Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 02-16-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia February 16, 2005 7'0� CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Work Session Minutes of January 5, 2005 and Minutes of January 5, 2005 ................... (A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments...................... .............................................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Proposed Change to Section 165-37D (3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This proposed change to the Ordinance would allow waiving of distance requirements from the B 1 (Neighborhood Business) District and the B2 (General Business) District zoning district buffers requirements. Mr. Cheran...................................................................................................................... {B) PUBLIC MEETING 5) This Waiver Request #01-05 of Richmond American Homes of Virginia, Inc., submitted by Charles P. Johnson & Associates, Inc., is to consider an exception of§144-24(D) of the Subdivision of Land to allow the creation of a ten -foot wide outlot (remnant). The property is located in the Lynnehaven Subdivision, Section One, Lot 2, on the southwest corner of Sesar Court and Farmington Boulevard, and is identified with Property Identification Number 55K-01-01-2 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran................................. 6) Master Development Plan #02-05 for Adams Development Group, Inc., submitted by Greenway Engineering, for Office, Warehouse and Self -Service Storage Use. The property is located in Stephenson, fronting on the west side of Martinsburg pike (Route 11), opposite the intersection with Stephenson Road (Route 664), and is identified with Property Identification Number 44-A-75, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Ms. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D) 7) Other FILE, COPY • • L J WORK SESSION MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on January 5, 2005 at 12:00 noon. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.*, Chairman/Stonewall District; Pat Gochenour*, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris*, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz*, Gainesboro District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; John H. Light*, Stonewall District; and Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District.; (*Commissioners who are also members of the CPPS) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRESENT: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman; Gary W. Dove, Gainesboro District; Barbara Van Osten, Back Creek District; Lynda J. Tyler, Stonewall District; Gene Fisher, Shawnee District; Gina A. Forrester, Red Bud District; and Bill M. Ewing, Opequon District. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS & PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE (CPPS) PRESENT: James M. Golladay, Jr.; Marjorie H. Copenhaver; June Wilmot; Sue Ann Teal; Jay S. Banks; Philip A. Lemieux; Diane S. Kerns; and Todd Shenk. (Plus Planning Commissioners who are CPPS members, indicated above.) STAFF PRESENT: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrator; Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Susan Eddy, Senior Planner; Bernard Suchicital, Planner; William C. Omdorff, Jr., Frederick County Treasurer; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy began the work session at 12:00 noon with a recap of what has been accomplished to date on the Rural Areas Study and the latest proposals for land development in the rural areas of Frederick County. Specifically, she said the study process has consisted of preliminary Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) discussions; eight stake -holder meetings held in the Spring of 2004; six public -visioning sessions held in the Spring of 2004; the conduction of a public -opinion survey; three Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission work sessions held on May 11, 2004, August 31, 2004, and September 28, 2004; eight stakeholder meetings held in the Fall of 2004; and six public comment meetings held in the Fall of 2004. Facilitating her introduction with a power -point slide presentation, Planner Eddy said that on May 11, 2004, the Board of Supervisors endorsed guiding concepts for the Study Group to follow in formulating goals. She said those guiding concepts included: clustering of new dwellings; maximizing conserved open space; incorporating a gross residential density of one dwelling unit per five acres; utilization of the rezoning process to address physical and fiscal impacts; and the protection and support of agriculture. Planner Eddy stated that with these guiding concepts in mind, the Study Group established a list of goals to follow and those goals were: Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1425 Draft Work Session Minutes of January 5, 2005 -2- • Preserve the rural character • Preserve Open Space • Protect Natural Resources • Protect Historic, Archeological, & Cultural Features • Encourage Agriculture & Forestry • Encourage a Diverse Rural Economy • Minimize the Impact of Development • Minimize the Land Used for Housing • Direct Residential Development to the UDA • Maintain & Enhance the Rural Community Centers Planner Eddy said that the most recent land development proposals set out by the Study Group focus on incorporating: 1) Density of one dwelling per five acres; 2) Phasing of Subdivision, specifically, ten new lots in any five-year period; and, 3) Rezoning required for a faster rate of development. She explained that Phasing of Subdivisions will minimize the strain on County resources caused by the sudden introduction of a substantial number of new dwellings and it will allow the County to absorb growth over a longer period of time. She further explained that under By -Right development, a landowner could create ten lots in any five-year period; however, a sketch plan will be required for one or two lots, and a master development plan (MDP) would be required for three or more lots. Planner Eddy noted that if a landowner prefers a faster rate of development than permitted under the By -Right development, a rezoning may be pursued. She explained that a rezoning would be required to develop more than ten lots in any five-year period; the density will allow one dwelling per five acres; a MDP will be required; a phasing plan may be utilized; Board of Supervisors' approval viii bG required; of� site road u pr�^.remertwc ma�, lir rea red; and the County coi lrl seek proffers. In addition, Planner Eddy stated that the Conservation Subdivision Design concept will be mandatory and will include a 60% set-aside parcel, whereby the set-aside will be permanent unless the property is brought into the UDA (Urban Development Area), and the minimum lot size will consist of one acre. Planner Eddy showed slides of examples comparing a five -acre lot subdivision under current regulations, a Rural Preservation Lot subdivision using 40% open space and 60% developed under current regulations, and the proposed Conservation Subdivision Design using 60% open space with 40% being developed. Planner Eddy next described other features of the Conservation Subdivision Design concept, which included: density based on the parent tract of record as of adoption of the ordinance; possible density bonuses to be available; family division lots permitted by -right for up to two lots and a waiver to be required for more than two; a 150 -foot road corridor buffer to be required; a 100 -foot perimeter buffer to be required; all roads to be state -maintained roads; and 100% of any drainfield to be reserved. Planner Eddy concluded her presentation by highlighting conservation easements, the rural economy, rural community centers, and the relationship of the rural areas to the UDA. Subsequently, the work session was opened up for discussion to the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, the members of the CPPS, and others who were present. Supervisor Barbara Van Osten asked the group what the earliest date of decision on this concept might be. County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. said the earliest possible scenario for adoption would be for this to go to the Planning Commission for public hearing in February and to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing in April. He pointed out that the Board of Supervisors will not be able to consider the concept in March Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1426 Draft Work Session Minutes of January 5, 2005 -3 - due to budget hearings. Supervisor Lynda Tyler said that she would like to see some incentives established for those land owners who have already recorded their lots to re-record those lots, and enable the use of the Conservation Easement Subdivision Design concept. Commissioner Marie Straub inquired why package treatment plants had not been considered; she was wary about using septic systems on small lots. Planning Commission Chairman Charles DeHaven, Jr. replied that the consensus of the CPPS was to allow only publicly -owned and operated treatment plants in the rural areas. Commissioner Straub said she would also like to see more emphasis placed on historic resource preservation. Commissioner Greg Unger inquired if the large -lot landowners were in favor of the proposed Conservation Subdivision Design concept. Chairman DeHaven replied that the majority of large -lot landowners were not in favor. Commissioner John Light asked the Board of Supervisors' members if they were comfortable with the two main ideas for the rural areas, the By -Right development and the Rezoning. Supervisor Gary Dove said that he was in favor of the direction the Study Group was proceeding, however, he still had concerns about mitigating the impacts in the rural areas. In addition, Supervisor Dove expressed concern about taking requests through the political process, particularly the rezoning, and the degree to which those applicants would be subject to the whims of members of the Board who were in office at the time. Supervisor Dove said he would prefer to see some type of assurance, perhaps a check list, so that when a land owner engages in this process, he could be assured of approval. It was pointed out that if the rezoning did not get approved, the Board was essentially taking away the value of the property. Addressing the idea of the check list, County Administrator Riley said that previous boards have received all the necessary criteria on a rezoning application and have turned the request down anyway. Supervisor Barbara Van Osten believed this compromise went a long way towards addressing the concerns raised earlier. She said that essentially, it provides the ability for farmers to develop their own land. Supervisor Van Osten believed this was a good proposal as presented. Supervisor Gina Forrester liked the compromise of using the ten lots created in any five-year period. She believed the concept addressed the major goals of development in the rural areas. Supervisor Bill Ewing raised the issue of whether the ten lots in five years amounted to a use -it - or -lose -it situation. The point was made that the proposal did not provide for an accumulation of rights and the discussion turned towards the pros and cons of the concept of banking lots. CPPS members Diane Kerns and Jay Banks discussed the CPPS's reasons for not supporting the banking of rights. Supervisor Gene Fisher commented that the agricultural community seemed to favor by -right development at a density of one dwelling per five acres and he would support that. He also suggested there may be problems with rezoning. Supervisor Fisher said that denying a rezoning based on no -growth was wrong; however, it was probably the only option available to address impacts. He added that the County did not have anything in place to support the concept of green infrastructure; he said there were many details yet to be worked out. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1427 Draft Work Session Minutes of January 5, 2005 -4 - The discussion next focused on the economic feasibility of creating the Rural Preservation Subdivision under the By -Right concept. The question of generating capital to construct the required state - maintained roads and other infr?stnicture was raised. Several suggestions for providing bonuses were made, such as freezing land -use taxation, banking of lots, or possible incentives for property owners to hold onto their land. Members of the Planning Commission asked the Board of Supervisors members if they were in favor of the direction taken for the land development concept in the rural areas as it was presented and whether the Board would be in favor of proceeding with a public hearing. Board of Supervisors Chairman, Richard Shickle, polled the Board members to get everyone's opinion. Starting with himself, Mr. Shickle said that he did not like the phasing concept or the rezoning option; he also was not in favor of the rural preservation concept consisting of the 60% set aside. Mr. Shickle said that he preferred the five -acre lot size for the rural areas. Supervisor Fisher did not believe the five -acre lot was bad for the rural areas, although he did have reservations about the 60% set aside parcel. Supervisor Fisher said he would be in favor, however, of proceeding with a public hearing. Supervisor Ewing said that he would be in favor of proceeding with a public hearing, however, he wasn't sure whether or not he could support the development concepts at this time. Supervisor Forrester said she supported the concept and would be in support of a public hearing. Supervisor Van Osten was also in support of the development proposal, however, she preferred to see the banking option researched a little further. Supervisor Tyler said that she was in favor of the opportunities for green infrastructure this land development proposal offered; she said she could be supportive of the rezoning option if some incentives could be provided for the landowner. Supervisor Dove said that he would support a public hearing at this time. In conclusion, Chairman Shickle said that if the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors that this development proposal proceed to public hearing, the Board would probably vote in favor of that recommendation by a six -to -one vote. There being no further issues to discuss or persons wishing to speak further, the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Planning Commission Chairman Eric R Lawrence Planning Commission Secretary Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1428 Draft Work Session Minutes of January 5, 2005 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on January 5, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Susan Eddy, Senior Planner; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2005 Election of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman The Chairman declared nominations open for Chairman. The nomination of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., for Chairman was made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Motion was made by Commissioner Ours, seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed to close nominations for Chairman. The unanimous vote on the election Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year 2005 was taken by Vice Chairman Thomas. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1429 Draft Minutes of January 5, 2005 �2- BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2005. Election of Roger L Thomas Vice Chairman for 2005 Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Vice Chairman. The nomination of Roger L. Thomas was made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Vice Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Roger L. Thomas as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2005. Election of Eric R Lawrence, Secretary for 2005 Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Secretary. The nomination of Eric R. Lawrence was made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Secretary. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Eric R. Lawrence as Secretary of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2005. MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2005 Upon motion made by Commissioner Straub and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have their regular monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. to be held in the Board of Supervisors meeting room; the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee on the second Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room; and the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1430 Draft Minutes of January 5, 2005 -3 - Committee Assignments for 2005 Chairman DeHaven requested that Commissioners who are now serving on either the CPPS (Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee) or the DRRS (Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee) continue in their current positions. In addition, Chairmen DeHaven renewed appointments to the following committees: Commissioner Kriz to the Transportation Committee; Commissioner Gochenour to the HRAB (Historic Resources Advisory Board); Commissioner Thomas to the EDC (Economic Development Commission); Commissioner Unger to the Sanitation Authority; and Commissioner Ours to the Winchester Planning Commission. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 12/2004 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed changes to Section 165-371)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with waivers to buffer distance requirements and Section 144-11 of the Subdivision Ordinance dealing with preliminary sketches. Commissioner Thomas noted that these items are on the Commission's agenda for this evening. Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 12/2004 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS has provided a new land program called the "Ten in Five" for the Board of Supervisors' consideration and this concept is on the Commission's agenda for this evening's discussion. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) —12/21/04 Mtg. Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB reviewed the North Stephenson rezoning proposal submitted by Evan A. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering. She said the discussion included the historic Red Bud Road and the possibility of it being re-routed; they also discussed the possibility of a historic road overlay. Commissioner Gochenour said the HRAB also had a brief introduction to a potential project behind Brookland subdivision, bordering Abrams Creek. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1431 Draft Minutes of January 5, 2005 -4 - PUBLIC MEETING & DISCUSSION Discussion of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144-11, Preliminary Sketches, in order to bring this section into conformance with current State Code requirements regarding vested rights. Action — Referred Back to the DRRS for Continued Study Zoning Administrator Mark R Cheran reported that the DRRS recommended changes to the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 144, Section 144-11, Preliminary Sketches, at their meeting of December 9, 2004. Administrator Cheran reported that this proposed ordinance change will bring this section into compliance with the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2307, and the vested rights adopted by Frederick County on April 10, 1996. He explained that preliminary sketches are used to show a general layout of a proposed rural preservation subdivision and a sketch plan does not vest the property. Commissioner Gochenour inquired if subdivisions had been approved in the past without a preliminary sketch. Administrator Cheran replied no; he said the preliminary sketch plan only refers to the Rural Preservation Subdivisions which are located in the rural areas and do not require a master development plan. Chairman DeHaven said that his understanding of this amendment was that it was a house- keeping chore designed to clarify current policy as well as confirm the State Code. Chairman DeHaven referred to the Commission's legal counsel for further comment. Legal Counsel, Lawrence R. Ambrogi said that the State has preempted localities by defining within the State Code what is considered to be vesting; he did not believe the County could enact this proposed ordinance because the State has preempted them. Mr. Ambrogi believed this was a judicial issue and the administration of the County will have to make determinations on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Ambrogi's particular concern was with inserting the final paragraph because he did not believe it was necessary. Mr. Ambrogi stated that this paragraph has created considerable concern, misunderstanding, and confusion and, in his opinion, could not be codified. Commissioner Light asked if a simple fix might be to just require a master development plan for rural preservation subdivisions. Other Commission members liked this idea and suggested that a recommendation to the Board be postponed until this matter could be worked out as part of the Rural Issues Study. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, a landowner in the Stonewall District, raised concern about the possibility of the County not recognizing the preliminary sketch plan as a legitimate "plan of development" in the subdivision process and the possibility of the County's designated agent rejecting the plan after considerable sums of application fees had already been paid. He estimated the amounts of $32,500 required under the proposed new fee schedule for the subdivision of 20 lots and approximately $100,000 an applicant could have invested into the process when they submit their preliminary sketch plan. He did not agree that this proposed ordinance merely brought the County Code in compliance with the State Code. Mr. Stiles stated that if an Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1432 Draft Minutes of January 5, 2005 -5 - applicant complies with the Code on the date of submission, then that should be the ordinance that applies to the application submitted. He said that the concern of many people is that this proposal is an effort to discourage or prevent people from doing what they're legally entitled to do with rural subdivision lots before, if, and when the rules of the subdivision ordinance are changed. Chairman DeHaven stated that there needs to be a strong correlation between the existing vested rights policy statement and the language in the County ordinance, and it would certainly have to comply with the State Code. He suggested that this proposed amendment be sent back to the DRRS for further study to determine if it is worth considering any steps at this time. By a consensus of the Commission, it was agreed that this proposed ordinance amendment should be sent back to the DRRS for further study. Waiver Request of Lisa Sarle Turner to consider an exception to the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144-31(3), to enable the subdivision of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. This property is located at 199 Vintage Lane and is identified with P.I.N. 59-A-78 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning Administrator Mark R. Cheran reported that Mrs. Lisa Sarle Turner is requesting a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance to enable the subdivision of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. Administrator Cheran reported that the property is located at 199 Vintage Lane. He noted that a letter, dated June 7, 2004, from Mrs. Turner to the Big Horn Hunt Club, the adjoining property owner, requesting that the hunt club grant, convey, or sell her a 50 -foot right-of-way has been included in the Commission's agenda. Administrator Cheran reported that the Board of Directors of The Big Horn Hunt Club declined all three of Mrs. Turner's requests. He added that the requested waiver would only apply to the creation of a single lot. Mrs. Lisa Sarle Turner, the applicant, stated that she and her husband want to build a single- family home on five acres of her parent's 117 -acre property so that they can be involved in the day-to-day activities of the family's farm winery. Mrs. Turner said the property has been in her family for nearly 50 years and it is their hope that by becoming involved in the farm winery, they will be able to keep the property in her family for another 50 years. She added that she has received an approved perk site from the Health Department and a plat has been drawn. Mrs. Jennifer Sarle, Lisa Sarle Turner's mother and co-owner of the 117 acres, said that her husband, Charles, and she purchased this land in 1959. Mrs. Sarle said that her family intends to remain on the property and continue to operate as a viable farm. She said that having her daughter and her daughter's husband, Jeff, there will help to ensure that the farm continues to operate. It was her hope that her family will remain on the farm another 45-50 years. Mr. Michael M. Artz of Artz and Associates, PLC, the applicant's land surveyor, described the location of the property for the Commission. Mr. Artz stated that the issue is that in order to divide the Sarle property, whether it is a family division or a five -acre lot, a 50 -foot right-of-way is required from a State - maintained road; he said that the Sarles only have a 30 -foot right-of-way. He explained that the Turners are asking for a waiver for the right-of-way across Vintage Lane, from the road line at the beginning of the Sarle property, out to Laurel Grove. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1433 Draft Minutes of January 5, 2005 sm A member of the Commission asked what would prevent the Sarles from coming back next year and requesting the subdivision of yet another five acres or what could prevent the Sarles from selling the entire 117 -acre property and subdividing it into five -acre lots, if they decided that grape -growing was not what they wanted to do. A comment was made that the adjoining property owner, The Big Horn Hunt Club, may have concerns about this type of scenario. Mr. Artz replied that under the current regulations, no further development could occur on this property without coming back to the Planning Commission for a waiver. Mr. Artz also pointed out that a common misconception by the public is that a right-of-way created the means for a state -maintained road; however, if the land the right-of-way crosses is not owned, it can not be dedicated to the state. Members of the Planning Commission commented that they have been reluctant to grant waivers on substandard width right-of-ways in the past, because of the problems experienced as a result. However, they believed that, in this particular situation, where a family member wants to locate on the family farm to become involved in the family farm business, it would seem to be warranted. Members of the Commission did not believe further restrictions on the property were necessary. It was noted that this is the type of situation in which a waiver was intended to be used. Chainnan DeHaven called for public continent, however, no one else came forward to speak. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Waiver Request of Lisa Sarle Turner for an exception to the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144-31(3), to enable the subdivision of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. This property is located at 199 Vintage Lane and is identified with P.I.N. 59-A-78 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. DISCUSSION Discussion of Section 165-37D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow for waivers to the buffer distance requirements. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning Administrator Mark R. Cheran reported that on December 9, 2004, the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) discussed a request from Greenway Engineering to amend Section 165-371)(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow waivers to the distance requirements for zoning district buffers. Administrator Cheran stated that Section 165-371)(3) currently requires the establishment of a category "B" buffer when B I and 132 -zoned properties are developed adjacent to RA -zoned properties which are primarily used for residential use; the existing ordinance does not allow waivers for buffers and screening. Administrator Cheran said the staff would recommend that waivers be limited to distances, not to screening. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering stated that most ordinance amendment requests are sparked by a specific situation and, in this case, the particular issue that came before the DRRS was in regards to Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1434 Draft Minutes of January 5, 2005 -7- a recent rezoning that was approved for an office building in the Albin Rural Community Center. Mr. Wyatt explained that when they were working on the site design layout, they couldn't meet the parking requirement setback because of the buffer requirement. He said that they worked with the adjoining property owner and obtained a legal agreement for provision in the zoning ordinance for a common shared buffer and a screening easement ag ee:nent. Mr. Wyatt said they later discovered that this option was not available and they pursued an amendment request. He said that when they met with the DRRS in December, the DRRS was not comfortable using the common shared buffer and screening easement agreement provision in this type of situation. However, he said the DRRS did believe there should be flexibility provided in the ordinance for the possibility of different situations that could arise and the Commission should have the ability to determine ifthe request was appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Wyatt believed the proposed ordinance as written by the staff will give the Commission that opportunity. Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments and the following person came forward: Mr. Fred Stronko, a resident along Martinsburg Pike in Clearbrook, was concerned that the proposed amendment may create a precedent, especially in his neighborhood. Mr. Stronko complained of excessive noise from trucks because all the trees had been removed; he questioned whether these businesses sought County approval before they bulldozed trees and buildings down because he has never been notified of what was about to take place. He complained of vermin running across his property; he also heard there was to be some type of cement -mixing plant near him and he was concerned whether it would be screened. Chairman DeHaven replied that the amendment should not set a precedent; he said the language proposed would require the affected adjoining property owner's consent and would be considered on a case-by- case basis. Chairman DeHaven added that the waiver options within the ordinance are there to offer an opportunity to address special circumstances or unusual conditions, and to add the potential for flexibility and judgment to be exercised. He advised Mr. Stronko to meet with the staff about his particular circumstance. Commissioner Thomas said that he was not really in favor of this proposal as a general precedent, but he believed it was workable in the way in which it was worded. Commissioner Thomas's concern focused primarily on a potential situation where the owner of the adjacent affected property would be the same person as the owner of the B 1 or B2 property. In a case such as that, he said the Commission would have the prerogative to turn it down. He said he would not like to see a developer, who owns both properties, giving away the buffer and then developing both properties. Commissioner Thomas advised that the Planning Commission would need to be vigil to make certain that type of situation does not occur. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend forwarding the proposed amendment, consisting of changes to Section 165-37D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow for waivers to the buffer distance requirements, to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion. The motion was approved by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Triplett, Ours, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt NO: Gochenour, Straub (Note: Commissioner Kriz was not present for this vote; Commissioner Rosenberry was absent from the meeting.) Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1435 Draft Minutes of January 5, 2005 Discussion of the conclusions from the Rural Areas Study. The 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. Action — Forwarded to the Board of Supervisors' January 12, 2005 Meeting for Discussion Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy stated that the Rural Areas Study has been carried out by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) for the last year and a half. She said the CPPS endorsed new policies for the rural areas at their meeting of December 13, 2004. She pointed out that the proposals made by the CPPS were included within the Planning Commission's agenda packet. Planner Eddy said the Rural Areas Study was the topic of a Planning Commission work session held with the CPPS and the Board of Supervisors on January 5, 2005. Although Planner Eddy gave an overview of the proposals at the work session held earlier in the day, for the benefit of those citizens present and for those watching at home, she proceeded to give the presentation again. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, a property owner and dairy farmer in the Stonewall District, stated that a significant factor in the new proposal, which was the idea of allowing only ten lots every five years to be subdivided, was an idea that came about after the public meeting process was over and was never discussed with the public. He believed the proposal constituted a major down -zoning and it would depress values of rural property. Mr. Stiles suggested the idea that the Commission simply require a preliminary subdivision plat for rural areas instead. It was his opinion that any requirement for rezoning constituted a false option; to say he had the right to subdivide his 300 -acre parcel over the next 30 years did not mean much to him because he was not likely to live that long. He added that the suggestion the county is retaining the one -lot -per -five -acre density with the proposal as submitted was not candid as a practical matter. Mr. Stiles also stated his opinion that the 60% set aside was excessive; however, he said he would support raising the set aside from the current 40% to 50%. He noted that the 60% may significantly limit how the property could be developed, not only in lot yield, but in good planning. Mr. Stiles also questioned why the family variance would be limited to two lots and require a waiver for others; he asked why not just follow the State Code and specify that family variance lots are allowed as designated in the State Code for qualifying family members and keep it simple. He also commented about the section requiring ownership for a set period of time to discourage abuse. Mr. Stiles did not believe it was legal for the County to require ownership of property for any length of time. Mr. Stiles also raised the issue of off-site road improvements; he argued that developing at a density of one lot per five acres was not going to generate sufficient revenue to make any significant off-site road improvements. He said that in order to generate the amount of revenue required to accomplish the kind of road improvements such as those in the Urban Development Area (UDA), high-density development is needed. In addition, he questioned why State roads should be required in rural subdivisions; instead, he said why not require the roads be built to State standards for right-of-way, drainage, and slope. He predicted good roads would be constructed, in order to protect the value of the lots. Mr. Stiles commented that a month or so ago, the local newspaper reported that some members of the General Assembly said they intended to investigate turning over Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1436 Draft Minutes of January 5, 2005 maintenance of secondary roads to counties because the increasing number of new subdivisions coming into the State system has depleted the State's maintenance funds. Mr. Stiles was also opposed to requirements in the proposal concerning buffers. He argued that potential buyers would have to purchase an additional quarter of an acre that they could never use. He said that not only would it look irregular to have homes set back 150 feet, adjacent to existing homes which are set back 35-50 feet or alongside the road, it makes the process problematic. He believed it would cause less land to be available for the set-aside parcel and would make some of the best land unusable. In conclusion, Mr. Stiles said that he, along with other large -lot landowners in the County, are looking into subdividing their farms now in order to protect their density rights from the County. He believed that the proposal as presented would affect how Frederick County's large -lot landowners would spend the remainder of their lives. Mr. John Goode, a resident in the Stonewall District, said that he agreed with Mr. Stiles on many of the issues he raised. Mr. Goode agreed with Mr. Stiles that a rezoning alternative was a false option as a practical matter; he said that in order to rezone his parents' farm, they would probably need about'/4 of a million dollars to get started on a process where there would be no certainty of approval. Regarding road improvements, Mr. Goode was also of the opinion that the County requires roads to be overbuilt in new subdivisions, capable of handling ten times the amount of traffic they will receive, and he believed it was a waste of resources, whether it be public or private resources. Secondly, he said the State has to maintain the roads with limited resources. He also believed there was possibly too much faith going into the ten -in -five concept as a way to control or phase growth; he said it would have a dramatic impact on a few landowners that have large parcels. Regarding the proposed buffers, Mr. Goode said there are already subdivisions in the County with houses that sit way back off the road; he said a common reaction is a question on why the houses were placed so far back. It was Mr. Goode's opinion that any requirement on the nature ofbuffers or setbacks does not account for the fact that parcels come in different shapes and sizes and have different topography and orientation to a public road. He said that a one -size -fits -all approach to any regulation will not fit all and the end result will be a development, because it's still worth more as a lot than it would be as a farm, which will be less than what it could have been if a more positive approach was taken. Mr. Goode said that he was in favor of the Rural Area Preservation Subdivision concept in place today; however, even with rural preservation, he believed land was still being wasted. He commented that it was difficult to design a good subdivision under the current regulations because of the two -acre minimum lot size and other requirements. Mr. Goode suggested that the regulations be liberalized, not to allow more lots, but in the way developments can be designed, so that more open space can be preserved, and to allow developments to be oriented in a more aesthetically pleasing way than can be done presently. Mr. Webb Koschene, a landowner in the Stonewall District, said that he was under the impression that the justification for initially taking on the Rural Areas Study was for environmental protection and preservation of open space and he thought there was a disconnect between what is being proposed and what was originally advocated. Regarding the issue of road improvements, Mr. Koschene stated that VDOT was bankrupt and did not have the funds to take care of all the subdivision roads that were being taken into the State system. He said that the impervious surface needed to build a state road creates run-off, collects dust, does not recharge groundwater, and is bad for the environment. Regarding the setback issues, Mr. Koschene believed good planning involved forming housing clusters within existing topography and not placing homes 250-300 feet off Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1437 Draft Minutes of January 5, 2005 -10 - state -maintained road; he commented that there's nothing wrong with one acre lots in 25 and 30 -lot configurations, allowing 60-70% of the property to be open space. In addition, Mr. Koschene was opposed to applying the phasing concept only to future developments and not the existing ones. Mr. Koschene believed that each of the goals that were initially brought forth were achievable through reworking the existing ordinances to enable modern_ land -planning and design. He believed the existing ordinances are out -dated and have driven the cookie -cutter -designed subdivisions that exist today. Mr. Robert (Bob) Boyd, a local fanner and property owner in the Back Creek District, and his wife, Mrs. Claire Boyd, were opposed to the proposals being presented. Mr. Boyd believed the new regulations would devalue his property and he was considering selling his property now, before the regulations went into effect. Mrs. Boyd added that she and her husband have been concerned for a number of years about the possibility of new laws going into effect which would restrict what they could do with their land. She questioned why the farmer was being penalized for decisions made in the past that have not been fruitful for the County. Mrs. Boyd said that under the new proposals, it would take about 30 to 80 years for their farm to be subdivided through by -right development; she believed this was effectively saying they had to go through rezoning. Subsequently, subdividing more than two or three lots off their farm would subject them to a public hearing and she believed the adjacent residents of Stonebrook, Roscommon, and Long Meadows would come out and speak in opposition, simply because they liked the green space her farm provided. She said the residents of these subdivisions are affluent and can afford to hire lawyers. Mrs. Boyd said her only choice would be to sell to developers because they can afford bigger and better lawyers; she said that she and her husband could not afford to take on the debt load of a rezoning process. Mr. Gary Oates, a property owner in the Stonewall District and a professional designer, said that he supported the design standards being proposed and he wished they were presently in effect. He said that he is currently designing two rural preservation subdivisions and he would much rather design these two projects under the proposed design standards than under the existing requirements; he believed the 60% and one acre would create a better design for his clients. Mr. Oates hoped that the proposed design standards would not get postponed due to the other issues under debate, such as the rolling five or ten; he said that whatever happened with those issues, he would still like to see the design standards move forward. Another citizen, who did not provide his name, wanted to go on record that he was opposed to the proposals presented. Mr. Kenneth Stiles returned to the podium and stated that when the rural areas study was first initiated, the reasons given for the study were to protect the County's local building industry and to protect local people from the onslaught against major national and regional developers. Mr. Stiles believed the regulations proposed played right into the hands of these developers. He stated that the more expensive the process became up -front, the less local farmers could be involved; he added that many of the local builders and developers couldn't be involved at that level. He also questioned how much would be achieved to phase the remaining land in Frederick County, given the number of existing five -acre lots in Frederick County that will not require phasing. Mr. Stiles concluded by stating that those farmers in Frederick County who have tried to farm for as long as possible, because they have enjoyed it and it was good for Frederick County, are the ones who are going to be penalized by the proposals being presented. Mrs. Wendy Wright, co-owner of a family farm in Frederick County, agreed with the opinions made by the previous speakers. Mrs. Wright reported that the position of the Frederick County Farm Bureau, which she represented, was that the proposed regulations are not acceptable for the most part. She said that each Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1438 Draft Minutes of January 5, 2005 time a revision has occurred, the process became more cumbersome, more involved, more technical, and more expensive; she said the process needs to be kept simple. Ms. Wright said that these proposals were malting local farmers apprehensive; she asked that a financial burden not be placed on the farmers which they could not afford. There being no other person wishing to speak, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Light, speaking as chairman of the CPPS, said that the CPPS was given the task of studying the effects of development in the rural areas and how that development could be handled. Commissioner Light said the goals and direction of the CPPS changed numerous times as a result of feedback and compromises were reached. He said that ultimately, this proposal will go to public hearing for additional input. Commissioner Light commented that the proposal needs to move forward in the process and he then made a motion for the proposal to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors as a discussion item This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas. Commissioner Gochenour read a statement for the record concerning the availability of water. (Please see attachment.) Commissioner Watt mentioned the issue that was raised at the work session concerning banking of lots under the ten -five rule and said he would like to hear other people's opinion of that option. Commissioner Morris believed that the Rural Areas Study was one of the most difficult issues faced by the Planning Commission during his tenure on the Commission. He said the issue was initially brought forward by the statistic that 30% of development in the County takes place by -right in the rural areas without any type of oversight. Commissioner Morris said he was encouraged by the feedback received from the Commission this evening that ordinance changes for design standards would be a good way to achieve the goals sought for the rural areas. Commissioner Morris believed it was time to send the proposal forward through the public process and see what will result. Chairman DeHaven believed the current proposal was a good middle -ground compromise from all the discussion and feedback that took place to this point. Chairman DeHaven believed there was not anyone who was involved in the decision-making process that did not have concerns about the rezoning option. He also expressed his opinion that any proposal that forces a landowner to sell his property before he's ready must be flawed. He said that the study group has gone about as far as they possibly can and he also believed it was time for the issues to be considered and decisions made. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to send the Rural Areas Study to the Board of Supervisors as a discussion item at their January 12, 2005 meeting. (Commissioners Kriz was not present for this vote; Commissioner Rosenberry was absent from the meeting.) Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1439 Draft Minutes of January 5, 2005 -12 - ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1440 Draft Minutes of January 5, 2005 -13— WE NOW WADE ACROSS THE NORTH FORK OF THE SHENANDOAH RIVER (The Availability of Water) Water is the controlling factor in the plans of mice and men. Through the Shenandoah River flows the life blood of our Valley. Rainfall determines whether we will have a lot or little. Fair and limited distribution are the requirements. Fair distribution is achieved through associations that limit its use. Associations cannot increase the volume, only regulate the use of the existing flow. The Lord is Master of the flow. We have to live within it. Residential and commercial use must be limited to the WATER SUPPLY! Supply set the limitations. If you or I exceed them, broad disaster is the result. Existing residential and commercial customers will be the first affected. Oh! Shenandoah we love your water. ( Pick up a glass & drink its contents) Oh! North Fork we love your water. ( Pick up a glass and it's empty) Praise the Lord and pray for rain. Since time eternity, we have no record of the North Fork going dry. The fields and trees drank their full and the leftovers went into the North Fork. If the fields and trees are replaced by houses whose thirst is unlimited, the North Fork will go dry. There is no other convenient supply of water. Without water life ends. We must be smart and limit our demands on the North Fork. Its capacity will not support extensive real-estate development. Therefore, it is imperative that the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors are knowledgeable of existing or impending regulations to restrict water use of the North Fork or what information is available in regard to the maintaining stream flows that are adequate to support the aquatic community, to support recreation, and to maintain aesthetic characteristics of the river. Any rural or urban land use plans must address the availability of water. (Statement read into the record by Commissioner Pat Gochenour at the Planning Commission meeting of January 5, 2005.) C� • J COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator RE: Public Hearing: Changes to Section 165-37 D (3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. DATE: February 2, 2005 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its December 9, 2004, meeting discussed a request from Greenway Engineering to amend Section 165-37 D (3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow waiving of distance requirements from the zoning district buffers requirements. Section 165-37 D (3) currently requires the establishment of a category "B" buffer when B-1 (Business, Neighborhood) and B-2 (General, Business) are developed adjacent to RA zoned properties primarily used for residential use. The existing ordinance does not allow waivers for buffers and screening. All buffers and screening must meet the zoning district requirements as noted in Section 165-37 D (1) (a). Staff would recommend that any waivers be limited to distances, not to screening. The current and proposed ordinance section(s) are included for your review. (See attachments) The Planning Commission discussed these changes at their January 5, 2005 meeting, and the Board of Supervisors discussed the changes at their January 12, 2005 meeting. Both the Planning Commissioners and Board of Supervisors were in favor of these changes as presented. This proposed ordinance amendment is presented as a public hearing. Staff will be available to respond to your questions. Comments raised during this public hearing will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. MRC/bad Attachments 107 North Rent Street, Suite 202 © Winchester, %trginia 22601-5000 Proposed Changes to Section 165-37 D (3) (3) Whenever land is to be developed in the B-1 (Business, Neighborhood) or B-2 (General, Business) Zoning District that is adjacent to land primarily used for residential use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, a `B" category buffer shall be provided on the land to be developed. The Planning Commission may reduce the required buffer distance requirements with the consent of the adjacent (affected) property owners. The distance requirements of Section 165-37D (])(a), maybe reduced provided the landscaping requirements of this section are met. § 165-37 ZONING § 165-37 development plan as single-family lots and the non -single- family structures. (2) Perimeter apartment or multiplex separation buffers. (a) Wherever possible and practical, garden apartments and multiplex structures shall not be placed adjacent to other types of residential structures. If other types of residential structures must be placed adjacent to garden apartments or multiplex structures, the following buffers are required: Distance Buffer Required Inactive Active Screening (Minimum) (Maximum) Total Provided (feet) (feet) (feet) Full screen 75 25 100 Landscape screen 150 50 200 No screen 350 50 400 (b) Buffers shall be placed between the garden apartment or multiplex structures and the lot line of the lots containing the other housing types. (3) Interior residential screening. This buffer shall be designated as a continuous landscaped easement that will be placed between single-family detached traditional and cluster dwellings and other housing types. This landscaped easement shall be at least 10 feet in depth and contain a double row of evergreen trees. Each row of evergreen trees shall be a minimum of four feet in height at time of planting and spaced no more than eight feet apart. If natural barriers, topography or other features achieve the function of an interior separation buffer, the requirement may be waived by the Planning Commission. D. Zoning district buffers. Buffers shall be placed on land to be developed when it adjoins land in certain different zoning districts. (1) Buffers shall be provided on the land to be developed according to the categories in the following tables: (a) Buffer categories: 16561 10-25-2001 § 165-37 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-37 y Distance Buffer Required Inactive Active Screening (Minimum) (Maximum) Total Category Provided (feet) (feet) (feet) A Full screen — — — A Landscape — — — screen A No screen 25 25 50 B Full screen 25 25 50 B Landscape 75 25 100 screen B No screen 150 50 200 C Full screen 75 25 100 C Landscape 150 50 200 screen C No screen 350 50 400 (b) [Amended 9-12-20011 Buffer categories to be provided on land to be developed according to the zoning of the adjoining land: Zoning of Land. To Be Zoning of Adjoining Land Developed RP R4 R5 MH1 B1 B2 B3 M1 M2 EM MS RP - - - - A A A A A A A R4 - - - - A A A A A A A R5 - - - - A A A A A A A MH1 C C C - B B B B A A C B1 B B B B - - A A A A B B2 B B B B - - A A A A B B3 C C C C B B - - - - C M1 C C C C B B - - - - C 16562 10-25-2001 j § 165-37 ZONING § 165-37 Zoning of Land To Be Zoning of Adjoining Land Developed RP R4 R5 MH1 B1 B2 B3 M1 M2 EM MS M2 C C C C B B B B — — C EM C C C C B B B B — — C MS C C C C B B B B B C — (2) If a lot being developed is adjacent to developed land which would normally be required to be provided with a buffer but which does not contain the buffer, the required buffer shall be provided on the lot being developed. The buffer to be provided shall be of the larger category required on either the lot being developed or the adjacent land. Such buffer shall be in place of the buffer normally required on the lot being developed. The buffer may include required setbacks or buffers provided on the adjacent land. (3) Whenever land is to be -developed in the 131 or 132 Zoning District that is adjacent to land primarily used for residential purposes in the RA Rural Areas Zoning District, a B Category buffer shall be provided on the land to be developed. (4) Whenever land is to be developed in the B3, M1 or M2 Zoning District that is adjacent to land primarily used for residential purposes in the RA Rural Areas Zoning District, a C Category buffer shall be provided on the land to be developed. (5) Whenever land is to be developed in the MS Zoning District that is adjacent to land primarily used for residential purposes in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, a C Category buffer shall be provided on the land to be developed.' Whenever land is to be developed in the MS Zoning District that is adjacent to all other land zoned RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, the requirements for buffer and screening shall be provided in accordance with § 165-102 of this chapter. [Added 9-12-20013] I Editor's Note: An example of a C Category buffer is included at the end of this chapter. 3 Editors Note: This ordinance also renumbered former Subsection D(5) through D(9) as D(6) through 1)(10), respectively. 16563 10-25-2001 § 165-37 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-37 (6) The Planning Commission may waive any or all of the requirements for the zoning district buffers on a particular site plan when all uses shown on the site plan are allowed in the zoning district in which the development is occurring and in the adjoining zoning districts. (7) [Added 4-12-19951 Where B3 (Industrial Transition) zoning adjoins B2 (Business General) zoning on land contained within a master development plan, the Planning Commission may allow for specific modifications in screening requirements. (a) Such modifications shall be allowed at the Commission's discretion, provided that all the following conditions are met. [1) The property line for which the modification is requested is internal to the land contained within the master development plan. [21 A specified use is proposed on the parcel for which the modification is requested. [31 The modification shall not involve a reduction to required buffer distances. [4) The proposed components of the buffer are clearly indicated on a site plan for the parcel. 151 The site plan is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. (b) The approval of modified screening shall apply only for the specified use approved. Any change in use of the parcel including additions or site alterations will require review by the Planning Staff and may require review by the Planning Commission and may result in the Commission revoking the modified screening approval. (8) [Added 3-13-19961 Land proposed to be developed in the M1 Light Industrial District and the M2 Industrial General District may be permitted to have a reduced buffer distance that is consistent with the required side or rear building setback line, provided that the following requirements are met: (a) The property to be developed with a reduced buffer distance is part of an approved master planned industrial park. 16564 10-25-2001 • • C COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator APIL -' RE: Waiver Request — Richmond American Homes of Virginia, Inc. DATE: February 2, 2005 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Richmond American Homes of Virginia, Inc., is requesting a waiver of Subdivision Ordinance Section 144-24(D) requirement to allow the creation of a ten -foot wide outlot (remnant). Section 144-24 (D) states "no remnants shall remain after establishing lots". (See attachments) The property is located in Lynnehaven Subdivision, Section One, Lot 2, on the southwest corner of Sesar Court and Farmington Boulevard and is identified by Property Identification Number 55K-01-01-2 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Charles P. Johnson & Associates, Inc. is the applicant for Richmond American Homes of Virginia, Inc., and a copy of their letter is attached, explaining the request. A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors is requested. MRC/bad Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 § 144-24 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 144-27 D. Remnants. No remnants shall -remain after establishing lots. All land on the final subdivision plat shall be contained in lots, streets or common open space. All parcels of land on the final subdivision plat shall meet the requirements for those uses as specified in the Frederick County Code. § 144-25. Utilities and easements. A. Easements shall be recorded in subdivisions for all utility lines according to the requirements of the relevant utility companies. B. Underground utilities. All electric, telephone and cable television lines shall be installed underground. This requirement may be waived by the Planning Commission for subdivisions and lots in business and industrial zoning districts not requiring an approved master development plan or subdivisions in business and industrial zoning districts that were approved prior to the adoption of this chapter. Underground utilities shall be required in new industrial parks, office parks and shopping centers, as defined by Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code. Underground utilities shall be required in new subdivisions zoned B-1 (Neighborhood Business). § 144-26. Buffers and screens; recreational facilities. Appropriate provisions shall be made for the location of buffers and screens and recreational facilities on subdivision plans. Provisions shall be made for the protection of all environmental features required to remain undisturbed. § 144-27. Avigation easements. Any new residential subdivision that is located within the area designated as the Airport Support Area by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan shall be required to provide an avigation easement for the Winchester Regional Airport. This avigation easement shall be included in all deeds and shall hold harmless the Winchester Regional Airport Authority from any lawsuit regarding noise pollution. 14432 12-15-99 § 144-17 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 144-17 design of such features shall be deteri-nined based on traffic safety considerations. G. Culs-de-sac. (1) Culs-de-sac, permanently designed as such, shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) feet in length. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement in cases where extreme topography or other factors make it impractical. In no case shall the street serve more than twenty-five (25) lots. The turnaround provided shall have a right-of-way radius of not less than fifty (50) feet and a paved radius of not less than forty-five (45) feet. Loop streets are preferred to cuts -ie -sac, where possible. (2) Any street dead -ended for access to an adjoining property or because of approved stage development, which is over two hundred (200) feet in length, shall be provided with a temporary, all-weather, fifty -foot turnaround. The plan shall note that the land outside of the normal street right-of-way shall revert to the adjoining landowners whenever the street is continued. Temporary cuts -de -sac used to accommodate approved phasing or to provide access to adjoining properties shall not be restricted in length to the one -thousand -foot requirement for cuts -de -sac. The length of temporary cuts -de -sac shall not exceed the length specified by the phasing plan on an approved master development plan. H. Reserve strips. Reserved -land spite strips, serving solely to restrict access to existing or planned streets, shall not be permitted, provided that nothing herein shall prohibit areas for planting and landscaping where adequate access is otherwise available. I. Grades.. Street grades shall not exceed ten percent (10%) on local streets or eight percent (8%) on collector streets. Ditches on grades greater than five percent (5%) shall be properly stabilized to prevent erosion and ensure positive drainage. Catch basins shall be installed where required under the current Virginia Department of Transportation standards. J. Widths. The right-of-way width for major streets shall conform to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of this chapter. 14422 10-10-95 tics. O� RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VA, INC 55K 12 36 LYNNEHAVEN, L C 55 A 206 MALINSKY 55K 11 19 �OV RICHMOND AMERICAN 2 HOMES OF VA, INC J55K 11 2 55K 11 1 RICHMOND AMERICA HOMES OF VA, IN ZAVATSON 55K 11 3 Appeal # 06 - 04 - Richmond American Homes N (55K-1-1-2) W E d 50 too zoo 300 S Feet 12/14/04 TUE 14:44 FAX 703 273 8595 CHARLES P. JOHNSON 1. Applicant. Iguuc COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 WAIYER/EXCEPTIONS REQUEST APPLICATION I vs— Name:Charles P. Johnson & Associates Address: 3959 Pender Drive, Suite 210 Fairfax, VA 22030 2. Property owner (if different than above): Richmond American Homes Name: of Virginia, Inc. Address: 3701 Pender Drive, Suite 200 Fairfax, VA 22030 3. Contact person (if other than above): Telephone: 703-385-7555 Telephone: 703-352-0800 Name: Ian Williams, Esq. Telephone: 540-667-1266 4. Waiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): Section 144-24(D) Remnants. A waiver is requested to allow a "remnant" to be created out of Lynnehaven, Section One, Lot 2. See attached cover letter. 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): Southwest corner of Sesar Court and Farmington Boulevard 6. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 55K-01-01-2 Magisterial District: Red B u d 7. Property zoning and current use: Zoned: RP Current Use: Model home District S. Attachments: Adjoining Property Owners List ✓ Existing/recorded and Proposed Plats OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $500 enclosed: Receipt #:� �� 12/14/04 TUE 14:44 FAX 703 273 8595 CHARLES P. JOHNSON 9. List of Adjoining Properties: The following names and addresses are all ofthe 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 10 003 Lynnhaven LC c/o Ricketts Development Address 36 Ricketts Dr Winchester VA 22601 Property ID # 55K-01-01-1 Joseph A. Zavaston Kathleen E. Zavaston 103 Sesar ourt Address Winchester Va 22602 Property ID # 55K-01-01-3) Michael M. Malinsky Elizabeth A. Malinsky 410 Farmington Blvd AddressWmchester VA 22602 PropertyID # 55K-01-01-19 Richmond American Homes of Virkinia, Inc. 3701 Pender Dr. Suite ZUU Address Fairfax, VA 22030 Property ID # 55K-01-01-18 Richmond American Homes of Virginia, Inc. Address 3701 Pender Dr. Suite 200 Fairfax,VA 22030 Property ID # 55K-01-02-36 Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # - Page 2 - Charles P. Johnson & Associates, Inc. Planners Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors Fairfax, VA Silver Spring, MD January 20, 2005 County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Second Floor Winchester, VA 22601 Attention: Mr. Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator Re: Lynnehaven, Section One, Lot 2 Subdivision Ordinance Waiver Dear Mr. Cheran: Frederick, MD CP Associates I am enclosing a request for a waiver of Section 144-24(D) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of a 10 -foot wide outlot (i.e., "remnant") on the Sesar Court side of Lot 2 in the Lynnehaven subdivision. A copy of the proposed resubdivision plat is enclosed. We are proposing this in order to resolve a setback issue for this lot. The front setback in the RP zone is 35 feet. Inadvertently, the house was built with a small portion of the corner of the house having a setback of 30.9 feet. Regrettably, the error was not caught until the final inspection and the builder was seeking an occupancy permit. Had the mistake been caught earlier, the foundation of the house would have been modified before the house was completed. As you are aware, a variance was sought to reduce the 35 -foot front yard setback which was disapproved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Therefore, we are requesting this waiver in order to resolve the issue of the encroachment and bring the existing structure into compliance with the RP zone. Creating an outlot addresses the issue of a corner lot having two front yards. By creating an outlot along Sesar Court, the revised Lot 2 no longer abuts Sesar Court and is no longer a corner lot with two front yards. The side of the house facing Sesar Court will become a side yard with a 10 -foot setback. However, a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance is needed in order to create the outlot (i.e., remnant). The outlot would be owned and maintained by the owner of Lot 2 and both would be transferred together. Although the Subdivision Ordinance requires that all land be contained in lots, streets or common open space, we believe that waiving this provision will satisfy the intent of the T:\WORDPtPROJECT1A35711Outlot Waiver.doc 3959 Pender Drive Suite 210 o Fairfax, Virginia 22030 v 703-385-7555 • Fax 703-273-8595 Mr. Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator Lynnehaven, Section One, Lot 2 Subdivision Ordinance Waiver January 20, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Subdivision Ordinance since the property would be owned and maintained by the owner of Lot 2. The new Lot 2 will meet all the zoning requirements of the RP zone and this would bring the existing house into compliance with the RP zone. Please feel free to call me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Allan Baken Operations Manager ADB/sdl T:\W0RDP\PR0]GCT\A3571\0utl0t Waiver.doc 1m: 00–((A))—Z06 N 51 ' 700J- E I L YNNEHAVEN, L. C. 23.93' I DB: 84.J• PG. • 415 EASEMENTS SEE FUTURE ZONE.• RP SHEET 13 I I S _?R•d4'n7" LYNNEHAVEN DR. USE' VACANT 15' .SANITARY 50 00 SEWER EASEMENT 24.7' DRAINAGE 157.19x`. JI EASEMENT 295.02' 1� J t o�` `; ` ` ` `'- FA D —` 130ULGYA 17.0' N 48.42_ 57" w ---376.03' 25 �l D. \ ; •.-. \:7 00 \ �I " Iwo h N W I `t' \ U) I N \\ I 15.0' I \\I I I�y IDS �l �\` UI LLj cc e5 ori \ W 120.7' - • - �— �j1JGm.... - ` • I I rAVE05 NT r hh gSTBRL o LOT 2 I I LOT 1 j I 13982 SQ. FT. I ^ �0 12551 SQ. FT. I-- bl �I I L . 25_ BRL _ — J I L • — 25_BRL • _ J 110.82' 86.07' N 38'44 07 W �196.89 ' -- 7 J / e im LOT 3 I �R 13857 SQ. FT. tih7/ �A/�ry / C-) N 38.44'07" W —7-49–:5-5— — — 10' BRL LOT 4 �j m , Ul 13062 SQ. FT. h'5'(i' to I ( SIO _ h `N ?S p BRL U OUTLOT ';4" SEE SHEET 11 "w .�:� 50 0 50 li�ig 59` LOT 5 GRAPHIC SCALE SEE SHEET 4 (IN FEET) FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT L YNNEHA VEN SECT/ON ONE RED BUD DISTRICT —FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 50' DATE: NOVEMBER 26 2002 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 WINDY HILL LANE Engineers WINCHESTER, PA. 22602 Surveyors TELEPHONE: (540) 882-4185 FA%: (640 MARK D. SMITH No.022837 kIGNAL Founded in 19711 722-9528 www.greenwayeng.com 21858 SHEET 3 OF 13 EA 0 U Q JOB # 02-561-800 _ VICINITY MAP 6 1' = 2000' f1� moi• 1 �� 3 � G ��rf�Y y �el�li$"c - APPROVALS: AREA TABULATION: LOT 2A 12,967 sq. ft. Frederick County Sanitation Authority Date OUTLOT A 1,015 sq. ft. Frederick County Subdivision Administrator Date TOTAL 13,982 sq. ft. Virginia Department of Transportation Date ORIGINAL LOT 2 13,982 sq. ft. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE: THE DIVISION OF THE LAND SHOWN HEREON IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, AND TRUSTEES, IF ANY, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE. Acknowledge before me this day of 2004. RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VIRGINIA, INC. My commission expires: Date By. Notary SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED IN THIS DIVISION IS CURRENTLY IN THE NAME OF RICKMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF VIRGINIA, INC. BY DEED RECORDED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 030015326 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. CHARLES W. JEFFERS PARENT TAX PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 55K-01-01 —2 PLAT SHOWING DIVISION OF �PL1H OF LOT 2 — SECTION ONE LYNNEHAVEN v CHARLES W. JEFFERS INSTRUMENT #030007982 RED BUD DISTRICT No. 1959 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE 1 " = 30' DATE : NOVEMBER, 2004 SURA Charles P. Johnson & Associates, Inc. CPLANNERS ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS 3959 PENDER DRIVE SUITE 210 FAIRFAX. VIRGINIA 22030 (703)385-7555 AssocidtCS SILVER SPRING. MD FAX(703)273-8595 SHEET 1 OF 2 JOB # 02-561-800 L0 4 It a> 0 ram GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 60 ' m I e I SCALE : 1"=30' LL cV �I 0 I\ O UCD O r7 NN O Qz W V ARD (50' R�W) F ARMINGT . p3oo079112 — �0 11NE E5M ' ..: ...... EX. 15 WIN1 30007982 'o INSTR• V 76.48' 0� rn N Q IN 25.00' 16 to ' I f0 N O IW w �,n ISI z r z of E A 01 ' GA P PIS 07982 _� ESM'T INS #0 EX. DRA 30007982 INSTR• W6TON 60U1 EVARD #500 FAQ 35 9_R -t- N c6 r7 LOT 2A 12,967 sq. ft. I C' 3 J C6 M � O m o j\ o r en N 25' B.R.L. OUTLOT A 1,015 sq. ft. 100.82' N,38 -44'07'W110.82' EX. SAN. SEW. ESM'T INSTR. #030007982 I N Cy NOTES: 1. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RP. O N O 0 U Q PLAT SHOWING DIVISION OF LOT 2 - SECTION ONE LYNNEHAVEN INSTRUMENT #030007982 RED BUD DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE : 1" = 30' DATE : NOVEMBER, 2004 CP Charles P. Johnson & Associates, Inc. PLANNERS ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS 3959 PENDER DRIVE SUITE 210 FAIRFAX• VIRGINIA 22030 (703)385-7555 Assoc [ES SILVER SPRING. IAD FAX(703)273-8595 SHEET 2 OF 2 JOB # 02-561-800 CURVE DATA No. RADIUS DELTA ARC TANGENT CHORD CH. BEARING 1 43.00' 80'01'10' 60.05' 36.09' 55.29' S88'43'32'E 1A 43.00' 40'08'39' 30.13' 15.71' 29.52' S68'47'16"E 1B 43.00' 3952'31' 29.93' 15.60' 29.33' N71'12'09'E N Cy NOTES: 1. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RP. O N O 0 U Q PLAT SHOWING DIVISION OF LOT 2 - SECTION ONE LYNNEHAVEN INSTRUMENT #030007982 RED BUD DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE : 1" = 30' DATE : NOVEMBER, 2004 CP Charles P. Johnson & Associates, Inc. PLANNERS ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS 3959 PENDER DRIVE SUITE 210 FAIRFAX• VIRGINIA 22030 (703)385-7555 Assoc [ES SILVER SPRING. IAD FAX(703)273-8595 SHEET 2 OF 2 JOB # 02-561-800 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #02-05 ADAMS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Meeting Prepared: February; 11, 2005 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins — Planner II This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 02/16/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 03/09/05 Pending LOCATION: This property is located in Stephenson, fronting on the west side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), opposite the intersection with Jordan Springs Road (Route 664). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 44-A-75 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: B3 (Business, Industrial Transition) ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES: Use: Unimproved North Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential M1 (Light Industrial) Residential East Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential B2 (Business General) APAC Virginia West Zoned: N/A Use: Interstate 81 PROPOSED USE: Office, Warehouse and Self -Service Storage Uses MDP #02-05, Adams Development Group, Inc. February 1, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS Virginia Department of Transportation: The Master Development Plan for this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 11, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Proposed Master Development Plan is acceptable. Before making any final comments this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to construction on the State's right-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work. Frederick County Fire Marshal: Street signs shall comply with local Public Works standards. Municipal water supplies for firefighting shall comply with Frederick County Code section 90-4, fire hydrants shall be within 400 feet of all dwelling units as measured by centerline of the roadway surface. The private roadway and cul-de-sac widths may inhibit access of emergency vehicles and no on -street parking should be permitted. Fire Lane No Parking within 20 feet. Signs should be provided at each fire hydrant. Plan approval recommended. Frederick County Public Works: As you are aware, the proposed development is located in a karst environment. In keeping with our standard practice, geotechnical investigations will be required in the vicinity of the stormwater management ponds as well as within all building sites. A note to this effect should be placed on sheet 1 of 4 under the development narrative. The notes reflected on sheet 4 of 4 have adequately addressed our previous comments related to preserving the existing wetlands. To reiterate your note, we will require that permits be obtained from the Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Department of Environment Quality if the existing wetlands are disturbed for any purpose. These permits will be required prior to issuance of any land disturbance permits. A formal resubmittal of this master development plan will not be required. However, we would appreciate copies of any revisions to the master development plan. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: 2nd review — approved. We will require a pressure reducing valve (PRV) on the water line. Frederick County Inspections Department: Demolition, with asbestos inspection prior to issuance, permit is required to remove existing structures. No additional comment required at this time. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed master development plan has been reviewed and it appears that the proposed site plan will not have an 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. MDP #02-05, Adams Development Group, Inc. February 1, 2005 Page 3 Department of Geographic Information Systems: Lorry Court, Porter Court and Yardmaster Court are good, solid, clean names with no conflicts. Marginal names, minor, but usable, are Roundhouse Court, Switcham Court and Waybill Court. No acceptable is High Rail Court. Planning & Zoning: A) Master Development Plan Requirement A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. B) Location This site is located in Stephenson, fronting on the west side of Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11), opposite of the intersection with Stephenson Road (Route 664). C) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) depicts the zoning of the subject parcel as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. On September 8, 2004 the subject parcel was rezoned with proffers from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District. D) Intended Use The applicant has prepared a master development plan for the 59.71 acre site with office, warehouse, self-service storage uses. The intended uses for the property is in general conformance with the generalized development plan approved with the rezoning. During the rezoning process, the applicant offered a number of proffer conditions, which were intended to help minimize the potential impacts of development. A summary of the most significant proffers is listed below: A) General Development Plan. The applicant has proffered to develop the subject property in substantial conformance with the GDP. The GDP demonstrates a single shared commercial entrance and the layout of the proposed land uses. B) Permitted Uses. The proffer statement indicates that only office, office/warehouse, warehouse, and self-service storage land uses will be MDP #02-05, Adams Development Group, Inc. February 1, 2005 Page 4 permitted on the property should the rezoning be approved. Furthermore, a maximum square feet is proffered for each of the four proffered land uses. C) Transportation. Transportation proffers include the restriction of more than one commercial entrance off of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 N), construction of a right -turn deceleration lane, contribution of 20' of additional right-of-way to VDOT for future possible road improvements, and agreement to contribute towards the cost of off-site signalization in the area of Interstate 81 and Exit 321. D) Outdoor Storage Buffer. The applicant proffers to preserve a continuous strip of existing vegetation on the west side of the Winchester and Western Railroad for screening purposes. E) North Buffer. The applicants have proffered to utilize the six foot high berm opaque screening option along the north property line. F) South Buffer. The applicants have proffered to utilize the six foot tall fence as the opaque screening option along the south property line. G) Corridor Appearance Enhancements. The applicant has proffered landscape enhancements along Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 N) to include a 20' wide green strip, a low-level earth berm, low-lying shrubs and a single row of deciduous flowering trees. H) Stormwater Quality Measures. The applicant has proffered that all commercial site plans will be designed to implement best management practices (BMP) to promote stormwater quality measures. I) Monetary Contribution. A monetary contribution of $8,355.00 is offered by the applicant for the purpose of impact mitigation for Frederick County Fire and Rescue Services. E) Site Suitability & Project Scope Land Use Compatibility: The subject parcel exists in a mixed land use area of Frederick County. APAC Virginia is located on the east side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 N); Easy Living Mobile Home Park is located to the south; the I-81 rest stop is located on the other side of I-81 to the west; and several existing residences and the historic Kenilworth property are located to the north. Comprehensive Policy Plan: The subject parcel is within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is a component of the Northeast Land Use Plan which was adopted by the Board of MDP #02-05, Adams Development Group, Inc. February 1, 2005 Page 5 Supervisors on September 27, 2000. The parcel is also a component of the Route 11 North Corridor Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 8, 1997. Both land use plans proposed future commercial and industrial development within the area of these parcels. The NELUP envisions the area of the subject parcel as future business use. Retail, service, and office land uses are envisioned along the Martinsburg Pike Corridor, and industrial uses are proposed adjacent to railroads. The MDP for the 59.71 -acre site is consistent with the proffered GDP, is generally consistent with NELUP. The MDP illustrates offices along Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), self-service storage and office/warehouses uses in the center of the parcel, and warehousing in the rear beside the existing railroad. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, page 6-34 through 6-38.5] Historic Resources: As noted in the comments by the Historic Resources Advisory Board, the Kenilworth structure is identified as a potentially significant historical structure and is potentially eligible for the state and national register of historic places. A portion of the property is also located within the core area of the Second Winchester Civil War Battlefield, according to the Study of Civil War Sites In the Shenandoah Valley of Vir inia, by the U.S. Department of Interior. This area is identified as having retained its historical integrity. Environment: A natural waterway exists along the southeast property line, and there are some areas of wetlands associated with it; these areas have been delineated on the master development plan. The applicant has placed most of these areas within the storm water management area and has shown the required riparian buffer associated with the water way. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows the disturbance of wetlands only when in accordance with the requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified state or federal agencies (Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-31 B (3), page 16551). The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that a variety of soil types exists on the 59.71 -acre site. These soil types include the following: Frederick-Poplimento Loams 2-7% slopes, Massanetta Loam 04% slopes, Frederick- Poplimento Loams very rocky 7-15% slopes, and Carbo -Oakley rock outcrop complex 2- 15% slopes. The former two soil types are classified as prime farmland. The management of individual soil characteristics must be demonstrated through the site engineering process associated with subsequent development applications for the proposed project. [Soil Survey of Frederick County] Transportation: The parcel comprising this Master Plan application has frontage along Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 N). The segment of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 N) serving the subject parcel is comprised of two travel lanes and a center turn lane. This roadway is classified as a major collector road and is a business corridor. Along business corridors, the MDP #02-05, Adams Development Group, Inc. February 1, 2005 Page 6 Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for landscape buffers between the road and parking facilities to promote a more pleasant environment. A reduced number of entrances to minimize traffic congestion, a bicycle trail, appropriate building materials, compatible uses, and less visual clutter from signs are other corridor design standards encouraged by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, page 6-72] The 2002 VDOT Daily Volume Jurisdictional Report 34 indicates that there are currently 6,300 VPD along the portion of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 N) which fronts the subject property. Based on the proposed maximum traffic intensities, there would be an increase in traffic on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 N) by 73.1 % as a result of this rezoning. A traffic impact analysis for the site was performed as part of the rezoning application. This study utilized the Institute of Transportation Engineers UTD) Trip Generation Manual for determining the maximum traffic intensities for the proffered land uses. These proffered land uses include 40,000 square feet of office, 156,875 square feet of warehouse/office, 492,500 square feet of warehouse, and 146,200 square feet of self-service storage. A combined increase of 4,603 VPD is projected for development of the 59.71 -acre site under the proffered development pattern. The transportation proffer from the rezoning requires that the site will be restricted to one commercial entrance off of Martinsburg Pike, construction of a right -turn deceleration lane, contribution of 20' of additional right-of-way to VDOT for future possible road improvements and agreement to contribute towards the cost of off-site signalization in the area of Interstate 81 and Exit 321. Landscaping & Buffers: Pursuant to the proffer statement, buffers have been provided along the north and south property lines of the subject site. The north buffer will include a six foot high berm and the south buffer will include a six foot high fence (utilized with the required Category C buffer). The outdoor storage area along the interstate will consist of the preservation of a continuous strip of existing vegetation on the west side of the Winchester and Western Railroad. Along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, the applicant will provide landscape enhancements which include a 20' wide green strip, a low-level berm, low-lying shrubs and a single row of deciduous flowering trees. F. Waivers CUL-DE-SAC WAIVER. Pursuant to Section 144-17G, of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Cul-de-sac, permanently designed as such, shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) feet in length. The applicant for the Adams Development Group MDP is requesting a waiver to this requirement. The Subdivision Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to waive this requirement in cases where extreme topography or other factors make it impractical. This waiver would allow the cul-de-sac in the development to be greater than 1,000 feet in length and be built in conformance with the approved GDP. MDP 402-05, Adams Development Group, Inc. February 1, 2005 Page 7 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 02/16/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Upon resolution of the cul-de-sac waiver this Master Development Plan will be consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. The preliminary master development pian is also in accordance with the proffers of -'the rezoning and has addressed all of staff's concerns. All of the issues identified by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed by the applicant prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this MDP conformance with County codes and review agency comments. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. MDP # 02 - 05 - Adams Development Group (44 - A - 75) * - - ENNUI WNW.F � te Vol Al 14 le OIL, ZCVJK� fl. -,&, Aw" Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Project Title: Adams Development Group, Inc. 2. Owner's Name Adams Development Group, Inc. HC 34 Box 30 Bloomery, WV 26817 (Please list name of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Winchester, VA 22602 Phone Number: 540-662-4185 4. Design Company: Greenway Engineering Address: Same Phone Number: 540-662-4185 Contact Name: Evan Wyatt, AICP 5. Location of Property North of the City of Winchester, fronting on the west side of Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11) Opposite the intersection with Jordan Springs Road (Route 664) 6. Total Acreage: 59.71 7. Property Information a) Property Identification Number (PIN): 44-A-75 b) Current Zoning: B3 c) Present Use: Unimproved d) Proposed Uses: Office, Warehouse, Self Service Storage e) Adjoining Property Information: Property Identification Numbers North 44 -A -76A,44 -A -76B, 44 -A -76C,44 - A -76D, 44 -A -75A, 44-A-77 South 44-1-D East 44 -A -70,44-A-71, 44-A-72, 44-A- 73 West Interstate 81 f) Magisterial District: Property Uses Residential Residential Residential Stonewall 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original ® Amended ❑ I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. Signature: l �t� Date: 725 Q V E Special Limited Power of Atto County of Frederick, VirLyin�i? i`IOV 1 6 " FREDERICK COUNTY Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, `'Vinche PLA�� i < , t-7IT OP tf , nia Phone 2Z60i-- 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Robert C. Adams, president Adams D v 1opMent (Phone) 540-539-3599 Group (Address) HC 34 Box 30 Bloomery, WV 26817 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. 030015420 on Page 0670 , and is described as Parcel: 44 Lot: 75 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Enaineerin(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 applications for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ® Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto Any (our) hand and seal this 1 Fg;'day of 200'-', Signature's) State of Virginia, Ci<11ciOR-ibf`,df-4 To - wit: a NotaryPublic in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and haknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid thisltd day of,-v.,b200 4- 6 , 1, q.' .` f ;, t'..r; My Commission Expires: � f r i Notary Public