Loading...
PC 08-17-05 Meeting AgendaFILE COPY AGEN FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia August 17, 2005 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) July 6, 2005 Minutes.........................................................................:.............................. (A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC MEETING 4) Master Development Plan #07-05 for Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for Residential — Planned Community use. The properties are located on the south side of Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 761) and Jordan Springs Road (Rt. 664), east of Milburn Road (Rt. 662), and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 44-A-292, 44-A-293 and 44-A-3 IA, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Suchicital................................................................................................................... (B) 5) On behalf of Deborah Dorman Dutcher, owner of the property, Artz & Associates is requesting a Subdivision Waiver regarding Section 144-31.B.1 of the Frederick County Code. Under Section 144-5, Artz & Associates is requesting an exception to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the existing Dutcher property to be further subdivided, and reduce the existing 74% Rural Preservation Lot to 40% of the original parcel. The subject property is located at the intersection of Dover Lane and Chapel Road, approximately 100' west of the Route 627 intersection with Route 758, and is identified by Property Identification Number 83-A-106 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (C) 6) Subdivision Request #26-05 of Stonebrook, LC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for one single family detached traditional lot. The property fronts the western boundary of Jones Road (Route 621) about 0.05 miles north of intersection with Stonebrook Road (Route 1109) and Greenfield Avenue, and is identified with Property Identification Number 62-A-51, in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (D) 7) Subdivision Request #27-05 of Jireh Enterprises, LLC, for warehousing use. The property is located off of Ebert Road (Route 663), three miles north on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), and is identified with Property Identification Number 44 -A -6A, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (E) DISCUSSION 8) Win -Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Vision Plan Mr. Lawrence................................................................................................................... (F) 9) Review of By -Laws Pertaining to 11:00 p.m. Adjournment Mr. Lawrence................................................................................................................... (G) 10) Other • J • MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNT VPT.AlV1VIlVr COMMISSI N Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on July 6, 2005. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; June M. Wilmot, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R- Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Bernard Suchicital, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS met twice since their last meeting, and the subject of the meetings was the implementation of the rural areas study and formulating a draft new zoning district for that area. He said the group will continue to meet every other Thursday for the next couple months. Commissioner Thomas said the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 14, 2005, from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m, in the Planning Department and their regular meeting will be held a couple weeks afterward. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1545 Minutes of .July 6, 2005 -2 - Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPB) Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS will meet next week, on July 11, 2005, with the Board of Supervisors for the yearly round -up of the Comprehensive Policy Plan changes. In addition, he said the UDA Study is ongoing. Transportation Committee — 07/05/05 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that Mr. John Bishop, with the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization), spoke to the Transportation Committee at their meeting on July 5. He said one ofthe major topics was to determine if there could be some coordination between the Transportation Committee and the Citizens Committee of the MPO. Commissioner Kriz added that Mr. Bishop also spoke to the UDA Study Group at their morning meeting on July 5. Sanitation Authority — 06/21/05 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the rainfall for the month of May was normal at 3.07 inches and the treatment plants are operating very well. He reported that the Sanitation Department is considering raising the rates next year; if so, the fee will be doubled for a water and sewer hook-up. CITIZEN COMMENTS Comments Regarding the RA (Rural Areas) Study Mr. John Goode, a resident of the Stonewall District, thanked the Commission and the various subcommittees for listening to the position of the rural land owners, the farmers, and the large -lot landowners during the Rural Areas Study, Mr. Goode said the meetings generally fell into two categories: the ones that were positive and progressive, where much is accomplished; and, the meetings where the prevailing attitude was to penalize someone. He said those meetings were negative and he didn't enjoy those. Mr. Goode said he realized there was a concern about proffers and they failed in not having the opportunity to give proffers in the rural areas. Mr. Goode commented that within the last 24 hours, he suspected there was a fair amount of building going on in the UDA on land that has been zoned residential for a number of years; he said this land also does not generate proffers. Mr. Goode considered these scenarios the same and he suggested a global approach be used to solve the proffer problem, rather than slipping it solely into the rural areas. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1546 Minutes of July 6, 2005 co, N a V 7 -3 - PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #04-05 of Eugene Cooper for an Expansion of a Cottage Occupation for a Counter Top Shop (CUP 907-03) at 207 Herman Lewis Lane (Rt. 608). This property is identified with P.I.N. 52 -A -35C in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner Bernard Suchicital stated that the applicant is requesting an expansion of Conditional Use Permit #07-03 for a Cottage Occupation/ Custom Counter Top Shop, approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 27, 2003, to allow for three employees to be associated with the business. Mr. Suchicital said there is a gravel lot alongside the 40 X 60 -foot workshop structure that will be sufficient for employee parking. He added that the applicant does not intend to have customers to the property. Mr. Suchicital read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the expansion to be appropriate. Commissioner Wilmot inquired about the location of the operation; she also inquired about outside storage on the property. Mr. Eugene Cooper, the applicant and property owner, said that he currently rents a storage unit and most of his work takes place in his customers' homes. In addition, Mr. Cooper said that he planned to dispose of the outside storage on his property. There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Straub, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 404-05 of Eugene Cooper for the expansion of a cottage occupation for a counter top shop (CUP #07-03) at 207 Herman Lewis Lane (Rt. 608) with the following conditions: All review agency requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit. No retail sales of merchandise shall be permitted. 4. No business signs shall be permitted. No more than three employees shall be permitted. 6. CUP #04-05 invalidates CUP #07-03. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1547 Minutes of July 6, 2005 1 Do 0, hT -4 - Conditional Use Permit 905-05 of Robert W. Shaw for a Cottage Occupation for Custom -Crafted Rifles at 2394 Double Church Road (Rt. 641). This property is identified with P.I.N. 93-3-2 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner Bernard Suchicital stated that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a cottage occupation for gunsmithing out of his home. Mr. Suchicital said the applicant proposes to have no more than three customers per month and to operate two days per week. He said there will be no sale of firearms on the property; no customers will be permitted to test firearms on the property; and the applicant has stated that he will only test firearms once every three -to -four weeks at appropriate hours. Mr. Suchicital explained that the applicant has a personal shooting range which runs down the gulley at the rear of his property; he said the rear of the property elevates rapidly, creating a natural berm of wooded trees and landscape. Mr. Suchicital next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Commissioner Kriz preferred to see the hours of operation noted in the list of conditions. Commissioner Thomas questioned the condition restricting the number of customers to no more than three per month. Mr. Suchicital responded that the applicant plans only to work on the weekends. He explained that the applicant has stated that he did not want any customers on his property, but the condition was added to meet Mr. Shaw's licensing requirements. Mr. Robert W. Shaw, the applicant and owner of the property, said that he crafts custom-built target rifles; he does not get involved with any type of hand guns. Mr. Shaw said that he has worked on his own target rifles for the past ten years and would like to expand into a business where he can do work for other people. Mr. Shaw said that he plans to work only on weekends, no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 5:00 p.m. He was comfortable with all of the conditions recommended for his permit. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition to the conditional use permit: Mr. John Van De Crommert, an adjoining property owner, commented that there has been a great deal of shooting on the property. Mr. De Crommert stated that the noise frightens the neighbors' riding horses and causes the dogs to bark. He said all the shooting is disturbing to hear on the weekends when a person looks forward to peace and quiet. Mr. De Crommert said that he lives in a subdivision and he is paying subdivision taxes. Mr. De Crommert was concerned about the type of people that would visit Mr. Shaw's business. Ms. Patricia Ann Keyes, an adjoining property owner, stated that the noise is deafening. Ms. Keyes said she has lived here for 15 years and every fall, everyone sites their guns in for hunting season on Mr. Shaw's property. Ms. Keyes asked if there was an acceptable decibel level that could be established at her property line. She said that she works all week and would like to have peace and quiet on the weekends. She would prefer that Mr. Shaw have his hours of operation during the week and not on Saturdays and Sundays. She also asked about baffling for sound control and the possibility of ricochet. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1548 Minutes of July 6, 2005 -5 - Ms. Alice Neff, a neighboring resident, said that although she was not certain whether the discharging of firearms was taking place on Mr. Shaw's property or not, she said the noise was continuous for ten to 20 minutes. She said the noise was not only disturbing to the area homeowners, but to pets and horses. Another citizen came forward and said she lived next to the Van De Crommerts. She said that she owns horses and so do her neighbors. She said the noise from shooting is extremely loud and it frightens the horses, which is dangerous when they ride. She hoped the volume of the noise could be taken into consideration. Mr. Shaw returned to the podium to address the comments that were made. Mr. Shaw said the use of the range he created is for his personal use. Mr. Shaw said that he uses the range when he is preparing for a competition and possibly shoots 30-40 rounds for 30 to 45 minutes about once a month. He said the firearms he shoots are not powerful; they are intended for target -shooting only and are not hunting guns. Mr. Shaw said that he could not address the amount of noise. He said the three customers per month would not be exceeded. He said he was an active member of the Fairfax Rod and Gun Club in Manassas and any test firing and demonstrations could be done there. Chairman DeHaven said that the Commission shares the concern about the noise; however, there is nothing the community could do to restrict the discharge of firearms in the rural areas of Frederick County. Commissioner Thomas was concerned about the condition of three customers per month; he was not in favor of limiting the number of customers so strictly and recommended five to ten. Commissioner Thomas also believed the hours for allowable test -firing should be added into the conditions. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to approve the conditional use permit with the following amendments to the staff's recommended list of conditions: Condition 45 be changed to no more than ten customers per month; and the addition of Condition 47, No test firing of weapons will occur outside the hours of 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #05-05 of Robert W. Shaw for a Cottage Occupation for Custom -Crafted Rifles at 2394 Double Church Road (Rt. 641) with the following amended conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No business sign shall be permitted. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit. 4. No retail sales of merchandise shall be permitted. No more than ten customers shall be allowed on the property per month. No customer shall be allowed to test firearms on the property. No test firing of weapons to occur outside of the hours of 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Prederick County Planning Commission Page 1549 Minutes of July 6, 2005 r T a. UPDATE OF THE 2006-2007 SECONDARY, PRIMARY, AND INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR FREDERICK COUNTY. '1<HIS UPDATE WILL ESTABLISH PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO. THE ROAD NETWORKS WITHIN FREDERICK COUNTY. Action — Recommended Approval Planner Bernard Suchicital presented the update of the 2006-2007 Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvements Plans for Frederick County to the Planning Commission and he reviewed the priorities in each list. Mr. Suchicital pointed out that the most significant addition to the Secondary Road Improvement Plan was the re-routing of Papermill Road, at its southern end, to align with the new Justes Drive. He said that additions to the list of unscheduled hard -surface road improvement projects include Laurel Grove Road and Babbs Mountain Road. He noted that Laurel Grove Road, while not on last year's list, has been on the list in previous years. In addition, Mr. Suchicital said that the Old Baltimore Road project has been extended to include more of this road. Moving on to the Primary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Suchicital said that Rt. 37 remains the top priority recommendation, followed by improvements to Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277); improvements to Rt. 11; spot improvements to intersections along Routes 50 and 277; and the establishment of a commuter park- and-ride share lot on Rt. 7. Mr. Suchicital said that the Interstate Road Improvement Plan includes all projects on last year's plan with the addition of spot improvements along I-81. Mr. Suchicital concluded his presentation by noting that the Frederick County Transportation Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the attached Draft 2006-2007 Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvement Plans during their meeting on June 7, 2005. Commissioner Morris inquired if there was coordination between the County's Secondary Road Improvement Plans and the plans being formulated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Referring to the estimated costs for the major road improvement projects, Commissioner Straub asked if those monies were currently available. Commissioner Gochenour asked if any progress had been made on rail transportation. In response to Commissioner Morris' question regarding coordination with the MPO, Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy said that the MPO is actively using the County's transportation plans as a basis for their decision-making. There were no citizen comments regarding the presented road plans. Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) resident engineer, Mr. Jerry Copp, stated that all of the Aylor Road funding is available at this time; a portion of the money for Greenwood and Sulphur Springs will be available within six years and the remainder will have to come later; regarding the two revenue-sharing projects, some, but not all, of the money is available for the Inverlee Way project and the Board recently made an application for the Papermill Road project. Regarding the MPO relationship, Mr. Copp said that the Department of Planning and Development, VDOT, and the MPO are all working in conjunction with each other. Mr. Copp next briefly explained how the funds are allocated for the transportation plans. He added that rail is being considered in the environmental study under the I-81 widening concept. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1550 Minutes of July 6, 2005 aq I F 7 -7 - BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Update of the 2006-2007 Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvement Plans for Frederick County as recommended by the Transportation Committee and as presented by the staff. Rezoning #09-05 of Freedom Manor, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 26.87 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 70 single-family homes. The property fronts on the east side of Papermill Road (Rt. 644) and is approximately 2,300 feet west-northwest of the intersection of Papermill Road (Rt. 644); the property has access to Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 64-A-23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Planning Director Eric R Lawrence reported that Rezoning 409-05 of Freedom Manor was previously submitted to the County in 2002 as the Casey Rezoning; however, it was denied at that time. Mr. Lawrence said that a number of events have occurred since then and the applicant has assembled another package that he hopes the County will consider favorably. He said the property is now owned by Steve A. DeBrueler et als and the application is to rezone 26.87 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 70 single-family detached homes. Mr. Lawrence pointed out an adjacent three -acre parcel which was not a part of the rezoning and he noted that it has been retained by a member of the Casey family. He said there is an easement across this property which would provide access from Rt. 522 to the subject property. Mr. Lawrence proceeded to review the proffers submitted by the applicant. He noted that a primary access has been proffered off of Papermill Road (Rt. 644) and a secondary access has been proffered to Front Royal Pike. He noted that a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the project has also been proffered With respect to ordinance requirements for buffers, the applicant will supplement the buffer along Papermill Road with a ten -foot hikeribiker asphalt trail. A 50 -foot buffer will be supplied along the Southern property line, against the Shenandoah Memorial Park, along with a hikeribiker trail and wrought -iron fence. Mr. Lawrence continued, stating that a potential exists for considerable amounts of traffic to cut through this neighborhood to utilize the new state road system to exit the property. To address this, the applicant has proffered that this connection will not occur until appropriate road improvements are made at Papermill Road- In oadIn conclusion, Mr. Lawrence described the monetary contributions proffered by the applicant to transportation improvements and to capital facilities impacts. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, representing the property owner and applicant, Steve A. DuBrueller, et al, talked about the traffic -calming system they have designed to discourage cut -through traffic between Route 522 and Papermill Road; he also spoke about the elimination of the connection to Westwood Drive. Mr. Wyatt next addressed one of the staff's comments about locating the Rt. 522 access point further south on the property, which would place the access on a portion of property that was retained by the Casey family. Mr. Wyatt said that an easement agreement was executed between the Caseys and the DeBruellers which would allow for State streets, construction, and utility crossing. He said that a green accessory structure on the Casey property may also be affected and they are seeking the ability to have the structure relocated, should the road go through. Mr. Wyatt added that all of the tum lanes and all of the road improvements are proffered to be completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1551 Minutes of July 6, 2005Ai t0. V 7 Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Ms. Barbara L. Midkiff, a resident on Westwood Drive, was pleased to hear that Westwood Drive would not be opened up to through traffic; however, she was still in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Midkiff said that she voiced her opposition to this rezoning in July, August, and November of 2002 because of the traffic congestion; she commented about the number of traffic accidents occurring on Rt. 522. Ms. Midkiff said the traffic continues to increase with all of the new developments and soon, the new school will be opening. She said that all of the traffic creates a hazard and it's dangerous for everyone. Ms. Robin Casey, property owner at 1210 Front Royal Road, said that she first became aware of this rezoning request on June 22, 2005, and she learned the details of the rezoning on June 24, 2005, when she called the Department of Planning and Development. Ms. Casey said that the contract agreement of December 30, 2003, between herself and Mr. DeBrueller stipulates that if the proposed right-of-way was to proceed through any existing structure, an agreement would be negotiated prior to its installation. She requested that the Commission delay the decision on this rezoning for 30 days, to allow time for Mr. DeBrueller and her to meet and come to an agreement. Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium and said that the agreement Ms. Casey spoke of is in the Commission's agenda package. Mr. Wyatt agreed with Ms. Casey on her understanding of the agreement; however, he believed there was a significant window of time to get the agreement worked out before a road is built on the property. Mr. Wyatt did not believe the rezoning would need to be delayed to resolve the issue; he said the agreement is clear regarding costs and he believed Ms. Casey was protected. Commissioner Straub believed the plan presented was improved over the previous plan, however, she thought it was still not as good as it could be. She said she had reservations about the location; she was concerned about the bend on Papermill Road and the uncertainty about when it would be improved; the site was practically across the street from the new school sites; and she had concerns about the impacts to schools, to traffic, and to drainage. Commissioner Gochenour was also not in favor of approving the rezoning at this time because the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) was in the middle of their UDA Study; she also voiced her concern about the impacts to schools, to the water and sewer systems, and to traffic. Commissioner Morns, on the other hand, believed this was an improved plan over what was previously submitted. He said the primary problem he had with the original plan was the Westwood Drive access and the absence of an access on Papermill; he said these two issues have been resolved for him. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning 409-05 of Freedom Manor, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 26.87 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 70 single-family homes with the proffers as submitted by the applicant. This rezoning was recommended for approval by the following majority vote: Frederick County Plarming Commission MID, Page1552 Minutes of July 6, 2005 ME YES (TO APPROVE): Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, DeHaven, Kriz, Triplett, Wilmot NO: Straub, Gochenour, Thomas (Note: Commissioners Manuel and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #10-05 of Wakeland Properties, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc., to rezone 7.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District for general commercial uses. The properties are located east and adjacent to Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522), approximately 350 feet south of the Papermill Road intersection. This property is identified with P.I.N.s 64-A-29 and 64-A-30 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy reported that the application is to rezone 7.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District for commercial uses; she said the site is located within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). Ms Eddy said the site is also located within the boundaries of the SFLUP (Southern Frederick Land Use Plan), which seeks to concentrate industrial and commercial uses near and around interstate, arterial, and major collector interchanges and intersections. She reported no adverse review agency comments; the County's Fiscal Impact Model indicated that the proposed development would have a positive revenue source to the County. Ms. Eddy continued, stating that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) evaluated the impacts of the traffic on two distinct road configuration scenarios: the first scenario was if Papermill Road statyed in its current alignment and the second assumed the future relocation of Papermill Road to align with Justes Drive at its intersection with Front Royal Pike. She said that the TIA indicated that a Level of Service (LOS) C conditions or better will be maintained on the study roads and intersections, regardless of the ultimate road configuration. Ms. Eddy next summarized the proffers submitted by the applicant. She said the applicant has proffered to develop the site with B2 land uses not to exceed 80,000 square feet of gross floor area, excluding the floor area of mini-warehouse/self storage facilities; the applicant has proffered to limit site entrances to one, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP); the applicant has proffered money towards the signalization of the intersection of Justes Drive and Front Royal Pike and/or future design and construction of the re -aligned Papermill Road; the applicant has also proffered a monetary contribution to Sheriff and Fire and Rescue. A Commission member pointed out that the way the proffer is written, the applicant could construct an 80,000 square -foot shopping center and, if there was sufficient space in the back, they could add mini -warehouses. Ms. Eddy replied that was correct; however, she said the applicant has to comply with the zoning ordinance for specific buffers and landscaping around the mini -warehouse units. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., representing the Wakeland Trust, introduced himself and Mr. Wakeman. Mr. Maddox stated that they have eliminated residential uses altogether. Although they do not have a specific proposal for the property at this time, they have been sensitive to the needs of the corridor through landscaping, access to sewer and water, and good drainage. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1553 Minutes of July 6, 2005 1n'I' -10 - Commissioners asked if all of the County Attorney's comments would be made a part of the official record and Mr. Maddox replied yes. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Mark Smith came forward and said he was representing the Shenandoah Mobile Home Court and he wanted to clarify the entrance issue. Mr. Smith said that Shenandoah Mobile Home Court originally had two entrances, but one was given up for Justes Drive. He said the remaining entrance is very close to Justes and needs to be moved closer to the middle of the parcel to make it a safe entrance. Mr. Smith stated that he wanted to work with the representatives of the adjoining Wakeland Properties on the coordination and spacing of their entrance and right -tum lane dedication so that he has enough room available to make a safe entrance. Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Smith if he might consider a shared entrance. Mr. Smith replied that he wanted to hold onto at least one entrance to make this a viable corner for the possibility of a commercial use, considering Justes will be a highly -traveled road and will probably end up at Victory Lane and Airport Road. He said he will also have an entrance off of Justes and the inter -parcel connection could also benefit this parcel economically. Ms. Ann Cross, area resident, stated that the applicant should be able to say what uses were going to be on this property before the Commission approves the rezoning, especially because of the adjacent school sites. Mr. Bob Bann, area resident, said there were too many unanswered questions with this proposal and he believed the applicant should have concrete answers for questions about the uses designated for the property and the location of roads, etc., especially in light of the nearby schools. Ms. Roxanne Wingfield, resident at the front of Westwood Subdivision, spoke about all of the problems this area had with drainage, with tractor -trailer movement, the volume of traffic, and the noise. Ms. Wingfield believed the problems were going to get worse and she was concerned about public safety; she was not sure everything was in place to make this plan work. Mr. Lloyd Ingram with VDOT was available to answer questions from the Commission. Board Liaison Barbara Van Osten asked for the minimum distance requirement between entrances in a 55 mph speed area. She also inquired about the likelihood of VDOT reducing the speed limit in light of the pending school construction. Mr. Ingram said the minimum distance requirement between entrances in a 55 mph speed zoned is 200 feet; he noted that as the speed limit is lowered, the required distance between entrances is less. Mr. Ingram explained that once the schools are up and running, VDOT would be able to do a traffic count and conduct a study to determine if a reduction in speed limit is warranted. Commissioner Thomas commented that he thought approval of this would be spot zoning. He said there was some B2 up the road a little further; however, this whole area between Justes Road and the development will probably see a commercial domino effect and this parcel was just the beginning. Other Commissioners said they preferred to see this site developed as commercial, rather than residential. However, they hoped the developer would establish a use that was RP -friendly, that was aesthetically -pleasing, and was not the typical strip mall. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, Frederick County Planning Commission C -n) nD Page 1554 Minutes of July 6, 2005 -11 - BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning # 10-05 of Wakeland Properties, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., to rezone 7.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District for general commercial uses with proffers offered by the applicant. Waiver Request of Charles and Thelma Snapp for an exception to Chapter 144 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Article V, Design Standards, Section 144-31, Rural Subdivisions, C(3) Minor Rural Subdivisions, to enable the family subdivision of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. The property is located on Snappy Lane, off Whissens Ridge Road (Rt. 616), approximately 1.1 miles southwest of the intersection with Wardensville Grade (Rt. 608). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 60-A-66 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Snapp, are requesting a waiver of Section 144-31, Subtitle C(3), of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance to enable a family subdivision of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet wide. Mr. Cheran noted that three letters from adjoining property owners have been included in the Commission's agenda; all three of the property owners have declined the applicant's request for granting of an easement. Mr. Cheran said that the waiver request would only apply to the creation of a single -lot family subdivision. Commissioner Morris asked if the 50 -foot access would still be required for the parcels at the rear of this property, even if the Commission granted the waiver for this particular subdivision. Mr. Cheran replied, yes, that was correct. Commissioner Wilmot commented that there appeared to be sufficient right-of-way at the property in question; however, progressing towards Whissens Ridge Road, there seems to be a portion where there is no right-of-way available at all. Mr. Cheran stated that was correct. He said that as you approach Whissens Ridge Road, the right-of-way narrows into what appears to be a small path. Mr. Cheran said that this older subdivision was created prior to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and the right-of-way requirement wasn't taken into consideration like it is today. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, representing the Snapp Family in this waiver request, said that Mr. and Mrs. Snapp would like to provide property for their son to construct a residence. Mr. Wyatt pointed out that the parcels towards the front of Snappy Lane, owned by Charles Snapp, Bryan Pitcock, and Dolly Snapp, do not have a 50 -foot right-of-way in place and the structures on these properties are very close to the existing lane. He said the Snapps spoke to all of their neighbors and none of them are able to provide the additional right-of-way. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1555 Minutes of July 6, 2005 J-111 0 N 1p -12 - Mr. James Grubbs, property owner at the intersection of Whissens Ridge Road and Snappy Lane, said he had no problems with the Commission granting the Snapp's waiver request, but he believed the boundary lines needed to be redefined because the metal stakes were taken out of the middle of the lane some time ago. Mr. Grubbs said he was not able to provide the needed right-of-way from his property. Commission members had no issues with this waiver request because the subdivision was for only one lot for a family member. Commission members said they have granted this type of request in the past. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Waiver Request of Charles and Thelma Snapp for an exception to Chapter 144 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Article V, Design Standards, Section 144-31, Rural Subdivisions, C(3) Minor Rural Subdivisions, in order to enable the family subdivision of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION OF THE RURAL AREAS STUDY. PROPOSED LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES APPLICABLE TO THE RURAL AREAS WILL BECOME A COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AND GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE RURAL AREAS OF FREDERICK COUNTY. (Please Note: Instead of a summary, the comments made during the Planning Commission's discussion of the Rural Areas Study have been typed nearly verbatim in order to provide the Board of Supervisors and the permanent record with precise comments.) Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy presented the Rural Areas Study to the Commission as a discussion item. Ms. Eddy reported that Frederick County has been working on a Rural Areas Study for almost two years and there have been numerous meetings of the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), resident surveys have been conducted, along with public visioning sessions, stake -holder meetings, public comment meetings, and joint meetings with groups of large -lot land owners. Ms. Eddy stated that an earlier version of the Rural Areas Study had been endorsed by the CPPS, which came before the Commission as a discussion item in January of 2005. She said that this latest version, however, is quite different; she said this version is based on a table of land development proposals that were forwarded to the Planning Commission by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on May 11, 2005. She noted that the table has been included in the Commission's agenda packet. Ms. Eddy stated that the Planning Commission was tasked with reviewing and studying these proposals. She further stated that the staff modified the January version of the plan to reflect the contents of the table and this draft plan, dated June 6, 2005. Ms. Eddy said that on June 13, 2005, the CPPS reviewed both the land development table and the draft which reflects what is contained in the table and they provided comments. She said those comments have been provided in the Commission's agenda. For the benefit of those in the audience and watching at home, Ms. Eddy proceeded to briefly review the contents of the June 6, 2005 draft plan. Frederick County Planning Conunission Page 1556 Minutes of July 6, 2005 9 w -13 - In conclusion, Ms. Eddy stated that the staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission regarding the Rural Areas Study that could be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors during their discussion. She said their discussion is scheduled for July 13, 2005. Chairman DeHaven next called for citizen comments and Planning Commission comments. Mr. Greg Hewitt, Stonewall District, asked if State roads are required on the five -acre by - right. Ms. Eddy replied that once you get to the third lot, you do have to provide a state road; this hasn't changed from current regulations. Ms. Eddy said there is an option under the new regulations for a waiver to build a road to state standards, but keep it private. Mr. Hewitt was concerned that under the new Rural Area proposals, the developer would be required to build State roads. Mr. Dave Worthington, Frederick County property owner, said the original purpose of the Rural Areas Study was that the County had minimal influence over the form and location of residential development in the rural areas; and further, residential growth's affect on the natural, cultural, and local resources of the rural areas. Mr. Worthington said that the latest proposal utilizes terms such as, "encouraged," and there are no restrictions. He believed it was very lucrative for out -of -county, big developers to come in and put in five - acre parcels along Rt. 7 and Rt. 50. Mr. Worthington did not see the actions needed for the County to control development in the rural areas. Ms. Diane Kerns, Gainesboro District and member of the CPPS, said that the current proposal is the status quo, plus an additional option for rezoning which could be a greater density with smaller lot size, with possibly a package treatment plant. Ms. Kerns said that she was not sure how this addresses the major issues of transportation, mitigation of costs of services, and the concerns voiced at the initial stakeholder meetings about increased growth. She was not sure this is being addressed in this latest proposal. She said that if there is an unlimited five -acre, by -right, and looking at it from the County's point of view, you can not plan for something that is unlimited. If the density is going to remain the same, then you have to deal with the time -frame, which is phasing or something else. She said there was also considerable discussion about package treatment plants and we need to think carefully about that before we move forward with this. In conclusion, she said that transportation is a huge issue and the study group never truly got into those discussions. She said this needed to be addressed and she did not see how the current plan does that. Ms. Kerns said that she had serious concerns about this plan moving forward without having more discussion. Commissioner Straub, Red Bud District, said that considering the strike-throughs and wording changes in the current proposal, such as "encouraged" instead of "required," she believed the "teeth" of the document were gone. Commissioner Straub didn't know if the committee had done the best it could. She agreed with Ms. Kerns and with Mr. Worthington; she said this document says almost nothing when it comes to controlling the growth outside the UDA. Commissioner Unger, Back Creek District, asked about who will govern the package plants; he asked if the Board of Supervisors would decide. Chairman DeHaven, Stonewall District, replied that ultimately, it would be the Board's decision; however, the discussion has always been that the package plants would be dedicated. Commissioner Thomas, Opequon District, said that the latest option, the "third option," with the combination of allowing as little as 30,000 square -foot lots and then having the community water and sewer as an option, is leading down a perilous path of polluting the groundwater system. He predicted there would be problems, if a significant number of developments with 30,000 square -foot lots use traditional septic systems, or Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1557 Minutes of July 6, 2005 rpNo -14 - even alternative septic systems, and have water wells. He said that on a 100 -acre development, 30 lots would be allowed; all of those lots would be on approximately 7'/z to 8 acres. He said that allowing this as an option for communal water systems is poor judgment on our part. Commissioner Thomas said that if we want to go to 30,000 square -foot lots, we need to require the developer to come up with some type of communal system and require a minimum distance between the septic systems or water treatment systems and the water wells. He said to either put the restriction in the ordinance or change it from "optional" to "required." Commissioner Thomas believed this option was basically just a tweeking of the rural preservation part of our existing ordinance; he said it's a good option, but we've done nothing to solve the problem that was initially stated and that we wanted to solve. Commissioner Light, Stonewall District, stated that he was not pleased with this particular proposal, he said this proposal actually increases development; it promotes large developers to enter the RA instead of the UDA.. He thought it was a huge mistake. He believed the County should direct development towards the UDA and create a situation to make the RA a vision and a view shed for the County without intense development procedures taking place. He said the rezoning option is an intense development procedure; there's no question about it. Commissioner Light said that he would like to see that option deleted; he also wanted to see the five -acre program deleted. He said that if the two options are deleted, then you have what is currently on the books today, which is better than what is being proposed. Commissioner Light did not want to see this current proposal sent forward; he said that the problems have not been solved. He said that the only thing that has been achieved is the path of least resistance. Commissioner Light said that he has gone through each individual item, made and addressed comments, and made recommendations that he would like to see added as part of the program to be sent to the Board of Supervisors as information. Commissioner Wilmot, Shawnee District, stated that over the two years the committee has been involved in this process, all of these details have been discussed, pro and con. She said that speaking philosophically, which is where she was coming from because she could not speak to some of the details as others with more experience, she believed this current iteration of a land use plan gives the County very little opportunity to create its vision in the rural areas. She said it has left the option up to the developer and, in her mind, that was not acceptable. Commissioner Wilmot said she believed the study group and the Ad -Hoc Committee had come close, and she wanted to see the group go back and re -work the information so that the group could provide something to be proud of. Commissioner Straub, Red Bud District, stated that the one positive thing about the rezoning option, as opposed to the five -acre cookie -cutter lot option, is that with the rezoning, you have the opportunity to recoup costs from proffers; she said that will not come when a developer is building a house on a five -acre lot that will have the same impacts on the County as anyone inside the UDA who buys a lot and pays proffers so their kids can go to school, so they have fire and rescue, police, and roads. She said one of the bad things about these five -acre lots is that they contribute absolutely nothing towards the infrastructure of the County. She said that taxes do not pay for the services rendered; 70% of our taxes go to schools. Commissioner Straub stated that national builders are here and they are all building five -acre lots and the County doesn't see anything from those lots as they are built. Commissioner Gochenour, Red Bud District, thanked Commissioner Thomas for bringing the issues forward concerning water and sewer. She concurred with the majority of the comments made and believed the study group needs to go back and rework this. She said she would not want to see the current proposal go forward. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1558 Minutes of July 6, 2005 90 _ -15 - Ms. Danita Hewitt, Stonewall District, said that she disagreed with more than half of what Commissioner Light had stated. Ms. Hewitt said that she was looking at this proposal from the view of a farmer. She said the farmer's view is not wanted in this County. She commented on the subject of view shed, which to her meant all the beautiful sites out there. She said that once the farmers go out, and they are going out and everyone knows that, new farmers are not coming back in. So, a lot of the view shed might be just beautiful pieces set aside, such as the 70%, but it will not be the view shed everyone is used to seeing, such as the round bales of hay sitting in a field. All of that is going. Ms. Hewitt said that if you would have left all of this alone, all of us wouldn't be considering selling anything; you wouldn't have the development; you wouldn't have all of this stuff. She said that it has all been turned around to where it's getting sold because people are scared to death that later they will not be able to sell it. She said that everything she has heard is opposite of what Frederick County is to her. Ms. Hewitt said she realized that businesses and housing are needed; but the County can plan for those. She implored the Commission not to go out in the country and tell folks they can't do anything because it scares everyone to the point where they want to sell everything. She said it was the "fanners" livelihood too. She said it's not just looking after Frederick County... it's a personal issue also. Mr. I T. Carr, with the Top of Virginia Builders Association, stated that the main purpose for the Rural Areas Study was for preservation and the current proposal would preserve roughly 50-70% of the acreage. He said, for example, placement of 30 houses on a 100 -acre parcel would result in approximately 26 acres or 74% of land preserved to open space; on a 200 -acre site, it would be 150. He said that was a significant improvement over 20 houses on 100 acres. In response to some of the Commissioners' comments, Mr. Carr said the national builders are not coming to Frederick County to pick up five -acre parcels of land; he said that was not their intention. He said that national builders construct on sites where they can build 500-600 per. He said the builders everyone is seeing on the five -acre properties are either people doing custom homes or constructing one or two houses at a time. He said this is not something where the national builders are going to come in here. Mr. Carr said the TOV Builders has never had any opposition to any of the proposals that have been put in front of the Board. He said they have reviewed these proposals and although the TOV thought some modification might be needed, they were okay with them and had no major opposition. Mr. Carr believed that the Board needed to speak with the local landowners about their oppositions and concerns. He said the TOV had no major issues with this at this time. Commissioner Morris, Shawnee District, echoed the comments made by Commissioner Wilmot. Commissioner Moms said he was fortunate enough to meet frequently with the Ad -Hoc Group and he appreciated the meetings and discussions. He said the forum provided him with the opportunity to compromise on some of his strict positions. He thought progress was made and thought they had arrived at an understanding on a number of issues, including the rural preservation notion and the green infrastructure. He said then, all of a sudden, we had this injection of something that was completely foreign and alien to that process that once again, took him away from that potential consensus and compromise he had realized with the Ad -Hoc Group. Commissioner Morris said he did not like the current proposal. He said he would not feel comfortable recommending that it be forwarded with any concurrence. He suggested that once again, the study group should think in terms of revisiting that point where they departed with the Ad -Hoc Group and revisit that portion of it again. Commissioner Unger, Back Creek District, stated that Frederick County has worked on this for over two years. He said that many people and many committees worked on this. Commissioner Unger questioned taking it back for further study for another two years when all these people have been involved in it already and have come to this conclusion Frederick County Planning Convnission Page 1559 Minutes of July 6, 2005 a -16 - Chairman DeHaven, Stonewall District, pointed out that the Commission is not sending the plan forward; the Commission is sending only comments forward. Chairman DeHaven said that throughout this entire process, it has been difficult to find any consensus and to date, they have not. He believed that as a first step, this pian was a reasonable compromise. He said that for the folks who are expecting a plan to come out that will control growth in the rural areas; it is not going to happen, period. Regarding the water and sewer issue, he said he personally believed that every home built in Frederick County should be on a public system; but, we are not there yet as a community, it is not possible. He thought this was a reasonable compromise first step. He did not think it was far off of where we should be as a first step. Commissioner Watt, Back Creek District, commented that through all of the meetings over the last two years and especially the Tuesday morning work sessions, the one thing he kept hearing through the entire process was to eliminate the "cookie -cutter" aspect. He said this issue keeps coming back. He said that was the one thing we wanted to eliminate and it keeps showing up. Commissioner Watt believed the rural preservation has a lot of merit, but not the five -acre cookie cutter. He said he still had a lot of problems. Commissioner Morris, Shawnee District, made a motion for Commissioner Light's written comments to be included in the thoughts forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and also to be made a part of the permanent record. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gochenour and was unanimously passed. DISCUSSION OF ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS; ARTICLE XXII, DEFINITIONS, SECTION 165-156 DEFINITIONS AND WORD USAGE; CLARIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER. Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS), at the May 26, 2005 meeting, discussed proposed changes to Section 165-156 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. He said the proposed change would add clarification and understanding to the definitions of the Code. He said the DRRS also recommended changing the full screen and landscape screen definitions, as those definitions were placed in reverse order when the ordinance was written. The Planning Commission was in full support of correcting the errors. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1560 Minutes of July 6, 2005 t • C7 • MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #t07-05 STEPHENSON VILLAGE Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Meeting Prepared: August 1, 2005 Staff Contact: Bernard S. Suchicital — Planner I 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. Action Continued discussion to 08/17/05 Pending Pending LOCATION: The properties are located on the south side of Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 761) and Jordan Springs Road (Rt. 664), east of Milburn Road (Rt. 662). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 44 -A -292,44-A-293, and 44 -A -31A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: R4 ( Residential Planned Community) Use: Unimproved ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES: North: Zoning: R4 (Residential Planned Community) Use: Residential South: Zoning: R4 (Residential Planned Community) Use: Residential East: Zoning: R4 (Residential Planned Community) Use: Residential West: Zoning: R4 (Residential Planned Community) Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Residential Planned Community comprised of mixed housing types totaling 2,465 dwelling Reviewed Planning Commission: 07/20/05 Planning Commission: 08/17/05 Board of Supervisors: 09/28/05 Action Continued discussion to 08/17/05 Pending Pending LOCATION: The properties are located on the south side of Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 761) and Jordan Springs Road (Rt. 664), east of Milburn Road (Rt. 662). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 44 -A -292,44-A-293, and 44 -A -31A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: R4 ( Residential Planned Community) Use: Unimproved ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES: North: Zoning: R4 (Residential Planned Community) Use: Residential South: Zoning: R4 (Residential Planned Community) Use: Residential East: Zoning: R4 (Residential Planned Community) Use: Residential West: Zoning: R4 (Residential Planned Community) Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Residential Planned Community comprised of mixed housing types totaling 2,465 dwelling MDP #07-05, Stephenson Village August 1, 2005 Page 2 units, exclusive of the affordable elderly housing, with 250,000 square feet of commercial uses (190,000 square feet - retail; 60,000 square feet - office) and 44 acres dedicated for public school and recreation uses. The applicant has proposed to serve the development with a multi- modal transportation system consisting of a major collector road, a system of pedestrian and bicycle trails, and a linear park trail within the Hiatt Run Corridor. The gross residential density proposed for this development is 3.10 dwelling units per acre. The Master Development Plan will be conducted in a phased approach. Phase I will only address a portion of the residential uses planned for Land Bay III. All future phases will be included in future revisions to the Stephenson Village MDP. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The master development plan for this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11 and 761, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. The submitted master development plan appears acceptable to VDOT. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to construction on the State's right-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work. Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plans approved with submitted changes. Plan approval recommended. Frederick County Public Works: Upon review of the subject plan we offer the following comments: 1) Provide outlet protection design and dimensions on the plan for all proposed and existing culverts in accordance with VESCH Standard 3.18. Also, you have proposed the replacement and enlargement of several existing culverts; will this create a need for platted drainage easements? If you proceed with the proposed culvert size changes, the existing drainage pattern as well as the flow rate will be altered which, in turn, may impact the downstream property owned by Judith and Marshall McCann Slaughter. It will be necessary to ensure that an adequate drainage channel exists and that Minimum Standard 19 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations is met. It will be necessary to acquire easements to install the proposed outlet protection and Rip Rap if applicable. 2) Stabilization matting shall be installed on any slopes greater than 3:1 to ensure the establishment of proper vegetative cover. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: 1st review —no comment Frederick County Inspections Department: Please locate elevation of the FEMA 200 year flood plain on subdivision lot plans and site plans when submitted. Note that a demolition permit shall be required to remove any structures and is subject to VUSBC section 112.1.4 Asbestos inspection prior to permit issuance. No additional comments required at this time. MDP #07-05, Stephenson Village August 1, 2005 Page 3 Geographic Information Systems (GIS): The Stephenson Village, Land Bay III Community Road Name Sheet has been revised to meet the requirements and changes set forth in Frederick County GIS Comment Sheet dated March 3, 2005. Road names, suffixes and placement are now approved and accepted into the system. Frederick County — Winchester Health Department: No Comment as public water and sewer to be provided. Winchester Reeional Airport: The Master Plan has been reviewed and it appears that the proposed site plan will not have any impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport as the proposed development lies within the airport's airspace it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 surface. The Airport does request the opportunity to comment on future construction site plans of commercial buildings or communication towers to ensure compatibility with Airport surfaces/operations. Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation: The plan appears to meet open space requirements. Staff recommends the County reserve the right to develop the 24 -acre park site as deemed appropriate by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The Hiatt Run Trail appears to be six feet in width. Staff recommends the trail be a minimum of ten feet and meet department bicycle trail standards. The proffer statement indicates if development on the proposed park land does not take place within ten years after it is turned over to the County, the land will revert back to the developer. Staff does not believe the developer should control when or how the dedicated park land is developed. The plan indicates that 82.2 recreational units are required for this development and 117.9 have been provided. Of the 117.9 units offered, only 47.3 units are available to the general public. Staff believes only recreational units available to the general public should be counted towards meeting recreational unit requirements. Staff believes the County should reserve the right to review and approve proposed recreational units. The County should require the proposed 24 acres of park land to be given in its present state or with improvements approved by the County. Staff recommends an upgrade of the Pedestrian Trail System to a minimum of a ten foot wide hard surface trail meeting department standards. This would allow bicycles and strollers to use the trail system as well as pedestrians. Road markings for the four foot wide bicycle lands along the major collector road, as shown in typical road section, should be included. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 460 single family homes, 110 town houses and 360 multi -family homes will yield 104 high school students, 91 middle school students, and 267 elementary school students for a total of 462 new students upon buildout. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area and other projects in the area will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. MDP #07-05, Stephenson Village August 1, 2005 Page 4 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. The Master Development Plan is required to be submitted with the R-4 rezoning application. In the Stephenson Village rezoning process, because of the scale of the project, the applicant requested and was granted the ability to submit the MDP at a point in the future. The MDP will be phased in; the first phase will include approximately 930 residential units on 285 acres. As future phases are introduced through the MDP review process, the MDP will be revised to reflect the cumulative project plan. B) Location The subject site is located east of Milburn Road (Route 662), south of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761), and southwest of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664), approximately 2,000 feet east of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North). The parcels comprising the site are located wholly within the Stonewall Magisterial District and are used primarily for agricultural purposes. Numerous parcels adjoin the 794 acre site, all of which are zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are either undeveloped or established with residential or agricultural land uses. C) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. On September 24, 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning 406-03 which rezoned the 794 acres to R-4 (Residential Planned Community) with proffers. D) Intended Use Residential Planned Community comprised of mixed housing types totaling 2,465 dwelling units, exclusive of the affordable elderly housing, with 250,000 square feet of commercial uses (190,000 square feet - retail; 60,000 square feet - office) and 44 acres MDP #07-05, Stephenson Village August 1, 2005 Page 5 dedicated for public school and recreation uses, on 795 acres. The applicant has proposed to serve the development with a multi -modal transportation system consisting of a major collector road, a system of pedestrian and bicycle trails, and a linear park trail within the Hiatt Run Corridor. The gross residential density proposed for this development is 3.10 dwelling units per acre. The project will be master planned in cumulative phases. This first phase will include 930 residential units (460 single family, 110 townhouses, and 360 multi -families) on 285.5 acres, which includes a portion of Land Bay III as proffered. The applicant has not included non-residential uses in Phase I of the master development plan. E) Site Suitability & Project Scone 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 subject properties are located within the boundaries of the Northeast Land Use Plan area. This Plan identifies the future land use as a Planned Urban Development; the present zoning is consistent with this PUD designation. The Northeast Land Use Plan also identifies the approximate path of the future Route 37 corridor. • The submitted Master Development Plan fails to provide for, nor address, the corridor planned for the proposed Route 37 extension. Historic Resources: The preservation of environmentally sensitive areas and significant historic resources is encouraged by the NELUP. The subject properties are adjacent to core area battlefield land associated with Stephenson's Depot (Second Battle of Winchester) and the Third Battle of Winchester (Opequon), and further includes the Byers House (#34-1124), all of which are identified by the Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) designation in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Resources identified as DSA constitute community and MDP #07-05, Stephenson Village August 1, 2005 Page 6 historical preservation areas that are to be protected from incompatible land uses through the use of adequate buffers and screening. o The applicant has stated their intent of removing the Byer's House from the property, and have offered to allow others to remove it should an interested party be identified. Environment: The subject site contains a variety of environmental features to include a perennial stream, flood plain, wetlands, steep slopes, and woodlands. The applicant proposes to incorporate the conservation of these sensitive environmental features into the overall development plan through a variety of proffered methods. The applicant has endeavored to accomplish resource conservation through the identification of two resource protection areas, which are identified as the Hiatt Run Corridor and the Wetland Intermittent Ravine Channel. The majority of the site's sensitive environmental features are captured within these two areas, the protection of which will occur through a combination of approaches, to include riparian buffers, easements, supplemental plantings, and development of resource management plans in collaboration with relevant state and non-profit environmental organizations. The proffered Generalized Development Plan delineated the location of the proposed resource protection areas. Transportation: Access to the subject site will be via a 4 -lane raised median major collector road which links Old Charlestown Road with Route 11 (in the vicinity of Ruthersford Farm Industrial Park). This major collector road will be built in sections, initially a 2 -lane section. Trip counting equipment will be installed within the major collector road pavement, and when predetermined vehicle trips are reached, additional road improvements will be implemented, ultimately achieving the 4 -lane roadway (as proffered). Recreation: A recreation center is proffered to include a 1,200 S.F. building with a bathhouse and a 6 - lane, 25 -meter competition swimming pool, and one (1) tot lot. A private recreation center will be built to the exclusive use of residents of the Active Adult Community. This will consist of a 10,000 S.F. building with an indoor pool, and a separate tennis court will also be made available to this community. An 8,000 linear foot pedestrian trail system will also be included that will connect each recreation area to the surrounding neighborhood. A twenty -foot (20') wide trail easement shall be dedicated to Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department. As proffered, the trail shall be provided within the Hiatt Run Corridor and run the length of the said corridor on the subject property for 3,800 +/- linear feet. MDP #07-05, Stephenson Village August 1, 2005 Page 7 F) Proffered Conditions When the rezoning application was approved by the County in 2003, the county also accepted the applicants' complex proffer statement, which included modification requests, proffered conditions, and a design manual. This proffer statement enabled the applicant to deviate from various county requirements, introducing increased flexibility to various design standards which is unique to the R-4 zoning district. New housing types were introduced, such as courtyard clusters and carriage houses. And a greater mix of housing was approved, which enables a mix of single family, townhouses and multi -family residences within and in close proximity to one another. The applicant also proffered a monetary contribution of $5,327 per residential unit (not applicable to active adult and elderly units) to address projected impacts on various county facilities: schools, parks, and fire and rescue to name a few. Phased development was an important aspect of the rezoning application. The applicant proffered that no more than 8% of the total allowed density would be built annually. Additionally, the applicant proffered that no more than 60 new students would be introduced to the school system, annually. An additional payment of $3,925 would be provided to the County for each student above and beyond the 60 per year as planned. The applicant has proffered to various transportation improvements, including the major collector road, as well as traffic signals and other off-site road improvements, to facilitate vehicular movement from the site to Route 11 and beyond. The applicant proffered to provide the County with a school and park site, located in the vicinity of Old Charlestown Road, on the north side of the project. These sites are identified on the master development plan as Land Bay I and II, respectively. G) Issues Staff has identified numerous issues that still require attention, modification, and clarification. These outstanding issues are as follows: 1. Transportation a. Planned Route 37 location. The Comprehensive Policy Plan (Northeast Land Use Plan and the Eastern Road Plan) and the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) each plan and identify the location of the future Route 37 corridor, which traverses the subject project. Provisions for this planned roadway should be included on the MDP, and addressed by the applicant. b. Major Collector Road ("Crossed Cannon Boulevard") i. Clarify the road design, from Old Charlestown Road through the project to Route 11. It is expected that this major collector road will have an 80 -ft right-of-way, raised landscaped median, curb and gutter, and a bike path MDP #07-05, Stephenson Village August 1, 2005 Page 8 along the entire road length. The preliminary MDP does not provide for these features along the entire road length. ii. Continuation of bike path and/or sidewalks along Old Charlestown Road to more appropriately link the Stephenson Village project with the existing residence of Stephenson. iii. Enhance pedestrian access from the existing Milburn Road and future Cross Cannon Boulevard. iv. Phasing and clarification of the completion of sections of the major collector road, including its bonding, right-of-way dedication, and construction benchmarks. 2. Identification of the proffered school and parks sites throughout the MDP, subdivision, and platting process. a. Provisions for vehicular and pedestrian access to the public facilities. Specifically, the location of vehicular and pedestrian access points from the Stephenson Village community should be provided on the MDP. Possibly extend Malvern and Sabot Roads to the school and park sites to provide for vehicular access. b. Provisions for water and sewer connections from the Stephenson Village residential element to these future county facilities. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/20/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The preliminary Master Development Plan for the Stephenson Village project appears to be in general conformance with the policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, except as briefly noted above. The project will be master planned in phases. This first preliminary master development plan addresses the development of 258 acres of land bay area III, which would result in 930 residential units. As noted above, the applicant should more appropriately provide clarification regarding the project's conformance pertaining to the identified issues. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 07/20/05 MEETING: The applicant believed that all of the issues raised by the staff, including the provisions of the water and sewer connections from the Stephenson Village site to the public school and public park sites, have been addressed, with the exception of providing the Rt. 37 right-of-way through this project. It was the applicant's opinion that Alternative C, the Rt. 37 alternative adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1992 and identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, was not going to be successful because of events that have occurred since its adoption. The applicant stated that the MPO has recommended that Rt. 37, between Rt. 7 and I-81, be developed as a four -lane, MDP #07-05, Stephenson Village August 1, 2005 Page 9 divided and controlled, managed -access highway. The applicant presented a conceptual design, which preserved the location of Rt. 7 and the new interchange at I-81, and utilized the existing alignment shown for Alternative D of the 1992 studies. The applicant requested that the Commission consider this new alternative. The applicant noted that the Rt. 37 right-of-way was not proffered in text or committed to on their GDP when the rezoning was approved; the applicant stated that they were not in a position to provide the right-of-way for the Rt. 37 Alternative C. One citizen came forward and stated that they waited to build their home, back in the 1990's, until the Board of Supervisors had made their decision on a route for Rt. 37; he said the alternate route now described by the applicant goes directly through his home. In light of the applicant's proposal and the need to study the information presented, Commissioner Gochenour made a motion to table the rezoning. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Straub. A vote was not taken, however, due to the 11:00 p.m. mandatory adjournment required in the Commission's By -Laws. The Chairman announced that continuation of the consideration of this MDP would be rescheduled on the next available agenda. B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) ♦ MS (Medical Support District) B2 (Business, General District) 3 R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) + R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) Q RA (Rural Areas District) HE (Higher Education District) Q RP (Residential Performance District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) N MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) W E S Stephenson Village ( 44 - A - 292, 293 ) (44 -A -31,31A) 0 250500 1,000 Feet I�V Bridges Culverts B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) /V Dams C ' B2 (Business, General District) /%/ Retaining Walls ® B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) + Road Centerlines + EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) Q HE (Higher Education District) Q + Mt (Industrial, Light District) ,... Trails C> M2 (Industrial, General District) uDA 4' MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Areas District) RP (Residential Performance District) Stephenson Village ( 44 - A - 292, 293 ) (44 -A -31,31A) 0 250500 1,000 m� Feet J • C 410 Cod SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST DEBORAH DORMAN DUTCHER Staff Report for the Planning Commission w 1 Prepared: August 2, 2005 V Staff i oI ItaC 1. iviaiK R. C.herarn, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 06/15/05 Postponed by Applicant Planning Commission: 07/20/05 Deferred to 8/17/05 PC Planning Commission: 08/17/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 09/28/05 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at the intersection of Dover Lane and Chapel Road, approximately 100' west of the Route 627 intersection with Route 758. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 83-A-106 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: Zone RA South: Zone RA East: Zone RA West: Zone RA Use: Residential Use: Agricultural Use: Agricultural Use: Residential/Agricultural SUBDIVISION WAIVER SPECIFICS: The applicant is requesting an exception to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the existing Dutcher property to be further subdivided; and reduce the existing Rural Preservation Lot of 74% to 40% of the original parcel. Subdivision Waiver Request — Deborah Dorman Dutcher August 2, 2005 Page 2 Background: This rural preservation subdivision was created under Chapter 21, Article 4, Section 4-6-4 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance adopted Februaryl4, 1990, and amended on December 11, 1991, which allows lot sizes of no less than two (2) acres, while preserving a minimum of 40% as a rural preservation. tract. This preservation tract must be dedicated and recorded with the Frederick County Clerk of Court and must stay intact, with one building right. The recorded plat for this rural preservation subdivision shows 58 acres being the rural preservation tract. This plat was recorded June 16, 1992, with lot 4 being identified as the rural preservation tract of this rural preservation subdivision, approved by Frederick County on June 3, 1992 (Exhibit "A"). Chapter 21, Article 4, Section 4-6-4.1 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, under which the Wanda Rosenfeld Proescher Estate subdivision division was created, states the rural preservation tract must be identified. The tract created under this section must stay intact, and cannot be changed though any land use applications. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance was amended on October 13, 1993, with the same provisions regarding rural preservation subdivisions as this subdivision was created, under Chapter 21 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit "B). Section 165-54 D (c) of the Frederick Zoning Ordinance does not allow the rural preservation tract to be changed through any land use applications. Any changes of the rural preservation tract must be in accordance with Section 165-54 (3) (Exhibit "C"). The applicant is requesting to subdivide and reduce this 74% rural preservation tract by 34%. The resulting rural preservation tract would be 40% of the original tract. The applicant requested the right to further subdivide the 74% preservation tract, and is seeking an exception to these provisions which states no further subdivision of a rural preservation tract is permitted. The applicant contends that such an exception would not violate the parent tract's density or the minimum 40% parcel size requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 08/17/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This 74% preservation tract was created in 1993 consistent with the zoning ordinance regulations. Further subdivision is not permitted. The Board of Supervisors may grant the requested exception if the applicant is able to illustrate the 74% preservation tract was done in error. Should the Board of Supervisors grant this request the applicant must meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this Subdivision request. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. 29 1 5 81B t s. " „� 82A 5 A e 18 20 36 o ; 6 66a `� 6Ze 101 KINGREE 7 ° s 34C 50 66A 616 A 80 106 83 A 101 6 B y 34B o 0 BSP fpgq BUFFALO MARSH 1°qe 83 �• 6 MEAA MCDONALD 84 A 34 34 5� CU d�,F'YC� q /,p 82 A 82 Otis 104 �o� 6 0 84 A 6 `b 3 300600 1,200�k F 2 O a} 104Co eti .•9 a O 'P 29 W a 1 034 °1 6 11 12 ry 31 D = c86 I O 82D Co G a 1 103 �d ; 4 068 ; SCULLY , 22 o� N" co D " 41 �� Q AP+� bs 106q. 1036 10° 84 6 22 %,13 SCULLY t'� N o �� d dao JOsc 21 84 6 21 Q 5 6 WJ 9' 4 ' Uµ h Co2 , / 2 . , AV Map Features 8 A e 18 20 *�, b 39 80 106-D ' ENGLISHP� 83 4 7 ° s 8e0RC 4 0YN 19 3 s •_ A 80 106 O4 O P 6 B . D..la Church w+- Deborah Dorman Dutcher �• Buildiogs Talks 5 Refuge Church South Fred,,i,k S d�,F'YC� q /,p `�Trails 83 A 109 CHEMSTONE CORP `b 3 300600 1,200�k �8 2 a} B109 yE 78 77 55 1 ��chaAFf 83 A R 79 W ^ 1 o8A ; o� ' +' m N m �-• .,,'7�� �y (� Ov 276 C oQc 75 co �OyP 0 =�� Q 5 6 108 _ Co2 , 27C 20A 0 26 4 1 3 74 83 A 109 2 CHEMSTONECORP g4 0yp 23 j902 107 0 A 12 m 1 12A 19 o Q �� 65- 130 6V 64 6� BOyF ;h ;B z0 9 1F 411,- ' 83 4 B 44 2 �6 2 1sa 1119' 61) 62 GS 69 67 H & E t7 84 A 17 . , AV Map Features UP Applicat- 0 /N/ B,idga. Waiver Request 04 - 05 - w St.— �i-V R.tairuh� Walla D..la Church w+- Deborah Dorman Dutcher �• Buildiogs Talks Road Centerfines Refuge Church South Fred,,i,k S 83 A 106 `�Trails 0 300600 1,200�k .`fi07 Parcels Agricultural & Forestral Distriets Double Churg Retuge Church S..N Frederick 0 300 600 1,200 Feet Waiver Request # 04 - /'V Bridges OApPlication N Culverts LakeaAl nds /V Dams �^.++• Streams I"�.�' Retaining Walls Bmldings Road Centerlines N Trails Parcels Agricultural & Forestral Distriets Double Churg Retuge Church S..N Frederick 0 300 600 1,200 Feet Waiver Request # 04 - DIVISION OF THE LAND OF WANDA ROSE'N PROESCHER ESTATE ppEOUAN DISTRICT VTFtG1MA 2Z MAY 1992 Exhibit "A" s,7 7 9 Pc 0 C VWW/- ,Ao" V-�' L -L- F-P,Kt,AS PTc re S TAX MAP AC. B3 A 106 ZONED R A_ W LOCA77UN � Jr OVPM47 GfNTi AA " = w TNs ruT, D lriTN � Tmr fAE[ CoT &40 M ACCO •nIp, TMML C Dt ! Of T►E T� �•�yy0 IKToot On TKMTEL WCGM e_ _.10 !\ PJRWYOKV THE1rD �+ LAT►u weorvt� IS ALL o/ THE FtLUAVC4G PORTION Or n+IE LAW CONVEYED M0 To carrely D rppETp101 T7uT by OWED DATED le AWVST 1982 IN Df7:U DooK 550, PAGE 8101 (SEE A r50 WILL DOW -Z G-3- CHAPTEA 2 AFRI: LE 4, SECTION 4-6-4 L. ALLEN EBERT PROFESSIONAL LAND SURIIEYOR $ �T T F 35 W. BOSGAM ST. HSE) NO. qpL}ES TEP, VA 2764 - 4740 1498 703 667 3233 BK779PG0361 SNpPP G app o$ic _ CD J 13 LOT 58.847 - -- A CRI n� RURAL PRESERVATIOIN LOT- 74% OT- 74% OF TOTAL TRACT d r r q N v ` N q � sOi C/Tcr k t-1 tl-l_y 1992 r`AGE4OF5 , racy a OP Q BK7 79PG0368 n a ae&are.wWieo Plat represents a BOLMary Burvh of the ramininv Portion of t6o � �n—yed to ri i Nowa fold Proesaa,er by Deed dated 18 Atr)twt 1982 in Deed 8oui 550, (gee ■leo will Node 92, P0.2e 385). *,e said t.aod fronts tl» 9et►tla"teM SoUndary Lim of Va_ Raute 759 and tke Conter Liras of Va. tltaute 627, se,d lido i.n Opcgvecn ristrict, rraieride Qownty, vir7wa: Degisnirg at an irni pin (f --d) in tLe 9oute,atarn Lina o4 Va. Rout, 759, a earner to the l+4saoea Land;. thence with the aa1.d Ware, B 48' 38' 43" 0 - 1,346.98 ft. to a point in tb& Center Line if Va. Rasta 627; tr mwm with the nix following said Center Lisa, with tJw Arc Line' 549.25 ft. (Chord B 01' 10' 32" 2 - 575.35 ft., F.adius 608.729 ft.); tbawo 3 27' . of 34" w - 91.17 ft.; thAnce with the Arc Line 291.48 ft- (Cl ord 8 10' 20' 56" V : 287.3& ft., t>Qariiu� 500.703 !t.); tl,acc 19' 359.32 ft.; tt_ with t -t- Arc Line 221.57 ft. (Chord 39' 24' 52" li 209.46 ft., Radius 191.819 ft.); thence 8 72` 30. 07" C - 341.10 ft. to Al earner to the C,®ato— Corporation 1—d; th" ce with Eta three following Ljw" of the said Laod. N 47' 16' 36" 1C - 16.07 ft. to On iron pin (fav<rd), and o,wtj=A_,q, N 47' 16' 36" 6: - 1,032.04 ft. IN ALL to On iron pin (fpcod): thmv;Je A 43 47' 72" Z - 199.00 ft. to nn icor Pitt (found); thence N 47' 10' 03" 6 -'1,628-92 ft. to ftn iron Pin (foLsrd), a corner to the M,pp land; throce With the i3CULhWamto111 Lime vt tho Bald Lard, 0 57 09' 26" N - 1,212.00 ft. to an ircn pie (found), a corner to tho said f""Mo Lard; tbw cs with the too follow" Line* of the :+aid land, 8 33- 03' 15" M - 152.10 ft. to an iron pin (tasnd); thence N 56' 56' 43" 11 170.00 ft. to the b001zM'nq. Containing: LM 1: 2.596 Acer EDT 2: 3.637 Acres L7f 3: 14.505 hCXee LOT 4: M$ fli AGL ___D 74Y111,: 79.587Aci�as tst]rvered: 22 ray 1992 VIRGINIA: FREDERICK C _ Th;s instrv~t of-f;ting ww pr to me on the ��Y .L/ 10�`!��"-�`-� 'nd vAi rtiAwt� Ol Ack.-Ja+NALgr+lant tlrto annexed wei t �� admitted to racnrd- m X .1 NaPp ' o e EN s GPR�pN �p�µL P. +31,. 6 � p�4 5 D B ���0 p'�, N b�• O9 Z' l X0.0 `�33lS2g0 _o 20 .� EosOtAs o�- o r� L'oT Z $ fan . 2 . L.o T Ag& YJ dln H� J I LOT 3 14.505 ACRES lR ii1 N o � On 1 I � May N'/2, mor �nnah L N EBERT .(.- (l1 ENSE� fie• 1498 dVA�$�1 . viol NG 1T GPaLP b � G �E�. y16 . Ogg �a�5 pg••�(y1yy�D 90% ►� Q�1��Q BX779PG030" jP Va , N 5 S.�`° GpRLPt+a�'�,poWo y�5 'Aµ S ID y rs Pa 21,�Q r 1h µ VC o ��k9 ��� a m• n �� °¢ op w LOT y ti IL �''• _ any �+�59 I JI, LOT 3 $14.505 ACRES '; p W H t�9 � -r tit I as a ol , Vic LOT 4 58.847 .-- ACRES RURAL PRESERVATfON ,LOT.- 74% OT747 OF TOTAL TRACT 0 i 4 'WOO CXH I P,i. SH L ALU Pat - 1498 A. Ic y ' i C� �4•I . C t7 � l f. b 1 oa jt{1 � N ` ml N 0 SH L ALU Pat - 1498 A. Ic y ' i C� �4•I . C t7 � l Exhibit "B" 21-4-6 created, for legitimate agricultural purposes as defined by this ordinance, provided the parcels created qualify for land use assessment. 4-6-4 RURAL PRESERVATION LOTS - Within the Rural Areas (RA) Zone, lots as small as two (2) acres shall be permitted on tracts over twenty (20) acres in size, subject to the provisions of Article 4-4-1 and the following: 4-6-4.1 Forty (40) Percent of Parcel to Remain Undivided - Forty (40) percent of the parent tract must remain intact as a contiguous parcel. This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth (4th) lot. No future division of this portion of the the tract will be permitted. 4-6-4.1.2 Exception to Single Forty (40) Percent Parcel - In cases where excessive topography or other natural features of a site create a situation where a higher quality subdivision design, resulting in less physical and or -visual disruption could be achieved by allowing two (2). residual parcels to be created, the Planning Commission may permit the forty (40) percent to be made up of two (2) parcels.- 4-6-4.2 arcels: 4-6-4.2 Board Waiver of Division Restriction - Ten (10) years from the date of the creation of any forty (40) percent parcel and following a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors may release the parcel from the restrictions of 4-6-4.1 through the process of rezoning provided that the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any forty (40) percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or is included within the UDA as a result of a future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that 'point and shall not be subject to the ten (10) year restriction on rezoning. 4-7 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS The following setback requirements shall apply to all parcels within the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District. 4-7-1, PERIMETER SETBACKS - Periphery setbacks for all lots shall be as follows: 4-7-1.1 Principal Uses - The minimum setback for any principal use or structure, constructed or initiated after the date of adoption of this section, and located on a lot which adjoins the undivided portion of the parent tract or a parcel not created from the parent tract, shall be one hundred (100) feet from the lot line adjoining said parcel(s). Where a lot abuts a parcel used for agricultural purposes, the minimum setback shall be one hundred (100) feet. The minimum setback from any active orchard shall be two hundred (200) Exhibit "C" § 165-54 ZONING § 165-54 (1) Within the RA Rural Areas District, lots as small as two acres shall be permitted on tracts over 20 acres in size, subject to the following; [Amended 10-13-1993] (a) Forty percent of the parent tract must remain intact as a contiguous parcel. (b) This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot. (c) No future division of this portion of the parent tract will be permitted. (2) Exception to single forty -percent parcel. In cases where excessive topography or other natural features of a site create a situation where a higher quality subdivision design, resulting in less physical and/or visual disruption could be achieved by allowing two residual parcels to be created, the Planning Commission may permit the 40% to be made up of two parcels, (3) Board waiver of division restriction. Ten years from the date of the creation of any forty -percent parcel and following a public (Cont'd on page 16577) 16576.1 12-15-2004 § 165-54 ZONING § 165-55 hearing, the Board of Supervisors may release the parcel from the restrictions of Subsection D(1) through the process of rezoning, provided that the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any forty - percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or is included within the UDA as a result of a future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten-year restriction on rezoning. § 165-55. Setback requirements. [Amended 12-11-1991; 6-9-19931 The following setback requirements shall apply to all parcels within the RA Rural Areas Zoning District. A. Traditional five -acre lots. Setbacks from traditional five -acre lots shall be as set out below. (1) Front setbacks. The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure located on a traditional five -acre lot shall be 60 feet from the property line or right-of-way of the street, road or ingress/egress easement. (2) Side or rear setbacks. The minimum side or rear setback for any principal use or structure shall be determined by the primary use of the adjoining parcel as follows: Adjoining Land Use Residential/vacant Agricultural Orchard Setback (Side and Rear) (feet) 50 100 200 B. Rural preservation lots. The minimum setbacks from rural preservation lot lines which adjoin other rural preservation lots shall be as set out below. Side and rear setbacks from rural preservation lot lines which adjoin any parcel other than another rural preservation lot shall be determined by § 165-55A(2) of this chapter. (1) Front setback. The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure shall be 60 feet from the right-of-way of any 16577 10-20-2002 ?JUN -13-2005 10:29 FROM:ARTZ & ASSOCIATES 540-667-9188 1 Artz 4: A550Clate5, P.L.C. 16 Fast r iccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 5440-CC7-3233 540 -bio 7 -9155 (Fax) Toll free 500-755-7320 m1ke0rtzQa 5hentel.not Junc 13, 2005 Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator Department of Planning and Development Frederick County TO:6656395 RF Subdivision Waiver Request for Debra Dorman. Dutcber -- Fox. Lea Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision Mark, This Letter is to request postponement of action of the Planning COTnMiSSiOR on the above referenced request from June 1.5 to the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Since y d Mich act M. Artz, L.S. P:1/1 Artz * A550GatC5, P.L.C. 16 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-3233 540-667-9 188 (Fax) Toll free 800-755-7320 mikeartz@shentel.net May 20, 2005 Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator Department of Planning and Development Frederick County RE Subdivision Waiver Request for Debra Dorman Dutcher — Fox Lea Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision Mark, This letter is to provide you with additional documentation to support my request for a Subdivision Waiver regarding Section 144-31.C.I(b) and Section 165-54.D(l)(c) of the Frederick County Code. It is my contention that Section 165-54.D(1)(c) is intended to only prevent any future division of 40% of the original parent tract. In reading this section of the code in its' entirety, it is my opinion that only 40% was intended to be preserved. In the case where a tract larger than 40% was designated I believe that a further subdivision is possible as long as all the other requirements of 165-52, 53, and 54 could be met. This is the situation in this case. Ms. Dutcher created a Rural Preservation Subdivison in 1992 that created a 74% Rural Preservation Lot. At that time she did not desire to subdivide her entire parcel into lots and believed that she could further subdivide as long as she retained a minimum of 40% in the Rural Preservation Lot. The Zoning Administrator at the time, Wayne Miller, indicated that this was and still is his interpretation of this section of the code. In addition, as recently as June of 2000, the Zoning Administrator at the time, Mike Ruddy, approved a Rural Preservation Subdivision for Walnut Springs that was prepared by me. He specifically requested that I include Note #9 regarding the Rural Preservation Lot on the approved Preliminary Sketch Plan as follows: "Parent tract (Parcel 161) cannot be further subdivided without the approval of a Revised Preliminary Sketch Plan. 1n no case shall this lot be reduced below 67.252 Acres. " The 67.252 Acres represents 50% of the original parcel of 134.503 Acres. Instead of the normal minimum 40% Rural Preservation Lot, a proffer of a 50% Rural Preservation Lot was committed to the Planning Commission on April 18, 1999 for an approved Waiver request to the minimum length of a cul-de-sac road. I have included a copy of the approved Walnut Springs Preliminary Sketch Plan as part of this package. It is obvious from this information that Section 165-54.D(1) is now being interpreted differently from previous Planning Department personnel interpretations. I want to be clear that I am requesting for a waiver to Section 165-54.D(1)(c) to allow the existing Dutcher property (shown as Fox Lea Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision on the attached plan) to be further subdivided and reduce the existing 74% Rural Preservation Lot to 40% of the original parcel as I believe the code intended to allow. The parcel WOULD NOT be reduced below 40%. SinceFly Michael M. Artz, L.S. ` 1Y f lCOUNTY of FREDERICK ww' Department of Planning and Development ""; C 107 North hent Street ! ',Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 WAIVER/EXCEPTIONS REQUEST APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Name: U is gaet - Telephone: 6�, ., Address: L G c- ae7l'T" 10, G4-143;11 L -L -y -5-i w IASC�5;17"e-11 2. Property owner (if different than above): Name: ft f A i'c 4 • bYLMW ��c+(E►Z Telephone: 540 - el �" 'f `/ Address: q'?45 X) V 612 V i Ew 9d, 1'a R.VaM P- 5 S,5 U.�a�. iAA V 2 S 3. Contact person (if other than above): Name: Telephone: 4. Waiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): 5. Property Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): JNTEi?- `- 0c-T)VrJ OF' /�oVByZ LAtJ6 cygrEL ZbA-17. Aeptzox. too' w -e57- -or GZ-7 1N7��ec7to�% e w -r E -158 6. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number A J 1 6 Magisterial District: 7. Property zoning and current use: Zoned: 1Z A4' Current Use: 12 District 8. Attachments: Adjoining Property Owners List Existing/recorded and Proposed Plats OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $500 enclosed: Receipt #: 9. List of Adjoining Properties: The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the waiver or exception is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary) These people will be notified by mail of this application. NAME iJ�1bJ OD Z Address ins j71xoVev4 LeTrlS► fiA11019te7rb%Jd %JA' V&+ Property ID # "-A4' pob IV8,4 VA,JID /W Address 1$&fl$?DVEV t tNNir IAvpLETo4Nnl i/K 2 Property ID # wo g�yhj 009 K ► s,� �� Addressc � 1 c v4gf9 - Ird, � PliVLOrWtJ Vit 2645 Property ID # $-3 100? AAP(ek . .4- -iEAW Olt f- /K. 14 Address -JI7,SfTRtrb IV6p,4-w-t- R -d- M.% OPLAt b%j4 Property ID# 8�j - A- I D 6 6,,mNe14+ ki , or Mlq2c K+ D. Address Property ID kM S f. Address '442 GA v Q-�-1, C �� Rd O JAG. VA 2 Property ID # ,->o . 4 - l OBJ to 4- CiJ1CM'6-�"artE Gt f'o�Ai�� Address -bf -715JMS��e \JA 22b�7 J Property ID # 6>-2,2 X- i Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # - Page 2 - 2'Z64b 2b b` w,... .... ._ W._... _._ .. 47.: _.._ _�.... NB3561J E w OIa6 i3 2J.62 .SJ CI 1.16 65931 47.21 C2 G ZE01.H x86.4 266.. N 89TNI SB E .0 2501.'4 1327.69 218.7 221.N 218.8{ N 705443 E 045 4B 1064' .16i I 275.60 1147.1C 3 N 08'9651 E .. 98793] 1I1.0J .65 2z AREA SW14AY \•`\ '� I4S]9 N 18'4814' ]07920 5� .DB' .71 .S7 al :9B -' ROBCkf LEE�EfAL NOTES: .•' IX6TIR0 flM MIaRI OF SION1' NRL flND (VA RIE -V 40•. Ml ADDNIO S' DE➢Ir ,ROR FUNRE RNETRNO NAS ALREIDr OCNRIED NDNO-'LASE 1 MIEN E219NN0 UO M RAS RACED ON AREA SW14AY \•`\ '� REM". L PRES ORM11Ep Bf p{MRANO CDMN19S10N FOR LEN- OF 3.900' CUL -M -W ON 4/19/99. PR6ENT:-M. HENRY C. BUE M, JR, 8. NA. RUTH 9UERFIGR SEE DR. 87'. PG. 1011.. ' lDrs 1 THRU 7 9: LD19'21 iMN 22 18.089 .: ROTS I THRU 7 ... 1.961 AG TOTAL'VSE . 4. PARENT TAR PARCEL NO. X 29-(N))-191 ZONE RA . CMRENr USE MR.CU ML PROPDS USE RERVERR L a ACRCIATURAL 1 MFA �� p1yV^E 2 LOTS a THRU 12 6: LOT 29 �,] 91� f6MD OIDIGiKK4 ... S. - CONMn SHDMN HEREON ARE MEW SFA MEL AND SFRE TAM FROM AEH91 PMOIOFUeMNY PRM',, BY MNOS MDL LUPTe CONTOUR ORpN•AL IS 1MD FEET. - larN. PWASE 2 MFA • g1A5E. 3 •. • .THERE Mill. BE NO'PIWATE EMRAN43 CONS-JCTW A1DN0'STONY NRI. READ (YA RIE 689) :.. T. 'ID19 I' THRU Tl -1ER1 6E-ASSICIED TEN TM FA ..-BOR, 29-}t'1NRU 22. LOT b Mal -. LOIS .IJ THRU 19 RGD.Om�GiION 16144 AC. . .. REEMV THE PMFNF'TA2 PAAL U NO.. 2}A-161. 8..25 IOfAL IDIS BEYq SEINED BY CUL-DE-9AC:' IDrs 1.1X'11 M. TAROTS D AND E 9. PARENT 1RACi (161) CµRO< RE FlRTHER SlIBDR1DED TIRHM THE APPIIWK W A REBI6FD PRELAIRARY SNER,N PIAN. IN NO `USE S. TMS TOT BE:REDUCEO la(AL RVLSE J MFA RURM. PRESERVATMN LOT 29 . TmA1 T31S IC, -77i1TAL' 9197) X. BELD9 W352 /cRES: PRIOR OF ID. TO APPROVAL OF MTS. MOOT MAST APPRO9E ROAD CgClR9CRON ANO DL51W-PVN9. MEA 1N.'JG 11C. MFA TMU .. TOOL MFA IH TM PARCEL 134303-ACRlTi PFF FIFSD SURVEY Al1AYEO OEibDY (134309/3) - Zl Lars RLS 1 -RURAL PRESEIPIAR011 LOT. OPOSED OENSRY . Yl LOIS PW9 1 RWAL P1IESER/A1pN TOT _ RUR& PRESMARON tOI PANE7T.PMCEL - (13a3G 2 0.40) 67201 ACRES RW . .(134203 x 020) . 87.2'92 ACRO -w"TO.PIAN6H0 CV+•eS9011 4/IB/9B . .. 81317 ACES PROPOSED (BOR) :. RURAL PRESERVATION LOT SUBDIVISION' 4 8Da4e.. aRc 1nv19 oN M1E JM9ARr'e..' zooD r .'iO9• WALNUT :- - SPRLNG.S _PRELIMINARY SKETCW PLAT ITE 1(y/ 19 11�'ry 4 FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ADMINISRRATbR•. ,/ .. '. ,. -. / DA TE N NI MM 2c44 r.iNOF GAINESBORO. DISTRICT, �xNER`-G�y�,'GRQE ° RT 4 FREDERICK COUNtt, NFNRYR. BDEi1Nar,•.Iq ; -5572 NOR7NR'ESIERE PIRG 4MNc;N5S1F.p VA ¢ VIRGINIA >t�rKGNe�s�o-•e66r a21T DF• �T.;: r .. - c: .: lOT 1 TM Hsi -A-1068 TM H83-A-IO6M1 •-•--- XE,ERH W, 8 MAR4 NOfFS 1. PARENY TA% PMf k NO. - 7-(p))-106 ZONE: M CUPRFNf USE: AIRRLiN1Am IY SUBONI90N Ag487PAlOR PROPOSED USE RESveM d ACRICUEiOm 2. CONIWRS S"M HENEON ARE BASED ON FREDERICK COUMY WE FOOT CIX UR AFRW. MAPPING. LIMERICK Lis S THIN 16 w BEASSKaiED NEW TAX `A 'D HUYiRR! 7- -6 1WN 16. LC 4 N1LL . RETNN.THE PAREM TAX PARR]. 0 NO. 83-A-106. 4. PMFRT 1PACf (EDF I) CDlNOf BE FORMER SUSOMOED WIDDUF THE APPROVAL OF A REVISED AREA SUMMARY O6 L2lOa73P'wc2ERrw PRELIMINARY SIEiRI N+YI. N NO CASE SHNJ. THE RURAI. PRCMWAT IDT BE EM1Dw 31.718 ACRES. . TY, 3. ORNXNAL LIS i. 2 3, d 4 BF/IE CRGND UNOER THE RDRAL PRFSp1YATSN IPf UPIION (M-- E NE-RMO lOF Z 2518 ACAM 183-!4 0>. F106E IN 10 PRELYNNIY SAFARI MT WAS APPROVE°. LDR ). 2 d 4 tA'R 100AY AS ORKRNNLT CREATED. Ofti LDT 3 Nl5 SUBSEOU°IEEY BEEN MR N N SUBpNOED ORO FNSIINO 1DT 34 E)OS'RID lOf M 3.71 ACRE O.i2! ACRES EXCTNC Lf9 3A Nip 3ti A O.JM FC. PORIDN OF R6ONV. Lf ]NAS SEEN ApAFIm ANp NII CONSOUCATM N TY /83-A-10le. 8fA w/ry /83 -A -105B FNIILY lOf ! 5.000 ACRES 0.]80 ACRES EN LDT 7 22.MES ACR 2.000 ACNLOT E AREA TMUTATWN: KEw iM 6 _ 610 2952 ACRES LOOO ACRES 2000 ACRES IOfN MFA m TAx PARR]. 8]-(Wj.106 (PPoOR TO ORICPVL LIS 1. 2 J. Q 1pJ61 ACRE! PFR FlFSD SURVE! NMEWI 10 2.000 ACRES Al1LM'ED OENSRY ryp9SA/S) - 1! L013 PLS t R1/RS. PPESERVAliON EDl PROPOSm OFt13F/ - I! LR PU!! 1 RMII PRiSETNATNIN EOf Nip I FAMLY Lf FXEMPRON NEW 1DE 112 3 M ACRES 2000 ACRES WRA- PRE9 AM 10.X PARENY PARR]. - (19967 X O.M) - 31,71E (LYES PftpINND NEN Lf 14 2p0O ACRES 319640 MOS PROPOSED (10.1X) wr 1! ZOOO ACRES 2.000 ACRES CEVPE. R(VD DEOK.A10N 3t COINF 0.731 ACRES 1.038 ACRES FROK RUA/L P1o47NATDN IDf 4 31.804 ACRES MAL 10.!61 ACNE RURAL PRESERVATION LOT SUBDIVISION aL -DARY 3 200! `- 240 FOX LEA PRELIMINARY SKETCH PLAT CMK O 906 400 m let IY SUBONI90N Ag487PAlOR LIMERICK . CTF O6 L2lOa73P'wc2ERrw T TY, nWtaad° E a MjaRs-3D. wNN°EA P_Do1 Noer. /6elpu • • J SUBDIVISION REQUEST # 26-05 41G� CO��a STONEBROOK, LC Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: August 2, 2005 s.w Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator 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 Planning Commission: 08/17/05 Board of Supervisors: 09/28/05 Action Pending Pending LOCATION: This property fronts the western boundary of Jones Road (Route 621) about 0.05 miles north of intersection with Stonebrook Road (Route 1109). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 62-A-51 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential Performance) District Land Use: Fitness club ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of 11.7422 acres into one single family detached rural traditional lot of 100,000 square feet. Subdivision Application #26-05 August 2, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS: Department of Transportation: The request for subdivision of this property appears to have no measurable impact on Route 1112, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans for review. Entrances will have to be constructed to VDOT standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. VDOT reserves the right to make additional comments during the formal review of the plat. Fire and Rescue: Site reveals no effects on fire department response. Plan approval recommended. Winchester -Frederick County Health Department: Health Department has no objection to request provided both parcels have approved sewage disposal systems. Staff Review: Public Meeting Requirement The Subdivision Ordinance requires that land divisions in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, without an approved master development plan, be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval (Chapter 144-12-B). The Master Development Plan (MDP) requirement may be waived under Section 165-134A of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provided: 1) A proposed subdivision contains ten (10) or less traditional detached single-family dwelling units. 2) The proposed subdivision is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development. 3) The proposed subdivision is harmonious with the surrounding properties and land uses. 4) The proposed subdivision does not affect the intent of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and Code of Frederick County Chapter 144; Subdivision of Land. This proposed subdivision appears to meet the requirements for a waiver from the MDP requirements. The applicant has been granted a waiver of the MDP requirements. This project contains land zoned RP and does not have an approved MDP; therefore, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review and action on the Subdivision request is necessary. Subdivision Application 426-05 August 2, 2005 Page 3 Background This property was created March 12, 1973, as noted by Deed 407 / Page 288, prior to Frederick County adopting the Master Development Plan (MDP) requirement. Frederick County adopted a Master Development Plan (MDP) requirement on September 23, 1983. This proposed subdivision (Exhibit "A") will create one (1) single-family detached rural traditional lot. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires this lot type to be a minimum of 100,000 square feet in size. This proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 08/17/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This proposed single-family detached rural residential lot of 100,000 square feet, appears to satisfy agency and ordinance requirements. This proposed lot complies with the dimensional requirements of the single-family detached rural residential housing type, in particular, the minimum lot size of 100,000 square feet. Access to the proposed lot will be via Greenfield Drive (Route 1112). This lot type is consistent with the lot sizes within this established neighborhood. This property is located outside the UDA and SWSA as indicated in the 2003 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff is seeking administrative approval authority; therefore, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the subdivision request is desired. Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this Subdivision request. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. '/a/ll RUDOLPH 62 A 53 O / Lu Q " Ir �e cc ru Go w n w o m 0 >le l 6q 6?q �HfTT PERNICANO Prrcnhs!%=3 1 >> 628 16 17 28 62B HOURI z w 16 1 =v w" z� CA a GRAY 628RROLL TREVARRO w n z m 62 2 67 628 16 28 12 1 STONEBROOK o" s THFRF A yy ^ H � 62 m a A 51 :"'h• Q? 1q O x \\ ^' — GREENLIEF r ` 616 ? 68 626SKAMP 626 14 16 2/LKf - - Q.4 ROve s?q ?f- P2pJtiti TTS \16 1 \ 5 s�e coR s18N� sAW ` s7 efgCA s?BSOcH \� \ slq /�t4,4 ^ �~P Q6ryp�ryry 4 /� if �? \ 1 14 "Q �u ^ V y��^ GlR BUCKLER Ar \�, N' " Q 6?B BOLA �i1 hives^o 6?6 1T<fH �s?B Olfy 62 A 516 61q 6�FSS \ x�ry very \ \\ Qga ? vo2�0PCCAT 628 s H__a0�Of 12 S Q COATES Q C628 12 6 \ TYSON 628149 SPAIN v 6114q sk � �m O m 628 12 7 w ,A R e GORMAN- -_. _- - i -..- SIEGFRIED h 62B 14 10 62 A 52A m -MILLS o �.n j q s1 fo Zoning PERRY I a ip RP 62B 14 12 626 14 11 ! m HAM 8 m 62B 12 11 AYERS 62q W f R 9 I 62B 11 3 - 51 \ � 3 EL t m go t; w � w n � v o w r / 6 BIN11 4 62A ,m v _31pP9/ mm�.�? w"' hep Yr' — — B q� ¢H 0 w^ Y" U^ f' Or \ 29 cO!Qj vA qy0 rj YOUNG 1 q Q 0`t' �,ahQ 62 85 44 HER 62 85 43 DEARING 62 A 74 ^ A T �2 ^hOO�n, 4I ^ w i O�tiQ 4��P ` J 4 ryp GALBRg1TH 6 N 621) 7 1 - FRANKS 62 10 5 Map Features Zoning �Plica4on ^/ Bridges Subd # 26 - 05 /\/ Culverts , v Bt (Business, Neighborhood District) MS (Medical Support District) Lakes/Ponds +w.+ Streams /„ Dams � :.` B2 (Business, General District) B3 Industrial E�> R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) Sto nebrook, LC /J Retaining Walls (Business, Transition District) ® R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) Buildings Road Centerlines 1' EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) Q RA (Rural Areas District) Tanks 4,i HE (Higher Education District) 0 RP (Residential Performance District) (1 62 _ A - 51 ) CJ Parcels * M1 (Industrial, Light District) N \ J Trails C> M2 (Industrial, General District) SWSA 0�40* UDA + MHI (Mobile Home Community District) W E 0 125 250 500 S Feet • � 1r' r. o RUDDLPH 62 A 53 Map Features Zoning Application .� Bridges Su bd # 26 - 05 /'/ culverts% Bi (Business, Neighborhood District) ♦ MS (Medical Support District) Lakes/Ponds +w•. Streams OV Dams (% B2 (Business, General District) / tai `V Retaining Walls B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) + R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) Sto n e b ro o k, � C * R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) Buildings Road Centerlines «" EM (Extractive Manufacturing Distdct) Q RA (Rural Areas District) Tanks 4V HE (Higher Education District) Q RP (Residential Performance District) (62-A-51 ) �� Parcels ^V +0> M1 (Industrial, Light District) N ''`�•> Trails M2 (industrial, General Distdct) p, SWSA 0;4.* UDq ® MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) WE 0 125 250 500 S Feet Exhibit "A" FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT .{tea?may (/�/\■/A�/�FOF THE LAND OF/(/��/�/�/q�, M T in/ I EBR O OY \ 9 L a V e BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA JUNE 15, 2005 STONYMEADE �N Greentod1112 / o Avenue ( � jF STONEBROOK r � J Stonebrook Rd t 1109 Jonas Road 3 o Rt 621 a bry0 BROOKNEIL & = 0`5 ��. t�,ea VICINITY MAP 1 " = 2000' OWNER'S CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF STONEBROOK, L.C., AS APPEARS ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLATS, IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS AND TRUSTEES, IF ANY. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY / COUNTY OF TO WI T.- THE FOREGOING OWNERS CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF , 2005 BY Of Poi 956 � m 1P� 020 0 m T O t�ER10 140. 1st m IRF 19 o IRF O A 5 O 1\ 1 R IRF ° 20 \ \ \J - o co IRS O N_ IRFo N 28'22'44 _E - 390.41 ' IRF'o > ' a m z �m C 'A T N 15' BRL /^ P Ccin N w z v / WELL CAPS IRF / / \ c`Di� 1� C c� = z .� WELL o a N ANGLE 0 CAP o�` POINT IN 1 0 5 - STONE;EXE \ \ ` •� r• � WALL RESIDUE OF L TM 62-A-51 NAIL a 9,4.465 ACRES k�G OFOUND , FLOOD ZONE C EX�5�01NG \ \ j5 BRL 5 V \ FLOOD ZONE A IRS IR o \ 20 EASEMENT TO \ Li $ A 15' BRL OPEQUON CREEK,) _] E/ o N o IRFo.. 0 DB 407 PC 294 v �' G: QGo / r --- m *C3_ OFFSET IRS \? 60' R/W TO `�FF� E4 T M. 62-A-52 \\ !• .::.. o DB 407 PG 276 E3 �•:. `0 & DB 565 PG 168 f 12 L71 L f 0 EXISTING v O Sop H PROPOSED DO SHA AREA SEWER '`20 'Q O DISCHARGE xis 019 Z l4r4 F `/ POINT DENOTES A 20' PLANT p T,ys, ? PRIVATE SEPTIC � S/ ��q� pF� S 0 DISCHARGE EASEMENT �- 0 00s �F N `� HEREBY ESTABLISHED R° 1/RF YTAX > 0 B F PARCEL 62 -A -51D. � 6 F c+� IRF 150 0 75 150 C+ IRF GRAPHIC SCALE G 1 ¢ ° a0 PIP (IN FEET) IRSo V 0 O0�T 6R/2 6 NOTE IRF o�1 vP g WQ1 PG SEE SHEET 3 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, / 4ppp 0B h LEGEND, KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, EASEMENT DATA AND NOTES S FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE LAND OF >pj TH 0�, S TONEBROOK, L. Ca o� � BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIAo RICHARD A. EDENS a AR SCALE: 1" = 150' DATE: JUNE 15, 2005 No. 002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING L -15 -of --0 151 Windy Hill Lane'Qt1r� Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 SUFN Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX. (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com F0879 SHEET 2 OF 3 1111PUr f]ATA CURVE RADIUS I ARC LENGTH DELTA ANGLE TANGENT CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C1 403.00' 103.88 14'46'10" 52.23' S 05'08'10" E 103.60' C2 50.00' 39.59 45'21'58 " 20.90' N 21'09'18" E 38.56' C3 50.00' 64.14' 73'2947" 37.33' N 38'1634' W 59.83' C4 60.00' 110.74' 1 105'45'06" 1 79.26' 1 N 55'0728" E 95.68 l INF nATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE Ll S 12'2447" E 47.57' L2 N 71'56'02" W 34745' L3 N 565758" W 322.82' L4 N 53"02'28" W 134.02' L5 N 75'1745" W 89.53' L6 N 46'59'12" W 96.46' L7 N 43'4945" W 148.99' L8 N 46'09'43" W 70.00' L9 N 13'1722" E 153.81' L10 S 21 '4257" W 255.36' L11 S 323954" W 119.85' L12 S 21'03'23 W 60.06' CI -3 S 49'06'03" W 89.24' L14 S 68'43'49" W 201.85' L 15 S 30'46'14 " W 179.43' L16 S 56'58'07" E 328.79' -T1 S 71'59'59" E 216.89' L18 S 12-00'58" W 192.00' L 19 N 7759'02" W 482.86' 20' SEPTIC DISCHARGE E45',SUENT CFNTFRLINF DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE El S 6716'4J" E 105.79' E2 S 33'41 '48" E 59.99' E3 S 09"51'19" W 114.65' E4 S 22'58'42" W 65.63' LEGEND BRL = BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE PER ZONING ORDINANCE o IRF = X" IRON REBAR FOUND o IRS = X" IRON REBAR & CAP SET PW = PROPOSED WELL SITE • = POINT (UNMONUMENTED) NOTES 1. THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY BY THIS FIRM. 2. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS MAY EXIST WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN. 3. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON UES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AND ZONE A, AREAS OF 100 -YEAR FLOOD, BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED, PER NF.LP. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 510063 0100 B, DATED JULY 17, 1978. THE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SAID ZONE A ARE SHOWN HEREON AS DETERMINED BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING UPON SAID MAP. KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS TAX IDENTIFICATION No. OWNER REFERENCE ZONE USE AO TM. 62B-1-2-1 STEPHEN D. GRAY, ET AL D8 613 PG 754 RP RESID. © T.M. 62B-1-2-2 RICHARD V. REEDY DB 600 PG 266 RP RESID. © TM. 62B-1-2-3 STEVEN F. BOCK, ET UX INST. No. 040001293 RP RESID. OD T M. 62-A-52 R. J. TURNER, ET UX INST. No. 020003109 RP RESID. OE T. M. 62 -A -51A ASSOC. FOR PRESERVA77ON /NST. No. 040012422 RP HIST OF VA. ANTIQUITIES REVOLVING FUND SITE OF T. M. 62B-1-1-1 MARGARET F. HOBBLE DB 978 PG 562 RP RESID. © T. M. 62B-1-1-2 DAVID F. TAYLOR, ET UX DB 609 PG 757 RP RESID. OH T.M. 62 -A -51B KEITH W. BUCKLER" ET UX INST. No. 040015415 RP RESID.' OI T.M. 62-A-51 C JONATHAN J. FOL 1Z, ET AL INST. No. 020010098 RP RESID. JO T. M. 62B-1-5-8 GERRE L. PITTENGER INST No. 030014455 RP RESID. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE LAND OF S ,LTH 0 D S T®lilEBl4OOK, L.C.�� BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA o ,, RICHARD A. EDENS a' SCALE: N/A DATE: NNE 15, 2005 No. 002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 d SUIN Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX- (540) 722-9528 Founded m 1971 www-greenwayengxom F0879 SHEET 3 OF 3 July 21, 2005 Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 FILE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: MDP (Master Development Plan) Waiver Request - Stonebrook, L.C. Subdivision Zoning District: RP (Residential Performance); Back Creek Magisterial District Property Identification Number (PIN) 62-A -51 Final Subdivision Plat created by Greenway Engineering, dated June 15, 2005 Dear Evan: I am in receipt of your letter, dated July 11, 2005, which requests a waiver of the requirements for a master development plan for the creation of a 2.29 -acre lot on the above -referenced property. This property is located in the Stonebrook development, at the eastern terminus of Greenfield Avenue. The parcel is part of the Stonebrook Racquet and Fitness Club property (Stonebrook, L.C.). Section 165-134 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance gives the Director of Planning and Development the ability to waive the requirement for a master development plan under certain conditions. The proposed development meets these conditions. It contains less than ten traditional detached single-family units; it is not an integral portion of a future development; it is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and, the development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, your request for a waiver to the master development plan requirement is appropriate in this situation. Please be advised that this waiver does not eliminate any applicable development and design requirements of the Frederick County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. Prior to the development of this property, a subdivision must be reviewed and approved by Frederick County. The subdivision would also require review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Ple!e contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter. t' Sincerely, Ef �e y Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Planning Director ERL/rsa cc: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator Stonebrook, L.C. 107 North Kent Street @ Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Date:-1"7.S� Application ## �r9— MDP? Yes No If no, has MDP requirement been waived by the Planning Director? i;-"- Yes No If MDP requirement has no been waived, fill in the following public hearing dates. Planning Commission:o' Board of Supervisors: Applicant/Agent: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Phone: 540-662-4185 Owners Name: Stonebrook, L.C. Address: 2342 Jones Road Winchester, VA 22602 Phone: 540-662-7546 Please list names of all owners, principals and/or majority stockholders: Stonebrook, L.C. Contact Person: Richard A. Edens, LS Phone: 540-662-4185 NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Subdivision of the land of Stonebrook. L.C. Number of Lots: 2 Total Acreage 11.7422 Property Location: Fronts western boundary of Jones Road (Va. Route 621) about 0.05 mile north of intersection with Stonebrook Road (Va. Route 1109) and also fronts cul-de-sac boundary at the eastern terminus of Greenfield Avenue (Va. Route 1112). (Give State Rt. #, name, distance and direction from intersection) Magisterial District Back Creek Property Identification Number (PIN) 62-A-51 (Parent Tract) Property zoning and present use: RP - fitness club Adjoining property zoning and use: RP - residential and RA - agricultural Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes X No If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? N/A Yes No What was the Master Development Plan title? N/A Yes No Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? N/A Yes No If yes, specify what changes: N/A Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) 2.2957 acres (100,000 sf) Number and types of housing units in this development: I single-family detached rural trnrlitinnnl Int I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Planning Department. I also understand that all required material will be complete prior to the submission of my site plan. Signature• L� Date: a L Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning « Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Stonebrook, L.C. (Phone) (540) 662-7546 (Address) 2342 Jones Rd Winchester, VA 22602 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 020000956 on Page 0392, and is described as Parcel: 51 Lot: Block: A Section: 62 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ® Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. C i In witness thereof, I (We)�k�av5Aer<� sgt�my (our) hand and seal this 1 J day of'A, , 200 S , Signature(s) State of Virginia, -C ty/County of `� To : Atary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this f 11 D—day of Q �,, ,l,' 2005 My Commission Expires. .� f° :., °✓'l R, �G �' Notary Public cK , Co SUBDIVISION REQUEST # 27-05 JIREH ENTERPRISES Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: August 2, 2005 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator 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: 08/17/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 08/24/05 Pending L,CrCATIQ+N: This property is located off of Ebert Road (Route 663), three miles north on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). MAGISTERIAL DIS'fRIFCli': Stonewall PROPER'T'Y IB NUMBER: 44 -A -6A PROPERTY ZOI+TENG & PRESENT USE: M-2 (General Industrial) Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: M-2 (General Industrial) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: M-2 (General Industrial) Use: Residential Use: Recycling operation Use: Residential Use: Vacant SURDIVISIGN SPECiIFICS: Subdivision of 15.74 acres into two lots of 5.536 acres and 10.304 acres respectively Subdivision Application #27-05, Arch Enterprises, LLC August 2, 2005 Page 2 Background This request is for subdivision of a 15.740 acre lot into two (2) lots of 5.436 and 10.304 acres. This 15.740 acre property had been zoned M-2 when Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967. This proposed subdivision is located within the SWSA and the Northeast Land Use Plan as indicated in the 2003 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. STAFF REVIEW: The Subdivision Ordinance requires that land divisions in the M-2 (General Industrial) Zoning District, without an approved master development plan, be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval (Chapter 144-12-B). The Master Development Plan (MBP) requirement may be waived under Section 165-134B of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provided: 1) No new streets, roads or right-of-ways, or extends any existing or dedicated street, road or right-of-ways and does not significantly change the layout of existing or dedicated streets, roads or rights-of-way. 2) Does not propose any stormwater management systems designed to serve more than one lot or significant changes to the existing stormwater management system. 3) The proposed subdivision is harmonious with the surrounding properties and land uses. 4) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or subdivision. 5) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this chapter. This proposed subdivision will need comments from VDOT and FCSA prior to the Subdivision Administrator signature. This proposed subdivision met the requirements for a waiver from the MDP requirements; the applicant has been granted a waiver of the MDP requirements. This project contains land zoned M-2 and does not have an approved MDP; therefore, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review and action on the Subdivision request is necessary. Aside from the outstanding VDOT and FCSA approvals, this subdivision appears to comply with the applicable subdivision ordinance requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 08/17/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff is seeking administrative approval authority; therefore, a recommendation from the Plamiing Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the subdivision request is desired. Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recon-a-aendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this Subdivision request. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. r ♦ ♦ ♦ CPN 22 ♦ ELGIN _ 6D1, 43 A 80 �L �A Zoning BUCKLEYLAGES iVM2 43 A 85 BUCKLEY LAGES' 43 A 83 U c Valley Ferilizer 44 A 6A SHIRLEY 44 A 5 ✓/RFRF fir NrFRp a 64 R/SFk4'81 tic 8 A/RIFq ` 4o q/R!F 5 y �7 44HAIF8 4 {/ BUl "\ 44 0P Zoning g R9a q�p4\ ANpR1R`SES Map Features Zoning ^/ Bridges Subd # 27 - 05 �Plica on LakeslPonds B /�/ culverts C B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 + MS (Medical Support District) Streams ti Dams `� (Business, General District) + B3 (Business, Industrial + R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) J i re h Ent., L L C /e Retaining Wails Transition District) + R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) , Buildings Road Centerlines '1!> EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) RA (Rural Areas District) - Tanks 4t) HE (Higher Education District)District) #> M1 <i RP (Residential Performance _ _ (44 A 6A ) Parcels (Industrial, Light District) N Trails �;- M2 (Industrial, General District) OSWSA ���� UDA MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) WE 0 1255 250 500 S Feet SLAUGHTER 44 A 40 '16 P BISHOP 44 A 43 APPLICATION t for MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION Applicant/Agent: Address: 1 Lane_, �%1 1 Phone Number: flo J 0 U' `/ 4Y l 00 P F Owner's Name (if different from applicant): Address: Phone Number: PARCEL INFORMATION (Creek One) M Manor Rural Subdivision: _� honing District: Number of Lots: Total Acreage Subdivided: /,. L. "Family variance" lot? (y/n)�' Property, Locationlease give State Route # and name, distance and direction from inte section) C oca-� ` ncF FOe,.4 c2 - R� LPC 3 6 �� m 1la-� ntWi) on C/ Magisterial District: f:?0: Property Identification Number (P.LN.): H '`T — ��► (Parent Tract) FEES: ****For Office Use Only**** 10- $100.00 parent tract + $100.00/lot Fee amount enclosed by applicant: $,{ Receipt k- Received by: Date:f (Initials) Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 (North Kent Street • Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540) 665-5651 Fax: (540) 665-6395 0 Tand Use Applications\Application Forms\Minor Rural Subdivision application.wpd Revised 01/27/05 July 1, 2005 Frederick County Dept. of Planning & Zoning 107 N Kent 81 Winchoster, VA 22601 Dear Sirs: .their Enterprises Is requestir* to subdivide their property on Ebert Rd (tat Ili t -A -BA). Per your requiremerrl they need a Master Site Plan waiver to accomplish this subdivision. Based on the following, Jireh Enterprises requests this waiver. -1. This new parcel requires no new streets or right-of-way and does not signitloantly chance the existing Ebert Pfd. street or right -®f -way. The nava owner will be requesting one entrance onto Ebert Fact. 2. All st®rrnwater management snail be contained on the now parcel, 3. This new parcel is not &i integral portion of a property proposod or planned for future development or subdivision. All developmeM of this site is contalnod on this now parcel. 4. The now parcel is planned to be developed as warehousing whish is harmonious with the surrounding properties and land uses. 5. A site plan is in process by our firm and Is expected to be submitted Ns month for the new parcal thereby not suWantially affecting the prargose or "ant of the Master Development Plan ehapterr. Tnank you for your help and If you have any questions give rite a gall. Sincerely, ' Bpi CHARLES � r p;;NTGOMERY 0402 Ben C. Montgo rr, PE �4 r�NAL d. so -q P9.0 PFA rry M, 1540-869 -0308' 'WjN,C44fSTt-:R VA Z2 602. FAX 540-869-0332 _.-. r. ..._. ,7 Minor Subdivision Plat JIREH ENTERPRISES LLC _-W, g Showin the l a, Route 837 Site V Instrument # 040008576 Stonewall Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia ' n"°•�� ' Scale: 1 "=100' Date: May 10, 2005 Sheet 1 of 3 FLOODNOTE: r Caption Property is not located in a Special 1 Flood Hazard Area so designated by the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development. The Caption Property is located in Flood Zone C and is referenced by FIRM Map # 510063 0105 B, Dated: July 17, 1978. u Vicinity Map 1'=2000' owner's Certificate: That, JIREH ENTERPRISES LLC, is the owner of the property shown hereon this Survey, by virtue of Instrument # 040008576, in the land records of Frederick County, Virginia. This Subdivision, as it appears on this plot, is with the free will and consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owner. 1� For: OJIEH E ERPRISES LLC Date State of Virginia County of Frederick >j(jjj�j /�t)Sh v, Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and State, do hereby certify that Oc.ruj- "' C Shim') -whose name is signed to the foregoing writing has personally appeared before me in my ori# and state and acknowledged the same on this the -q day of 'T , 2005. � My Commission Expires: 4L, '�Q� ��3 ')MR Notary Public:f �(A Approved: Frederick County Subdivision Agent Date Surveyor's Certificate: I, Kyle D. Austin, a duly licensed surveyor in the Commonwealth of Virginia, do hereby certify that the LT H4properties shown hereon are in the name of JIREH �),ENTERPRISES LLC as found in Instrument # 040008576, in f`f'�, the land records of the County of Frederick, Virginia. I KYLE D. USTIN A further certify that this survey repesents a current field -;q survey,and is correct to the best of my Knowledge and L'���' Belief. LICEN No. F 1483Date/ L9� sugO Ky e D. Austin L.S. # 1483 /�n ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, Inc. 7( 22 Main Street Middletown, Virginia 22645 540 869.2501 JN 22826.00 C. Edward Shirley, et al D.B. 452 Pg. 688 Tax # 44—A-5 Zoned M2 8 .83' �=''1�. �?Us4 Industrial / 8 E Woven Wire 25' BRL Fence I o0 - I ' / I o New Lot # 6A w 5.436 acres 'I I / I M Z 25'3Rlj L.�_ a N52 -45'49"W 52'45'49"E� Cr = I 225.00' 100.00' O o, lm I n 3 ml o o o Q) // 30' water do Sewer NI I m Easement Co - C.? Frederick CountyLn Q) / Sanitation Authority Valley Fertilizer & Chemical Co. I `V r Instrument #020014908 I ?r D.B. 504 Pg. 443 U / o Tax # 44—A-6 S I Zoned M2 _ Use: Industrial 3 I� O M n V) _ 75' BRL _ —4'__-j N52'45'49W 295.00' i Ebert Road State Route 663 (30' RAW) Minor Subdivision Plat OO Denotes Iron Rod Set JIREH ENTERPRISES LLC * Denotes Iron Rod Found Showing the 0SIZY1057- p,LTH of,L Unless Otherwise Noted Rote X37 Sig r Instrument # 040008576 rPGA� ~ KYLE D. AUSTIN Stonewall Magisterial District �. �.,-9 Frederick County, Virginia LICENSE No. Scale: 1"=100' Date: May 10, 2005 1483 Sheet 2 of 3 L o4 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, Inc. 9r St tU`IV�Z2Main Street Middletown,Virginia lnla 22645A (540869-2501 C r - M to 75' BRL S52'45'50"E Woven Wire Fence � I 75' BRL Existing 20- Storm Drainage Easement. Inetrument #040020891 495.48' Edward Shirley, et al D.B. 452 Pg. 688 Tax # 44—A-5 Zoned M2 Use: Industrial Fence Corner Post Found Donald H. & Marcella C. Shirley D.B. 466 Pg. 795 Tax # 44—A-58 Zoned M2 Use: Industrial Allen L. & Dorothy H. Shirley D.B. 389 Pg. 484 Tax # 44—A -5A Zoned M2 Use: Industrial Ebert Road State Route 663 (30' R/W) Q Denotes Iron Rod Set Minor Subdivision Plat *Denotes Iron Rod Found JIREH ENTERPRISES �"I"'� Unless Otherwise Noted Showing the ALTH p�,L Route 837 Site �o )N:�� Inst. # 040008576 Stonewall Magisterial District KYLE DUFrederick County, Virginia J?LCENSE Scale:1"=100' Date: May 10, 2005 1483 Sheet 3 of 3 /�/`� ANDERSON &ASSOCIATES, Incq A�/A\ 7722 Main street ;„ ft SUR11 AOC Middletown_ Virginia 22645 i 91.5.57' '633.74 25', 13RL R JIREH ENTERPRISES LLC I Tax # 44—A -6A Zoned M2 Use: Industrial I r t t Existing 20' Waterline Easement. Total Area t t I I Instrument '#040020891 I 15.740 Acres 3�, i0 n I^ I New Lot # 6B t I IJ c 10.304 acres i JI 0 O h I I M IW Im ! I N I� 1j N I I j I M O I ' Z t t I r - M to 75' BRL S52'45'50"E Woven Wire Fence � I 75' BRL Existing 20- Storm Drainage Easement. Inetrument #040020891 495.48' Edward Shirley, et al D.B. 452 Pg. 688 Tax # 44—A-5 Zoned M2 Use: Industrial Fence Corner Post Found Donald H. & Marcella C. Shirley D.B. 466 Pg. 795 Tax # 44—A-58 Zoned M2 Use: Industrial Allen L. & Dorothy H. Shirley D.B. 389 Pg. 484 Tax # 44—A -5A Zoned M2 Use: Industrial Ebert Road State Route 663 (30' R/W) Q Denotes Iron Rod Set Minor Subdivision Plat *Denotes Iron Rod Found JIREH ENTERPRISES �"I"'� Unless Otherwise Noted Showing the ALTH p�,L Route 837 Site �o )N:�� Inst. # 040008576 Stonewall Magisterial District KYLE DUFrederick County, Virginia J?LCENSE Scale:1"=100' Date: May 10, 2005 1483 Sheet 3 of 3 /�/`� ANDERSON &ASSOCIATES, Incq A�/A\ 7722 Main street ;„ ft SUR11 AOC Middletown_ Virginia 22645 i COUNTY of FREDERICK Depart -went of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Win -Fred MPO — Overview of Vision Plan DATE: August 2, 2005 When the 2000 US Census was completed, the Winchester region was classified as a metropolitan area, and the primary responsibility for regional transportation planning was transferred to the local region, under the auspices of an organization called a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). This transfer of transportation planning responsibility was in accordance with the Federal Highway Act and Federal Transit Act. In order to receive federal funds for road improvements, the road must be included in the MPO adopted transportation plan. The Winchester -Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization (Win -Fred MPO, or MPO) is nearing the completion of their analysis of our community's road needs through 2030. The culmination of the study will result in the 2030 Vision Plan, a road plan that will replace the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) previously adopted by the County and City in the late 90s. John Bishop, the Transportation Planner for the MPO, will present an overview of the 2030 Vision Plan and the associated Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP). This document was presented to the County's Transportation Committee in July. Following the official adoption of the Plan by the MPO, the County will evaluate and consider changes to the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan; more specifically the Eastern Road Plan, so that all transportation planning documents are consistent. Attached are excerpts from the draft 2030 Winchester Frederick County Transportation Plan that is currently being circulated for public comment. Attachments ERL/bad 107 North Rent Street., Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Final Vision Plan Legend -' # Project Number' Infrastructure Removed yr bh'ss p+• ~ t f Interchange Improvement L_ Intersection Improvement Existing Road Improvements r New Roads Committed ProjectsL cs - i liunswoUkp c eni�town�,. MPO Boundary 1' ' .71� ry c 41 d 15 97 mak' p,.si s y e �hta'3ij�i' 94 0 r e �k7 7 —1023 Pine Rd 5, Qa S o r ., y 42h ff/ yi r 1 e , ❑ .ave 94 Wnche.ster, 0-M 76 1a h 9 6' - qw33 49 �.. Geaei Gfeek Gra - 26 i �O Cb 3 9 NyhO� 48 - 7 4 sr3 f Pros • 88 l /y Rtl P y Stephen City 1 N, � �Q 'fnchester roto : QL O34 14'��2 eda• Cre - 49 3 9_ 4 M ke it sa 72 Descriptions of projects; as Identified by projectA= numbers above, are shown in an attached table ' a6 N W E Win -Fred MPO 2030 �IVanasseHanrenBrustlrn,Inc. 0 1 2 Miles Transportation Plan en•po •uon-yao•.mop••m.em e•mo•,is•��•• s @ Congested Intersection Ak9 Congested Roadway �\+t Lmomem Severely Congested Roadway jIT MPO Boundary � I / Fpt ePick I P !\ / lds j a j /old -9i Pine R R:u.:. sr. ,F,+' 8eM'i111e Pia `\l 7 e / 1 richest 'L •, •tifer �' :d '� GadeYcr. L F ctlp6e y, - / n�aL � �� \ 17 � �.I C"•� r 1 r o Cmsspointe Blvd [[ Q 0 wPalRi �m \ r S ✓ � I � J `��herStS Stephen City b i r.W'nchest t, r 41 50 p MO tt q � e ed r j t7 jy\ 0 L \ / m�\ N W11111111111111 W E 2030 No -Build Future Evening Figure 5-4 0 1 2 Miles Peak Hour Traffic Congestion s Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan Table 6-1 Vision Plan Projects - Improvements to Existing Roads Road Name Project ID # Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement US Route 11 Route 17150 1 MP 305-307 2 MP 307-310 3 MP 310-313 4 Interchange at MP 311/Battaile Drive Interchange on 1-81 5 MP 313-317 5a MP 317-319 6 MP 319-321 7 MP 321-324 8 Interchange @ MP 307 (Route 277) 9 Interchange @ MP 310 (Route 37S/642) 10 Interchange @ MP 313 11 Interchange @ MP 315 12 Interchange @ MP 317 13 Interchange @ MP 318 13a Interchage @ MP 321 13b Interchange @ MP 323 Widen 1-81 to 6 lanes Widen 1-81 to 6 lanes Widen 1-81 with 2 -lane CD roads in both directions New Interchange Widen 1-81 to 6 lanes & widen Abrams Creek Bridge and Senseny Road & Woodstock Lane Bridges over 1-81 Widen 1-81 to 6 lanes Widen 1-81 to 6 lanes Widen 1-81 to 6 lanes & widen Cedar Hill Road bridge over 1-81 Relocate Existing Interchange to the south Construct Full Cloverleaf Interchange with C -D roads Improve to Directional Interchange Improve Interchange Improve Interchange and add one -lane C -D roads between Exit 317 and new Exit 318 Construct Full Cloverleaf Interchange with C -D roads Replace 3 lane bridge and relocate Waverly Rd Turn lane improvements 14 Apple Valley Road (Route 652) to South City Limits Widen to 5 -lane cross section 14a South City Limits to Tevis Street Widen to 5 -lane cross section 15 Martinsburg Pike Junction with Route 37 (existing junction) New interchange between Existing Route 37, new Route 37, and Martinsburg Pike 16 Martinsburg Pike - Route 37 Junction to 1-81 Widen to 6 -lane cross section 17 1-81 to West Virginia Line Widen to 4 -lane cross section 18 Carpers Valley Road to Sulphur Springs Road Widen to 6 -lane cross section 19 Sulphur Springs Road to Relocated Route 522 Widen to 6 -lane cross section 20 Relocated Route 522 to 1-81 Widen to 6 -lane cross section 21 1-81 to Apple Blossom Drive Jubal Early bridge over relocated Millwood Avenue/Frontage Road with ramp to EB Route 17/50. Realign Apple Blossom Drive to intersect with University Drive at traffic signal 6-5 MPO Vision Plan Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Table 6.1 Vision Plan Projects - Improvements to Existing Roads (Continued) Road Name Project ID # Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement Route 50 — Route 37 22 Amherst Street between Keating Drive & Route 37 23 Route 50 Between Rt 37 and Poor House Road 24 Interchange with US Route 11 (South of City) 25 Interchange with Route 651 (Shady Elm Road) 26 Interchange with Cedar Creek Grade 27 Interchange with West Jubal Early Drive 28 Interchange with US Route 50 29 Interchange with US Route 522 29a Interchange at Winchester Medical Center Route 277 30 1-81 to Route 641 31 Route 641 to White Oak Road (Route 636) 32 White Oak Road to US Route 522/US Route 340 Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) 33 Widen to 4 lanes - Route 621 to Winchester CL Route 522 34 Intersection with Tasker Road 35 Intersection with Macedonia Church Road 36 Intersection with Papermill Road 37 Airport Road to US Route 17/50 38 Wyck Street to 0.2 miles north of Winchester CL Route 641 (Double Church Road) 39 Frederick Co Line to Route 277 Route 642 (Tasker Road) 40 US Route 522 to Lakeside Drive 41 Lakeside Drive to FCSA Terminus 6-6 MPO Vision Plan Widen to 6 -lane cross section Widen to 6 -lane cross section Remove Interchange New Diamond Interchange Signalized Both Ramps Construct new diamond interchange with realignment of Merrimans Lane - north side T into Jubal Early Drive, south side connect into interchange Improve Interchange Improve Interchange improvements to allow medical center access to western campus Widen to 5 -lane cross section Widen to 5 -lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Install traffic signal Install traffic signal Relocate to south opposite new school entrance/Victory Blvd Extension Relocate US Route 522 to the east. Existing US Route 522 to be closed at northern end to serve local traffic only. Widen to 4 -lane cross section Upgrade existing two-lane road Widen to 4 -lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Win Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Table 6.1 Vision Plan Projects - Improvements to Existing Roads (Continued) Road Name Project ID # Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement moute oa i tonaay ttm Koaul 42 Apple Valley Road (Route 652) to Proposed Route 651 Extension Route 652 (Apple Valley Road) 43 US Route 11 to Middle Road Featherbed Lane 44 South Loudoun St to South Pleasant Valley Road Battaile Drive 45 New South Pleasant Valley Road Extension to Shawnee Drive Shawnee Drive 46 Battaile Drive to US Route 11 Greenwood Road (Route 656) 47 Senseny Road to Valley Mill Road Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) 48 US Route 17/50 to Greenwood Road Weems Lane 49 Roosevelt Blvd to US Route 11 Papermill Road 50 1-81 to Shawnee Drive Hope Drive Extension 51 Wilson Blvd to Papermill Road (3 lanes) Papermill Road Relocation 51a Hope Drive to South Pleasant Valley Road (5 lanes) Tevis Street Realignment 51b Bradford Ct to Relocated Papermill Road/Hope Drive Extension (2 lanes) White Oak Road 52 US Route 522 to Tasker Road Old Charles Town Road 53 US Route 11 to New Stephenson Village Boulevard 54 New Stephenson Village Boulevard to Jordan Springs Road 6-7 MPO Vision Plan Widen to 4 lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Upgrade existing 2 -lane cross section Upgrade existing 2 -lane cross section Widen to 5 -lane cross section Remove bridge over 1-81. Construct 3 -lane cross section as part of Papermill Road relocation Construct 5 -lane cross section as part of Papermill Road relocation Construct 2 -lane cross section as part of Papermill Road relocation Widen to 4 -lane cross section Widen to 3 -lane cross section Improve existing 2 -lane road Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Table 6-1 Vision Plan Projects - Improvements to Existing Roads (Continued) Road Name Project ID # Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement Jordan Springs Road 55 Old Charles Town Road to Woods Mill Road Improve existing 2 -lane road Woods Mill Road 56 Jordan Springs Road to Route 7 Improve existing 2 -lane road Channing Drive 57 Senseny Road to Valley Mill Road Widen to 4 -lane cross section Inverlee Way 58 Route 17150 to Senseny Road Widen to 4 -lane cross section Warrior Drive 59 Route 277 to Opequon Creek (north of Route 642) Widen to 4 -lane cross section Route 7 59A Clarke County line to 1-81 Widen to 6 -lane cross section 6-8 MPO Vision Plan Win -Fred MPD 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Table 6-2 Vision Plan Projects - Construction of New Roads Road Name Project ID # Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement 60 1-81 @ Crosspointe to US Route 522 Construct 4 -lane limited access divided highway 61 US Route 522 to Routes 17/50 Construct 4 -lane limited access divided highway 62 Routes 17/50 to Route 7 Construct 4 -lane limited access divided highway 99 Route 7 to 1-81 at MP 318 Construct 4 -lane controlled access divided highway 64 1-81 at MP 318 to Route 37 (west of industrial park) Construct 4 -lane limited access divided highway 65 Route 37 @ Warrior Drive Construct diamond interchange 66 Route 37 @ Route 522 Construct diamond interchange 67 Route 37 @ Route 17/50 Construct diamond interchange 68 Route 37 @ Senseny Road Construct diamond interchange 69 Route 37 @ Route 7 Construct diamond interchange Warrior Drive 70 Opequon Creek to Battaile Drive East Extended Construct 4 -lane cross section 71 Battaile Drive East Extended to E Tevis Street Construct 4 -lane cross section Airport Road Extension 72 US Route 522 to Warrior Drive Construct 2 -lane cross section East Tevis Street Extension 73 Legge Blvd to Warrior Drive Construct 4 -lane cross section 73a Warrior Drive to US Route 522 Construct 4 -lane cross section Relocation of Papermill Road 74 West of US Route 522 Realign 2 -lane road Pleasant Valley Road Extension 75 East Cedarmeade Avenue to Battaile Drive Construct 4 -lane cross section Jubal Early Drive Extension 76 Existing West Jubal Early Drive to Route 37 Construct 4 -lane cross section Route 11 -Route 651 Connector 77 US Route 11 to Route 651 Extension Construct 2 -lane cross section Battaile Drive Extension 78 Shawnee Drive to Warrior Drive Construct 4 -lane cross section 6-9 MPO Vision Plan Win Fred MPD 2030 Transporta don Plan Table 6-2 Vision Plan Projects - Construction of New Roads (Continued) Road Name Project ID # Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement Brooke Road Extension 79 US Route 11 to Route 522 Construct 4 -lane cross section Route 642 (Tasker Road) Extension 80 Existing Route 642 to US Route 11 81 US Route 11 to Route 651 Extension Route 644 Extension 82 US Route 522 to Lakeside Drive Aylor Road (Route 647) Realignment 83 Relocate intersection with Route 277 to the east Shady Elm Road (Route 651) Extension 84 Existing Route 651 to US Route 11 85 US Route 11 to 1-81 Relocated 1-81 MP 307 Interchange 86 1-81 to Warrior Drive at Route 277 87 Interchange Connection to US Route 11 via East'Nest Connector East/West Connector Road (south of Fairfax Street) 88 US Route 11 to Route 651 Extension Meadow Branch Avenue 89 Extension to US Route 50 Victory Road 90 Airport Road to Route 522 near school & realigned Papermill Rd Legge Boulevard 91 Completion - Patsy Cline Blvd to Frontage Road Route 11[Route 651 Connector (south of Route 37) 92 US Route 11 to Route 651 Stephensons Village Boulevard 94 Old Charles Town Road to US Route 11 Willow Run Drive 95 Jubal Early Drive to Cedar Creek Grade Route 7-Senseny Road Connector 96 Route 7 to Senseny Road Stonewall Industrial Park Connector 97 Lenoir Drive to Route 37 6-10 MPO Vision Plan Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 2 -lane cross section Construct 3 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section plus bridge over US Route 11 Construct 4 -lane cross section Unsignalized intersection access onto Route 651 Extension Construct 2 -lane cross section to connect Route 11 to interchange with Route 651 Ext Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 3 -lane cross section Construct 2 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct one -lane, one-way SB roadway Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Table 6.1 Vision Plan Projects - Improvements to Existing Roads (Continued) Road Name Project ID # Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement Route 50 — Route 37 22 Amherst Street between Keating Drive & Route 37 23 Route 50 Between Rt 37 and Poor House Road 24 Interchange with US Route 11 (South of City) 25 Interchange with Route 651 (Shady Elm Road) 26 Interchange with Cedar Creek Grade 27 Interchange with West Jubal Early Drive 28 Interchange with US Route 50 29 Interchange with US Route 522 29a Interchange at Winchester Medical Center Route 277 30 1-81 to Route 641 31 Route 641 to White Oak Road (Route 636) 32 White Oak Road to US Route 522/US Route 340 Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) 33 Widen to 4 lanes - Route 621 to Winchester CL Route 522 34 Intersection with Tasker Road 35 Intersection with Macedonia Church Road 36 Intersection with Papermill Road 37 Airport Road to US Route 17/50 38 Wyck Street to 0.2 miles north of Winchester CL Route 641 (Double Church Road) 39 Frederick Co Line to Route 277 Route 642 (Tasker Road) 40 US Route 522 to Lakeside Drive 41 Lakeside Drive to FCSA Terminus 6-6 MPO Vision Plan Widen to 6 -lane cross section Widen to 6 -lane cross section Remove Interchange New Diamond Interchange Signalized Both Ramps Construct new diamond interchange with realignment of Merrimans Lane - north side T into Jubal Early Drive, south side connect into interchange Improve Interchange Improve Interchange improvements to allow medical center access to western campus Widen to 5 -lane cross section Widen to 5 -lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Install traffic signal Install traffic signal Relocate to south opposite new school entrance/Victory Blvd Extension Relocate US Route 522 to the east. Existing US Route 522 to be closed at northern end to serve local traffic only. Widen to 4 -lane cross section Upgrade existing two-lane road Widen to 4 -lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Win Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Table 6.1 Vision Plan Projects - Improvements to Existing Roads (Continued) Road Name Project ID # Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement moute oa i tonaay ttm Koaul 42 Apple Valley Road (Route 652) to Proposed Route 651 Extension Route 652 (Apple Valley Road) 43 US Route 11 to Middle Road Featherbed Lane 44 South Loudoun St to South Pleasant Valley Road Battaile Drive 45 New South Pleasant Valley Road Extension to Shawnee Drive Shawnee Drive 46 Battaile Drive to US Route 11 Greenwood Road (Route 656) 47 Senseny Road to Valley Mill Road Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) 48 US Route 17/50 to Greenwood Road Weems Lane 49 Roosevelt Blvd to US Route 11 Papermill Road 50 1-81 to Shawnee Drive Hope Drive Extension 51 Wilson Blvd to Papermill Road (3 lanes) Papermill Road Relocation 51a Hope Drive to South Pleasant Valley Road (5 lanes) Tevis Street Realignment 51b Bradford Ct to Relocated Papermill Road/Hope Drive Extension (2 lanes) White Oak Road 52 US Route 522 to Tasker Road Old Charles Town Road 53 US Route 11 to New Stephenson Village Boulevard 54 New Stephenson Village Boulevard to Jordan Springs Road 6-7 MPO Vision Plan Widen to 4 lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Widen to 4 -lane cross section Upgrade existing 2 -lane cross section Upgrade existing 2 -lane cross section Widen to 5 -lane cross section Remove bridge over 1-81, Construct 3 -lane cross section as part of Papermill Road relocation Construct 5 -lane cross section as part of Papermill Road relocation Construct 2 -lane cross section as part of Papermill Road relocation Widen to 4 -lane cross section Widen to 3 -lane cross section Improve existing 2 -lane road Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Table 6-1 Vision Plan Projects - Improvements to Existing Roads (Continued) Road Name Project ID # Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement Jordan Springs Road 55 Old Charles Town Road to Woods Mill Road Improve existing 2 -lane road Woods Mill Road 56 Jordan Springs Road to Route 7 Improve existing 2 -lane road Channing Drive 57 Senseny Road to Valley Mill Road Widen to 4 -lane cross section Inverlee Way 58 Route 17150 to Senseny Road Widen to 4 -lane cross section Warrior Drive 59 Route 277 to Opequon Creek (north of Route 642) Widen to 4 -lane cross section Route 7 59A Clarke County line to 1-81 Widen to 6 -lane cross section 6-8 MPO Vision Plan Win -Fred MPD 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Table 6-2 Vision Plan Projects - Construction of New Roads Road Name Project ID # Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement UUW JI 60 1-81 @ Crosspointe to US Route 522 Construct 4 -lane limited access divided highway 61 US Route 522 to Routes 17/50 Construct 4 -lane limited access divided highway 62 Routes 17/50 to Route 7 Construct 4 -lane limited access divided highway 99 Route 7 to 1-81 at MP 318 Construct 4 -lane controlled access divided highway 64 1-81 at MP 318 to Route 37 (west of industrial park) Construct 4 -lane limited access divided highway 65 Route 37 @ Warrior Drive Construct diamond interchange 66 Route 37 @ Route 522 Construct diamond interchange 67 Route 37 @ Route 17/50 Construct diamond interchange 68 Route 37 @ Senseny Road Construct diamond interchange 69 Route 37 @ Route 7 Construct diamond interchange Warrior Drive 70 Opequon Creek to Battaile Drive East Extended Construct 4 -lane cross section 71 Battaile Drive East Extended to E Tevis Street Construct 4 -lane cross section Airport Road Extension 72 US Route 522 to Warrior Drive Construct 2 -lane cross section East Tevis Street Extension 73 Legge Blvd to Warrior Drive Construct 4 -lane cross section 73a Warrior Drive to US Route 522 Construct 4 -lane cross section Relocation of Papermill Road 74 West of US Route 522 Realign 2 -lane road Pleasant Valley Road Extension 75 East Cedarmeade Avenue to Battaile Drive Construct 4 -lane cross section Jubal Early Drive Extension 76 Existing West Jubal Early Drive to Route 37 Construct 4 -lane cross section Route 11 -Route 651 Connector 77 US Route 11 to Route 651 Extension Construct 2 -lane cross section Battaile Drive Extension 78 Shawnee Drive to Warrior Drive Construct 4 -lane cross section 6-9 MPO Vision Plan Win Fred MPD 2030 Transportation Plan Table 6-2 Vision Plan Projects - Construction of New Roads (Continued) Road Name Project ID # Roadway Section Vision Plan Improvement Brooke Road Extension 79 US Route 11 to Route 522 Construct 4 -lane cross section Route 642 (Tasker Road) Extension 80 Existing Route 642 to US Route 11 81 US Route 11 to Route 651 Extension Route 644 Extension 82 US Route 522 to Lakeside Drive Aylor Road (Route 647) Realignment 83 Relocate intersection with Route 277 to the east Shady Elm Road (Route 651) Extension 84 Existing Route 651 to US Route 11 85 US Route 11 to 1-81 Relocated 1-81 MP 307 Interchange 86 1-81 to Warrior Drive at Route 277 87 Interchange Connection to US Route 11 via East'Nest Connector East/West Connector Road (south of Fairfax Street) 88 US Route 11 to Route 651 Extension Meadow Branch Avenue 89 Extension to US Route 50 Victory Road 90 Airport Road to Route 522 near school & realigned Papermill Rd Legge Boulevard 91 Completion - Patsy Cline Blvd to Frontage Road Route 11[Route 651 Connector (south of Route 37) 92 US Route 11 to Route 651 Stephensons Village Boulevard 94 Old Charles Town Road to US Route 11 Willow Run Drive 95 Jubal Early Drive to Cedar Creek Grade Route 7-Senseny Road Connector 96 Route 7 to Senseny Road Stonewall Industrial Park Connector 97 Lenoir Drive to Route 37 6-10 MPO Vision Plan Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 2 -lane cross section Construct 3 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section plus bridge over US Route 11 Construct 4 -lane cross section Unsignalized intersection access onto Route 651 Extension Construct 2 -lane cross section to connect Route 11 to interchange with Route 651 Ext Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 3 -lane cross section Construct 2 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct 4 -lane cross section Construct one -lane, one-way SB roadway Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Table 6-3 Vision Plan Projects - Non -Highway Projects Project Type Vision Plan Improvement Park and Ride Facilities US Route 522 near Tasker Road Route 7 Between 1-81 and Clarke County Line Public Transit Extend Transit Service into Frederick County (2 routes) Improve Transit Dependibility (Frequency, Amenities, Reliability, Info) Improve Express Bus Service to the Washington, DC Region Future Passenger Rail Service along 1-81 Corridor Access Management Develop Access Management Plan for Route 7 Develop Access Management Plan for Route 17150 Develop Access Management Plan for US Route 522 Develop Access Management Plan for US Route 11 Develop Access Management Plan for Pleasant Valley Road Corridor Telecommuting Explore feasibility of creating a Regional Telework Center Travel Demand Management Flexible Work Hours Air Quality Improvement/Congestion Management Consider potential improvements if EPA Deferral is rescinded after 2007 Ozone Alert days Car pooling Traffic signal sychronization Electric Hookups at Truckstops to reduce idling Each Vision Plan alternative was coded into the travel demand model, and future 2030 evening peak hour traffic conditions were projected. Detailed information on the model results run for each alternative are provided in the Appendix to this report. Table 6-4 Initial Vision Plan Alternatives Alternative Alternative Description Number 1A Completion of Route 37 with six lanes on 1-81 1 B Route 37 Between Exit 310 and Route 7 with eight lanes on 1-81 2 Battaile Drive Interchange with CD Roads on 1-81 3 Exit 307 Interchange Relocation and Route 37 Between Exit 310 and Routes 17/50 with eight lanes on 1-81 4 Completion of Route 37 with No Widening on 1-81 6-11 MPO Vision Plan Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan IN WE �® �IIIVV7III 0 1 2 Miles wt FiW6 s Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan hgd Local Streets -Not Congested y-$ a Vision Plan Propcts -Not Congested S -�x-�-= New Congestion NoSulld Congestion Eliminated / NoBulld Congestion Continuesti /,,// O O Areas ofSevere Congestion MPO Boundary ¢' c 5 m / W 1' 1 ' a 7 / d5 it Ahe G4 �rdL.yt..neSgLr �[ r G � 2 � ! r7 �. r�-Pine R 3" f cr Gro�P°I O, \ rµ.5' :� � ;'„'o �+• Mi Rv 8 r ` � �� \. N. j- { A ;_ .t ' r 0.1 dao Ce s6i d ^Nr W e 0 1 2 Miles FikMkb to FITS S Win Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Table 7-3 Six -Year Public Transportation Capital Improvement Program for Winchester Transit -Project Funding and Expenditures in Thousands of Dollars FY 05 - FY 07 FY 05* FY 06* FY 07** Total 3,260 292 523 4,075 Source: Six Year FY 05 Public Transportation Capital Improvement Program, page 635, Commonwealth Transportation Board, 6/18/05 — Source: Six Year FY 06 Public Transportation Capital Improvement Program, page 638, Commonwealth Transportation Board, 6/23/05 7-5 MPO Constrained Long -Range Plan Federal State Local Total Federal State Local Total Federal State Local Total Purchase Replacement Rolling Stock 64 6 10 80 0 0 0 0 140 9 26 175 Purchase Expansion Rolling Stock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 4 12 80 All Other Capital Projects 80 8 12 100 60 4 11 75 40 3 7 50 Construction of Facilities 400 38 62 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 544 52 84 680 60 4 11 75 244 16 45 305 FY 08 - FY 10 FY 08** FY 09** FY 10** Federal State Local Total Federal State Local Total Federal State Local Total Purchase Replacement Rolling Stock 140 10 25 175 204 18 33 255 256 24 40 320 Purchase Expansion Rolling Stock 140 10 25 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ail Other Capital Projects 0 0 0 0 72 6 12 90 0 0 0 0 Construction of Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,600 152 248 2,000 Total 280 20 50 350 276 24 45 345 1,856 176 288 2,320 Total: FY 05 - FY 10 Federal FY 05 - State FY 10 Local Total Purchase Replacement Rolling Stock 804 67 134 1,005 Purchase Expansion Rolling Stock 204 14 37 255 All Other Capital Projects 252 21 42 315 Construction of Facilities 2,000 190 310 2,500 Total 3,260 292 523 4,075 Source: Six Year FY 05 Public Transportation Capital Improvement Program, page 635, Commonwealth Transportation Board, 6/18/05 — Source: Six Year FY 06 Public Transportation Capital Improvement Program, page 638, Commonwealth Transportation Board, 6/23/05 7-5 MPO Constrained Long -Range Plan Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Between 2005 and 2010, VDRPT anticipates approximately $1.23 million to be spent by Winchester Transit to purchase replacement and expansion rolling stock. This would be more then enough for Winchester Transit to replace all of there existing buses (Assuming 3 buses providing fixed route service,1 spare bus to fill in for buses that are in the shop or to pickup slack when a bus is running late and 1 bus for paratransit.) The funding would also allow Winchester Transit to purchase at least one bus to be used to expand service into Frederick County and add an additional bus to expand paratransit service into the county. By 2011, this would allow Winchester Transit sufficient equipment to make minor service expansions. To forecast the capital costs through 2030 the following assumptions were assumed. Winchester Transit would add one (1) full size bus and all of the other buses would remain cutaway (body -on -chaises) style buses. These vehicles would be replaced on a regular schedule over the planning period. Replacement cost: Full size bus: $350,000 Cutaway bus: $85,000 Replacement schedule: Full size bus: every 12 years Cutaway bus: every 5 years ➢ New routes servicing Frederick County would be added in 2011 and 2016. ➢ Allocation of $100,000 for use on other capital projects every 3 years. ➢ FederaI funding for capital expenditure would remain at 80% of total with the state and local governments each accounting for 10%. ➢ Replacement of buses occurring in a staggered pattern. Based on these assumptions capital costs have been projected from 2011 to 2030 and are presented in Table 7-4. A more detailed summary, showing the funding allocation breakouts (federal, state and local) is provided in the Appendix to this report. This program assumes continuation of federal funding programs at approximately current levels in constant dollars and of state funding programs at the levels, in constant dollars, achieved in 2011. It also assumes that local funds sufficient to support the proposed capital program and system operations will be available. The program could change if the nature of the development that occurs in Winchester and Frederick County over the planning period is of a pattern that encourages greater or lesser use of public transportation. 7-6 MPO Constrained Long -Range Plan Wm -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Table 7-4: Winchester Transit Capital Cost Program 2011 to 2030 Total $2,450,000 $255,000 $675,000 $3,380,000 7-7 MPO Constrained Long -Range Plan Purchase Purchase Replacement Expansion All Other Capital Year Rolling Stock Rolling Stock Projects Total 2011 $240,000 $175,000 $75,000 $490,000 2012 $170,000 $0 $0 $170,000 2013 $85,000 $0 $0 $85,000 2014 $170,000 $0 $100,000 $270,000 2015 $85,000 $0 $0 $85,000 2016 $0 $80,000 $0 $80,000 2017 $170,000 $0 $100,000 $270,000 2018 $85,000 $0 $0 $85,000 2019 $170,000 $0 $0 $170,000 2020 $85,000 $0 $100,000 $185,000 2021 $85,000 $0 $0 $85,000 2022 $170,000 $0 $0 $170,000 2023 $85,000 $0 $100,000 $185,000 2024 $170,000 $0 $0 $170,000 2025 $85,000 $0 $0 $85,000 2026 $85,000 $0 $100,000 $185,000 2027 $170,000 $0 $0 $170,000 2028 $85,000 $0 $0 $85,000 2029 $170,000 $0 $100,000 $270,000 2030 $85,000 $0 $0 $85,000 Total $2,450,000 $255,000 $675,000 $3,380,000 7-7 MPO Constrained Long -Range Plan Win Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT ■ Prioritization of Roadway Funding The CLRP was initially developed by the Win -Fred MPO Technical Advisory Committee after conducting a review of Vision Plan roadway priorities and projected funding out to the year 2030. This initial list was submitted to the Policy Committee on May 24, 2005 at which time the CLRP recommendations were adopted by the MPO. Funding recommendations are detailed below by funding category, identifying project funding, recommendation, and reasoning. Interstate Funds Funding Allocation: $36,956,600 Recommendation: All segments of I-81 that are in the Vision Plan should be included in the CLRP for preliminary engineering (PE) only. Reasoning: Interstate funds can only be spent on Interstate projects and the amount available to the region is insufficient to complete virtually any meaningful segment of the I-81 improvements that are in the Vision Plan. It is more conducive to the corridor improvements as a whole to continue to keep them alive as a package by including them in the CLRP for PE. Primary Roadway Funds Funding Allocation: $4,095,400 Recommendation: Allocate $214,000 to complete right-of-way acquisition for the Route 277 widening. Allocate remaining balance of $3,881,400 to PE for the Route 37 corridor roadway segments. Reasoning: The Route 277 widening is in the VDOT Six -Year Program with nearly full funding for design and right-of-way, this $214,000 completes that phase of the project. The reasoning behind the Route 37 corridor PE is the same as the I-81 projects above. It is vital to have PE completed so that the future right-of-way is better identified and protected. 7-8 MPO Constrained Long -Range Plan Win Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Secondary Roadway Funds Funding Allocation: $10,839,557 Recommendation: $5,777,484 to Project 59 - Warrior Drive widening to 4 lanes from Route 277 to Opequon Creek $2,437,552 to Project 48 - Sulphur Springs Road from US Routes 17\50 to Greenwood Road - Widening and New roadway $2,624,521 to Project 47 - Greenwood Road (Route 656), Upgrade existing 24ane cross section from Senseny Road to Sulphur Springs Road. Reasoning: The Warrior Drive widening to 4 lanes is essential to accommodate the anticipated growth / future traffic generation. While the entire length of Warrior Drive, from Route 277 to Route 522, will ultimately be a 4 -lane roadway, it is anticipated that the segments of Warrior Drive north of the Opequon Creek would be constructed by the development community. Therefore, the segment of Warrior Drive south of the Opeqoun Creek would be a logical public project. Projects 47 and 48 offer an additional transportation network 'relief valve' for the development Iocated along the Senseny Road corridor. This long planned for project would realign and relocate sections of Greenwood Road to an intersection with Route 50. The funding recommendation above, coupled with funds already allocated in the VDOT Secondary System Construction Program will complete Project 48, and an additional $321,246 would need to be identified from the Secondary System Construction Program or some other source to complete the project. Urban Roadway Funding Funding Allocation: $6,711,587 Recommendation: $3,100,000 to the completion of Weems Lane (Project 49) as shown in the VDOT Six - Year Program. $3,611,587 to projects 51 and 51a - to be dedicated to PE, Design and Right -of -Way for the Hope Drive Extension and the Papermill Road Relocation Reasoning: Weems Lane is the only project other than Meadow Branch Avenue listed in the current Six -Year Program that is not scheduled to be completed by 2011. The current Six -Year Program identifies about $3.4M available for Weems Lane by the year 2011, so it makes sense to show completion of this project as a top priority. The remaining Urban funds are shown to go toward any incomplete aspects of the Hope Drive and Papermill Road projects if they are not otherwise completed with local public or private funds before 2011. 7-9 MPO Constrained Long -Range Plan Win Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT Developer -Funded Projects Funding Allocation: NA Proposed Projects: There are four projects that have been proffered by private sector sources. A discussion of each follows: 1. Winchester Medical Center access to western portion of campus. - A roadway connection will be created between the Winchester Medical Center on the east side of Route 37 and land owned by Valley Health System on the west side of Route 37. This will be accomplished with a roadway extension of the Route 37/Medical Center interchange. This extension will only serve the Valley Health System land, and all access to this land will occur only using this new roadway connection. This is identified as Vision Plan Project Number 29A. 2. Stephenson's Village Boulevard - A four -lane major collector roadway will be built as part of the Stephenson's Village development. This road will connect U.S. Route 11 with Old Charles Town Road. This is identified as Vision Plan Project number 94. 3. Old Charles Town Road from US Route 11 to New Stephenson Village Boulevard - Existing Old Charles Town Road will be widened to a 3 -lane cross section. This is identified as Vision Plan Project 53. 4. Stephenson's Road from Stephenson's Village Boulevard to Jordan Springs Road - Improve existing 2 -lane road. This is identified as Vision Plan Project Number 54. Conformance to Metropolitan Planning Requirements The Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan is required to address the seven planning factors, as identified in TEA -21. A summary follows on how this plan addresses each planning factor. 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan planning area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency. The Winchester metropolitan area is continuing to provide a vital role in northwestern Virginia along the 1-81 corridor, and many businesses are located in this region precisely because of the advantages that the Winchester area offers. In addition, the pressure from the growing Washington, DC. Area is being felt in the Winchester 7-10 MPO Constrained Long -Range Plan Win -Fred MPO 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT area, and is already having significant impacts on property values, as more long- distance commuters move to the greater Winchester area. The plans focus on improvements to I-81, its interchanges, and the major roadways serving the region, including Route 37 and Route 7, will allow the region to continue to grow and prosper. 2. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non -motorized users. The 2030 Transportation Plan included a review of high crash rates at intersections and at -grade rail crossings within the region. Missing pedestrian linkages were addressed with the identification of future sidewalk needs, plus the region has recognized that a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plan is needed to plan for a safer and more cohesive bicycle and pedestrian network. The plan also includes recommendations for access management studies on several major arterial highways in the region to make existing roadways safer for the traveling public. 3. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and freight. The MPO will continue to plan for moving people and freight more efficiently through and within the region. The MPO will participate in or lead in improving accessibility and mobility options through the following studies/efforts: ➢ I-81 Corridor Improvement Study ➢ Expansion of Winchester Transit in Frederick County ➢ MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan In addition, the need for improved transit, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations was identified during the public outreach process of this study, and the Vision Plan and ongoing planning efforts in the region that address these concerns to improve not just the extent of services, but also the quality of services, such as completion of missing sidewalks, development of a MPO bicycle network, improved transit street signage, increased transit information, improved bus shelters, and improved transit vehicles. 4. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life. The member jurisdictions of the Win -Fred MPO have developed their Comprehensive Plans to guide the growth of their communities and this has been the basis for the analysis of land use and transportation needs. Traffic congestion will increase in the future, and many future transportation projects will be developed to minimize traffic congestion on vital commercial and commuting roadway corridors, such as Route 7, Routes17/50, Route 522, Tasker Road, and US Route 11. The expansion of the roadway network needed to accommodate the projected growth in the Win -Fred MPO region will be vital to reducing future congestion, thereby helping to improve the quality of life. In addition, the needs of the regions transit -dependent population will be better served with a transit system that is not confined with the City's boundaries and 7-11 MPO Constrained Long -Range Plan Wm -Fred MPD 2030 Transportation Plan DRAFT can make connections with vital employment, educational, and residential areas within the region. Continuation of the current trial bus services into Frederick County will be possible. The development of improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the region will also help to improve the quality of life, enhance the environment and promote energy conservation. 5. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight. The continued growth of the Win - Fred MPO region will place increased demands on the region to continue to serve its residents and businesses effectively. The 2030 Transportation Plan promotes more efficient travel, the use of travel demand management strategies, such as park and ride facilities and telework centers, and the promotion of increased express bus service to the Washington, D.C. area. For goods movements, the region will grow and support continued growth of rail service on the existing CSX and W&W lines within the region and the nearby Norfolk Southern rail line in nearby Warren County at the Front Royal Inland Port. The continued growth of truck freight traffic on I-81 and on US Route 522 servicing the Inland Port has been anticipated in this study. Promote efficient system management and operation. The 2030 Transportation Plan evaluated improvement alternatives during the Vision Plan process to ensure that the most efficient roadway network was identified and selected. The Vision Plan provides a starting point to managing regional transportation assets more efficiently, continuing a focus on addressing congested roadway corridors, but with a balanced approach to roadway versus travel demand and non - motorized investments, such as park and ride facilities and bike trails. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. The 2030 Transportation Plan has a strong focus on improving existing roadways and services. The study's focus on congestion on existing roadways included an evaluation of when new roadway construction would result in additional congestion where it would otherwise not exist (i.e., creating more congestion), and this helped to guide the selection of both the Vision Plan and the CLRP. Better management of existing facilities, through safety improvements, improved roadway shoulders and turn lanes, park and ride facilities, expanded and improved bus service and improved access management will all help to preserve the integrity of the existing transportation system. 7-12 MPO Constrained Long -Range Plan • C COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning arrd Development MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director t11 ` :- SUBJECT: Commission Bylaws - Adjournment DATE: August 3, 2005 The bylaws of the Planning Commission require that meetings adjourn by 11:00 p.m. Application of the adjournment requirement has recently resulted in development proposals not securing Commission actions, even while the Commission has held extensive discussions on their proposals. At the Commission's request, the bylaws have been placed on the Planning Commissions' agenda for review and discussion to ascertain if revisions to the 11:00 p.m. adjournment is warranted. Attached are the existing Planning Commission bylaws adopted annually, and were last revised in June 2001. Attachment ERL/bad These bylaws have been 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22661-566O PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS County of Frederick, Virginia (adopted January 2, 2002) ARTICLE I -AUTHORIZATION 1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section 15.2-2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Frederick County Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission." ARTICLE II -PURPOSE 2-1 The primary purpose of the Commission is to advise the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and to carry out 0 duties and functions described by the Code of Virginia, as amended. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP 3-1 The membership of the Commission shall be determined by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as specified in Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick Coun . ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS 4-1 Officers of the Commission shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The chairman and vice-chairman must be voting members of the Commission. The secretary shall be a member of the Commission or a county employee. 4-2 Selection 4-2-1 The officers shall be elected by the voting members of the Commission at the first meeting of the calendar year. 4-2-2 Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor at the first meeting of the calendar year. Elections of officers shall follow immediately. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire voting membership shall be declared elected. 4-3 Duties 4-3-1 The Chairman shall: 4-3-1-1 Preside at meetings. 4-3-1-2 Appoint committees. 4-3-1-3 Rule on procedural questions. A ruling on a procedural question by the chairman shall be subject to reversal by a two-thirds majority vote of the members present. 4-3-1-3 Report official communications. 4-3-1-4 Certify official documents involving the authority of the Commission. 4-3-1-5 Certify minutes as true and correct copies. 4-3-1-6 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission. 4-3-2 The Vice -Chairman shall: 4-3-2-1 Assume the full powers of the chairman in the absence or inability of the chairman to act. 4-3-2-2 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission Chairman. 4-3-3 The Secretary shall: 4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings. - 2 - 4-4 4-3-3-2 Ensure that the minutes of all Commission meetings are recorded. 4-3-3-3 Notify members of all meetings. 4-3-3-4 Prepare agendas for all meetings. 4-3-3-5 Maintain files of all official Commission records and reports. Official records and reports may be purged in accordance with applicable state codes. 4-3-3-6 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public meetings. 4-3-3-7 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the Commission. 4-3-3-8 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and functions of the Commission. Term of Office 4-4-1 Officers shall be elected for a one-year term or until a successor takes office. Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the Commission. In such cases, the newly elected officer shall serve only until the end of the calendar year or until a successor takes office. Temporary Chairman 4-5-1 In the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from any meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members a temporary chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice- chairman. ARTICLE V - COMMITTEES 5-1 5-2 5-3 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose. In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose for each committee. Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or committee members on committee appointments. - 3 - 5-4 Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or citizen volunteers. 5-5 The chairman and vice-chairman shall be ex -officio members of every committee. ARTICLE VI - MEETINGS 6-1 Regular meetings shall be held at the time and place set by the Commission at the first meeting of each calendar year. 6-2 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and publication by the secretary. 6-3 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days before the meeting. 6-4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for Closed Sessions held in accordance with the provision specified under Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Vir ilnil 1950 as amended. 6-5 Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. ARTICLE VII - VOTING 7-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or motion made unless a quorum is present. 7-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting. ARTICLE VIII - OPERATING RULES 8-1 Order of Business 8-1-1 Call to Order - 4 - 8-1-2 Consideration of Minutes 8-1-3 Committee Reports 8-1-4 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda 8-1-5 Public Hearings 8-1-6 Public Meetings 8-1-7 Discussions 8-1-8 Other 8-1-9 Adjournment 8-2 Minutes 8-2-1 The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting. The Chairman and Secretary shall sign all minutes following approval by the Commission certifying that the minutes are true and correct. Minutes made available to the public prior to formal approval by the Commission shall be clearly identified as a draft version of the meeting. 8-3 Procedures 8-3-1 rarliamentaiy procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order except where otherwise specified in these procedures. 8-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite recommendation is made. If a motion has been made and defeated, additional, different motions may be made concerning the item under consideration. 8-3-3 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures: 8-3-3-1 Report by County Staff 8-3-3-2 Presentation by Applicant 8-3-3-3 Citizen Comment 8-3-3-4 Rebuttal by Applicant - 5 - 8-3-3-5 Discussion by Commission 8-3-3-6 Motion and Action by Commission 8-3-4 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the Chairman may allow public comment. 8-3-5 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information after the stair report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-6 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting maybe made part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the Commission and are to be kept on file by the secretary. Such items need not be made part of the published minutes. 8-3-7 Public Hearings 8-3-7-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which hearings are required by the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended, or by the Code of Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and notifications provided as required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 8-3-7-2 The Chairman may establish special rules for any public hearing at the beginning of said hearing. These rules may include limitations on the time of staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-7-3 In addition to those required by law, the Commission may hold public hearings on any matter which it deems to be in the public interest. In such cases, the public hearings shall follow all procedures described for public hearing in these bylaws. 8-3-8 Tabling 8-3-8-1 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to table agenda items if any one of the following situations occurs: A) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended. B) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Frederick County. - 6 - C) Insufficient information has been provided for the agenda item. D) Issues or concerns that arise during formal discussion of the agenda item warrant additional information or study. E) The applicant provides the Frederick County Planning Department with a written request to table the agenda item. F) The Frederick County Planning Department is advised of an emergency situation that prevents attendance by the applicant. G) The applicant fails to appear at the meeting in which the application has been advertised to appear. 8-3-8-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from a scheduled Planning Commission meeting one time. The Planning Commission shall table the application for a specific period of time to ensure that the requirements of Section 165-10 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are not exceeded unless the applicant requests a waiver from this requirement. 8-3-8-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall be re -advertised for consideration by the Planning Commission once the following steps have been completed: A) The applicant has requested in writing that the agenda item be considered by the Planning Commission. B) The applicant has provided all required information to the Frederick County Planning Department which addresses all concerns of the Planning Commission. 8-3-8-4 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to act on an agenda item that has been tabled one time when the agenda item has been readvertised for a subsequent Planning Commission agenda. 8-3-9 Work sessions 8-3-9-1 The Commission may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of these bylaws shall not apply. 8-3-9-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. - 7 - 8-3-9-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at least five days before the session. 8-3-9-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and discussion. 8-3-9-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session. 8-3-9-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required at a work session. 8-3-9-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all work sessions and the items discussed. 8-3-10 Adjournment 8-3-10-1 In no case shall the Commission consider any new items after 10:30 P.M. and in all cases the Commission shall adjourn by 11:00 P.M. ARTICLE IX - AMENDMENTS 9-1 These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice. 9-2 Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of these bylaws to ensure their accuracy. All amendments to these bylaws shall be considered by the Planning Commission in November of each calendar year. The Planning Commission shall adopt their bylaws during the first meeting of each calendar year. Editor's Note: Previous amendments to the Planning Coimnission By -Laws occurred on June 20, 2001 Last Updated: January 2, 2002 - 8 -