ # 12 - 06 Carriage Place Aerial Map 55 - A -161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168, 174A, 174B, 174D ) D 125 2,90 SbT Fi.i South Frederick District D--Ch—hDjW,& C:17) Rea Bud REZ # 12 - 06 Carriage Place Aerial Map 55 - A -161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168, 174A, 174B, 174D ) D 125 2,90 SbT Fi.i January 2006 Carriage Park PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT Proffer Statement Carrzgge Park PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # : RA (Rural Areas) and NIH1 (Mobile Home Community) to RP (Residential Performance) PROPERTY: 45.44 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 55-A-161, 55-A 165A, 55-A 166, 55-A 167, 55-A 167A, 55-A 168, 55-A 174A, 55-A 174B, 55-A 174D (the "Property") RECORD OWNER Carriage Place, LLC APPLICANT: Carriage Place, LLC PROJE CT NAME: Carriage Park ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: January 25, 2006 REVISION DATE (S): February2, 2006 May23, 2006 June 28, 2006 August 10, 2006 September 12, 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject '), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following property ("Property conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors (the "County') decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Countys decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the pealed, or, if appealed, the day following which decision of the County which has not been ap the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time o development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the i<rlprcvemer_t or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Appi giant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all Putt'P °a'11e� and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Carriage Park" dated January 5, 2006, as revised on September 12, 2006 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Page 1 of 8 Proffer Statement Carriage Park 1. LAND USE: 1.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 165 single family dwelling units. 12 The number of single family detached dwelling units to be constructed on the property shall not exceed 73 dwelling units. 1.3 The number of single family attached dwelling units to be constructed on the dwelling property shall not exceed 92 g 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, and'insubstantial orf ormancign eards, and with he this Carriage Park Proffer Statement GDP as approved by the Board. 2,2 Construction of the 165 residential dwelling units shall be phased over a three-year period commencing with the Date of Final Rezoning ('DFR.'). The Applicant shall not make application for more than 75 building permits for residential dwelling units per year. 2,3 The above -referenced phasing limitations are cumulative. Notwithstanding any representations to the contrary contained in these Proffers. Should truction of the residential market conditions dictate a slower pie °h Jule for total build out of he dwelling units on the Property, sc Property may exceed three years. FIRE & RESCUE: 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute dwellingh�t for capital improvety of Frederick the ments to of $720.00 per single family, detached capital facilities for fire and rescue facilities and equipment located in the Red Bud Magisterial District, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 3.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $528.00 per single family, attached dwelling unit for capital improvements to capital facilities for fire and rescue facilities and equipment located in the Red Bud Magisterial District, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached '.=nit. Page 2 of 8 Carriage Park Projer Statement 4. SCHOOLS: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $19,189.00 per single family, detached dwelling unit for capital improvements to public schools located in the Red Bud Magisterial District, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 4.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $14,618.00 per single family, attached dwelling unit for capital improvements to public schools located in the Red Bud Magisterial District, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. PARKS & RECREATION: 5.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,136.00 per single family, detached dwelling unit for capital improvements to recreational facilities located in the Red Bud Magisterial District, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 5.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $1,634.00 per single family, attached dwelling unit for capital improvements to recreational facilities located in the Red Bud Magisterial District, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 6. LIBRARIES: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $267.00 per single family, detached dwelling unit for capital improvements to library facilities, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $204.00 per single family, attached dwelling unit for capital improvements to library facilities, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 7. PUBLIC SAFETY: 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $658.00 per single family, detached dwelling unit for capital improvements to public safety facilities and equipment upon issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $503.00 per single family, attached dwelling unit for capital improvements to public safety facilities and equipment upon issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. Page 3 of 8 Proffer Statement Carriage Park 8. GENERAL GOVERNMENT: 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $320.00 per single family, detached dwelling unit for capital improvements to general governmental facilities and equipment upon issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 8.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $245.00 per single family, attached dwelling unit for capital improvements to general governmental facilities and equipment upon issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 9. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 9.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a homeowners' association (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as maybe required for such HOA herein. 9.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (u) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, including the use of a private refuse collection service to collect the solid waste generated by the residents, (iv) responsibility for the perpetual ad bufer areas, all of which buffer maintenance of any street, perimeter, or ros f if platted areas shall be located within emento be granted to the HOA within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument and (v) responsibility for payment for maintenance of streetlights. 9.3 The Applicants hereby proffer to establish a start-up fund for the Carriage Park Homeowner's Association (CPHOA) that will include an initial lump sum payment of $2,500.00 by the Applicant and an additional payment of $100.00 by the homeowners at closing for each platted lot purchased within the Carriage Park community. Language will be incorporated into the CPHOA Declaration of Restrictive Covenant Document and Deed of Dedication that ensures the availability of these funds prior to the transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility from the applicants to the CPHOA. The start-up funds for the CPHOA shall be made available for the purpose of maintenance of all improvements within the common open space areas, liability insurance, street light assessments, and property management and/or legal fees. Page 4 of 8 Carriage Park Proffer Statement 10. WATER & SEWER 10.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the Frederick Winchester Service Authority. 11. ENVIRONMENT: 11.1 Stormwater management for the Property shall be provided in accordance with all applicable ordinances. 12. 'TRANSPORTATION: 12.1 Transportation improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent with the study entitled "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Carriage Park Property," prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associated, dated September 8, 2006 (the "TIN) and any amendments thereto. The Applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required for this project. 12.2 Access to the property shall be provided via a single entrance on Valley Mill Road in the location depicted on the GDP. Said entrance shall include improvements to the existing section of Valley NO Road from the Route 7 intersection to the project entrance on Valley NO Road as directed by VDOT. (See 1 on GDP) 12.3 Applicant shall provide an inter -parcel connector in the location depicted on the GDP to facilitate integration of the Property with future development and to facilitate the construction of an additional future Valley Mill road connector. (See 2 on GDP) 12.4 The Applicant shall provide a private, gated connection between the internal road network for the project and the existing road network in the adjacent Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park for emergency access in the location depicted on the GDP. (See 3 on GDP) 12.5 The Applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Valley NO Road and Route 7 prior to issuance of the 76th building permit. Construction of said signalized intersection shall include extended turn lanes on east bound and west bound Route 7 if directed by VDOT. 12.6 'Ihe Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 per single family detached unit for capital improvements to capital facilities related to transportation improvements in the general vicinity of the development, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each detached unit. Page 5 of 8 Proffer Statement rwiri 12.7 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $3,000.00 per single family attached unit for capital improvements to capital facilities related to transportation improvements in the general vicinity of the development. 12.8 If the maximum number of permitted single family apursuant and dons h1 d dwelling units are constructed on the propperty through 1.3 of this Proffer Statement, thenthf Proffer St etary contribution would to the County pursuant to Sections 12.8 and 12.9 total $641,000.00. utions ted 12.9 It is expressly understood and to theCouned ty any pu uant to this Proffer Statement to transportation provided may be utilized for revenue sharing and shall be applied as a first priority to funding the construction of the future Valley Mill connector road as shown on the GDP with the second priority to funding the relocation of Valley NO Road. 13. HISTORIC RESOURCE PROTECTION 13.1 A 100 foot buffer of natural ve e tactod son be theprGDPed Encroachmeen VA noute of 7 and the limits generally p construction activities m this area shall not be allowed except to construct a roadway entrance and/or necessary utilities. (See 4 on GDP) 13.2 The Applicant shall contribute $25,000.00 to the County for purposes associated with security fencing at historic Star Fort. 13.3 The Applicant shall establish a 15 foot no cut vegetative buffer along a portiO Farm LC, as on of the southernDoproject rder t porotctrvie hedslsu ouunding the farm shown on the G buildings. 14. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY FROM PROFFERS 14.1 Any portion of the Property may hereafter be dedicated for public street purposes (or otherwise conveyed to a �ublic entity shall, upon such dedication, be excluded from the termsrina e°t dbe subjectitions of htoethe full foProffers rce the remainder of the Property shall co and effect of these proffers. 15. SEVERABILITY subsequently 15.1 In the event an, portion of these proffers are rffersbshallecolntinue rin full foied tore ,;lei1 or unenforceable, the remaining p and effect. 16. BINDING EFFECT p 16.1 These proffers run a`rthahensaand nd and shall bin interes of the Applicant. executors, administrators, g Page 6 of 8 Carriage Park Proffer Statement 17. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 17.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement arepaid to the County within 36 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the County after 36 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time the contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Page 7 of 8 Carriage Park Proffer Statement Respec Title: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: r The foregoing instrument was acknowled ed before me this -5-—day of (Y:O)Q C , 2006, by Cn�r _r_ 7 a con011c i �\S0NAt4 �Of, I*& s My commission x ires -,30—ID Notary Public Page 8 of 8 tjs;� �.w•,. t.il CARRIAGE PARK p` ti y GENERLIZED DL EWPMENT PLAN o rn Cb a FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINGi Open sPace Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667--2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Frederick County, Virginia CCI 6' `U 7 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CARRIAGE PARK Red Bud Magisterial District August 2006 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540-667-2.139 Fax: 540-665-0493 Carriage Park August 2UU6 Table of Contents I Application Form II. Impact Analysis A. Site History and Project Background B. Location and Access C. Site Suitability D. Traffic E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply F. Site Drainage G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities H. Historic Sites and Structures Impact on Community Facilities III. Proffer Statement IV. Agency Comments V. Survey Plat and Deed VI. Tax Ticket January 2006 Carriage Park I. APPLICATION J January 2006 Carriage Park II. IMPACT ANALYSIS _J Carriage Park August 2006 SUMMARY AND JUSTIFICATI_ON The Carriage Park property lies wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County, with direct access to both eastbound Route 7 and Valley Mill Road. The site is located in close proximity to the Haggerty project, which was successfully rezoned for residential land uses. The development of the Carriage Park property will continue to establish the development pattern in the Route 7 corridor and will provide for the integration of the project with adjacent properties should they develop in a manner harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning of the site for a single family residential development consisting of a maximurn of 165 dwelling units is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which expressly calls for suburban residential uses to predominate within the UDA. The site is generally located in an area designated for residential land use on the Eastern Frederick Count Long Range Land Use Plan map. By using available land within the UDA, this rezoning promotes a dynamic housing market within the county's designated growth area, reducing development pressures in the County's rural areas. The project density of 3.59 dwelling units per acre is well within the zoning guideline of 5.5 dwelling units per acre for parcels between 10 and 100 acres. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate the impacts of this development while providing funding for regional transportation projects. The single family residential land use envisioned for the site is compatible with the development trend emerging in the area and is Map Features /County Boundary Tax Map Boundary Community Centers George Washington National Forest 0 Hamlets LakeslPonds Streams Sevrer Water Service Area Urban Development Area RoadslTransportation Interstates Primary Highways Secondaryroads Named Private Roads Unnamed Private Roads �. Proposed Route 37 fV Railroads. CitieslTowns Middletown 0 Stephens City Winchester Agricultural Districts Double Church Refuge Church =. South Frederick Zoning MW B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) 52 (Business, General District) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) EM HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) 0 M2 Qndustrial, General District) ® MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Services District) R5 .(Residential, Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Areas District) RP (Residential Performance District) � v � `0 (. � Q CARRIAGE PARK ZONING MAP FREDERICK COUNTY. IORGINM 46 45 J �y � dHE1ZYlE FaBOtp s. s 56 PROJECT SI TE e6 Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pv 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (544) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 34' 35 46 45 J �y � dHE1ZYlE FaBOtp s. s 56 PROJECT SI TE e6 Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pv 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (544) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Carria e Park August 2006 I consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. As such, this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. SITE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The Carriage Park property consists of 45.44 acres of land located in the UDA within the Red Bud Magisterial District. Approximately 15.18 acres of the site are zoned MH1 (Mobile Home Community) while the remaining 30.26 acres are zoned RA (Rural Areas). Two existing homes reside on the site, but will not pose a hindrance to the intended development of the property. The site is located in an emerging residential area wherein public facilities have been installed through prior development and are readily available for extension into the site. Available facilities include water and sewer lines, and road infrastructure. The requested rezoning from RA (Rural Areas) and MH1 (Mobile Home Community) to RP (Residential Performance) will enable continued development within the UDA in accord with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. LOCATION AND ACCESS The Carriage Park property is bounded by Valley Mill Road to the East, Route 7 to the North, and Blue Ridge Mobile Horne Park to the West (Figure 1). Access will be provided via a single entrance on Valley Mill Road near the intersection of Valley Mill and Route 7. Additionally, an interparcel connector will be provided at the Southern boundary of the property to facilitate access to both the adjacent parcel and Valley Mill Road in the future (Figure 2). As indicated by the Generalized Development Plan, new entrances on Route 7 will be avoided. An emergency access connection will be provided between the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park to the West to allow two way emergency access. Current designs for proposed Route 37 align the off ramps with the fature intersection of the Haggerty Spine Road and the existing intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7. As such, signalization of the Valley Mill intersection, which is proffered as J� part of this rezoning application, is needed as part of the large scope transportation planning effort s + !: P 1g iE i P 5 5ik '2W !4i ' a - ���'pWing s1 .?� �%y�� i�a'� �. 4 � is � `•S a + 5 '"`ti � 1 a`� f� 7t' � A'Q�y'1s 1{,L i,�"1, Ma'�+' V�r�vy +�4�7�yy���ti•� 2�5 ��i rt ,__1_ ate{ „�;y� ��j � �sY� h n ' .X 'i��+`"�'u+�''" f�y� w•'� 4 �k �}'� ,�r�d�a�LY�s y�; `9 �� � •.� A. s � d f t'lf.� k a.�d A 'i -,p fir. t� �`� t" 4'r•. 5.1„+ q t� `9 i' Sy , .e ►' R 2. tg� .� �� ..i a ,�, �� � q:= 5 �•7^ .!' i ($ k,+ , wll l�t � � 1 d/ �'�� ��.• YS 4 � Y"� k l: '.. y `�Yl Vert{ � 4"}'.ew �� RC ��� '+�5 � � � t "�'k+ik•"G+:� -.� a, � ,« ��Ra1�' r k x'yrf5$� b , �!6 , �I�� ��iS � Sv,�' t a � ^,.r!�' � � `';,� �' �, � +,' '� v� �$•;P4�lGFr ° 5 5 � '�.e f" S y� ; n ''�' y r R (;y} � e�• �� 5 hvn"'�ir'tJ�`,,3,� 3� wigg 5 I p iYw. * R N� 5 W4MAI 5A R�y'a isv�7i`:i .'• �v. 41 �'Dt� t Y� f �#N,-�6 "' � I G1'b �'b f k. •L ..^"• �% f+: 5 4, = J:!iS. +�°� 'C t h ��1�t'� �. t�� � 1��q���•'��,5 •5�5�t � ;k t �.�.�7� •y � ,� ,� �{� h 4 ��.. '- +��� ���c"�'t'i�+� ;� I � z x '"'�' ,Ca ', xy f }� R•i3'3 d" �' t u�1L���. R " � }hd� .�,�i �' . i q ii ti. '��'v 9j;�A'wfy, m"' r,�,: 7 �'w H�4` a # is •y 4 �•~�v L S���i<'A��X _ �ie.�??+'L +�,�r � ' r r •[# G,:. �, .- 4: r ,_`'�'f 9+ �1:�r.+.`�4*?�,'��s ��� � � F..w�•:'wf �r _ ae` : s�.. i.a ;'. 5 .. { ,... .�, i. +i Nei r R't 1'p• � 5'T � rt "' �'w,���q� : ''� Yti�,'LiwV � &1•::. iS .1�..�A r y k T 4 1 (r r� ,� a, '� �,`,� i i s "�"'~ ,' _ ., ✓ ^�✓' �..� � ` '•-"��, "" �+" , t "'` • �t 1 � q 1 .-\ e � t � �. t - i � ; I ....'t .-.,"'".`.-�_.. �'.,.. . E� "-.'-" � Pte_.-.. t j x f ;i 1 '' art f E✓ �„_ 1 t � t •1^`.+.� � } I ` i � 1 t I , E I i ! � h �-„`. ( � P pF�ttd� ti�� � /� � S 4 �"') e ''4 S� � `w w ^... al 3 t _ t i i �"-�.-•.w�._../""� t v.�""', 7���^-.� __'--..-.-•----'-�^'__�^v..„ �� w� ..y___ .r.^� t "'`�-` +:�, �-•,-„�-•-�,� ' s t ;,�.�� ff f t � � %• B ✓P eft � ' ' r ? \ I t"� r t � 7 {[ --.may'`. �^�•••,.._+:� .,_-.4.r''"”'\✓"--.' _ „lam " , �.s"'/If/�, f I i t•5` "+ems,. �+"f . .I J ( �' }j i i t, �'..�--�-'°'. .,ti �"'�=r-......;,,_a_�- �..� "�"'",�.k s s' '� �' �.,ti � _ ,...r �. ,J r� Pi� is j •„�----•,�-: r�,; i�,,^`� 1 Y��'.,_,�..�, BC � ��.`��'.'"^,,,. "''-.• � ,• �" " -M., � � � � � 1�1Kf-"�-Ith!F , , . �A7bN BU�FFR.` y \ r % ,'� -� 124 '`� � � i` � "'w� 4`'�. . "`� �� �` `.;�,.r•.%''� 'ta ,�-;� �--�.. .%: f "•.-tib'' �1. ', i ate,' ..1._ �%/ d f '� P � � !-`'..+,�.�`"`��,�, � `,� -`` . �. r . FAMILY- , j 4 + [ } , open spa, i *' { ���FFF! � l t t t �` UECEiAT® 6Uf' �f@''AL'iYp a p� ✓�„`*.. ",�. - i� 4. .., _—30.LVfA6p°i� � 3 - ,/ •%�/ J .w"" . ,,.w 7-Ek,.- �; ' * _ROPOSED ZONI�[G4 'RP - �•���� "`��`"�,�..�—''�✓ � Its 4 �_��� l�t;,�A -:� � �„% griERP �,•, �t t fit €p V� �b�;1,�, e `'�., �.� •-...� �` bEGETATID f o 1Ap V. S'tB -Acm -- ` r , 11 I';, RpP� h� � �� �� `� "•__/_.�` i;', �(':°�p�fNG:--�WH � �,—'""' I V' ` ��,f;����'a,`�', sr�`' ff�,, �•� PROPS Z G -P —114 s } CARRIAGE PARK Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc OGENER IZED DE VELDI�MENT P A 117 F- ?�cud�i�y 5u �cheste , Virginia x6n1 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 O O y MEDER/CK COUMY, MOM A7!_N/I?F i Carriage Park Au ust 2006 along the Route 7 corridor. Future extension of Carriage Park access to Valley Mall Road to the South may allow future interparcel access, depending on future applicant desires should the adjacent property develop. SITE SUITABILITY The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. The following table provides an area summary of environmental features: Carriage Park Property Environmental Features Total Project Area 45.44 acres Area in Flood Plain 10.50 acres 23.1% Area in Steep Slopes .48 acres .01% Area in Wetlands TBD TBD Lakes & Ponds 0.25 acres <.01% The General Soil Map of the Soil Surve of Frederick County. Vir ' Wa indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association, with the particular geology being Martinsburg shale and slopes ranging from 3% to 25%. Such geology is prevalent on land located east of Interstate 81 and is not identified as prime farmland by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan_ The site is predominantly wooded and no history of agricultural use has been identified. Two stream channels traverse the property, including Ash Hollow Run which runs parallel to Route 7 at the Northern boundary of the property. Ash Hollow Run flows into Abrams Creek which crosses the Eastern boundary of the site prior to crossing under Route 7 and ultimately terminating at Opequon Creek. Riparian buffers required by ordinance will be preserved on either side of the stream channel. Additionally, the design of the project will respect the 100 year flood plain associated with these stream channels (Figure 3). The majority of sensitive environmental areas identified will be placed in permanent open space. The National Wetlands Inventory does not identify any wetlands on the Carriage Park property, however any potential wetlands associated with the stream channels will be located within the project's open space and identified by a wetlands delineation as part of the Master Plan phase of the ''A 'yf �� b -fir f V 1 � L_w../ \\��-•Y` tt'r�,t,,,:��ti i j'1/rl :fl�f�a�+i�\,,,�-�-"'"�°'i J -'4 '� '��1 �'�•�'j�� �'y1y}.� 0.1 1`6 11 11ATI M3 ��JJfJ, Q r' /�''1..r m 16 T'�Z3' CARRIAGE PARK lit lb SITE CHARACTERISTICS MAP Cb FREDERICK COUMY, WGIN14 O Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, r� 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (544) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FIGURE .: August 2006 Carria e Park project. A small pond located on the Western portion of the property will be maintained within the open space required for the development as well. Steep slopes comprise a small portion of the Property. County regulations prevent disturbance of more than 50 percent of the identified steep slopes. As such, the proposed development scheme will disturb less than one-quarter acre of steep slopes at maximurn_ TRAFFIC A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the LT.E. Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 1,348 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions. It is important to note that approximately 15 acres of the site are currently zoned MH1 (Mobile Home Community). At a gross density of 8 units per acre as permitted by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the site currently has the potential to yield nearly 120 mobile home units as a by - right use. Using the equation indicated for mobile homes by the Z.T.E. Tri Generation Manual 7th Edition, the portion of the Property zoned MH1 could yield 700 vehicle trips. Developing the remaining 30 acres of the site zoned RA as by -right residential would yield an additional 60 trips per day from six single family detached homes bringing the potential by -right traffic generation to a total of 760 vehicle trips per day. As such, the proposed development plan would produce only 588 vehicle trips per day in excess of the existing by -right traffic generation potential. Access to the site will be provided via a single entrance on Valley Mill Road. While a right -in right - out entrance to Route 7 would be substantially less expensive, the Applicant has proffered to avoid such a connection to prevent 'less safe U-turn movements that would result due to the grade separation between the east bound and west bound lanes of Route 7. Project generated as well as background traffic suggests the installation of a stoplight where Route 7 intersects Valley Mill Road. This signal is provided as a component of the Carriage Park proffer package. Carriage Park August 2006 Furthermore, in recognition of the importance of the future transportation system envisioned servicing the area in close proximity to the Property's location, the Applicant has proffered $5,000.00 per single family detached and $3,000.00 per single family attached dwelling towards transportation improvements within the vicinity of the site. Assuming a full build -out as stipulated by proffer of 165 dwelling units, this monetary contribution would total $641,000.00. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY Sewer service will be provided to the site through connection with the existing line located in the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park (Figure 4). Using a standard rate of 200 gallons per day/dwelling unit, it is projected that the proposed development would produce 32,200 gallons of sewer flow per day. Water service will be provided by connection to the existing 8 inch line that serves the adjacent Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. Water consumption for the project will be roughly equivalent to the projected sewage generation of 32,200 gallons per day. SITE DRAINAGE Site drainage collects and leaves the site to the north and east via Ash Hollow Run and Abrams Creek prior to draining into Opequon Creek. It is anticipated that low impact development techniques including a buffer preserving existing vegetation along Route 7 and Valley Mill Road together with good erosion control practice will mitigate adverse stormwater discharge impacts. The preservation ofriparian buffers and developing with respect to the existing floodplain will provide significant mitigation of nutrient losses. Actual specification of temporary and permanent facilities will be provided with final engineering and will comply with all County, State and Federal regulations. ,-- CARRIAGE PARK Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Pc ` \ Virginia 22601 y UTILITY PLAN 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, O a VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, 1IRG/N/A Carriage Park August LUVD SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The following table shows a projection of solid waste generation as a part of this Project- UnitstFan-al e Units Waste Generation Total Waste Detached73 121bs/da 876 ily Attached 92 91bs/da 828 Total ��1�,704bs ovement to solid waste issues associated with increased Proffered curb -side pickup will be an impr d„rr,pster use in the County - HIST DRIC ounty. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick Coun Rural Landmarks Surve does not identify any structures of histonc importance on the subject site. a of According to the National Park Service Stud of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Vin Winchester Vh lia, the subject site is included in the battlefield study area of the Third Battle of W with the northern portions of the site along Route 7 identified as core battlefield area. The en General Sheridan's Union Property's location coincides with the early phases of the battle wh troops advanced through Berryville Canyon towards Jubal Eady's confederate troops just utside of Winchester. Portions of the battlefield in the vicinity of the site, such as the adjoining mobile home park, have lost integrity according to the National Park Service study. Recognizing the importance f the Third Battle of Winchester, of the Property's location with respect to the preliminary phases oO et of the Applicant has proffered to maintain. the existing tree coverage on the Property -within has the Property boundary along Route 7 and Valley Mill Road. Additionally, Applicant 0fe proffered $25,000.00 allocated for security fencing at historic Star Fort. October 2006 Carriage Park IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Applicant has proffered monies greater than the impact indicated by the newest Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model to mitigate the projected fiscal impact on community facilities attributable to the proposed rezoning. It is important to note that the existing potential for 120 mobile home units would result in a negative fiscal impact of roughly $2,700,000 without the benefit of offsetting proffers. This rezoning application removes the potential for a by -right mobile home park while simultaneously proffering monies above the projected impact of the proposed 165 single family dwelling units. Specifically, the applicant has proffered to contribute $28,290 per single family detached unit and $20,731 per single family attached (i.e. townhome) at the time of building permit issuance. The total contribution is proffered to be allocated as follows: ■ Fire and Rescue: ■ General Government: ■ Public Safety: ■ Library: ■ Parks and Recreation: ■ School Construction: ■ Transportation: TOTAL: Single Family Detached $720.00 per unit $320.00 per unit $658.00 per unit $267.00 per unit $2,136.00 per unit $19,189.00 per unit $5,000.00 per unit $28,290.00 per unit Single Family Attached $528.00 per unit $245.00 per unit $503.00 per unit $204.00 per unit $1,634.00 per unit $14,618.00 per unit $3,000.00 per unit $20,731.00 per unit A Traffic Impact Analysis of Carriage Park Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: _ Carriage Park LLC 2022 Meadow Springs Drive Vienna, Virginia 22182 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 PH Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 RAT 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 September 08, 2006 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Carriage Park development to be located along the south side of Route 7 (Berryville Pike), east of Route 660 (Woods Mill Road) in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to include 94 townhouses and 53 single-family detached residential units with access to be provided via a single site driveway along the west side of Route 660 (Valley Mill Road). The proposed development will be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2007. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Carriage Park development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Carriage Park development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Carriage Park development, • Distribution and assignment of the Carriage Park generated trips onto the completed roadway network, c +i gl y Analysis of vapaCity aiid ievei of Seivice as .LUr the iateS� version of uie ui�.t`'`'a capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 7/Route 660 and Route 7/Route 659 (Valley Mill Road). In order to demonstrate worst-case conditions, the existing traffic volumes were then balanced between the two intersections. Additionally, PHR+A conducted the eastbound U-turn counts at the intersection of Route 7/Woods Mill Road since planned improvements would require this movement to be diverted to the Route 7/Valley Mill Road intersection in the future. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) were established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 8.0% as determined from traffic count data provided by Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of Route 7/Route 660 and Route 7/Route 659. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/FM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Ti•afic Tact Analysis of Carriage Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 1 No Scale 1 1 Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Carriage Park in Frederick County, Virginia A Traffic Impact Analysis of Carriage Park PH Project Number: r 08,20-0 September 08,2006 Page 2 if r"-•-• '7-".� ,.�,.M1tt�' 3i�.if ti pIKe_ SITE 1 yi fry' 1 1 Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Carriage Park in Frederick County, Virginia A Traffic Impact Analysis of Carriage Park PH Project Number: r 08,20-0 September 08,2006 Page 2 No Scale r. Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 1 A Tra c impact Analysis o Carnia e Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 3 No Scale w CL I �0 0 a. CM, ftft* Unsignalized 'ft'* Intersection SITE 1e �Aj�e N� ♦ ��D V a �C)C J Unsignalized Intersection V Denotes stop sign control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Ayj, peak Hour rnM PPaak Hour) 1 1 Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Carriage Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 4 2007 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to estimate the future growth rates and incorporate trips associated with specific "other developments" located within the vicinity of the proposed site, PHR+A utilized the following report: A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Hazzerty Property, by pHR+A, dated September 22, 2004. PHR+A applied an annual growth rate of five percent (5%) to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2007 base conditions. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tri Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the "other developments" surrounding the site. Figure 4 shows the 2007 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 5 shows the respective 2007 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 "Other Developments" A Traffic Impact Analysis o{Carriage Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 5 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour �ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total Red -Bud Run 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Total 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Toll Borthers- Eddy's Lane 65 55 32 88 800 210 Single -Family Detached 80 units 16 49 88 800 Total 16 49 65 55 32 Other Developments along Channing Drive 288 3,000 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 1,131 230 Townhouse/Condo 130 units 11 53 64 50 25 75 706 7,645 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 498 1,069 11,776 Total 172 286 458 570 Fieldstone Development 40 54 45 26 71 630 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 36 109 1,801 230 Townhouse/Condo 207 units 16 77 92 73 62 180 2,431 Total 29 117 146 118 Chadwell Property 8 23 30 23 13 36 300 210 Single -Family Detached 30 units 13 36 300 Total 8 23 30 23 Haggerty Property 34 135 115 1,8 Detached 210 Single-Family27 180 units 51 51 5111 220 Apartment 60 units 7 27 33 33 18 18 40 522 230 Townhouse/Condo 60 units 6 28 34 26 13 98 272 1 2,833 Total 1 46 157 203 174 A Traffic Impact Analysis o{Carriage Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 5 Na Scale (3 7)172 (-4-IS)ISp ftww,1 0234) I38914 d'9 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) IMMIM14"M :IJHl� Figure 4 2007 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffle Impact Analysis o Carriage Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 P R+A September 0page 6 H Paye 6 No Scale L Signalized Intersection LOS=B(C) No (B)C 1 ftft* SITE is iign,diae& ttBs5 `4n. ,Suggested Improvement" O§1(C) 5ignalization 7 U .14 fe 4% Unsignalized Intersection Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak flour (r -M Peak hour) 3 Figure 5 2007 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Carriage Park Project Number:,1-0 PSeptemberr0808,22006 H"A+ Page 7 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tri Generation Re ort PHR+A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Carriage Park development. Table 2 Proposed Development: Carriage Park Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total Carriage Park 12 35 47 38 22 61 530 210 Single -Family Detached 53 units 57 81$ 94 units 8 41 49 38 19 230 Towabouse/Condo 41 11S 1,348 Total 20 76 96 76 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Carriage ark development. Figure shows the respective development-generatak es and d assignments at key locations through out the study area. 2007 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS Carriage Park assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2007 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2007 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2007 build- out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations through out the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2007 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Carriage Park development, assuming suggested improvements, are acceptable and manageable. Assuming planned study area intersection improvements, each of the intersections will operate with levels of service "C" or better during 2007 build -out conditions. PH RA A Trafjic Impact ,4 nal sis ot Carria e Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 8 No Scale IFigure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffc Impact Analysis of Carriage Park PH � Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 9 No Scale �0 0 _ *MW 45(25) (46)12� ` ! 1 % C^1 TT+TT LFire 7 PR+A H Trip Assignments AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) r A Tra c Impact Analysis of Carriage Park Project Number: 13554-1-0 September 08,2006 Page 10 No Scale 137(172 *NftW1064(233) "3(15p � 12800401) AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour; 1 P H Figure S 2007 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Carriage Park Project Number: r 09,21-0 PH + September 08,2006 Page ] J No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS=S(C) �� �� B($� a 7 v Sigualiied I "Suggested tntet s,% n; Improvement" LOS=BtC), Signalization 7 `Sf a Unsignalized Intersection ODenotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak flour (pM Peak Hour) 1 Figure 9 2007 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic .Im act .final sis o Carria e Park Project Number: r 08, 006 PH 1-0 September 08,2006 Page 12 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff.�.� - 26 Fee Amount Paid Zoning Amendment Number /2-06 Date Received b 4 6 Lr- 4-- n�fP BOS Hearine Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicants: Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Telephone: (540) 667.2139 Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Carriage Place, LLC Telephone: 540.662.7160 Address: 22A Ricketts Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 3. Contact person(s) if other than above Name: Patrick Sowers Telephone: (540) 667.2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid x Proffer Statement X 01 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Denver Quinnelly 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Mobile Home Park Residential &Vacant B) Proposed Use of the Property: SF Detached & Attached 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED. PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). South & adjacent to Route 7 east & adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park 2 In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number: 55-A-161, 55 -A -165A, 55-A-166, 55-A-167, 55 -A -167A, 55-A-168, 55 -A -174A, 55 -A -174B, 55 -A -174D Districts Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service Red Bud Greenwood Greenwood High School: Middle School: Elementary School: Millbrook JW Middle Red Bud 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 30.26 RA RP 15.18 MH -1 RP 45.44 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Single Family Home Non -Residential Lots Office Retail Restaurant Number of Units Proposed 73 Townhome 92 Multi -Family Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Flex - Warehouse Other M 12. Signature: make application and petition the Frederick County 1 (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully Pp ma of Frederick Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to gt enter e the the property for site County, Virguna. I (we) authorize Frederick County inspection purposes- 1 (we) understand that the sign issued when this application public hearing and the Board of property line at least seven days prior to the Planning the ervisors, public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of--way until Su p hearing. 1 (we) hereby cert' fy that � s plication and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (o knowl dge. Date A� ®k Applicant(s) r i e Date 4 Carriage Park Rezoning Application Adjoining Property Owners Tax ID # Name Address Zoning Use 55-A-162 55-A-163 55-A-164 Baylis Investments, LLC Baylis Investments, LLC Robert E. & Gladdie R. Carter 2332.Nfiddle Road, Winchester, VA 22601 2332 Middle Road, Winchester, VA 22601 1560 Valley NO Road, Winchester, VA 22602 RA RA RA Residential Residential Residential 55-A-165 55 -A -165D 55 -A -168A Valley Mill Farm, LC Valley Mill Farm, LC Brian Scott Williams. 8705 C Street, Chesapeake Beach, VA 20732 8705 C Street, Chesapeake Beach, VA 20732 2718 Berryville Pike, Winchester, VA 22603 RA RA RA Agricultural Agricultural Residential 55-A-169 Myron L. & Lorie M. Ace 11240 Cleveland Avenue, Ft. Myers, FL. 33907 RA Retail & Services 55-A-170 David Bragg P.O. Box 174, Clearbrook, VA 22624 RA Residential 55-A-171 Three Way Partnership 504 Eagle Place, Winchester, VA 22601 RA Residential 55-A-172 William C. Whitmore, Jr. Etals P.O. Box 550, Purcellville, VA 20134 RA Residential 55 -A -174C Blue Ridge Associates 2432 Berryville Pike, Winchester, VA 22603 RA Residential 55-A-146 William D. Alexander 2663 Berryville Pike, Winchester, VA 22603 RA Residential 55-A-147 William A.'& Maria H. Ballin 111 Burnt Factory Road, Stephenson, VA 22656 RA Residential 55-A-159 55-A-160 Thomas R. Baggerly, Sr. William W. & Ruby Lee Beck 8904 Telford Court, Bristow, VA 2013.6 2851 Berryville Pike, Winchester, VA 22603 RA RA Residential Residential 55-A-174 55-4-1B Phyllis B. Holtkam Etals C/O John Bradfield Joseph D. & Amy H. Sowers 8225 Cambourne Court, Gaithersburg, MD 20877 111 Edd s Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 RA RA A ricultural Residential Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Flrederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.ns Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsi"le 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That 1(We) (Name)Denver. Quinnelly Carriage Place LLC (Phone) 540-662-7160 (Address) 22A Ricketts Drive Winchester VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No.21857 & 21858 on Page and is described as Parcels: 55 -A -174A, 174D, 161, 166, 167, 165A, 174B, 167A, 168 Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: Name)John Callow, Chuck Maddox, Patrick Sowers Clay Athey PHRA Phone: 540-667-2139 (Address)l 17 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority 1 (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: X Rezoning (including proffers) Conditional Use Permits X Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) X Subdivision X Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: Thisauthorizati n shall exp modified. In witness ther f (WAh Signature(s) L _,estate of Virginia, City/hof year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or 1 L(IFf�1 fy_t it \Jc my (cur) hand and seal this day of L-i� ``1 r 1To-wit r V ft � • r • • • i � ♦ R w otary Public aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of Carriage Park January 2006 V. SURVEY PLAT .& DEED AREA ZONED RA: 3026 ACRES AREA ZONED MH1: 15.18 ACRES 174B TOTAL AREA: 45.44 ACRES s ss -{(A))- STATE ROUTE 65.9 \ n))) VALLEY MILL ROAD C9t�"1TJ➢'M 5+i�16 i w ciSY � �� IO Carriage Park ZONING BOUNDARIES FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Picodilly 5t. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX_ (540) 665-0493 �R�i4'�Ti".�i�SlC7 ©iCli7C:f•�77TJfF+71T� '��"�^iFSR:�� 0�Q2iF7��i2ffi�7�u:3Ii[C'n°i� ©�/ii'7���'RF�F�a7iili°'�1LS•2!�Y'.'�si �F-_:IitGYFiiiGkS1• ®IR:�.�.�'G�f:'!<,'7 ot O 00 -,A 55 -((A)) -174A • M6V; ag la SS, fa. �Ni '`1 off• Ju ZIM1F➢�-n N 31'01'2v" CSAS4____�—__ N\Y '1 r$ ZCNFn. H� 25eaY 51e'yr ��-•� it \\ 55 -((A)) -174A / �'\ I 55 -((A)) -167A 55-((A))-166 AREA ZONED RA: 3026 ACRES AREA ZONED MH1: 15.18 ACRES 174B TOTAL AREA: 45.44 ACRES s ss -{(A))- STATE ROUTE 65.9 \ n))) VALLEY MILL ROAD C9t�"1TJ➢'M 5+i�16 i w ciSY � �� IO Carriage Park ZONING BOUNDARIES FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Picodilly 5t. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX_ (540) 665-0493 �R�i4'�Ti".�i�SlC7 ©iCli7C:f•�77TJfF+71T� '��"�^iFSR:�� 0�Q2iF7��i2ffi�7�u:3Ii[C'n°i� ©�/ii'7���'RF�F�a7iili°'�1LS•2!�Y'.'�si �F-_:IitGYFiiiGkS1• ®IR:�.�.�'G�f:'!<,'7 AREA ZONED RA: 3026 ACRES AREA ZONED MH1: 15.18 ACRES 174B TOTAL AREA: 45.44 ACRES s ss -{(A))- STATE ROUTE 65.9 \ n))) VALLEY MILL ROAD C9t�"1TJ➢'M 5+i�16 i w ciSY � �� IO Carriage Park ZONING BOUNDARIES FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Picodilly 5t. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX_ (540) 665-0493 VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 1,500' AREA TABULATION: OWNER TABULATION: PARCEL ID AREA RECORDING REF_ CURRENT OWNER(S) 55—((A))-161 0.2709 AC. DB 968, PG 1064 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 55—((.A)) -165A 3.3439 AC. DB 968, PG 1064 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 55—((A))-166 6.5655 AC. DB 968, PG 1064 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 5J(AJ)-167 2.2610 AC. DB 968, PG 1064 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 55— A )-167A 5.0531 AC. INST #030003917 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 5�(AZ —168 0.2602 AC. INST #0300229_41 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 55—((A)) -174A 18.5017 C. DB 968, PG 1064, BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES AC ACRES INST #050020490 & IRF IRON ROD FOUND INST #050020491 55—((A)) -174B 4.7592 AC. DB 968, PG 1064 BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES 5 __ A))-1740 4.4271 AC. DB 495, PG 51 & JERRY L. & INST #050020489 WINIFRED D. UPDYKE TOTAL AREA 45.4426 AC. (THIS SURVEY) LEGEND: ALL AREAS: AS NOW SURVEYED INST # INSTRUMENT NUMBER DB DEED BOOK PG PAGE HPB HIGHWAY PLAT BOOK p,LTH op AC ACRES IRF IRON ROD FOUND IPF IRON PIPE FOUND o IRON ROD SET (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) o U CORY M. HAYNES Y MON MONUMENT N/F NOW OR FORMERLY No. 2HA CENTERLINE 9 ® ps / R/W RIGHT OF WAY VDOT VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION O4 LAND ,j $UR + SAN SEW SANITARY SEWER ESMT EASEMENT UTILITY POLE Os SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: I, CORY M. HAYNES, A DULY LICENSED LAND BOUNDARY SURVEY SURVEYOR. IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF HEREBY CERTIFY, TO THE BEST OF MY BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THAT THE PROPERTIES AND CONTAINED -IN THIS SURVEY ARE THE SAME JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE PROPERTIES CONVEYED TO JERRY L. & WINIFRED RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT D. UPDYKE BY DEED RECORDED IN DB 495, PG FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 51 (ADJUSTED BY BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 RECORDED AT INST #050020489) AND TO BLUE SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 RIDGE ASSOCIATES BY DEEDS RECORDED IN DB P a t t o n H a r r i s Rust & A s s o c i a t e s, p c Engineers_ Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 3 968, PG 1064, INST #030003917 AND INST } #030022941 (ADJUSTED BY BOUNDARY LINE East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Z ADJUSTMENTS RECORDED AT INST 050020490 PH ei, Virginia Winchester, Virginia 22601 Winchester, Co AND INST #050020491) AMONG THE LAND T 540.667.2139 IqRECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. F 540.665.0493 SHEET 1 OF 9 "' CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT BEARING CHORD 305.51' DELTA 12'01'56" C7 1457,44' 306.07' 153.60' ' S60'14'58"E 507'09'13"W 38.34' 146'50'18 " C2 C3 20.00' 200.36 ' 51,26' 42.00' 21.08' S8634'39"W 41.92' 12'00'33" L6 378.09' 396.97' 218.9' S62''" 398 60'0920 C5 325.77' 117.60' 59.45' S22'05'07"W 96 0C4 20'8" '21 " C6 348.63' 139.48' 70.68' S23 12'19"W 138.55' 22'55 11'26'53 " C 7�38.50' 39.04' 8' S40'23'26W S55''" 77.69 152.73 6'13" C9 �77M' 152.80- 64 '5 '288 9"E S65 313.86' 12'48'16" TITLE REPORT REVIEW: EXCEPTIONS listed in Schedule B - Section 2 of the Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation Case No. TC05-1080 & TC05-1081 with an effective date of 08/01/05 at 2:00 PM and received by PHR+A on 09/08/05 are addressed by item number as follows: 1. None of which the surveyor.has been advised, except as may be shown on the survey. AS TO ALL TRACTS: 2. Not a survey matter. 3. See survey. 4,-7. Not survey matters. AS TO TRACT ONE ONLY (PARCEL 174D): 8. R/W to Potomac Edison Co., DB 344, PG 248 - Does not affect Parcel 174D. 9. R/W to C&P Telephone Co., DB 182, PG 308 - Parcel 174D is subject to this esmt. Location is not determined. 10. R/W to FCSA, DB 693, PG 204 - Does not affect Parcel 174D (but does affect Parcel 174A - see survey). AS TO TRACT TWO ONLY (PARCELS 161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168, 174A & 174B): 11. Esmt to C&P Telephone Co., DB 806, PG 1596 - Does.not affect. AS TO TRACT TWO, PARCELS 2-9 ONLY (PARCELS 161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168 & 174B): 12. Exact acreage or square footage of land described in Schedule A - as shown on survey. AS TO TRACT TWO, PARCEL 2 ONLY (PARCEL 167A): 13. Matters on plat by Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., DB 459, PG 197 - 12' R/W - shown on survey (also see note 9). 14. Matters on plat by David M. Furstenou, L.S., DB 938, PG 1505 - Powerline - shown on survey (other items not determined by this survey). AS TO TRACT TWO; PARCEL 4 ONLY (PARCEL 165A): 15. Matters on plat by Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., DB 443, PG 1138 - Abrams Creek - shown on survey. AS TO TRACT TWO, PARCEL 5 ONLY (PARCEL 166): 16. Matters on plat by Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., DB 280, PG 658-659 - 12' R/W - shown on survey, Abrams Creek relocated (VDOT Project No. 0007-034-101, C -SDI, PE -1D1, RW -201). See new location on sheet 4 of survey. AS TO TRACT TWO, PARCEL 6 ONLY (PARCEL 174B): 17. Motters on plat by Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., DB 432, PG 263-264 - Abrams Creek - shown on survey. AS TO TRACT TWO, PARCEL 7 ONLY (PART OF PARCEL 167A): 18. Matters on plat by Lee A. Ebert. PG 515 - see note 10. AS TO TRACT TWO, PARCEL 8 ONLY AT,TH OF (PARCEL 167): yyp pf 19. Matters on plat by Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., / - �G1r DB 292, PG 412 see note 9. O CORY M. HAYNES 9 No. 2539 NOTES: 1. FREDERICK COUNTY TAX MAP REFERENCES: 55 -((A)) -PARCELS 161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168 174A, 174B AND 176D. 2. PARCELS 1-74A & 174D (AND ADJOINING PARCELS 174C & 174E) DEPICTED HEREIN ARE BASED ON THOSE CERTAIN THREE (3) BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLATS PREPARED BY PHR+A, DATED APRIL 20, 2005, UPDATED JULY 7, 2005, RECORDED AT INST No.'s 050020489, 050020490 & 050020491 AND PURSUANT TO A CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. 3. PARCELS 161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168 & 174B DEPICTED HEREIN ARE DERIVED FROM A CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY (DATE OF LAST FIELD INSPECTION = AUG. 26, 2005) PURSUANT TO RECORD INFORMATION; REFERENCE THE HEREIN LISTED INSTRUMENTS RECORDED AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND THE FREDERICK COUNTY TAX ASSESSMENT RECORDS. 4. CURRENT ZONING: RA AND MH1 (SEE SURVEY). 5. BASIS OF MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREIN IS A FIELD RUN GPS SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THIS FIRM WHICH TIES THIS PROJECT TO NAD 83, VIRGINIA STATE PLANE (NORTH ZONE) DATUM. 6. THE LOCATION OR EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OR DAMAGED AREAS OR WETLANDS (IF ANY) IS NOT DETERMINED BY THIS SURVEY. 7. ADJOINING PROPERTY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREIN IS DERIVED FROM INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE FREDERICK COUNTY MAPPING SERVICE (INTERNET WEBSITE gis.co.frederick.va.us) JUNE, 2005. B. BASED ON THE HEREIN REFERENCED FIELD SURVEY, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN, THERE ARE NO APPARENT GAPS, GORES OR OVERLAPS OF WHICH THE SURVEYOR HAS ASCERTAINED OR BEEN ADVISED. 9. REFERENCE PARCEL 167; DB 968, PG 1064 AND DB 491, PG 2B4 APPARENTLY OMIT A LESS AND EXCEPT REFERENCE TO DB 459, PG 197 (PART OF DB 292, PG 410) WHICH CONVEYED A PORTION OF PARCEL 167 INTO PARCEL 167A. 10. REFERENCE PARCEL 167A; THE 0.66 ACRE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DB 284, PG 513 IS NOW PART OF (CONTAINED WHOLLY WITHIN) PARCEL 167A. 11. REFERENCE PARCEL 168; INST #030022941 (PARCEL 2, TAX MAP 55-A-168) APPARENTLY OMITS A LESS AND EXCEPT REFERENCE TO THE PLAT OF DIVISION RECORDED IN DB 520, PG 864. CURRENT PARCEL 168 IS IDENTIFIED AS "PARCEL B. 0.260 ACRES" ON SAID PLAT OF DIVISION. BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF RLtJE RIDGE ASSOCIATES AND JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. r} f 8 Ip S lq1 f East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 + Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 ' TT H 04 F 540.665.0493 SHEET 2 OF 3 0 r 0 z In 0 M LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L7 N61'1501E 20.46' L2 S65'42'25"E 19.04' E3- S28'24'45"W 93.31' L4 N57'07'14"W 39.11' L5 S51'46'30"W 162.46' L6 N52'23'22"E 183.91' L7 -8 N66'41'36"E S51'15'39"W 94.26' 43.10' L9 L70 L11 L12 S15'15'39"W N550 N78 S75 100.00' 29.0 ' 31.586' 46.95' NOTES: 1. FREDERICK COUNTY TAX MAP REFERENCES: 55 -((A)) -PARCELS 161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168 174A, 174B AND 176D. 2. PARCELS 1-74A & 174D (AND ADJOINING PARCELS 174C & 174E) DEPICTED HEREIN ARE BASED ON THOSE CERTAIN THREE (3) BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLATS PREPARED BY PHR+A, DATED APRIL 20, 2005, UPDATED JULY 7, 2005, RECORDED AT INST No.'s 050020489, 050020490 & 050020491 AND PURSUANT TO A CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. 3. PARCELS 161, 165A, 166, 167, 167A, 168 & 174B DEPICTED HEREIN ARE DERIVED FROM A CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY (DATE OF LAST FIELD INSPECTION = AUG. 26, 2005) PURSUANT TO RECORD INFORMATION; REFERENCE THE HEREIN LISTED INSTRUMENTS RECORDED AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND THE FREDERICK COUNTY TAX ASSESSMENT RECORDS. 4. CURRENT ZONING: RA AND MH1 (SEE SURVEY). 5. BASIS OF MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREIN IS A FIELD RUN GPS SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THIS FIRM WHICH TIES THIS PROJECT TO NAD 83, VIRGINIA STATE PLANE (NORTH ZONE) DATUM. 6. THE LOCATION OR EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE OR DAMAGED AREAS OR WETLANDS (IF ANY) IS NOT DETERMINED BY THIS SURVEY. 7. ADJOINING PROPERTY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREIN IS DERIVED FROM INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE FREDERICK COUNTY MAPPING SERVICE (INTERNET WEBSITE gis.co.frederick.va.us) JUNE, 2005. B. BASED ON THE HEREIN REFERENCED FIELD SURVEY, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN, THERE ARE NO APPARENT GAPS, GORES OR OVERLAPS OF WHICH THE SURVEYOR HAS ASCERTAINED OR BEEN ADVISED. 9. REFERENCE PARCEL 167; DB 968, PG 1064 AND DB 491, PG 2B4 APPARENTLY OMIT A LESS AND EXCEPT REFERENCE TO DB 459, PG 197 (PART OF DB 292, PG 410) WHICH CONVEYED A PORTION OF PARCEL 167 INTO PARCEL 167A. 10. REFERENCE PARCEL 167A; THE 0.66 ACRE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DB 284, PG 513 IS NOW PART OF (CONTAINED WHOLLY WITHIN) PARCEL 167A. 11. REFERENCE PARCEL 168; INST #030022941 (PARCEL 2, TAX MAP 55-A-168) APPARENTLY OMITS A LESS AND EXCEPT REFERENCE TO THE PLAT OF DIVISION RECORDED IN DB 520, PG 864. CURRENT PARCEL 168 IS IDENTIFIED AS "PARCEL B. 0.260 ACRES" ON SAID PLAT OF DIVISION. BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF RLtJE RIDGE ASSOCIATES AND JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. r} f 8 Ip S lq1 f East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 + Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 ' TT H 04 F 540.665.0493 SHEET 2 OF 3 0 r 0 z In 0 M �t"SjP��P�P OJONO C 14C �IA�ES (SEE��A)� E AS9 D 55 IpG pp2� AD✓USTED /__*' \ /v// (SEE NOTE 2)-' �, f 55-((A)) �174A ��AO✓USTED SEE NOTE 4 ` ZONED: MH1, ------------------------ ZOfVED: MH1 /_ _- ZONLD: RA (0) / �% AD✓USTED !. 55-((A )-17 A % i 5NED)) A 61, ZO 55-((ACJ-765 /V/F 1/ALLEY M/LL FARM, L. C. /NST. 1010001362 /NST ,x`010002874 ZONED.• RA ZONED: o`�' zo EP , —_�t ' �ob� 1671 55-((A))-\ 167 ZONED: Al, "aLLJ LLJ ^ V -- !tom J 5 -((A)) -165A] ZONED: RA - 55-((A:) -161 ZONED:. RA 55 -((A)) -174B ZONED: RA / A STATE ROW VALLEY MILL NOTE: SHEET NUMBERS ARE LOCATED IN. THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER OF EACH SCREENED OUTLINE. \ PARCEL �1 55 AD✓USTED ' 70 z � SEE NOTE -'8L UE R/OGE - 6t0_ 6XA rEs 9J 690, PG 655 i�1 3) ZQNED.- MH7 t -=r --- ZOfVED: MH1 /_ _- ZONLD: RA (0) / �% AD✓USTED !. 55-((A )-17 A % i 5NED)) A 61, ZO 55-((ACJ-765 /V/F 1/ALLEY M/LL FARM, L. C. /NST. 1010001362 /NST ,x`010002874 ZONED.• RA ZONED: o`�' zo EP , —_�t ' �ob� 1671 55-((A))-\ 167 ZONED: Al, "aLLJ LLJ ^ V -- !tom J 5 -((A)) -165A] ZONED: RA - 55-((A:) -161 ZONED:. RA 55 -((A)) -174B ZONED: RA / A STATE ROW VALLEY MILL NOTE: SHEET NUMBERS ARE LOCATED IN. THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER OF EACH SCREENED OUTLINE. \ PARCEL 161 = SHEET 4 PARCEL 165A = SHEET 5 PARCEL 166 = SHEET 5 PARCEL 167 = SHEET 6 PARCEL 167A = SHEET 6 - OF PARCEL PARCEL 168 174A =. SHEET 6 = SHEET 7, 8 �pLTu & 9 � PARCEL 174B = SHEET 4 r (3 1 PARCEL 174D = SHEET 7o CORY M. HAYNES a GRAPHIC SCALE 0 150 300 600 1 inch = 300 ft - No. 2539 dl (8`d5 4 AD AD I q'2 BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE A'_SSCOCI,eTES AND JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED_ SEPT. B, 2005 SCALE: 1" = 300' DATE: AUG. 26 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors, Planners. Landscape Architects. Wi East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Hp - 1 Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493-,i4FFT 3 nF 3 0 CA 0 Z m 0 M M r U)(0 Imo, 0_ �7 0 � z O y M 5 > m s� / U)f ?C 0 J� /6 0 Fp. qc / 098 f Rq BF�qCA Rp� o C4� ` (R %� SS47 �1(i � "OA, 8 �'9 e FSS F (� COMMONGVEA '711 REMAIM9,--R OF h z OB .345, PG 28 SAN SEW ESMT Y J N HPB S, PG 252 DB 580, PG 338 N C2 J a 3 SEE SHEET 3J o 15g 67' 102 ° 55—((A)) -174B _ . �""� g7'25 -p4 W 4.7592 AC C4 o� W ZONED: RAEDGE OF PAVEMENT �00 i 0 z z O w w o 4 ry 40 O C); Q ci� oryry. Of !"� N ^7 C) 4� z LTH OF ,LT Grp � 000 00 L6 :It ,n 0 CORY M. HAYNES v No. 2539 Z � 9(e)os w (10 l 04 O BOUNDARY SURVEY 1 oN / CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BUUE RIDGE AS SQDIA�?ES 0AND C5 ' �r JERRY L & MNIFRED D. UPDYKE C5exry� RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT fps0) 0) FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA _ UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 SCALE: 1_ = 100' DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Cj GRAPHIC SCALE Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. / 0 50 loo 200 1.17 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RA PH T 540.667.2139 1 inch = 100 ft F 540.665.0493 SHEET 4 OF 3 0 N z z m 0 n V r S11'16W _174A IPF IPF 352.37' 174A / h �IA-7 / VIRGINIA STATE PLANE NORTH / NAD 83 \ IRF ^ 4N \ ",V co \ o 1 I >67A ` \ IPF 0. �6. WL 1 ` \ ems• 55—((A))-166 6.5655 AC L12 .N e ZONED: RA � e 55—((A)) -165A \ 3.3439 AC ZONED: RA \ ABRAMS CREEK o /o SO43118"Ll 166.36' L, 1748 � �Ni,TH of D . r COfi llV01VWEAL Tti OF V/RG/N/A Lo CORY M. HAYNES it 7/WAINDER OF No. 2539 OB .545 PG 28 HPB 5 PG' 252 9 � 8 �eS (SEE sHEFT .3j Grr nr. A T T t=cAPHR. Jl ALTE a 50 lea 100 1 inch = 100 ft L11 L10 �e DRi u O�qr \SGC 9 6y' 18O g fig\ oVIV A) L9 I /Noy 161 `� CO'S1 ����0 BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES AND JERRY L & VANII=RED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & AssociaYes,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. P Wi East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -R+A T 540.667.2139 HF 540.665.0493 CHFFT 5 OF 9 5B E �� Z N�F BL UE R/DGE IRF g8'% Ej8 ASSOC/A TES 5, f\(\A�� PG o o OB 690 PG 655 a? 0 060 MN �" ZI3� B9 U1 IPF 'T5 SVA E�1 w (- Lo+ vDOo A DR FG 669" " o O ODfn DB g42. �� 1y (P: IPF Z t� W %74A t O t` S32'34'20"W v`ni 1 IPF 135.05' IPF 535'17'48"t1r 55-((A))-167 206.06' IPF 2.2610 AC \ ZONED: RA 1 \ 'S48-46' 1 081-9, 8 I cP J O1p rnLp a01 z v 55 -((A)) -167A M 5.0531 AC 1 ZONED: RA -a 1 0 LLJ Iw IPF Vo LLJ ::) ~ --f p o N4 `S9, �r -J CC � 08w 226.81, �, N (,I J 166 I 100 m �_ 72' PRIVATE RAW I .�5 D8 2Rn �� Q�PN 01 165 j j T H =P o 0 -- IN N—�r- 3T41 24 E 180.45' a 3r 4� ) CORY M. HAYNES 9 No. 2539 9'B�dS GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 t00 200 1 inch = 100 ft_ BOUNDARY SURVEY CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES AND JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. 8. 2005 SCALE: 1" — 100' DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,Pc Engineers. Surveyors, Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 EatPiccadilly Street Suite200 P R+A Winchester, Virginia 226D1 T 540.6672139 F 540.665.0493 SHEET 6 OF 174C 174E — ----S76_46.4$ E 460.7-6------ ADJUSTED 60.16.1' ADJUSTED (SEE NOTE 2) 00 55—((A)) -174D C11I 4.4271 AC o `t ZONED: MH1 U) 0 /co F-- laf �`" of L] � u� °) z Z Z N Z O N Z Uj Qz Z W � U) a c0 ^ ,V- I\ .�qjo Z �t�o C� cy' N n > z� `n I ry �N 174A y SCALE: 1" = 1000' _ _S84'17'10"E_ 320.55' I sy LO /ADJUSTED (SEE NOTE 2) W / 55—((A)) -174A = 18.5017 AC / ZONED: MH1 & RA / LU / w w ��'ALTH OF L v N / U CORY M. HAYNES a <� G' No. 2539 h� X16 FR 50 07 01A0 RP BOUNDARY SURVEY P� 5�Ep. CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF 1051ZJ� BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES / ^Il AND N74.1 j 26; w 46 1V I JERRY Eo e& MAGISTERIAL D TRUPDYKE 1?F 69.76' FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 3p„ NEgR UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 OAK SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc GRAPHIC SCALE Engineers. Surveyors. Planners_ Landscape Architects. o so ioo zoo � Winchester, East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 P, -R+A Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 1 inch = 100 ft" F 540.665.0493 SHEET 7 OF ----,S76-46,4 386.55 I ADJUSTED (SEE NOTE 2) 55—((A)) -174A 18.5017 AC ) ZONED: MH1 & RA ) Do n I N m �) O1 O � z Co, NI I-- � Q ) �I Oo -i�E1-O ) N F-- O V) C 7 QNWa W u7 OUVW)rn L� /D am O� QOV)O Z I � A-�� I I N74•� 7'26 Wim` 469.76 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 200 Ie 1 inch = 100 ft- ro W W W LU 0 I W z J 2 v Q 174E �74A 1,740 SCALE: 1 " = 1000' 2 F -- O Z Q z CD 174A ALTH O� Gj 1P CORY M. HAYNES 9 No. 2539 4 jaIC, S BOUNDARY SURVEY I CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES AND JERRY L & %MNIFRED D. UPDYKE RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. 8, 2005 SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris .Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 WinPf4- chester, Virginia 22601 -R+A T 540.6672139 F 540.665.0493 SHEET 8 OF 9 (I--, 1516 IRF 1PF 77.98 IPF S56 -17,34 ,,E 167 S72'05'S8"E 158.05' IPF / z - ADJUSTED o / (SEE NOTE 2) y _ �� �� � 55— A —174A N -y �ffff QI 18.5017 AC /� W�� ZONED: MH1 & RA /Zo / y Q o o v O N h �'44 C� y tail Lv -,V 1674 �01�� to / S I IPF — — j W Z Z O O N N 1 Lf) IN N rn N Opp ? un Z Z. 17st0 m -0"L � w rss =01 1 IPF 165A S5,324, S'• 28 E IRF G. Al V it ` 74Ah'V�� SCALE: 1" = 1000' LTH 0� v CORY M. HAYNES 9 No. 2539 9 f s1�s GRAPHIC SCALE e o� 0 50 100 200 sug,V� iM; I 1 inch = 100 ft_ \BOUNDARY SURVEY i CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF I BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIA i S AND JERRY L & WINIFRED D. UPDYKE ICED HUD MAGISTERIAL DiSiw .T FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA UPDATED: SEPT. S. 2005 SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: AUG. 26, 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors, Planners. Landscape Architects. o C-4 Pf ]� Winchester, East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 0z Winchester, Virginia 22601 o T 540.667.2139 n F 540.665.0493 SHEET 9 OF 9 REZONING APPLICATION 914-06 GLAIZE PROPERTY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 16, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in 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: November 1, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: December 13, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 1.38 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located on the southwestern quadrant of the intersection of Northwestern Pike (Route 50), Round Hill Road (Route 803) and Retail Boulevard. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY 1D NUMBER: 52-A-252 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: B2 (Business General) South: B3 (Industrial Transition) RA (Rural Areas) East: B3 (Industrial Transition) RA (Rural Areas) West: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Orchard & commercial Use: VDOT Facility Commercial Use: Vacant Residential Use: VDOT Facility Rezoning #14-06, Glaize Property October 16, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial use REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virizinia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 50 and 803. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Glaize Property rezoning application with a revision date of September 1, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request with the exception of the following item: Traffic from this development will have an impact on the Route 50 corridor. VDOT believes the applicant should participate in the mitigation of the traffic impacts. 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 General 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: Water supply (i.e., fire hydrants) will need to be addressed when site plan is submitted. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: We have completed our review of the rezoning application for the 1.38 acre parcel I.D. #52-A-252 and offer the following comments: 1. Refer to Page 4, Drainage: Offsite drainage easements may be required to accommodate point -source discharges. 2. Refer to Page 4, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Correct the first sentence to read the nearest citizens' trash.....is located on Route 809, McFarland Road, which is off Magic Mountain Road. Actually, the proposed rezoning from RA to B2 will required that the cost of solid waste disposal will be the responsibility of the commercial property owner, not Frederick County. The actual impact on the landfill will be insignificant. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments, is now within SWSA. Sanitation Authority: Should the parcel be brought into the SWSA, the cost of extending service will be the developer's responsibility. Currently, there is water and sewer service on the north side of US 50. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: Health Department has no objection as long as public water and sewer are provided. Refer to items D & E in the Impact Analysis Statement. Frederick County 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 buildout. Rezoning 414-06, Glaize Property October 16, 2006 Page 3 Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Site in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact. It is noted that this property is within the study area of the Second Battle of Kernstown; 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 document be titled "Proposed Proffer Statement" and the details of the zoning, owners, property, etc., be summarized at the beginning as set forth on the enclosed 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 are substantive paragraphs of the proffer statement. 3. The second paragraph discusses public water and sewer. It appears that public water and sewer is not currently available to the property. At the end of that paragraph it is stated "See Proffer #1." However, Proffer #1 (the only proffer) does not have anything to do with water and sewer. I would suggest that a separate proffer be added, under the Proffers section, which provides that development of the property shall not occur, and no site plan shall be submitted, until public water and sewer is available to the property. 4. In the third paragraph, instead of the language "development of this property would require the owner to meet the conditions set forth in this document" at the end of the first sentence, I would suggest the following language: "...the use and development of the subject property shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions set forth in this proffer." 5. In the third paragraph, the second sentence should be deleted, and the following should be added to the end of the first sentence (as hereinabove amended): "...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." 6. A paragraph should be added to the initial paragraphs which contains a description of the property, to include a description of the general location of the property, the title owner, the acreage and a citation to the land records (deed book and page number, or instrument number) where the owner of the property acquired title. 7. It is noted that there has been no Generalized Development Plan submitted with these proffers. Therefore, it is noted that this proffer does not commit the applicant to any specific development plan. 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 11 wing Commission. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated December 8, 2005 from Susan K Eddy, Senior Planner. Rezoning #14-06, Glaize Property October 16, 2006 Page 4 Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The site is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), but outside the Urban Development Area (UDA). The site is within the limits of Phase II of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan (revised May 10, 2006). The plan calls for commercial development in the Phase II area; therefore, the proposed use is supported in the Round Hill Plan. The Round Hill Plan also recommends a number of design features for commercial development along Route 50. This is to minimize visual disruption and keep Route 50 West from becoming a typical commercial strip. The Plan recommends only one freestanding sign for each property. This is to be a monument style sign, with a maximum sign face of 50 square feet and a maximum height of 12 feet. The plan calls for a 20 foot landscaped strip along Route 50. Included within this strip is to be a pedestrian facility, ornamental shrubs and street trees. The plan also calls for the placement of buildings close to Route 50 with landscaped parking lots in the rear. Staff Note: The applicant has proffered a 10 foot asphalt trail along Route 50. This is shown on the GDP in the public right of -way. This will preclude anticipated road widenings in the future. The applicant has not proffered the 20 foot landscaped area, which should also be outside of the public right-of-way. (The Wal-Mart development has the landscaped area, including the bike path, outside of the right-of-way.) The applicant has proffered parking lot landscaping, although the amount and type ofplanting is unclear. The applicant should also consider a sidewalk along Round Hill Road. As this area develops commercially, pedestrian movement will be more important. While reduced signage has not been specifically proffered, there is a note on signage on the GDP. Design features should be more carefully considered and the design proffers should be re -written. Rezoning #14-06, Glaize Property October 16, 2006 Page 5 Transportation The Round Hill Plan calls for "a transportation network that would feed traffic to and from Route 50 at controlled intersections, and discourages the proliferation of entrances along Route 50 itself'. The Plan's standard for this section of Route 50 (which exceeds the Zoning Ordinance Standard) is for commercial entrance spacing of 200 feet. The proposed right -in only entrance on Route 50 would be approximately 150 feet from the intersection of Round Hill Road. An additional lane will be constructed by the applicant along their frontage on Round Hill Road, and the full entrance on Round Hill Road placed near the southern edge of the property. Route 50 is classified as a minor arterial road. The emerging Eastern Road Plan Generalized Cross Section Designation Map identifies this section of Route 50 as a six -lane divided road section. Staff Note: Improvements to the Route SO corridor are being pursued by the County and VDOT, and have not been addressed by the applicant. These include future road widening and pedestrian signalization at key intersections, such as this one. The applicant should be participating in these efforts. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, mature woodlands, floodplain or wetlands on the parcel identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel falls under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil types on the site is Frederick-Poplimento loam, 14B (2 to 7 % slopes) and 14C (7-15% slopes). The characteristics of these soil types and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation A full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not prepared for this project. The traffic impact analysis prepared for this application assumed a maximum land use intensity of 29,480 square feet of retail use. (This is the worst case scenario as called for in the County's rezoning application.) Using trip generation figures from the I.T.E. Tri Generation Manual 7th Edition, the proposed rezoning is projected to generate 1,700 average daily trips (ADT). As stated in the VDOT comment, this will have a measurable impact on Routes 50 and 803. The applicant should be prepared to address all impacts associated with these roads. B. Sewer and Water The site is within the sewer and water service area (SWSA). As stated in the comment from the Rezoning 414-06, Glaize Property October 16, 2006 Page 6 Sanitation Authority, the cost of extending water and sewer service will be the developer's responsibility. C. Community Facilities In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by this development to the Fire and Rescue Services, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $1,000. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated September 2, 2005 with latest revision dated October 11, 2006 A) Monetary Contribution A contribution of $1,000 has been proffered to the Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company. Staff Note: It is County practice to channel cash contributions through County Administration, so that proffers can be enforced. This proffer should be re -worded accordingly. B) Generalized Development Plan (GDP) The GDP shows the two entrances, the frontage improvements and a bike trail. Staff note: The note at the bottom of the GDP appears to confine the signage to one monument sign, 50 square feet in area and 12 feet in height, as per the Round Hill Plan. It would be better if the applicant stated this clearly in the proffer statement. C) Site Access A right -in only entrance will be provided on Route 50. A full entrance will be provided on Round Hill Road. D) Road Improvements The applicant will be constructing a new lane on Round Hill Road in front of this property. Staff note: A sidewalk is requested along Round Hill Road. VDOT has commented that the applicant should be contributing towards the wider improvements along Route 50, which has yet to be addressed by the applicant. Greater detail of the proffered improvements should be considered. E) Bike Trail The applicant will be constructing a 10 foot asphalt bike trail along Route 50. F) Parking Lot Landscaping The applicant has proffered parking lot landscaping, although it is unclear what landscaping is being provided. Rezoning 414-06, Glaize Property October 16, 2006 Page 7 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/01/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land use proposed conforms to the Round Hill Land Use Plan. The applicant should be fully addressing the design elements of the Plan, specifically the 20 foot landscaped strip outside of the right- of-way and the placement of the building close to Route 50, with the landscaped parking behind the building. The applicant should also provide a sidewalk on Round Hill Road and address the wider transportation needs in the Route 50 Corridor. 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 Plannin,- Commission. December 8, 2005 Mr. John Lewis Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Proposed Rezoning of G;aize Property — Round Hill Dear John: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Glaize Property in Round Hill. This application seeks to rezone 1.38 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (Business General) District. Staff's review comments are listed below for your consideration. 1. Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. The site is within the limits of Phase II of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. That plan specifically states that "Development of an area would be dependent on the availability of appropriate infrastructure; therefore, the plan does not recommend rezoning land within the community for commercial development prior to the provision of central water and sewer". Water and sewer is not currently available in this part of Round Hill. It would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan to allow this rezoning without the provision of water and sewer. The applicant will need to secure expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) in advance of this rezoning. As much of Round Hill Phase I has received development approval, it would not be inconsistent with the Round Hill Plan for the County to support such a SWSA expansion. The rezoning itself should guarantee water and sewer service to the site. 2. Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. The plan calls for commercial development in the Phase II area; therefore, the proposed use is supported in the Round Hill Plan. 3. Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. The Round Hill Plan also recommends a number of design features for commercial development along Route 50. These include shared entrances, green space along Route 50, bike and walking trails, screening of parking areas, controlling the size and number of signs, required underground utilities and landscaping. All of these design features should be 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. John Lewis RE: Proposed Rezoning of Glaize Property — Round Hill December 8, 2005 taken into consideration, and may be appropriate as proffers to implement the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Entrances. The Round Hill Plan calls for "a transportation network that would feed traffic to and from Route 50 at controlled intersections, and discourages the proliferation of entrances along Route 50 itself'. At present, the site has multiple entrances which are not conducive to safe traffic movements. VDOT will be commenting directly on the engineering and safety aspects of the entrances, but as it exists today, the site is not in conformance with this aspect of the Round Hill Plan. The applicant should consider a layout (presented in the form of a Generalized Development Plan) to improve access management both on Route 50 and on the rerouted Round Hill Road (Route 803). 5. Route 50. As you are aware, road improvements are currently being made to Northwestern Pike (Route 50). The applicant should be prepared to add an additional lane in front of his property to ensure completion of long range transportation improvements. 6. Impact Assessment Statement - Traffic. A complete traffic impact analysis was not provided with this draft rezoning. Trip generation figures were based on 15,000 square feet of medical -dental office building. which the applicant states will be developed. However, unless a specific floorspace and/or use are proffered, the County will have to assume the maximum intensity of development, as per the rezoning application. For a 1.38 acre B2 site, this would equate to 29,480 square feet of retail. (21,362 square feet of retail use per acre of B2 use) 7. Proffer Statement. The introduction in the proffer statement is unnecessary. The introduction also references a proffer #1 conceming water and sewer service. I could not find such a proffer. The County Attorney will be commenting directly on the format of the proffer statement. 8. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick -Winchester Health Department, Round Hill Fire and Rescue Company and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffers have been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department, Page 3 Mr. John Lewis RE: Proposed Rezoning of Glaize Property — Round Hill December 8, 2005 they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. 9. Adjacent Parcels. A list of all adjacent properties, their owners and the owners' addresses are required with the application. Please note that adjacent parcel 52- A -71A (VDOT) is zoned B3, not B2, as stated in the application. 10. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $3,188.00 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27. 2005. Fees may change. 11. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Please have the property owners complete the special limited power of attorney form which authorizes you to represent them during the application process. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, X &C&j Susan K. Eddy. AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad cc: 1"17. George vlalzc, Ji,., Glaliz-; Real' Estate, 30 North Cameron Street, Vviiichester, VA 22601 Proposed Proffer Statement Maize Property Rezoning Rezoning #: Property: Recorded Owner: 1.38 ACRES PARCEL ID - 52-A-252 Glaize Real Estate Applicant: Mr. George Glaize, Jr. Glaize Real Estate 30 North Cameron St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 Project Name: Original Date of Proffers: Revision Date (s): Glaize Property Rezoning September 02, 2005 January 10, 2006 February 20, 2006 May 24, 2006 September 1, 2006 September 26, 2006 October 4, 2006 October 11, 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: 0507007 OCT 1 3 2'16 PROFFER STATEMEAT PARCEL ID 52-A-25 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 # 19-- OG for the rezoning of parcel 52-A-252 from RA to B2, the use and development of the subject property shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions set forth in this proffer except to the extent that such conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such are approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Code of Virginia and the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. These proffers shall be binding on the owner and their legal successors or assigns. PROFFERS 1.) Monetary contribution to Frederick County Service Organizations The owner will donate or will cause to be paid to the Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company, No. 15 the sum of $1,000.00 for impacts to fire and rescue services. This sum will be paid upon the receipt of the first building permit issued subsequent to the approval of this rezoning for any proposed structure. 2.) Generalized Development Plan The applicant agrees to proffer a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated 10/11/06 for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of the proposed commercial development and locations of site access. 3.) Restricted Access to Route 50 The applicant agrees to install a right in only entrance on Route 50 eastbound, as required by Virginia Department of Transportation. 4.) Route 803 Improvements The applicant agrees to install a right turn lane, southbound on 803, into the project, as required by Virginia Department of Transportation. The improvements to Route 803 will be completed prior to the occupancy of any structure on the property. 5.) Frontage Improvements The applicant agrees to provide curb and gutter along frontage of the site, adjacent to Route 50 and Route 803, as required by Virginia Department of Transportation. The frontage improvements will be completed prior to the occupancy of any structure on the property. 6.) Design Features The applicant agrees to provide a ten foot (10') bike and walking trail along Route 50 as specified in the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. The bike and walking trail will be completed prior to the occupancy of any structure on the property. page 2 PROFFER STATEM. .T PARCEL ID 52-A-25 7.) Landscape Features The applicant agrees to provide parking lot screening as required by Frederick County and the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. The landscape features will be completed prior to the occupancy of any structure on the property. 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: (George GI , Jr , owner) 0 Date City/County of it°V , ti �� t,t; 7 �,�� , Commonwealth Of Virginia. /The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /�' day of acfa6-etc– , 200(�7— A 0--i Notary Puy# My commission expires: page 3 CD, m z: r- + R �I. ; ---------------------------------------------- #s ----------- ---- ---- ---------------------- ----------------------- - -- - -- _ro---------- ------------------- E:B. U.S. ROUTE' 50 - NORTNTYE'STE'RN PJXE ; _. R/lY dARl6S -- - - - ..._ #S - ---- --- LI I I 1 I 1 I i 1 I I I i I I I I COMMONBEALTH OF NRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIN 52- -71A ZONED : B2 USE.. EXEMPT Notes: 1. Underground Utilities will be installed as required by Frederick County and the Round Hill Community Use Plan. 2.Sign s for the parcel will be designed as required by Frederick County and the Round Hill Community Use Plan. ---- ... -----II I--+1 - - - .------ I ---- -- ---- ------- COMM 1 / i I I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAAON I 1 I I I I I PIN 52-A-7TAZONED : 82 1 I I USE EXEMPT`.' GEORGE 52RGE GLARE, JR. RI PIN 52-A-252 I� 1 I PROFFER PR lgR I OPOSED ZONE: B2 �{ 6IPROPOSED USE: BUISNESS 1gt I 1 I #4 ., 1.3831 AC. - )> �� I I \ , 0 IY W O V J a z n z LO N w N Z Q O O I j U N w Ln 0 Y U Ct 1---N 0p -1 w Q LL w z w C7 LLI 1 W Z Q a SURVEY: C.L: PL -PLC n1, DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: CBS 0209017 SCALE: DATE: 1"=60.0' 10/11/06 EXHIBIT #5 1 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT A PROPOSED REZONING for PARCEL ID - 52 (A) 252 Gainesboro Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia October 11, 2006 Prepared for: Mr. George W. Glaize, Jr. Glaize Real Estate 30 South Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540")'66/2-5-179"2 email: office@painterlewis.com Job Number: 0507007 OCT 1 3 2006 IMPACT ANALYSIS ciTATEMENT PARCEL ID 52 (A) 252 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS section i. INTRODUCTION A. SITE SUITABILITY B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES C. TRAFFIC D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT E. WATER SUPPLY F. DRAINAGE G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES J. OTHER IMPACTS. APPENDIX page 2 age 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 8 IMPACT ANALYSIS oTATEMENT PARCEL ID 52 (A) 252 i. INTRODUCTION George W. Glaize, Jr., Trustee (the applicant) is the owner of a parcel of land located at the intersection of Route 50 and Route 803 in Frederick County, Virginia. The parcel is identified in the tax records of the county as TM# 52-A-252. The parcel contains 1.38 acres. The parcel is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas District). The current development occurring near the subject property makes the site more suitable and valuable for commercial use. The owner is requesting to rezone the property from RA, Rural Areas District to B2, Business General District. The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial development in Phase II of the Round Hill Rural Community Land Use Plan area; therefore, the proposed use is supported in the development plan. Road construction is currently underway to realign the intersection of Rt. 50 and Round Hill Rd. (Rt. 803) to the eastern boundary of the subject parcel. A 200 foot turn lane is also being constructed across the frontage of the parcel for vehicles turning onto the new Round Hill Rd. from Rt. 50 east bound. A. SITE SUITABILITY The subject parcel lies within Phase II of the Round Hill Rural Community Land Use Plan study area, see Exhibit 4. The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan states that any residential development in this phase of the study area should be avoided in favor of commercial development. The current state of the immediate area would also indicate that the time for the rezoning and commercial development of the parcel is appropriate. In order to address the intent of the Round Hill Rural Community Land Use Plan, the applicant agrees to proffer a Generalize Development Plan to address business use, access management, green space, and vegetative screening. (See Exhibit #5). With the completion of the realignment of Rt. 803, Round Hill Rd. and Route 50, the subject parcel will be located on the southwest corner of the Rt. 50 and Round Hill Rd. (Rt. 803) intersection. The parcel is bordered to the north by the Rt. 50 east bound lanes. The parcel directly across the highway from the subject parcel is TM# 52 -A -B and is owned by Winchester Warehousing, Inc. The parcel is bordered to the south, east, and west by TM# 52 -A - 71A, owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation. This parcel is zoned B-2 and is used for the housing and maintenance of state highway department vehicles and other items essential to their operations. Please see Exhibit 1 for site layout. 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 6TATEMENT PARCEL ID 52 (A) 252 STEEP SLOPES The property generally slopes to the southeast toward the area of the construction for the new Round Hill Rd. The slopes are gentle ranging from 2-10%. Storm water runoff will discharge into a storm sewer and drainage ditch system being constructed along with the new alignment of Route 803, Round Hill Rd. MATURE WOODLANDS n this site. The property has been cleared and There are no mature woodlands located o graded for the two existing residences. SOILS According to the Soil Survey of Frederick County, the site contains the following soil type: Frederick-Poplimento Loams: 14B (2-7%) and 14C (7-15%). These soils are part of the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet association which are gently sloping to very steep, very deep, well -drained soils formed in material weathered from limestone. Depth to bedrock is approximately 60 inches or greater. The unified soil classifications for the soils are: GM, GC, ML, CL, CH, SM, and SC. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The parcel to be rezoned is currently bordered to the east, west, and south by TM# 52- A -71A, owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation. This parcel is used for the maintenance and storage of state highway department vehicles, equipment, and other items essential to their operations. This parcel is zoned B2. Upon completion of the new Round Hill Rd. (Rt. 803) the site will be bound to the east by the Round Hill Rd. right-of-way. The site is bound to the north by the east bound lanes of Rt. 50. Directly across Rt. 50 is a 28.74 acre parcel of land (TM# 52 -A -B) owned by Winchester Warehousing, Inc. This property is zoned B2. See Exhibit 1. The Winchester Warehousing property was recently subdivided from approximately 68 acres to the current 28.74 acres. The eastern portion of the property was sold to Wal-Mart Properties and is currently being developed. This is the location of the new Wal-Mart Supercenter. Surrounding properties are shown on Exhibit 1. C. TRAFFIC The subject parcel in this rezoning request is located on Route 50 eastbound just west of the Winchester City limits in Frederick County. The roads adjacent to the parcel are currently being upgraded to handle increased traffic flow due to the construction of the new Wal-Mart Supercenter and proposed future commercial growth. More specifically, Route 803, Roundhill Road, has been rode -sig ari arri has been constructed to inte'rsect with Route 50 at the eastern boundary of the subject parcel. As required by Virginia Department of Transportation, access to the site from Route 50 will be limited to a right in only entrance (Proffer 3); a right turn lane will be added to Route 803 to access the page 4 IMPACT ANALYSIS ,TATEMENT PARCEL ID 52 (A) 252 site (Proffer 4), and frontage improvements, to provide curb and gutter, will be completed on Route 50 and Route 803 (Proffer 5). A right turn lane has been constructed across the length of the parcel frontage on Route 50 eastbound to serve traffic turning from eastbound Route 50 onto Roundhill Rd. The intersection of Route 50 and Route 803 is a signalized intersection. See Exhibit 1 for existing and proposed road layouts. The latest traffic analysis of the area shows that the current daily average number of vehicles on this section of Route 50 is 17,000 vehicles per day. The daily average for Route 803, Roundhill Road, is 1,200 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. The owner of the subject parcel has indicated that the intended use for the subject parcel upon rezoning would be for a mixture of medical -dental office and retail. This location is situated in close proximity to the Winchester Medical Center. Since the future use is unknown, we have selected land use 815, Free-Standinq Discount Store as a worst case to model the traffic count for the site. The ITE Trip Generation Manual describes the Free -Standing Discount Store use as various discount stores with off-street parking, centralized cashiering, a wide variety of products, and typically open 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. The parcel contains 1.38 acres. According to the Frederick County staff, the parcel can support approximately 29,480 square feet of commercial space. Free -Standing Discount Store, Code 815 Based on a projected gross leasable area of 29,480 square feet: ■ Weekday: 56.02 trips per 1000 sf = 1651 trips ■ Weekday A.M.: Peak Hour: 5.27 trips per 1000 sf = 155 trips ■ Weekday P.M.: Peak Hour: 5.43 trips per 1000 sf = 160 trips ■ Saturday: 71.19 trips per 1000 sf = 2098 trips ■ Sunday: 54.90 trips 1000 sf = 1618 trips D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT This site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is therefore eligible to connect to the public sanitary sewer system. It will be the responsibility of the developer to extend service to this parcel. page 5 IMPACT ANALYSIS oTATEMENT PARCEL ID 52 (A) 252 E. WATER SUPPLY This site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is therefore eligible to connect to the public sanitary sewer system. It will be the responsibility of the developer to extend service to this parcel. F. DRAINAGE The site is located near the top of a localized drainage area, there is a high point along the western boundary of the site. Therefore, the site experiences very little offsite drainage. The surface water will generally drain to the southeast towards the construction of the new Round Hill Rd. It is assumed that a ditch system will be built along with the new Round Hill Road that should take the water coming from this site into consideration. Development of this site is not expected to greatly affect the amount or velocity of runoff. Considerations for the need of a stormwater management system will be made when specific development plans are created and submitted. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES It can be assumed that the tenant on each lot will use dumpsters to service the needs of that particular business. It would therefore be of the responsibility of the individual lot owners to pay for the removal of the solid waste accordingly. 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 seven identified historic sites, one being a potentially significant site, shown in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey that lie within a mile of the site. The potentially significant site is Walnut Grove. The remaining identified sites include Linden, the Old Hoover Place, a Folk Victorian Farmhouse on Route 50, a Farmhouse on Route 50, and the Baker Orchard House. The location and proximity to the subject parcel can be seen in Exhibit 2. 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. page 6 IMPACT ANALYSIS oTATEMENT PARCEL ID 52 (A) 252 I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENTAL IMPACT MODEL The new Developmental Impact Model (D.I.M.) is utilized primarily for residential rezoning requests. It is anticipated that the 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 Round Hill Community Fire Company located on Northwestern Grade. No additional fire and rescue facilities will be required for the area proposed to be rezoned. The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates that the projected capital cost for emergency service facilities attributable to this development is $00.00. 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 $00.00. J. OTHER IMPACTS The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates the following additional fiscal impacts attributable to this development: v Public Library - $00.00; v Schools - $00.00 v Sheriff's Office - $00.00; v Administration Building - $00.00; v Other Miscellaneous Facilities - $00.00. After adjustments for tax credits, the net capital facilities impact is $00.00. page 7 WINCHESTER WAREHOUSING, INC. -:PIN 52 -A=B _ ..'16325_ - -- ��_. 7 D8. -04 -ZONED :. BZ - N _ Q s — _ w � OU CL Y — — CK T.7 /j a __we us RourE� t' , �� b0 w N W (R/11r VA NOR l: ES.. 'WES -• Cy - CL 0 �` - �ii'V'tri�Rig :NOl4T/{yyE�- II - - srEVv ;.:Y _� - ____ J 1 t E � C . . . . . . . . . Q, gfi'MW-12.1N E J mss_ r C � !n N Il u� a3i EPR MM�'NT GIN c .f o ami g co c PIN"'2 7RAN5p R rZt RIMd ro EX n . EMPr T i v . E U7 fl -•N r Lu = .- RCPp - n' UNE_ VAC 1 '. AT® CL DE ARTMEN OFA OF.. VIRGINI _ >+ S2 -_Aja PO(iA770N _ Ld .. ZONED `r 82 A J W USE V) l7 Z Z \ \ SURVEY 1: _ NA NONE \ \ \ 100 0 100 - - \ � DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: RD 0507007 •�' \ \ \ SCALE: DATE: Scale P = 100 ft - _ - / \ \ \ �� 1"=100' 08/31/05 SHEEP: Ex.1 O Q HISTORICAL PROPERTY KEY Cy 097 - UNLISTED 098 - WALNUT GROVE** 346 N U' Z - LINDEN 467 - OLD HOOVER PLACE I Q Z O 469 - FOLK VICTORIAN FARMHOUSE - RT. 50 LL' I Z () 470 - FARMHOUSE - RT. 50 W N O 1381 -- BAKER ORCHARD HOUSE L1) `S O W NOTE: ** INDICATES A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT Lli SITE AS DENOTED BY THE RURAL LANDMARKS Ld 0 SURVEY REPORT OF FREDERICK COUNTY N W x w � Ls r a tU a E M O r^n N ONj ^ Lo N N Lu 'E O� O 4 O- U d v > •E O o (n N S W aN.. t0 t N U C O ZW a a. �V) z� JW W Z O W v SURVEY: C.I.: NA NONE DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: 1200 0 1200 SEM 0507007 SCALE: DATE: WIN %m?6 law 1°=1200' 08/23/05 SHEET: EX. 2 Scale 1' = 1200 ft Frederick County Plonning S Development Ninchester, Vi,girJo Civil War .Battle fields and .bites (tis Defined by the NPS Shenan oah Valley Civil War Sites Study) 12-10-97 ROUND HILL COMMUNITY LAND USE PLAN Total Study Area 1180 Acres Phase 1 2 3 Area 110 ac. 180 ac. 300 ac. a""` Woter/Sewer Service Area oomoo Proposed Collector Roods Community Center Boundary Proposed Community Center Addition Proposed Traffic Signal � 1cuc a„a, 10p o � ,uo ew aw T�` Y r edeer�Gk CountVo-py %oMNg 6 pevelapnent 0.\Y, Vlnch etu,. w June 1996 OCT 6 )q;C-) REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA o be completed by Planning Staff Fee Amount Paid $ Zoning Amendment Number Date Received /0 6 C Hearing Date l lot, BOS Hearing Date 13 0 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 n oer ' Le --W l S Address: Wb -�,tclvvct. ri S+ VV t n C- o is i -e- ri 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Telephone: Gl o - &6;2 Is/q2 Name: (4e0 QC VV . C-1 ( Cl 1 le J i` Telephone: J -/o " �' is ' $G AS Address: Ct ry) cro r) st- - 3. Contact person if other than above Name: \J)h n (C w f S Telephone: 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this applicatii Location map ✓ Agency Comments 911 Plat ✓ Fees Deed to property i Impact Analysis Statement 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: 6. A) Current Use of the Property: R A - V 0 CQ n B) Proposed Use of the Property: a - BUST nes � Gl�--1wvul 7�SNic t 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER Sa-A- 5C-1 -A USE vomer)¢ VP,)T Pgt,,IiCl?CtMC ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): (!n f Ssc �1on ) 12 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: oCD h 1 Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other: 10. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): (/ ► 2 Date: Date: Owner(s):Date: Date: 13 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 i l�L� les r� V o «i'xc&t rxI c p r� 4 U (Jc) 7t- Wt � J V A - G? Property # S NameLCr��rnu! ��� i-{1 Cf h1''. n/c n �tz)uo&"n, t,/,4aq�lC) Property# Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Prop`-ty # 14 02/22/2006 08:42 5406625793 PAINTERLEWIS PAGE 02 COG Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia —= - — Ptannxng 61lice, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virgittfa 22 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665695 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) George W Glaize, Jr (Phone) 540-662-5058 (Address) 30 S Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. on Page and is described as ParcelOi Jro� Lot•,25;1 Block: Section.: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (r4=e) pa I ntcr Lew i S, P L .0- _ (Phone)596 • b(D'a - 5r1"' (Address) ((D 5 SevJCI Y -t 5t_ W 1 nCheC-)t5 Yf YA o� too 1 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: Er Rezoning (Including proffers) Q Conditional Use Permits 0 Master Development Plan (preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. 200 -4 A"16U-Ch In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) ]sand and seal. this� day of , /Virginia, City/Geigy ofl// / ,2 ,z ' n , To -wit: Stat' of I, ice; Y , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this _ day of W 200 commission Expires: Notary pU 1C a L•.p1,+1'd, �p n F1 • _ r OF i t <�+i tflif6{6t4<<'` ."\ PIN 52-A-- COMMONWEALTH OF 41RGINIA, DEPAR'IN�NT OF TRANSPORTATION DB 837 PG 1538 - ZONING: 02 N USE: EXEMPT N 7359 54" W 241, 00' PIN 52---A -252 1.3831 ACRES ZONED: RA USE: RESDe4TJAL -I F---] 577NG DWELLING 7 BE REMOVED S 73:59'54' E 241.00' ROUTE 803 U.S. ROUTE 50 N NORTHWESTERN RKE VAR/ABLE WIDTH R/W Z WY17DWFLRNG To E RSMOVED LEGEND IRF - IRON ROD FOUND IPF - IRON PIPE FOUND AREA TABULA 7701V FLOOD NO TE-.- OP,IGINAL PIN 52-A-252 J2,750 SO FT. ZONE- C VA CA TION OF PIN 52-A-253 27,500 SO. FT. COMMUNI77 NO.: 51006,3 ADuUS7ED PIN 52-A-252 60,250 SO Fl- PANEL: 7PANEL: 0115 B OR 1..3831 ACRES DA 7E- 07-17-78 GRAPHIC SCALE A(Q a7S—. a 25 50 100 1. NO 7777.E REPORT FURNISHED. 5 — I iI 2 PROPERTY IDEN 77FICA 77ON NO 52-A-252 & 253 1 inch = 50 ft. 3. EASEMENTS MAY EXIST TEAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON 77 -IIS PLA 7 - THE BOUNDARY INFORMA7701V SHOWN HEREON /5 BASED ON AN ACTUAL FIELD RUN SURVEY MADE )N MARCH 17, 2005 AND ORIEN7cD TO A PLAT DATED AUGUST 1, 1.961 BY LEE A. EBERT, LS. IND A PLA T DA TED NOVEMBER 29, 1.994 BY H. BRUCE EDENS, L. S. ID 6837A PLA T OF CONSOLIDA 7701V OF 771E LANDS OF GEORGE W GLAIZE JR. PROFIT SHARING TRUST 1NS7P,UMENT NUMBER 040025400 INSTRUMENT NUMBER 0.50002093 GAINESSORO MAG15=1AL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA MARCH 29, 2005 ::�4 � - N TH 0-p � , ou gE o. O1Q' (7 97 LgND SUR'IF',to4. SHEET 2 OF 2 1 -��' DAF li i f L A 7. 4. Oil Ali PfN 5' -71A WEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DL, ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DB 837 PG 1538 W 170.00' N 7J:5.9,54" W 1.7.00 P/N 52—A —253 27,50O 50. FT. P/N 52-A -252 J2,750 50. FT. U.S. ROUTE 50/% NORTHWESTERN P/KE VAR/ABLE WIDTH R/W LEGEND IRF - IRON ROD FOUND IPF - IRON PIPE FOUND 7R6 - TELEPHONE RISER BOX =L DOD NOTE WC - WELL CAP 70NE.• C MLP - METAL LIGHT POLE :OMMUNITY NO.: 51006.3 Z:�- WOOD L177LITY POLE ANEL: 0115 B —�-- OVERHEAD U77LITY UNE A7F• 07-17- 78 GRAPHIC SCALE '0 50 0 25 5' 700 NO 777ZE REPORT FURNISHED. PROPERTY 0EN771-7CA7701V NO. 52-A-252 & 253 - EASEMENTS MAY EXIST :rIAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON 77J.IS PLAT: THE BOUNDARY INFORMA77ON SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON AN AC7ZIAL FIELD RUN SURVEY MADE MARCH 17, 2005 AND ORIDV ED TO A PLA T DA 7FD AUGUST 1, 1.961 BY LEE A. EBERT, LS. D A PLAT DA 7FD NOVEMBER 28, 7994 BY H. BRUCE FDENS, L S. 10 68378DS BOUNDARY SUR VEY OF 777E LANDS OF GEORGE W. GLARE, JR. RRORT SHARING TRUST INSTRUMENT NUMBER 040025400 INSTRUMENT NUMBER 050002093 GAINESSORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY VRGINIA MARCH 21, 2005 TH OF r� G� ov,glas U. L e -g Na. 90497 t as DAF COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FA x: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bernard S. Suchicital, Planner It F RE: Public Hearing — Revisions to the Eastern Road Plan DATE: October 17, 2006 Introduction The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan is an element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Any revisions to the Eastern Road Plan require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and adoption by the Board of Supervisors. At this time, we are considering revisions to update the Eastern Road Plan. As a public hearing item, staff requests a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission, regarding the Draft Eastern Road Plan map, associated text, and the Eastern Road Plan — Generalized Cross Section Designations map, which will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. As you are aware, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) released their Long Range Transportation Plan for new and improved transportation corridors in Winchester, Frederick County, and the Town of Stephens City. This plan was adopted on October 1, 2005 by the Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Committee. Staff compared the existing Eastern Road Plan to the County's Land Use Plans, the Win -Fred MPO Long Range Plan, and current County planning efforts in order to update the Road Plan. Attached you will find staff's comparisons and additions. Included with the information mentioned above, please find attached a copy of the proposed draft Eastern Road Plan included with descriptions, a map of the proposed amendments with description, the current Eastern Road Plan map with description, a map of an overview of changes to the Eastern Road Plan, and a map depicting the planned roadway segments for each improvement. Below, please find a timeline of actions on this update effort. Once this plan is adopted it will become part of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. It will then be used by staff when evaluating and presenting developments and rezonings to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. As 107 North rent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 changes are made to the Eastern Road Plan by the Board of Supervisors, the most up-to-date version will be used for this analysis. Transportation Committee —11/01/05 The Transportation Committee considered these proposals at its meeting on November 1, 2005. Committee members expressed concern for the lack of mention of any additional access points along Route 37, between I-81 and Route 7. The Transportation Committee endorsed the proposed revisions to the Eastern Road Plan. Comprehensive Plan and Programs Subcommittee —11/14/05 The Comprehensive Plan and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) considered these plan revisions at its meeting on November 14, 2005. The Subcommittee members questioned whether an endorsement for the Eastern Road Plan will bean endorsement for Route 37. Staff clarified that the Eastern Road Plan identifies a general path for Route 37, not a specific one. The CPPS endorsed the proposed revisions to the Eastern Road Plan. Planning Commission —12/07/05 The Planning Commission discussed the Eastern Road Plan at their meeting on December 7, 2005. One commission member inquired about the Stephens City exit (Exit 307) and staff noted that it was proposed to be moved further south. Another Commission member expressed preference for the eastern portion of Route 37, between I-81 and Route 7, to be a parkway with some access, rather than a limited -access, 65 -mph highway. This Commissioner commented that Clearbrook residents still had no access to Route 37 and must get onto 1-81 before accessing Route 37. No other issues were raised and Commissioners were unanimously in favor of the proposed Eastern Road Plan. (Commissioners Morris and Light were absent from the meeting.) Board of Supervisors — 01/11/06 This item was pulled from the Board of Supervisors meeting of January 11, 2006 meeting, so that it could return to the restructured Transportation Committee at a later date. * Staff has since made additional updates to the Eastern Road Plan for new consideration. Transportation Committee — 08/28/06 The Transportation Committee considered these proposals at its meeting of August 28, 2006. Committee members inquired if the County had access to the Transportation Model to test the proposed revisions. The Transportation Committee endorsed the proposed revisions to the Eastern Road Plan. Comprehensive Plan and Programs Subcommittee — 09/11/06 The Comprehensive Plan and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) considered these plan revisions at its meeting on September 11, 2006. The Subcommittee members endorsed Independence Drive as the connection to Channing Drive and future reclassification of Victory Lane. The Committee also commented that a Route 277 bypass, connecting the relocated Exit 307 to the Double Tollgate neighborhood, should be looked into as a longer term connection. The CPPS endorsed the proposed revisions to the Eastern Road Plan. W Planning Commission —10/04/06 The Planning Commission discussed the Eastern Road Plan at their meeting on October 4, 2006. The Planning Commission endorsed the comments made by the CPPS at their September 11, 2006 meeting regarding Victory Lane and the extension over to Route 277. In addition, the Planning Commission endorsed the staff's suggestion to incorporate a graphic representation, showing a cross section of each of the roads, within the text of the Comprehensive Policy Plan so that developers will know what is expected in terms of future road construction. Board of Supervisors —10/11/06 The Board of Supervisors discussed the Eastern Road Plan at their meeting on October 11, 2006. The Board of Supervisors expressed concerns over how often the Eastern Road Plan would be updated. In addition, the Board also would like to see the Eastern Road Plan incorporated into all future rezoning application reports. The Board of Supervisors endorsed the plan and recommend the item be sent to Public Hearing. Planning Commission —11/01/06 Staff requests a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission, regarding the Draft Eastern Road Plan map, associated text, and the Eastern Road Plan — Generalized Cross Section Designations map, which will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. BSS/bad Attachments 3 Frederick Count -f Eastern Road Plan Proposed Draft 1. Martinsburg Pike (US 11), between the West Virginia state line and the Winchester city line, is identified as an improved minor arterial. 2. A new major collector road will extend east from Rest Church Road, across Martinsburg Pike, and then south to Woodbine Road. 3. Woodbine road is identified as an improved major collector road, and will be extended as a new major collector road to Woodside Road. 4. A new major collector road will connect Woodbine Road to Branson Spring Road. This will parallel Woodside Road to the west. 5. Brucetown Road will be realigned to intersect Martinsburg Pike with Hopewell Road. This segment will be a new major collector road. 6. Hopewell Road is identified as an improved major collector road from just west of I-81 to Martinsburg Pike. 7. Old Charles Town Road, from Martinsburg Pike to Gun Club Road, is identified as an improved minor collector. 8. A new major collector road (Snowden Bridge Boulevard) will connect Stephenson Road to Old Charlestown, traverse through the Snowden Bridge development, and intersect with Martinsburg Pike approximately at Nulton Lane. 9, Ebert Road is identified as an improved major collector, and will continue south as a new major collector road from its western terminus to Martinsburg Pike and Snowden Bridge Boulevard. 10. Redbud Road's intersection with Martinsburg Pike will be shifted to the north as a new minor collector road to intersect with Snowden Bridge Boulevard. 11. A new onramp will be built, allowing vehicles to enter Route 37 westbound from Lenoir drive. 12. Brooke Road will be extended as from Martinsburg Pike to North Frederick Pike (US 522). This has been identified as a new minor collector road. 13. Woods Mill Road, from Berryville Pike (Route 7) to Jordan Springs Road, is identified as an improved minor collector road. 14. East Route 37 is identified as a new major arterial, traversing north around Stonewall Industrial Park, to Berryville Pike, then southwest to I-81 at exit 310. 5 15. Planned interchange locations on Route 37 and I-81 are identified. New locations along Route 37 are at: Merrimans Lane, Shady Elm Road, Warrior Drive, Front Royal Pike, Millwood Pike, and Senseny Road, Berryville Pike, Snowden Bridge Boulevard, I-81 north of exit 317, the Stonewall Industrial Loop Extension, and Campus Boulevard. There is also a planned interchange at Papermill Road and I-81. 16. A new major collector road will extend from Apple Pie Ridge Road and North Frederick Pike (US 522) to #17. 17. A new major collector road will parallel Route 37 from North Frederick Pike and Long Green Lane, south to Northwestern Pike (US 50) and Ward Avenue. 18. A new major collector road will continue Campus Boulevard west from the Winchester City Line to # 17. 19. A new minor collector road will connect Hospital Drive in Winchester, across Route 37, to #20. 20. A new minor collector road will travel south from # 18 to just north of Northwestern, turning west to connect with #17. This road will then continue west to #21. 21. A new major collector road will extend north from the realigned Round Hill and Northwestern Pike (#23), connecting with #20. 22. Northwestern Pike is identified as an improved minor arterial from Route 37 to west of #21. 23. Round Hill Road's intersection with Northwestern Pike will be shifted to the west, to align with #21. 24. Jubal Early Drive, from Winchester, will be extended to the west as a new major collector road. This road will intersect Route 37 at Merrimans Lane, with a new interchange with Route 37. 25. A new major collector road will connect #24 to Cedar Creek Grade in between Route 37 and the Winchester city line. 26. Cedar Creek Grade, from Route 37 to the Winchester City Line, is identified as an improved major collector. 27. Getty Lane is identified as an improved minor collector road. 28. A new minor collector road will connect the northern terminus of Getty Lane, south to Berryville Pike and Regency Lakes Drive. 29. Berryville Pike, from I-81 to the Clarke County Line, is identified as an improved major arterial. 0 30. Valley Mill Road's intersection with Berryville Pike will be shifted to the east, to align with Getty Lane. 31. Valley Mill Road is identified as an improved major collector, from its western terminus to just east of Mill Race Drive. 32. A new major collector road will connect Valley Mill Road, from just east of Mill Race Drive, to Haggerty Boulevard (#32). 33. A new major collector road, Haggerty Boulevard, will connect Berryville Pike to Senseny Road, crossing Route 37 at its intersection with #31. 34. Canyon Road, from Senseny Glen Drive to Channing Drive (#39), is identified as an improved minor collector road. 3 5. Williamson Road is identified as an improved minor collector road, and will continue north then east to Greenwood Road and Farmington Boulevard. 36. Farmington Boulevard, from Greenwood Road to Channing Boulevard, and Wayfaring Drive to Morning Glory Drive, are identified as an improved minor collector road. 37. Morning Glory Drive is identified as an improved minor collector road. 38. Senseny Road, from I-81 to the Clarke County Line, is identified as an improved major collector road. 39. Channing Drive, a new major collector road, will connect Valley Mill Road to Sulphur Spring Road, then south to Millwood Pike (US 17/50). 40. A new minor collector road will connect Inverlee Way (#43) and Channing Drive. 41. Greenwood Road is identified as an improved major collector road between Berryville Pike and Senseny Road. 42. Greenwood Road is identified as an improved minor collector road between Senseny Road and Channing Drive. 43. A new major collector road (Inverlee Way) will connect Millwood Pike and Senseny Road. 44. Sulphur Spring Road is identified as an improved major collector road, between Millwood Pike and Channing Drive. 45. Millwood Pike, between I-81 and Route 37, is identified as an improved minor arterial. 46A. A new major collector road will connect East Tevis Street in Winchester to Front Royal Pike (US 522) with a flyover of I-81. 7 46B. A new minor arterial will extend from #46A to Millwood Pike (US 17/50) via the Ryco Lane alignment. 47. A new major collector road, Coverstone Drive, will connect #4613 to Sulphur Spring Drive. 48. A new major collector road will extend Inverlee Way, south from Millwood Pike, to Coverstone Drive. 49. Victory Road is identified as an improved minor collector road. 50. Independence Drive is identified as an improved major collector road, and will continue south to Airport Road. 51. Airport Road, from Victory Road to Front Royal Pike, is identified as an improved major collector road. Airport Road will continue west from Front Royal Pike to Warrior Drive (#57) as a new major collector road. 52. A new major collector road will extend west from Longcroft Road and Front Royal Pike, to Warrior Drive. 53. A new major collector road will extend Justes Drive to the north to Victory Road. 54. Papermill Road is identified as an improved major collector road. Papermill's flyover of I-81 will be replaced with a new interchange just south of its current location. Also, Papermill's intersection with Front Royal Pike will be moved south to be aligned with Justes Drive. 55. A new major collector road will connect the southern leg of Papermill Road to Taker Road, south of Route 37. 56. A new minor collector road will connect #55, traverse north, west of Warrior Drive, and terminate at Papermill Road. 57. A new major collector road, Warrior Drive, from #46 to the north and Lakeside Drive to the south. 58. Shawnee Drive is identified as an improved minor collector road. 59. Valley Pike (US 11), between the Winchester City Line and the Bartonsville Historic District, is identified as an improved minor arterial. 60. Apple Valley Road to Shady Elm Road, and Shady Elm Road to Springdale Road, are identified as an improved major collector road. 8 61. A new major collector road will connect Shady Elm Road to Valley Pike (south of Prosperity Drive). 62. A new major collector road, the Stephens City Bypass, will run south from the Shady Elm/Springdale intersection, along the Passage Lane alignment, the east to the relocated I-81 Exit 307 (#86) and Warrior Drive (#85). 63. A new minor collector road will parallel south of Route 37, connecting Tasker Road to Warrior Drive (#69). 64. Chinkapin Drive is identified as an improved minor collector road, extending south to #65, and north to #63. 65. A new major collector road will extend west from Tasker Road, over I-81, to connect with the Stephens City Bypass (#62). 66. Lakeside Drive is identified as an improved minor collector road. 67. A new minor collector will east from Lakeside Drive and Warrior Drive to Front Royal Pike, connecting with the new West Parkins Mill Road alignment. 68. West Parkins Mill Road is identified as an improved major collector road, with a realignment the Front Royal Pike intersection to the north. 69. Warrior Drive is identified as an improved major collector road from Tasker Road to Route 37. 70. Warrior Drive is identified as an improved major collector road from Tasker Road to Fairfax Pike (Route 277). 71. An improved minor collector road network is identified through the Canter Estates neighborhood, connecting Front Royal Pike to #67. 72. White Oak Road, from Tasker Road, to Macedonia Church Road, to Front Royal Pike, is identified as a new major collector road. 73. A new minor collector road will connect Marcel Drive at Tasker Road, to Macedonia Church Road. 74. Tasker Road, from I-81 Exit 310 to Front Royal Pike, is identified as an improved major I l-] collector roan. 75. White Oak Road, from Tasker Road to Fairfax Pike, is identified as an improved major collector road. E 76. A new minor collector road will connect Warrior Drive to White Oak Road, north of Sherando Park. 77. Albin Drive and Village Lane are identified as an improved minor collector road. 78. A new minor collector road will extend south from Lakeside drive and Tasker Road to Aylor Road. 79. Aylor Road is identified as an improved major collector road. 80. Caroline Avenue, from Avlor Road to Westmoreland Drive, is identified as an improved minor collector road. 81. Westmoreland Drive is identified as an improved minor collector road. 82. Double Church Road, from Aylor Road to Grim Road, is identified as an improved major collector road. 83. The Stickley Drive extension from Fairfax Pike to Aylor Road is identified as a new minor collector road. 84. Fairfax Pike, from I-81 to the Clarke County Line, is identified as an improved minor arterial. 85. A new major collector road will extend south from Warrior Drive and Fairfax Pike to Double Church Road, then west to Town Run Lane and the relocated I-81 Exit 307. 86. I-81 Exit 307 will be relocated south of its current location. 87. A new major collector road will traverse through the Town of Stephens City, north to south along the rail road, from Squirrel Lane and Marlboro Road to #65. 88. A new minor collector road will connect Valley Pike, approximately at Shenandoah Valley Baptist Church & Academy, to #87. 89. Apple Valley Road, from Shady Elm to Middle Road, is identified as an improved major collector road. 10 t I Jft r•- tf 1 ti a r'�. jq e r 0 • / 1 o d I• ji �/ " , 107 �. 11 ,T �`ya�. `� ✓ t i I J 22f to J +(a4 7, ;. � `' y ���" � lag rr ,X ,• ry rr szz 1- 1a5.... � ~��� t � � . •L; so / ✓71 \�/ s �" dT 72 101 73 12 to$ 101 'orq, C6 63 7(a YafA Y e t i �.� lif ...:I�107 X 77 ;� h �, 105�•�- ..�' f t� ti°09102 103 1 f,`, 01 'a ' F 104 ,-, 1 ate. -t qq _ -r✓ Ito `1. ( «a. _ lo f °22SJR J,1 92 101v q t 50 101 IDI .. J � },� � '` 't"t 'o .r ,jam-q4� �e✓ i, '! /"x%95 e.�..�d� DRAFT - � Eastem Road Plan Amendments s a' 83 jWNewMajorArterial �,�.-- ! ��„�.,.-�' ,...- t d �✓ ' �� yf .. _ -r I u ` /'� Improved MajorArtenal "New Minor Arterial ,�M �.rJ/a .^ �a •'� ,i f ' Improved Minor Arterial '' • 4 C tii �_ \ /' #' New Major Collector t 2 r, �' S� " Improved Major Collector rrlk9 New Minor Collector $5, `,� , 4V Improved Minor Collector N /1/r Ramp ,4 ` •^ � ,: ` ' 78 1� g7 ! : +.,� tj � J ®Proposed Interchanges W+ E Last Revision S 10/16/2006 1. 11y �� e r 0 1 2 4 Miles Proposed Amendments EASTERN 4OAD PLAN Frederick Count}�, Virginia Department of Planning & Development Frederick County Eastern Road Plan Proposed Amendments Northeast Land Use Plan 59. Addition of the Carroll Industrial Park "Loop Road." This new major collector road will extend north from US Route 11, north of Exit 317, to Ebert Road. Ebert Road will be designated as an improved major collector road the entire length to US 11. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan and the Carroll Industrial Park Master Development Plan (MDP). 60. Addition of Snowden Bridge Boulevard, from Stephenson Road south and looping to US Route 11. It will be aligned with the intersection of the Loop Road as denoted in #59. This has been identified in the Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan (MPO Plan) and the Stephenson Village MDP. 61. Addition of a new major collector road, extending east from Rest Church Road and US Route 11, then south to Woodbine Road. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan and the Semples Rezoning. 62. Identify Woodbine Road from US 11 to the railroad crossing as an improved major collector road, and from the railroad crossing to Woodside Road as a new major collector road. This has been identified in the Semples Rezoning. 63. Addition of a new major collector road from Woodbine Road to Branson Spring Road. This will parallel Woodside Road to the west. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan. 64. Identify the new alignment of Route 37 through the Stonewall Magisterial District, with a new future interchange with Cross Carrion Boulevard. This has been identified by the Board of Supervisors. 65. Addition of the Brooke Road extension from the Winchester City line to US Route 522. This has been identified in the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) and by the MPO Plan. 66. Addition of a southbound on-ramp, extending from Lenoir Drive to Route 37. This has been identified in the MPO Plan. 67. Identify US Route 11 between the West Virginia state line and Exit 317 as an improved major arterial. This has been identified in the MPO Plan. 68. Realign Brucetown Road with Hopewell Road at US 11. This segment east of US 11 is identified as a new major collector road. Hopewell Road, between I-81 and US 11 is identified as an improved major collector road. This has been identified by VDOT. 12 37 West Land Use Plan 69. Addition of a new major collector road from US Route 522 and Long Green Lane, south to US Route 50 and Ward Avenue. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan. 70. Addition of a new major collector road from US Route 522 and Apple Pie Ridge Road, to new major collector road #69. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan. 71. Addition of the Campus Boulevard extending across Route 37 from the Winchester Medical campus, to new major collector road #69. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, and the Winchester Medical Center MDP. Round Hill Land Use Plan 72. Addition of the WWW MDP and Winchester Medical Center MDP major and minor collector road networks. These have been identified in the Land Use Plan and both the WWW and Winchester Medical Center MDPs. 73. Addition of a flyover of Medical Center Drive, from Hospital Drive across Route 37, to the new minor collector road network identified in #72. This has been identified in the Winchester Medical Center MDP. 74. Realignment of the Round Hill Road and US Route 50 intersection. This has been identified in the WWW MDP. Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan 75. Addition of the Jubal Early Drive extension (a new major collector road) from the Winchester city limit to Route 37 with a new interchange at the Merrimans Lane flyover. This has been identified in both the Land Use Plan and the MPO Plan. 76. Addition of a new major collector road running from the future Jubal Early Drive extension south to Cedar Creek Grade. This has been identified in both the Land Use Plan and the MPO Plan. 77. Identify Route 622 (Cedar Creek Grade) between the Winchester City line and Route 37, as an improved major collector road. Route 11 South Corridor Land Use Plan 78. Relocate 1-81 Exit 307 south. This has been identified by the MPO Plan and VDOT. 79. Addition of the Stephens City by-pass major collector road from the relocated I-81 Exit 307 to the Springdale/Shady Elm intersection. This will include improvements and a realignment to Passage Lane. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, WATS, and the MPO Plan. 13 80. Addition of Shady Elm Road as an improved major collector from Apple Valley Road to new major collector road #79. This will include a new interchange at Route 37, and improving Apple Valley Road from Shady Elm Road to US 11. This has been identified in WATS and the MPO Plan. 81. Addition of Prosperity Road extending to Shady Elm Road at Soldiers Rest Lane as a new major collector road. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, WATS, and the MPO Plan. 82. Addition of the Tasker Road extension across I-81, to new major collector road 479, as a new major collector road. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, WATS, and the MPO Plan. 83. Addition of a new major collector road from Marlboro Road / Fairfax Street and Squirrel Lane, to the future Tasker Road extension (#82) as a new minor collector road. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, WATS, and the MPO Plan. 84. Addition of a new minor collector road from US Route 11, roughly across from Shenandoah Valley Baptist Church & Academy, east to the future Squirrel Lane extension (#83). This has been identified in the Land Use Plan and the MPO Plan. 85. Addition of US Route 1 I as an improved major collector running from Shawnee Drive to just north of the Bartonsville Historic District. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan. 86. Addition of a new minor collector road running from Stickley Drive and connecting to Aylor Road. This has been identified by WATS and the MPO Plan. 87. Addition of the Warrior Drive extension as a new major collector road, running south from Fairfax Pike to Double Church Road, then west to Town Run Lane, connecting with the future Stephens City by-pass and yet -to -be relocated Exit 307. This has been identified in the MPO Plan. Southern Frederick Land Use Plan 88. Identify Fairfax Pike (Route 277) as an improved minor arterial road. This has been identified by the MPO Plan. 89. Identify Papermill Road as an improved major collector road, with a realignment of the road's intersection with US Route 522 south to Justes Drive. Also, Papermill's crossing of I- 81 will be realigned with Battaile Drive with a new interchange with I-81. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan and the MPO Plan. 90. Addition of a new major collector road, extending from Tasker Road, south of Route 37, north along Evendale Lane, and continuing to Papermill Road. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, the Crosspointe Rezoning, and the MPO Plan. 14 91. Addition of anew minor collector road extending south from Caldwell Lane, then east to proposed major collector #90. This has been identified in the Crosspointe Rezoning. 92. Continuation of Justes Drive as a major collector road extending north to Victory Road and Airport Road. This has been identified in the Laud Use Plan and the MPO Plan. 93. Addition of a new major collector road extending from Longcroft Road and US Route 522 west to future Warrior Drive north. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan. 94. Reclassify a new major collector road running east to west through the Crosspointe project as anew minor collector road. This has been identified in the Crosspointe Rezoning. 95. Identify Chinkapin Drive as an improved minor collector road. This road will extend the to the south to future western Tasker Road extension (449). Chinkapin will also extend to the north to the proposed minor collector road 494. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, and the WATS plan. 96. Realign West Parkins Mill Road to intersect US Route 522 north of its current intersection. West Parkins Mill Road will continue west to future Warrior Drive as a new minor collector road. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan. 97. Addition of an improved minor collector road connecting US Route 522, through Canter Estates, Phase 5, to future West Parkins Mill. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, and the Canter Estates V MDP. 98. Addition of a new minor collector road connecting Macedonia Church Road to Marcel Drive. This has been identified in the Tasker -Woods Land Use Plan. 99. Identify Shawnee Drive as an improved major collector road from US 11 to Papermill Road. Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan 100. Addition of a new major collector road extending west from Airport Road and US Route 522 to future Warrior Drive. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, the Russell 150 Rezoning, WATS, and the MPO Plan. 101 A. Addition of a new major collector road that will connect East Tevis Street in Winchester to Front Royal Pike (US 522) with a flyover of Interstate 81. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, the Russell 150 Rezoning, WATS, and the MPO Plan. 101B. Addition of a new minor arterial that will extend from #10 IA to Millwood Pike (US 17/50) via the Ryco Lane alignment. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, the 15 102. Addition of a new major collector road extending east from proposed major collector road 4100, to the intersection of US Route 17/50 and Sulphur Spring Road. This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, and the Caipers Valley Rezoning. 103. Addition of a new major collector road extending south from Inverlee Way to the proposed Carpers Valley collector road (#102). This has been identified in the Land Use Plan, and the Carpers Valley Rezoning. 104. Extending a major collector road from Channing Drive and Sulphur Spring Road to the Independence Dr / US Route 17/50 intersection. This is not on any of the current plans, but was identified by the CPPS as an important link. 105. Addition of a new minor collector road extending east from future Inverlee Way to Greenwood Road. This is not on any of the current plans, but was identified by staff as an important link. 106. Reclassify Independence Road as a new major collector road that will extend from US Route 17/50, to the intersection of Airport Road and Victory Road. This will fill in the gap between proposed major collector roads #92 and #103. Other 107. Future Route 3 7 and Interstate 81 interchanges have been added to the Eastern Road Plan to better coordinate the upcoming growth in Frederick County. 108. The following roads have been identified as improved minor arterial: Millwood Pike (US 17/50), between I-81 and Carpers Valley Road (723); and Northwestern Pike (US 50), between the City line and just west of the WWW property. Berryville Pike has been identified as an improved major arterial. These have been identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. 109. The southern end of Greenwood Road will continue east to connect with future Channing Drive. This extension will be a new minor collector road. 110. Identify Apple Valley Road, from Shady Elm Road to Middle Road, as an improved major collector road. This has been identified in the MPO Plan. 16 Current EASTERN READ PLAN Frederick County, Virginia Department of Planning & Development Frederick Coumty Eastern road Plan Current Aligninents 1. Improved major collector road from Redbud Road and W&W railroad to US Route 11, just south of Nulton Lane. 2. A new major collector road from First Woods Drive and Route 7 north to Redbud Road, traversing the Redbud Elementary School property. 3. Woods Mill Road is identified as an improved minor collector road between Route 7 and Jordan Springs Road. 4. Getty Lane is identified as an improved minor collector road. S. Anew minor collector road will run from Route 7 and Cole Lane, north then west around the Winchester Mall property, to intersect with Getty Lane. 6. A new major collector road will connect Valley Mill Road and Route 7, at the Winchester Gateway light, via the Brookland Lane alignment. 7. Greenwood Road, between Route 7 and Senseny Road, is identified as an improved major collector road. 8. Valley Mill Road, between the western terminus at Route 7 to just east of Mill Race Drive, is identified as an improved major collector road. 9. A new major collector road will connect Route 7, just west of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility, south to Senseny Road. This road will parallel Route 37. 10. A new major collector road will connect new major collector road #9 to Valley Mill Road. 11. Williamson Road is identified as an improved minor collector road. 12. A new minor collector road will connect Williamson Road to Valley Mill Road, by way of Hunter Run Road. 13. A new minor collector road will connect minor collector road #12 to Greenwood Road, at Farmington Boulevard. 14. Farmington Boulevard is identified as an improved minor collector road. 15. A new major collector road (Channing Drive) will connect Valley Mill road to Senseny Road. 16. A new major collector road will continue Channing Drive from Senseny Road to Sulphur Springs Road, at or near the Greenwood Road intersection. 18 17. A new minor collector road will continue from Farmington Boulevard and connect to Channing Drive at Wayfaring Drive. 18. A new minor collector road (Wayfaring Drive) will connect Channing Drive to Morning Glory Drive. 19. Woodrow Road is identified as an improved minor collector road between Greenwood Road and Elaine Drive. 20. A new minor collector road will continue from Woodrow Road and connect with Channing Drive and Canyon Road (#21). 21. A new minor collector road (Canyon Road) will connect Channing Drive at Woodrow Road to Canyon Road in the Senseny Glen neighborhood. 22. A new major collector road (Inverlee Way) will connect Senseny Road to US Route 50. 23. A new minor collector road (Kinross Drive) will connect #22 to Oak Ridge Lane (approximate). 24. Greenwood Road, between Senseny Road and Sulphur Spring Road, is identified as an improved minor collector road. 25. A new minor collector road will connect Greenwood Road to 416, between Senseny and Sulphur Spring Road. 26. Sulphur Spring Road, between US Route 50 and Greenwood Road, is identified as an improved major collector road. 27. A new major collector road to connect US Route 522 and Tulane Drive to US Route 522 and Bufflick Road (approximate). 28. Ryco Lane is identified as an improved major collector road. 29. Delco Plaza Lane is identified as an improved major collector road. 30. A new major collector road will connect #27 and Delco Plaza to Ryco Lane. 31. A new major collector road will connect US Route 522 and Bufflick Road to the Tevis Street alignment in the City of Winchester. This includes a flyover of I-81. 32. Bufflick Road is identified as an improved major collector road between US 522 and Airport Road. 33. Victory Road is identified as an improved major collector road between US 50 and Airport Road. W 34. Airport Road is identified as an improved major collector road between Bufflick Road and Victory Road. 35. A new major collector road will connect US 522 and Papermill Road to Airport Road/Bufflick Road intersection. 36. A new major collector road will follow the Warrior Drive alignment from Route 277 north to Papermill Road and connect with #27 at US Route 522. 37. A new major collector road will connect 936 (Warrior Drive) at Evandale Lane to Papermill Road / Harrison Road Intersection. 38. Hillandale Lane is identified as an improved minor collector road. 39. A new minor collector road will connect the northern terminus of Hillandale Lane to Papermill Road, west of where Papermill Road intersects #36. 40. A new minor collector road will connect Hillandale Lane to Evandale and #36. This road will be parallel to and to the north of Route 37. 41. A new minor collector road will connect US Route 522 to new minor collector road #40. 42. A new major collector road will connect Tasker Road to new major collector road #36. This road will be parallel to and to the south of Route 37. 43. Tasker Road, between Route 37 and US Route 522, is identified as an improved major collector road. 44. West Parkins Mill Road, between US Route 522 and US Route 50, is identified as an improved major collector road. 45. A new minor collector road will connect West Parkins Mill Road from US Route 522, to new major collector road #36. 46. A new minor collector road will connect #45 from #36 to the eastern terminus of Lakeside Drive. 47. Lakeside Drive is identified as an improved minor collector road. 48. A new minor collector road ..gill cora ect Lakeside Drive from Tasker Road to Aylor Road at Village Lane. 49. A new major collector road will connect Tasker Road from Lakeside Drive, to I-81. 50. Aylor Road, between Tasker Road and Route 277, is identified as an improved major collector road. 20 51. Westmoreland Drive, between Aylor Road and Warrior Drive, is identified as an improved minor collector road. 52. Halifax Avenue (approximate), between Aylor Road and Westmoreland Drive, is identified as an improved minor collector road. 53. Albin Drive (approximate) has been identified as an improved minor collector road. 54. A new major collector road will connect Warrior Drive at Montgomery Circle — northern end (approximate) to White Oak Road. 55. White Oak Road, between Route 277 and Macedonia Church Road, is identified as an improved major collector road. 56. A new major collector road will connect White Oak Road to US Route 522. 57. Double Church Road, between Aylor Road and Sherando Lane, is identified as an improved major collector road. 58. Eastern half of future Route 37 is identified as a new major arterial. 21 ' �' _ Ott' • ", �^, h J: 1 37 DRAFT - .� Proposed Interchanges '�•� -��,,�' � } � Cross Sections R4 D ' %!7 JL Depicted sections do not eliminate the need for turning lanes or bicycle A and pedestrian facilities. 0/1 r n N Last Revision 10/16/2006 �. J i }( 77 .,�, 1 W E S i 11 j� 0 0.5 1 2 ' Miles Generalized Cross Section Designations Ee TER ►� �LJA Frederick County, Virginia Department of Planning & Development 0 0 0 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #13-06 CEDAR MEADOWS Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 16, 2006 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, Planner li 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: 11/01/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/13/06 Pending LOCATION: The property is located on White Oak Road (Route 636) approximately 2,600 feet south of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road (Route 642). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 75-A-106, 75-A-107, 75 -A -114,75-A-1 15, 75-A-116 and 86-A-153 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential/Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) District South: RA (Rural Areas) District East: RA (Rural Areas) District West: RA (Rural Areas) District RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential/Agricultural Use: Sherando Park Residential (under development) PROPOSED USE: 140 Single Family Small Lot Homes (Proffered Age -Restricted Community) MDP #13-06, Cedar Meadows October 16, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The Master Plan for this property appears to have a significant measurable impact on Route 636, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. The submitted Master Development Plan revised August 9, 2006 is acceptable. 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 approval recommended. Frederick County Public Works: Based on our review, we grant our approval of the proposed MDP. We have assumed that the Corps of Engineers have been provided with a copy of the MDP for their review. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: 2nd Review — Approved Frederick County Inspections Department: Demolition permit shall be required prior to the removal of any existing structures. No additional comment at this time. Shall comment on subdivision lots when submitted. GIS Department: The following road names have been approved: Fireweed, Trumpet Vine, Poppy, Forget Me Not, Buttercup, Perriwinkle, Bleeding Heart, Jewelweed, Bluets and Columbine. Current road name "Pewter Lane" will be truncated and new entrance will be from the end of Perriwinkle Plane. Winchester Regional Airport: We have completed a review of the proposed Master Development Plan and it should not have any impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport as the proposed site falls outside of the airport's Part 77 surface. However, the site does lie within the airport's airspace and residents could experience noise from aircraft within that area. Department of Parks and Recreation: Plan appears to meet open space requirements. The monetary proffer proposed for this development appears to be appropriate to offset the impact this development will have on the capital development needs of the Parks and Recreation Department. Plan appears to meet recreational unit requirements. Staff recommends that the community center plans be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Department prior to approval. Please provide a typical section of all trails included in plan. Planning & Zonin A) Master Development Plan Requirement MDP # 13-06, Cedar Meadows October 16, 2006 Page 3 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. Master Development Plans illustrate road locations and deigns, residential areas, recreational amenities, stormwater management areas, buffers and utilities. B) Location The property is located on White Oak Road (Route 636) approximately 2,600 feet south of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road (Route 642). C) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City, VA Quadrangle) identifies the property for which the rezoning is being requested as being zoned R-1 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re -mapped from R-1 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. On May 10, 2006 the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning #06-06 which rezoned the site from the RA District to the RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers. D) Intended Use 140 Single Family Small Lot Homes (Proffered Age -Restricted Community) 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 rezoning application are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use MDP #13-06, Cedar Meadows October 16, 2006 Page 4 map designates the general area in which the Cedar Meadows property is located for residential land uses. The Cedar Meadows project will develop with a density of 4.6 units per acre. Environment: The Cedar Meadows site contains a pond, approximately 0.85 acres in size, which is considered an area of wetlands. The Cedar Meadows project incorporates this environmental feature into the design of the development as a focal point to the community that affords additional protection to the wetland area. Minor slopes associated with the natural drainage of the property have been identified on the site. No additional environmental features have been identified on the site that would limit the development of the project as proposed by the applicant. Transportation: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the rezoning stated that the development of 140 age restricted residential units would generate 721 vehicle trips per day. The report was developed with access to the project being provided from White Oak Road and included an evaluation of the intersection of White Oak Road and Tasker Road. The TIA concluded that the traffic impacts associated with the Cedar Meadows application were acceptable and manageable. The applicant has designed the road system as a private road system with controlled access. Cedar Meadows is proposed to be a gated community. With the approval of Rezoning #06- 06 the Board of Supervisors also approved a Subdivision Ordinance wavier that allowed a complete system of private roads to be built within this age restricted community (§ 144- 24C(c). It is noted that since the Board of Supervisors granted a waiver of § 144-24C of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, a waiver is not necessary during the MDP process. Buffers: Residential separation buffers are provided between the single family small lot units and the adjoining residential lots as indicated by the hatching on sheet 3 of the MDP. This buffer consists of a 25 foot distance (15 foot inactive/10 foot active) with a 6 foot board -on -board fence and three trees per ten linear feet. Proffers: Generalized Development Plan The applicant proffered that the project will be developed in substantial conformance with the Generalized Development Plan. Residential Use Restriction The project is limited to 140 age restricted single family small lot residential units. The applicant proffered to provide a startup fund of $20,000 for the Cedar Meadows HOA. MDP # 13-06, Cedar Meadows October 16, 2006 Page 5 Recreational Amenities The project will contain a Community Center with a minimum of 2,000sf which will be located in the park area near the pond. Trails that connect the community center to the dwellings within the development will be provided as well. Transportation The Cedar Meadows Development will be a gated age -restricted community and consist of a private street network. Only two entrances are permitted, one for the community entrance and another for Sherando Park. The Sherando Park entrance will also serve as an emergency access into the Cedar Meadows development. A 20 foot right-of-way dedication will be made to White Oak Road. A right turn taper lane will be provided for the development. The applicant will enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT for the signalization of the White Oak Road/Tasker Road intersection. Community Curbside Trash Collection The applicant proffered to provide commercial trash pickup and waste removal for the development. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The applicant will pay $4,881 per residential unit to mitigate impacts on county facilities. Issues: The recreational unit tabulations shown on sheet 3 should not include the $25,000 figure (current cost per recreational unit). If this development is not implemented for a number of years the recreational cost per unit could increase. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11/01/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The preliminary master development plan for Cedar Meadows depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. While the preliminary master development plan is in accordance with the proffers of the rezoning, staff still has concerns regarding the level of detail for the recreational unit figures. All of the issues brought forth by staff and 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. Page 1 of 2 Candice Perkins From: Brett Kelly [bkelly@greenwayeng.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:48 AM To: Candice Perkins Cc: Evan Wyatt Subject: RE: Cedar Meadows Hi Candice, Attached is a .pdf file containing the VDOT acceptable vertical sections for the roads within the Cedar Meadows project. If these details are adequate, we shall add them to sheet 4 of the MDP plan set prior to the approval signing of the plans. Also, as far as the community center is concerned, it will encompass a separate kitchen, handicap accessible bathroom facilities, two meeting rooms, an office, and space for future rooms as needed. Hopefully this information is what you were seeking, and if you need any further information please feel free to contact either Evan or myself. If you would please, respond to this e-mail as to whether or not this information is acceptable or not, we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you again for your assistance with this project, and I look forward to seeing you again on the 1st. Thanks, Brett Kelly Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Visit us on the web at www.greenwayeng.com ONSITE T"I F I CAL FAVE ENT SECTION NOT TO SCALE BUTTERCUP DRIVE, BLUETS DRIVE, POPPY DRIVE, FIREUEED DRIVE, FORGET ME NOT DRIVE, COLUMBINE DRIVE, TRUMPET VINE DRIVE, BLEEDING HEARTS DRIVE LIC:sHT FAVE1"IENT SECTION 20" SM -125A 6Ui2EACE COURSE PRIME / SEAL COAT S.m"SUBBASE VDOT TYPE 1 21 — B -I 11=111=1 I FA I FEI1 11=111=111=111=1 I I- COMPACTED SUBGRADE � (COMPACTED TO c35% DENSITY AT OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT VDOT VTM-1 METHOD) PAVEMENT DESIGN BASED ON A SUBGRADE CBR DESIGN VALUE OF 6. SOIL TEST OF THE SLIBGRADE MUST SUBMITTED FOR ACTUAL DETERMINATION OF REQUIRED PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. >t-pvmt2-vdot ONSITE T�T'F I CAL FAVEMENT SECTION NOT TO SCALE PERRYUINKLE PLACE LIGHT FAVE ENT SECTION SURFACE — /I 5ASE COURSE �r���r���►���r�i1r���r���r���r���r���r���r S" SU55A5E VIDOTG I '• -•D (COMPACTED • 95VA. DENSITY AT OPTIMUM M016TURECONTENT METHOD) PAVEMENT DESIGN BASED ON A SUBGRADE CBR DESIGN VALVE OF 6. SOIL TEST OF THE SUBGRADE MUST SUBMITTED FOR ACTUAL DETERMINATION OF REQUIRED PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. Dt Frederick County, V/; Location in the Gounty Map Features Master Development Plan # 13 - 06 Cedar Meadows Parcel IN: 75 -A -106,75-A-107 75 -A -114,75-A-115 75 -A -116,86-A-153 Application Zoning Lakes/Ponds B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) ^-• Streams B2 (Business, General District) C3 Plooplain • B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) streets C�-' EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) °iy Primary HE (Higher Education District) -- Secondary M1 (Industrial, Light District) Tertiary M2 (Industrial, General District) �- Winchester City r MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) Railroads MS (Medical Support District) ® Property Lines •=' R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) Landuse R5 (Residential Recreational Community Dist Urban Development Area RAZ (Rural Area Zone) SWSA RP (Residential Performance District) s'Gitg Location in Surrounding Area 4�pK cpG Low 0 300 600 1.2Peet t 0 �. 75 AABO7 OLD DOMINION GREENS 81.35 ac. 0 (Fp��ROPROp� B55gac13 Rry ��T V FER71G 86 A 155 60.63 ac. r DO&WOOD•LANDIN(T A. 4 VA 76 A 115.23 aarICK LAMMY, VA Master Development Plan # 13 - 06 Cedar Meadows Parcel IN: 75 -A -106,75-A-107 75 -A -114,75-A-115 Location in the Gourl 75 - A -116, 86 - A -153 Map Features Application Long Range Land Use • 1531 > a. G3 Flooplain x r 1 Za ® Industrial b Primary Institutional - Secondary-' 4 VA 76 A 115.23 aarICK LAMMY, VA Master Development Plan # 13 - 06 Cedar Meadows Parcel IN: 75 -A -106,75-A-107 75 -A -114,75-A-115 Location in the Gourl 75 - A -116, 86 - A -153 Map Features Application Long Range Land Use 13 Lakes/Ponds Rural Community Center •^-- Streams Residential G3 Flooplain Business Streets ® Industrial b Primary Institutional - Secondary-' Recreation Terciary Z�l Historic �- Winchester City ® Mixed -Use y Railroads ® Planned Unit Development Property Lines Landuse Urban Development Area SWSA 7L_I Location in Surrounding Araa �:li& a 4�CK ' CSG CWill - 0 300 6001,2�eet ww w Frederick County, VA Master Development Plan # 13 - 06 Cedar Meadows Parcel IN: 75-A-106,75-A-107 75-A-114,75-A-115 Location in the County 75 - A -116, 86 - A -153 Map Features Application i5 Lakes/Ponds �-- Streams C3 Flooplain Streets 4%� Primary Secondary Tertiary �- Winchester City 4 Railroads ® Property Lines Landuse Urban Development Area SWSA f f t 9inia1r Location in Surrounding Area - 0 300 600 1.200eet w APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Department of Planning and Development Use Only, Date application received 016 Application # 45-06 Complete. Date of acceptance Incomplete. Date of return 1. Project Title: Cedar Meadows Master Development Plan 2. Owner's Name Jasbo, Inc./Sparks Property, LLC— Beverley B. Shoemaker PO Box 480 Stephens City, VA 22655 (Please list name of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Phone Number: 540-662-4185 4. Design Greenway Engineering Company: Address: Same Phone Number: Same Contact Name: Evan Wyatt f T' �a � I �nf 5. Location of Property VA Route 636 (White Oak Road) approximately 2,600' south of the intersection of White Oak Road and VA Route 642 (Tasker Road). 6. Total 30.6 acres Acreage: 7. Property Information a) Property Identification Number 75-A-106, 107, 114, 115,116, and (PIN): 86-A-153 b) Current Zoning: RP District c) Present Use: Residential and Agricultural d) Proposed Uses: Single-family small lots -detached units e) Adjoining Property Information: North South East West Property Identification Property Uses Numbers See Attached List f) Magisterial District: Opequon 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original ® Amended ❑ I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. Signature: Date: J C) I r— Property Owners Listing Adjacent property owners 6/16/2006 TAX MAP ZONING NORTH 75 A 117 RP 75M 3 3 143 RP 75M 3 3 144 RP 75M 33145 RP WEST 75 A 117A RA SOUTH 86 A 152 RA 86 A 151 RA 86 A 155A RA 86 A 155 RA 86 A 154 RA EAST 75 A 113A RA 75 A 113 RA 75 A 112 RA 75 A 111 RA 75 A 110 RA 75 A 110A RA 75 A 109 RA 75 A 108 RA Adjacent property owners 6/16/2006 l � Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Sparks Property, L.L.C. - Beverley B. Shoemaker, President (Phone) (540) 869-1800 (Address) PO Box 480 Stephens City, VA 22655 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 060014945 on Page , and is described as 050007167 75 106 A Parcel: 86 Lot: 153 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property; including: Rezoning (Including proffers) Conditional Use Permits X Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this &fh day of Otf , 200_&, Signature(s) U of Virginia, City ounty 6L&B 40 -wit: I, LX 1100-L. ME1iA;Da Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this .(Al day ofO2,� 200_(_. (1� �( 1J My Commission Expires: Fe Uj&rk'J, 'Z") 2-0013Notary Public CPPA #06-06 CO UDA & SWSA EXPANSION REQUEST - CLEARVIEW w Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting w Prepared: October 16, 2006 Z" Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins Planner II .1 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in the discussion of this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this comprehensive planning matter. CPPS: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors Reviewed 10/09/06 11/01/06 (Discussion) 12/13/06 (Discussion) Action Recommended denial Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) by 130.07 (four parcels) acres to enable residential land uses. PLANNED USE: Residential LOCATION: The four parcels are located south of Hopewell Road (Route 672) (adjacent to and behind the new Waverly Farm Rural Preservation Subdivision) and west of Interstate 81 (adjacent to I-81 Rest Area). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS FOR UDA EXPANSION: 43 -A -75,44 -A -1,44 -A -3&44-A-313 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Agricultural and Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) Use: Rural Preservation Subdivision South: RA (Rural Area) Use: Rural Residential and Agricultural East: N/A Use: interstate 8i/Rest Area West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Rural Residential and Agricultural CPPA — Clearview October 16, 2006 Page 2 PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION: Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester and Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properties and all other A -I and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. Comprehensive Policy Plan Land Use Plan The subject parcels currently are not located within the limits of any small area land use plan and are located over a mile from the Urban Development Area (UDA). The subject parcels are also outside of the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The SWSA currently runs along the eastern boundary of the I-81 northbound lanes. As such, the Comprehensive Policy Plan would prohibit the property from connecting to public water and sewer for any use. The applicant is not proposing a small area land use plan for the subject properties. Rather, the applicant is seeking extension of the UDA and SWSA and a residential designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan for the four subject properties. The subject site is surrounded by a new rural preservation subdivision (Waverly Farms) to the north, rural residential and agricultural parcels to the south and west and by the I- 81 rest area to the east. The applicant is seeking to expand the UDA and SWSA to incorporate the four parcels which total 130.07 acres so that it can be developed as an age -restricted housing development, as indicated in their Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment application. It is noted that this is not a rezoning request, so proffers are not appropriate. If rezoned at the maximum allowed density for this site, the potential for the introduction of 520 residential units is possible for this area. Staff comment. The applicant is requesting the inclusion of 130.07 acres into the UDA and SWSA to enable residential land uses. The approval of this amendment will introduce future high density residential zoning into an area with no adjacent high density residential and a transportation network riot' designed fair this use in the past', the County has not extended the UDA in a non-contiguous manner. It is also noted that the intended age -restricted housing is not guaranteed; extension of the UDA would enable all ages and residential housing types. CPPA — Clearview October 16, 2006 Page 3 Transportation The draft Eastern Frederick County Eastern Road Plan does not include this area, only the portion of Hopewell Road between I-81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) is identified to become a major collector. The site currently only has one point of access to a state road. The site is currently provided access to Hopewell Road (Route 672) through Waverly Road (Route 655) which connects to Michael Drive (Frontage Road 229 — variable width ROW) and then to Moreland Lane (access easement). Waverly Road connects to Hopewell at two locations, one being approximately 220 feet from the I-81 south bound ramps and the other being approximately 3,600 feet from the I-81 Ramps. The site does not have the possibility for interparcel connections to the south or west. Staff Note: The area around the Hopewell Road interchange is intended for commercial uses as indicated in the Northeast Land Use Plan; however, it is unclear when this will be developed or when/if the Waverly Road/Hopewell Road intersection closest to I-81 will be closed or relocated. It is noted that this property does not have any recorded access into the new Waverly Farm rural preservation subdivision. Existing and planned access to this UDA expansion area may be inadequate to accommodate the potential 520 new residential units. Community Facilities and Service Frederick County Public Schools, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority provided comments on this CPPA application and these are attached. Frederick County Public Schools stated that a UDA expansion would not hold the applicant to an age -restricted development. The Sanitation Authority stated that while water is available, the sewer capacity in this area is insufficient to serve the existing land within the SWSA. If the proposed Clearview property is incorporated into the SWSA, it will eliminate development potential from the property that is already within the SWSA. The Frederick -Winchester Service Authority stated that limited capacity will be available at the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. C0MPIXE1IENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE (CPPS) SUMMARY & ACTION OF 10/09/06 MEETING: The CPPS had serious concerns with this UDA and SWSA expansion request. A primary concern was that the character and context of the proposed use did not fit in with the surrounding CPPA — Clearview October 16, 2006 Page 4 rural land uses. Members were satisfied with the current rural use of this area and unanimously recommended to the Planning Commission that this CPPA request be denied. Following the public meeting, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment would be appropriate. Assistant Superintendent for Administration Frederick County Public Schools Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us September 27, 2006 Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner County of Frederick Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Ms. Eddy: e-mail: orndorfa@frederick.k11va.us The bulleted comments below are in response to your request of August 28, 2006 on the proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment requests: (1) The Round Hill Center / National Lutheran Home, and (2) The Clearview. The Round Hill Center / National Lutheran Home ➢ Expanding the UDA sets a precedence outside Route 37 in the northwestern area of the county. ➢ How does this UDA expansion relate to the Round Hill Community concept? ➢ Is it a correct assumption that if this is included in the UDA, there are no implied restrictions relative to age -restricted housing until the actual rezoning occurs? The Clearview ➢ The UDA expansion does not necessarily hold the property to age -restricted housing If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, �v elG Al Orndorff Assistant Su ALO/ssn Administration 540-662-3889 Ext 100 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-722-2788 FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY ROBERT P. MOWERY, C.P.A., Chairman JOHN STEVENS, Vice-chairman RICHARD A. RUCKMAN, P.E., Sec -treasurer JAMES T. ANDERSON DARWIN S. BRADEN TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604-8377 MEMORANDUM Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner W. H. Jones, P. E. , 2006 Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment Requests September 20, 2006 Wellington H. Jones, P.E. Engineer -Director Ph. - (540) 868-1061 Fax - (540) 868-1429 Attached are my comments concerning water and wastewater service for the Round Hill Center/National Lutheran Home and Clearview comprehensive policy pian amendment requests. I will not be able to attend the October 9, 2006 meeting of the Comprehensive Plans and Program Subcommittee. If you have questions, or need further explanation, I will be in my office from October 3 — 6. /ths Attachments SEP 2 1 2006 WATER AT YOUR SERVICE Cleariew The proposed area being considered is 130 acres. Residential development could demand an average of 1,000 gallons per day per acre for a total daily demand of 130,000 gallons. This demand would be for both water and sewer. Potable Water The Authority has a 12 -inch water line crossing I-81 to the VDOT rest area. This line has sufficient capacity to provide adequate water service for residential development for the area being considered. Sanitary Sewer The Authority provides service to the Route 11 North corridor through a pressure sewer system. This system has a capacity of 0.500 MGD. Currently, 0.370 MGD of this capacity is reserved for landowners that participated in the cost to construct the system. About 0.130 MGD of uncommitted capacity is currently available in the system. This capacity is insufficient to serve the existing land within the SWSA in the Route 11 North corridor. Therefore, to expand the SWSA to incorporate Clearview will eliminate development within the existing SWSA that has wastewater facilities available. With the development of Snowden's Bridge, additional wastewater capacity will be available to the Route 11 North corridor. This will probably occur between 2015 and 2020. Until that time, expansion of the SWSA in the Route 11 North corridor will exacerbate the wastewater capacity issue. 1I..J l Frederick -Winchester Service Authority SEP 1 2 2006 Post Office Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Office: 107 North Kent Street County Office Complex Winchester, Virginia 22601 1-540-722-3579 September 11, 2006 TO: SUSAN K. EDDY — SENIOR PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN FROM: JESSE W. MOFFETT — EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FREDERICK -WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORI Y RE: 2006 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT (CPPA) REQUESTS I have reviewed the material that you provided me with regards to the 2006 Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment Requests made. Although I have no specific comments relative to either one of the proposed applications, I would continue to make the Comprehensive Plan and Program Subcommittee aware of the fact that limited capacity will be available at the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. At present, the facility is rated as an 8.4 MGD facility and has had new Bay -related regulations placed on it with regards to nutrient discharges, wherein a cap has been placed on the nutrients which may be discharged in future years. The Frederick Winchester Service Authority is presently going through the pre -engineering report portion of the process of expanding the facility and improving immensely the treatment capabilities of the facility to maximize those allocations presented to us. However, it should be noted that, even with the Service Authority moving to a point of limit of technology in its treatment, the present allocation would only allow us slightly over 1 I MGD of ultimate capacity. In looking at those developments that have been approved, are on the books and under development, and those planned, I would make the Committee aware that these nutrient caps may cause future limitations for the Opequon facility and should be taken into account in the Committee's review of expanding the sewer and water service area. `Maiataiming and Aoiftotimg Me VaBa¢s of 14c Groxtmmity tRroagli 6nvirommenta6 SfawardsRip' OM UDA Leng Range Plan Institutional SWSA R-1 C..—ityCenter �;_,.. Recreation CPPA # 06 - 06 Road Network Rasidentlal 62` H.Wrc USA /� NPd—,Roads Bssiness ( MD W—d-Usa Clearview ~ SawndaryRczds Industra. (9p PlannedUnitDeve,op. ent UDA & SWSA Expansion Request �°�aedbyFrededtk�owN � r /,/ Tertiary Roads CPPA21106 Planning Oepanrnenl [: r Wnchestsr City Road, (Residential) SeX27.2WQ 1'IZ1 Future R737 Bypass 5 130 acres 0.1 0.05 0 0.1 0.2 os 0.4 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT INITIATION REQUEST FORM (Please type all information. The application will not be deemed complete unless all items listed below have been submitted.) A. Owners) Information: 1. Name: Gary L. and Pamela L. Payne 2. Project Name: Clear -view 3. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 121 Stephenson, VA 22656 4. Telephone Number: (540) 662-4957 Authorized .Agent Information: 1. Name: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C., John C. Lewis, P.E. 2. Project Name: Clearview 3. Mailing Address: 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 4. Telephone Number: 540 662-5792 B. Legal interest in the property affected or reason for the request: The property owners request the Comprehensive Policy Plan be amended so as to include the subject property in the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA . C. Proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment - please provide the following information. I. FOR A MAP AMENDMENT: a. GPIN(s): 43-((A))-75, 44-((A))-1, 44-((A))-3, 44((A)) -3B Magisterial District: Stonewall b. Parcel size (approximate acres): ± 130 acres (total) Plat of area proposed for CPPA amendment, including metes and bounds description. See Attachment A. d. Existing Comprehensive Plan land use classification(s): Rural area e. Proposed Comprehensive Plan land use classification(s): Mixed use £ Existing zoning and land use of the subject parcel: RA Rural Area District residence and agriculture. g. What use/zoning will be requested if amendment is approved? RP, Residential Performance District. h. Describe (using text, photos, and maps as necessary) the existing zoning, Comprehensive Policy Plan designations, and/or approved uses and densities along with other characteristics of are within: 1/4 mile from the parce](s) perimeter if the parcel is less than 20 acres in size; '/z mile if 21 - 100 acres in size; or 1 mile if more than 100 acres in size. Note: Colored maps cannot he duplicated in the Planning Department. The site is bordered to the south by Fairview, a rural subdivision co itaining-- Uproximately 25 five acre residential lots. This subdivision is fully devglo ed. To the west is agricultural land and additional large residential lots. The VDOT Virginia Welcome Center on Interstate 81 borders the site along its eastern boundary. Additional agricultural land and a few residential lots are located along the north east boundary. Waverly Farm a rural preservation subdivision is Tanned for the vacant land along the northern boundary of the site. All adjoinin land is zoned Rural Areas. Please reference Attachment B and Attachment C. The name, mailing address, and parcel number of all property owners within 200ft. of the subject parcel(s), with Adjacent Property Owners Affidavit (page 6). See Attachment D 2. FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT a. Purpose and intent of amendment. To permit parcels partially within or adjacent to the UDA/SWSA to be incorporated into such districts as well as other areas that can offer development which meets or improves provision of public services. b. Cite Plan chapter, goal, policy and/or action strategy text that is proposed to be amended. Chapter 6 Confine urban forms of land development to the Urban Development Area. Chapter 6, Planned Communities C. Proposed new or revised text. Concentrate urban forms of land development to those areas within the UDA/SWSA those parcels immediately adjacent thereto or partially incorporated therein and other areas that can offer development which meets or improves provision of public services to manage growth and ensure quality development and diversity in housing opportunities. Planned Unit Developments (PUD,) and other similar types of concentrated development are permitted throughout the Urban Development Area, and in the rest of the County where there is access to adequate water and sewer and the development's qualities offset or exceed other costs to the County. Uses listed as conditional in the RP district should be permitted by right in PUD developments. Note: Please attach and specify text changes with additions underlined and deletions crossed through. Demonstrate how the proposal furthers the goals, policies/objectives, and action strategies set forth in the Comprehensive Policy Plan chapter(s) relative to the amendment request and why proposed revisions to said goals, policies, and action strategies are appropriate. Permitting inclusion of adjacent parcels and parcels partially within the district the proposal will permit manageable growth in those areas designated for and anticipated for development Inclusion will allow development of land according to the characteristics of the land and the facilities already available. The inclusion will also promote competitive market development within the UDA and provide for a diversity of locations and suburban housing types This amendment will also permit more opportunities for PUDs which reduce traffic impacts throughout the _County, by providing services to both the new developments and the existing adjacent developments Finally, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, "Growth within the UDA needs to be continuously monitored to determine the need for new or expanded facilities as well as for expansion of the UDA itself." Demonstrate how the proposal is internally consistent with other Comprehensive Policy Plan components that are not the subject of the amendment. The proposals are internally consistent with the Historic Environmental Community Facilities and Parks and Recreation components of the plan, because developments would still be subject to those components. The proposals are consistent with the Population and Housing goals as they would permit a variety of housing types and locations to meet the varied needs and income levels of the County's population As sewer and water are already adjacent to the sites, there would not be an increased cost of providing services. Proffered development standards would offset other expenditures of other assets by the County. The increased supply of housing and housing types would reduce the market costs of housing available to residents Additional housing and the commercial or industrial aspects of PVDs would promote the economy by providing more opportunities for business and employees to locate in the County. The transportation component of the plan would benefit by roads which are improved to support the developments as well as promoting walkable communities in which vehicle trips are reduced as necessary services are collocated with the neighborhoods. 3. FOR ALL AMENDMENTS a. Justification of proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment (provide attachments if necessary). Describe why the change to the Comprehensive Policy Plan is being proposed. The subject parcel has access to sewer and water lines and is located between the existing UDA and the commercial development planned for the western side of the Clearbrook interchange its inclusion in the UDA is a reasonable progression of the UDA's expansion. The proposed use of mixed residential is the best use for the area based on generating positive fiscal impacts for the County while meeting__ market needs. How would the resultant changes impact or benefit Frederick County. Consider, for example, transportation, economic development and public facilities. Based on a proposed use of an age restricted residential community, the benefits of the proposed change would include; accessibility to Interstate -81 and significant secondary routes no negative fiscal impacts on the county school system, providing significant recreational amenities as a supplement to the public park system creating a positive tax revenue stream to Frederick County through real estate taxes and accessibility to Ovate and sewer is more environmentally compatible than the installation of private wells and on-site sewage disposal systems This type of development represents the_highest and best use for the land. Other information as may be required by the Director of Planning, the Planning Commission, or Board of County Supervisors during the review of the initiation request. The applicant will be notified, in writing, if additional information is required. All applications must also contain the following items: 1. Special Limited Power of Attorney Affidavit (see page 7 if parcels of land are involved). 2. Application Review Fee of $3,000 (payable to the Frederick County Treasurer) Applicants should consult the Comprehensive Policy Plan to identify goals, policies or action strategies which are applicable to individual Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment requests. Attachments Attachment A — Property Plat Attachment B — Location and Land Use Map Attachment C — Adjoining Properties Map Attachment D — Property Owners and Owner Affidavit Signatures: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the Comprehensive Plan. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): ' Date V Owner(s): Date 6-/-C"�- Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Presegl� That I (We) (Name) l Aygt (Phone) (Address) /�0. 113 C,?,- /�Z r/ _51VW 4 e -K 5-0c") 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 �+5 ;3 53 Instrument No. 96'7 on Page S a 3 and is described as 175 14 'f.3 Parcel: Lot: 3Block: 0 ' Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute andappoint: ) (Name) Pn i n t e L r e- w! s f C (Phone) J ai " iO iL a- �7 3 (Address) I I S" SH--wCtrf St. 1N; nck) ester, �`.A �a (e,0 r To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan V Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set �(our) hand and seal this _L;- day of �-� , 200-6-1 Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/County of 2JZ , To -wit: I, 0M WfL r 1' S , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this i2 day of 200 C,. My Commission Expires: taryPublic SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS AFFIDAVIT County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK This �A 64- day of (Day) ( onth) (Year) I, L PAO �EAC - (O ner/Contract Purchaser/Authorized Agent) hereby make oath that the list of property owners of the subject site, as submitted with the application, is a true and accurate list based on the information provided by the Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records. (Owner/Contract Purchaser/Authorized Agent) (circle one) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA: County of FAJY C�.U1A— (- Subscribed and sworn to before me this i day ofr�--Q o�o� in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed Principal. Q1 A, Nut TARY PUBLIC My Commission expires: OWNERS OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET Tax Map # Owner of Record Mailing Address 352 DeHaven Dr. 32- ((13))-15 Messick, Roger D. Clearbrook, VA 22624 234 Waverly Road 33-((A))-69 Waveryly Farm, c/o Ken Stiles Clearbrook, VA 22624 205 View West Lane 43 -((A)) -75A Stonestreet, Jimmy Blair & Patsy L. Clearbrook, VA 22624 Post Office Box 160 43-((7))-5 Payne, Oliver L. & Ruth L. Stephenson, VA 22656 Post Office Box 121 43-((7))-6 Payne, Gary L. & Pamela L. Stephenson, VA 22656 Post Office Box 160 43-((7))-6A Payne, Adam T. & Melissa L. Stephenson, VA 22656 Post Office Box 234 Pin le , Brian W. & Sarah B. Ste henson, VA 22656 163 Shirley Court 43D-1-2-10 Kimble, Patrick & April Winchester, VA 22602 166 Shirley Court 43D-1-2-11 Plummer, James F. & Wanda J. Winchester, VA 22602 101 Evans Farm Lane 43D-1-2-12 Klline, Daniel W. & Brenda S. Winchester, VA 22603 135 Evans Farm Lane 43D-1-2-13 Mullins, Gary R. & Dorene Y. Winchester, VA 22603 Helsley, Wesley I. Sr. & Tena Post Office Box 1924 43D-1-2-14 Helsle , Melissa Winchester, VA 22601 162 Moreland Lane 43D-1-2-15 IMoreland, Robert L. Clearbrook, VA 22624 JVirginia Post Office Box 2249 44A -((A)) -3A Department of Transportation Staunton, VA 22402 162 Moreland Lane 144A -((A)) -80B Moreland, Robert L. & ShirleyIrene Clearbrook, VA 22624 Attachement D '1 /N F P 3J 834, W A-6 W �v \ INST. poo 0' 93 h� `,� d PIN 43-A-75 DB 02 AE31. 55PG33 35 ACRES ` 373°52pr F 65 2 DB 895 PG 1353 S25' �E +130.07�GS (TOTAL) PIN 44-A-313 0) / 13.97 ACRES / N 45°55'50" W DB 907 PG 523 AT A �'6„ qF�c GL 197.61' �• py s� co 44-A-3 � � N10 65.25 ACRES R LA D DB 895 PG 1353 S 79°44'54" E qN /m� Ary 6Q 199.91' `tti50'LE S p. o Off` �b ?so, qiP �3D-1'2-11� p�P ��c�i FoP PIN NOLUOAi 1� <-61o'c-9 vc�° rlq Q�� �J : itiAv 62 ° u' v � 104N959 �N 1c, C, �O A� NOTES: 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED; THEREFORE THERE MAY BE ENCUMBRANCES OR EASEMENTS THAT ARE NOT SHOWN HEREON. 500 0 500 1 000 2. BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON DEEDS AND PLATS OF RECORD; NO FIELD RUN BOUNDARY SURVEY IS IMPLIED. SCALE: 1 = 500' COMPOSITE PLAT OF THE LANDS OF GARY L. PAYNE and PAMELA L. PAYNE STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ATrACHMENT 4 DATE: 05/26/2005 SCALE: 1"=500' 1 SHEET 1 OF 1 marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET - WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 DRAWN BY: CAJ PHONE (540) 667-0468 - FAX(540)667-0469 - EMAIL office@marshandlegge.com DWG NAME: ID6707 ,1 �♦ .. ' �1/1 / I1 , �� t 1 r�ir CL .:.. M% ■ .�.�/ D ♦ �: :'♦ ✓i ..r_ \,� ■,.%! Lu LLJ Li af prIn ��%/ , ■4.W" hili.:!%►`'.■►�■■■I�►♦�� •i ♦� // p ��� �� \\\It►/ .. u SCION IM ■■\ �..jr��♦\ �� iSa �'♦ M122 r .+♦;♦t '♦*♦:�:.��'r \ fir. �\ ��. u 1I 111 MIA Ne ,�\��►�1��'.� �i O �'•A�1dr1��♦ L ♦♦�♦♦��♦ � �A y1 % �r �� ,• I IIIIIII IIIIIIII � ♦♦♦♦ ♦�i♦� i ♦,/ SURVEY: C.17'NA NA ♦� •!i�M' / �j�p♦♦♦♦♦r1�i ♦tom♦/� tc�,♦ Ii l _ � •.. PROPERTY DATA• Tax Map #: 43—A-75, 19.50 acres Tax Map 44—A-1, 31.35 acres Tax Map !: 44—A-3, 65.25 acres Tax Map # 44—A-38, 13.97 acres Total Property Area: 130.07 acres Existing Zoning: RA Existing Use: vacant Proposed Zoning: RP Proposed Use: Age Restricted Housing Surrounding Zoning: RA Surrounding Land Use: residential, agricultural 1250 0 1250 u Scale 1. 1250 ft &4645 � I 26 0 6:P 0 PFE vO 42 M s <�Z SWSA W w Z j 1148 114A O W W Z F- �4 � F_=- te4A CL 0 UZ WY tsw w -)0_0 as O W a QO:w V 144 3 P J a 83 w N (0 r, U T) N ^ !'f1 L,\/� N �� 1 N � N N � .876 fay 3 C C BM B]J W 4) T 6 144 J ��.. 0 aw u Eo 3 �,r• a' LUpring U p Y M.H.P. M H.P. 302 / i 9 GQ , He ON aw 1218 CL ssv 121C JW 5 W O Z P1. rs — East 170'8 U W Y4A 70A•tl' SURVEY: C.1.: 778 sA NA NA aw 1706 DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: „Q I JCL 0510009 ,lee �•� "off SCALE: DATE: f 1"=1250.0` 4/01/06 �� SHEET: