Loading...
PC 04-06-05 Meeting AgendaFILE, COPY AGENT FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia APRIL 6, 2005 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) March 2, 2005 Minutes...................................................................................................(A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Code Amendment — Frederick County Code, Article VI, Chapter 165, RP Residential Performance District, Section 63, Open Space Requirements. This amendment would enable a reduction in the required open space when enhanced recreation improvements are provided. Mr.Lawrence................................................................................................................... (B) 5) Conditional Use Permit #02-05 of Horizon Holdings, LLC for a Landscape Business. This property is located at 3636 Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and is identified with Property Identification Number 87-A-88 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Mr. Sowers...................................................................................................................... (C) 6) Rezoning #03-05 for North Stephenson, Inc., submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 79.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to Ml (Light Industrial) District. These properties front on the east side of Martinsburg Pike (Route I 1 North) just north of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off -ramp, and immediately northeast of Redbud Road (Route 661), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 43-A-150; 43-A-151; 43 -A -151A; 43-A-152; 43C-3-2; 43C- 3-3; 43C-3-4; 43C -3-4A; 43C-3-5; and 43C -3-7A. Mr.Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (D) PUBLIC MEETING 7) Master Development Plan #06-05 for Meadows Edge (previously called Racey Tract), submitted by Christopher Consultants, Ltd., for 228 Single Family Detached Dwelling Units. The property is located east of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), east of Town Run Lane (Route 1012), adjacent to the existing Woodside Estates and Ridgefield Subdivisions, and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-140, in the Opequon Magisterial District. Ms. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (E) DISCUSSION 8) Eastern Road Plan. Proposed amendment to the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan to alter the Eastern Road Plan. Changes include roads and proposed roads between Berryville Pike (Route 7) and Senseny Road (Route 657), east of Greenwood Road (Route 656). The alterations are in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Mrs. Eddy........................................................................................................................ (F) 9) Other MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 worth hent Street in Winchester, Virginia on March 2, 2005 PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Candice Perkins, Planner; David M. Beniamino, Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes of January 19, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes of February 2, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee — 03/01/05 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee considered a revision to the Eastern Road Plan and approved what was put forth. He said the Planning Commission will be receiving the plan Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1466 Minutes of March 2, 2005 2 L[I W F V -2— sometime in the near future for their consideration. Winchester Planning Commission Chairman DeHaven stated that Mr. David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison, was kind enough to share the 2005 Work Program and Annual Report Summary for the City of Winchester. Chairman DeHaven said that he would share this information with the rest of the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #25-04 of Dean A. Harvey for a Cottage Occupation Office Use and Off -Premise Business Sign at 4784 Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522 South). The properties are identified with P.IN.s 94A -1- 114A (cottage occupation) and 94A-1-2-7 (off -premise sign) in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner David M. Beniamino reported that the proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application is for a cottage occupation to accommodate an office use for a home -restoration business, as well as an off -premise sign for the cottage occupation. Planner Beniamino stated that the proposed cottage occupation would occur at the applicant's residence, with no other structures associated with this CUP located on site; and, only one employee associated with the use will be on the site at any one time. Planner Beniamino reported that the applicant is also requesting a four -by -ten (40 square -foot) sign to be placed on the property that abuts Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522) and is directly in front of the property requested for the cottage occupation. Planner Beniamino noted that the Zoning Ordinance gives cottage occupation applicants the ability to request a four- square foot sign. He said that since there will be no customers coming to the site of the cottage occupation, the staff would not support a sign that is in excess of the four-square feet permitted. Planner Beniamino continued, stating that on February 28, 2005, the applicant, Mr. Dean Harvey, applied for a building permit for a 900 square -foot garage to be placed on the site; there is already an existing 700 square -foot garage on the property. Planner Benianuno stated that should this cottage occupation be recommended for approval, the staff would support an additional requirement that this new structure should not be associated in any way with the cottage occupation. He next read the list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Referring to the application form, Commissioner Morris said the applicant has stated that the business has three full-time employees and five trucks. Planner Beniaminio responded that his understanding is that Mr. Harvey is running an office use with one employee, a secretary, out of the home; however, all of the activity associated with his home restoration business is located off site and none of the employees come to Mr. Harvey's property. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1467 Minutes of March 2, 2005 D N p r V -3 - Commissioner Straub asked for the anticipated location for the proposed 900 square -foot garage and Planner Beniamino pointed out the location on a map. Commissioner Straub wanted to know what the applicant planned to use the garage for. Mr. Dean A. Harvey, the applicant, said that he was seeking to have a larger sign for better exposure since the house sits so far back . Mr. Harvey said the site is along the highway and there are signs of comparable size on both sides of him. Mr. Harvey said the 900 square -foot garage is for his vehicle, his wife's vehicle, and two lawn tractors. Mr. Harvey added that the 500 square -foot building on the left-hand side of the house will be tom down. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Members of the Commission believed the proposed use was appropriate and should not create any significant impacts to adjoining properties; however, they were not in favor of allowing a larger sign than what is permitted by the zoning ordinance for cottage occupations. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 425-04 of Dean A. Harvey for a cottage occupation office use and off - premise business sign at 4784 Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522 South). The following conditions apply to the cottage occupation office use for a home -restoration business: (Applicable to PIN 94A -1-11-4A) 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than five customers at any one time on the site. 3. Any proposed business signs shall conform to the cottage occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four square -feet in size. 4. No more than one employee vehicle and one company vehicle will be parked on site at any one time. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new conditional use permit. (Applicable to PIN 94A-1-2-7) The following conditions apply to the cottage occupation's off -premise sign: 1. Sign shall not exceed four square -feet in area, per Section 165-30(H)2 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. 2. The sign shall only be utilized in association with the cottage occupation on PIN 94A -1-11-4A. Before this sign may be constructed, a sign permit shall be obtained from the Frederick County Building Official. (Commissioner Thomas was absent from the meeting.) Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1468 Minutes of March 2, 2005 0 0 n F Y -4 - PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #03-05 of Whitehall Commerce Center, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., a division of Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, PC, for commercial and industrial uses located east and adjacent to the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) and Rest Church Road (Rt. 669). This property is further identified with P.I.N.s 34-A-2 and 34-A-4 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Commissioner Light said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this master development plan, due to a possible conflict of interest. Planner Candice E. Perkins reported the proposal is to develop 112 acres of land, zoned Ml (Light Industrial) and B2 (Business General) with commercial and industrial land uses. Planner Perkins believed the master development plan (MDP) was generally consistent with the approved rezoning and the generalized development plan (GDP) submitted with the rezoning. She next reviewed the proffers that were made at the time of the rezoning of this property. Planner Perkins noted that there are some minor concerns, however, that remain. First, the southern commercial entrance is proffered to be a right-inhight-out only; in order to promote a safe entrance, staff believes that a median should be implemented on Rt. 11 to prohibit inappropriate left -turn movements. Second, per comments from the Public Works Department, the MDP should include sinkholes, wetlands, and natural retention areas in its analysis of existing environmental features. Recognizing the existing traffic signal at Rest Church Road and Rt. 11, Commissioner Straub inquired if an additional signal was planned for the Woodbine Road/ Rt. 11 intersection. She also asked for the distance between the two intersections and if any improvements were planned for the Woodbine intersection. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., a division of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC, the design engineers for the project, stated that there is about 1,600 feet or one-quarter mile between the two intersections mentioned by Commissioner Straub. Regarding the sinkholes and wetlands, he stated that a broad examination of the site is done at the MDP stage; however, the proffers indicate that a complete geotechnical analysis will be done on every site and submitted to the County at the site plan stage. He said that each individual industrial site will prepare its own geotechnical analysis. Commissioner Gochenour pointed out the comments from the Public Works Department requesting that obvious sinkholes be accurately delineated during the MDP phase of the project to avoid locating roads and stormwater management facilities in these areas. She said that in addition, the Public Works Department requested a detailed wetlands study be performed to accurately delineate these areas and the results should be tabulated under the environmental features listing shown on the preliminary MDP. Commissioner Gochenour also inquired about the proposed location for Business Boulevard. Mr. Maddox said that after the approval of their MDP and the establishment of uses on the site, sink hole remediation plans will be submitted to the County prior to applications for building permits. Regarding Business Boulevard, Mr. Maddox explained that until they do the site plans, they will not have enough Fredrick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 2, 2005 Page 1469 -5 - information to fix the location for Business Boulevard. He said that they have shown a connection from Rt. l l to Woodbine for continuity purposes. Commissioner Unger asked for clarification of the issue with the southern entrance. Mr. Maddox replied that they have agreed the entrance will be a right-in/riQht-out only and controls will be built into the entrance to ensure this takes place. He said the staff is seeking a decision to use a raised concrete median in Rt. 11; however, that decision will have to be made by VDOT during the facility design phase of development. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Regarding the debate on when sinkholes and wetlands need to be identified, Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that the zoning ordinance requires that sinkholes and wetlands be identified on the MDP and a detailed analysis is conducted at the site plan stage to show how these areas will be addressed Therefore, he believed the County Engineer's comment was accurate and the delineation of those environmental features needs to be indicated on the MDP before approval signatures can be provided. In light of the Planning Director's comments, Mr. Maddox said that they have no problem delineating those environmental features on the MDP and they will do so. However, the detailed geologic and geotechnical studies will come at the final plat stage. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Master Development Plan 903-05 of Whitehall Commerce Center, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., a division of Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, PC, for commercial and industrial uses located east and adjacent to the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) and Rest Church Road (Rt. 669) by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, DeHaven, Morris, Unger, Watt NO: Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN: Light (Commissioner Thomas was absent from the meeting.) Master Development Plan 904-05 for Kernstown Commons, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, a division of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC, for commercial use. This property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Rt. 11 and Rt. 37 in Kernstown. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 75-A-10 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that this Master Development Plan (MDP) is a proposal to develop approximately 31 acres of existing B2 (Business General) land with commercial land uses. Planner Perkins stated that this property was depicted with 132 Zoning on the original Frederick County Zoning Maps and, Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1470 Minutes of March 2, 2005 P R flA Z. therefore, does not have any proffers associated with it. She next reviewed some outstanding issues that the staff believes still remain: Medians - the site's proximity to I-81 and its gateway status suggests that this property should contain landscaped medians to divide Route 11. She said that while this section of Rt. 11 currently contains grass medians, this project proposes to remove them to expand Rt. 11. Corridor Design Standards - this property is idcntif ed as being located within a business corridor by the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan and the plan envisions a planted median strip when Rt. I I South becomes four lanes. Ms. Perkins said that by removing the median strips from Rt. 11, this MDP is not in conformance with the policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Planner Perkins stated that it would be appropriate for the applicant to work with Frederick County and VDOT to ensure that planted median strips remain in the center of Rt. 11; this could possibly be accomplished by the applicant providing additional right-of-way on the site to accommodate both the widening of Rt. 11, as well as the preservation of the existing median strips. In addition, the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for the use of extensive setbacks and monumental signs along Rt. 11. She said it would be appropriate to limit the height of signs and incorporate only monumental -style signs, and to utilize additional landscaping and berms, architectural standards, and increased parking lot screening. Limited Access Break - the MDP depicts two full commercial entrances and one right-in/right-out. The applicant is still working with VDOT to get approval for a limited access break for the two northernmost entrances due to the proximity to the interchange. Ms. Perkins said the staff could potentially support the access break for the northernmost full entrance because it seems like a logical location for a gateway into the County. However, the right-in/right-out at this point, is not supported. The support for the break in access for the full entrance would be contingent upon VDOT's final decision regarding this entrance. She said the staff would like to point out that the support of this break access should ensure that the applicant incorporates the visions of the Comprehensive Policy Plan in this MDP and the development of the site. Private Road Network - this development is proposing to utilize a private road network. Ms. Perkins stated that if any subdivision of lots is to occur, a waiver to allow commercial lots to be accessed by a private road must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Interstate Area Overlayy Signs - the MDP states that interstate overlay signs shall be allowed. Ms. Perkins stated that it should be clarified on the plan that only one sign is permitted for the entire site. Stormwater Pond - the stormwater pond for the development is located within the limits of use for I-81. Ms. Perkins said the staff believes the location for the pond is inappropriate and the limited use for 1-81 should remain vacant. She noted that this pond could potentially be eliminated when the interchange is improved and she encouraged the applicant to plan for a logical place of relocation for the pond. Limited Use of 1-81 - the limited use for I-81 should not contain any features or structures, which also includes signs and buildings. Ms. Perkins said that a note should be placed on the MDP to this affect. IntgMarcel Connector - an inter -parcel connector should be provided to the adjacent Miller -Honda site to provide for future potential improvements. Landscaping Along 1=81 - additional landscaping should be utilized along 1-81 to screen any loading areas or equipment from 1-81. Waterline to Miller -Honda property - the water service will be provided to the site via an existing eight -inch water main located on the west side of Rt. 11. Ms. Perkins said the site will not utilize water lines shown on the adjacent Miller property as suggested on the MDP. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1471 Minutes of March 2, 2005 Rn- � -7— Planning Director Eric Lawrence stated that the list of issues raised by Planner Perkins was provided to the applicant by letter in June of 2004. Director Lawrence said that when the MDP was submitted two weeks ago, none of the items were addressed. He said that while the staff recognizes the importance of this location from a commerce perspective, it is a gateway into the community and offers an opportunity to implement some of the corridor design standards identified by the County. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, a division of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC, the design engineers for the project, stated that this site has been zoned for many years, dating back to the early 70s or 80s. Mr. Maddox said they have been working closely with VDOT and are conducting a full transportation impact analysis (TIA) of the project. He noted that they are seeking a limited access break by lining up the entrance to this project across from the ramp entrance from Rt. 37 to Rt. 11, but the decision had to be postponed by VDOT past the MDP stage, due to the long-range planning issues involving I-81 and the Rt. 37 interchange. He said the plan before the Commission tonight will work with a single entrance; however, they will continue to apply for the second entrance, which will ultimately be the primary entrance into this site. Mr. Maddox next proceeded to address the issues raised by the staff. Referring to the median issue, Mr. Maddox said they are continuing to examine this situation and if the median is possible to implement, they will do so. He said that the initial analysis, however, indicates that, with the number of lanes and lane transitions required for safe passage through this area by the traveling public, coupled with the gap distance of the bridge over Rt. 11, it may not be possible to incorporate grass medians without major transformation of the bridge system and other issues. He believed the issue will continue to surface in this corridor where specific recommendations have been made for beautification and, ultimately, VDOT's design approval will deal with this issue. Mr. Maddox believed the solution would involve undertaking an engineering study with VDOT, which would be incorporated into the Six -Year Plan and approved everyyear. Mr. Maddox said that if there are specific primary corridors the County wants to protect and to incorporate medians, then the engineering necessary to implement those should be done before an applicant comes in with a plan. It is the applicant's responsibility then, to make the plan work as best he can; he said this was currently being done on Rt. 277. Mr. Maddox said that in all likelihood, the horizontal and vertical design requirements of VDOT, will predict what actually occurs there. Referring to the extensive setbacks issue, Mr. Maddox said that one of the early site plans created for the property indicated setbacks for structures off of the right-of-way line in the 75 -85 -foot range, which exceeds the 50 feet. He added that they were not proffering more than the 50 -foot setback required by the B2 ordinance requirements. Regarding the private road system, Mr. Maddox said that VDOT's program is aimed at maintaining and owning roads within residential subdivisions. He said the subdivision of a commercial site on a private street, which is governed by a commercial property owners association, seems to be an acceptable way to accommodate this. He noted that the costs are not directly placed on VDOT or the County to service the street. Mr. Maddox stated that the MDP indicates that Interstate Area Overlay signs shall be allowed, and they will specifically indicate on the MDP that only one sign is permitted on the entire site. Regarding the proposed location for the storm water pond and the pump station, Mr. Maddox responded that they have accepted the 1999 consultant's recommendations for the improvements of I-81 and the Rt. 37 interchange, which includes the complete reconstruction of that interchange. He said that all bridges are to be removed and new collector/distributor lanes are to be constructed, both east and west of I-81 and north and south of Rt. 37, with a cloverleaf connecting the collectors and distributors. Mr. Maddox said that the owners Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1472 Minutes of March 2, 2005 1�a�� am have agreed that this land should be shown on the plan and everything possible done to stay out of that area with fixed facilities and structures that may impede interchange improvements. Mr. Maddox said that it was certainly within the owners' right, however, to use this area for storm water management and other non-structural uses. Mr. Maddox next addressed the staff s comment regarding the suggested inter -parcel connector to the adjacent Miller -Honda site. Mr. Maddox described the Miller -Honda site as a primary -focused, used -car lot, while the applicant's proposal is a life-style center with traffic moving in several directions. Mr. Maddox agreed to work with staff on the connector issue, but he was not sure how it would work. With respect to staff's comments, Chairman DeHaven stated that he would not want to force an inter -parcel connector on the adjacent Miller site, whose owner had a long-established business, using the site the best they saw fit; he also pointed out that the site was curb and guttered. Chairman DeHaven believed the connection would have to happen at the request of the Millers. Mr. Maddox continued, stating that the site's primary water feed will come from across Rt. 11, which is where the staff recommended it should come from, and it will be looped for hydraulic efficiency. Chairman DeHaven suggested that any speculative connections not be placed on the plan. Commissioner Straub stated that as this site is being developed, she hoped that alternate design standards would be incorporated that would reflect the heritage standards of the community. Commissioner Moms suggested that the inter -parcel connector might provide an alternative method of accessing the property for fire and rescue purposes. In addition, he stressed the importance ofcorridor appearance and he believed the County was quickly losing opportunities to accommodate corridor appearance. Commissioner Morris said that the median issue is strictly one of corridor appearance and if it turns out that the median would have to be removed because of extensive setbacks, he would be willing to compromise on the setback distances in order to keep the median. He was in favor of allowing flexibility in the process to provide corridor appearance. Commissioner Morris further added that none of the TIAs incorporates I-81; he asked how the traveling public will exit I-81, in relation to Rt. 37 and Rt. 11, to get to a motel or restaurant Chairman DeHaven expressed concern about the possibility of having seven to eight lanes without any restriction and he believed a median would supply that safety measure, especially with the traveling public who may not be familiar with the local traffic patterns. He said that if the only compelling issue is the proximity of bridge, then perhaps more creative approaches need to be studied for a main entrance that could possibly provide distance and greater flexibility. Mr. Lloyd Ingram, VDOT representative, came forward to answer questions from the Commission. In reply to Commissioner Morris' observations, Mr. Ingram said that VDOT is utilizing 8% by- pass traffic in the TIA. He said that the 8% (1,500-1,600 trips per day) is incorporated in the total number, however, the exit ramps are not identified. He said the TIA was extensive; it included the Artrip property and as far south as Wakeland Manor. Mr. Ingram stated that there will be challenges on the Rt. 11 corridor with the existing bridge and transition lengths; he said it is tight and it will be a challenge to maintain the existing median. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Light asked the staff if any of the items mentioned still remained as a potential problem. Planning Director Lawrence believed the key was discussion and for items to be addressed as the process moves along. Commissioner Light was in favor of accepting the waiver for private streets; he commented that the median will have to be left up to VDOT; the inter -parcel connector is something that can be looked at and discussed; and the storm water management appears to be acceptable. Commissioner Light stated that it seemed Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1473 Minutes of March 2, 2005 P R N F � sm to be the consensus of opinion that this site was in a corridor design area and the Commission would like to achieve the best design standards available through the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Other members of the Commission voiced their support of the project. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #04-05 for Kernstown Commons, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, a division of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC for commercial use. (Commissioner Thomas was absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION SUMMARY OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence reported that the staff compiled the comments that were made at the Planning Commission's 2005 Retreat. He said that as the Planning Commission and staffmove into the UDA Study, the staff will attempt to address those questions that the Comprehensive Policy Plan Committee and the working group believe should be a part of the ultimate UDA recommendation. Planning Director Lawrence referred to the handout the Commission received this evening, noting that it was the project prioritization for the coming year. Mr. Lawrence believed that the Commission, the Board, and the staff were all on track with the project priorities identified last year. He said that the long-range and short-range planning projects have been consistently prioritized. He added that the top project is, indeed, the UDA Study with incorporation of the Triangle Study. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R Lawrence, Secretary Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1474 Minutes of March 2, 2005 MW n n C: • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 -- —, FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director „ Subject: Public Hearing: Amendment to Section 165-63 regarding open space requirements in the RP (Residential Performance) District Date: March 21, 2005 Staff has been approached by Greenway Engineering to consider clarifications or reductions in the required open space in larger residential mixed-use projects. After discussions with Greeenway to better understand their concern, an ordinance proposal was drafted that achieved their goals while providing additional recreational amenities to the future residents of the project. This proposal has been reviewed and discussed by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. At the Board's January 26, 2005 meeting, the Board directed staff to schedule this proposed amendment for consideration during the public hearing process. This item has been scheduled as a public hearing item. Following the public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The proposed ordinance is attached. Ordinance Amendment History The Frederick County Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its meeting on September 23, 2004, discussed revisions to the Open Space requirements within the RP (Residential Performance) District. The forwarded amendment would provide an opportunity for the property owner/land design team to reduce the required open space by 50 percent if significant recreational amenities are provided for a development project. The gross density requirements required by Section 165-62 & 62.1 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance will not change as a result of this proposed ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission discussed this amendment at its meeting of October 6, 2004 and was in favor of the amendment as presented. This proposed ordinance amendment was presented to the Board of Supervisors as a discussion item on October 12, 2004. After extensive discussions, the Board directed that a work session be arranged to continue this review and discussion of the proposed amendment. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22501-5000 Public Hearing: Amendment to Section 165-63C March 21, 2005 Page 2 - During a Board of Supervisors work session on December 8, 2004, the proposed open space concept received favorable support, although a number of issues warranted further research and discussion. - The Board reviewed the proposed ordinance on January 26, 2005; directed staff to advertise for public hearing. Recent Ordinance Amendment Revisions In response to the concerns raised during the Board of Supervisors discussions, the draft ordinance has been revised. The revisions include: - The addition of a required Board of Supervisors action to implement the reduced open space. As drafted, the Planning Commission would review and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the open space waiver request. This open space reduction would be shown on the master development plan; - Establishment of open space quality criteria to be considered with the waiver request; - Establish a maximum reduction of the required open space. For single family detached units (excluding single family small lots), the maximum reduction would be 50 percent. For all other residential housing types, the maximum reduction would be 25 percent; and, - Increase the recreational unit multiplier from three units to four recreational units per each 30 dwelling units. The current value of a recreational unit is $25,000, as determined by the Department of Parks and Recreation. This figure is revisited annually to reflect inflation. Attached is the: (1) proposed ordinance [dated January 13, 2005]; (2) existing ordinance language [Section 165-63]; and (3) scenarios of application of the proposed ordinance amendment. Staff will be available to respond to your questions. Attachments ERL/bad Revised January 13, 2005 vrrfN SrA U CE TEXT AMENDMENT -Proposal- ago W 165-63 Open Space Requirements 165-63D The minimum required open space percentages provided in Section 165-63A of this Chapter may be reduced for residential developments which provide for active recreational areas and amenities, upon the granting of an open space waiver issued by the Board of Supervisors. In no case shall the required open space (per Section 1.65-63A) be reduced more than 50 percent for single family detached housing types (excluding single family small lot), and no more than 25 percent for all other residential housing types and mixtures. Active recreational areas and amenities shall be incorporated within the development's common open space, and be for the use of and maintained by the subject development's Property Owner's Association. The active recreational area and amenity value shall be equivalent to the value of four recreational units for each 30 dwelling units. The active recreational area and amenity value and design shall be approved by the Subdivision Administrator in conjunction with the Director of Parks and Recreation. These open space active recreational areas and amenities shall be in addition to the recreational facilities identified in Section 165-64. The gross density requirements as required in Section 165-62 & 62.1 shall not be exceeded through the reduction of common open space. Requests for an open space reduction waiver would be considered by the Board of Supervisors during the master development plan process. Acceptance of the reduced open space request will be based on the quality of the open space and the recreational amenities provided. 144-2 & 165-156 Definitions COMMON OPEN SPACE - Land that is used for recreational purposes, environmental resource protection, buffer areas, stormwater management areas and passive areas that are dedicated to the residents of a development for use and maintenance, and is protected to ensure that it remains in such uses, unless utilized under the provisions of Section 165-63A of this Chapter. § 165-62 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-63 § 165-62. Gross density. [Amended 5-11-19941 A gross density shall be established for each proposed development, including all land contained within a single master development plan, according to the characteristics of the land, the capacity of public facilities and roads and the nature of surrounding uses. Because of these characteristics, some developments may not be allowed to employ the maximum density allowed by these regulations. The following density requirements shall apply to all parcels as they exist at the time of the adoption of this section: A. Subsequent divisions of land shall not increase the allowed density on parcels of land. B. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved master development plan exceed 10 dwellings per acre. C. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved master development plan which contains more than 10 acres and less than 100 acres exceed 5.5 dwellings per acre. D. in no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved master development plan which contains more than 100 acres exceed four dwellings per acre. § 165-62.1. Multifamily housing. [Added 5-11-1994] A. Developments that are less than 25 acres in size may include more than 50% multifamily housing types. B. Developments that are more than 25 acres and less than 50 acres in size shall be permitted to contain up to 50% multifamily housing types. C. Developments that are over 50 acres in size shall be permitted to contain up to 40% multifamily housing types. C t1RF:I .t -A ' 09,'ci AAr-F_ rs �� §165-63. Open space requirements. A. [Amended 6-8-19941 A minimum percentage of the gross area of any proposed development shall be designated as common open space. This open space shall be for purposes of environmental protection and for the common use of residents of the development. Such open space shall be dedicated to a property owners association or to 16582 12-15-20D4 § 165-63 ZONING § 165-63 Frederick County. Open space shall be dedicated to Frederick County only with the approval of the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission may allow public libraries and public schools to be located within areas designated as common open space, provided that the proposed facilities are indicated on the original master development plan for the residential development. During the review of the master development plan, the Planning Commission shall ensure that the location of a proposed public library or public school is appropriate and that adequate buffers, screening and access are provided to prevent negative impacts to adjoining residential uses. Public libraries and public schools shall be dedicated to Frederick County. Developments which contain any of the following housing types shall provide open space as specified below: Minimum Required Type of Open Space Development (percent) Developments containing only 0 single-family detached traditional or traditional rural housing (Cont'd on page 16583) 16582.1 12-15-2004 § 165-63 ZONING § 165-63 Minimum Required Type of Open Space Development (percent) Developments containing only 15% single-family detached urban housing Developments in which no less 15% than 60% of the dwellings are single-family detached traditional housing mixed with any other housing types Developments containing only 25% single-family detached cluster or a mixture of single-family detached cluster and urban housing Single-family small lot housing 30% [Added 10-27-19991 All other developments 30% B. No more than 50% of the required open space shall be within the following environmental areas: lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. The Administrator, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission, may allow a larger amount of steep slopes to be utilized where the developer can demonstrate a viable plan to make these areas useful. C. In developments containing only single-family detached urban housing or single-family detached urban housing mixed with single-family detached traditional housing, the required open space may be waived. The open space requirement shall only be waived when the required open space is less than one acre. Such waivers shall be granted by the Administrator, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. Such waiver shall not include open space provided to meet environmental requirements. 16583 12-15-99 Scenarios January 27, 2005 Application of Proposed Open Space Amendment A property owner has the ability to determine if he/she desires to develop the subject property with the required minimum amount of open space or under the provisions of the proposed text amendment. The following scenarios describe how the current requirements and proposed text amendment would be applied if this option was selected by the property owner. Scenario 1 100 Acre Site — All Single Family Dwellings —12,000 sq.ft. Lots Current Requirement: The property owner could develop 85 acres (which includes roads) and place 15 acres in common open space (which includes environmental areas, buffer areas and stormwater management areas). Generally speaking, the property would yield 23 units per acre (or 195 residential lots) unless there were topographic constraints that further reduced density yield. There would not be an active recreational areas and amenities requirement. ➢ Overall gross density 1.95 units/acres Proposed Requirement: The property owner could reduce the 15 acres of common open space by 50 percent, to 7 1/2 acres. This acreage could then be developed into residential lots (which includes roads), which provides for additional density yield and requires the property owner to provide for active recreational areas and amenities. Assuming that the property owner reduced the open space to 7 1/2 acres, the property owner could develop 92 1/2 acres (which includes roads). Assuming the same 2.3 unit -per -acre yield, the property would yield 212 residential lots. This would then require the following value to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities: • 212 lots/30 = 7.1 • 7.1 x 4 = 28.4 recreational units • 28.4 x $25,000.00 (one recreational unit value) = $ 710,000.00 • Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $ 710,000.00 In this scenario, the property owner would yield 17 additional residential lots and would need to provide for a$ 710, 000.00 value ofActive Recreational Area and Amenity within all of, or a portion of, the 7 1/2 acres of common open space. Approximately $3,500 per residential unit. ➢ Overall gross density 2.13 units/acres Scenario 2 200 Acre Site — Mixed Residential Use Current Requirement: The property owner could develop 140 acres (which includes roads and parking lot areas) and place 60 acres in common open space (which includes environmental areas, buffer areas, recreational areas and stormwater management areas). A reasonable mixed residential project could incorporate the following residential mix.- 60 ix: 60 acres Single Family Dwellings = 138 units 20 acres Townhomes = 110 units 20 acres Duplex = 88 units 30 acres Apartments = 220 units Total Units = 556 ➢ Overall gross density 2.78 units/acres This proposal would require the property owner to provide 1 recreational unit for every 30 dwelling units that are on lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or less (existing Section 165-64 Recreation Facilities) ; therefore, this would include the townhome, duplex and apartment units (418 total units). This would then require the following value to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities: 418 lots/30 = 13.9 recreational units • 13.9 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) _ $347,500.00 • Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $347,500.00 Proposed Requirement: The property owner could reduce the 60 acres of common open space and develop this acreage into residential lots (which includes roads and parking lot areas), which provides for additional density yield and requires the property owner to provide for a greater value of active recreational areas and amenities. Assuming that the property owner reduced the open space to 45 acres, the property owner could develop 155 acres (which includes roads and parking lot areas). This additional acreage could then be incorporated into the residential land bays identified above to create the following residential mix: 70 acres Single Family Dwellings = 161 units 30 acres Townhomes = 164 units 25 acres Duplex = 110 units 30 acres Apartments = 220 units Total Units = 655 i Overall gross density 3.3 units/acres This proposal would require the property owner to provide the value of 4 recreational units for every 30 dwellings for the entire project regardless of lot size. This would then require the following value to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities: • 655 lots/30 = 21.8 • 21.8 x 4 = 87.2 recreational units • 87.2 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $2,180,000.00 • Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $2,180,000.00 In addition, the development would continue to be required to provide the Recreation Facilities per existing Section 165-64. Townhomes = 164 units Duplex = 110 units Apartments = 220 units Total Units = 494 lots less than 5,000 square feet • 494 lots/3 0 = 16.5 recreational units 0 16.5 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $412,500.00 • Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $412,500.00 In this scenario, the property owner would yield 99 additional mixed residential units and would need to provide for a $2,592,500. 00 value ofActive Recreational Area and Amenity within all of, or a portion of, the 45 acres of common open space. This increases the cost of the recreational amenities by $2,245, 000.00 over the current requirement. Approximately $4, 000 per residential unit. Scenario 3 50 Acre Site — Mixed Residential Use Current Requirement: The property owner could develop 35 acres (which includes roads and parking lot areas) and place 15 acres in common open space (which includes environmental areas, buffer areas, recreational areas and stormwater management areas). A reasonable mixed residential mixed yield could incorporate the following residential mix: 25 acres Single Family Dwellings = 58 units 10 acres Townhomes = 55 units Total Units =113 This proposal would require the property owner to provide 1 recreational unit for every 30 dwellings units that are on lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or less (existing Section 165-64 Recreation Facilities); therefore, this would include the townhouses. This would then require the following value to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities: • 55 lots/30 = 1.8 recreational units • 1.8 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) _ $45,000.00 • Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $45,000.00 ➢ Overall gross density 2.26 units/acres Proposed Requirement.- The property owner could reduce the 15 acres of common open space by 25 percent and develop this acreage into residential lots (which includes roads and parking lot areas), which provides for additional density yield and requires the property owner to provide for a greater value of active recreational areas and amenities. Assuming that the property owner reduced the open space to 11 '/4 acres, the property owner could develop 38 3/4 acres (which includes roads and parking lot areas). This additional acreage could then be incorporated into the residential land bays identified above to create the following residential mix: 26.6 acres Single Family Dwellings = 68 units 12.18 acres Townhomes = 67 units Total Units = 135 ➢ Overall gross density 2.74 units/acres This proposal would require the property owner to provide the value of 4 recreational units for every 30 dwellings for the entire project regardless of lot size. This would then require the following value to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities: • 1351ots/30 = 4.5 0 4.5 x 4 = 18 recreational units • 18 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $450,000.00 Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $450,000.00 In addition, the development would continue to be required to provide the Recreation Facilities per existing Section 165-64. Townhomes = 67 units Total Units = 67 67 lots less than 5,000 square feet • 67 lots/30 = 2.2 recreational units • 2.2 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $55,000.00 • Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $55,000.00 In this scenario, the property owner would yield 22 additional mixed residential units and would need to provide for a $505, 000.00 value ofActive Recreational Area and Amenity within all of, or a portion of, the 11 '/ acres of common open space. This increases the cost of the recreational amenities by $460, 000.00 over the current requirement, yet provides the developer 22 additional lots. Approximately $3, 700 per residential unit. Scenario 4 50 Acre Site — Single Family Small Lots Current Requirement: The property owner could develop 35 acres (which includes roads and parking lot areas) and place 15 acres in common open space (which includes environmental areas, buffer areas, recreational areas and stormwater management areas). A reasonable residential mixed yield could incorporate the following residential mix: 25 acres Single Family Dwellings = 58 units 10 acres Townhomes = 55 units Total Units = 113 This proposal would require the property owner to provide 1 recreational unit for every 30 dwellings units that are on lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or less (existing Section 165-64 Recreation Facilities); therefore, this would include the townhouses. This would then require the following value to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities: • 55 lots/30 = 1.8 recreational units • 1.8 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) _ $45,000.00 • Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $45,000.00 ➢ Overall gross density 2.26 units/acres Proposed Requirement: The property owner could reduce the 15 acres of common open space by 25 percent and develop this acreage into residential lots (which includes roads and parking lot areas), which provides for additional density yield and requires the property owner to provide for a greater value of active recreational areas and amenities. Assuming that the property owner reduced the open space to 11 1/4 acres, the property owner could develop 38 3/4 acres (which includes roads and parking lot areas). This additional acreage could then be incorporated into the residential land bays identified above to create the following residential mix: 26.6 acres Single Family Dwellings = 68 units 12.18 acres Townhomes = 67 units Total Units = 135 ➢ Overall gross density 2.74 units/acres This proposal would require the property owner to provide the value of 4 recreational units for every 30 dwellings for the entire project regardless of lot size. This would then require the following value to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities: • 135 lots/30 = 4.5 0 4.5 x 4 = 18 recreational units • 18 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $450,000.00 Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $450,000.00 In addition, the development would continue to be required to provide the Recreation Facilities per existing Section 165-64. Townhomes = 67 units Total Units = 67 67 lots less than 5,000 square feet • 67 lots/30 = 2.2 recreational units • 2.2 recreational units x $25,000 (one recreational unit value) = $55,000.00 • Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $55,000.00 In this scenario, the property owner would yield 22 additional mixed residential units and would need to provide for a $505, 000.00 value ofActive Recreational Area andAmenity within all of, or a portion of, the 11 I/4 acres of common open space. This increases the cost of the recreational amenities by $460, 000.00 over the current requirement, yet provides the developer 22 additional lots. Approximately $3,700 per residential unit. :7 • • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #02-05 a HORIZON HOLDINGS, LLC w Staff Report for the Planning Commission ya Prepared: March 23, 2005 Staff Contact: Patrick R. Sowers, Planning Technician This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 04/06/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 04/26/05 Pending LOCATION: This subject property is located at 3636 Front Royal Pike (Route 522) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 87-A-88 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: (RA) Rural Areas Land Use: Residential Zoned: (RA) Rural Areas Land Use: Agriculture PROPOSED USE: Landscape Contracting Business REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 522, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be constructed to our standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit issued for a period of six months. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. CUP 402-05, Horizon Holdings, LLC March 23, 2005 Page 2 Fire Marshal: Access to all buildings on the site shall be maintained to allow emergency vehicle access. Plan approval recommended. Inspections Department: Existing buildings being utilized shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and section, 304, use group B (Business), of the International Building Code/2000. Other Code that applies is IBC/ANSI Al 17.1-98 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Renovation of the existing structure shall require an asbestos inspection according to the USBC section 112.1.4 if constructed prior to January 1, 1985. Please submit a floor plan of the areas being utilized at the time of change of use building permit application. A new certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior to operation. HC van accessible parking spaces and unloading shall be provided. Winchester -Frederick County Health Department: This office has no objection to conditional use so long as no more than six employees work for proposed landscaping business. Also, no public use of restroom facilities to be allowed. Planning and Zoning: This proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a landscape contracting business. This proposed use will take place on a two acre tract of land located in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for landscape contracting in the RA Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposed use shall have no more than six (6) employees at any one time with all work done off site. The site will not contain any more than four (4) business vehicles and (2) trailers stored on the premises. This proposed use will take place in the rear of the applicant's property. No sales of nursery stock will take place on site. Four (4) storage bays will be used to store top soil, mulch, sand, and stone. The applicant has proposed a six (6) foot opaque fence to screen all portions of the property associated with the landscape contracting business including all parking and outdoor storage. This six (6) foot opaque fence shall be utilized as part of this Conditional Use Permit. This landscaping business will not be open to the public, minimizing the need for a site plan. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04/06/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No members of the general public will be allowed on site. CUP #02-05, Horizon Holdings, LLC March 23, 2005 Page 3 3. No more than six (6) employees, four (4) business vehicles, and two (2) trailers shall be allowed on site as part of this conditional use permit. 4. Screening consisting of a six (6) foot opaque fence shall screen all materials and vehicles from adjacent properties. 5. No sale of nursery stock will be allowed on site. 6. Piles of dead grass clippings, brush, and/or tree trimmings shall be stored within a four- sided opaque fenced area or disposed off site. 7. Any expansion or change of use, including any increase in the number of employees or equipment, will require a new conditional use permit and an engineered site plan. 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. 101 87 3 B GIBSON, MON111E W J1 V 87 �IMMO 87 MONTIE W JR & 87-A-88 Horizon Holdings. LLC FUWP nia ` f �1 87 3 iB1 O ;TON ESHELMAN PR E TIES �, \ D �f " 87 A AND CORP, VE 90 GARY W & SHAR04 lr�l 4 ROGERS, 8 ITH F &9 S Do bleaoN ate ILI Map Features / ^, (Application O CUP # 02 - 05 � CuBdgeterts Parcels Lake.lP-ds Darns .,. Saeams /�/ R.t h.g Wali. Agricultural d Forestal Districts a, Double Church N Horizon Holdings, LLC (87 - A — 88) 2 Buildings Road Centerlines Renee Church Tanks O South Frederick W E 0 250 500 1,000 -�� Trail. S Feet -N • ici co Submittal Deadline p S` w P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERNUT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner mother) NAME: v:^/za yv( �.� C C ADDRESS: z' - TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE: 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 4. R The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 4 ; o-� err s -z L_ The property has a road frontage offeet and a depth of 3/ feet and consists of / acres. (Please be exact) The property is owned by �lo�., f ,� /�yU [/, !s — as evidenced by deed from/JzIAne, Afc,. _h;✓Ite re rded (previous owner) indeed book no. 2–C16'_ on page �/ z �, as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. Tax (Parcel) Identification No. (P.I.N.) Magisterial District C%11 LO�,,� c Current Zoning /f'rcf 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North 4LI-c—, < l >C cc! % er1Cr C East J5 /? rt_ Gi t - 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. vo e $-,/ / 10 , CORNER POST.,, t ►"i 41 PIN 87-3-B MONDE W. GIBSON, IR- do PEARL E. GIBSON INSDR. #000011426 N 51 40'58" W 311.29' PIN 87-A -88 1.8569 A CRSS TWO STORY CONCRETE BLOCK DWELLING ,x`36.36 91.2' � L o � CORNER POST ro ?6S I 1 \ S `��3� N. E CORNER OF LARGE STONE POST '66rT i 0: LEGEND CMF —CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND 1� z WOODED LITY POLE �0 r'9L \ — OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE FL 00D NO 7F- ZONE- C COMMUNITY NO.: 51006) PANEL: 0200 B DA 7F• 07-17-78 I� Ld w co :W Q pa 3 Z LINE TABLE ILINE1 BEARING I DIST. Ll S 29 V5'13" E 15.26 GRAPHIC SCALE NO TES: 80 0 30 60 120 I. NO 777LE REPORT FURNISHED. I A --= 2. PROPERTY IDEN 77FICA 77ON NO. 87—A-88 1 Inch a 60 ft. J EASEMENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MA Y EXIST. 4. THE BOUNDARY INFORMA77ON SHOWN ON THIS PLAT IS BASED ON AN AC7UAL FIELD RUN SURVEY MADE ON AUGUST 23, 2004. SOUNDAR Y AND TH OF HOUSE L OCA TION SUR VEY D OF THE LAND OF r`�G' 102 96 97 97A 85A 86 246-93 A95C 94 3 Rr.2j> 325-522 93 e1 91 aCR 92 33o -asp Hh 7h a 8� (c27 -(A)-5) 7 ?L Tim 12. Additional comments, 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 Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted_ Signature of Applicai Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Add Nu �,yo. Owners' Telephone No. Qq - )4gy -A All �% � 4- ; TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: 4lcK CpG Special Limited Power of Attorney - County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www=co.grederick va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name)\� :�� 1�- oc c� 1 ,�c�n (Phone) (Address) 1'W ail V2112:yye or VA agluo l 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 on Page and is described as do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name)W q -e --X �l� <� e 4 (Phone) s icy — 3�� (Address) f'Q. 13oxc S -�? 6j To act as my true and lawful attorney -m -fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: Rezoning (including proffers) Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: expire one year from the day it is otherwise rescinded or In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day oif �tu,,.� 200 s' ity/county of Z� �— a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s who signed to the foregoing instrument personally app ared before me and has acknowledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this 8-3 day of �L,�00 j 7 My Commission Expires: i J , 16 Notary Kblic REZONING APPLICATION #03-05 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 24, 2005 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. it may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 04/06/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 04/27/05 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 79.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District and RP (Residential Performance) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. LOCATION: The properties front on the east side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) just north of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off -ramp, and immediately east of Redbud Road (Route 661). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 43-A-150; 43-A-151; 43 -A -151A; 43-A-152; 43C-3-2; 43C-3-3; 43C- 3-4; 43C -3-4A; 43C-3-5; and 43C -307A PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District and RP (Residential Performance) District. PRESENT USE: Trucking, Residential and Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential and Vacant South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential and Agricultural East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential B2 (Business General) Use: Rutherford's Farm Park (Ind. & Comm.) PROPOSED USES: Trucking and Light Industrial. (A maximum of 800,000 square feet of floor area has been proffered). Rezoning #03-05 — North Stephenson, Inc. March 24, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 11. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to this property. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the North Stephenson rezoning application dated November 9, 2004 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plan detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of- way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Fire lanes and municipal water supplies shall meet the requirements of Frederick County Code 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Clearbrook Volunteer Fire Dept.: Mr. Omps has always supported Clearbrook Fire & Rescue. Any contribution would be appreciated. No other comments. Refer to Frederick County Fire Marshall comments. Public Works Department: The proposed rezoning application has adequately addressed our preview comments. We reserve the right to perform a more detailed review of the master development submittal. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Attorney for Frederick County: Please see attached letter dated November 23, 2004, signed by Robert T. Mitchell, Jr., Esquire. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester, VA Quadrangle) identifies the majority of the subject 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 zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of this portion of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 rezoned land to the RA District. The remainder of the property was Rezoning #03-05 — North Stephenson, Inc. March 24, 2005 Page 3 identified as being zoned R-3. The R-3 (Residential -General) District zoning classification was modified to RP (Residential Performance) District on February 14, 1990, during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. This portion of the subject property that fronts on Martinsburg Pike has remained RP (Residential Performance) District since that time. 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 and Sewer and Water Service Area define the general area in which more intensive forms of residential, commercial, and industrial development will occur. In addition, The North Stephenson, Inc. property is also located within the area encompassed by the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan envisions a mix of commercial and industrial uses on the property. The plan depicts an evident split of future land uses on the subject property with commercial areas identified in the vicinity of the Interstate 81 interchange and industrial areas identified within the eastern area of the property adjacent to the railroad, located to take advantage of the rail access. The North Stephenson, Inc. application proposes a rezoning of entirely industrial land use which would enhance the ability to provide for a greater area of industrial opportunity in conjunction with the rail access. A goal of the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan is to provide master planned areas adjacent to the rail to take advantage of this feature. In 2003, the applicants approached the County to seek a commercial rezoning for 6.10 acres of this property that fronts on Redbud Road. The application, RZ07-03, was removed from consideration by the applicant based upon feedback provided during the review process. The applicants have since moved forward with this new and more comprehensive application that seeks to address the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan and the feedback provided during the earlier rezoning exercise. The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan provides additional guidance for development opportunities through the following policies. A sensitive approach to the existing land uses along Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, is promoted with the identification of DSA's (Developmentally Sensitive Areas). This would include those existing RP (Residential Rezoning #03-05 —North Stephenson, Inc. March 24, 2005 Page 4 Performance) parcels that contain residential uses directly adjacent to the subject property. The DSA's seek to ensure the existing residential clusters are protected from the impacts of new development through the provision of adequate buffers and screening. It should be noted that this application includes five of the seven residentially used properties located along this section of Martinsburg Pike. The remaining two residential performance properties would be offered protection through the County's existing buffer and screening regulations. Greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike to enhance the appearance of the Route 11 corridor are important elements of the Plan. This enhanced corridor appearance and function goal is further promoted with the discouragement of individual lot access along Route 11. The opportunity presents itself for the application to commit to providing such corridor design standards along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, advancing a key initiative of past and potentially future County planning efforts. It should be noted that the recently approved Rutherford Farm LLC, rezoning application, RZ06-04, directly across Route 11, proffered to establish a 15 foot landscape buffer along Route 11, extending the length of the site, that would include ground cover, trees, and an earthen berm. That application also proffered to limit the maximum height for all freestanding business and monument signs in the M 1 zoning district to 12 feet. The North Stephenson Inc. application does not offer a comprehensive enhancement package similar that proffered in the Rutherford's Farm project. A similar approach may be desirable with this application to address this element of the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. The North Stephenson Inc. application does provide a prohibition on commercial entrances along the western property line adjoining Redbud Road, but not along Route 11. This commitment along Route 11 is extremely desirable. A similar commitment minimizing the number of entrances along Route 11 may also be desirable to further the access management goals of the Plan. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan 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). The Eastern Road Plan identifies an improved major collector road relocated in the vicinity of this property. This improvement is the relocation of Redbud Road which will be necessary due to future improvements to Interstate 81 and the interchange with Route 11. Accommodations for this realignment have been made by the applicant and are described in greater detail later in this report. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies Route I1 as a bicycle route. Rezoning #03-05 — North Stephenson, Inc. March 24, 2005 Page 5 In addition to the Eastern Road Plan, the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan also identifies key road improvement needs that directly relate to the North Stephenson, Inc. rezoning application. This includes improvements to Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, to a four lane facility, and the construction of a new major collector road from Route 11 at its intersection with the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park through the Stephenson's Village project to Old Charles Town Road. The Stephenson Village rezoning application, RZ06-03, addresses the construction of this major collector road. The proffer states that the applicant shall dedicate an 80 foot right-of-way and construct the major collector road from Old Charles Town Road through Stephenson Village, and the property currently.owned by McCann and Omps to U.S. Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike). The proffer further commits to the phased construction of the road with an ultimate four -lane boulevard section with a landscaped median and landscaping along and/or adjacent to each side of the major collector road, and the provision of bicycle lanes within the right-of-way. The coordination of the relationship and commitments between the Stephenson Village project and the North Stephenson, Inc. rezoning should be clarified to a greater extent than is presently offered. The North Stephenson, Inc. application proffers the right of way and design for a typical section that appears to not be entirely consistent with the proffer for the Stephenson Village project. The County would like to ensure that the major collector road section is consistent throughout the length of the project and that the responsibilities of the various parties as to the construction of the road project are clear and coordinated. Further, that the necessary right-of-way is obtained to facilitate the ultimate section of the major collector road as endorsed in the Stephenson Village project. It would be beneficial to define the approach at this time as opposed to at the time individual site development proposals and individual TIA's for the uses within the North Stephenson Inc. site are submitted. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The North Stephenson, Inc. property is bordered by Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, to the west, Redbud Road, Route 661, to the west and south, and the C.S.X. Railroad to the east. A manmade wetland area is identified in the southwestern portion of the property as are two areas of mature deciduous trees in the northwestern portion of the property. The site contains no steep slopes or other identified environmental features. The potential for karst features, sinkholes, does exist on the subject property due to the underlying geology of the property. The application addresses this potential concern by committing to addressing the karst features during the master development plan and site plan processes including additional geotechnical analysis of identified karst features. Rezoning #03-05 — North Stephenson, Inc. March 24, 2005 Page 4) Potential Impacts Potential Impact Summary. In evaluating the North Stephenson Inc. rezoning application it should be recognized that the applicant has proffered limitations regarding the maximum square footage of the structural development permitted on the property. A maximum of 800,000 square feet of total floor area has been proffered and evaluated. The applicant has not proffered a commitment to limit the permitted uses on the subject property. All uses within the MI (Light Industrial) District would be permitted. A. Transportation Traffic Impact Anal The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepaxed for this application projects that the development of 800,000 square feet of light industrial use would generate 5,874 vehicle trips per day. Potential traffic impacts may vary depending on the specific uses that could develop on the North Stephenson Inc. site. The report was developed with primary access to the project to being via the new major collector road which intersects with Route 11 at the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. The TIA assumed that the land uses associated with Stephenson Village would enter and exit the property via the new major collector road at this intersection and that Route 11 will be a four lane divided facility from the northbound ramps at Interstate 81 through the intersection at the new collector road. It is important to understand that the TIA assumes that the transportation improvements proffered as part of the Stephenson Village and Rutherford's Farm development are completed. A second transportation improvement was modeled in the TIA, the realigned Redbud Road. It is important to ensure that the various improvements identified with each development are guaranteed and implemented in a coordinated and timely manner. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that a level of service (LOS) C or better is achieved with the approval of proposed industrial, commercial, and planned unit developments. The TIA for this project demonstrates that the signalized intersection of Route 11 and the new major collector road will function at a level of service (LOS) D assuming the full build out of 800,000 square feet of industrial land use on the 79.13 acre site. Again, this also assumes that all of the identified transportation improvements of other development projects are in place. However, the TIA further demonstrates that the background traffic volumes create a level of service D at the same intersection with the same improvements in place. The application states that the 5,874 trips projected from the industrial site do not reduce the level of service at the intersection. Staff would concur that the level of service classification would not decrease from a level of service (LOS) D, but would also point out that the additional trips may lower the level of service within the D range. Rezoning 403-05 — North Stephenson, Inc. March 24, 2005 Page 7 Redbud Road relocation. The Eastern Road Plan identifies an improved major collector road in the vicinity of this property, the relocation of Redbud Road in conjunction with the Interstate 81 widening project, which the applicant has accommodated using the following approach. The applicant has proffered to dedicate a fifty foot right of way through the property that will allow access to Martinsburg Pike at the signalized intersection associated with the new major collector road. A general location for this road alignment has been identified in the Eastern Road Plan. The applicant's proffer provides that this right of way dedication would connect to the future intersection identified in the exhibit included with this application. It is anticipated that the road providing access to the industrial uses internal to the project may be used for the purpose of the realignment of Redbud Road. It should be confirmed that a fifty foot right of way would be sufficient to accommodate the relocation of the Redbud Road collector road. The approach proffered by the applicant provides flexibility in the future alignment of this road connection which in turn affords flexibility in the site selection and development for future industrial users. This would be particularly desirable to the property owner as it would enhance the economic development potential of the property and would enable the future users to take advantage of the rail access. At the same time the ability for the County and State to make the future realignment of Redbud Road is preserved. Future costs associated with the relocation would likely be born by the Interstate 81 widening project and VDOT. An alternative approach to addressing the realignment of the collector road would be for this application to design and construct the improvement through the limits of their property with the first phase of industrial development of the property. The County should determine the approach that is most appropriate in this particular case. New Major Collector Road. The location of the new major collector road, which connects Old Charles Town Road to Martinsburg Pike was identified during the rezoning of the Stephenson Village and Rutherford's Farm projects. In addition, the typical section of the road, a four lane boulevard design, was established and memorialized through the rezoning proffer associated with the Stephenson Village project. As previously noted the proffer further commits to the phased construction of the road with a landscaped median and landscaping along and/or adjacent to each side of the major collector road, and the provision of bicycle lanes witlun the right-of-way. It would be appropriate to clarify the desired ultimate section at this time. The North Stephenson, Inc. application proffers the right of way and design for a typical section that appears to not be entirely consistent with the stated proffer accepted for the Stephenson Village project. In addition, Proffer e) appears to indicate that the applicant will not provide for the construction of the major collector road through the limits of their property as identified in the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. Rather, it proffers the construction of portions to be Rezoning #03-05 — North Stephenson, Inc. March 24, 2005 Page 8 determined based on future TIA's for the individual industrial users. Proffer c) provides for the dedication of the right of way for the ultimate design of the major collector road though the property but does not ensure the construction of the collector road through the property. As with any rezoning application, it would be appropriate and expected for the applicant to provide for the construction of the collector road through the limits of their property. In recognition of the Stephenson Village proffers and the Rutherford's Farm proffered improvements, flexibility should be offered to the North Stephenson Inc. rezoning application to enable other projects to participate in the construction of the ultimate section of the major collector road. However, the County should ensure that at a minimum the major collector road in some form will be constructed through the limits of this property with the North Stephenson Inc. rezoning application. The applicant has the ability to clarify their commitment and the commitment of other projects within the proffer statement and to ensure that the collector road is provided through the limits of their property at the outset of the project. The coordination of the relationship and commitments between the Stephenson Village project and the North Stephenson, Inc. rezoning should be clarified to a greater extent than is presently offered. Also recognizing the progress being made with the Master Development Plan for Stephenson Village, it would appear as though discussion and commitments between the two developers are being made that may satisfy the concerns of the County. To the extent that these commitments could be memorialized in the proffer statement, the expressed concerns of the County may be lessened. _General Transportation. The applicant has proffered to construct, or cause to be constructed, dual southbound left turn lanes on Martinsburg Pike at the major collector road intersection at the same time the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park improvements are to be constructed. Such an approach is desirable however it should be guaranteed that the stated improvements would be constructed prior to, or in conjunction with, the first phase of development on the North Stephenson Inc. project as primary access to the North Stephenson Inc. project is via the new major collector road. The applicant has also proffered to construct, or cause for the construction of a northbound right turn lane along Martinsburg Pike from Redbud Road to the new major collector road. Again, rather than determining the need for the dedication and improvement on an individual site development basis, it would be desirable to the County to have this application dedicate the right of way for the identified improvement at one time. In addition, it would be desirable to provide for the construction of the improvement prior to, or in conjunction with, the first phase of development on the North Stephenson Inc. site. Consideration should be given to minimizing additional entrances along Route 11 as noted previously in the report. Rezoning #03-05 — North Stephenson, Inc. March 24, 2005 Page 9 B. Sewer and Water The North Stephenson Inc. rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 79,130 gallons per day of water usage and approximately 3 9,5 65 gallons per day of wastewater at total build out of the project. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. C. Historic Resources Located on the North Stephenson Inc. property was the historic structure known as Seven Oaks. The Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County identified the historic structure (#34-1067). The subject property is also located in the vicinity of the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area. In conjunction with the current and original rezoning request for this property, the applicant forwarded the application to the HRAB for their review. The HRAB had previously suggested that the Seven Oaks structure would be inventoried and catalogued should the structure ultimately be taken by the Interstate 81 improvements. The property owner recently razed the structure. However, prior to doing so, they allowed the structure to be photographed, inventoried, and cataloged both internally and externally by an architectural historian. It would be appropriate for the report of the architectural historian to be provided to the County for incorporation into the historical records. The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered this new proposal at its December 21, 2004 meeting. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey and the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. Some members of the HRAB expressed concerns that the development of the property would impact preserved Civil War battlefield land and the Stine property located further along Redbud Road. The HRAB suggested that intensive screening utilizing native trees should be provided to hide this property from the Stine property and the adjacent battlefield areas to mitigate the impact on this resource. Further, the HRAB suggested the installation of a highway marker and directional sign to show the way through the industrial park to the historic area/battlefield site due to the potential relocation of Redbud Road. The Proffer Statement provides no consideration for the recommendations of the HRAB provided on December 21, 2004. However, the applicant has proffered a prohibition on the placement of freestanding and building mounted business signs facing the eastern property line to mitigate the viewshed impacts from the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area. D. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff s Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. Rezoning #03-05 —North Stephenson, Inc. March 24, 2005 Page 10 The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net positive fiscal impact at the build out of the project. However, 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 $0.01 per square foot of structural development on the property. Based upon the proffered maximum structural development of 800,000 square feet, this contribution may generate up to $8,000.00 for Fire and Rescue Services to assist in the mitigation impacts to this community service. The amount and timing of this contribution is dependant upon future site development activity. 5) Proffer Statement — October 13, 2004 (Revised January 3, 2005) A) General Development Plan. The applicant has not provided a Generalized Development Plan for the North Stephenson Inc. rezoning application. However, the applicant has provided a proffered exhibit that identifies potential road improvements associated with the new major collector road and proffers the dedication of the right of way identified in the exhibit. The right of way is of a varying width to enable the future construction of the identified transportation improvements. B) Transportation. The applicant's transportation proffers have been identified and discussed in the body of the report. C) Industrial Uses. The applicant has provided limitations regarding the maximum square footage of the structural development permitted on the property. A maximum of 800,000 square feet of total floor area has been proffered. The applicant has not proffered a commitment to limit the permitted uses on the subject property. All uses within the M1 (Light Industrial) District would be permitted. D) Environmental Protection. The applicant has proffered to provide for the delineation of karst features and the performance of geotechnical analysis for each site plan in which structural development or other site improvements are located within 50 feet of identified karst features. E) Viewshed Mitigation The applicant has proffered to prohibit the placement of freestanding and building mounted business signs facing the eastern property line of parcel 43-A-152 to mitigate viewshed impacts from the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area. F) Monetary Contribution. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $0.01 per square foot of structural development on the 79.13 acre site, which may generate up to $8,000.00, to mitigate the impacts to the local fire and rescue company. Rezoning #03-05 — North Stephenson, Inc. March 24, 2005 Page 11 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/06/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The North Stephenson Inc. rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. Particular attention should be paid to the following: - to ensuring that the Planning Commission is comfortable with the applicants approach to the future relocation of the Redbud Road collector road. - to ensuring that the commitments as to the design, right of way dedication, and construction of the new major collector road are fully addressed and clarified in the application. to the opportunity that is presented to address corridor appearance elements along Martinsburg Pike. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. Following the required public hearing, a decision rewarding this rezonine application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. OUTPUT MODU LE Total Potential APPLICANT: North Stephenson LAND USE TYPE M1 industrial REALEST VAL $27,843,639 FIRE & RESCUE = 1 Fire and Rescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation Public Library Sheriffs 011foas Administration Building Other Miscellaneous Facilities SUBTOTAL. LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Net Fiscal Impact Costs of ImpactCredit Required (entered In Capital Faciliiies col sum only) $288,785 $0 so $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $288,785 $6,037,316 Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For I NDEX: "1.0' if Rev -Cost Bat, '0.(Y" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 I I Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP1 Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Dow Can Eaulo Exoend/Debt S. Taxes, Other (Unadjusted) Cast Balance Facilities Impart Dwellina Unit I calculated for each new facility. U. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital 30 $0 .6288,785 I #DIV/0! I 30 $0 $o $0 .$0 #DIVro! $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV10! j $0 3o $0 $0 #DIVro! I 320,773 30 $0 $20,773 320,773 so #D1V/0t ] so $0 $0 so #DIV/01 ] 349,808 $54,991 $104,800 $104,890 $0 #DIV10! $70,581 $54,991 $0 $125,573 $125,573 $163,212 I 4DIVI01 $6,037,316 $8,037,316 ($6,037,3161 #DiVIDI $0 MV1D1 I I Project Desrx!pUon_ Assumes 800,000 square feet of Manufacturing on 79.13 acres zoned Mi DisUict_ Due to changing conditions associated with development in (he County, the results of this Output Module may rat be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. t- 01 m N C" .p 0D 01 01 •n r W �0 Ln m l7 C7 0 r n z Z L7 t1 m a D M INDEX: "1.0` If Cap. Equip included 1.0 I NDEX: "1.0' if Rev -Cost Bat, '0.(Y" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg 1.342 )AETHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated In the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is Input in row total of second column (aero if negative); Included are the one-time taxesliees for one year only at full value 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NAV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. S. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. U. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the pro/eet (actual, or as ratio to avg for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calcraatians do not include include interest because My are cash payments up front. Credits do Include interest If the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 11/15104 MITR Project Desrx!pUon_ Assumes 800,000 square feet of Manufacturing on 79.13 acres zoned Mi DisUict_ Due to changing conditions associated with development in (he County, the results of this Output Module may rat be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. t- 01 m N C" .p 0D 01 01 •n r W �0 Ln m l7 C7 0 r n z Z L7 t1 m a D M OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: North Stephenson Net Fiscal impart LAND USE TYPE Mi Industrial Costs of Imoec[Credit REAL EST VAL $54,226,176 Required (entered in FIRE & RESCUE = 1 Capita! Faciltiies col sum only) Fre and Rescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools- High choolsHigh Schools Parks and Recreation Public, Library Sheriffs Offices Administration Buitdirg Other Wscellanecus Facilities SUBTOTAL LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT NET CAP- FACILHIES IMPACT S288,783 $o so so $0 $0 $0 $0 Credits to be Taken for Fulu►eTaxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap, FutureCIPI Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Oder Cap Eouip Expend/Debt S. Taxes. Other (Unadiustedl Cost Berance Facilities Impart $0 $0 512,464 $0 $29,885 $32,995 $288,785 542,349 $5,149,964 INDEX:" IV If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0' if Rev -Cost Bal, 0.9' if Ratio to Co Avg: PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCE: 1.0 $32,995 0.0 1.0 METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in rhe model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in raw total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxesffees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equflp taxes paid in third oolumn as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring currentcounty up to standard for new facilities, as so calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital $0 facilities requirements. These ate adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues $12,464 from the project (actual, ar as ratio to an. for all residential development). $0 $75,344 $5,149,964 Rev -Cost Bal = RBUo to Co Avg Net Cost Per Dwelling Unit #DIVlo! #D1VIOl I #DIV101 #DIV/D! 0DIV101 I #DIV10I j IDIVIO! j i $75,344 $213,441 MDIVOf j S5,149,9e4 5149964) #011V101 j 50 I 93 V ! NOTE: Proffer calculations do not Include Indude Interest because they are cash payments up horn. Credits do Include interest if the projects are debt Ananoed. NOTES: Model Run Date 11113104 MTR Project Description: Assumes 800,000 square feet of Warehouse on 79.13 saes zoned Mi District Due to changing oort0111ons associated with devetopmentin the County, the results of this Output Module may M be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 1.000 1.342 N N N CS) A r, m G) N cn A G) m m .m P W LD cn m t7 n O A Z Z H Z t7 M U m W W $0 $0 $288,785 $0 SO go so $0 so $o so $0 $0 $0 $0 $]2464 $12,464 $0 $0 So $0 $D $62,880 $52,880 $0 $0 $75,344 $5,149,964 Rev -Cost Bal = RBUo to Co Avg Net Cost Per Dwelling Unit #DIVlo! #D1VIOl I #DIV101 #DIV/D! 0DIV101 I #DIV10I j IDIVIO! j i $75,344 $213,441 MDIVOf j S5,149,9e4 5149964) #011V101 j 50 I 93 V ! NOTE: Proffer calculations do not Include Indude Interest because they are cash payments up horn. Credits do Include interest if the projects are debt Ananoed. NOTES: Model Run Date 11113104 MTR Project Description: Assumes 800,000 square feet of Warehouse on 79.13 saes zoned Mi District Due to changing oort0111ons associated with devetopmentin the County, the results of this Output Module may M be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 1.000 1.342 N N N CS) A r, m G) N cn A G) m m .m P W LD cn m t7 n O A Z Z H Z t7 M U m W W 11/28/2004 17:43 54066FG395 FRED CO PLANIITNG DEP PAGE 02104 HALT.,, MONAHAN, ANGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PAMNIEM-HIP OF PROFES810NAL CORPORATIONS WILBUR C. HALL (16 9 2-19 7 2 3 THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) SAMUEL D. ENOLS O. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 F 7 EAST MARKET STRCCf 0 EAST DOSCAWEN 9TRECT %XMBUR0. VIRGINIA WINGHIMTER, VIROINIA TELF-PHONE 701-777-10150 TELEPHONE 540.00P-7200 rrAX SAO-0ry','4SO4 E-MAIL IawyarvGhWInwn8han.C= November 23, 2004 Mr. Michael_ T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 I-LEA9G REPLY TDI P. O. Box 648 WINCHr_%TER, WIROINIA 22504,01348 HAND DELIVERED Re: North Stephenson, Inc. (Stephenson Village) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Staternent. It is my opinionn, that the Proposed Proffer Statement is in a form to meet the requireinents of. the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following: I . I would suggest, for uniformity and easy reference purposes, that the document be titled "Proposed Proffer Statement" and the details of the zoning, owners, property, etc., be summarized at the beginning (see the Haggerty Property Proposed Proffer StatEm.ent for the fon-n). 2. Proffers I (b), (c), (d), (e), and (g) should each state specifically when the proferred improvement will be done; for example, I (b) may Provide that the improvements will be made within thirty (3 0) days of written request by VDOT. 3. Proffers 1(f) and (g) provide that certain things will be done "by parties other than the property owners." First of all, who are the "property owners"? If it is the Applicant, it should say "the 11/28/2004 17:43 54066r -G395 FRED CO PLANK'?NG DEP PAGE 03/04 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Mr. Michael T. Ruddy Frederick County Department of Planning and DevelopXnent Page 2 applicant" rather than "the property owners." .Also, if these things are .not to be done by the Applicant, is it clear or should it state who will do these things? 4. In Proffer 3, the words "and approval" should be added after the word "review" in the last sentence. 5. Proffer 5 should state specifically for what purpose the monetary contribution is to be made, as the County has to account for the expenditure of all proffered monetary contributions. 6. The signature(s) should be for the titled owner of the property. If North Stephenson, Inc. is the titled owner, the signature block should be: North Stephenson, Inc. By; President I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the property, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing, please contact: me. i1e truly yours, Robert T. relit sell. Jr. R'zM/glh 11/28/2004 17:43 5406656395 FRED CO PLANkITNG DEP PAGE 04/04 SOP PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ # Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Performance (RP) PROPERTY: 111.56 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 55-A-212 & 212A (the "Pxoperty") RECORD OWNER: The Canyon, LC APPLICANT: The Canyon, LC PROJECT NAME: Haggerty Property Y ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: September 10, 2004 REV[SION DATA: N/A The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject exty ("Property"), as described above, shall be is strict conformance with the folio con ' ns, which shall supersede all other proffers that =y have been made prior to. i g In the t that the above referenced zezonis not granted as applied for by pplicant ("Applicant these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null id. Further, these proffers contingent upon final rezoning of the Property "final rezoning" defined as that re g -which is in effect on the day following th t day upon which the Frederick County Bo of County Supervisors (the `Board") on gmating the rezoning may be contested in th fiate co If the Board' ecision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to su t development plans un ' ch contest is resolved, the tetra rezoning shall include the dap owing catty of a court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been app ed, or, if ap ed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. If this a -ca ' is denied by the Board, but in the event that an appeal is for any reason therea ed to the Board -for reconsideration by a court of competent jurisdiction, then th pro : Applicant shall affirmatively reado or any purpose, shall be deemed withdrawal ess e- hwhlereof in a wnting spedfically fox that Is e headings of proffers set forth below have been axed for convenience or only and sh not control or affect the tneax�ing or be tak an interpretation of anyion of roffess_ The improveuaexxts proffered herein sh e provided at the devel ent of that portion of the Property adjacent to including the e r other proffered requixement, unless otherwise sped X1 here The team as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all futute o rs and s in interest When used im these proffets, the "Generalized Developm,emt ," to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Haggerty Property" datr 1, 2004 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Page 1 of 8 43 A 99 . 2 Pra pati .. 43 A 140 Q3. P 144 fah 43 A 147 a� oro 43 A 146 m. 43 A 150 43 A 151A 43 A 151 � NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. A 26 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC 43 A 152 661 J, 43 A 158 Q 43, A 153 e v A 4q 27 Map Features REZ # 03 - 05 'MPlicafion /�/ Bridges ^/C—ad. O Parcels Ayrlc, +rye Streams Streams Dams /�/ Repining Walls D ub S Funs al Districts i Double Church N North Stephenson (see app.) . ' Buildings Road Centerlines l'j45' Refuge Church Tanks N O South FrederickV✓ E0 ^L„ 500 LJ V r000 \i Trails S Feet � f�_ � a�-,rr. r. � i r, •1 � t `��..y i 1�",� � �, �r c � a � .. r �'K. r r ���� ,aR�. moa ppb w iii � � � '�����• �,,; -ate �"3��' A { � �'!l�` • r'. . I +� . �t i 4 •. t�.'��✓ y�f Z�fI�.' y„ '�T/ !s'' �" [� - � _ _ �fi "r t I ✓ y IP Fl, W111 I � Ru4+F ' .7 r r Greenway Engineering URWOUNIM PROPERTY RECORD OWNER APPLICANT PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE: Preliminary Matters October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning Revised January 3, 2005 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT ,[\-D -7# Rural Areas District (RA) to Light Industrial District (Ml) with Proffers 79.13 acres +/-; Tax Parcels #43 -((A)) -150,43 -((A)) -151,43 -((A)) -151A, 43 -((A)) -152,43C -((3)) -2,43C -((3))-3,43C-((3))-4, 43C -((3))-4A, 43C-((3))-5, 43C -((3))-7A North Stephenson, Inc. North Stephenson, Inc. (here -in after "the applicants") North Stephenson, Inc. - Light Industrial Rezoning October 13, 2004 January 3, 2005 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 # 03 oS for the rezoning of the 79.13 -acres tract from the Rural Areas (RA) District, to Light Industrial (MI) 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 the applicants and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property is more particularly described as the land owned by North Stephenson, Inc. being all of Tax Map Parcels 43-((A))-150, 43-((A))-151, 43 -((A)) - 151A, 43-((A))-152, 43C-((3))-2, 43C-((3))-3, 43C-((3))-4, 43C -((3))-4A, 43C-((3))-5, and 43C -((3))-7A, as evidence by recorded property deeds in the Frederick County Clerk of Court Office included with this rezoning proposal. File #3485/EAW Greenway Engineering October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning Revised January 3, 2005 PROJECT PROFFER STATEMENT 1.) Transportation a) The applicants hereby proffer to construct, or cause for the construction of dual southbound left turn lanes on Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) at the major collector road intersection with Renzi Drive at the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. The southbound dual left turn lanes will be constructed at the same time that the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park improvements to Martinsburg Pike are constructed. b) The applicants hereby proffer to construct, or cause for the construction of a right turn lane within the Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) right- of-way at a location and distance acceptable to VDOT between the intersection of Redbud Road (Route 661) and the major collector road intersection serving as the primary entrance to the 79.13 -acre project site. A traffic study will be prepared and submitted to VDOT as a component of the site development plan for each proposed land use on the 79.13 -acre site to allow VDOT to determine when the proffered improvement is warranted. c) The applicants hereby proffer to provide for the dedication of right-of-way and for the allowance of temporary construction easements needed for the ultimate design of the major collector road from the CSX railroad to Martinsburg Pike. The dedicated right-of-way shall provide for the improvements identified from station 10+00 to station 24+00 on the Stephenson Village Major Collector Road Plan and CSX Crossing prepared by Greenway Engineering and dated October 2004, which is included as an exhibit with this proffer statement. The applicants further proffer to provide for the dedication of right-of-way acceptable to VDOT for the purpose of providing a right turn lane from the major collector road onto the internal street connection located at station 17+00 on the subject exhibit. d) The applicants hereby proffer to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT for the provision of a traffic signal at the major collector road intersection with Martinsburg Pike, which will align with Renzi Drive at the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. The signalization agreement shall provide for the pro -rata share of the traffic signal based on the projected traffic volumes identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) compared to the projected traffic volumes identified in the TIA for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park and the TIA for the Stephenson Village Residential Planned Community, File 434851EAW 2 Greenway Engineering October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning Revised January 3, 2005 e) The applicants hereby proffer to prepare and submit a traffic study to VDOT as a component of the site development plan for each proposed land use on the 79.13 -acre site to a determine the portion of the major collector road that will be required to be constructed based on the impacts associated with each future land use. f) The applicants hereby proffer to dedicate right-of-way to VDOT along Redbud Road for future improvements to the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange area. This right-of-way shall be dedicated to VDOT within 180 days of final engineering plan approval. The preparation of right-of- way dedication plats and legal documents associated with this dedication shall be prepared by parties other than the applicants. g) The applicants hereby proffer to dedicate a 50 -foot right-of-way and provide temporary construction easements to VDOT for the purpose of realigning Redbud Road (Route 661) from the current intersection at Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) to connect to the major collector road on the subject site. The purpose of the 50 -foot right-of-way dedication and temporary construction easements is to provide VDOT and Frederick County with an appropriate alternative to relocate Redbud Road. The dedicated 50 -foot right-of-way will connect to the intersection that is identified at station 17+00 on the Stephenson Village Major Collector Road Plan and CSX Crossing prepared by Greenway Engineering and dated October 2004, which is included as an exhibit with this proffer statement. The location of the 50 -foot right-of-way to connect to this intersection will be agreed upon by VDOT and the property owners to allow for a minimum 25 mph geometric design criteria and will be made available at such a time that VDOT deems necessary. The preparation of right-of-way dedication plats and legal documents associated with this dedication shall be prepared by parties other than the applicants. The construction of the realigned portion of Redbud Road shall occur by parties other than the applicants. h) The applicants hereby proffer to prohibit commercial entrances along the western property line on tax parcel 43-((A))-152 adjoining the Redbud Road (Route 661) right-of-way. This proffer is intended to prohibit commercial entrance locations on the current aligmnent of Redbud Road and is not intended to prohibit commercial entrances internally to the subject site should Redbud Road be realigned through the subject site resulting from the widening of Interstate 81. File #3485/EAW 3 Greenway Engineering October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning Revised January 3, 2005 2.) Structural Development The applicants hereby proffer to limit the structural development on the 79.13 -acre to a maximum of 800,000 square -feet of total floor area. 3.) Environmental Protection The applicants hereby proffer to provide for the delineation of karst features located on the 79.13 -acre site as a condition of master development plan approval. The applicants further proffer to conduct geotechnical analysis for each site plan in which structural development or other site improvements are located within 50 feet of identified karst features. The geotechnical analysis reports and methods for treatment of impacts shall be provided to the Frederick County Engineer for review and approval as a condition of site development plan approval. 4.) Viewshed Mitigation The applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the placement of freestanding and building mounted illuminated and non -illuminated business signs facing the eastern property line of tax map parcel 43-((A))-152 to mitigate viewshed impacts from the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area. 5.) Fire and Rescue Monetary Contribution The applicants hereby proffer to provide a monetary contribution of $0.01 per square foot of structural development on the 79.13 -acre site occurring subsequent to rezoning approval. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for structural development, which may generate a maximum monetary contribution of $8,000.00 based on the proffered maximum square footage of structural development. The applicants monetary contribution will be directed to the Clearbrook Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company, which will provide first due response to the subject site. File 43485/EAW 4 Greenway Engineering 6.) Signatures October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning Revised January 3, 2005 The conditions 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 grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: North Stephenson, Inc. Keven Omps Date &rn r By. - 'cs� R& Omps Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of Loc To Wit: ii The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this `s; day of fV1ccv,-J--. 2005 by My Com.... File 43485/EAW Greenway Engineering October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of ten contiguous parcels comprising a 79.13 -acre tract, owned by North Stephenson, Inc. The subject properties front on the east side of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North), approximately 200 feet north of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off -ramp, and immediately east of Redbud Road (Route 661). The current zoning of the parcels comprising the 79.13 -acre tract is RA, Rural Areas District and RP, Residential Performance District. North Stephenson Inc. proposes to rezone these parcels to establish 79.13 -acres of M1, Light Industrial District. See attached North Stephenson, Inc. Location and Zoning Map Exhibit. Basic information Location: East of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), north of Interstate -81 Exit 317 and east of Redbud Road (Route 661) Magisterial District: Stonewall Property ID Numbers: 43-A-150, 43-A-151, 43 -A -151A, 43-A-152, 43C-3-2, 43C-3-3, 43C-3-4, 43C -3-4A, 43C-3-5, 43C -3-7A Current Zoning: Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning: Total rezoning area: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RA, Rural Areas District RP, Residential Performance District Agricultural, trucking, office and residential uses Industrial M1, Light Industrial District 79.13 -acre tract The parcels comprising the subject site are located within the study area boundary of the Northeast Land Use Plan. The policies guiding future land use development within the Northeast Land Use Plan are identified in Chapter 6 (Land Use) of the Comprehensive Policy Plan on pages 6-34 through 6-38.5. The recommendations of the Northeast Land Use Plan suggest that commercial and industrial land use should occur around the 2 Greenway Engineering October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange area, with an emphasis on industrial land use adjacent to the railroads within the study area. The subject site has approximately 2,600 linear feet (%2 mile) of frontage along the CSX railroad and can accommodate rail spur and rail siding locations. The 79.13 -acre site is located within the Urban Development Area and the Sewer and Water Service Area; therefore, expansion beyond the existing property boundaries is not required by this application. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject site, tax parcels 43-((A))-150, 43-((A))-151, 43 -((A)) -151A, 43-((A))-152, 43C-((3))-2, 43C-((3))-3, 43C-((3))-4, 43C -((3))-4A, 43C-((3))-5, and 43C -((3))-7A, are situated in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate 81 Exit 317/Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11) interchange area. The 79.13 -acre site has frontage along Martinsburg Pike and along Redbud Road (Route 661). The Northeast Land Use Plan identifies a new major collector road, which connects Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) to Martinsburg Pike. The location of the new major collector road intersection with Martinsburg Pike was established during the rezoning and master development plan process associated with the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. Therefore, the new major collector road is planned to traverse the subject site along the northern boundary of tax parcel 43-((A))-150 and is planned to run near the subject property's eastern boundary and intersect Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11). The Interstate 81 widening project is anticipated to relocate the northbound off -ramp to align with Martinsburg Pike at the current location of the Redbud Road intersection with Martinsburg Pike. This road improvement project will ultimately result in the need for Frederick County to determine an acceptable route to relocate traffic flow from Redbud Road to Martinsburg Pike. The applicants' proffer statement has made provisions for the dedication of a 50 -foot right-of-way through the subject property that will allow for future displaced traffic to access Martinsburg Pike at the signalized intersection associated with the new major collector road. Furthermore, the applicants' proffer statement prohibits commercial entrances along Redbud Road. Flood Plains The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map #510063-0105 -B. The entire site is located as "Zone C", area outside the 100 -year flood plain. 3 Greenway Engineering October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies one wetland area in the southwestern portion of the 79.13 -acre parcel, which is a man-made impoundment. The treatment of this wetland area will be determined during the master development plan process for the future industrial site. Steep Slopes There are no steep slopes on the subject site. Mature Woodlands Two areas of mature deciduous trees exist on the 79.13 -acre site, which are located in the northwestern portion of the subject site. It is anticipated that these areas will be impacted by the future development of industrial sites, parking areas and by the future relocation of Redbud Road. In April 2003, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance to eliminate a maximum disturbance percentage for woodland areas on commercial and industrial properties and to require higher planting standards for parking lot areas. Site plans for the 79.13 -acre property will comply with these standards. Soil Types The Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service was consulted to determine soil types contained in this tract. The subject site is located on map sheet number 24 & 30, and contains the following soil types: 513 -Carbo Silt Loam: 2-7% slope 5C -Carbo Silt Loam: 7-15% slope 6C -Carbo Oaklet Silt Loam, very rock 2-15% slope 3213-0aklet Silt Loam: 2-7% slope The 5B -Carbo Silt Loam and 32B-Oaklet Silt Loam soils are identified on page 123 as prime farmland soils. All soil types possess moderate to high shrink -swell potential. Karst Features The geology associated with the subject site has the potential for the presence of karst features. The delineation of karst features throughout the project site is proffered to occur during the master development plan process. Furthermore, the proffer statement provides for geotechnical analysis during the site development plan process for any 0 Greenway Engineering October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning development that will occur within close proximity of identified karst features to determine appropriate treatment methods to ensure that structural development, stormwater management facilities and stormwater discharge does not negatively impact these features. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining propeLly zoning and present use: North: Zoned Rural Areas (RA) South: Zoned Rural Areas (RA) East: Zoned Rural Areas (RA) West: Zoned Residential Performance (RP) Zoned Business General District (132) C. TRANSPORTATION Use: Residential and Unimproved Use: Residential and Agricultural Use: Agricultural Use: Residential Use: Rutherford's Farm Indust. Park The 79.13 -acre site has approximately 1,300 feet of frontage along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North), which is classified as a major arterial road; approximately 2,400 feet of frontage along Redbud Road (Route 661), which is classified as a local street; and will have approximately 1,300 feet of frontage along the new major collector road that is identified to follow the northern boundary of the industrial site. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the 79.13 -acre site by Patton Harris Rust, which is dated September 22, 2004 and included as a component of the Impact Analysis Statement. The TIA assumes the total build out of 800,000 square feet of industrial land use by year 2015. The TIA provides for a Level of Service (LOS) analysis, AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and Average Daily Trip volumes for existing, background and build out conditions. It should be noted that the background traffic data accounts for the buildout of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park and the Stephenson Village Residential Planned Community, as well as a 5% increase in regional traffic generation on Martinsburg Pike compounded annually throughout the 2015 project buildout year. The applicants' proffer statement has been designed to prohibit access to Redbud Road, as this intersection with Martinsburg Pike fails during peak hour traffic volumes. Therefore, the applicants' propose to provide access to the 79.13 -acre industrial site at the planned signalized intersection with Martinsburg Pike and the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park major collector road entrance. The TIA assumes both the projected traffic impacts from major developments in the immediate area of this project, as well as an 5 Greenway Engineering October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning average annual increase in traffic on Martinsburg Pike to account for regional traffic impacts. Furthermore, the TIA assumes the improvements that have been proffered for the Martinsburg Pike corridor from these future developments. The TIA demonstrates that the background traffic volumes create a Level of Service "D" at the signalized intersection of Martinsburg Pike and the new major collector road, and further demonstrates that this intersection functions at the same Level of Service "D" assuming the total build out of 800,000 square feet of industrial land use on the 79.13 - acre site. Therefore, the addition of the 5,874 vehicle trips projected from the industrial site does not reduce the Level of Service at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and the new major collector road from the Level of Service that is projected to occur solely from background traffic volumes. The applicants' proffer statement provides for on-site and off-site improvements to the surrounding transportation system, including dual left turn lanes on the southbound Martinsburg Pike approach to the project site, a continuous right turn lane within the Martinsburg Pike right-of-way from the intersection of Redbud Road to the signalized intersection into the project site, the execution of a signalization agreement with VDOT for traffic signalization at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and the major collector road aligning with Renzi Drive at the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, the dedication of right-of-way for the ultimate design of the major collector road from the signalized intersection at Martinsburg Pike to the CSX railroad, the provision of right-of-way dedication along Redbud Road for the proposed Interstate 81 widening, and the dedication of a 50 -foot right-of-way through the subject site for the relocation of Redbud Road that is anticipated to be severed from its current intersection at Martinsburg Pike as a result of the Interstate 81 widening project. These proffered on-site and of -site improvements will maintain the LOS projected from background traffic impacts and therefore, will mitigate the transportation impacts associated with 79.13 -acre industrial development. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The 79.13 -acre subject site is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundary. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) developed the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area plan to serve the northeast portion of the County, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2002. An 8" sewer force main directing flow to the Redbud Run Pump Station serves a portion of the northeast area of the County. This 8" sewer force main is constructed within the Redbud Road (Rt. 661) right-of-way, which adjoins the subject site. Sewage effluent from the industrial site will be directed through a series of force mains and gravity lines to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. This treatment facility has a hydraulic capacity of 8.4 MGD, which has flows allocated to the FCSA and the City of Winchester Public Utilities. The on-site sewer infrastructure required to convey effluent to the C: Greenway Engineering October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning treatment facility will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance. The impact of rezoning the 79.13 -acres can be based on comparable discharge patterns of 500 gallons -per -day (GPD) per acre for industrial land use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered square footage of structural area has on the sewage conveyance and water supply systems. Q = 500 GPD per acre Q = 500 GPD x 79.13 acres Q = 39,565 GPD projected at total build out The proposed rezoning is projected to increase flows to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility by 39,565 GPD at total build out. The design capacity of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility is currently 8.4 MGD, of which 6.4 MPD is utilized. The projected increase of 39,565 GPD at total build out represents a 1.9% increase in the current available capacity of the treatment facility; therefore, adequate capacity and infrastructure is available for this industrial development. E. WATER SUPPLY The 79.13 -acre subject site is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundary. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) developed the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area plan to serve the northeast portion of the County, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2002. A 10" water line is located along the eastern side of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11), which traverses the 79.13 -acre site. Furthermore, a 20" water transmission line is currently in place on the west side of Martinsburg Pike, which is planned to follow the major collector road serving the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park and this industrial development. The on-site water infrastructure required to convey potable water to the proposed industrial uses will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance. The impact of rezoning the 79.13 -acres can be based on comparable water usage of 1,000 gallons -per -day (GPD) per acre for industrial land use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered square footage of structural area has on the water supply system. Q = 1,000 GPD per acre Q = 1,000 GPD x 79.13 acres Q = 79,130 GPD projected at total build out The projected water usage for the proposed rezoning is 79,130 GPD at total build out. This projection represents approximately 3.9% of the North Water Treatment Plant 7 Greenway Engineering October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning current capacity of 2 MGD. The North Water Treatment Plan is designed to increase treatment capacity to approximately 4 MGD. Therefore, the existing source and infrastructure is adequate to accommodate the capacity needs of the proposed 79.13 -acre industrial site at total build out. F. DRAINAGE The 79.13 -acre parcel is gently sloping and drains from the north and west towards the southeastern portion of the project site. On-site storm water management facilities will be designed to adequately accommodate the post -development conditions. The applicants have proffered to prepare a geotechnical analysis for the purpose of identifying any suspect karst depressions and to ensure that proposed developed areas do not adversely impact water quality through storm water management design. Storm water management will be designed in accordance with all applicable state and local storm water management requirements and erosion and sedimentation control. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual business consumption of landfill volume of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 sq ft. of structural floor area (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4tb edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on the 800,000 square feet of industrial square footage that is projected to develop over a 10 -year period: AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per 1,000 sq. ft. AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 800 (1,000 sq. ft.) AV = 4,320 Cu. Yd. at build-out/yr or 3,024 tons/yr at build -out AV = 3,024 tons/yr divided by 10 -yr build -out = 302.4 ton annual increase 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 annual solid waste generation from the subject site is anticipated to be 302 tons per year, which represents a 0.15% increase in the solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year. This projected annual increase in solid waste generation is manageable and can be accommodated by the Regional Landfill. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies the Seven Oaks residential structure (#34-1067) as potentially significant, although this structure was not deemed Greenway Engineering October 13, 2004 North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning eligible for the state or national register of historic places. The applicants' utilized Seven Oaks as a residential rental property over the years and recently razed the structure under an approved demolition permit issued by Frederick County. Prior to obtaining this demolition permit, the applicants' determined that the Seven Oaks structure did not lend itself as an adaptive reuse structure for commercial or industrial use. Furthermore, the applicants' were advised that the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation (SVBF) did not desire to pursue acquisition of the Seven Oaks residence for use as a tourist center. However, prior to razing the residence, the applicants' allowed the structure to be photographed, inventoried and cataloged both externally and internally by an architectural historian. The southeastern corner of the subject site is located across Redbud Road (Route 661) from the former Stine parcel, which was acquired by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation. A portion of the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area is located approximately 900 feet southeast of the southeastern corner of the proposed industrial site. The CSX Railroad crosses Redbud Road at the divide of the subject site and the SVBF parcel. The potential for rail -spur and rail siding is very good beginning at this location and proceeding north along the CSX Railroad for approximately 1,200 linear feet. Therefore, it is anticipated that industrial structural development will be located at least 1,000 linear feet from the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area due to the location of rail -spur and rail -siding. The applicants' have proffered to prohibit illuminated and non - illuminated business signs along the 1,400+ feet comprising the eastern property line of tax parcel 43-((A))-152. The distance between future industrial structures and the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area, coupled with the elimination of business signs along the eastern boundary of tax parcel 43-((A))-152 will assist in the mitigation of impacts to the viewshed associated with the 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Area. I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been prepared for the proposed rezoning of the 79.13 -acre site based on a proffered maximum square footage of 800,000 square feet of industrial land use. The results of the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model identify that the build -out of this square footage will generate $6,034,694.00 in revenues for capital facilities needs in the community. The Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model identifies an impact to fire and rescue services, which has been further mitigated by the applicants' proffered monetary contribution of $0.01 per square foot of structural development on the subject site. This monetary proffer would result in an additional $8,000.00 for fire and rescue services if the proffered maximum square footage is developed on the subject site. No additional impacts to community facilities are anticipated by this rezoning application. 0 MY . /_ rf A Report Summary This study considers the traffic impacts associated with the build -out of the proposed North Stephenson Tract, to be located northeast of the Route 11 & Interstate 81 intersection, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project will include a total of 800,000 square feet of light industrial development. Full build -out is to occur over single transportation phase by the year 2015. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the North Stephenson Tract were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed North Stephenson Tract, • Distribution and assignment of the North Stephenson Tract -generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service with the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) conducted manual traffic counts at the following intersections: 1) Route 11 & SB I-81 on-ramp/off-ramp; 2) Route 11 & NB I- 81 off -ramp; and 3) Route 11 & NB I-81 on-ramp/Redbud Road. Figure 1 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Traffic) and AM/FM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 2 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract PH September 22, 2004 Page 1 No Scale Figure 1 PHI2/� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Existing Traffic Volumes A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract September 22, 2004 Page 2 No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) `Denotes Free -Flow Movement * Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement Figure 2 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract P J� September 22, 2004 Page 3 2015 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS The existing traffic volumes were increased using an historic growth rate of 5% per year through Year 2010 and 3°/© per year through Year 2015. Additionally, PHR+A utilized the report titled: A Trac Impact Analysis of Stgphenson Village, by PHR+A, dated February 7, 2003, to incorporate all trips relating to "other developments" located within the vicinity of the proposed North Stephenson Tract site. Figure 3 shows the 2015 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 4 shows the respective 2015 background lane geometry and AMIPM peak hour levels of service. Using the 7th Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has included Table A in the Appendix to summarize the 2015 "other developments" trip generation. Table B summarizes the Stephenson Village trip generation results as well as the internal and pass - by trip reductions. All HCS -2000 level of service worksheets included in the Appendix section of this report. The following are a list of planned improvements and factors that impact the 2015 build -out analysis. 1) Residential and retail land uses of Stephenson Village property will enter and exit the property via a signalized site -driveway (Spine Road) located along Route 11, opposite Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. 2) Route 11 will be a four -lane divided facility from the northbound ramps at I-81 through the intersection at Spine Road. TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site based upon a total development size of 800,000 square feet of light industrial development. Using the 7th Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report, Table 1 was prepared to summarize the trip generation results for the proposed North Stephenson Tract. Table 1: Proposed North Code Land Use 110 Light Industrial PHR�n on 1 ract AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 800,000 SF 752 103 855 118 863 981 5,874 Total 752 103 855 118 863 981 5,87, A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract September 22, 2004 Page 4 No Scale 11 1q s�for� q �h ` d� I88) (609 (0)0� tea, e%% 0(0) (I88)91-12 f2 3 .4107�) SITE 0 > � o a � Off- 0 A 661 p Q^ Vr N titian `� bla���o�l �; No Scale off - cn CA C Unsignalized Intersection 1, Signalized Intersection tt LOS = D(D) 4� h'u�e�O O 4 SITE �'�r �A o Unsignalized Intersection 91 0 d 0 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) `Denotes Free -Flow Movement * Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement Figure 4 2015 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract R+A September 22, 2 Pagee 6 PH 6 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. Figure 5 represents the 2015 trip distribution percentages into and out of the North Stephenson Tract. Figure 6 shows the respective development - generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments along the study area roadway network. 2015 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The North Stephenson Tract assigned trips (Figure 6) were added to the 2015 background traffic (Figure 3) to obtain 2015 build -out conditions. Figure 7 shows 2015 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 8 shows the respective 2015 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the North Stephenson Tract are acceptable and manageable. The Spine Road/Route 11 intersection will maintain acceptable levels of service "D" or better during 2015 build -out conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract September 22, 2004 PHR+ Page 7 No Scale -1- Figure 5 Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract P"A+ September 22, 2004 HPage 8 No Scale N AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 6 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract R+A September 22, 2H Page 9 9 No Scale -F AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 7 2015 Build -out Traffic Volumes PFA PA Traffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract September 22, 2004 Page 10 No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) `Denotes Free -Flow Movement +n * Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement Figure S 2015 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service Pi4 ATraffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract September 22, 2004 Page 11 Signalized Intersection LOS = D(D) 11 A, R° 4`" `nor ewa � d rJLjC,��Q��, SITE A �A 661 W 11 l CL s� d Unsignalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection 661 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) `Denotes Free -Flow Movement +n * Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement Figure S 2015 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service Pi4 ATraffic Impact Analysis of North Stephenson Tract September 22, 2004 Page 11 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff Fee Amount Paid j Zoning Amendment Number Date 'Receive PC Hearing Date. Hearing Date '�—1 Z ps 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. M 3. Applicant: Name: Greenwqy Engineering Telephone: 662-4185 Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Property Owner (if different from above) Name: North Stephenson, Inc. Telephone: 667-4919 Address: 1800 Martinsburg_ Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt Telephone: 662-4185 Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to Property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: North Stephenson Inc. • Keven Omps & John Omps 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Trucking; Residential & Agricultural B) Proposed Use of the Property: Trucking & Light Industrial 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 43-((A))-99 Unimproved B2, B3 & Ml Districts 43-((A))-100 Residential B2 District 43-((A))-147 Unimproved RP District 43-((A))-149 Residential RP District 43-((A))-153 Residential RA District 43-((A))-154 Utility Substation RA District 43-((A))-158 Unimproved RA District 43C-((3))-6 Residential RP District 43C-((3))-9 Residential RP District 43C-((5))-15 Residential RA District 43-((5))-16 Residential RA District 43C-((5))-17 Residential RA District 44-((A))-26 Unimproved RA District 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): The subi ect properties front on the east side of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) just north of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off -ramp and immediately east of Redbud Road (Route 661) in the Stonewall Magisterial District 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 43-((A))-150; 43- ((A)) -151;43 -((A)) -151A;43 -((A)) -152;43C -((3)) -2; 3- ((A)) -151;43 -((A)) -151A;43 -((A)) -152;43C-((3))-2. 43C-((3))-3. 43C-((3))-4. 43C- ((3)) -4A; 43C-((3))-5; 43C -((3))-7A Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: 10 11 Stonewall Clearbrook Clearbrook Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School James Wood James Wood Stonewall Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 79.13 f RP & RA District M1 District 79.13 ± Total Acreage to be rezoned The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Single Family homes Non -Residential Lots Number of Units Proposed Townhome: Mobile Home: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other Multi -Family Hotel Rooms: 800,000 sq.ft. maximum structural area for light industrial and trucking 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge. 0 Applicant(s): Date: z5 ©S Owner (s): J Date: Date:l 5 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) North Stephenson, Inc., Keven Omps & John Omps (Phone) (540) 667-4919 (Address) 1800 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 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. Refer to Attached Propeqy List on Page and is described as Parcel: Refer to Attached Property List Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway En ing eerinQ (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 dscribed 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 itis otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness Signature(s) I, (we have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this , s- day of, 200 S , it l� 1 `Z� State of Virginia, City/County of To-wr : Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) ;fed to the or o' gins ment and who I (are) known tome, personally appeared-be-foxe me and -- nowledge ame e mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this 1sr day of 2 > > 1 My Commission Expires: C) 061 Public r a North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning — Adjoining Property Parcel ID Number Use Zoninz 43-((A))-99 Undeveloped B2, B3, Ml 43-((A))-100 Residential B2 43-((A))-147 Undeveloped RP 43-((A))-149 Residential RP 43-((A))-153 Residential RA 4'1'-((A))-154 Public RA 43-((A))-158 Undeveloped RA 43C-((3))-6 Residential RP 43C-((3))-9 Residential RP 43C-((5))-15 Residential RA 43C-((5))-16 Residential RA 43-((5))-17 Residential RA 44-((A))-26 Undeveloped RA File #3485/EAW North Stephenson, Inc. Rezoning - Location Map MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-05 MEADOWS EDGE (Formerly the Racy Tract) Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Meeting Prepared: March 21, 2005 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: 04/06/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 04/26/05 Pending LOCATION: This property is located east of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), east of Town Run Lane (Route 1012), adjacent to the existing Woodside Estates and Ridgefield Subdivisions. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 85-A-140 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP( Residential Performance) Use: Unimproved ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES: North: Zoning: RP (Residential Performance) South: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) East: Zoning: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential (Single Family) Use: Agricultural Residential (Single Family) Use: Residential (Single Family) West: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Public Facilities (Lagoons) RP (Residential Performance) Residential (Townhouses) PROPOSED USE: 228 Single Family Detached Cluster Dwelling Units MDP #06-05, Meadows Edge March 21, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The preliminary master development plan for this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 1012, Town Run Lane, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. We have the following comments: Sheet 1: The Urban Roads Section references Hawthorne Drive, but yet I cannot find a road named this on the remaining sheets. It appears your typical sections are not the appropriate width according to the Subdivision Street Design Standards. Please find attached Table 1 which provides the appropriate widths according to the projected traffic volumes. Sheet 2: Please show the future collector road that will be south of your development and provide how the future intersection will be designed as to where it ties into Ewing Drive. Please bring the Ewing Drive intersection with Town Run Lane in at a 90 degree intersection. 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: Cul-de-sacs must be a minimum of 90 feet with no on -street parking. Fire hydrants shall be identified on the subdivision plans to reflect Frederick County Code 90-4. Within 400 feet of all units in a single family residential subdivision, fire hydrants shall be set within three feet of the curb. Please try to avoid locating fire hydrants at the end of cul-de-sacs and/or provide a fire hydrant at the intersections to the cul-de-sacs. Plan approval recommended. Frederick County Public Works: See letter dated February 15, 2005 Frederick County Sanitation Authority: 1 st review — approved as noted. Frederick County Inspections Department: No comment required at this time. Shall comment at the subdivision review. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Geographic Information Systems (GIS): The following road names to the Meadows Edge Final MDP have been approved: Garden Gate Drive, Waterfall Way, Dollie Mae Lane, Ewing Lane, Eleven Moons Place, Falling Mountain Place, Littlewing Way, Nightbird Way, Driftwood Drive (extension), Branch Court (extension), Dragonfly Way, Marys Wind Court. Frederick County — Winchester Health Department: Development must be served by public water and sewer. MDP #06-05, Meadows Edge March 21, 2005 Page 3 Winchester Relzional Airport: The Master Plan has been reviewed and it appears that it should not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. The proposed site does lie within the airport's air space; however, it falls outside of the airport's Part 77 close in surfaces. Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation: The monetary proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate to offset the impact the residents of this development will have on the services provided by this department. The 26.5 acres offered the county would appear to provide an outstanding area for the development of a community park to serve this urban development area. Plan appears to meet open space requirements. Bicycle trail to be provided should be a minimum of 10' in width and meet VDOT standards. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 228 single family houses in 3 phases will yield 39 high school students, 32 middle school students, and 89 elementary school students for a total of 160 new students upon buildout. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature in this area, like Southern Hills project, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area and other projects in this area will necessitate a future construction site for the purpose of a new school facility to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Town of Stephens City: The Town has agreed to provide an access easement across its old lagoon site for the Meadows Edge development and find that the developer has adequately addressed concerns about traffic generated from the new subdivision. 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 This property is located east of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), east of Town Run Lane (Route 1012). The Woodside Estates and the Ridgefield subdivisions are located adjacent to this property. MDP 406-05, Meadows Edge March 21, 2005 Page 4 C) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) identifies the subject property as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The A-1 (Agricultural Limited) and A-2 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. Also of historical importance, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors denied a request to incorporate approximately 26 acres of the subject property into the UDA (Urban Development Area) on February 12, 2003. On July 7, 2004 the 105.65 acre portion of the approximately 132 site was rezoned from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers. D) Intended Use 228 Single Family Detached Cluster Dwelling Units (minimum 8,000 square feet individual lot area with an average of 10,000 square feet) E) Site Suitability & Project Scope Comprehensive Policy Plan: The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use Compatibility: The Urban Development Area (UDA) is the principal land use tool of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The general purpose of the UDA is to define the areas in the county where more intensive forms of residential development will occur. It does this by dividing the County into rural and urban areas. The UDA was originally created with the intent that it would be adequate enough to accommodate long term growth needs in areas of the County where public services are most available. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-1, 6-2) The 105 acre portion of the property contained in this Master Development Plan is not part of a small area land use plan, but is entirely within the UDA. Environment: The majority of the acreage of the property is located on a gently sloping open field without any major environmental features that would limit development. A minimal amount of wetlands exist on the property 2.44 acres). The disturbance of wetlands is only permitted in accordance with the requirements of the Unites States Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified state or federal agency. [Frederick County Zoning MDP #06-05, Meadows Edge March 21, 2005 Page 5 Ordinance, § 165-31.B. (3J. The old Stephens City sewage treatment lagoon is proposed to be removed with the development of the Meadows Edge Subdivision. The removal of this lagoon is necessary to accommodate the major collector road proposed to access the property. The Commonwealth of Virginia has approved a plan to remove this lagoon which includes the removal of water by pumping, removal of residual solids and incorporating them into soils adjacent to the site, and reclaiming land by filling and property compacting so the site will have structural integrity for future building construction. Soils: The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick Coun Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association, which is the predominant association on land located east of Interstate 81. It is noted that the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association presents some limitations to site development due to a seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and slope. The management of such characteristics must be demonstrated through the site engineering process associated with subsequent development applications for the proposed project. A couple of small pockets of Carbo and Clearbrook soils also exist on the property. The Meadow's Edge Subdivision is located within the Martinsburg Shale geographic region. Transportation: The Impact Analysis Statement from the Racey Tract rezoning projects a total generation of 2,213 trips per day for the development. Based on the 2000 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes, Jurisdiction Report 34, Fairfax Pike (Route 277) currently has an estimated 11,000 average annual daily trips. This projected traffic generation represents an increase of 20% from this 2000 estimate. According to the traffic impact analysis, the level of service for intersections along the Fairfax Pike Corridor currently range from "A" to "F". The poorest conditions are located at the Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Stickley Drive (Route 1085) intersection, which currently ranges from level of service "E" to "F". Poor conditions (lower than "C") also exist at the northbound signal of the Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Interstate 81 Northbound Ramp; at the southbound signal of the Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Interstate 81 Southbound Ramp; and at the northbound and southbound signal of the Fairfax Pike (Route277) and Town Run Lane (Route 1012) intersection. However, both of the Northbound and Southbound I-81 intersections are currently functioning at an overall level of service "C" or above. The TIA concludes that the improvements proposed with the Meadow's Edge development (Racey Tract) will actually improve the level of service at key intersections by decreasing the overall system delays by as much as 94%, while only increasing overall traffic demand by approximately 3%, based on 2007 projections. MDP #06-05, Meadows Edge March 21, 2005 Page 6 Proffer Statement The following list is a summary of the proffered conditions associated with Rezoning #03-04 (The Racy Tract) rezoning application: • Assurance that there will be no more than 228 single-family dwelling units and that these dwelling units shall be designed as single-family detached cluster housing types (minimum 8, 000 square foot lots, average 10, 000 square foot lots). • Construction of a road from Town Run Lane through the Town of Stephens City parcel to the subject properties western boundary. This road shall consist of two lanes, but graded for a possible four lane undivided collector road. The construction of these two travel lanes will be constructed prior to any connections being made to Driftwood Drive and Branch Court from the Meadows Edge development. • Right-of-way shall be dedicated along the southern boundary of the subject parcel for a possible collector road if requested by Frederick County or VDOT. • The 26.5 acres located outside of the UDA shall be available to Frederick County for any use deemed necessary by the Board of Supervisors. • The extension of Stickley Drive shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any building permits. Town Run Lane along the Town of Stephens City parcel shall be paved with bituminous concrete and guardrails shall be installed. • Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the planned improvements at the intersection of Fairfax Pike and Stickley Drive shall be constructed. This includes additional lanes and a new traffic light. If these improvements are constructed prior to the development of the Racey Tract, a $200,000 cash contribution shall be made by the applicant to be used for other road improvements to Fairfax Pike. • The westbound right turn lane at the Fairfax Pike and Town Run Lane intersection shall be re -striped to provide a shared thru right lane. • Prior to the connection with Branch Court and Driftwood Drive, the applicant shall upgrade the intersection of Fairfax Pike and Double Church Road. These improvements shall consist of a modified traffic light and additional lanes. • No construction traffic shall access Branch Court or Driftwood Drive. • Upgrades to Branch Court, Driftwood Drive, and Trunk Drive shall be made if determined appropriate by VDOT after a core sample study of the roads is completed. • Traffic calming measures shall be constructed at the connection points at Driftwood Drive and Branch Court. $40,000 in additional funds for other traffic calming measures shall be made available for a period of three years. • A community pool, bathhouse, tennis court, and sports court shall be bonded and constructed by the applicant prior to the 150t' building permit. Neighboring communities shall have the opportunity to use these facilities. The applicant will provide a bond in an amount adequate to construct the tennis court and sports court to provide assurance that if the project does not exceed the 149th building permit, the funds to construct these two sports courts will be available. MDP 906-05, Meadows Edge March 21, 2005 Page 7 • A 1.3 acre central green space with an additional 50' wide pedestrian linkage area shall be provided. • A minimum of a 40' wide open space area shall be provided around the perimeter of the proposed development which adjoins the Woodside, Ridgefield, and Stephens Ridge communities. In addition, a wooded area shall be protected adjacent to the Stephens Ridge community. No structures shall be permitted within these open space area. • A 200' no build buffer with an 800' long landscape buffer shall be provided along the southern property line. As with the other open space/buffer areas, no structures are permitted. • A five foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the east side of Town Run Lane on the Town of Stephens City property. • A ten foot wide hard surfaced bike trail shall be provided from Town Run Lane along the proposed access road to connect with the sidewalks within the proposed development. • A statement shall be provided on future covenants and the General Development Plan which notifies future residents that agricultural uses exist to the south and that wastewater treatment facilities existed or exist to the southwest of the site. • Phasing for the development shall limit the number of houses for the first two years to 75 and 78 in the final year of development. • The more restrictive requirements of Frederick County, the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, and the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook shall be implemented. No wet ponds shall be used on the site. • The abandoned sanitation lagoon, owned by the Town of Stephens City, shall be closed in accordance to the approved closure plan (see Appendix BI for additional procedures). STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04/06/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This master development plan (MDP) application is for 228 single-family detached cluster houses (minimum 8,000 square feet lots average 10,000) in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. This Master Development Plan appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. The master development plan is also in accordance with the proffers of the rezoning and has addressed all staff's 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. a iw Ir' ota A 0. f • tA� • M INI Wl'i llv INN a. oly low - I 'ov MR '14 k. AAK J COUNT' of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 February 15, 200.5 Mr. Christopher J. Lupia, P.E. Christopher consultants 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 102 Sterlir,,, Virginia 20166Ln RE: Meadows Edge (Formerly Racey Tract) Master Development Plan Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Lupia: i Ec i 5R n I � We have completed our review of the proposed master development plan for the Meadows Edge subdivision and offer the following comments: 1) Sheet I of 6, Note 5: The actual flood plain limits should be based on site specific detailed calculations rather than general Federal Emergency Management Agency studies. 2) Sheet 1 of 6, Note 6: This note indicates that the wetlands information is based on Frederick County digital information. However, based on our site inspection, it appears that a detailed wetlands delineation was performed in the field. This fact should be reflected in the notes. 3) Sheet 1 of 6, Urban Road Section: This section is referenced to a typical cross section for Hawthorne 1✓r ive. T liis road name does not appear to be germaile t(t this project. Also, the reference to the rural road section does not appear to be applicable to this project. 4) Sheet 3 of 6: Refer to the existing pond owned by the sanitation authority and designated as stormwater management. This facility is actually used as a sewage overflow holding pond and should be so designated. Prospective home buyers should be informed of this use prior to purchase. 5) Sheet 3 of 6, Legend: The legend symbol indicated for wetlands is not legible on the actual master development plan. It is suggested that a new legend symbol be adopted and applied to wetlands similar to the symbol used for disturbed wetlands. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Meadows Edge Master Development Plan Comments Page 2 February 15, 2005 5� Sheet 5 of 6, Note #27: This brief synopsis is an excellent portraval of the proposed requirements for controlling stormwater discharge to or through off-site subdivisions. These requirements shall be carefully implemented in designing onsite stormwater management facilities as well as off-site conveyance channels and/or piping. In some cases, it may be necessary to design onsite facilities to control the 100 -year storm or greater because of off-site limiting features. Also, additional stormwater facilities beyond those reflected on the master development plan may be required to ;prevent off-site drainage problems. I can be reached at 540-722-8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Z. AtIUMAt4 HarnE.rawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Direublic Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Development file A:Unead owned -'emd pcom.11-1)d Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Department of Planning and Development Use Only. Date application received Complete. Date of acceptance. Incomplete. Date of return. 1. Project Title: Meadows Edge Application #"ys 2. Owner's Name: Centex Homes, A Nevada General Partnership (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: Centex Homes, A Nevada General Partnership Address: c/o Bryan Condie 3684 Centerview Drive, Suite 100, Chantilly, VA 20151 Phone Number: 703-934-2600 4. Design Company: christopher consultants, ltd. Address: 45940 Horseshoe Drive, Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166 Phone Number: 703-444-3707 Contact Name: Brian Nolan E WE IU �I R' MAR i 4 _ Page 11 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package 5. 6. 7. APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Location of Property: Stephens City, east of Interstate 81, 0.5 miles south of Rt. 277 (Fairfax Pike), east of Rt. 1012 (Town Run La.), south on Rt. 1065 (Ridgefield Ave.) to Ewings Lane. Total Acreage: 132.1 Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): b) Current Zoning: c Present Use: d) Proposed Uses: e) Adjoining Property Information: 85 A 140 Property Identification Numbers North See attached sheet South East West Magisterial District: RP/RA Vacant Single -Family Detached 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original x Amended _ Property Uses Opequon 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: - - x /,4,;—�, Date: 3(r U� Page 12 Adjoining Property Owners Name and Property Identification Number Use Smith, David & Linda W. Pro ert# 86 E 1 18 Residential Stevenson, James E. & Tammy R. Property # 86 E 1 19 Residential Schultz, Scott & Rebecca Property # 86 E 1 20 Residential Hudson, Freddie E & Carole F. Property # 86 E 1 21 Residential Baker, Christopher W. & Carole Property # 86 E 1 22 Residential Weber, Steven A. & Tracy B. Property # 86 E 1 23 Residential Laporete, Timothy J. & Karen S. Property # 86 E 1 24 Residential Dobersztyn, David M. & Dawn M. Property # 86 E 1 25 Residential Dreyer, Mark R. & Susan L. Property # 86 E 1 26 Residential Ford, Albert D. & Mary D. Property # 86 E 1 27 Residential Dean, Timothy A. Sr., & Christi R. Property # 86 E 1 28 Residential Kidd, James C. & Ingrid K. Property # 86 E 2 2 13 Residential Malik, Jared & Naeema Property # 86 E 2 2 14 Residential Ragaller, Timothy A. & Diane M. Property # 86 E 2 2 15 Residential Schneider, Paul C. & Jennifer G. Property # 86 E 2 2 16 Residential Cooley, Bryan K. & Sharon L. Property # 86 E 2 2 17 Residential Corbit, Steven & Kathryn Property # 86 E 2 2 18 Residential Marks, Alfred H. Jr. & Julia G. Property # 86 E 2 2 19 Residential Duke, Patricia Kelly Property # 86 E 2 2 20 Residential Skeith, Joe David & Sheila K. Property # 86 E 2 2 21 Residential Mitchell, Jent P. III & F. Anne B. Propert # 86 E 2 2 22 Residential Smiy, Kenneth P. Property # 86 E 2 2 23 Residential Patton, Dale E. & Diane A. Property # 86 E 2_2 24 Residential Philibin, Gary L. & Stacey D. Property # 86 E 2 2 25 Residential Smith, Paul A. & Jackson, Mildred Jan Property # 86 E 2 2 26 Residential Rodgers, Ronald E. & Ellan S. Property # 86 E 2 2 27 Residential Berlowitz, Morris & Helene Property # 86 E 2 2 28 Residential Shickle, Lester G. & Jeanette C. Property # 86 E 2 2 29 Residential Sybert, Ronald E. & Nancy M. Property # 86 E 2 2 30 Residential Disque, Dale W. & Dayle P. Property # 86 E 2 2 31 Residential Burch, Patricia A. Property # 86 E 2 2 32 Residential Mohan, Robert & Mary Beth Property # 86 E 2 2 33 Residential Dirnagl, Alfred & Christine Property # 86 E 2 2 34 Residential MacGregor, Gregory T. & Pamela D. Property # 86 E 2 2 35 Residential Phillips, William R. II Property # 85 B 1 17 Residential Dursey, Walter H. Jr. Property # 85 B 1 18 Residential Sharon M. LaRoche Living Trust Property # 85 B 1 19 Residential Campbell, Kurt A. & Jammie M. Property # 85 B 1 20 Residential Swain, Rachel C. Property # 85 B 1 21 Residential Dixon, Anthony C. Property # 85 B 1 22 Residential Rose, Thomas B. II Property # 85 C 2 79 Residential Deiter, Cynde Anne Jones Property # 85 C 2 80 Residential Pumphrey, Round W. Property # 85 C 2 82 Residential Soule, Chap R. Property # 85 C 2 83 Residential Lafollete, Kenneth M. Property # 85 C 2 84 Residential Linaburg, Mikkia Property # 85 C 1 2 92 Residential Bennett, Brady L. & Christine L. Property # 85 C 1 2 93 Residential Murphy, John D. & Shirley M. Property # 85 C 1 2 94 Residential Brown, Mae M. Property # 85 C 1 2 95 Residential Payne, Robert A. Property # 85 C 1 2 96 Residential Artz, Harold A. Jr. & Bridget A. Property # 85 C 1 2 97 Residential Shirley, David E. Property # 85 C 1 2 98 Residential Fiorvanti, Richard L. II Property # 85 C 1 2 99 Residential Livingood, Clara C. Property # 85 C 1 2 100 Residential Sandretzky, Ronald W. & Tammy M.W. Pro ert# 85 C 1 2 101 Residential Gary L. & Stephen P. Scothorn Property # 85 A 139 A ricultural Frederick — Winchester Property # 85 A 141 Local Government Gary L. & Linda O. Scothorn Property # 85 A 139A Residential James R. & Jane S. Young Property # a85 A 139B Residential Town of Stephens City Property # 85 A 142 Local Government Ours, Rick Property # 86 A 25 A ricultural Painter, Herbert M. Property # 86 A 21A Agricultural Stephens Ridge Home Owners Assoc. Property # 85C 2 91 A & 85C 2 69A Oen Space Mar 11 05 10:25a cd loudoun r03 444-5230 p.2 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Ck hut` Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) COAITEX i¢a-F-S A 6r-AlF,.4L P�;�r��{ P (Phone) 703-- 67q—/-J34f (Address) 3 t- 6Y ��rt� tsf� ► A - .S" ler 100 C" ✓ t, l �, VA 2C)' _& the owners) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. on Pae �� 5 � Q g 4� _� Q , and is described as TAY_ m AF S Parcel: A Lot: jtBlock: Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) ��'a sfa �e� ��1�u l-r,'1fS fir, (Phone) 7b3-- `/A/ .37b7 (Address) `as�j�/( f� Sr �Ho rel-SLjJ1C 100 b/A- Z0t(e(, 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 (use) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: G Rezoning (Including proffers) G Conditional Use Permits G Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) G Subdivision G 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 sea] this day of .200--, Signature(s)r`- Z State of Virginia, CityiCounty of r % a. , , To -wit: 1 %>) a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to thA foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has a knowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this (f day oPok,,L�, 2004 -- My Commission Expires: a 3 � Notary Pub PAGE 212' RCVD AT 3/11/2005 10:18:21 AM [Eastern Standard Time] * SVR:NVGS0311 * DNIS:9093 * CSID:703 444 5230 *DURATION (mm-ss):01-18 C: • COUNTY of FIFEDERICK t=�F.a�i. d''��d" a i :-.-[ Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM: -,. TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner S Jo e RE: Discussion Item — Revisions to the Eastern Road Plan DATE: March 22, 2005 Introduction The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan is an element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Any revisions to the Eastern Road Plan require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and adoption by the Board of Supervisors. The Eastern Road Plan covers the eastern portion of the County and describes existing and proposed roads according to their functional classification. The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that 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 also be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan. Two specific revisions to the Eastern Road Plan are under consideration: 1. A new major collector road between Senseny Road (Route 657) and Berryville Pike (Route 7); and 2. Modifications to the classification and location of several adjacent existing and proposed roads. The first map (attached) shows the relevant section of the existing Eastern Road Plan. The second map shows the network incorporating the proposed revisions. Land Use and Zoning The land in the vicinity of the road revisions is generally shown as residential on the Eastern Frederick County Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Some of the land has no land use designation. Parcels in the area are zoned RP (Residential Performance District) or RA (Rural Areas District). The area in the vicinity of the road revisions is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water -1- 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Wirchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Discussion Item — Revisions to the Eastern Road Plan March 22, 2005 Service Area (SWSA). The revisions are entirely within the Red Bud Magisterial District. Proposed Revisions The construction of a new road from the southern end of the Canyon, LC property, as shown on map 2, north to an intersection with Berryville Pike (Route 7) was proffered with the recently approved Haggerty rezoning. (This road has also been referred to as the spine road.) A signalized intersection at Route 7 will be provided, with Canyon, LC participating in the cost. In light of this new road, the Eastern Road Plan was re- evaluated. The proposed revision to the Eastern Road Plan would classify this new spine road as a major collector road and would show the extension of this major collector road to Senseny Road (Route 657), thus providing a connection between Senseny Road and Route 7. This new collector road is not meant to be a replacement for a future Route 37 in this area. Route 37 is still clearly shown on the Eastern Road Plan as a new major arterial road. The proposed major collector has been designed to run parallel to the future Route 37. Also proffered with the Haggerty rezoning was the dedication of land for the future Route 37 on the Canyon, LC property. As the proposed major collector road would provide a connection between Senseny Road and Route 7, it was sensible to reconsider other elements of the Eastern Road Plan in this area. The current Eastern Road Plan shows a connection between Senseny Road and Route 7 via Morning Glory Drive, a new road through three properties to the north, and Valley Mill Road (Route 659). There are some disadvantages to the currently planned connection. Morning Glory Road is a residential street not designed to serve as a major collector road. Valley Mill Road along this route has a one lane bridge. In addition, there is no traffic light on Route 7 to accommodate the traffic from Valley Mill Road. In light of the new spine road to be provided with the Haggerty rezoning, it has been suggested that the Eastern Road Plan be further modified to eliminate the proposed minor collector between Morning Glory Road and Valley Mill Road. Instead, it is proposed that a new major collector road be established between a re-routed Valley Mill Road and the spine road on the Canyon LC, property. The Haggerty rezoning included a proffer that land on the proposed route of such a road on the Canyon, LC property would be reserved for access to adjacent properties. Advantages of this proposal are that less traffic would use Morning Glory Road and the one lane bridge section of Valley Mill Road. In addition, the majority of the traffic in the area would access Route 7 at a signalized intersection. -2- Discussion Item — Revisions to the Eastern Road Plan March 22, 2005 It should be noted that the construction of the aforementioned roads would be the responsibility of the developers in this area. Transportation Committee The Transportation Committee considered these proposals at its meeting of March 1, 2005. Mr. Jerry Copp, Resident Engineer with the VDOT Edinburg Residency, was in attendance to answer questions. Committee members questioned the location of the spine road and the future Route 37, particularly at its intersection with Route 7. Mr. Copp assured committee members that it appeared possible to accommodate both the spine road and the future Route 37 in this area. Detailed design would take place at a later stage. The Transportation Committee unanimously recommended the proposed revisions to the Eastern Road Plan. Comprehensive Plan and Programs Subcommittee The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPB) considered these plan revisions at its meeting on March 14, 2005. Members expressed concern that the spine road would prejudice the future Route 37 in this area. They also had concerns over the intersection of Route 37 and the spine road at Route 7 and at Senseny Road. In addition it was noted that building a spine road rather than portions of Route 37 was a waste of resources. Members voted 11-1 to recommend approval of the revised Eastern Road Plan to the Planning Commission. Yes (to approve): Light, DeHaven, Morris, Kriz, Copenhaver, Golladay, Gochenour, Kearns, Wilmot, Lemieux, Teal No: Banks Planning Commission Staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission regarding these plan revisions that could be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors during their discussion of this item. SKE/bad -3-