Loading...
PC 09-20-06 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia September 20, 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) August 16, 2006 Minutes................................................................................................. (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #08-06 of Ronald D. DeHaven for a Country General Store. This property is located at 5057 Northwestern Pike (Route 50), and is identified with Property Identification Number 39-A-39 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Mr. Henry......................................................................................................................... (B) 6) Rezoning #11-06 of Abram's Chase, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.25 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for 14 single family homes on small lots. The property fronts on the north side of Senseny Road (Route 657) adjacent to the Parkwood Manor Subdivision in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Numbers 65 -A -27A and 65 -A -28A. Ms. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (C) 7) Rezoning #12-06 of Carriage Place, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 30.52 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, and 14.92 acres from MH1 (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 Home 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 -174A, 55 -A -174B, and 55 -A -174D. POSTPONED BY APPLICANT Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (D) FILE COPY 8) Rezoning 910-06 of Albin Center, submitted by Artz & Associates, to rezone 2.07 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The property is located on the east side of Bryarly Road (Route 789) approximately 800 feet south of the intersection with Burnt Church Road (Route 678) in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 42-A-249. Mrs. Eddy........................................................................................................................ (E) 9) Authorization to Apply for a Virginia Department of Transportation Enhancement Grant to Implement Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in the Vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. Mr. Bishop....................................................................................................................... (F) PUBLIC MEETING 10) 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. The property fronts on the east side of Papermill Road (Route 644), approximately 2,300 feet west/northwest of the intersection of Papermill Road and Front Royal Pike (Route 522), and is identified with Property Identification Number 64-A-23, in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Ms. Perkins......................................................................................................................(G) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 11) Article V — RA Rural Areas District, Section 165-55 — Setback Requirements. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (H) 12) Other C • MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on August 16, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, 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: Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; John Bishop, Transportation Planner; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Candice E. Perkins, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. AMENDMENT OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot announced a revision to this evening's agenda; she said that Item #6, Rezoning #09-06 of Tasker Woods, has been postponed by the applicant because of a technical difficulty which resulted in the advertisement being wrong. Chairman Wilmot said this will be rescheduled to Wednesday, September 6, 2006. She gave the opportunity for anyone who wished to speak regarding this application to do so under Citizen Comments, if they preferred not to wait until the September 6 meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of July 19, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1823 Minutes of August 16, 2006 0 UU -"` T -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 08/14/06 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed the guidelines and outlines for the UDA (Urban Development Area) Study Program. He said a joint work session between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors is scheduled for August 29, 2006 at 12:00. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 08/15/06 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the HRAB heard a presentation from Painter -Lewis on the Clear -view project, which proposes to rezone RA property to RP District with age -restricted housing. He said the HRAB saw no conflict in the rezoning proposal with respect to historical resources and recommended approval. Commissioner Kriz reported that Bowman Consulting presented Jordan Springs, which proposes to rezone RA/B2 to RPB2 split zoning. He said there will be about 600 homes within the RP and the B2 will contain office space. The majority of the 277 -acre property will be RP Zoning with B2 accounting for about three acres. He reported that the 10.33 -acre parcel with the historical structure will be undisturbed and the current property owner will retain ownership. He said the HRAB recommended approval with the condition the applicant conduct a Phase 1 Archeological Survey and a Phase 2 and 3, if needed. Commissioner Kriz also reported that PHR&A addressed modifications requested by the HRAB to the Carriage Park rezoning proposal presented to the HRAB in June. The applicant had addressed all of the modifications requested and the HRAB recommended approval. Sanitation Authority (SA) — 08/15/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of July was about one-third of non -nal at about one inch. He said all plants are operating normally; water usage was up about 5.3 million gpd and was about 500,000 gallons more than last year at this time. Commissioner Unger reported that the quarries in Stephens City are satisfactory; however, one in Clearbook was somewhat down. Commissioner Unger said the Sanitation Authority is getting ready to move to their new office on Tasker Road and has awarded a contract to Lantz Construction. The cost will be about 1.2 million dollars. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 16, 2006 Page 1 2524 -3 - PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #07-06 of Senseny Road Rentals, LLC, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone two acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers for four single- family homes. This property is located on Senseny Road (Rt. 657), approximately 350 feet west of Ashley Drive. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 65-A-46 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Deputy Planning Director Michael T. Ruddy reported that this rezoning application is being brought back to the Planning Commission in order to ensure that a correctly -advertised public hearing is held, both at the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Ruddy explained that when this rezoning application was brought previously to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, it was advertised as being within the Shawnee District, when it is actually within the Red Bud Magisterial District. He said when the Planning Commission previously reviewed this application, no issues were identified and a recommendation for approval was sent to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Ruddy said the Board of Supervisors reviewed the application on July 26, 2006 and did not have any outstanding issues; however, upon becoming aware of the error in the magisterial district, believed it would be appropriate to re -advertise a new public hearing. Mr. Ruddy pointed out that the application and proffers are the same as when the Planning Commission reviewed it previously. Commissioner Thomas said it has been a couple years since the parcel to the west (Solid Woods) was rezoned. Commissioner Thomas recalled discussions at that time where there was no intent to ever rezone the surrounding properties. Mr. Ruddy said the parcels are within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and designated for residential use. Mr. Ruddy said that in conjunction with this rezoning, staffis trying to anticipate potential future rezoning of adjacent properties to the east. He said the GDP (Generalized Development Plan) will provide the road access for those properties to the east. Mr. Ruddy believed the anticipation at this time was to enable additional development for the general area with the recognition that Route 37 is located in the same vicinity. Commissioner Thomas recalled that the Commission did not want to see six entrances onto the road, each serving four or five houses, creating a traffic problem. He said the result was a cul-de-sac on the side road for the first properties to the west. He didn't think it was appropriate to have five cul-de-sacs emptying onto the main road. Mr. Carl Hales, one of the owners of Senseny Road Rentals, LLC, said he did not recall the discussion when Solid Woods was rezoned; however, he was not aware of a commitment not to pursue additional development. Mr. Hales said they purchased this property with development in mind; he said they owned the property since approximately 1996-1998. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Thomas was concerned about the transportation in this area and the possibility of having six separate roads with cul-de-sacs emptying out there. He believed the property should certainly be developed, but it should be a consolidated effort. He said the time was not right to rezone this property and all of the properties should be done at the same time. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1825 Minutes of August 16, 2006 @ F -4 - Commissioner Unger commented that with all the different property owners down through there, he did not see how Commissioner Thomas' suggestion would be possible; he thought the worst case scenario would be three cul-de-sacs. Commissioner Unger did not see how it could be accomplished any other way. 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 recommend approval of Rezoning 407-06 of Senseny Road Rentals, LLC, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone two acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers for four single-family homes. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Unger, Manuel, Morris, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn, Wilmot NO: Light, Thomas, Ours (Note: Commissioners Oates and Watt were absent from the meeting.) Update of the 2007-2008 Frederick County Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvements Plans. The Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the secondary, primary, and interstate road networks within Frederick County. Action — Recommended Approval Transportation Planner, John Bishop said there were very few changes to the priority list ofboth the Interstate and Primary roads. He said the main change of note in the Interstate is Item D, Spot Improvements on I-81, which is generalized to the whole corridor to allow some flexibility when VDOT is able to come up with safety funds for projects, such as the Exit 313 improvements, or ramp improvements, etc. He said these are minor improvements which will more easily facilitate VDOT's process to begin the projects. Moving to the Primary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop reported that the priorities are much the same as they were in last year's plan. He noted Item D under #1, the Route 37 Bypass, which is the Route 37- Jubal Early Drive Interchange; he said this is an ongoing process with the interchange justification study supported by the County, and this is simply an additional documentation in support of the access break. He pointed out Item #3, which includes the widening of Route 11 from the southern limits of the City of Winchester, noting it has been extended further south and is now south of Exit 310, through the Kemstown area. He said Item C, Establishing an Urban Four -Lane System, has been added to improve the roadway from the intersection of Route 761 (Old Charlestown Road) to the West Virginia line. Regarding the Secondary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop said the major road improvement projects are numbered one through four; he said Greenwood Road and Sulphur Springs Road remain from last year's plan, with Inverlee UT ay and East Tevis Street added. Mr. Bishop anticipated that improvements to Senseny Road would also be added, but was not currently on the list due to some application delays. Mr. Bishop next reviewed the hard -surfacing of rural roadways in the County. He said only one road has been brought forward from the previous list, Ebenezer Church Road. He noted that sufficient funds were available to add three additional projects, which included Chestnut Grove Road, Indian Hollow Road, and Ridings Mill Road. The last project on the list was Woodside Road, which was a proffer project and may be eligible for a rural rustic -type Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 16, 2006 Page 1826 -5 - treatment. Mr. Bishop reported there were 21 projects on the unscheduled hard -surface list, with the top project being Pack Horse Road. Mr. Bishop next reviewed the incidental construction list and he explained these are smaller projects, such as railroad crossings, resurfacing, etc. Mr. Bishop noted that the first five roads on the Incidental Construction list are projects with matching funds. Mr. Bishop next entertained questions from the Commission. No questions or areas of concern were raised by the Commission. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kerr, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 2007-2008 Frederick County Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvements Plans. (Note: Commissioners Oates and Watt were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Proposed Modification to the Boundaries of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and Associated Policy Text. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Board of Supervisors has provided direction to move forward with the public hearing process for the UDA (Urban Development Area) and SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) Boundary modification exercise and Land Use Policy text amendments. Mr. Ruddy said the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 21, 2006 and based upon the input and discussion, tabled the item. Subsequently, at the July 5, 2006 meeting, the Commission determined it would be appropriate to bring back the item so a recommendation could be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Ruddy stated that even though the Planning Commission has held the public hearing, it was agreed public comments would be received at this evening's meeting; he noted that additional notification to the public was made at the request of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ruddy pointed out that since the Planning Commission's previous evaluation of the various areas, two events have occurred. The first, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors evaluated the CPPA (Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments) submitted this year. The second event was the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning application for the Russell-Glendobbin property, which is located within the first modification area, Area # 1. Mr. Ruddy explained that amendments have been made to the UDA and SWSA modifications to reflect and respect the action of the Board of Supervisors for this area. Mr. Ruddy proceeded to review each of the eight specific areas of SWSA and UDA boundary modifications. It was noted that three of the proposed areas had current activities relating to potential rezoning: Arca #2 has an application in review y the Hll iB and is in the Pla:u ing DepaI-+u:lerlLf ;r initial corm-nen'ty' Area- #4 rea#4 has a pending CPPA application; and Area 45 has a property owner who has been circulating a rezoning application for initial comments. This applicant is currently within the UDA, however, he would be outside the UDA, if the boundary changed. Frederick County Planning Commission� W ��Page 1827 jN) � Minutes of August 16, 2006 QM. Chairman Wilmot next called for any citizen who wished to speak on the proposed modifications, starting with Area # 1 and proceeding to Area #8. The following persons came forward to speak: Area #1 North of Route 37 including the area known as Apple Pie Ridge, Spring Valley, and the Stonewall Industrial Park. Boundaries to reflect existing land use designations. Extension of SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. UDA and SWSA boundaries respect the approval of the Russell-Glendobbin Rezoning #17-05. There were no public comments on this area. Area #2 Northeastern section of UDA, including part of the land that is adjacent to the Stephenson Village project. Consistent boundaries that follow property lines and respect land use designations. Retention of SWSA to include B2 portion of Monastery property. Mr. Erik W. Fox with Lawson and Silek, P.L.C. said that one of his clients is currently seeking a rezoning and a CPPA for property within Area 42; another client is an applicant within Area #4. Mr. Fox said the applicants are requesting the Commission allow those applications to go forward and run their course through this process Mr. Fox said these applicants believe that having the UDA and SWSA modifications done at the same time they are having their applications reviewed does not weigh in their favor. In addition, he said there was significant discussion at the June 21, 2006 meeting about the prejudicial affects these modifications would have on pending CPPA or pending rezoning applications. He stated there was also discussion about sacrificing the integrity of those processes by making these modifications. (Note: The Commission received a letter regarding the preserve at Jordan Springs, located in Area 42.) Area #3 Eastern section of UDA including a proffered State conservation area and part of land adjacent to and north of Route 7; Route 7 consistent northern boundary. There were no public comments on this area. Area #4 Southeast section south of Senseny Road, east of Greenwood Road, and north of Sulphur Springs Road. Boundary consistency. Property lines. There were no public comments on this area. (Note: The Commission received a letter regarding a CPPA amendment for the Grove property, located in Area #4.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 16, 2006 Page 1828 urn Area #5 East of Route 522, South of Route 50, and north of Justes Drive. Winchester Regional Airport, Carpers Valley Area. Also includes area north of Route 50 and South of Sulphur Springs Road. Reduction in UDA consistent with land use designations. Extension of SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. Mr. Stephen Petler with Harrison & Johnston came forward to speak on behalf of his client, Turner Enterprises, LLC, who is currently circulating a rezoning application. Mr. Petler explained that R.J. Turner, the manager of Turner Enterprises, LLC, is the owner of an 85 -acre parcel, of which approximately 50 acres are located within Area #5. Mr. Petler said the pending rezoning application is proposing a new urbanist plan for a neighborhood mixed-use community center, which will complement existing surrounding uses. Mr. Petler pointed out that currently, there is no land use designation for the 85 acres owned by Turner Enterprises, LLC and the pending application will provide the opportunity for the County, the Staff, and the Planning Commission to participate in deciding the land use designation for this area, in conjunction with the UDA Study. He said it was for that reason, they believe it would be inappropriate at this time to make an amendment to the UDA boundary, which would affect the property which is in an active development process. Mr. Petler requested this area be tabled until that process has been finalized and information could be exchanged between the applicant and the County to determine the best land uses for this area. Mr. Evan Wyatt came forward and said he observed a slight anomaly in Area #5. Mr. Wyatt pointed out a road off of Route 522, Justes Drive, going back to the existing middle school and the elementary school. He said there were utilities coming up these two roads for the elementary school, but yet there seems to be a piece of property sandwiched in between what can be served and what can be served with utilities in-place. Mr. Wyatt thought this particular property should be included in the SWSA as well. Mr. J. R. Shockley stated there were two beautiful schools in this area with no development around them. He commented there was considerable undeveloped area here and the potential existed for a neighborhood center. He noted that of the four new neighborhood centers planned, this is the only area outside of the UDA line. Mr. Shockley suggested that the line not be moved just to include the school, but it should be moved just once and include the entire surrounding area for a neighborhood center, possibly from the school all the way over to Parkins Mill Road. Area #6 Stephens City area. Removing County policy lines from within the Town of Stephens City. Joint Land Use Plan provides guidance for the Town's future annexation and provision of sewer and water. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary of UDA/SWSA. Mr. Bryan Carter, a property owner within the Town of Stephens City Town Limits, asked for further clarification on how these modifications would affect him and his property. Mr. Ruddy explained that property contained within the Town of Stephens City is governed by the policies of Stephens City, including the water and sewer and land uses. Mr. Ruddy added that the Town's policies will prevail on all property within the town boundaries; therefore, the SWSA/ UDA boundary modifications would not affect properties within the limits of the Town of Stephens City. Area #7 Kernstown Area. Route 11 South and Shady Elm Drive. Land use designation conformance. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary to the UDA. Policy language recognition of Echo Village residential area to be noted within the plan. Frederick County Planning Commission� � N Y Page 1829 Minutes of August 16, 2006 j���11JJJ' ,�J;�{ Mr. Evan Wyatt came forward to speak on behalf of the Blackburn family, the owners of the property on both sides of Route 37 within Area #7. Mr. Wyatt said a portion of the Blackburn family's property is presently within the UDA and half of their property is in the SWSA. Mr. Wyatt stated that last year, a CPPA was submitted to the County on behalf of the Blackburns to create a UDA expansion. He said the property is approximately 250 acres in size and lends itself to an R4 -type development; across the street from this is a residential area, which includes Jacksons Woods, Brookneil, and Stonebrook. Mr. Wyatt suggested that instead of having an industrial land plan against those residential properties, an R4 could provide an opportunity for transition from residential use into a commercial/ industrial use. Mr. Wyatt added that their previous CPPA application offered the potential for assisting the school board with a public school bus facility and the applicant is still willing to pursue this idea. Mr. Wyatt requested that the UDA not be removed from the Blackburn property. Area #8 Route 50 West at the Route 37 interchange. Land use designation conformance. There were no public comments on this area. Since everyone who had wanted to speak had been given the opportunity, Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Chairman Wilmot next opened discussion among the Planning Commissioners. The Commission had a discussion with their legal counsel, Mr. Lawrence R Ambrogi, about the appropriateness of voting on some of the areas because of the pending rezoning and CPPA applications for some of the properties. Mr. Ambrogi talked with the Commission about vested interest versus speculation. The Chairman next entertained motions for each of the proposed areas. AREA #1 — PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the proposed modifications to the boundaries of the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) for Area 0: North of Route 37 including the area known as Apple Pie Ridge, Spring Valley, and the Stonewall Industrial Park. Boundaries to reflect existing land use designations. Extension of SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. UDA and SWSA boundaries respect the approval of the Russell-Glendobbin Rezoning #17-05. The boundary modification will result in: UDA 2,619 acres reduction SWSA 583 acres reduction 136 acres addition 447 acre net reduction (Note: Commissioners Watt and Oates were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 16, 2006 Page 1830 om AREA #2 — PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS NO MODIFICATIONS A motion was made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Morris to recommend approval of the modifications to Area #2; however, this motion failed by a majority vote, as follows: YES TO APPROVE): Light, Morris NO: Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Manuel, Unger, Wilmot A new motion was made by Commissioner Kriz to recommend denial of any changes to the UDA and SWSA boundaries of Area #2 and for this area to remain as it is presently. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and was passed by the following majority vote: YES (NO CHANGE): Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Morris, Manuel, Unger, Wilmot NO: Light (Note: Commissioners Watt and Oates were absent from the meeting.) AREA #3 — PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Kerr, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the proposed modifications to the boundaries of the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) for Area #3: Eastern section of UDA including a proffered State conservation area and part of land adjacent to and north of Route 7; Route 7 consistent northern boundaries. The boundary modification will result in: UDA: 85.3 acre reduction SWSA: 101.2 acre reduction (Note: Commissioners Watt and Oates were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 16, 2006 Page 1831 -10 - AREA #4— PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS NO MODIFICATIONS A motion was made by Commissioner Mohn to recommend denial of any changes to the UDA and SWSA boundaries of Area #4 and for this area to remain as it is presently. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kerr and was passed by a unanimous vote. (Note: Commissioners Watt and Oates were absent from the meeting.) AREA #5 — PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS NO MODIFICATIONS A motion was made by Commissioner Mohn to recommend denial of any changes to the UDA and SWSA boundaries of Area #5 and for this area to remain as it is presently. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and was passed by the following majority vote: YES (NO CHANGE): Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Morris, Manuel,_Unger_________.. NO: Light, Wilmot (Note: Commissioners Watt and Oates were absent from the meeting.) AREA #6 — PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS 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 of the proposed modifications to the boundaries of the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) for Area #6: Stephens City area. Removing County policy lines from within the Town of Stephens City. Joint Land Use Plan provides guidance for the Town's future annexation and provision of sewer and water. Interstate 81 consistent western boundaries of UDAI SWSA. The boundary modification will result in: UDA: 69 acre reduction SWSA: 864.8 acre reduction (Note: Commissioners Watt and Oates were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commissionn n F Page1832 DMinutes of August 16, 2006 DI�n(�J'j�a 7 -11 - AREA #7 — PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS NO MODIFICATIONS A motion was made by Commissioner Unger to recommend denial of any changes to the UDA and SWSA boundaries of Area #7 and for this area to remain as it is presently. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours and was passed by the following majority vote: YES (NO CHANGE): Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Manuel, Unger NO: Light, Moms, Wilmot (Note: Commissioners Watt and Oates were absent from the meeting.) AREA #8 — PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the proposed modifications to the boundaries of the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) for Area #8: Route 50 West at the Route 37 interchange. Land use designation conformance. The boundary modification will result in: UDA: 47.7 acre reduction SWSA: Same The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE MODIFICATIONS): Unger, Manuel, Morris, Light, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn, Wilmot NO: Thomas (Note: Commissioners Watt and Oates were absent from the meeting.) LAND USE POLICY TEXT AMENDMENT — PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH A CHANGE Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Land Use Policy Text Amendment with the removal of all references to Area #7. (Note: Commissioner Watt and Oates were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission D Minutes of August 16, 2006 Page 1833 -12 - Master Development Plan 908-06 for Russell 150, LC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to develop 96.28 acres of B2 (Business General) zoned property with commercial land uses and 54 acres of RP (Residential Performance) zoned property with townhouses. The property fronts on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522), opposite Airport Road (Rt. 645) and is identified with P.I.N.s 64-A-10 and 64-A-12 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that this master development plan (MDP) is a proposal to construct a mixed-use development on 150 acres and was rezoned in September of last year for commercial and residential land uses. Ms. Perkins said the site will be accessed through the Airport Road extension and will intersect with Warrior Drive through the property. She said the residential portion of the site could contain up to 297 units based on the density for the site. Ms. Perkins next reviewed some of the more significant proffers from the rezoning of this property. Those proffers included the construction of Airport Road, East Tevis Street, and Warrior Drive on the property with bicycle lanes along each of the roads; the construction of a four -lane bridge over I-81; and the inter -parcel public street connection to the adjoining Kokorsky tract to the south. She said the applicant has requested a waiver to allow an alternative buffer design for the road efficiency buffer along Route 522 on the residential portion of the site due to topography. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the elimination of the berm from the buffer. She said the staff believes the waiver as depicted on the MDP does not provide appropriate screening for the residential units from Route 522 and, therefore, can not support the waiver as currently presented. Ms. Perkins said with the exception of the waiver, the MDP is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and has addressed all of staff's other concerns Ms. Perkins said that two actions will be required from the Planning Commission, one for the waiver and the other for the plan itself Commissioners asked for further clarification on why the staff did not support the requested waiver. Ms. Perkins replied that the site sits upon a knoll, with the townhouses on top of the knoll looking down upon Route 522; she said that some type of opaque element would help with the viewshed and the noise. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering said the ordinance requires a six -foot -high berm above the average road elevation and this property is 22 -feet higher in elevation than the road. Mr. Wyatt believed it would be difficult to accomplish the berm and tie it back into grade. He pointed out a service road along the parking area in front of the townhouses that goes into the active buffer and he said they could construct a six -foot -high fence here, if the Commission desired. He said the townhouses could still be seen from Route 522, but it would break up the parking area to some degree. He said at the point it severely drops off to Bufflick Run, it may be beneficial to do some evergreen planting around the corner. Commissioner Thomas suggested using landscaping rather than a six -foot -high fence. Mr. Wyatt was agreeable to the suggestion and proposed a double row of evergreen trees with the 80 -foot depth. Commissioner Morris said he did not see a cross section for the flyover bridge within the MDP. Commissioner Morris commented that the drawings show five-foot sidewalks on each side ofthe cross section on Tevis and then at the point of the bridge, the sidewalks disappear; he was concerned that those sidewalks are incorporated onto the bridge for pedestrian traffic. Mr. Wyatt said his understanding of the proffered flyover bridge was that it was a four -lane bridge with sidewalks. Mr. Wyatt agreed to show the typical section detail of the flyover bridge with the five-foot sidewalks on each side on the plan for the Board's review. Frederick County Planning Commission D n IUn��� n i�lU�j Minutes of August 16, 2006 Page 12534 -13 - Commissioner Ours asked for the proposed phasing. Mr. Wyatt replied that all of the committed road improvements have to be in place before any permits, either residential or commercial, are obtained. Mr. Wyatt said the phasing plan for the townhouses is limited on an annual basis by permit issuance; the phasing plan is intended to start at Warrior Drive and move forward towards Route 522; and the commercial will be constructed as users come on line. Mr. Wyatt added that the premise for utilizing the community development authority process and constructing roads up front was to quickly promote the marketability of the commercial. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public comments portion of the meeting. Chairman Wilmot recognized a letter to the Commission from Mr. Michael S. Shepard, an adjoining property owner. She said Mr. Shepard's letter deals with some arrangements that were made between Mr. Shepard and the developers of Russell 150. Mr. Michael S. Shepard said that his B2 -zoned property is located to the southeast corner of the Russell 150 property on Route 522 South, adjacent to where the town homes are proposed. Mr. Shepard said his concern has to do with obtaining a shared buffer agreement and sewer easement promised by Greenway Engineering on behalf of Russell 150 at the April 13, 2005 Board of Supervisors' meeting. Specifically, Mr. Shepard said Russell 150 was to provide a shared buffer on the Russell 150 land at their cost because Greenway had not completed or filed his site plan before the rezoning of Russell 150. He said Russell 150 also was to provide a sewer easement so he could extend sewer to his properties at his own cost. Mr. Shepard said he offered to pay legal fees and administrative costs for both properties. Mr. Shepard requested that the Commission table the MDP in order to allow enough time to get the agreements worked out as originally agreed upon. Mr. Wyatt said that Greenway rezoned the small parcel of B2 land, adjoining the Russell property to the south, on behalf of the Shepards. Mr. Wyatt said he advised the Russell 150 owners that because of the small size of the Shepards parcel and the requirement for a 50 -foot strip buffer, a large portion of the Shepard's property would be used up accommodating the buffer against the Russell 150 property. Mr. Wyatt said he proposed the idea of a common shared buffer and easement and the owners of Russell 150 were agreeable as long as it did not encumber their town house project, which it does not. Mr. Wyatt said the MDP shows the complete buffer distance on the Russell 150 project and ensures that the Shepards can maximize the development of their property. As far as the agreement, he said a six-foot high fence and three trees per ten linear feet are planned for a total of 45 trees and the agreement suggests that it's shared at a 50-50 cost for installation; it also commits to an easement at a location mutually acceptable to both parties for the extension of sewer. Mr. Wyatt said this was a private developer agreement and he believed that if the concern was about the Shepards being protected with the ability to do the common shared buffer, it was certainly covered on the Russell 150 MDP. Commissioner Thomas believed this matter was a private relationship between two developers and was not an appropriate concern of the Planning Commission. He questioned the Commission's involvement in this matter and other Commissioners agreed. Directing a question to the staff for clarification, Commissioner Mohn asked what would be expected of the Shepards on their property with the buffer arrangement shown on the Russell 150 MDP. Ms. Perkins replied that the buffer shown on the MDP does not state who would be responsible to place the trees; it merely states the location. She said placement of the trees would be up to the developers and property owners. She said that in terms of distance, a 100 -foot buffer is required; if separate buffers are used, the RP would have a 50 -foot no screen and the B2 would have a 50 -foot full screen, as a minimum. Ms. Perkins said the applicants have simply shifted it to the RP portion of the site. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 16, 2006 Page 1835 -14 - Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan 408-06 for Russell 150, LC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to develop 96.28 acres of B2 (Business General) zoned property with commercial land uses and 54 acres of RP (Residential Performance) zoned property with townhouses, with the understanding that the cross section of the flyover bridge will include two five-foot sidewalks, one on each side as a continuation from Tevis Street, and will be included on the MDP for Board of Supervisors' review. In addition, the Planning Commission approved the requested waiver to include an 80 -foot setback with a double row of evergreens. This resolution was approved by a unanimous vote. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Mohn, the Planning Commission voted to make Mr. Shepard's letter a part of the official record and to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. (Note: Commissioners Watt and Oates were absent from the meeting.) Subdivision Application #10-06 for WIN, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for commercial use. The property fronts on the northeast quadrant of the intersection between Berryville Pike (Rt. 7) and Interstate 81 and is identified with P.I.N. 54 -A -99E in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Tabled Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated there may possibly be another approach to accomplishing this proposed subdivision by way of a waiver requirement. He said the applicant may seek to table this rezoning application until the Planning Commission's next meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the plat. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, representing WIN, LLC, said he prepared the subdivision plat for the new Martins store on Route 7 at Winchester Gateway; he said the parcel is approximately 30 acres in size and they are proposing to cut off a six -acre piece behind the Martins store. Mr. Wyatt said the developers are working with a hotel group and they want to subdivide the property for financial purposes. He noted that the plat shows their road frontage being met by a pipe -stem. Mr. Wyatt explained this was one of the many commercial developments where the intent is to steer away from state -maintained roads throughout their property; however, the ordinance requires there to be state road frontage. Mr. Wyatt said that once off the state public road, there is a boulevard road system that serves all the individual properties. He said that rather than showing this awkward -looking parcel with a pipe stem, the staff recommended showing the parcel as a triangular piece and to seek a waiver from the Commission and the Board for state road frontage. Mr. Wyatt said they were certainly willing to revise the plat in this manner, if the Commission desired. Commissioner Light asked for clarification of a section of the staff review where it was stated that the MDP requirement may be waived, if the proposed subdivision contains no new streets, does not propose storm water management, etc. Mr. Wyatt replied that the staff was simply citing the elements that allow an applicant to obtain a MDP waiver; he said the MDP waiver was granted for this project. Frederick County Planning CommissionI� 0 f 1 F Page 1836 Minutes of August 16, 2006 U(jn��J -15 - Commissioner Unger proceeded to ask the applicant questions about access to the parcel and if an additional access was planned for emergency purposes, especially in light of the potential motel use. Mr. Wyatt said no additional access points were planned. He commented that this applicant has provided dual left turn lanes, the traffic signal, and improvements on Route 7, despite the MDP waiver exemption and no proffers. He said that, VDOT made sure the road system was in place to support the maximum commercial development of the site. Chairman Wilmot called for any public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner. Kerr, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to table Subdivision Application # 10-06 of WIN, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to allow sufficient time for the applicant to submit a reconfigured subdivision. (Note: Commissioners Watt and Oates were absent from the meeting.) Subdivision #11-06 for Ronald and Velma Simkhovitch, submitted by Mark Stivers, Esq., to subdivide a 1.3041 -acre parcel from an 8.4547 -acre tract for commercial use. The property is located at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Park Center Drive (Rt. 1323). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 54A -1-A in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that this request is for the subdivision of a 1.3041 -acre parcel from an 8.457 -acre property, leaving a residue parcel of 7.1505 acres. He said the 8.457 -acre property is currently split -zoned B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning Districts. The 1.3041 -acre property is zoned B2 and the residue 7.1505 -acre property is zoned 132/133. Mr. Cheran said the parcels will have access to Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11), through access easements; these easements will serve the restaurant, the vacant property, and the fuel center. He noted that both properties will be subject to the proffers and conditions of Rezoning #04-03, approved on April 9, 2003. Mr. Cheran added that this proposed subdivision has met the requirements for a waiver from the master development requirements and the applicant has been granted a waiver from those MDP requirements. However, the design elements associated with the MDP have not been waived. Mr. Cheran stated that review and action is required by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Thomas said that it appeared there is a large warehouse on the subdivided tract, the 1.3041 acres. Mr. Cheran stated that a shared parking agreement will need to be approved by the Zoning Administrator before the plats can be approved. Commissioner Thomas inquired if there was enough space to accommodate the parking and setbacks for the proposed subdivision. Mr. Cheran replied that sufficient land was available for narking and setbacks, and the subdivicinn will not create anv non -conformity - Mr. Mark Stivers, attorney, was present to represent the owners, Ronald and Velma Simkhovitch. There were no questions for the applicant. Frederick County Planning Commission(�j A Page 1837 Minutes of August 16, 2006 j � � j F U -16 -- Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision #11-06 for Ronald and Velma Simkhovitch, submitted by Mark Stivers, Esq., to subdivide a 1.3041 -acre parcel from an 8.4547 -acre tract for commercial use. This property is located at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Park Center Drive (Rt. 1323). (Note: Commissioners Watt and Oates were absent from the meeting.) OTHER UPCOMING MEETINGS ANNOUNCEMENT Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, announced a seminar on Transportation Impact Fees on August 22, 2006 at 12:00 in the Board of Supervisors' meeting room. Mr. Lawrence said the Planning Commission is invited to attend, as well as the Transportation Committee and Board of Supervisors. He requested that anyone who plans to attend should contact the staff by this Friday, August 18, so a lunch count can be determined. Mr. Lawrence also announced a joint work session with the Board of Supervisors concerning the UDA (Urban Development Area) Study on August 29, 2006 at 12:00 in the Board of Supervisors' meeting room. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned by a unanimous vote at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 16, 2006 Page I6 -RS :� • C CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #08-06 RONALD D. DEHAVEN w A Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: August 31, 2006 Staff Contact: Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to athers interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 09/20/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 10/11/06 Pending LOCATION: This subject property is located at 5057 Northwestern Pike (Route 50). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 39-A-39 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) PROPOSED USE: Country General Store REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Commercial Land Use: Agricultural Land Use: Residential Land Use: Agricultural Virginia Dent. of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 50, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. Should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT commercial standards. However, please note, the following items will need to be removed or cut very low: Shrubs are blocking sight distance and need to be removed or cut very low. Maintain positive drainage away from roadway. East entrance needs grass removed from cracks and asphalt sealer applied. CUP #08-06, Ronald D. DeHaven August 31, 2006 Page 2 Fire Marshal: No additional impacts on fire and rescue noted. Plan approval recommended. Inspections Department: Existing building shall comply with The Virginia Uniform State Building Code Part III. Permits are required only in change of use occurs. Sanitation Authority: Winchester -Frederick County Health Department: Health Department has no objection so long as no increase in water use occurs. Winchester Reeional Airport: Planning & Zoning: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a country general store that will take place on a property identified as 5057 Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50), which currently has one structure. The property has previously been used for a post office, and more recently a furniture store. This parcel has frontage on Rt. 50 East and along S. Hayfield Rd. (Rt. 600). The structure on the property is 2,516 sq. ft., and will be reduced in size by 476 sq. ft. to allow for a loading space associated with the business. This proposed business will require eleven (11) parking spaces since it is a retail use (1 space per 200 sq. ft.). The parking lot will be accessed via the current westernmost driveway. Staff suggests the applicant establish an entrance on S. Hayfield road as well. The easternmost entrance along Rt. 50 should be closed, to avoid traffic crossing Rt. 50 at the Hayfield intersection and entering the property illegally. The applicant has offered to close this entrance. The current sign (approx. 25 sq. ft.) on the property will be sufficient enough in size to suit the needs of the applicant. To ensure that all the above requirements and other County Codes have been satisfied, an engineered site plan will be required prior to business activity. An important element to be shown on the site plan is parking lot access and layout. The 2003 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan provides guidance for business location within rural areas of the County. The locations for businesses would include major intersections or locations with recent or existing business activity (p. 6-60). The Hayfield Rd. intersection is identified as a major intersection and there are currently businesses within close proximity of this parcel. Therefore, the proposed CUP may be an appropriate land use and meets the intent of the 2003 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. CUP 408-06, Ronald D. DeHaven August 31, 2006 Page 3 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 09/20/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: l . 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. No more than one freestanding sign allowed on the property. The sign display shall be limited to 25 sq. ft. in area and 10 ft. in height. 4. Only one entrance onto Route 50 and Route 600 shall be permitted. The existing easternmost entrance along Northwestern Pike shall be perinanently closed. No fuel sales or outdoor display of merchandise will be permitted. 6. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. 7. Total structural area shall not exceed 2,600 square feet. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. \ 39 A 35/% �. ,r 1 -•. KELLY, HERSHELL E 39 A 44A f '-�-• /' HOWARD, REV IRVING B l ''',,t '<.h �: �'� • •. < /J' 40 A 38 � ' � RAMEY, CARLTON L. JR. •r ! \ i' 39 A 36 ° i 40 A 39 / 50 `\� . �'ti ✓' 39 A 36A 40 A 40 GOODWIN, MARGARET D 39 A 38 $r GRIM, EMILY GROVE •'� 39 A 44 i' ir. r` i f' INC 39 A 41 Goad Centerlines sakez��s �Mrnary .�� IV sem eery wr gyasims " i'sils^ oPe��S` J 39 A 39 } { PERRY, STUART M INC 39 A 41 4p F. 4 9 i' r•I i p0 40 A 37 i d ^ y 4p q 40 A 40 A S' - Jr J ,°,•AU[ R � � NGq M j J \. 40 A 50 I < 40 A 48 f ° r 'Qyygi 9j QO �0 eF?TM1�` �s 'LET'S RETIRE, LLC 40 A 56 40 A 45 1 40 A 44 r FRYE, LINDA B. 40 A 57 s 6J cum Y4 08 - 0 6 Ronald D. DeHaven (39-A-39) 0 100 200 400 Feet d� 40 A 59 \ 5 5 r w� $5 r, aa�ue 38 A 5� -o+vex, wnnaanero r e A r4 � as A as 6 A 9D A � 39 A 36 r - 39 A 35A � 4D A 48 40 A 40 � ,ryp" f I,FT': PETlRF.1_I_l: 40 A 56 $p d0 A 45 4 �k R A A 39 'A `39 a Fm�: uamne. 57 MING. � o PCAkV,9TUAFrFMWC 39 A AUG 14 2006 Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the v� owner other) NAME: ADDRESS: �7f b - TELEPHONE C-3 '03 -3 (2 c;611 2. Please list all the property: Lkl, owners, occupants, or parties in interest of "&AI 'A/xv-,", 1J 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of Leet and consists of acres. (Please be exact) r, West Rggf-N 5. The property is owned I�Z J IK C -I as evidenced by deed ,,,7a, z,j in deed book no. i�g- re on page' sous as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Tax(Parcel)Identi-JUcation (I.D )No. Magisterial District Current Zoning 7. Adjoining Property: zom5mg USE North 14, �0 `5 EastLvqc- t South r, West Rggf-N zom5mg 8. The type of use proposed is (con.SU2 with the Planning Dept. before completing 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: nn 11Y -. - - - J 4 10. The following i are all of the individuals, farms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back of necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: X i r NAME ,,4 ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME S7�u/91�T I /'�E"�� �i-1G'. ADDRESS �� � fiQi*J/ Eli'uc, PROPERTY IDI 73q -9--W NAME �. ME % • PROPERTYD r ADDRESS I 0�esle es ADDRESSry NAME ADDRESS PROPER'T'Y ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# RE ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# PROPERTY ID# 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 12. Additional comment -s, if any: I (we) , the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisorsf public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conduct -ed. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners® Mailing Address owners' Telephone No Z Z(111,1�!-"' TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: DO, I I REZONING APPLICATION #11-06 ABRAM'S CHASE Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: September 5, 2006 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, Planner II This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: September 20, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: October 11, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL,: To rezone 3.25 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers, to accommodate 14 single family detached residential units on small lots. LOCATION: The property fronts on the north side of Senseny Road (Route 657) adjacent to the Parkwood Manor Subdivision. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 65 -A -27A and 65 -A -28A PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Residential and Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RP (Residential Performance) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Lynnehaven Subdivision Open Space Use: Agricultural Use: Parkwood Manor Subdivisions Use: Residential PROPOSED USES: 14 single family small lot homes (4.3 units/acre density) Rezoning #11-06 — Abram's Chase September 5, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 656. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Abram's Chase Subdivision rezoning application dated March 1, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip General Manual Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended. Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company: Agreed to. Public Works Department: Refer to Wetlands, Page 3: A detailed wetlands delineation study will be required with the master development plan submittal. Refer to Site Drainage, Page 7: During the subdivision design phase, it will be necessary to route the 100 -year storms through the existing drainage swales to determine the impact on the proposed development. Any stormwater ponds shall be constructed above the maximum 100 -year storm level. Refer to Solid Waste Disposal, Page 7: The narrative references the close proximity to the Greenwood Citizens' Convenience Center. This site has been scheduled to be closed within the next two years. Therefore, we recommend that curbside trash pickup be provided by the developer or Home Owners' Association. This requirement should be included in the analysis and proffer statement. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: There is adequate water and sewer capacity to serve this rezoning request. Sanitation Authority: No comments. Department of Parks & Recreation: As of this review, a minimum of three recreational units are required for this development. However, if a waiver is approved, an appropriate value for recreational amenities must be determined. The proposed asphalt walkway to adjacent property should meet Frederick County Standards. Plan appears to offer the appropriate amount of open space. The proposed monetary proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to address the impact Abram's Chase will have on this department's capital facility needs. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 14 single family homes will yield two high school students, two middle school students and five elementary school students for a total of nine new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments Rezoning #11-06 Abram's Chase September 5, 2006 Page 3 nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. Even with only nine new students upon build- out, the cumulative impact of this project and others, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. Winchester Regional Airport: While the proposed development lies within the airports Part 77 surfaces and airspace, it appears that the proposed site plan should not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Residents should be forewarned that due to the proximity of the site to the Winchester Airport, they may experience noise from over flight of aircraft arriving to and departing from the airport from the northeast.. Frederick County Attorney: It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. Proffer A provides that the property will develop in substantial conformity with the attached Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The GDP was not attached to the copy of the Proffer Statement provided to me. Therefore, this review is provided without a review of the GDP. 2. Proffer B limits the dwelling units to "14 single family detached residential dwelling units on small lots". It is assumed that this is a reference to the "single family small lot" type of development identified in Section 165-65F of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Proffer C proposes to provide tot lot equipment, park benches, and an asphalt pedestrian walkway as community recreational facilities in lieu of a community center, of the community center is waived by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. However, my review of Section 165-64(A)(1) indicates that the Board of Supervisors can waive the community center requirement of Section 165-64(A) in proffered age -restricted single family small lot subdivisions that contain less than 50 lots. However, there is nothing in the proffer provided to me to indicate that this development is to be an age -restricted development. Accordingly, I question whether the waiver provision applies, so as to permit the elimination of the community center for this small lot housing development. 4. Proffers D(1) and D(2) provide for the construction of a right turn and taper lane and for the dedication of right-of-way. However, neither proffer establishes a timing requirement for the construction and dedication. A timing requirement satisfactory to the County should be included in each proffer. 5. In Proffer E the first clause is redundant and should be deleted. The proffer should commence as the other proffers have commenced with the language "the Applicant will pay... ". 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 Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact. PlanninIz Department: Please see attached letter dated April 12, 2006 from Candice E. Perkins, Rezoning #11-06 — Abram's Chase September 5, 2006 Page 4 Planner 11. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the parcel as being zoned A-2 Agricultural. The County's A-1 and A-2 agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA (Rural Areas) District. Parcels 65 -A -27A and 65 -A -28A maintain this RA zoning classification. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] 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 Plan Map identifies this general area with future residential land uses. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). Senseny Road is identified as an improved major collector road and should be addressed accordingly. In addition, Senseny Road is recognized in the Frederick County Bicycle Plan with a short term designation for bicycle accommodations. Access to the site would be via a new street that would be in the form of a cul-de-sac as indicated on the Generalized Development Plan. Rezoning #11-06 — Abram's Chase September 5, 2006 Page 5 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplain, wetlands or woodlands. According to the Soil Survey of Frederick County, the site contains the following soil types; Clearbrook Channerry Silt Loams and Weikert-Berks Channery Silt Loams. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The applicant's transportation analysis is minimal due to the limited scope of the proffered development plan. Based upon the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the fourteen lot single family detached residential project will generate approximately 134 vehicle trips per day. Senseny Road in this area has a variable right-of-way. The applicant has proffered to dedicate necessary right-of-way as well as build a right turn and taper lane within the Senseny Road right-of-way. Staff Note: The applicant has proffered to dedicate right-of-way sufficient to provide for 45 feet from the existing Senseny Road centerline. This project should be implementing the Senseny Road expansion plans (proposed four lanes), including construction of the additional lane and curb and gutter along the frontage of their site. The inclusion of the right turn taper lane should be in addition and outside of the road expansion area. This rezoning has not addressed this improvement. Transportation Program. The applicant will be constructing a new street to provide access to the fourteen lot subdivision which will traverse through the center of the subject site. The location of the access point onto Senseny Road is approximately two hundred feet from the closest road, Parkwood Drive. Also provided by the applicant in the proffer statement is a commitment to provide a monetary contribution in the amount of $1,000.00 per residential lot to address transportation general needs in the vicinity of this project. Staff Note: It is noted that recent single family rezonings in this area have provided a transportation proffer of $S, 000 per dwelling unit (Senseny Road Rentals, Senseny Village) to help with road improvements as well as a proffer to construct the Senseny Road expansions on their property (Orrick, Senseny Road Rentals). This rezoning proposal has not addressed the transportation impact similar to other recent rezonings. Recent projects along Senseny Road have proposed the construction of additional lanes along Senseny Road as well as the implementation of a ten foot wide hiker/biker trail along the north side of Senseny Road. This approach should be a consistent consideration as projects are proposed along the Senseny Road corridor. While this project has reserved the right-of-way for Senseny Road, it has not proffered to construct the road improvements (improvements to be completed by others) and has not proposed the inclusion of a ten foot path as requested. Staff Note: This project also does not provide an interparcel connection to the adjacent Rezoning #11-06 — Abram's Chase September 5, 2006 Page 6 Staff Note: This project also does not provide an interparcel connection to the adjacent property to the west which could facilitate additional entrances onto Senseny Road should those parcels choose to redevelop in the future. The cul-de-sac associated with this project should stub out to the western lot or a connection from this road should be provided. B. Sewer and Water Presently sewer service is available via an eight inch main that is located along the northern portion of the subject site. This sewer line will direct effluent from the Abram's Chase Subdivision to the new Frederick County Sanitation Authority regional pump that will convey effluent to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. The proposed 14 lot development would add approximately 3,100 gallons per day to the public sewer conveyance system, increasing the demand at the Opequon Plant by 0.15%. Water supply will be provided by way of an eight inch water line along the north side of Senseny Road that adjoins the subject site. Potable water is provided to this area of Senseny Road through a series of water transmission lines whose source is the Stephens City quarry system. Water demand of this project is estimated to be 3,850 gallons per day. C. Community Facilities 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, Sheriffs Office and for the Administration Building have been calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The impacts associated with entirely residential projects are fixed at $23,290.00 for single family detached residential dwellings. This application addresses community facility impacts and needs by proffering a payment in the amount of $23,290.00 per residential unit to mitigate the impact to the identified community facilities. For your information, the following is the breakdown of the projected impacts per dwelling unit for each capital facility taken from the Development Impact Model. Capital facility Single Family Fire and Rescue $720 General Government $320 Public Safety $658 Library $267 Parks and Recreation $2,136 School Construction $19,189 Total $23,290 Rezoning # 11-06 — Abram's Chase September 5, 2006 Page 7 5) Proffer Statement — Dated March 1, 2006 and Revised August 21, 2006 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered to develop the property in substantial conformance with the GDP provided in the rezoning application. B) Residential Land Use The applicant proffers to develop a maximum of 14 single family detached residential units on small lots. C) Staff Note: With the single family small lot designation, this project could develop lots as small as 3,750 square feet. Recreational Amenities The applicant proffers to develop a community recreational area that will be located as shown on the GDP. This area will contain tot lot equipment valued at a minimum of $35,000, park benches, and an asphalt pedestrian walkway. The recreational amenities provided with this proffer are in -lieu of a community center building if waived by the Board of Supervisors. Staff Note: As stated in the last sentence of the proffer, in order to implement this proffer, the applicant would need to apply for and receive a waiver of the community center requirement for single family small lot developments per §165-64A(1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This waiver would need to be sought during Master Development stage. Staff Note: The $35,000 amount included in the proffer is the prorated amountfor the community center should the Board of Supervisors waive the recreational community center and allow the applicant to prorate the requirement of three recreational units for each 30 dwellings. If the waiver is not granted by the Board, the applicant would be required to provide a community center. The inclusion of this proffer is not appropriate since it is limiting the dollar amount of the recreational unit (if the project is not built immediately the dollar amount per recreational unit is limited, even if the recreational unit amount increases per county requirements). It seems inappropriate to discuss recreational values at this point since the community center is notpermitted for consideration until the MDPphase. D) Transportation Enhancements 1. The applicant will construct a right -turn and taper lane within the public right-of- way that connects Parkwood Drive to the cul-de-sac serving the property. This improvement shall be bonded and constructed concurrently with the internal cul-de- sac serving the property. Rezoning 911-06 —Abram's Chase September 5, 2006 Page 8 2. The applicant will dedicate right-of-way sufficient to provide for 45 feet from the existing Senseny Road centerline of record to allow for future road improvements by others. 3. The applicant proffers to provide $1,000 for each residential lot that will be paid to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance. This monetary contribution is available to Frederick County to be used towards future improvements to the Senseny Road corridor. Staff Note: It is noted that recent single family rezonings in this area have provided a transportation proffer of $5,000 per dwelling unit (Senseny Road Rentals, Senseny Village) to help with road improvements as well as a proffer to construct the Senseny Road expansions on their property (Orrick, Senseny Road Rentals). E) Monetary Contribution A monetary contribution in the amount of $23,290.00 to Frederick County, to be provided at the time each residential lot is platted, is proffered in an effort to mitigate the impacts associated with this development on community facilities. 6) Waivers The applicant has requested that the Board of Supervisors provide this development with a waiver of the community center requirement for single family small lot developments in accordance with §165-64A(l) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This section of the ordinance allows the Board of Supervisors to waive the community center requirement in single family small lot subdivisions that contain less than 25 lots. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 09/20/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: While the land use proposed in this application is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, as described in the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan, this application fails to address and mitigate various issues of transportation and recreation. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address the goals of the County. Specifically, this applicant has not addressed the Senseny Road improvements, the construction of a bike/pedestrian facility and the recreational requirements of this development. The applicant should be prepared to address theses issues. Please note that two recommendations are required for this application, one for the waiver and one for the rezoning. 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 adequatelP address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 April 12, 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Preliminary Comments — Abrams Chase Rezoning Proposal Dear Evan: This correspondence is intended to identify issues of concern regarding the preliminary application materials for the Abrams Chase rezoning proposal. The preliminary application package, as submitted on March 21, 2006, consists of the following principal components: (1) Rezoning Application Form; (2) Impact Analysis Statement, dated March 1, 2006; (3) Proposed Proffer Statement dated March 1, 2006; and (4) Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated March 2006. 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. The following comments are offered for your records: Impact Statement A. Introduction The housing type being proposed with this application is single family small lot which is intended to be marketed as a "starter home community". This starter home community reference is only mentioned in the first paragraph of the impact statement. It is unclear how this development will be affordable by first time home buyers. B. Comprehensive Policy Plan The site is not within the limits of any small area plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan; however, the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan identifies the entire Senseny Road corridor for residential uses. B. Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Senseny Road as an improved major collector. This translates to a four -lane divided boulevard section, such as is being implemented with Warrior Drive. The applicant will need to ensure that the APR 20U, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000. Mr. Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering RE: Abrams Chase April 12, 2006 Page 2 application addresses expansion plans for these roads and that all road improvements, especially turn lanes, respect the long-term road center line. Since Senseny Road is designated as a major collector road, it requires 200' entrance spacing from all driveways and intersections. While it appears that the entrance spacing is met from Parkwood Circle, the spacing is not being met off of the adjacent residential driveways. A waiver from the Planning Commission would be required to reduce the required entrance spacing. Proffer Statement A. Generalized Development Plan The GDP submitted with the impact statement does not account for any of the residential separation buffers required on the site. The GDP does not accommodate a location for the required community center, which is required for single family small lot subdivisions. B. Recreational Amenities The proffer states that this project will contain a tot lot, park benches and an asphalt pedestrian walkway that will connect the internal sidewalk system to the community recreational area. These amenities are intended to be in -lieu of the community centerthat is required by ordinance. This development is not proffered age restricted and currently does not qualify for any waivers. A ten foot asphalt hiker biker path is being provided by other developments along Senseny Road and should also be provided with this development. C. Transportation Enhancements A right turn and taper is going to be installed; the proffer needs to include when this will be installed (prior to the first building permit). Also, state that the road within the development will be a public road dedicated to VDOT. The proffer states that the applicant will dedicate right-of-way sufficient "to provide far 45 feet from the existing Senseny Road (Route 657) centerline to allow for future road improvements by others". The applicant will need to verify with county staff and VDOT that there will be sufficient right-of-way to accommodate long range road plans. The exact amount of dedicated right-of-way needs to be provided along with a guarantee that this site will construct its portion of the planned improvements. Mr. Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering RE: Abrams Chase April 12, 2006 Page 3 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 $3,325.00 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. This application will be complete once the above issues are satisfactorily addressed, a review fee is submitted and all reviewing agency comments provided. Reviewing agencies include the following: Frederick County Fire Marshal and the local fire company, Frederick County Inspections, Frederick County Public Works, Frederick County Parks & Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick County Service Authority, Frederick County HRAB, Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Frederick County Attorney's Office. Please feel free to contact me shou ld you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins Planner I1 CEM/bad cc: Harvest Communities, Inc., Attn: Stuart Butler, 147 Creekside Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 fr�i' "4" Y ,- � Vii,, �` .4 �'� �*`•,2 ' } S l � l 4e -.. x G LYNhYirMAVGtti, LG 148f1i y Y", 71 1 4 -, .r i / 1. 4 � � _ •Yrs..^;' �, - T! 5 VM1„jr� � �..�' D a r �f � � 'f a 1� fd Y � � � � ' � �•+.'�li r N � r - y d, ✓ � ,. M1 �rw 6 9, al •. F r� 14, A IS Go �4 HUMAN, roH i 6 REZ #, 11 - 06 CL!" �`51fldT5 oPa`� Abram's Chase N Aerial Map ` ( 65 -A - 27A, 28A) 0 125250 500 �1 Feet w= i Greenway Engineering March 1, 2006 Abram's Chase Rezoning Revised August 21, 2006 ABRAM' S CHASE PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: PROPERTIES: RECORD OWNERS APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE: Preliminary Matters RZ# //-0(- RA, Rural Areas District to RP, Residential Performance District 3.25± -acres Tax Parcels 65 -((A)) -27A & 65 -((A)) -28A Harvest Communities, Inc. Harvest Communities, Inc. Abram's Chase Subdivision March 1, 2006 August 21, 2006 Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, (the "Code") and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") with respect to conditional zoning, Harvest Communities, Inc., (the "Applicant") hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 11-o6 for the rezoning of 3.25± - acres (the "Property") from the RA, Rural Area District to RP, Residential Performance District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon these applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject Property, identified as the Abram's Chase Subdivision, and more particularly described as the lands owned by Harvest Communities, Inc., being all of Tax Map Parcels 65 -((A)) -27A and 65-((A)l-28A. recorded as Instrument Number 050028946, and further identified by plat and survey dated June 22, 1998, prepared by Edward W. Dove, L. S., of Dove & Associates, recorded as Deed Book 910, Page 381. File #45451i/EAW Greenway Engineering March 1, 2006 Abram's Chase Rezoning Revised August 21, 2006 A. Generalized Development Plan The Applicant hereby proffers to develop the Property in substantial conformity with the attached Generalized Development Plan ("GDP") dated March 2006 that will be approved as part of the rezoning application. The GDP shall identify the general location of the internal road system, the general location of residential lots and open space, the general location of the Senseny Road (Route 657) road efficiency buffer and the general location of the community recreational area and pedestrian inter -parcel connector. B. Residential Land Use The Applicant hereby proffers to develop a maximum of 14 single-family detached residential dwelling units on small lots. C. Recreational Amenities The Applicant hereby proffers to develop a community recreational area that will be located in the northwestern portion of the Property and will contain tot lot equipment valued at a minimum of $35,000.00, park benches, and an asphalt pedestrian walkway that will comiect the internal sidewalk system to the community recreational area and will extend to the western property boundary. The recreational amenities proffer is intended to guarantee the community recreational facilities that will be provided in -lieu of a community center building if waived by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. D. Transportation Enhancements 1. The Applicant hereby proffers to construct a right turn and taper lane within the public right-of-way that connects Parkwood Drive to the cul-de-sac serving the Property. This improvement shall be bonded and constructed concurrently with the internal cul-de-sac serving the Property. 2. The Applicant hereby proffers to dedicate right-of-way sufficient to provide for 45 feet from the existing Senseny Road (Route 657) centerline of record to allow for future road improvements by others. This right-of-way dedication shall be incorporated into and approved concurrently with the final subdivision plat creating the residential lots and internal public street system serving the Property. 2 File #4545H/EAW Greenway Engineering March 1, 2006 Abram's Chase Rezoning Revised August 21, 2006 3. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide a monetary contribution of $1,000.00 for each residential lot that will be paid to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance. This monetary contribution is available to Frederick County to be used towards future improvements to the Senseny Road corridor. E. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The Applicant will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia $23,290.00 for each residential lot that is platted to completely mitigate Capital Facilities Impacts identified below. This monetary contribution will be paid at the time of the building permit issuance for each residential lot and is to be distributed in the amounts as follows: Fire and Rescue General Government Public Safety Library Parks and Recreation School Construction $ 720.00 $ 320.00 $ 658.00 $ 267.00 $ 2,136.00 $19,189.00 File 94545H/EAW 3 Greenway Engineering March 1, 2006 Abram's Chase Rezoning Revised August 21, 2006 F. Signature The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the Applicant and its assigns and successors in interest. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the proffered conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Ordinance. Respectfully Submitted: By: Stuart Butler, President Harvest Communities, Inc. Commonwealth of Virginia, City/ ount of F(-ecte�-( To Wit: Da e The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2�f�1 day of Aero 20 o(,, by 'bofler Notary Public My Commission Expires i-2lorVaij11-1 File #4545H/EAW 4 ic ------- 0 I W Lu a gig Lu \ \ \ \ l \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ OPEN SPACE O L OPEN SPACE __ - ❑ \ \\\`\ \\` \\\` \\\ \ \ \``\\\� ` A PUBLIC STREET 50'RAN \ \�`♦ \�\ \\ \ OPEN SPACE `\ G \ ._- `OPEN SPACE z -------------- `\ , � \ / i� 1 �--- ,` � —� —'� �` \� \ moi' iii moi% � -` _-- -- �\ ♦\ \ \\ \ \ `. � `\ ,� LEGEND- '\\--'-----------` F-1OPEN SPACE ,\`, \�\ ' PARKWOOD -CIRCL LOT AREA=\,: Z Z a oa W rUy m a =06i= N W W 5E J ° uj Q W a R.O.W. AREA \ \\ ` _ \/ // - i�\ II ' i ' `"- --� _ - DA'1'1S MNGH�OOi SCAla r - 60' i \ 1 l A DS9IGNED DY: DCJ'I \\�, \\\\ •!�,\ \11, L �I ( I ��[� I \ — l Ir // /r -^ , �,}._. —� - ��`\ '��\ \ FDS No. 0014 Greenway Engineering March 1, 2006 Abram's Chase Rezoning Revised May 19, 2006 ABRAM'S CHASE REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of a 3.25± -acre subject property identified as Abram's Chase and owned by Harvest Communities, Inc. The subject property consists of two contiguous parcels identified as Tax Map Parcel 65 -((A)) -27A containing 1.68± -acres and Tax Map Parcel 65 -((A)) -28A containing 1.57± -acres. The subject site is located on the north side of Senseny Road (Route 657), adjacent to the Parkwood Manor Subdivision. The Applicant proposes to conditionally rezone the 3.25± -acre subject site from RA, Rural Areas District to RP, Residential Performance District. The Applicant plans to develop the subject property as single-family detached residential housing on small lots. Basic information Location: Fronting on the north side of Senseny Road (Route 657), adjacent to the Parkwood Manor Subdivision. Magisterial District: Red Bud Property ID Numbers: 65 -((A)) -27A and 65 -((A)) -28A Current Zoning: RA, Rural Areas District Current Use: Residential Proposed Use: Residential, Single-family detached residential housing on small lots Proposed Zoning: RP, Residential Performance District Total rezoning area: 3.25± -acres Proposed build -out 14 Single-family detached residential units on small lots File 94545H Impact Statement/EAW 2 March 1, 2006 Abram's Chase Rezoning Greenway Engineering Revised May 19, 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Urban Development Area The �.��=-acre su bject site is m rrently located within the Urban Development Area (UDA). ment The Comprehensive Policy Plan states UDAthat Thereforesuburban , the proposalresidential redzone� he 3 25±�acbre located with the boundaries of the subject site to RP, Residential Performance District is in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Sewer and Water Service Area The 3.25± -acre subject site is currently located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies the SWSA as the area in which public water and sewer infrastructure is to be located, which determines where urban development will occur. Therefore, the proposal to rezone the 3.25± -acre subject site to RP, Residential Performance District is in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan recommendations for water and sewer service. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The 3.25± -acre subject site is located on the north side of Senseny Road (Route 657), approximately '/2 -mile east of the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road (Route 656). Senseny Road is identified as a major collector road and currently has one eastbound and one westbound travel lane. The Abram's Chase Subdivision will only have one connection to Senseny Road that will be located a minimum of 200 feet to the west of Parkwood Circle. The Applicant has conducted a site distance study that has been reviewed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to ensure that vehicles can safely access the Abram's Chase Subdivision from Senseny Road. All residential lots within the Abram's Chase Subdivision will be served by a state maintained street with sidewalks that is dedicated to VDOT. Flood Plains The 3.25± -acre subject site does not contain areas of floodplain as demonstrated on FEMA NFIP Map #510063-0120-13 and on the Frederick County GIS Database. The subject site is identified as a "Zone C" area of minimal flooding. Wetlands The 3.25± -acre subject site does not contain wetland areas as demonstrated on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map information from the Frederick County GIS Database. 3 File #4545H Impact Statement/EAW Greenway Engineering March 1, 2006 Abram's Chase Rezoning Revised May 19, 2006 Soil Types The 3.25± -acre subject site contains two soil types as demonstrated by the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia (page 36) and the Frederick County GIS Database. The following soil types are present on site: --o 9B Clearbrook Channery Silt Loams 2-7% slope 41C Weikert-Berks Silt Loams 7-15% slope 41D Weikert-Berks Silt Loams 15-25% slope Table 5 on page 123 of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia does not designate either soil type found on the 3.25± -acre site as prime farmland soils. The soils types are generally classified as moderate for development purposes because of slope, depth to rock and wetness. These soils types are consistent with the soil types found in the Parkwood Manor, Lynnhaven, and Sovereign Village subdivisions surrounding the subject site; therefore, the soil types are suitable for residential development. Other Environmental Features The 3.25± -acre subject site does not contain areas of steep slope, lakes or ponds or natural stormwater retention areas as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. There are no environmental features present that create development constraints on the subject site. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: RP, Residential Performance District South: RA, Rural Areas District East: RP, Residential Performance District West: RA, Rural Areas District TRANSPORTATION Use: Lynnhaven Subdivision Use: Agricultural Use: Parkwood Manor Subdivision Use: Residential The Abram's Chase Subdivision is proffered to be developed with a maximum of 14 single- family detached residential units on small lots. All vehicle trips associated with the residential lots will access Senseny Road (Route 657) at a single entrance point and will either travel west towards Greenwood Road (Route 656) to access Millwood Pike (Route 50 East) and the City of Winchester, or will travel east to access Berryville Pike (Route 7) to points east of Frederick County. File #4545H Impact StatemenUEAW 4 Greenway Engineering March 1, 2006 Abram's Chase Rezoning Revised May 19, 2006 The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2004 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes Estimates identify the segment of Senseny Road (Route 657) between Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Rossum Lane (Route 736) with an average volume of 5,500 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition identifies single-family detached housing (ITE 210) with an average rate of 9.57 VPD per household. Therefore, the proffered 14 -lot single-family detached subdivision is anticipated to generate a maximum of 134 VPD. The 134 VPD represents an increase of approximately 2.5% of the 2004 average volume on Senseny Road and an increase of approximately 2.2% of the 2006 average volume on Senseny Road assuming a 5% annual increase in traffic volume on the segment. Assuming a 70% traffic split for vehicles traveling west and a 30% traffic split for vehicles traveling east, the Abram's Chase Subdivision will generate approximately 94 VPD that will travel towards Greenwood Road and the City of Winchester and will generate approximately 40 VPD that will travel to points east of Frederick County. A detailed traffic impact analysis statement (TIA) was prepared for the Senseny Village Subdivision, which was approved by Frederick County and VDOT in calendar year 2005. This TIA projected the impacts to the same segment of Senseny Road (Route 657) and the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road (Route 656) throughout the anticipated buildout year of 2010. The results of this TIA demonstrated that Senseny Road and the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road functioned at an acceptable level of service (LOS) throughout the buildout year under current geometric conditions. The Abram's Chase Subdivision will be built out in calendar year 2007, prior to the build out of the Senseny Village Subdivision; therefore, the current geometric conditions of this road segment and of the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection will be able to accommodate this projected increase in average daily traffic volume. Furthermore, the Applicant's proffer al unit monetary contribution to the Frederick statement provides a $1,000 per residenti County General Transportation Fund that can be used unconditionally by the County towards road improvements. The 134 VPD associated with the Abram's Chase Subdivision will not create a negative impact to the transportation network and the Applicant's development proposal offers an additional revenue source to assist Frederick County and VDOT with road improvements. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The 3.25± -acre subject site is located in the eastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). There is an existing Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) 8" sanitary sewer main and easement that is located along the northern portion of the subject site. This sewer line will direct effluent from the Abram's Chase Subdivision to the new Frederick County Sanitation Authority regional pump that will convey effluent to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant (OWTP) located on Berryville Pike (Route 7). Impacts of the proposed rezoning on the sewage conveyance and treatment system are based on the proffered land use of 14 single-family detached dwelling units. Design figure estimates are based on 225 gallons per day (GPD) per single-family detached unit. s File 94545H Impact Statement/EAW Greenway Engineering March 1, 2006 Abram's Chase Rezoning Revised May 19, 2006 The figures below represent the impact that this project would have to the sewage conveyance system and treatment system at full build -out of 14 dwelling units: Q = 225 GPD per dwelling unit Q = 225 GPD X 14 dwelling units Q = 3,150 GPD The proposed zoning is estimated to add 3,150 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant (OWTP). The design capacity of the OWTP plant is currently 8.4 million gallons per day, of which the City and the County are currently utilizing approximately 6.4 million gallons per day. The total build- out of the Abram's Chase Subdivision would increase the treatment demands at the OWTP by approximately 0.15% of the current available capacity at the OWTP; therefore, adequate capacity, source and infrastructure is available to serve this development. WATER SUPPLY The 3.25± -acre subject site is located in the eastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). There is an existing Frederick County Sanitation Authority FCSA 8 -inch water line along the north side of Senseny Road (Route 657) that adjoins the subject site and will be utilized to serve the project. Potable water is provided to this area of Senseny Road through a series of water transmission lines whose source is the Stephens City quarry system, which is treated at the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant. This treatment plant provides approximately 4.0 MGD of potable water and is expandable to treat 6.0 MGD. Impacts of the proposed rezoning on the water supply system are based on the proffered land use of 14 single-family detached dwelling units. Design figure estimates are based on 275 gallons per day (GPD) per single-family detached unit. The figures below represent the impact that this project would have to the water supply system at full build -out of 14 single- family residential dwelling units: Q = 275 GPD per dwelling unit Q = 275 GPD X 14 dwelling units Q = 3,850 GPD The Abram's Chase Subdivision will utilize an estimated 3,850 gallons of water per day. Potable water is provided to this area of the SWSA through transmission from the Stephens City quarry system and through water purchased from the City of Winchester. The projected water usage at build -out is negligible. Therefore, adequate capacity, source and infrastructure are available for this subdivision. File 44545H Impact Statement/EAW 6 Greenway Engineering March I, 2006 Abram's Chase Rezoning Revised May 19, 2006 SITE DRAINAGE The 3.25± -acre subject site has pronounced drainage swales along the northern property boundary and along the eastern property boundary. Stormwater flows from properties west of the subject site through the drainage swale along the northern property boundary, while properties on the south side of Senseny Road (Route 657) drain to a culvert system within the Senseny Road right-of-way that discharges to the drainage Swale along the eastern property boundary. Stormwater leaves the subject site at the northeastern corner and flows through the Lynnhaven and Sovereign Village subdivisions to the twin lakes on the properties immediately to the east, ultimately draining to the Opequon Creek. On-site stormwater management is proposed in the northeastern portion of the subject site to control the increased run-off at or below pre -development rates, which will result from the development of this site. All storm water management measures will be designed to meet state and local standards and will be approved by the County Engineer. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual residential consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per household (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4"' edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on the 14 residential units that will be developed in the Abram's Chase Subdivision: AV = 5.4 cu. yd. per household AV = 5.4 cu. yd. X 14 dwellings AV = 75.6 cu. yd. at build -out, or 53 tons/yr at build -out The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The projected build -out of the Abram's Chase Subdivision will generate approximately 53 tons of solid waste annually on average. This represents a 0.02% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year. The Abram's Chase Subdivision is located within close proximity of the Regional Landfill and the Greenwood Citizen Convenience Center. The Regional Landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate the solid waste impacts associated with the 14 -lot subdivision. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The 3.25± -acre subject site does not contain structures that are deemed eligible for the national register or the state register of historic places. This site is not contained within any core battlefield area designed by the National Park Service Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley or by the Frederick County GIS Database. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any structure on the property as potentially significant. File 94545H lmpact Statement/EAW Greenway Engineering March 1, 2006 Abram's Chase Rezoning Revised May 19, 2006 The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies the Greenwood School (#34-421) as a potentially significant structure within the closest proximity to the subject site. The Greenwood School is located approximately 2/3 -mile to the west of the subject site; therefore, the development of the Abram's Chase Subdivision will not have any negative impact to cultural resources or to the viewshed of any significant historical structure or site. I. OTHER IMPACTS The Frederick County Development Impact Model (DIM) was formally adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in October 2005. The Board of Supervisors authorized the DIM to be applied to rezoning applications that were filed for consideration as of December 1, 2005. The new DIM assessment of Capital Facilities Impacts for single- family detached residential dwelling units is $23,290.00 per unit. The $23,290.00 impact per residential unit for Capital Facilities Impact is itemized as follows: Fire and Rescue $ 720.00 General Government $ 320.00 Public Safety $ 658.00 Library $ 267.00 Parks and Recreation $ 2,136.00 School Construction $19,189.00 The Applicant's proffer statement provides a monetary contribution of $23,290.00 for each residential dwelling unit that is to be paid to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, the Abram's Chase Subdivision will completely mitigate the Capital Facilities Impacts to Frederick County for each residential dwelling unit prior to occupancy of the unit. No additional impacts to County capital facilities are anticipated by this residential development proposal. File #4545H Impact Statement/EAW 8 j F�- A- ------ Valley Mill Rd -�2 SWSADA LU U � V, LU z Y�- z Fj A LU A �J- T z If :1 4� 2�, -F T-1II- X Y /21 ----------- -_4 7 > A/ 'A -V L - 11 7' IQ- -Air- -4 -T-T- P� tr- I I T A T N" 'A A- IR F — ------- --- r Iii h'/ J, 4 7 C T z, J/ lN - -6 L1 J e XA -3 3 A -C X It �1\ X z j - V --7 J F... r4 lid- Z J------ -T L e Y 1?C1 LL1 If k If / -I- q-4 LLJ < z z V 0 < Oz U) 0 w < Q \'Xv 0 Q > Q U) < LO (D 3: 0� 't U) �f Cn w z w =) Legend 00 < Feet U) U) 0 CO (1) Abram's Chase Parcels a 1,000 500 0 1,000 2,000 T- Z < Z C) Z C) 2i M �n 0 0 o SWSA ��i N LU w IL < c) FF1, c �o �5 c ED UDA SW SA LU (o UL Parcel Boundaries C) F7 U-1 Li I U)IJ Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data Environmental Features gra; i ar Ct ------ - - -- - ------- / Sdr - \ Y ��11 o \4 } l W 0 i rp ad'a 0 -., ZQ D' Legend Abram's Chase Parcels 5 ft. Contours Streams Lakes &Ponds Parcel Boundaries Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data Feet F2O 100 0 200 400 z W W ca W �p U-1 / Sdr - \ Y U) o \4 } l W i rp 0 -., ZQ D' Q Z O 4 t — W H — cn Q LO /LU Z Q E zv W W 2i L W z w cn p p m aa)i Q z LL U Z Y pp o Q U O N U) W W m oW o9 LLm o W N V9B 41E 19 a y ar t x v WIlz 7 a 41C e:Al P O 4 1D t 1407, NP ,arS;1,,„4 b. y Jnr -sem ez k, k �7� .!'-"xa "”' a`-_ m• .=.m . x"s., „" �„'v ,'',^^��'..., ,..x s x:..$ r`t�� �, cS:; A,`s- >a''` r•' qJ A`_ �ffa ,� a .11 .., . ;� wr C• '., ,ri.:. ..: ," l«��... .6 :F `,'ke ;z a5 m.§' .. qx .>7>&`� •.,' +:�" �`' ,f. «.eaq kms,. .,;. _• �,' ... y,�l �v r'�,..t�.,: �;'Fo-. .�.;: x ..::tib -.,.,_ .. .,:. "� .•-�. ._�' .� , ` ,�-.,� . ,., : 3a .: �� gas,. �, e: -< � <,w�:., e ='�'�s .: Murphy, Ct; IV OF s=, W 9B1a �c M a a r.' % .. , ,G " o° NKTIVNIIS .. a. 1 B ; ep Q v g r; r 7' r • J - C r J ,w a *� r t m 41C T,U O U)f— � J irk re 3 - - \ Ul) 0 J _ Do O Q i n - v Legend �� w Abram's Chase Parcels 41C, WEIKERT-BERKS CHANNERY SILT LOAMS, 7 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES U) z c i p m Parcel Boundaries 41 D, WEIKERT-BERKS CHANNERY SILT LOAMS, 15 TO 25 PERCENT SLOPESLL Q R = z U' U w Soils 41E, WEIKERT-BERKS CHANNERY SILT LOAMS, 25 TO 65 PERCENT SLOPES 1 B, BERKS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES 913, CLEARBROOK CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES 3B, BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES 9C, CLEARBROOK CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 7 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES a , • .. ,." ,,u* t ., 7 fi SMow m .p D.. •urce: Frederick County,-.- 11• D.. __ (n Q ui 0 m Y W z m p o M Q C) W � LL LO O (Dw cy U 0 C) — o N W W REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff Fee Amount Paid -3376-' 60 Zoning Amendment Number _ Date Receive P� e6 PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester. VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different from above) Name: Harvest Communities Inc. Address: 147 Creekside Lane Winchester, VA 22602 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt, AICP Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Telephone: (540) 678-1462 Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments Plat X Fees Deed to Property X Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X X X X 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Harvest Communities Inc. Stuart Butler President 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential B) Proposed Use of the Property: Residential 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER 55K -1-1-24A USE Open Space ZONING RP 65-A-15 Agricultural RA 65-A-2513 Residential RA 65 -A -26A Residential RA 65B-9-7 Residential RP 65B -9-7A Residential RP 6513-9-8 Residential RP 6513-9-9 Residential RP 6513-9-10 Residential RP S. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): Fronting on the north side of Sensepy Road (Route 657), adjacent to the Parkwood Manor Subdivision. Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service 10 11 Red Bud Greenwood VFR Greenwood VFR Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School Millbrook Admiral Byrd Senseny Road Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 3.25± RA District RP District 3.25± Total Acreage to be rezoned The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 14 Townhome: Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change -IF-te o, -;^v county, Virg nia. I (we) authorize Frederick County the zoning map o� �, u, .., .. 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 bet of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): L - Date: 7-i i G e' Owner (s): 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 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) Harvest Communities, Inc. (Phone) (540) 678-1462 (Address) 147 Creekside Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 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. 050028946 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 65 Lot: 27A Block: A Section: Subdivision: Parcel: 65 Lot: 28A Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, 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 I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ 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 there (Vlr aveto s et m or) hand and seal this 2.6441 day of ysf 200 (v State of Virginia, City/ ount of Frederick, To -wit: I, Donna L. Meliso, a 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 acknow ged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid thisZ5+1q day of f200 My Commission Expires: February 29, 2008 Notary Public Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data z _z Location and honing Map FE o i , �0 i W W cr � 00 O � ; " - m NA SSAU pR s z � O� 0O O �lr 00 G) � � z ? � \OC'�RO CS/ � �, ,' � ►♦W" a � P� �q YS�� m �Y000. / O.Z•P �G�' go, P O �Q Y Y 'h U� S 7ti Y WA ro R 0LLI Ro Lim ti GC n 656 / M w STAFFORD DR m ZQ / ��� -O G� OR- �� �� GO�WI N CT 2� I�W v ��G 00L ?ca ���� Om 2 IL ` CTO TER c9 _ESAR WICKMAN m z 657 G1;) _ Q MONET TER o y� w GREEWool) G� MURPHY CT O o . <v� �y/pA a WOOp AVEW 000 rya G ✓ AyF R. A NG QO2 Z Z p R rn ��� ��5� ROS IA OR CJT � i 0�0P� A( Ay COUGH T SENSENY GLEN DR 2CID 0-1 O CO CT n� J?C0 14 J4�0 SEA Lu p CO OQ m CO �� .' o NYRp� m Q m m z G) 2 z C� U Q ❑ w z SG 41_ Sy�tiF ' z0 s F z z �zc� U) E) M O „' u> h O N ❑ = Legend ONso H tN UMpLo °�° Q Abram's Chase Parcels ,RF<N w _ p ui D W Parcel Boundaries Z U U _Om Q U z Zoning v o CD C B2 (Business, General District) °v _ Q c7 m o RA (Rural Areas District) 0 - - - - - Feet < Q z z o p o RP (Residential Performance District) 800 400 0 800 1,600 O w LL C:, o — w -- w J Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data put#on Harris Ruse & Associates GPCeirncr5. swveyom. MUII-:--ie. f'r"C!-,Ices. September 7, 2006 W Michael Ruddy Deputy Director of Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Wmchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Carriage Park Rezoning Application Dear Mike: After recent discussions with elected and appointed County officials, I would like to PR—A�jrequest postponement of the Carriage Park rezoning application on behalf of my H 1 client. We look forward to working closely with you and other members of the planning staff as we take this time to modify the current plan. CDv-ORAi:: hon!ill,, VIRC�"I�R OFRUS- j!I<i'j eyva I e h�r.!iil;• FIAle1 «.sbur.I ir•,' i ncoes` r ,;Perri! y Aho IAND OFFIZES. U:i i'n C -re n; ;vnrao•n•n Hc'! y ti:ad PENt45Y:YA.NIA OFFICE: All e.--ilu , WEsr VIRGfM. once: ,vi criiw�bu-1q �' F a -.665 %93 I i " Er;s P;cco&iv c;ree, Su is 2'"'w' ';`VinC-heaiBl `A 2 7 01 Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Patton Harris Rust & Associates Patrick R Sowers REZONING APPLICATION 910-06 ALBIN CENTER Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: September 1, 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: September 20, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: October 11, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 2.07 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located on the east side of Bryarly Road (Route 789) approximately 800 feet south of the intersection with Burnt Church Road (Route 678). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 42-A-249 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) PROPOSED USES: Commercial use Use: Residential & CUP — Cottage Occupation for a Hair Salon Use: Vacant & Residential Use: Undeveloped Use: Residential Rezoning #10-06 — Albin Center September 1, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 789. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is conditionally satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Hicks Office II application dated April 10, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. VDOT is satisfied with the proposed entrance to the subject site from Route 789. VDOT will consider the right out only access point to Route 522 South. After careful consideration of the use of U-turns along a high speed primary route such as Route 522, with the major goal of moving traffic rapidly, VDOT has determined it would not be appropriate to encourage a situation where vehicles are making a U-turn on the high speed roadway. There is an acceptable crossover already at Route 789. With some improvements to the decel and storage lanes at the crossover at the intersection of Route 789, VDOT has determined this is the safest and therefore preferred method for the traveling public to access this proposed project. If the developer chooses to accept the primary access to this site to be from Route 789 and the possible right out only onto Route 522, VDOT will support the rezoning. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip General Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of- way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning request for the Hicks' Office II project and offer the following comments: 1. Refer to Traffic Impacts on Page 1: Explain or clarify the intent of the right in/right out entrance on Bryarly Road. Indicate if this requirement is intended to prohibit left turns from the site onto Bryarly Road and left turns from Bryarly Road into the site. 2. Refer to Sewage Conveyance on Page 2: Provide a copy of the Virginia Department of Health approval letter for our records to verify the adequacy of the soils/drainfield to support the intended use. 3. Refer to Drainage, Page 2: Stormwater drainage will be an important issue to developing this site. Offsite drainage improvements may be required depending on the impacts created by the proposed development. It appears that the existing topography serves as a very large detention/retention basis significantly minimizing the downstream impacts. Changing the routing and time of concentrations may adversely impact the downstream areas. The discussion indicates the use of an underground detention/infiltration facility. Frederick County prohibits the use of infiltration galleries especially in karst areas. The discussion of the drainage needs to be expanded to address the above issued. 4. Refer to Water Supply, Page 2: Indicate the proposed location of the well referenced in the discussion. 5. Refer to the Proffer Statements Under Structural Development. C.1: Under statement number 1 the applicant proffers to limit development on the parcel to a maximum of 40,000 square feet. This conflicts with the 23,000 square feet of development referenced under Traffic Impacts, page 1 of the impact analysis. Resolve this conflict. Rezoning #10-06 — Albin Center September 1, 2006 Page 3 Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: Not seruirPd by r�»hlir utilities. J Y `"""" Sanitation Authority: We do not serve this area. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: Health Department has no objection to the rezoning request as stated. 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. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Attorney: It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. I would suggest, for uniformity and easy -reference purposes, that the details of the zoning, owners, property, etc., be summarized at the beginning as set forth on the enclosed format. This format has been used in all recent proffer statements. 2. The staff should review the list of land uses for which the property is to be limited in Proffer A to confirm that all the uses are permitted uses in the B2 District. Also note that "general retail" is one of the land uses which would be permitted. 3. In Proffer C2, it purports to limit the structural height to 60 feet. It is my understanding that the maximum height permitted in the B2 District is 35 feet. 4. In Proffer C4, which proffers to develop the structure in "substantial conformance' with a particular rendering, the rendering should be referenced in the proffer as being attached to the proffer, and the rendering should be attached. 5. A clerical correction needs to be made in the second line of Proffer D, to correct the beginning of the line to state "... to two (2)... ". 6. In Proffer F the timing of the payment of the proffer should be clarified by providing that the cash payment will be made at the time of the issuance of the first building permit, in the event more than one building permit would be required for the development. 7. I note that there is no Generalized Development Plan referenced in the Proposed Proffer Statement. Therefore, the layout of improvements on the property and the specific location of entrances is not limited by the proffers. 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 Advisory Board: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered this rezoning proposal during their meeting of June 20, 2006. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report as well as additional information associated with a previous site visit by staff, Maral Kalbian and David Edwards of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. The subject parcel was the site of one of the older houses in the Albin Community Center (DHR#34-543), which as demolished sometime prior to review by the Historic Resources Advisory Board. The now vacant site is adjacent to another older structure in Albin (DHR#34-542) which has been preserved and is not used for commercial purposes through a conditional use permit which was granted by the County. The site is also in close proximity to the Rezoning #10-06 — Albin Center September 1, 2006 Page 4 Edwards House (DHR#34-545) and the Faith Revival Center (DHR#34-544). While the structures adjacent and near the subject site may not be listed individually as "potentially significant", it was determined in April of 2004 that the Albin Rural Community Center is potentially eligible as a historic district as a whole collection. The application states that the applicant proposes to construct a two story office building, which would consist of approximately 20,000 square feet (not to exceed 40,OOOsf) on this 2.07 acre parcel, which could potentially be as tall as 60 feet. The HRAB feels that this proposed development is completely incompatible with the character and context of the Albin Rural Community Center and therefore cannot support the application as submitted. The HRAB recognizes that all of the adjacent buildings are contributing structures to the potential Albin historic district. If this property is developed for commercial use, the HRAB suggests the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: Building Layout: Given the size of the surrounding structures and all the other structures in the community, a building that is 20,000 (up to 40,000) square feet in size will be out of place in this community; a smaller structure (or structures) would be more appropriate. The use of multiple structures on the site that do not exceed 2,000 square feet is encouraged so that the development would blend in with the community. Proposed Zoning District: The rezoning application proposes that the zoning be changed from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). The HRAB believes that the proposed B2 is too intensive for the existing community and recommends that the application be revised to request the B 1 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District. Building Schematic: The design concept for "Alban Center" that has been proffered for the site does not fit in with the surrounding community. A schematic that fits in with the community and utilizes materials that are found on structures in the community should be designed and utilized. Height of Buildings: The applicant has proffered a building height of 60 feet, which is what the Zoning Ordinance permits for offices in the B2. This proposed building height will completely dwarf every structure in the entire community. The HRAB suggests the applicant consider a building height that is more compatible with surrounding land uses, such as 25 feet. Archeological Study: Since the site was demolished without an inventory completed for the historic structure, a Phase I archeological study needs to be done for the site. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated May 12, 2006from Susan K Eddy, Senior Planner. PlanninI4 & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies this property as being zoned A-2 (Agriculture General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as Rezoning #10-06 — Albin Center September 1, 2006 Page 5 the community's guide for makingdecisions 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 outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Plan (6-8) states "though some business and industrial uses are located outside of the Urban Development Area and the Sewer and Water Service Area, future proposals for such uses outside of these service areas should be given careful consideration". The Comprehensive Plan (6-12) further states that "business and industrial areas need to be served by public sewer and water". The site is in the area generally designated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as the Albin Rural Community Center. The Comprehensive Plan is not specific on policies for the Albin Rural Community Center. The Plan (6-45) speaks to the need to "allow these centers to continue to serve their traditional functions without spoiling their rural character". It calls for more commercial uses in some rural community centers, but for others, including Albin, the Plan (6- 74) says to "consider proposals for commercial development on an individual basis". For the rural community centers where commercial development is sought, and again Albin is not one of these, the plan promotes "village commercial development" at a "scale and nature that is appropriate for each community center". Staff note: A large office building outside of the UDA or SWSA is not consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The general policies for the rural community centers allow consideration of commercial uses in those centers. Typical commercial uses in the rural community centers include general stores, banks and restaurants. In this case however, the proposed office use is not designed to primarily serve the local community. Further, an office building 60 feet in height with 25,000 square feet offloorspace as proposed, will be out of character with, and overwhelm, its surroundings and will not contribute to the rural character. Buildings in this area are approximately 25 feet in height with 2,000 square feet offloorspace (see photo #2). (The office building under construction on Burnt Church Road (see photo #3) is 35 feet in height with 7,100 square feet offloorspace, and it is much larger than the surrounding buildings.) The HRAB provided more detailed comments (see above) on the incompatibility of the proposed design, size, height and use of this building. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for business properties. These include landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs. Typical signage in rural areas of the County (non-UDA & non-SWSA) is 50 square feet. While general office buildings in the 132 District are allowed up to 60 feet in height, Section 165- 2413(6) of the Zoning Ordinance requires the Planning Commission to review the site development plan if the building is adjacent to existing residential uses. The Planning Commission may require increased or additional distance buffers at the site plan stage. Rezoning 410-06 — Albin Center September 1, 2006 Page 6 Staff note: The applicant has not proffered any landscaping, screening or buffering above that which is required by County Ordinance. Approval of the GDP, which shows the building location, would make it impossible for the Planning Commission to require a larger buffer at the site plan stage. The applicant has proffered two monument signs, but is seeking signs 100 square feet in area, the maximum allowed by ordinance, not the 50 square feet typically found in a rural area. Transportation North Frederick Pike (Route 522) is designated as a major arterial road. According to the Comprehensive Policy Plan, major arterial roads provide for statewide and interstate travel. Higher speeds and free traffic flows are maintained. Direct access from land uses to arterial roads should be limited. Access to these roads from private driveways should be discouraged. For this proposed use to function as part of the Albin Rural Community Center, it should be accessed from the rural community center, not from Route 522. Access to the site should be limited to one entrance on Bryarly Road. This is consistent with the recent Old Massey Store rezoning (REZ #09-04), the Winchester Equipment rezoning (REZ #04-01) and the conditional use permit (CUP #04-98) for the miniature golf facility in the Gainesboro rural community center. Staff note: As stated in the VDOT comment, VDOT was only satisfied with this application if a full entrance was constructed on Bryarly Road and a right -out only exit constructed on Route 522. The GDP shows a right-in/right-out entrance on Route 522, contrary to VDOT's recommendation. 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, floodplain or wetlands/hydrologic soils on the parcels identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. The soil types on the site include Timberville silt loam (map symbol 4013), Frederick-Poplimento loams (map symbol 14B) and Frederick-Poplimento loamy very rocky (map symbol 16C). Frederick-Poplimento loams (map symbol 1413) and Timberville silt loam (map symbol 40B), are considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Staff Note: The Public Works Department expressed strong concern with the stormwater drainage on the site. Rezoning # 10-06 — Albin Center September 1, 2006 Page 7 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 25,000 square feet of office use. Using trip generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7`t' Edition, the proposed rezoning is projected to generate 200-300 average daily trips (ADT). Staff Note: The applicant modeled the traffic for an office use, which does not have a high traffic count. The proffer statement allows full retail use of the site and retail use would generate approximately 1,075 average daily trips. A revision to the TLA is required to model the worst case scenario. B. Sewer and Water The area is not served by public water and sewer. The applicant has not provided evidence that a well and drainfields to support this office development can be provided on-site. In addition, the soil of the site has been disturbed for many months (see photo # 1), which may also impact the ability of the site to accommodate a primary and reserve drainfield. C. Community Facilities In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community to the Fire and Rescue Services, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $2,000 to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes. The timing of this contribution is dependant upon a future building permit. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated April 10, 2006 and Revised August 10, 2006 A) Land Use The applicant is limiting the uses allowed on the site to the following — offices, medical offices, a small restaurant, a sign shop, general retail and video rental. Staff note: General retail is not a term used in the County Zoning Ordinance. If the applicant intends to allow, for example, general merchandise stores (SIC #53) this should be clearly stated. The proffer as written might be construed to mean all uses in the SIC retail trade grouping (SIC#52-59), which includes used car dealers. In addition, a 25,000 square foot retail building would have a different health system requirement than a 25,000 square foot office building. B) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated August 10, 2006. It is very detailed and shows the location of a 2 -story (25,000 square foot) office building. It shows a full entrance on Bryarly Road and a right -out entrance, with the ability to convert to a right-in/right-out entrance, on North Frederick Pike (Route 522). It shows a tree reserve area, the drainfield locations, specific buffers, parking spaces, Rezoning #10-06 — Albin Center September 1, 2006 Page S and the location of two monument signs. Staff note: The GDP is unusually detailed. It locks the applicant into a particular design with specifics that may not be appropriate at a rezoning stage. Staff and review agencies did not evaluate this GDP as a site plan. Not all aspects of the GDP, including the buffers, meet County Ordinances and these will need to be modified. The entrance on Route 522 does not conform to the VDOT comments, which expressly endorse only a right -out onto Route 522. Staff strongly suggests that the applicant submit a simplified GDP or withdraw the GDP entirely. C) Site Access A maximum of two entrances are proposed, one on Bryarly Road (Route 789) and one on North Frederick Pike (Route 522). D) Structural Development The development is limited to 25,000 square feet of structural area. The height is limited to 60 feet. Similar construction material (brick, vinyl or dry vit) will be used on all building walls. The roof will be standing seam metal or dimensional shingle construction. The structure will be developed in substantial conformance with the perspective rendering entitled Albin Center. Staff note: Structural area is a vague term. Staff would prefer the word floor area as that is the term used in the Zoning Ordinance. Two rendering are included with this application. The proffer statement should therefore refer to the perspective "renderings' E) Business Signs Signage on the site will be limited to two freestanding monument signs, not to exceed twelve feet in height. Staff note: The text of the proffer states the signs are limited to twelve feet in height, but the number listed is ten feet As stated earlier, the applicant is seeking the maximum sign face allowed by ordinance (100 square feet,150 square feet if it is a franchise). F) Outdoor Storage Outdoor storage will be prohibited on the site. G) Monetary Contribution The applicant has proffered $2,000 to the Fire and Rescue Services. Rezoning # 10-06 — Albin Center September 1, 2006 Page 9 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 09/20/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This application is not consistent with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Large office buildings should be located in the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Only small scale commercial uses that serve local residents and protect the rural character are sought in the rural community centers. The size, height, and scale of the proposed building is incompatible with, and will overwhelm, the surrounding buildings in Albin. In addition, a commercial use to serve the rural community center should be accessed from the rural community center, and should not be designed to cater to passing motorists on Route 522. Access to the site should be limited to Bryarly Road (Route 789). Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. co Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 May 12, 2006 Mr. Mike Artz Artz and Associates 16 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Alban Center Dear Mike: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Alban Center. This application seeks to rezone 2.07 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (Business General) District. Staff's review comments are listed below for your consideration. 1. Albin Rural Community Center. The site is in the area generally designated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as the Albin Rural Community Center. The Comp Plan is not specific on policies for the Albin Community Center. It calls for more commercial uses in the Gore, Gainesboro and Round Hill Centers, but for all other centers, including this one, the plan (6-74) says to consider proposals for commercial development on an individual basis. The plan further speaks to the need to allow these centers to continue to serve their traditional functions without spoiling their rural character. Therefore, a B2 rezoning could be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, depending on the details of the proposal. A B 1 (Neighborhood Business District) rezoning would be even more supportable, although this clearly allows fewer uses. 2. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for business properties. These include landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs. These design elements should be incorporated into this application. 3. Site Access. The county considers applications for rezonings on Route 522 within the Rural Community Centers, but not elsewhere. For this proposed use to function as part of the Albin Rural Community Center, it must be accessed from the rural community center, not from Route 522. Therefore, access to the site should be limited to one entrance on Bryarly Road. This is consistent with the recent Old Massey Store rezoning (REZ 409-04) and the conditional use permit 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 W Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. Mike Artz RE: Proposed Rezoning of Alban Center May 12, 2006 (CUP 904-98) for the miniature golf facility in Gainesboro. In addition, Route 522 is a major arterial road where additional accesses onto Route 522 should be avoided. 4. Impact Assessment Statement — Proposed Uses. The application states the rezoning is for 20,000 square feet of office space and 3,000 square feet of other space. However, the proffer statement allows up to 40,000 square feet of development. The applicant must, therefore, base the TIA and all analysis on 40,000 square feet of retail development in order to reflect the maximum intensity that is proposed for the site. 5. Impact Assessment Statement — Proposed Uses. The application states the rezoning is for one building with 23,000 square feet of commercial floorspace, although, as stated above, the proffer only limits it to 40,000 square feet. The scale and massing of the 23,000 square foot building (let alone a 40,000 square foot building) are out of character with the small-scale, mainly residential buildings in Albin. While the design of the building may be reasonably compatible, the size and scale are not compatible and will overwhelm the neighboring buildings. 6. Impact Assessment Statement — Site Suitability. The application is missing a consideration of the natural features on the site (floodplains, wetlands, etc.) as required in the application. Please include this information. 7. Traffic Impact Analysis. Impact Assessment Statement - Traffic. A complete ided with this draft rezoning. Trip generation traffic impact analysis was not prov figures were based on a 23,000 square foot office building. As stated previously, traffic projections will need to be based on 40,000 square feet of retail development (retail is an allowed use on the site and generates the highest possible number of trips), unless a lower floorspace is proffered. The average daily trips for 40,000 square feet of retail is approximately 4,000 trips, not 200- 300 trips as stated in the application. Also, the TIA should be based on one entrance on Bryarly Road and no entrance on Route 522, as stated in paragraph 3 above. 8. Proffer Statement — Land Use Restrictions. General retail is an ambiguous term. Please site specific relevant uses allowed in the B2 Zoning District. Precision Instrument Repair and much other instrument repair are not allowed in the B2 Zoning District. Remove instrument repair from the list of allowed uses. Sign painting and lettering shops are allowed in the B2 District. Please precisely Page 3 Mr. Mike Artz RE: Proposed Rezoning of Alban Center May 12, 2006 state that use, so as not to cause confusion with outdoor ad services which are not allowed in the B2 District. 9. Proffer Statement — Structural Development. The proffer statement allows 40,000 square feet of structural area. (The term floorspace is preferable.) The application itself proposes 20,000 square feet of office and 3,000 square feet of other. Make sure the proffer reflects what is actually proposed. All analysis must be based on the proffered floorspace. 10. Proffer Statement — Structural Development. While the maximum height for an office building in the B2 District is 60 feet, this would be out of scale in a rural community center. The application clearly states the applicant is proposing a two story building. Therefore, it would be more appropriate in the proffer statement to state a height limit (perhaps 25 feet) in keeping with a two-story building, and in keeping with the surrounding buildings. It. Proffer Statement — Structural Development. The renderings prepared by Design Concepts are titled Hicks Office Building II, not Alban Center, and there are two of them. Please reword proffer C(4) to accurately reference these renderings. 12. Proffer Statement — Business Signs. Proffering to limit the number and height of the freestanding signs is encouraged. Limiting the face size of the sign should also be considered, particularly given its location in a rural community center. Signs in the RA Zoning District are limited to 50 square feet and 10 feet in height. This is an appropriate scale in a rural community center. 13. Rezoning Exhibit "A". This exhibit is not proffered and nothing contained on this drawing is endorsed with the rezoning. The applicant will need to comply with all relevant sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. 14. 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, Volunteer 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, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. Page 4 Mr. Mike Artz RE: Proposed Rezoning of Alban Center May 12, 2006 15. Agency Comments. Please verify the relevant Fire and Rescue Company. This area may be served by the Round Hill Fire and Rescue Company. 16. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $3,257.00 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. 17. Name. Please note that local maps spell this portion of the county as Albin, not Alban. 18. Applicant. The applicant for this application is listed as Artz & Associates. However, the limited power of attorney designates Eddie Yost as the applicant. Please be consistent. One of these two should serve as the applicant and be listed on all documents. 19. Adjacent Parcels. The list of all adjacent properties, their owners and the owners' addresses is missing two parcels, 42-A-103 and 42-A-244. Please include these. Also, it is necessary to submit this information in a table form, rather than as individual tax record screens. 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, ,Z,, T Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad cc: David A. and Linda W. Hicks, 2333 N. Frederick Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 f' E y 4t A t1s5 678 `J . ` SHEEHAN, P -T R SR '�, KAREN T 42 A 255 J / 42 A ll5AP ' 1'+ PLE RIDGE FARIL M, \ /, UNDERWDOD, DELLA E �'N e`•! s N z Z /-•' � 6 Z /I N D J .e rnv 1301 7 1 � ; 42 A i1 STDGKDALE, 5 ELIZABETH �D_: Pb2U.. _ 857 522 130Hudson 3 9Ni e P A 1 N A P m '.0 S 42 A 132 BURR, WAYNE L = m V N Z Q 789 = J S �t. 'r m V MAyES �H42 A 47 kE5 m r G7UpIT�A M ¢ yc r s79 N o `` ;lP rr cL ; F N JCL a v` S LO Q J J e e e 4? ROSEDALE PROPERTIES w�K �� �w �.. K ti w> 41, 725 Q w°j wF IS 13� _ 2v 3 RIld Centerlines Albin Center P I' r�iea�k=.- �emm�nn,'�ente,s p.-,. Location Map ED (42-A-249) 0 125 250 500 Feet 4z A liP UNDERWOOD, DELLEA E 130 n ' v si h i' 4z A it STOGKDALE, 5 EL17A6ETH tYuD4a -D 5 i -rt 130 F 41 A1186 y SHEEHAN. ROBERT R 71z KAREN T 62 601 s \ 4z A 13z _ 5URR, WAYNE L _ . m U N 4Z 4 W 89 ' Fz N � LO x F- MAY 4z cHAPLEs c +47 - .._I` ETUD,TH A . / 79 z J 4z A 2-55 II � APPLE RIDGE FARM, -f 0 0 v � r 7 Nl �9 V N �N N s F C 1 M2 v m oC P 1 1 C � RP 4z A ISS f r )k ROSEDALE YRDPERTIES V > 6 41 9 J N W Z Q � J N � O x v � 725 zQ V �N s ° Road Centerlines IEZ # 10 m 06 �Pa.e 'B°Iaiwa Albin Center nl^9 M�Mmiatdal. cenersi oismn) Zoning Map CDo ®� fausNese In ,ldal TI°,a,e° �M�.,eMa�aan° 401 (R -11W �-Iq w (42 - A - 249 ) +>-rMi�ne<Eaee°iroe omn> w.fa°,°meas o�.�nv, 0 125 250 500 We M1 (Inauslaal, LigLI Oislncp RP (Resiaenlial P°R°n�unw t)ixlncl) `CC��SLL��'' Feet 9 J N W Z Q � J N � O x 678 42- A ;!!e f y UNpERVJ40p, Df.LL£A E dt 42 A Ii p STGLgDALE, 5 ELIZAftTH - g 4 ,HEktiR�, 4i A pgf,}�w � 4�. A X55 •r AYPLir paP(,E EN?M, LL a UJ �,'�' •�''i fid' �'� �,� r 01 -571 y7 ' Nuc a) Ava - r� 9 � t•.R 1 S 1 f ` CJt \\\ k 1 01 {� .fl - i 42- I T K y 19 df � IIO 4� i int * - f C 7. taw' F _ i "- -, I y LC '' hVo aeon RR*,,d Centerlin es �§ k AIVP.—Y oPa,�. Albin Center Aerial Map (42-A-249) 0 125 250 500 we Feet �ngg r r A3fiF 'Lor { m 42- r5 2111 nit. :,j jlM1E 0,f, 64�1 w Ro,d - "_ � � � � • I_Ihik ., �tw�. v � r. c l4 :art. A 71� p C - t, ine= REZ # 10 - 06 'rea :aye /V s®,m.r 9 ri`.r Albin Center ws: Approximate Baidling Location Building Location Map (42-A-249) w�s 0 25 50 100 Feet �_. d t i • v, I yr4 i ffy l��+ y��Ir��{{ 08 4w. L_ T00tiJ k? 08-29-2006 ,' (D C ®�4:: ��� ?G.t%9G0i(e�i �3 aPpro�.,MGT�Oa� I(� TC, Zr— 0 Tlro�oscA A ��� �or %$goon Ce n t Artz & Associates, PLC August 11,2006 ALBIN CENTER TAX PARCEL 42-((A))-249 GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Preliminary Matters REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT- PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE: RZ# I6) v C)(o 2.07 acres Tax Map Parce1:42-((A))-249 David & Linda Hicks Artz & Associates, PLC ALBIN CENTER 04/10/06 08/10/06 Albin Center Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #!vo' for the rezoning of 2.07 acres from the RA, Rural Areas District to establish 2.07 acres of B2, Business General District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such to be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by David A. Hicks and Linda W. Hicks being all of Tax Map Parcel 42-((A))-249, and further described by Deed Instrument 05001375C recorded in the Frederick County Clerk of the court Office on June 24, 2005. August 11, 2006 Albin Center Artz & Associates, PLC Prelirninag Matters cont The applicant hereby proffers the following: A.) Land Use Restrictions The applicants hereby proffer to limit the land uses for the 2.07 acre parcel to the following: Land Use SIC General Business Offices Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Offices - Legal Services 81 Engineering, Architectural and Surveying 871 Services Accounting, Auditing and Bookkeeping 872 Services Management and Public Relation Services 874 Health Services & Medical office Uses: 80 Doctors, Dentists, Optometrists Deli/Specialty to go Foods, Pizza, Ice - Cream ETC. ( Limited Seating 7 or less) Sign & Banner Shop (Advertising) General Retail Video Rental 784 B.) The applicant hereby proffers General Conformance with the GDP by Artz & Associates, PLC, dated August 2006. C.)Site Access The applicants hereby proffer to limit a maximum of 2 entrances, one entrance connection to North Frederick Pike (Route 522 north), and one entrance, connection to Bryarly Road (Rte. 789). 2 August 11, 2006 Artz & Associates, PLC Preliminary Matters cont. D.) Structural Development Albini Center a. The applicants hereby proffer to limit the development on the 2.07 acre parcel to a maximum of 25,000 feet of structural area. b. The applicant hereby proffers to limit the structural height to sixty feet from the first floor to the apex of the roof. c. The applicant hereby proffer to utilize similar construction materials on all building walls including brick, vinyl or dry vit, and that the roof will be standing seam metal or dimensional shingle construction. d. The applicants hereby proffer to develop the structure in substantial conformance with the perspective rendering entitled "ALBIN CENTER," prepared by Design Concepts. E.) Business Sims The applicants hereby proffer to limit the number of freestanding business signs to, (2) two on the 2.07 acre parcel. The freestanding business signs are proffered to be of monument style construction will not exceed twelve (10') feet in height. F.) Outdoor Storage The applicants hereby proffer to prohibit outdoor storage on the 2.07 acre parcel. G.) MonetaEy Contribution for Bre and Rescue Services The applicants hereby proffer to provide a cash payment of $2,000.00 to mitigate impact to Fire and Rescue Services. The applicants will provide the cash payment to Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia at the same time of building permit issuance for the 2.07 acre parcel. August 11, 2006 Artz & Associates, PLC Preliminary Matters cont. G.) Signatures Alban Center The condition proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant this rezoning and accepts the condition, the proffered condition shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: O Gt—I j David A. Hicks By:*Lh'nda-OW�Hic�ks�� Commonwealth of Virginia, Da e iz Date City/County of To Wit: , The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ' 7 day of AL;-� 2006 by jr f�ir t+ � O— -, Q YEA L ',-& 0' .i . k\ � C." 14otary Public My Commission Expires El '."5rrr�'�a.., �' _ .=..-- - -' '" 11 ;".,{ r -r- - .:T• - �:r'.- r �' -'%--_—_- __-._ ,`= - 'i ------ w y • - . y� �,:.; ,-., :� _ ,,. T- -�.. • -} 1 - - -�. - moi. i �'( d _ ��`7�- �'. • � 1 ` } I iyR__ - lit. •�41 - "1�1� w�� . ;_b"— _ a -A3e„y� ALBIN CENTER 19 West Cork Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 ' Architecture D e s i g n Concepts, P. C. RTE 522 ELEVATION Phone: (540) 722-7247 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA Fax: (540) 722-7248 JOB #0514 01/26/06 architect@1 designconcepts.com 4 I 1.: �r>� fSff1! �ttih i �1 'y, 4 UF"''- �� : ► i.1 � . � atci --^i � �''�r a, �.1 C.�f ii 3i . t � —-�.y�..tl �i9 '•=ice' ■L: � 'ply !-6.J \\.• �tLL .�"; �r� � � �Si `: _ q �,}� ,.;:.' �..' \ f� aC� !►": asr� C:i F 1. .- -` r"Li � t ��—,E'... � ,- .i.' +so - ^+.,�x.,.. �,'C,,.ti1i.s�,p .�� - `_ ,_._ 1 7 .' � � ��s�y}, i., � a ` i j � • � _ w � . .� F • ,: tt �: �lr+�lt�R � tis` �' tla[� �{6 , j 1:4-_ y3�� ' \!' �,d i►-'�"i.,9� \: �;,'. �': v ti R� irk � f� � •�. \CC :� $-.a �� 1�°` ' Rata . • 1 Architecture Design Concepts, P.C. ALBIN CENTER RTE 789 ELEVATION WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA JOB #0514 01/26/06 19 Vest Cork Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: (540) 722-7247 Fax: (540) 722-7248 architect@1 designconcepts.com David A. &Linda W Hicks Rezoning Request RA to B2 2.07 Ac. TM # 42-A-249 Located at 354 Bryarly Road, Frederick County Gainesboro Magisterial District Impact Analysis Statement Purpose - The purpose of this rezoning request is to rezone 2.07 Ac. To B2 and construct a two story office building that architecturally fits into the immediate surrounding area. Background - Currently the property consists of a 2.01 Ac. Of mostly open land by deed dated June 24, 2005 and recorded instrument # 050013756 and conveyed to David A. and Linda W. Hicks. Location - The parcel is located on the west side of Rte. 522 (N. Frederick Pike), it also fronts on Bryarly Road (Rte.789). The site is approximately 1/8 of a mile south of the intersection of Burnt Church Road and Rte. 522. Surrounding Properties — The site is bounded by Rte. 522 to the east, Bryarly Road to the west, to the north by RA zoned property with a conditional use permit for a hair salon approximately 40 feet form boundary and by RA zoned property to the south which is vacant land. The nearest residence to the south is approximately 175 feet form boundary. The proposed rezoning would not have any significant affect on adjoining properties, regarding noise, fumes, pollution, odors, glare or other nuisance features. Traffic Impacts- The proposed rezoning of this site for a two story office building of approximately 25,000 SF would result in an increase of 200 to 300 vehicles per day total based on the ITE Trip Generation Book. The 25,000 SF building as shown on attached plans reflects the maximum density for the site at this time, due to required buffers and number of required parking spaces for general office use. The maximum density allowed under the zoning ordinance can not be achieved due to these restrictions and therefore does not apply to the projected vehicle per day count. Currently the plan is proposed with a righ in/ rights out entrance on Bryarly road and a right our, only entrance onto Rte.522. This would allow for vehicles entering the site in the morning with 50% coming form each direction. We expect 90% of all exiting vehicles shall use the right out only entrance onto Rte. 522. Bryarly Road is currently a 20ft. wide pavement section with a speed limit of 45 mph. This road section also currently handles 730 per day according to VDOT & latest traffic study, and would have not trouble handling the increase in traffic flow. We are unaware of any plans by the county or VDOT to widen or otherwise modify the existing road section. RTE. 522 is currently a four lane divided highway with a daily traffic count of VPD 18,000, based on VDOT's latest annual average daily traffic study. Traffic Impacts cont. VDOT has also already stated that they have no objections to either a right out only entrance onto RTE.522, or a tight in / right out entrance provided the proper turn lanes are constructed as shown on attached plan. Sewage Conve ance- The proposed office building would be served by a drainfield of sufficient size to handle the building load. A reserve drainfield site is also being provided. Both drainfield sites have excellent soil characteristics as determined by a local soil scientist, and are currently under review by the Health Department. Drainage - Storm drainage shall be handled by curbs & gutter in association with an underground storm sewer system. Storm Water Management will be handled by the use of an underground detention/ infiltration facility. Water Supply — Water shall be supplied by a well located onsite. Water usage for the proposed office building shall be minimal. Usage will be limited to bathroom usage and the making of coffee, etc. during an average eight hour day. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities — The proposed usage of the site will minimize solid waste to the usual general office type: paper, etc. A screened 10 foot by 10 foot concrete dumpster pad has been provided. Dumpster shall be emptied twice weekly. Historic Sites and Structures - This site is of no known historical interest value and has no historic buildings or other appurtenances located on site. Also, there are no know sites or buildings of any historical significance within the immediate are surrounding the proposed site. Impacts on Community Facilities - The impact of proposed rezoning will be minimal on any community facilities. A) Schools- none B) Police- none C) Fire & Rescue -minimal (volunteer) D) Parks & Recreation- none E) Solid Waste- Minimal (private) Other impacts — There is no other impacts associated with the rezoning request. Proffers — See attached list. Artz & Associates, PLC -16 E. Piccadilly St. Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-3233 FAX -540-667-9188 1 I August 2006 To: Virginia Department of Transportation PO Box 2249 Staunton, VA 24402-2249 RE: Hicks Office II (Albin Center) Frederick County, VA Comments of June 15, 2006: 1. Duly Noted. 2. We would like to pursue a Right In/Right Out Entrance on Rte. 522. We believe that 50% of the patrons using this site will be vehicles heading south into Winchester. The entrance will not create a U-turn problem, because most local traffic will access the site from Bryarly Road. If coming from Winchester they would naturally turn onto Bryarly Road at the light in front of Winchester Equipment. 3. We have no problem eliminating the proposed turn lane on the northbound lanes. We would be willing to upgrade the turn lane at Rte. 789, 4. We have no objection to improving this crossover provided we can obtain a Right In/Right Out entrance onto Rte. 522. By improving the crossover at Rte 789 and eliminating the proposed northbound turn lane, we are channeling the northbound traffic onto Rte. 789 for access to the site. Therefore, there would then be no problem with U-turns and a Right In/Right Out entrance on to Rte 522 should be acceptable. Artz & Associates, PLC 16 F. Piccadilly St. Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-3233 FAX -540-667-9188 August 11, 2006 To: Historic Resources Advisory Board Re: Hicks (Albin Center) 354 Bryarly Road Summary Response Letter 1. Building Layout A. We have reduced the Proffered Square Footage to 25,000 square feet, in order to allow for the final architectural design of the building. B. We have provided architectural renderings that we proffer to general conformance. These renderings clearly show a building with residential flavor and style. Although the Building will be 25,000 square feet, it has many break lines and architectural features that will allow it to blend into the community. However, we cannot limit the size to less than that proposed. We have previously looked at multiple buildings and cannot make that work without building at least four stories per building in order to have adequate parking. 2. Proposed Zoning District A. We believe that with the use's we have proffered out, the B-2 zoning is acceptable. 3. Building Schematic A. We believe that the proposed building will fit nicely into the neighborhood and will add a touch of Old World Brick Charm. Hicks (Albin Center) August 11, 2006 354 Bryarly Road Summary response letter cont 4. Height of Building A. We cannot limit the height of Building to 25 feet due to architectural concerns. 5. Archeological Study A. We Don't believe there is any historical significance associated with this archeological studies. ARTZ & ASSOCIATES, PLC 16 East Piccadilly St. Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-3233 Fax- 540-667-9188 August 2, 2006 To: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Hicks' Office II Comments Frederick County, Virginia Summary Response Letter 1. The entrance on to Bryarly Road is a normal entrance, with all traffic patterns being utilized. 2. Health Dept. certification letter has been provided with this submission. 3. The Stormwater shall be routed to an underground detention facility capable of providing the required 2 yr. and 10 yr. storage requirements; as well as discharging at equal to, or less than the pre development rates. Also, per a previous meeting with Mr. Wilder, it was determined that an Infiltration Pit would be acceptable of the PERC —rate of the soil can be certifies. We intend to provide this information in writing and with certification at the time of site plan submission. 4. Well location has been shown. 5. We have revised this to 25,000 Sq. Ft. to allow for Architectural concerns. ly, i chardson Artz & Associates, PLC 16 E. Piccadilly St. Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-3233 FAX -540-667-9188 August 11, 2006 To: Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Proposed Rezoning of Albin Center Summary Response Letter 1. Duly noted. 2. The landscaping will be per all county ordinances and has been labeled on GDP/ sign location and size is also labeled. 3. We will provide access form Bryarly Road as shown on the GDP. We have also met several times with VDOT regarding access to route 522. Per these meetings with VDOT, it has been determined that VDOT would have no objection to an entrance onto Rte. 522 provided we construct the necessary turn lanes and other improvements. Therefore, we intend to pursue access from Route 522 as well as from Bryarly Road. 4. We have revised the Proffer regarding building square footage to 25,000 square feet. 5. We respectfully disagree that the proposed building will overwhelm the neighboring buildings. The reasons we disagree are as follows: A) The existing building to the North, which is currently being utilized as a commercial business will be separated from our site by our proposed / required Full Screen Buffer "A." Proposed Rezoning of Alban Center Summary Response Letter cont. August 11, 2006 B) The existing residence to the south is already screened from our site by an existing strip of hardwood trees. We are also providing a full screen buffer "B" along this property line. C) There will be additional landscaping provided along our frontage with Bryarly Road. In addition to existing trees to be saved and additional interior planting. D) Therefore, the proposed building will have limited visibility from any of the existing residences. The primary view will be from Rte. 522. 6. We stated that there are no critical areas associated with this site. IE: floodplain, steep topography, wetland etc. 7. We reduced the proffered building square footage to 25,000 Sq. Ft. We are however going to pursue the entrance onto Rte. 522 and stand by our traffic breakdown for the site. 8. General retail is a standard of the zoning ordinance and we cannot see the need to define each and every possibility. 9. Revised terminology to "Floorspace" and reduce proffered area to 25,000 Sq. Ft. Regarding The 3,000 SF, we are requesting a small Deli, Ice cream shop, Pizza shop. 10. We understand your concern regarding the 60 foot height. We do however request U01 a height of X1' to the peak of the roof to allow for architectural concerns as well as to provide the proper astetic building appearance. This requires a steeper roof pitch which adds to the peak height of the building. 11. The title on the renderings has been revised as well as the proffer C (4). 12. We request a sign face of one -hundred square feet and a height on ten feet as allowed with a B-2 Zoning. 13. The exhibit has been Re -titled to generalize development plan and has been tied to the rezoning application thru the proffiers. A note on the plan states that if rezoning is granted, then all zoning and subdivision ordinances shall be observed during the subsequent Site plan submission. 14. All agency comments are included with this submission as well as summary response letters addressing agency comments. 15. The Fire and Rescue Company is Gainesboro. Proposed Rezoning of Alban Center Summary Response Letter August 11, 2006 16. A check in the amount of $3,257.00 has been included with this submission. 17. The name "Alban" has been revised to "Albin". 18. Revised to Artz & Associates for Power of Attorney. 19. Information on parcels #42-A-103 and #42-A-244 for adjoining owners has been provided with this submission. ARTZ & ASSOCIATES, PLC 16. Piccadilly St Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-3233 Fax -667-9188 August 11, 2006 To: Susan K. Eddy, ATCP Senior Planner Frederick County Department& Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Alban Center (Hicks) Proposed Proffer Statement Sununary Response Letter 1. We have revise the Proffer Statement to the format Requested 2. Duly Noted. 3. 60' is allowed in a B-2 Zone for office buildings. 4. We have referenced the rendering as being attached with the proffer. 5. Revised Proffer "D" to read "To Two (2)." 6. Revised Proffer "F" to state that the cash payment will be made at time of the issuance of First Building Permit. 7. We have referenced the GDP in the Proffers and stated general conformance. Respectfully, fl ih Richardson REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Paid �a The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: i Name: AAL—1-Z 5� l4�t� oc//4 i 6`�5 Address: Telephone: 2. Property Owner (if different the above) as-k'�© �•. � �i�ve. ,�,/ Name:rc�s Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone: 7�� Name: Mme/ E gz7 Telephone: t54;�-0 -- 6 la 7 -- z.33 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Plat Deed to property Verification of taxes paid Agency Comments � Fees Impact Analysis Statement i/ 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: "�::> A - - 9 C' i,- -'r� %!-1®s, 4Z C-1-5-57 6. A) Current Use of the Property: kczS .ice:' B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE 5 ^% 411�/-AE7�D /S` - 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): �/ alze-ll Arvv � 12 Page 1 of 1 Parcel Number Owners Name 1 42 A 252/ BARNHART, ELLEN B TRUSTEE 2 42 A 244✓ BARNHART, ELLEN TRUSTEE 3 42 A S0,,_ .✓ ASHALLEN PROPERTIES, LC 4 42 A 33✓ _ WILSON, LEE RITA 5'42 A 91 . WRIGHT-SPINKS, FAYE D 6 42 A 32 MULLEN, MARTIN P & DOROTHY A 7 42 A 102 ✓ BROWN, EITHA MAE 8 42 A 101 ✓ MICHAEL, WANDA L 9 42 .& 109 / MICHAEL, WANDA L 10 42 A 103 ✓ ROBINSON, JAMES D & SHARON V w 11 42 A 104. DILL, JAMES & GLORIA 12 42 A 118 ✓ BAGEANT, REBECCA S 13:42 A I1:3 FADELEY, KAREN K .� 14 42 A 105 KIDWELL, JEREMY M ++� 15 42 A €06 ✓ BETHEL LUTHERAN PARSONAGE 16 42 A 11 / KIDWELL, C ROBERT 17 42_A 116 %/ KIDWELL, C ROBERT e 18 42 A 243 / HESTER, ROBERT H JR ®r 19 42 A 167 ✓ KIDWELL, C ROBERT & BARBARA E 20 42-A 247 HESTER, ROBERT H JR 1 21 42 A 25uA LAIL, GURCHARAN 22'4.2 A 108/ KIDWELL, C ROBERT& BARBARA E 23 42 A 101 ..✓... .. _ FAITH REVIVAL CENTER 24 47 A_246 LINEWEAVER, RONALD L & CHERYL A 25 4'A1 5 L/ . ✓ DAVIS, CHRISTINE ELLEN 26;42 A 24 _ HICKS, DAVID A 27 42 A 279 ✓ ALI, MOHAMMED 28 42 A 2-51 ✓ ALI, MOHAMMED http://gis.co.frederick.va.us/Freeance/Client/PublicAccess 1 /printFrame.html 1/27/2006 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number Magisterial. Fire Service: G, C� Rescue Service;—y^0 Districts High School: Middle School: _ Elementary School: 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres . Current Zoning Zonin a ucsted a7�'� Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: "//a. Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: ! Mobile Home: nt,4 Hotel Rooms: Office: Retail: Restaurant: Square Footage of Proposed Uses 13 Service Station: N Manufacturing: Warehouse: Other: 3, 00 PIZZ-A SNgP 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County board of Supervisors to amPnd the znning ordlnance and M changethe zorlln 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): �� l ��% ��� Date: Owner(s): ' ► /Avt Af>1 Alr- - c, 1101 Date: Date: (� n Date: 4,101a, Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www-co.frederick.va us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Nan1e) (Phone) : �i -T- (Address) the owner(s) of all those tracts r parcels of n("Property') ("Pro ' p y) 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 Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: and is described as Subdivision: (Name) _.. %�r, i' A 5S®G • (Phone) . ��U (, 7 (Address) Ad g, PIC WiljeF• 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 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 2 day of f u fy 200 f' Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/County O&J ® e , 4 a � To -wit: ,o, a NotaryPublic in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personallya peared before me and has acknowledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this ID day of �\ 200. 0-Z° i 4 9 6 (� Oo My Commission Expires. �� o Notary Public NOTES: 1. BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON WAS DETERMINED BY A FIELD RUN SURVEY PERFORMED BY ARTZ & ASSOCIATES ON APRIL 25, 2005. 2. THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 3. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. 4. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1 FOOT. ELEVATIONS ARE ASSUMED. 5. PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING ALL HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS DURING INSTALLATION. RAILROAD SPIKE FOUND V:. e REBAR SET TM #42-A-251 ALI MOHAMMED #050013358 S 7736'50" E _ 780.94' REBAR FOUND LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S 18'09'25" E 76.62' L2 N 30'D7'12" E 57.55' L3 S 70'01'23" E 122.33' L4 S 74'48'00" W 60.39' L5 N B4'45'39" W 85.93' L6 N 78'30'53" E 155.26' L7 N 53'44'24" E 229.79' L8 N B6'47'00" W 177.37' L9 S 03' 13'00" W 146.09' L10 S 86'04'42" E 258.68' L11 N 65'20'46" E 23.19' L12 S 24'44'04" E 39.87' L13 S 68'19'24" W 29.09' L14 N 77'23'50" W 97.35' L15 N 18'51'15" E 35.70' L16 S 76'17'40" E 74.87' L17 S 4449'18" E 72.51' L18 S 16'03'30" E 38.80' TM #42-A-248 ROBERT H. HESTER Jr. & PITA M. KAMLER-HtSTER 843/142 DRAINFIELD LOCATION SURVEY of 2.0475 ACRES GAINE580RO DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: P' = 60' DATE: MAY 25, 2006 PRESENT OWNER: DAVID A. & LINDA W. HICKS TM #42-A-249 IN5T.# 050013756 PROJECT #21261 OF 0 Q MICHAEL M. ARTZ ➢ No. 1951 L=212.27' PROPOSED R=5169.51' DRAINFIELD 0=02.21'10" C LEN=212.26' BRG=S 15'37'57" E 1 COUNTER -CLOCKWISE 2.0475 N ACRES �' 'P ON ON PROPOSED CLASS 38 �_ y w WELL L8 POINT �1 O Q cp (0�- �� VIRGINIA DEPT. OF C� HIGHWAYS MONUMENT FOUND PROPOSED �� DRAINFIELD cP Z16 c9.cpLO L10 \ N 77'2,3'50"W 'S0" 04 ' 316.82' REBAR FOUND TM #42-A-248 ROBERT H. HESTER Jr. & PITA M. KAMLER-HtSTER 843/142 DRAINFIELD LOCATION SURVEY of 2.0475 ACRES GAINE580RO DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: P' = 60' DATE: MAY 25, 2006 PRESENT OWNER: DAVID A. & LINDA W. HICKS TM #42-A-249 IN5T.# 050013756 PROJECT #21261 OF 0 Q MICHAEL M. ARTZ ➢ No. 1951 a • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner RE: Enhancement Grant Application DATE: September 1, 2006 County Staff has been working to refine an application for a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Enhancement Grant for the current application cycle. Enhancement Grants are federal funds that are awarded by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on an annual basis for improvements to bicycle and pedestrian transportation. This is a grant with a local match component of 20% of the awarded amount. As is the case with many VDOT grant programs the application process itself does not obligate County funds. In the event that the County receives an award, the Board of Supervisors would determine at that time whether to commit funds, with the hope that private funds would be available to cover the match requirement. For this year's application cycle, staff has recommended an application for enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. The proposed project would add paved multiuse paths to the northern and southern sides of Senseny Road between Meade Dr. and Williamson Rd. The project would also include improvements to the crossovers of roadways traversed by the paths and an additional crossover of Senseny Road at Senseny Elementary. Attached, please find a graphic depicting the project area. This project would serve as an important cornerstone for a future pedestrian and bicycle system extending further East along Senseny Road and into the City of Winchester. The Transportation Committee considered this proposal at their August 28, 2006 meeting and unanimously endorsed the grant application effort. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #11-06 FREEDOM MANOR Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: August 31, 2006 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, Planner II This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 09/20/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 10/11/06 Pending LOCATION: The property fronts on the east side of Paper Mill Road (Route 644), approximately 2,300 feet west/northwest of the intersection of Papermill Road and Front Royal Pike (Route 522). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Vacant ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES: North: RP (Residential Performance) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Vacant/Agricultural Use: Shenandoah Memorial Park Use: Residential Use: Agricultural PROPOSED USE: 70 Single Family Detached Urban Residential Units on 26.87 acres. MDP #11-06, Freedom Manor August 31, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The Master Plan for this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 644 and Route 522, the VDOT facilities which would provide access to the property. The proposed Master Development Plan appears acceptable, provided the following conditions are addressed: All roads with an anticipated ADT of over 400 ADT will require a face of curb to face of curb measurement of a minimum of 36 feet. With the possible extension of Liberty Drive to the north, the pavement section should be increased to meet the potentially increased traffic load. Sidewalks should be a minimum of five feet wide. 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: The revisions provided on June 14, 2006 have addressed all of our June 2, 2006 comments. Therefore, we grant our approval of the subject MDP. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick Countv Inspections Department: No comments required at this time. Frederick County — Winchester Health Department: Health Department has no objection if public water and sewer utilized. GIS Department: Equity Drive, Alliance Way, and Ratification Court road names have been approved and added into the Frederick County. Liberty Drive is being denied as a duplication already in the system. A new name will have to be provided for review. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed Master Development Plan for Freedom Manor and it appears that the proposed rezoning request for residential will not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. However, this proposed site does lie within airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport and residents in that area may experience noise from over flights of aircraft arriving to and departing from the Winchester Regional Airport. Potential homeowners should be forewarned about the proximity to the Winchester Airport. Department of Parks and Recreation: Plan appears to meet open space requirements and includes an appropriate monetary proffer to offset the impact the residents of this development will have on the recreational services offered by the Parks and Recreation Department. _Corps of Engineers Field Approved Jurisdictional Determination: This serves as a field approved jurisdictional determination that waters of the United States (including wetlands) are present on this property. Our basis for this determination is the application of the Corps' 1987 MDP #11-06, Freedom Manor August 31, 2006 Page 3 Wetland Delineation Manual and the positive indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. The wetland is a waters of the United States and is part of a tributary system to interstate waters (33 CFR 328.3(a)). These waters meet the Corps' definition of waters of the United States and are part of a tributary system to interstate waters (33 CFR 328.3(a)) and have an ordinary high water mark (or high tide line). We agree with the wetland delineation described in the letter and plans dated April 3, 2006. Planning & Zoning: A) Master Development Plan Requirement A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. B) Location The property fronts on the east side of Papermill Road (Route 644), approximately 2,300 feet west/northwest of the intersection of Papermill Road and Front Royal Pike (Route 522). C) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies this property 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 September 14, 2005, Rezoning Application RZ05-05, Freedom Manor, was approved by the Board of Supervisors. This application rezoned the 26.87 acre parcel from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers to accommodate 70 single family units. D) Intended Use 70 Single Family Detached Urban Residential Units E) Site Suitability & Proiect Scope Comprehensive Policy Plan: MDP # 11-06, Freedom Manor August 31, 2006 Page 4 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 GF Chic nlan is within �r dder ck- t.._._ t0 protect and improve me living enVlTGiu'"ilciit wi�iilii i ieu�ii�.n 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 Compatibility: The parcel comprising this rezoning application is located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, the Freedom Manor property is located within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan does not specifically identify a future land use for this site. Environment: There are approximately .35 acres of wetlands/pond present on the site. This area is intended to be converted to a stormwater management facility. Any disturbance of this area will be in conformance with Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality permitting procedures. No other environmental features exist on this property. Transportation: The Master Development Plan for Freedom Manor delineates the general public road systems that will serve the residential development (same as shown on GDP from rezoning). The applicant has designed the public road system to discourage cut through traffic between Front Royal Pike and Papermill Road. A traffic calming measure is being provided on Equity Drive which provides access to the development from Route 522 to further facilitate this approach. The road layout has also been designed to provide for a future connection to the adjoining property to the north, PIN 64-A-19. The MDP delineates the location of a temporary cul- de-sac which will become a connection into the adjacent parcel should it develop in the future. Proffers: The following list is a summary of the proffered conditions associated with the approved Rezoning #9-05 (Dated May 28, 2005 and Revised July 15, 2006): Generalized Development Plan • The applicant proffered to develop the property in substantial conformity with the GDP. Residential Use Restriction • The applicant proffered that development of the property is limited single family detached urban residences. • The site is limited to 70 dwelling units on the property. MDP #11-06, Freedom Manor August 31, 2006 Page 5 Transportation • Primary access to the site shall be off of Papermill Road and a secondary entrance shall be provided on Route 522. Off site improvements on 64 -A -23A (Casey) shall be constructed to 'case asphalt and open for public use prior to the first building permit. The applicants shall also provide for a temporary cul-de-sac at the northern property boundary to allow for future inter -parcel connection to 64- A-19. • A traffic calming measure shall be implemented (choker) on the Route 522 connection to discourage cut through traffic between Route 522 and Papermill Road. A right turn and taper lane shall also be provided at the entrance on Route 522. • The applicants proffered that no connection will be made to Westwood Drive. • Twenty feel of ROW will be dedicated along Papermill Road. • The contribution of $7,500 per unit is proffered for offsite road improvements to Papermill Road. This monetary contribution shall be eligible for a revenue sharing project. Shenandoah Memorial Park Buffer • A 50' buffer shall be provided along the entire southern property line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park. Lots shall not be within this buffer, a fence (resembling iron type) will be provided, a bicycle/pedestrian trail will be located within the buffer and a single row of evergreen trees will be provided. Papermill Road Efficiency Buffer Easement & Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility • A 20' easement for the development of a bicycle/pedestrian facility will be provided along Papermill Road. • A 10' asphalt bicycle/pedestrian facility will be constructed within the 20' easement. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development • $9,845 per residential unit that is platted STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 09/20/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The preliminary master development plan for Freedom Manor depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. The preliminary master development plan is also in accordance with the proffers of the rezoning and has addressed all of staffs concerns. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this MDP conformance with County codes and review agency comments. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Zoning M2 (IntlusUial, General --o-..Z-' Bt (Business, -ghbathootl pisbicl) MH, (Mobile Home Community pislnct) B2 (Business. General pistrlcl) Ms (Metlical Snngntl pistrict) ® n (Business, Industrial Transition pistrict) ' R4 (Resitlential, Planned Community District) EM (Ertraceve Manufacturing pistrict) ' R5 (Resitlenlial Reueational Community pi—f) HE (Higher Education pistrict) R (Rural Areas pistrict) yy� sG.J M1 (IntlusVial. Light M-1) RP (Residential Performance pistrict) 0 125 250 500 Feet � 5 1 c 1 Xa Awe�oakcaeon Bwe�ngs Road Centerlines © Lakesmona ICP. Tanks sews ary ��I uan +�-Streams QPa'@ I,. Hans MDP#11 -06 Freedom Manor Aerial Map (64-A-23) 0 125 250 500 Feet Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION MASTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AUG 22000 Department of Planning and Development Use Only. Date application received. Application # Complete. Date of acceptance Incomplete. Date of return 1. Project Title: Freedom Manor 2. Owner's Name Steve A. DeBrueler, et als (540) 667-7071 158 Front Royal Pike Winchester, VA 22602 (Please list name of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: Steve A. DeBrueler, et als Address: 158 Front Royal Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Phone Number: 540-667-7071 4. Design Company: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Phone Number: 540-662-4185 Contact Name: Evan A. Wyatt, AICP 11 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package 5. Location of Property Fronting on the east side of Papermill Road (Route 644), approximately 2,300 feet west-northwest of the intersection of Papermill Road and Front Royal Pike (Route 522) 6. Total Acreage: 26.87 acres 7. Property Information a) Property Identification Number (PIN) b) Current Zoning: c) Present Use: d) Proposed Uses: e) Adjoining Property Information: TM 64-((A))-23 I' ' Unimproved Single family homes Property Identification Numbers Property Uses North 63-((A))-146 single family 64-((2))-D single family 64-((2))-D2 single family 64-((A))-19 agricultural 64D -((1B)) -A single family 64D -((2A))-1 single family 64D -((2A))-2 single family 64D -((2A))-3 single family 64D -((2A))-4 single family 64D -((2A))-5 single family 64D -((2A))-6 single family 64D-((4))-1 single family 64D-((4))-2 single family 64D-((4))-3 single family 64D-((4))-4 single family 64D -((A))-27 single family 64D -((A))-28 single family South 64-((3))-A 64-((3A))-1 East 64D -((A3))-30 64 -((A)) -23A West 64-((A))-24 f) Magisterial District: commercial cemetary funeral home single family vacant comm/res. structure single family Shawnee 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original ® Amended ❑ 12 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package 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: — /?al b C: 13 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Adjoining Property Owners MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Owners cf property adjcinirg the lard will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property -directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number, which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the I st floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street. NAME ADDRESS / PROPERTY NUMBER Thomas W. & Mabel L. Breedlove 63-((A))-146 3575 Papermill Road Winchester, VA 22602 Dave Holiday Construction, Inc. 64-((2))-D P.O. Box 2715 Winchester, VA 22604 Jose D. Hernandez 64-((2))-D2 800 National Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Shenandoah Memorial Park, Inc 64-((3))-A1 155 Rittenhouse Circle Bristol, PA 19007 JUCAPA 64-((3))-A1 1600 Amherst Street Winchester, VA 22602 Steve A. DeBrueler, et als 64-((A))-19 1686 S Pleasant Valley Road Winchester, VA 22601 Robin Casey-Wilisch 64 -((A)) -23A 21 Peyton Street Winchester, VA 22601 Paul M. Haldeman, Jr BB&T Trust 64-((A))-24 38 Rouss Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Robert O. & Mildred L. Detlefsen 64D -((1)) -(B) -A 207 Westwood Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Robert M. & Patsy O. Largent 64D -((2))-(A)-1 141 Westwood Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Jeffrey B. & Brenda S. Dodd 64D-((2))-2 155 Westwood Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Raymond N. & E. Jean Mayhew 64D -((2))-(A)-3 366 Singhass Road Winchester, VA 22602 Barbara L. Midkiff 64D -((2))-(A)-4 179 Westwood Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Paul D. & Willene C. Brooks 64D -((2))-(A)-5 224 Quail Run Lane Winchester, VA 22602 19 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Johnny H. Anderson. 64D -((2))-(A)-6 197 Westwood Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Robert P. & Dorothy E. El liott 64D-((4))-1 1215 Front Royal Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Elwood H. & Turessa K. Fox 64D-((4))-2, 3, 4 1231 Front Royal Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Louise Craig Madigan, et als 64D -((A))-27,28 1154 Front Royal Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Ann S. Cross 64D -((A))-30 1170 Front Royal Pike Winchester, VA 22602 20 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 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) Steve A. DuBrueler (Phone) (540) 667-7071 (Address) 1686 S. Pleasant Valley Road, 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. 030029417 on Page 23 _ A ParcelgA_otX_rDlock: _lection: _ 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 ® Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ 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 Signature(s our) hand and seal this 3o day of -v"N . 2006 State of Virginia, Cit /County f Frederick, To -wit: I-DY09 L-° W ;oa 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 me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this � day of , 2006. My Commission Expires: i-t'�vyey2r Z��, ZCX58 Notary Public • C • TO: FROM: RE: DATE: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM Frederick County Planning Commission Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator /1,'1 - Discussion: Changes to Section 165-55 of the Zoning Ordinance Building Setbacks in the RA Zoning District August 31, 2006 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) reviewed and discussed proposed changes to Section 165-55 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance at its meeting on July 27, 2006. This section of the zoning ordinance addresses building setbacks in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. The DRRS felt the existing ordinance warrants improved clarification and setback distances than is currently provided. Furthermore, these ordinance revisions would clear up any confusion regarding adjoining land uses and avoid conflicts with active agriculture uses. These proposed ordinance changes would also apply to family division lots; as currently written, family lots need only 50 foot side and rear setbacks regardless of the adjoining uses. These changes will not affect front setbacks. Attached are the: Proposed ordinance amendment (Attachment #1); Illustrated changes resulting from the proposal (Attachment #2); Existing ordinance (Attachment 43). This proposed ordinance amendment is presented as a discussion item to enable the Planning Commission to raise issues and seek clarification. Staff will be available to respond to your questions. Comments raised during this discussion will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Staff will be available to respond to your questions. Attachments MRC/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Attachment 91 Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment - New text (Building Setbacks in the RA Zoning District) ' 165-55. Setback requirements The following setback requirements shall apply to all parcels within the RA Rural Areas Zoning District. A. Traditional five -acre lots. Setbacks from tradition five -acre lots shall be as set out below. (1) Front setbacks. The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure located on a traditional five -acre lot shall be 60 feet from the property line or right-of-way of the street, road or ingress/egress easement. (2) Side or rear setbacks. The minimum side or rear setback for any principal use or structure shall be determined by the primary use of the adjoining parcel as follows: Adjoining Land Use ResidentialNacant Agriculture Orchard Setback (Side and Rear) (feet) 50 100 200 C. Existing dwellings. The side and rear setbacks for any lot created around an existing dwelling or family division lot shall be 50 feet from all lot lines. Attachment 42 Propose /Zoning Ordinance Limen raent - Illustrated changes (Building Setbacks in the RA Zoning District) Existing/unchanged text is shown without font effects Deleted text is shewa with s4iikegffeug New text is shown in bold italics ' 165-55. Setback requirements The following setback requirements shall apply to all parcels within the RA Rural Areas Zoning District. A. Traditional five -acre lots and Family Division lots. Setbacks from tradition five -acre lots and family division lots shall be as set out below. (1) Front setbacks. The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure located on a traditional five -acre lot shall be 60 feet from the property line or right-of-way of the street, road or ingress/egress easement. (2) Side or rear setbacks. The minimum side or rear setback for any principal use or structure shall be determined by the primary use of the adjoining parcel as follows: Setback Adjoining Land Use (Side and Rear) (feet) c esideiiig6vaeaii* cn A g tthu al 1 nn Ofehar-d 2000 S acres of less 50 Residential) Agriculture/Vacant 6 acres of more 100 Orchard 200 Attachment #3 § 165-54 ZONING § 165-55 hearing, the Board of Supervisors may release the parcel from the restrictions of Subsection D(1) through the process of rezoning, provided that the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any forty - percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or is included within the UDA as a result of a future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten-year restriction on rezoning. § 165-55. Setback requirements. [Amended 12-11-1991; 6-9-19931 The following setback requirements shall apply to all parcels within the RA Rural Areas Zoning District. A. Traditional five -acre lots. Setbacks from traditional five -acre lots shall be as set out below. (1) Front setbacks. The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure located on a traditional five -acre lot shall be 60 feet from the property line or right-of-way of the street, road or ingress/egress easement. (2) Side or rear setbacks. The minimum side or rear setback for any principal use or structure shall be determined by the primary use of the adjoining parcel as follows: Adjoining Land Use Residential/vacant Agricultural Orchard Setback (Side and Rear) (feet) 50 100 200 B. Rural preservation lots. The minimum setbacks from rural preservation lot lines which adjoin other rural preservation lots shall be as set out below. Side and rear setbacks from rural preservation lot lines which adjoin any parcel other than another rural preservation lot shall be determined by § 165-55A(2) of this chapter. (1) Front setback. The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure shall be 60 feet from the right-of-way of any 16577 10-20-2002 § 165-55 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-57 existing state -maintained road and 45 feet from the right-of-way of any existing private ingress/egress easement or state - maintained road constructed to serve the subdivision. (2) Side setback. No principal use or structure shall be located closer than 15 feet from any side lot line. (3) Rear setback. No principal use or structure shall be located closer than 40 feet from any rear lot line. C. Existing dwellings. The side or rear setbacks for any lot created around an existing dwelling or any family division lot shall be 50 feet from all lot lines. [Amended 9-25-20021 D. Accessory uses. The minimum setback for any accessory use or structure shall be 15 feet from any side or rear property line of a traditional five -acre lot or any side or rear property line of a rural preservation lot. § 165-56. Minimum width; maximum depth. [Amended 9-12-1990; 12-11-1991 A. Minimum width. The minimum width for rural preservation lots fronting on roads proposed for dedication shall be 200 feet at the front setback, with the exception of lots fronting on the turnaround of a cul- de-sac, which shall have a minimum width at setback of 100 feet. The minimum width for all other lots shall be 250 feet at the front setback line. B. Maximum depth. The maximum depth of any lot shall not exceed four times its width at the front setback line. § 165-57. Height restriction. No structure shall exceed 35 feet in height. (Cont'd on page 16579) 16578 10-20-2002