The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 07-06-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia July 6, 2005 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 2) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 3) Conditional Use Permit 904-05 of Eugene Cooper for an Expansion of Cottage Occupation— Counter Top Shop (CUP 407-03). This property is located at 207 Herman Lewis Lane (Route 608), and is identified with Property Identification Number 52 -A -35C in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Mr. Suchicital................................................................................................................... (A) 4) Conditional Use Permit #05-05 of Robert W. Shaw for a Cottage Occupation — Custom Crafted Rifles. This property is located at 2394 Double Church Road (Route 641), and is identified with Property Identification Number 93-3-2 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Mr. Suchicital................................................................................................................... (B) 5) Update of the 2006-2007 Frederick County Secondary, Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans. The Secondary, Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the Secondary, Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick County. Mrs. Eddy........................................................................................................................ (C) 6) Rezoning #09-05 of Freedom Manor, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 26.87 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 70 single family homes. The property fronts on the east side of Papermill Road (Route 644), approximately 2,300 feet west-northwest of the intersection of Papermill Road (Route 644) and has access to Front Royal Pike (Route 522), in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 64-A-23. Mr. Ruddy....................................................................................................................... (D) FILE COPY 7) Rezoning #10-05 of Wakeland Properties, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 7.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District for general commercial uses. The properties are located east and adjacent to Front Royal Pike (Route 522), approximately 350 feet south of the Papermill Road intersection, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and are identified by Property. Identification Numbers (PINS) 64-A-29 and 64-A-30. Mrs. Eddy........................................................................................................................ (E) PUBLIC MEETING 8) Waiver request of Charles Snapp and Thelma Snapp for an exception of Article V Design Standards, §144-31 Rural Subdivisions, C(3) Minor rural subdivisions of the Code of Frederick County, Subdivision of Lana to enable the family subdivision of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. The property is located on Snappy Lane, off Whissens Ridge Road (Route 616), approximately 1.1 miles southwest of intersection with Wardensville Grade (Route 608), and is identified with Property Identification Number 60-A-66 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran........................................................................................................................ (F) DISCUSSION 9) Rural Areas Study. 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. Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (G) 10) Zoning Ordinance Definitions - Article XXH Definitions, Section 165-156 Definitions and word usage — Clarification of Landscape Buffer. Mr. Cheran...................................................................................................................... (H) Other l�K ' COQ w4 �� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #04-05 EUGENE COOPER w Staff Report for the Planning Commission °3a Prepared: June 20, 2005 Staff Contact: Bernard S. Suchicital, Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 07/06/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 08/10/05 Pending LOCATION: This subject property is located at 207 Herman Lewis Lane (Route 608) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 52 -A -35C PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: (RA) Rural Areas Land Use: Residential Zoned: (RA) Rural Areas Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Expansion of Cottage Occupation — Counter Top Shop (CUP #07-03) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 608, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT commercial standards. CUP 904-05, Eugene Cooper June 20, 2005 Page 2 Fire Marshal: Construction of the proposed building shall take into account a designated parking area for employee vehicles which will allow uninhibited emergency access to the structure. Burning of scrap materials from the proposed processes will not be permitted. Portable fire extinguishers are required for the proposed occupancy. Flammable liquids used in the process shall require an approved flammable liquids storage cabinet for quantities exceeding 30 gallons. Proper ventilation for the mitigation of production fames is required. Plan approval is contingent upon Inspections at the time of occupancy. Inspections Department: Building shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Sections 306, Use Group F (Factory and Industrial) of the International Building Code/2000. Other Code that applies is IBC/ANSI Al 17.1-98 Accessible and Usable Building and Facilities. HC parking appears to be in compliance; however, please note that the sidewalk on the accessible route shall slope at less than 1" in 20' at elevation changes or shall be designed and permitted as a ramp per IBC/ANSI A117.1-98. Winchester -Frederick County Health Department: Health Department has no objection to use as long as no more than four full time occupants of home exist. Planning and Zoning: The applicant is proposing an expansion of a Cottage Occupation that was approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 27, 2003, for a custom counter top business (CUP 407-03). This business is conducted in a 40 foot by 60 foot structure, constructed as a workshop. The structure is located at least 50 feet from neighboring dwellings, and is screened in by natural wooded vegetation. The production of the counter tops would not involve any specialized equipment or chemicals. The original conditions of CUP 407-03 did not allow any employees associated with this business. The applicant is requesting to expand this Conditional Use Permit to allow for three (3) employees associated with this business. There is a gravel lot alongside the structure sufficient for employee parking. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows cottage occupations in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The applicant does not intend to have customers to the property. The subject property is not in an area where a small area land use study has been adopted by the County. Nevertheless, the proposed expansion of the Cottage Occupation is consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, land use goals for the rural areas of the county identify the importance of maintaining a rural character in areas outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA). Based on the limited scale of the applicant's proposed cottage occupation, it appears it would not have negative impacts on adjoining properties or detract from the rural character of the area. CUP #04-05, Eugene Cooper June 20, 2005 Page 3 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/06/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional permit. 3. No retail sales of merchandise shall be permitted. 4. No business signs shall be permitted. 5. No more than three (3) employees shall be permitted. 6. CUP #04-05 invalidates CUP #07-03. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. L M SMITH 52 14 M K PUGH 52 14 L CRESWELL 52 14 K 35B Map Features 35C COOPER 52 A 35B COOPER 52 A 35C Application /^N/ Bridges /l,/ CulveAs I f Parcels Lakes/Ponds ^/ Dams Agricultural & Forestral Dlstrlets -•^w— Streams ^00 Retaining Walls ® Double Ch mh Buildings Road Centerlines Refuge Church N Tanks - - l South Frederick �~Trails 141 E S 35 MCFARLAND 52 A 35 36 CUP #04-05 Eugene Cooper (52 -A -35C) BROWN 52 A 36 0 50 100 200 Feet Map Features C-) Parceis Aarlcultural & Forestral Districts . Double Ch..h Refuge church N CjSouth Frederick W E S CUP #04-05 Eugene Cooper (52 -A -35C) 0 50 100 200 Feet ^� Bridges Appli-fioo C.—ta LA—M-ds I-V Dams Streams ^/ Retaining Walls Buildings Road Centerlines Tanks �.. Trails C-) Parceis Aarlcultural & Forestral Districts . Double Ch..h Refuge church N CjSouth Frederick W E S CUP #04-05 Eugene Cooper (52 -A -35C) 0 50 100 200 Feet Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTg1 VIRGINIA r 119/1'0 Arc - 1. Applicant (The applicant if the "I'/-- owner other) NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE C LIA ' �� OLD 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 4. The property has a road frontage of 35-S feet and a depth of )_j feet and consists of acres. (Please be exact) 5. M The property is owned by C�, �.� as evidenced by deed from ;:��, j�')►� %f?c o c_, recorded �1 (previous owner) in deed book no. � 11 on page L� S:3 , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. A Tax(Parcel)Identifica Magisterial District Current Zoning �� 7. Adjoining Property: USE } North East South West �ZO,7,�ING 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) C 9. It is proposed that,the following -buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME Q C PROPERTY ID n s NAME! I�Cn PROPERTY ID#, NAME ' 1'e-' PROPERTY ID,#�``i NAME PROPERTY ID�,`i ` `J NAME e7D6 PX71)►do PROPERTY ID, c )cam /� -'�Gry 0 PROPERTY IDI NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRES ADDRESS„ ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address "I Lj Com/, • �� rY ;�°� esD C_ Owners' Telephone No.5�L S-7"-? -p; (J q(o TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: CO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #05-05 ROBERT W. SHAW Staff Report for the Planning Commission �„ems Prepared: june 20, 2005 Staff Contact: Bernard S. Suchicital, Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also he useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 07/06/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 08/10/05 Pending LOCATION: This subject property is located at 2394 Double Church Road (Route 641) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 93-3-2 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: (RA) Rural Areas Land Use: Residential Zoned: (RA) Rural Areas Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Cottage Occupation — Gunsmithing REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 641, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT commercial standards. CUP #05-05, Robert W. Shaw June 20, 2005 Page 2 Fire Marshal: The possession., storage and use of not more than 15 pounds of commercially manufactured sporting black powder, 20 pounds of smokeless powder and 10,000 small arms primers for hand loading of small arms ammunition for personal consumption per the International Fire Code section 3301.1 shall be permitted. Inspections Department: Area of the dwelling to be utilized shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Sections 306, Use Group F (Factory and Industrial) of the International Building Code/2000. Other Code that applies is IBC/ANSI A117.1-98 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Please submit a floor plan of the area for review at the time of change of use building permit application. The IBC chapter 7 shall include the proper fire separation between this use and the dwelling. Permit shall be obtained, inspections approved and new certificate of use and occupancy shall be issued prior to operation of the business. Winchester -Frederick County Health Department: Health Department has no objection to the request as stated so long as no additional employees are hired and there is no increase in meter usage. Planning and Zoning: A gunsmithing business is permitted in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This business will be conducted in a primary structure located on the property. The rear of the property is surrounded by natural wooded screening and buffers. The rear of the property has a steep rise and will act as a natural berm. The adjoining properties are located 300 feet from this property. The applicant proposes to have no more than three (3) customers a month and operate two (2) days a week; there will be no sale of firearms at this property. The applicant will not have any customers test the firearms on the property associated with the CUP. The applicant will only test firearms once every 3 to 4 weeks at appropriate hours. Based upon the limited scale of the proposed use and evaluation of the property, it appears this use would not have any significant impacts on the adjoining properties. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/06/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No business sign shall be permitted. 3. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. 4. No retail sales of merchandise shall be permitted. 5. No more than three (3) customers shall be allowed on the property per month. 6. No customer shall be allowed to test firearms on the property. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. i COFFMAN ;� , 93 3 1A — - 7F VAN DE CROMMERT BARR 1 t' ,.94 A 7F t 1 � . X 93 .3' 1 ti - s a 7U� Q 7 x i i a /. t w ' - - • --_�'rF� SHAW a ' 93 3 2 — , r . r v BROWN 72 ' . 93 A 72 KEYES ! . t `.�Y 4A - 11 93 3 EFF•- 726` FERGUSON\, ` d a /.. f' 93 A 72B 0� i !v. i by r e - r �72A V! ! In '-7 `a e , - ♦ y^y�-'�c�4p�•� i - a Map Features CUP # 05 - 05 �_-�l•� naaioae— Bridges ^� Culverts r Par e,e l�.J Robert W. Shaw 4 �^ Lakes/Ponds ^� Dams Agricultural d Forestral Districts ,'3+ r0` ` J, Streams Retaining Walls eu ld nge Road Centerlineseu� -Om M0-0 N (93-3-2) .r� frL Tanks South Frederick w E i' i'�� =`�• . Trails 0 75 150 300 ! S Feet H M- 5 m� V 1 BAF e 93 3 _ s 7E VAN DE CROMMERT 94 A 7F J O J W �a � rf- m -k, si . KEYES 3 93, 3 3 t 4A NE F 93 3 4A CUP #05-05 Robert W. Shaw N (93-3-2) W E 0 75 150 300 S Feet Map Features OAPPlicafi^/ on Bridges r ~ C—eft Parcels Lakes/Ponds /'/ Dams Agricultural & Forestral Districts ++'r— Streams I%' Retammg WaIIs Double Gklurch Buildings Road Centerlines Refuge Dhu..h Tanks C) South Frederick . Tails _ s 7E VAN DE CROMMERT 94 A 7F J O J W �a � rf- m -k, si . KEYES 3 93, 3 3 t 4A NE F 93 3 4A CUP #05-05 Robert W. Shaw N (93-3-2) W E 0 75 150 300 S Feet 2005 h Submittal Deadline '00 �'�✓ _ _ _`'' P/C Meeting �_- .... BOS Meeting �• APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT , FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1 14 CIS 1. Applicant (The applicant if the V owner other) NAME: ADDRESS: ;� Z3C�� CadZ CW-� 1 -- - Ji llUMS C i Yfl TELEPHONE "0 4S�q3 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: EL 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) J-gI��XiT 307 , -tE 271EW i oi- a7 MiL- ,ICIki (5cu'i ti) 6^1 ),j jB LF tt%06 iA E -,A 1--c,& 3 "7 H I LES RQ aM? Y a t'j 4. The property has a road frontage of 220.01 feet and a depth of !�L7S-eC2 feet and consists of _� ° 34T acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by S;Nf"tt-- as evidenced by deed from recorded i J& -i L*AtNP X0300-M69i2_ (previous owner) in deed book no. _ on page , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. _ q3 -3 -- Magisterial District Current Zoning 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North gE-5 c 17c�J 1 /AL- !r East 12r$1r7tVL- South gt'5Lb iALt West 2t-'Sti O f IA,— 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) TO , ouhuC j lk L�AL L 1 QS,A Ess aof-Al go �c ss Lei Bc A _.Cus rarer c�,�sNc I ntrx.' SiNES� lC gixi�i u) -nfC 0x )1 66(URAIsE j,UUOLVEb It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME 1 -2a'( -c i 15,'xa-9_ ADDRESS `_ &eO 0JBLC Cis -'(204 PS T\( VA- 2�'�C,5S PROPERTY ID# G,3 — 3- NAME tlkp14= -z. PAr0 QA ftp 2 ADDRESS f L/&F .WVi2Ci4 S IfEuSCi i�/ �+� ZZ �S PROPERTY ID# l3 NAME _ ADDRESS 'I jjA �p_LL i_t j STIE-�pHj:-15 C I iy V1 Z"2GvS5� PROPERTY ID# - A -'] 2 - NAME NAME 1h 12 IrJ - C1-�40l_ LE i �USri�U ADDRESS I I a]7- LL_ 4,/J SI E?I l VA PROPERTY ID# NAME Q 6&f V/ -/,j IE C I I` L M, M IE� iZ l ADDRESS ) 3ZCJ��' I ; Ei�l►SNS CiT/VA 2Z&s-s PROPERTY ID# q4 --A -'l F NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# iIi:14ib ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, i nrl iicii n Jt measurements to all property lines. '-VHIS LOT-1i0ES NOT FALL IN A FLOOD HAZARD.ZONE, THIS ZS TO _CER FY THAT ON FEBRUARY '!3,'. 1987 I MADE IN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE SES SHO" H E©N.AND THAT THM ARE NO EASEMEWS OR ENCROACHMEWS VISIBLE {N THE GROMPD OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON. N 38049'41" N _ yl 78! LOT 2 6.347 ACR. �(, CO 2 `anti ( y S�,LTR p Q r t. Mi. R:RSTEM'M =l1 �9.D' _ �, t� PCO. 1$55 v BILK L FRRME :BILEVEL <' A, �. SU ate. b LOT 2 _( °s `4 " SOUTHERN HILL SUBO N 46°35'.-13"W 1D°.12' 5 43043'29"E FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 5M2' 69.77' STATE ROUTE .641 -HOUSE LOCATION - SURVEY DATE :FQBR.13,1987 VM 1D FURSTENAU L. S. scnLIEj 1"-120' DWM. DY3 STEPHENS CITY , - VIRGINIA (703) 869-5682 22655 12. Additional comments, if ny: j�.�iS �It?t�5_� I`�IfS�Jl1�S5 i S I -o - ckjs -t ,, ( - b 21 faes QluLV.`2E Tlk-6 W1 Li- WE Qua Rh- i- !'� "E FLc W tet= TkAED c W A -Nb OUT OE RES t DEPCE I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant F� ISignatureofof Owner Owners' Mailing Address 2-39 4 Owners' Telephone No. 540 -Sb i -45-4-3 TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: • • C COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner s K(�- RE: Public Hearing — 2006-2007 Secondary ?Toad Improvement Plan DATE: June 20, 2005 The Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan is a six (6) year transportation plan for all secondary roads in Frederick County. The Secondary Road Plan is divided into the following three categories: Major Road Improvement Projects, Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects, and Incidental Road Improvement Projects. Major road improvement projects include the construction of new roads or the upgrading of existing roads. Hardsurface road improvement projects include the paving of existing Secondary Roads which are unpaved. Incidental road improvements include spot improvements on existing roads. The process to update the Secondary Road Improvement Plan begins in Frederick County and ends in Richmond. After review by the Frederick County Transportation Committee and Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors will forward a recommended update to the Virginia Department of Transportation for their consideration. Ultimately, VDOT is responsible for establishing the priority of projects in Frederick County. The Frederick County Transportation Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the attached Draft 2006-2007 Secondary Road Improvement Plan during their meeting held on June 7, 2005. The most significant addition is the re-routing of Papermill Road, at its southern end, to align with the new Justes Drive. Additions to the list of unscheduled hardsurface road improvement projects include Laurel Grove Road and Babbs Mountain Road. Laurel Grove Road, while not on last year's list, has been on the list in previous years. In addition, the Old Baltimore Road project has been extended to include more of this road. After a public hearing, a recommendation front the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the proposed update to the 2006-2007Secondaq Road Iaraprovementplan would be appropriate. SKE/bad 107 North K�2-nt Str,2et, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2006-2007 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT Frederick County Transportation Committee: Recommended Approval on June 7, 2005 Frederick County Planning Commission: Pending Frederick County Board of Supervisors: Pending 06/14/05 FREDERICK COUNTY MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2006/2007 through 2011/2012 Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to enhance public safety. Improvements required for road width, road alignment, road strength, and road gradient are considered major road improvements projects. * To be constructed as one project v O W to Y �W, Z LUL- �Z Z W� W LnH W Q O F- W ; 06/14/05 FREDERICK COUNTY HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2006/2007 through 2011/2012 Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction of non-hardsurfaced secondary roads. Hardsurface improvement projects are prioritized by an objective rating system, which considers average daily traffic volumes; occupied structures; physical road conditions including geometrics, drainage, and accident reports; school bus routing; and the time that project requests have been on the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. UJI a z Q 0 0 � V LL CD g9z �F-0 J(� as o W z c J LU2 y_l- Cep" aW 20 �v W W MW Iro W e Q L 2 0 Z 689 Adams Road 2.54 Mi. N. Rt. 600 S. Route 600 N. 110 1.7 miles GA $702,800 10104 Rural Rustic 704 Back Creek Road Route 683 Route 617 160 1.66 miles BC $552,000 03105 Rural Rustic Back Creek Road Route 617 W. VA dine 7D 1.68 miles BC $559,000 03/06 Rural Rustic 704 [4) Gough Road Route 622 Route 616 60 1.75 miles BC $581,ODD 03107PotRustic618 618 Gough Road Route 616Route 608 70 1.32 miles BC $445,D00 03108 PotR�iSt�Rural Ebenezer Church Road 0.25 Mi. E. Rt. 703 Route 522 160 4.25 mites GA $1,594,100 UN/SH Pot Potential 705 06/14/05 FREDERICK COUNTY UNSCHEDULED HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RATINGS UPDATED MAY, 2004 (MAY, 2005 -- PARTIAL) 2006/2007 throuah 2011/2012 w Q U W� ��z w z a� wv - z z o o o L~o�y ~ w u- o o a© p a� R 1) 709 Ridings Mill Route 636 Route 735 160 2.7 OP 128 Road miles 2) 681 Chestnut Route 805 Route 685 270 1.62 GA 124 i Grove Road miles 3) 679 Indian Hollow 0.3 Mi. W. Rt. 0.5 Mi. E. Rt. 600 140 2.5 GA 123 Road 608 miles 4) 629 Laurel Grove Route 622 2.5 Mi. W Rt. 622 180 2.5 BC 113 Road miles 5) 707 Hollow Road W. VA Line Route 610 200 1.6 BC/GA 110 miles 6) 692 Pack Horse 1.2 Mi. NE Rt. Route 671 200 1.4 GA 109 Road 600 miles 7) 629 Carter Lane Route 631 Route 625 290 1.8 BC 106 miles 8) 636 Canterburg Route 640 Route 641 130 1.5 OP 101 Road miles 9) 734 North Sleepy 1.27 Mi. SW 2.27 Mi. SW Rt. 140 1 mile GA 100 Creek Road Rt. 522 N. 522 N. 10) 612 Fishel Road Route 600 Route 600 30 1.6 BC 96 miles 11) 676 Warm 0.83 Mi. N Rt. Route 677 240 0.87 GA 95 S rin s Road 677 1 mile 12) 733 Fletcher Road Route 50 Route 707 120 1.3 GA 94 West miles 13) 730 Babbs Route 654 Route 677 50 0.9 GA 88 Mountain miles Road 14) 638 Clark Road Route 625 Route 759 70 0.8 BC 88 mile 15) 607 Heishman Route 600 End of State 100 0.78 BC 81 Lane Maintenance mile 16) 695 Middle Fork 2.3 miles W. VA State Line 30 0.9 GA 81 Road north Rt. 522 mile 17) 677 Old Baltimore Route 676 Route 672 200 1.2 GA 80 Road miles 18) 636 Huttle Road Route 709 Route 735 150 1.1 OP 78 miles 19) 644 East Parkins Route 50 East Clarke Co. 260 0.81 SH 75 Mill Road mile 20) 696 South Timber Route 522 Route 694. 130 1.3 GA 73 Ridge Road North miles 06/14/05 W U W LL W Q V to z Z FW- Q 0 O j 9? Q H Z W LU 0 as v 0 21) 671 Woodside Route 669 W. VA State Line 220 0.3 ST 68 Roi I mile 22) 634 Cougill Road Route 635 Route 11 South 290 0.25 BC 56 mile 23) 811 Timberlakes Route 671 End of State 180 0.25 ST 48 Lane Maintenance mile 06/14/05 FREDERICK COUNTY INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION 2006/2007 through 2011/2012 Incidental construction projects are defined as minor construction projects. Examples involve drainage improvements, site distance improvements, spot widening, replacing overflow pipes with box culverts, and the application of plant mix on existing road surfaces. The Virginia Department of Transportation determines if a proposed project qualifies for Incidental Construction based on the overall scope of the improvement. LU z Z O a l— 0 y z Lu I-- z o i-- a W ¢ a. � w °� v a yt- W 20 vw 0 ow ao . wU U c � 1) 1323 Park Centre at 0.4 miles East of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing- Improve ST $8,000 2003/04 Federal Drive Surface 10% Funds match 2) 661 Redbud Road 0.45 mile east of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install SW $15,000 2005/06 Federal flashing lights & bells 10% Funds match 3) 620 Singhas Road 0.05 mile south of Rt. 803 R/R Crossing -Install BC $17,500 2005/06 Federal flashing lights & 10% Funds bells/upgrade crossingmatch 4) 684 Gainesboro 234' southeast of Rt. 522 R/R Crossing -Install GA $17,500 2005/06 Federal Road flashing lights & 10% Funds bells/upgrade crossing match 5) 684 Gainesboro 0.20 mile east of Rt. 600 R/R Crossing -Install GA $17,500 2005/06 Federal Road flashing lights & 10% Funds bells/upgrade crossing match 6) 672 Brucetown 0.45 mile east of It, 11 R/R Crossing -Install SW $15,000 2005/06 Federal Road flashing lights & bells 10% Funds match 7) 704 Back Greek From: 0.37 mile south of Improve drainage & BC $85,000 2005/06 Road Rt. 683 widen roadway To: 0.80 mile south of Rt. 683 8) 1054 Westmoreland Frederick Towne Estates Plant Mix OP $140,000 2006/07 Drive 9) 1349 Forrest Drive Battleview Subdivision Plant Mix SW $46,000 2006107 10) 1326 Confederate Third Battle Subdivision Plant Mix SW $40,000 2006/07 Drive 11) 749 Quarry Lane 0.05 mile southwest of Rt. R/R Crossing -Install SW $13,000 2006/07 Requesting 672 flashing lights & bells 10% Federal match Funds 12) 649 Springdale 0.55 mile west of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install BC $13,000 2006/07 Requesting Road flashing lights & bells 10% Federal match Funds 13) 633 Klines Mill 0.13 miles west of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install BC $19,500 2006/07 Requesting Road flashing lights & bells 10% Federal match Funds 06/14/05 LU z z p a o W z= W z O F- a (~j - V w J va Z p C �� Q fY 0 ON G �� 0 J 0 V N W 14) 668 Bransone 0.22 miles SE of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -install SW $19,500 2006/07 Requesting Spring Road flashing lights & gates 10% Federal match Funds 15) 727 Belle Grove 0.04 miles west Rt. 624 R/R Crossing -Install BC $19,500 2006/07 Requesting Road flashing lights & bells 10% Federal match Funds 16) 853 Sinking Spring 0.06 miles south Rt. 751 R/R Crossing -Install BC $25,000 2006/07 Requesting Lane flashing lights & 10% Federal gates/improve crossing match Funds 17) 809 Mcfarland 0.02 miles south Rt. 817 R/R Crossing- Instali BC $19,500 2006/07 Requesting Road flashing lights & gates 10% Federal match Funds 18) 671 Woodside 0.30 miles east Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Improve SW $5,500 2006/07 Requesting Road crossing 10% Federal match Funds 19) 704 Back Creek 0.05 miles south Rt. 617 install Box Culvert BC $95,000 2006/07 Road 20) 704 Back Creek 1.18 miles south Rt. 617 Install Box Culvert BC $80,000 2006/07 Road 21) 1065 Ridgefield Various roads Plant Mix OP $80,000 2007/08 Subdivision 22) 1020 The Meadows Various roads Plant Mix OP $54,000 2007/08 Subdivision Frederick County Major Road Improvement Projects 2006/2007 thru 2011/2012 M, N W E S 1. Aylor Road - Phase 2 Proposed Major Road Improvement Project 2. Greenwood Road 3. Sulphur Springs Road City / Town Bounday DRAFT 4. Inverlee Way (Revenue Sharing) 5. Papermill Rd (Revenue Sharing) Frederick County Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects Scheduled List 2006/2007 thru 2011/2012 1. Adams Road Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects (HRI) 2. Back Creek Road - northern portion3. Back Creek Road - southern portion City / Town Bounday DRAFT 4. Gough Road - southern portion 5. Gough Road - northern portion 6. Ebenezer Church Road UNscheduled Road Improvements 2006 - 2012 Road Types Primary Roads Secondary Roads I County 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles Frederick County Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects Unscheduled 2006/2007thru 2011/2012 1 r" f f: f r'� +� r l,. 0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles Frederick County Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects Unscheduled 2006/2007thru 2011/2012 1 • C C: COUNTY of FREDERICK De .artment of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAY: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner _5K—(,�' RE: Public Hearing - 2006-2007 Primary Road Improvement Plan DATE: June 20, 2005 The Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan focuses on improvements to existing major and minor arterial roads within Frederick County. Arterial roads in Frederick County include Routes 7, 11, 37, 50, 55, 277, and 522. The Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan is updated annually through a public hearing process involving reviews by the Transportation Committee, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The adopted plan is submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration during the funding process. Route 37 remains the top priority recommendation, followed by improvements to Fairfax Pike (Route 277); improvements to Route 11; spot improvements to intersections along Routes 50 and 277; and finally the establishment of a commuter parking and ride share lot on Route 7. The Frederick County Transportation Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the Draft 2006-2007 Primary Road Improvement Plan during their meeting held on June 7, 2005. Please find attached a copy of the Draft Primary Road Improvement Plan for 2006-2007, including a staff prepared map showing project locations. After a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the proposed update to the 2006-2007 Primary Road Improvement Plan would be appropriate. SKE/bad Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 70(16-7607 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PIAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT Frederick County Transportation Committee: Recommended Approval on June 7, 2005 Frederick County Planning Commission: Pending Frederick County Board of Supervisors: Pending 1) Route 37 Eastern Bypass (Alternative C) A. Route 37 - Phase 1 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the southern segment of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass from Interstate 1-81 to Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) and the northern segment from Interstate 81 to Route 37. (As illustrated on map as priority IA) B. Note: It is intended that the first phase of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), as identified under item #2, shown below, be programmed for construction following the completion of Phase 1 of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass. (As illustrated on map as priority IB) C. Route 37 - Phase 2 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the preferred alternative between Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) and Interstate 81 to the north of Exit 317. (As illustrated on map as priority 1 C) 2) Route 277 (East of Stephens City) From: I-81/Route 277/Route 647 Intersection (East of Stephens City) To: Route 340/Route 522 South Intersection (East of Double Toll Gate) Phase 1: From the 1-81/277 Interchange to Route 636 (As indicated under note for priority JB) Phase 2: From Route 636 to Route 340/Route 522 (As indicated on map as priority 2) County staff to work with site developers to acquire dedicated right-of-way and achieve grading, drainage, and construction improvements in conjunction with development projects which occur along the corridor until such time that funding is available for construction. Establish a construction schedule for the phased improvement of Fairfax Pike (Route 277). Program funding for the completion of right-of-way acquisition and construction of each phase as described above. 3) Route 11 (North and South of Winchester) A) Establish an Urban Four Lane System From: Southern limits of the City of Winchester To: Intersection of Route 37 South, Exit 310 (As illustrated on map as priority 3A) B) Establish an Urban Four Lane System From: Northern limits of the City of Winchester To: Intersection of Route 761 (As illustrated on map as priority 3B) 4) Spot Improvements A) Route 50117 Program funds to initiate engineering and design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction involving the relocation of the existing entrance to Carper's Valley Golf Club to align with the major collector road entering the Ravens Development; to construct a new crossover at this intersection location with turn lanes on Route 50/17; and, to eliminate the existing crossover serving Carper's Valley Golf Club. This spot safety improvement will ensure conformance with the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) and the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan's Eastern Road Plan. (As illustrated on map as priority 4A) B) White Oak Road and Route 277 Program funds to install Traffic Light at intersection of White Oak Road (Route 636) and Fairfax Pike (Route 277) (As illustrated on map as priority 4B) 5) Commuter Park and Ride Lots Establish a new park and ride facility along the Berryville Pike (Route 7) corridor. Work with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to determine appropriate locations for park and ride facilities at other strategic locations within the County's Urban Development Area. (As illustrated on map as priority 5) 862 nic 3B 37 IF -IN 37, V A 4A Ic 3A dr 2006-2007 ic Primary Road JUN", Improvement Plan 1A DRAFT Primary Road Improvement Projects 1 A Route 37 - Phase I J---- 18 Route 277 Phase One 11 Qa 1C Route 37 Phase 2 b "2 Route 277 Phase Two 3A Route 11 South 48N 3B Route 11 North W 4A Route 50117 Spot Improvement S 4B White Oak Rd Spot Improvement Created by 5 Route 7 Commuter Park & Ride Lots Frederick County i,*,k_ Rt 37 By Pass Dept of Planning & Development County Boundary May 24, 2005 L—J City i Town Bounday COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner SC RE: Public Hearing — 2006-2007 Interstate Road Improvement Plan DATE: June 20, 2005 The Frederick County Interstate Road Improvement Plan is updated annually through a public hearing process involving reviews by the Transportation Committee, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The adopted plan is submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration during the funding process. The proposed Interstate Road Improvement Plan includes all projects on last year's plan with the addition of spot improvements along Interstate 81. The Frederick County Transportation Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the Draft 2006-2007 Interstate Road Improvement Plan during their meeting held on June 7, 2005. Please find attached a copy of the Draft Interstate Road Improvement Plan for 2006-2007, including a staff prepared map showing project locations. After a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the proposed update to the 2006-2007Interstate Road Improvement Plan would be appropriate. SKE/bad Attachments 107 North Rept Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2006-2007 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT Frederick County Transportation Committee: Recommended Approval on June 7, 2005 Frederick County Planning Commission: Pending Frederick County Board of Supervisors: Pending I-81 Improvements: Provide additional travel lanes on the main line, collector -distributor lanes adjacent to the main line, modifications to existing interchange areas, and develop new interchange areas and bridge crossings of the main line as recommended by the Interstate 81 Study and the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS). Moreover, the County of Frederick supports exploration of the potential for rail transportation as a component of the Interstate 81 Corridor improvements. A) Extend the Northbound onramp acceleration lane, to include a new ramp bridge over Abram's Creek, and provide improvements at the Southbound ramps to eliminate the short weave condition, Exit 313 (as illustrated on map as priority A) B) Extend Southbound Acceleration Lane, Exit 310 From: Route 37 To: Southbound I-81 (as illustrated on map as priority B) C) Widen I-81 from Fairfax Pike to Route 37 North. This should include the relocation of the 277 Interchange, Exit 307, further south to alleviate existing and future congestion on Fairfax Pike. From: Route 277, Exit 307 To: Route 37 North, Exit 310 (as illustrated on map as priority C) D) Widen Remainder of I-81 in Frederick County From: West Virginia line To: Warren County line (as illustrated on map as priority D) E) Spot Improvements on I-81 in Frederick County. Provide spot improvements at various interchanges and rest area ramps to increase capacity and/or enhance safety for the motoring public. - i {�' F�f J/ Ff✓ r� - ,' C t`d%lll; s 2006-2007 Interstate Improvement Plan 4 DRAFT Interstate 81 Improvements \` • N r, A Exit 313 WE i p ID B Exit 310 C Widen 307 -317 l f AOF D Widen N & S ______ — --- iCity 1 Town Bounday Created by Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development May 24. 2005 REZONING APPLICATION #09-05 FREEDOM MANOR Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: June 21, 2005 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 07/06/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 08/10/05 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 26.87 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 70 single family detached homes. LOCATION: The property fronts on the east side of Papermill Road (Route 644), approximately 2,300 feet west-northwest of the intersection of Papermill Road (Route 644) and Front Royal Pike (Route 522) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Vacant/Agricultural Use: Shenandoah Memorial Park Use: Residential Use: Agricultural PROPOSED USE: 70 Single Family Detached Urban Residential Units Rezoning #09-05 — Freedom Manor June 21, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 644 and 522. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to this property. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Freedom Manor rezoning application dated May 19, 2005 and addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Additional details of the proposed emergency access should accompany subdivision plans. Water supplies for firefighting shall meet the requirements of Frederick County Code Section 90-4 or the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code 2000 Edition. Plan approval recommended. Company 21, Millwood Station VFRD: No comment provided. Public Works Department: Under transportation and alternative access option B.4, indicate what circumstances would present the dedication of sufficient right-of-way for a left turn lane if the applicant is providing the land for the subject right-of-way. If the alternative access option referenced above is adopted, indicate if sufficient easements have been obtained to connect the proposed subdivision to Front Royal Pike. The evaluation of stormwater shall also include the impact of increased volumes on downstream channels and drainage structures. If it is intended to use the existing ponds as stormwater management facilities, it will be necessary to perform a thorough evaluation of the subsurface and as - built conditions of the existing structures. Also, the use of retention facilities will require a detailed evaluation. The comparison the projected yearly waste volume from the proposed development to the projected total capacity of the landfill does not adequately present a valid comparison of the impact on the solid waste program in Frederick County. The impact discussion is comparing a yearly disposal rate at build -out with a total capacity. It is estimated that the proposed development will have a yearly solid waste impact cost of $150 per dwelling and will represent an approximate one (1) percent increase in the solid waste generated in Frederick County per year. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: No comment provided. Department of Parks & Recreation: Based on the revised proffer statement dated May 28, 2004, staff recommends the developer be responsible for the construction of a 10' wide bicycle and pedestrian facility within the 20' non-exclusive easement intended for that use. Also, construction of the bicycle Rezoning #09-05 — Freedom Manor June 21, 2005 Page 3 and pedestrian facility should meet this department's minimum standards and maintenance of said facility should become the responsibility of the development's home owners' association. No more than 50% of the required open space shall be within: lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. Staff has not received an open space summary for review. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information included in the application packet, it is anticipated that the proposed 120 single family homes will yield a total of 84 new students upon build- out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding their practical capacity. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. This application does meet the recommended fiscal impact model monetary proffer for schools. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning request for Freedom Manor and it appears that the proposed rezoning request for residential will not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. However, the proposed site does lie within airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport and residents in that area may experience noise from over flights of aircraft departing to and from the airport. Frederick County Attorney: Proffers appear to be in proper legal form and would be enforceable. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the Casey property rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic properties. HRAB comment is not needed and this item will not be scheduled for review at the HRAB's next meeting. Plannina & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies this property as being zoned R-1 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re -mapped from R-1 to A- 2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. In 2002, Rezoning Application RZ07-02, Doris F. Casey, was submitted to the County for a request similar to the one currently presented as RZ09-05. The rezoning proposal requested the development of seventy (70) single family detached residential lots on 30.31 acres with access being via Route 522. At that time the property had frontage on Route 522. Ultimately, the Board Rezoning #09-05 — Freedom Manor June 21, 2005 Page 4 of Supervisors denied Rezoning Application RZ07-02 on December 17, 2002. On August 20, 2003 a Minor Rural Subdivision (Family Division) was approved creating the 26.87 acre parcel for which the rezoning is being requested. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, the Freedom Manor property is located within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan, a study within the County's 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan, does not specifically identify a future land use for this site. It does provide guidance by stating that the development of future land uses throughout the study area should be sensitive to the existing uses and should demonstrate continuity with planned uses. Immediately to the south of this property is the Shenandoah Memorial Park. To the north, east, and northwest of this property area areas of existing residential land uses. Slightly farther to the north and south of the Freedom Manor property are areas designated for Mixed Use and Planned Unit developments which are newer land use designations that seek to promote land uses that are an alternative to the traditional land use patterns that have occurred in the past. These concepts are intended to promote land use patterns that allow for internal service, employment, and intermodal transportation opportunities with public open space linkages between various developments. Other elements of the Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the evaluation of this property include the identification of environmental resources and the development of methods to protect these sensitive areas. Also, the determination that the capacities and capabilities of community facilities needed to serve the planned and proposed land uses are fully addressed. This would include addressing issues relating to the water and sewer treatment facilities, public school facilities, and other community facilities. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan and the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan provide guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the Rezoning #09-05 — Freedom Manor June 21, 2005 Page 5 County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). The subject site has road frontage on Route 644, Papermill Road, and has indirect access to Route 522, Front Royal Pike via a proposed state road connection that would traverse the adjacent parcel, 64 -A -23A. Route 644 is classified as a major collector road and Route 522 is classified as a minor arterial according to the VDOT functional classifications. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan seeks to minimize additional entrances and intersection along Route 522 by identifying additional collector roads and locations for proposed traffic signals. As noted previously, the new road systems depicted on the plan have been, and others envisioned for this area should be, planned to mitigate impacts to environmental features and historic areas. Intermodal opportunities, including bicycle and pedestrian systems, are also encouraged as an objective of the Plan. 3) Site Suitability/Environment There are approximately .35 acres of wetlands present on the site. Any disturbance of this area will be in conformance with Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality permitting procedures. The initial rezoning request for this property provided for the preservation of this area within an extended area of open space beyond that which is provided by the road efficiency buffer. A similar approach would be desirable with this current request. No other environmental features exist on this property. 4) Potential Impacts Potential Impact Summar In evaluating the Freedom Manor rezoning application it should be recognized that the applicant circulated this application for review in 2004. The initial submission considered the development of 120 single family detached residential units on 48 acres. Many of the review agency comments were provided based upon this initial submission. Subsequently, the applicant revised the application to its current form. The evaluation of the review agencies offered previously would appear to remain valid. Staff directed the applicant to obtain an additional review and comment on the latest version from VDOT and the County's Attorney to ensure that any modifications from the initial submission were evaluated and appropriate comments and approval were provided. County records indicate that the applicant is currently the owner of parcels 64-A-19 and 64-A- 20 to the north of the subject parcel. These parcels were part of the initial submission for 120 residential lots. However, the applicant did not include them as part of this application. The Rezoning #09-05 — Freedom Manor June 21, 2005 Page 6 County's Master Development Plan process requires that Master Plans include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. The consideration of the adjacent parcels within the context of this and future applications is encouraged. This would ensure a more comprehensive approach to development within this portion of the County that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property, and is in the best interests of the general public. A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application projects that the development of 120 single family detached residential units would generate 1,200 vehicle trips per day. As previously mentioned, the number of units has been reduced to 70 units. The reduction in the number of units reduces the overall impact of the project to approximately 700 vehicle trips per day. However, the values in the TIA have been maintained to ensure that the impacts of this project are entirely addressed. The conclusions of the TIA remain valid for the application. The report was developed with primary access to the project to being via a primary access on Papermill Road (Route 644) and a secondary entrance on Front Royal Pike (Route 522). The TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Freedom Manor application are acceptable and manageable. The intersection of Papermill Road and the project will operate at a level of service B or better upon the build out of this project. Further, the intersection of the project and Route 522 will operate at a level of service A or better with the build out of the project. Transportation Program. The Generalized Development Plan for Freedom Manor delineates the general public road systems that will serve the residential development. The applicant has designed the public road system to discourage cut through traffic between Front Royal Pike and Papermill Road. A traffic calming measure is proposed to further facilitate this approach. The construction of the public road connection to Route 522 would traverse an adjoining property, PIN 64 -A -23A, owned by Robin Leigh Casey. An agreement between the applicant and the owner of that parcel provides the opportunity for a road connection to be provided across the Casey property. This is a private agreement between the two parties. Robin Leigh Casey is not a party to this rezoning application. However, the applicant has provided the County with a guarantee in the form of a proffer that ensures that this road connection would be secured and constructed prior to the issuance of the first building permit within the Freedom Manor Subdivision. It should be understood that this would be a public road connection built to State standards. The responsibility of ensuring this connection is secured prior to the approval of any development plans for the property lies with the Freedom Manor applicant. Rezoning #09-05 — Freedom Manor June 21, 2005 Page 7 The importance of this proffer and the connection to Route 522 should be recognized as both entrances to the project are needed to ensure that the existing portion of Papermill Road could be utilized with minimal improvements and without the need to obtain additional right-of-way from adjacent property owners. VDOT's approval of the project in its current form is based upon this premise. The Generalized Development Plan depicts that this connection to Route 522 will be located at the southernmost portion of the Robin Casey Leigh property, PIN 64 -A -23A. This provides additional benefits as the adjacent properties to the south would be provided with State road frontage and an alternative means of ingress and egress to their uses. An alternative alignment of this road was evaluated directly in alignment with Vine Lane but was discounted by the applicant. Any other alignment may create a situation where parcel 64 -A -23A would ultimately be a nonconforming RA (Rural Area) lot in terms of lot size and dimensional requirements. The Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance states that wherever possible, the intersection of two streets on the opposite sides of a street shall be cross intersections. Further, any new street intersecting with an arterial street shall have a minimum centerline offset of 800 feet from any other street intersecting that same arterial street. The endorsement of this Rezoning and Generalized Development Plan would provide the County's endorsement of a new street connection on Route 522 that is approximately 400 feet south of existing Vine Lane. It should be evaluated if this modification to the requirements of the Subdivision is appropriate. The road layout has also been designed to provide for a future connection to the adjoining property to the north, PIN 64-A-19. Future development plans for the parcels to the north would be provided with interparcel connectivity to Freedom Manor. It should be pointed out that access to parcel to the north via Freedom Manor would not be immediately available. It would only be permitted upon the satisfaction of any transportation related improvements associated with the development of parcel 64-A-19 through the appropriate development plan approval process. The applicant could further guarantee this scenario by providing that the temporary cul- de-sac and road would not initially connect to parcel 64-A-19. Accommodations for the extension of the connection to the property line would then only occur if all transportation issues associated with the development of parcel 64-A-19 are fully addressed to the satisfaction of VDOT and Frederick County. Placing a proffer restriction on the property that is under consideration for rezoning would achieve this aim. The applicant has attempted to address the concern that was previously raised regarding access from parcel 64-A-19 to Westwood Drive. With the previous 2002 rezoning application, residents of Westwood Drive expressed a considerable amount of concern regarding any connection to Westwood Drive. This parcel is not part of this rezoning application. However, the applicant has provided a proffer that they, as owners of this adjacent parcel, will provide a deed restriction eliminating this road connection to Westwood Drive. The County's Attorney will be providing an opinion on the validity of this particular proffer. An alternative approach that was identified by staff was to include parcel 64-A-19 as part of this rezoning application. This would enable them to place a proffer on the property, which would guarantee the Rezoning 409-05 — Freedom Manor June 21, 2005 Page 8 elimination of the road connection, which would be legallybinding and only removable with the approval of the County. The applicant did not pursue this approach. In recognition of off-site transportation improvements that are envisioned for Papermill Road in the vicinity of Freedom Manor, the applicant has proffered to make a monetary contribution in the amount of $7,500.00 per residential lot to facilitate these improvements. This contribution could be used for general improvements to Papermill Road which may include the realignment of the Papermill Road and Front Royal Pike intersection. The funds generated by this approach, up to $562,500.00, would be available to be used by Frederick County in conjunction with VDOT's revenue sharing program. The applicant has proffered to dedicate twenty (20) feet along the Papermill Road frontage of their property to further facilitate future improvements to Papermill Road. No additional right-of-way has been secured by this application to enable other off-site improvements to be constructed. The inability of the applicant to obtain right-of-way from adjacent property owners in the vicinity of Papermill Road has had an impact on the details and design of this rezoning application. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations have been incorporated into the Freedom Manor project. The applicant has provided for the construction of a 10' wide multi use trail along their Papermill Road frontage and along their entire southern property line to provide connectivity with adjacent properties and uses. It would be desirable to ensure that the multi use trail is extended to Route 522, potentially along the proposed offsite portion of the road providing access to this project. In this particular section, this could be achieved in a similar fashion to the recent construction of the Aylor Road multi use trail. The comments offered by Parks and Recreation pertaining to the trail have been satisfied by the applicant. B. Sewer and Water The Freedom Manor rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 19,250 gallons per day of water usage and approximately 15,750 gallons per day of wastewater. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. The initial review of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the Frederick Winchester Service Authority offered no comment. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. Rezoning #09-05 — Freedom Manor June 21, 2005 Page 9 C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff s Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The Fiscal Impact. Model output for this project indicates a net fiscal impact in the amount of $9,845 per residential unit. This residential impact is consistent with either a seventy unit project or the originally evaluated one hundred and twenty unit project. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $9,845 per residential unit. The comment provided by the Frederick County Public Schools should be carefully considered when evaluating the application. The initial evaluation anticipated that the proposed 120 single family homes will yield a total of 84 new students upon build -out. 70 residential units will yield a total of 49 new students upon build out; 28 elementary school students, 10 middle school students, and 12 high school students based upon the student generation factors utilized in the fiscal impact model. The school comment states that significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding their practical capacity. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Recentplanning efforts have identifiedthat the 11th elementary school antieipatedto open in the fall of 2006 will open at its programmed capacity. This is based upon the transfer of students currently enrolled in area schools that exceed programmed capacities and the projected build out and occupancy ofpreviously approved residential projects in the UDA. The 11 rh elementary school is in the immediate vicinity of Freedom Manor. No additional elementary schools have been identified in the current Capital Improvements Plan for this general area of the UDA. D) Other The Freedom Manor application proposes and proffers a significant buffer adjacent to the Shenandoah Memorial Park property. The buffer would consist of a fifty foot area outside of the residential lots within which evergreen landscaping would be provided, the bicycle and pedestrian facility would meander, and a six foot high fence would be provided. The fence would resemble a traditional iron fence style for cemetery enclosures. This element of the rezoning application would provide for an appropriate transition between the two uses. Rezoning #09-05 — Freedom Manor June 21, 2005 Page 10 5) Proffer Statement — Dated May 18, 2004 (Revised multiple times through June 16, 2005). A) General Development Plan. The Applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan that depicts the general layout of the site. The purpose of providing such a generalized development plan is to provide the locality with assurances that the project will develop as portrayed, in substantial conformance with the Architectural Site Plan. The delineation of road systems serving the proposed development is a key component of the Generalized Development Plan. B) Transportation. The applicant has proffered the layout of the road systems serving the development, the locations of two connections to existing public streets, the commitment that all transportation improvements will be implemented prior to the issuance of the first building permit within the Freedom Manner project, dedication of a 20' wide strip of land along the Papermill Road frontage of their property, and an off-site road contribution of $7,500.00 per residential lot that may generate up to $562,500.00 for off-site improvements. Also proffered is the construction of a 10' wide multi use trail, constructed to the standards of the Parks and Recreation Department, along the Parkins Mill frontage of the property and the southern property line adjacent to the Shenandoah Memorial Park. C) Buffer Miti ag tion A 50' landscaped buffer containing a six foot high iron style fence has been proffered adjacent to the entire southern property line common with the Shenandoah Memorial Park. D) Monetary Contribution. A monetary contribution in the amount of $9,845.00 to Frederick County, to be provided at the time of building permit issuance, is proffered in an effort to mitigate the impacts associated with this development on community facilities. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 07/06/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Freedom Manor rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to: 1. The capacities and capabilities of community facilities needed to serve the planned and proposed land uses. 2. The location and legal ability to establish a public street connection to Route 522. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. Rezoning 409-05 — Freedom Manor June 21, 2005 Page 11 . Following the required public hearing, a decision regarding this rezoning application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Freedom Manor LAND USE TYPE RP REAL EST VAL $9,177,000 FIRE & RESCUE = 6 Fire and Rescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation Public Library Sheriffs Offices Administration Building Other Miscellaneous Facilities SUBTOTAL LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Net Fiscal Impact Costs of Impact Credit: Required (entered in Capital Facilbies col sum only) $45,095 $300,138 $176,554 $258,828 $107,450 $18,680 $11,056 $14,188 $18,101 $950,090 $0 Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S: Taxes, Other (Unadjusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit $0 $0 $45,095 $644 $49,109 $238,393 $287,502 $205,545 $529,975 $7,571 $24,216 $24,216 $17,313 $90,137 $1,288 $5,224 $5,224 $3,735 $14,945 $213 $9,059 $0 $2,258 $11,317 $8,091 $2,965 $42 $0 $0 $0 $14,188 $203 $17,455 $19,272 $36,727 $26,257 $0 $0 $75,623 $257,665 $31,698 $364,985 $260,941 $689,148 $9,845 $0 $0 LO $0 $689,148 $9,845 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg - -------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------- - ----------------------- --------------------- ----- METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ NOTES: Model Run Date 05/20/05 MTR 'roject Description: Assumes 70 single family detached dwelling units on 26.87 acres zoned RP District (PIN 64-A-23). Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Jutput Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 0.533 0.715 OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Casey - Swisher Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE RP Casts of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) REAL EST VAL $15,732,000 Required (entered in Cur. Total Potential Adjustment For Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ FIRE & RESCUE = 6 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes. Other Tax Credits (Unadiusted) Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $77,305 Elementary Schools $514,522 $0 $0 $77,305 $644 Middle Schools $302,665 $84,187 $408,674 High Schools $443,705 $492,860 $352,364 $908,528 $7,571 Parks and Recreation $184,200 $41,513 Public Library $32,023 $41,513 $29,679 $154,521 $1,288 $8,956 Sheriff's Offices $18,953 $15,529 $0 $3,871 $8,956 $19,400 $6,403 213 $13,870 $$5,083 25,620 $$42 Administration Building $24,322 $0 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $31,030 $29,923 $33,037 $0 $0 $24,322 $203 $62,961 $45,013 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $1,628,725 $129,639 $441,711 $54,340 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $0 $625,689 $447,328 $1,181,397 $9,845 CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $0 $0 LO $9NET $1,181,397 1 $9,845 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.533 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg - - - --------------------- 0.715 ---------------------------------------------------- - ---- ------------------------------------------ METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. ---------------------- ------------------------------------------ ----- 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Model Run Date 04119!04 CMM ---------------------- ----------------------- -------------------- ----- Project Description: Assumes 120 single family detached dwelling units on 47.54 acres zoned RP District (PINS 64-A-19, 64-A-20, 64-A-23). Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - I 24 HALDEMAN 64 A 24 23 A DUBRUELER 64 A 23 Map Features Application /N/ Bridges ^� WU aft �,,, Parcels Lak--fonds Dams Agricultural & Forestral Districts w+- Streams ^1/ Retaining Walla DWO* pwgh Buildings Road Centerlines ftwv opus h N Tanks N South Frederick N W E �.., Traiie S SHENANDOAH MEMORIAL PARK 64 3 A REZ # 09 - 05 Freedom Manor (64-A-23) 0 125 250 500 Feet 30 CROSS 64D A 30 23A WILISCH 64 A 23A 145 21 20 21A ! , ' HIN KLE — I ``_,, 15 B 64D 3 B 21 Westwood�Dr 23 25 WINGFIELD THOMPSON 64D A 25 64D A 26 do 19 DUBRUELER z ¢ A o `a 64 A 19 vWi m v+ a 3 M y+r CP UJ Fp IxN Q p ON LLQ YN SN 4D, F -e- 146 BREEDLOVE o a m a p ¢ 2% 00 w a ,vr 63 A 146 vp ? " N 28 MADIGAN 64D A 28 27 MA DIGAN 64D sow g A 27 l�a�� 24 HALDEMAN 64 A 24 23 A DUBRUELER 64 A 23 Map Features Application /N/ Bridges ^� WU aft �,,, Parcels Lak--fonds Dams Agricultural & Forestral Districts w+- Streams ^1/ Retaining Walla DWO* pwgh Buildings Road Centerlines ftwv opus h N Tanks N South Frederick N W E �.., Traiie S SHENANDOAH MEMORIAL PARK 64 3 A REZ # 09 - 05 Freedom Manor (64-A-23) 0 125 250 500 Feet 30 CROSS 64D A 30 23A WILISCH 64 A 23A ` 4 145 21 20 /Z 21A B HINKLE 21 — 15 64D 3 B 1 ' 23 25 WINGFIELD THOMPSON 64D A 26 ~ DUBRUELER Z Q A� 64D A 25 `rpm®� s�IIrr . 19LL 64 A 19 r> .! 7!' ,�� .. ... —`e-. j W N O N LLQ W Q ' 8R EDLOVE o � Q � m � � Q p 2 640 0400 EU d MAD/GAN 63' A 146 m I a N 28 MADIGAN 27 64D A 28 64D q 27 9 Ai s" to 30 CROSS 64D A 30 23 DUBRUELER fi4 A 23 4- t v A Map Features ^/ Bridges Application ^V C.Nerte - Parcels Lakes/Ponds OOV Dams Agricultural & Forestral Distrlets W� Streams rpt' Retaining Walls Dou61e Ghurch Buildings Road Centerlines Refuge chur,h N �I Tanks C7) South Frederick ... ran: W E S PW --' I REZ#09-05 Freedom Manor (64-A-23) 0 125 250 500 Feet Al Greenway Engineering May 28, 2004; Revised July 28, 2004 Freedom Manor Rezoning October 7, 2004; February 25, 2005 May 18, 2005; June 16, 2005 FREEDOM MANOR PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# Rural Areas (RA) District to Residential Performance (RP) District PROPERTY: 26.87 -acres +/- Tax Parcel 64-((A))-23 RECORD OWNER: Steve A. DuBrueler et als APPLICANT: Steve A. DuBrueler et als (here -in after "the applicant") PROJECT NAME: FREEDOM MANOR ORIGINAL DATE May 28, 2004 OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE: June 16, 2005 Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicants hereby proffer that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 0 y' A'S' for the rezoning of 26.87 -acres from the Rural Areas (RA) District Residential Performance (RP) District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon these applicants and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, identified as Freedom Manor, and more particularly described as the lands owned by Steve A. DuBrueler et als, being all of Tax Map Parcel 64-((A))-23. The property is shown by plat and survey dated January 9, 2002 and revised July 24, 2003, prepared by Mark D. Smith, L.S., of Greenway Engineering, entitled "Final Plat for Minor Rural Subdivision of the Land Standing in the Name of Doris F. Casey" and recorded as instrument number 030029417. File #3230/EAW Greenway Engineering May 28, 2004; Revised July 28, 2004 Freedom Manor Rezoning October 7, 2004; February 25, 2005 May 18, 2005; June 16, 2005 A. Generalized Development Plan The applicants hereby proffer to develop the 26.87 -acre property in substantial conformance with a Generalized Development Plan approved as part of the rezoning application. The Generalized Development Plan is intended to delineate the road systems that will serve the 70 single-family detached urban lots, the general location of road efficiency buffer, the Shenandoah Memorial Park buffer, and the bicycle and pedestrian trail facility. B. Residential Use Restriction 1. The applicants hereby proffer that the 26.87 -acre property shall be developed as single-family detached urban residential lots. All other housing types allowed in Section 165-65 are hereby prohibited. 2. The applicants hereby proffer to limit the total number of single-family detached urban lots to 70. C. Transportation 1. Site Access The applicants hereby proffer to provide access to the 26.87 -acre site through the construction of a primary entrance on Papermill Road (Route 644) and a secondary entrance on Front Royal Pike (Route 522). The applicants shall be responsible for the construction of the internal road improvements and for the construction of all off-site improvements located on Tax Map Parcel 64 -((A)) - 23A. The internal road improvements and construction of all off-site improvements located on Tax Map Parcel 64 -((A)) -23A shall be constructed to base asphalt and open for public use prior to the issuance of the first building permit within the Freedom Manor Subdivision. Furthermore, the applicants shall provide for a temporary cul-de-sac at the northern property boundary to allow for future inter -parcel connection to Tax Map parcel 64-A-19. The entrances, internal road system and temporary cul-de-sac described above are depicted on the proffered Generalized Development Plan exhibit for Freedom Manor. 2. Traffic Calming Measures and Route 522 Connection The applicants hereby proffer to implement a curvilinear street design for the internal street system serving the 26.87 -acre site to discourage cut through traffic between Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) and Papermill Road (Route 644). Furthermore, the applicants hereby proffer to design and construct a traffic choker File #3230/EAW 2 Greenway Engineering May 28, 2004; Revised July 28, 2004 Freedom Manor Rezoning October 7, 2004; February 25, 2005 May 18, 2005; June 16, 2005 between the Front Royal Pike entrance and the residential lots that will be located on Tax Map Parcel 64 -((A)) -23A, as well as construct a right turn and taper lane to this entrance within the Front Royal Pike right-of-way that will. he open for public use prior to the issuance of the first building permit within the Freedom Manor Subdivision.. 3. Elimination of Westwood Drive Connection The applicants hereby proffer that they will not make a road connection to Westwood Drive (Route 822). This guarantee will be achieved through a deed restriction upon the pertinent property, identified as Tax Map 64-((A))-19 and currently owned by the applicants, upon final approval of this rezoning. The applicant will legally record this road connection restriction within 30 days of final rezoning approval to ensure that this restriction appears in the chain of title for Tax Map parcel 64-A-19. 4. Papermill Road Dedication The applicants proffer a right-of-way dedication of twenty -feet in width along the entire Papermill Road frontage on the subject property.. 5. Offsite Road Contribution The applicants hereby proffer to contribute seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per unit for offsite road improvements to Papermill Road, including the realignment of the Papermill Road and Front Royal Pike intersection and other associated Papermill Road improvements. The contribution will be paid to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia for each residential lot that is platted. This monetary contribution is to be paid at the time of the building permit issuance for each residential lot. 6. Revenue Sharing All of the monies paid pursuant to above item 5, Papermill Road Improvements, together with the property value of land dedicated as public road right-of-way through above item 4, Papermill Road Dedication shall be eligible for inclusion in the Frederick County contribution to an applicable highway improvement revenue sharing project. D. Shenandoah Memorial Park Buffer The applicants hereby proffer to provide a fifty -foot (50') buffer along the entire southern property line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park. The fifty -foot (50') buffer will not contain any portion of residential lots developed within the File #3230/EAW 3 Greenway Engineering May 28, 2004; Revised July 28, 2004 Freedom Manor Rezoning October 7, 2004; February 25, 2005 May 18, 2005; June 16, 2005 26.87 -acre property. A fence that is a minimum of six feet (6') in height, resembling a traditional iron fence style for cemetery enclosures will be constructed within the buffer along the shared Shenandoah Memorial Park property line. A bicycle and pedestrian trail facility will be constructed within a twenty -foot (20') non-exclusive easement, located adjacent to this fence. In the remaining thirty-foot (30') portion of the buffer, a single row of evergreen trees will be planted on ten -foot (10') centers. E. Papermill Road (Route 644) Road Efficiency Buffer Easement Within the required road efficiency buffer the applicants hereby proffer to provide a twenty -foot (20') non-exclusive easement for the development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility within the established fifty -foot (50') road efficiency buffer along Papermill Road (Route 644). F. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility The applicants hereby proffer to construct a ten -foot (10') wide asphalt bicycle and pedestrian facility within the twenty -foot (20) non-exclusive easement as stated in Proffers D and E above. The maintenance of this facility shall initially be the responsibility of the homeowners' association, and will be available for dedication to the Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation if requested in writing by Frederick County. G. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above-described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # 0 q `0 ! is approved, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia $9,845 for each residential lot that is platted. This monetary contribution is to be paid at the time of the building permit issuance for each residential lot. File #3230/EAW 4 Greenway Engineering May 28, 2004; Revised July 28, 2004 Freedom Manor Rezoning October 7, 2004; February 25, 2005 May 18, 2005; June 16, 2005 H.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Steve A. DuBrueler Date By:v1— Ray N. DuBrueler Date By: Madeline F. DuBrueler Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/CountyofTo Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 91t day of A-M(C { Notary Public ; J My Commission Expires F File #3230/EAW \ i — FUTURE SS-RO��. T.M. 64-((A))-20 ..- ---- --- ,!\ �. ------------- � PROFF�R TO R 6T G, o o �U= WESTWOOD �Ej % �� _ —..--- – —---- WEST OOD DRiv� \'.T.M. 64-i ) g r 'ROAD EFFICIENTCY BUFFER AND l -i 02 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY \�\ _ ` W m Z o Q w TRAFFIC CHOKER W 2 S F \ SHENANDOAH MEMORIAL PARK 0 x a r �\ BUFFER AND BICYCLE AND LBUCBIWOOCI Driv� W10 U PEDESTRIAN FACILITY 1-- ---- W Z W Ln \ o J d W a LL Z N Q \\� . - - m \ - -- --_7 _�-._. 4t30AK --------- \ 'I - Shenandoah MH f—IGNEDav HNWXE SHEET 1 OF 1 IMPACT STATEMENT FREEDOM MANOR REZONING Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia TM 64-((A))-23 26.87 Acres April 21, 2004 Revised July 27, 2004 Revised October 7, 2004 Revised April 18, 2005 Current Owners: Steve A. DuBrueler, et als Contact Person: Evan Wyatt, AICD Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 File #3230/EAW/ajc Greenway Engineering April 21, 2004 Freedom Manor Rezoning Revised July 27, 2004 Revised October 7, 2004 Revised April 18, 2005 FREEDOM MANOR REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of a 26.87 -acre subject property identified as Freedom Manor and owned by Steve A. DuBrueler, et als. The subject property consists of one parcel, that being: TM 64-((A))-23 containing 26.87 -acres. The subject site is located on the east side of Papermill Road (Route 644), approximately 2,300 feet west-northwest of the intersection of Papermill Road and Front Royal Pike (Route 522). The current zoning is RA (Rural Areas) District. The applicants propose to conditionally rezone the 26.87 -acre parcel from RA to RP (Residential Performance) District. (Reference Attachment 1. Location and Existing Zoning Exhibit for Freedom Manor) Basic information Location: Fronting on the east side of Papermill Road (Route 644), approximately 2,300 feet west-northwest of the intersection of Papermill Road and Front Royal Pike (Route 522) Magisterial District: Property ID Numbers: Current Zoning: Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning: Total rezoning area: Proposed build -out Shawnee 64-((A))-23 RA District Agricultural, Unimproved Residential, Single-family detached RP District 26.87 acres 70 Single-family detached residential lots File #3230/EAW/ajc 2 Greenway Engineering April 21, 2004 Freedom Manor Rezoning Revised July 27, 2004 Revised October 7, 2004 Revised April 18, 2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The development proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, 1999, Southern Frederick Land Use Plan (SFL UP), map page 6.42.9. The site is within the Urban Development Area and the Sewer and Water Service Area. The property is located between two developing corridors (Papermill Road and Front Royal Pike), which includes existing residential and commercial land uses, and future planned unit development and mixed commercial land uses. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject site, consisting of tax parcel 64-((A))-23, is located within a manmade boundary created by Papermill Road (Route 644) on the western frontage of the property and Front Royal Pike (Route 522) near the eastern side of the tract. The primary access to the subject site will occur through the construction of an entrance on Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and an entrance on Papermill Road (Route 644), with an eventual connection to the adjoining tax map parcel 64-((A))-19 immediately north of the site. A Generalized Development Plan (GDP) has been submitted as a proffered exhibit. The GDP identifies the general road layout, which prohibits access to Westwood Drive (Route 822). (Reference Attachment 4. Generalized Development Plan Exhibit for Freedom Manor) 2. Flood Plains The subject property can be found on FEMA NFIP map 4510063-0200-B. The entire site is located outside the 100 -year flood plain in designated "Zone C". File #3230/EAW/ajc 3 Greenway Engineering April 21, 2004 Freedom Manor Rezoning Revised July 27, 2004 Revised October 7, 2004 Revised April 18, 2005 3. Wetlands There is approximately 0.35 of an acre of wetlands on this site. Any disturbance of this area will be in conformance with Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality permitting procedures. (Reference Attachment 2. Existing Wetlands Exhibit for Freedom Manor) 4. Soil Types The soil types contained in this tract have been obtained from the Frederick County GIS database. (Reference Attachment 3. Existing Soils Exhibit for Freedom Manor) The subject site contains the following three soil types: 3B Blairton silt loam 2-77' slope covers approximately 189' of site 9B Clearbrook channery silt loam 2-770 slope covers approximately 800" of site 41D Weikert-Berks channery silt loam 15-25% slope covers approximately 2.00/' of site Table 5 on page 123 of The Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia, identifies the Blairton Silt loam soils as prime farmland. The remaining soil types on site are not identified within this table. 5. Other Environmental Features The site does not contain areas of steep slope or woodlands as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining propertyzoning oning and present use: North: RP (Residential Performance) District RA (Rural Areas) District South: B2 (Business General) District RA (Rural Areas) District East: RP (Residential Performance) District RA (Rural Area) District West: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Residential Use: Unimproved Use: Funeral home Use: Commercial cemetery Use: Residential Use: Residential/Commercial Use: Unimproved File #3230/EAW/aje 4 Greenway Engineering April 21. 2004 Freedom Manor Rezoning Revised July 27, 2004 Revised October 7, 2004 Revised April 18, 2005 C. TRANSPORTATION Access to the site will occur through the construction of a primary entrance on Papermill Road (Route 644) and a secondary entrance on Front Royal Pike (Route 522). A temporary cul-de-sac will be provided at the northern property boundary to allow for a future inter - parcel connection. Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and Papermill Road (Route 644) meet at a signalized intersection just to the south of the subject property. The configuration of internal streets in this subdivision is designed to discourage cut through traffic between Front Royal Pike and Papermill Road. Plans for future access have been provided through a planned connection to the adjoining tax map parcel 64-((A))-19 located to the north. A deed restriction will be recorded which will prohibits access between the subject property, via the existing platted right-of-way, and Westwood Drive (Route 822). A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the subject site by Patton Harris Rust and Associates, PC, dated July 22, 2004. At the time of the preparation of the TIA 120 lots were planned for the Freedom Manor project. Since that time the proposal has been reduced to 70 lots. The reduction in the number of lots reduces the overall impact, but the relative values reflected in the TIA remain generally the same. The TIA provides actual traffic counts for Papermill Road and Front Royal Pike, as well as AM and PM peak hour counts for the intersection of these two road systems. The TIA assumes ten VPD per household for the 120 lots projected at that time, resulting in an average daily traffic volume of 1,200 VPD for the project. The TIA includes background traffic volumes and also projects an average traffic growth rate of 5% on Front Royal Pike and Papermill Road. The additional traffic, coupled with the then 1,200 VPD from the Freedom Manor project result in a level of service (LOS) `B" for the impacted intersection at build -out. Furthermore, the link analysis for impacts to Front Royal Pike maintains a level of service "A" during both AM and PM peak hour, while the link analysis for impacts to Papermill Road result in a LOS `B" during both AM and PM peak hour. The results of the TIA demonstrate that the traffic impacts associated with Freedom Manor are acceptable and manageable. The applicants have incorporated a transportation proffer section as a component of the overall proffer statement. These proffers are provided to ensure that Frederick County and VDOT are provided with adequate guarantees for full intersection improvement design, construction and bonding and to address traffic calming measures internal to the project. These proffered measures coupled with the results of the TIA will adequately mitigate the transportation impacts associated with the Freedom Manor Subdivision. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The 26.87 -acre property is located in the southeastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). There is an existing 8" sanitary sewer main on the west side of Front Royal Pike adjoining the subject site. The principle collector line for the development's File #3230/EAW/ajc 5 Greenway Engineering April 21, 2004 Freedom Manor Rezoning Revised July 27, 2004 Revised October 7, 2004 Revised April 18, 2005 sanitary sewer system will follow the northern boundary of TM 64-((A))-23 in a west to east direction of flow to the existing main. It will be connected to the main in accordance with Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) regulations. Impacts of the proposed rezoning on the sewage conveyance and treatment system are based on the proffered land use of 70 single-family detached dwelling units. Design figure estimates are based on 225 gallons per day (GPD) per single-family detached unit. The figures below represent the impact that this project would have to the sewage conveyance system and treatment system at full build -out of 70 dwelling units: Q = 225 GPD per dwelling unit Q = 225 GPD x 70 dwelling units Q = 15,750 GPD The proposed zoning is estimated to add 15,750 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. The design capacity of the treatment plant is 8.4 million gallons per day, of which approximately 6.4 is currently being utilized. The total build -out of the proposed subdivision would require approximately 0.7 percent of the available capacity at the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant; therefore, adequate capacity, source, and infrastructure are available for this development. E. WATER SUPPLY The 26.87 -acre property is located in the southeastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). There is an existing 8 -inch water line along Westwood Drive adjoining TM 64-((A))-19. A 20 -inch main, located on the east side of Front Royal Pike, is a major transmission line from the James Diehl Water Treatment Plant. Impacts of the proposed rezoning on the water supply system are based on the proffered land use of 70 single-family detached dwelling units. Design figure estimates are based on 275 gallons per day (GPD) per single-family detached unit. The figures below represent the impact that this project would have to the water supply system at full build -out of 70 dwelling units: Q = 275 GPD per dwelling unit Q = 275 GPD x 70 dwelling units Q = 19,250 GPD The proposed development would utilize an estimated 19,250 gallons per day. The James Diehl Water Treatment Plant serves the subject area. The treatment plant provides approximately four million gallons per day of potable water. The projected water usage at build -out would account for less than one percent of the current source; therefore, adequate capacity, source, and infrastructure are available for this development. File #3230/EAW/ajc 6 Greenway Engineering April 21, 2004 Freedom Manor Rezoning Revised July 27, 2004 Revised October 7, 2004 Revised April 18, 2005 F. SITE DRAINAGE The 26.87 -acre site has a topographic high spot approximately half way between Papermill Road (Route 644) and Front Royal Pike (Route 522). Approximately 6 acres of the site drains west towards Papermill Road (Route 644) and approximately 20.87 acres flows east towards Front Royal Pike (Route 522). An onsite storm water management pond is proposed to control the increased run-off. Detailed stormwater management design will be conducted during the subdivision design plan process, which will include impacts to the downstream channels and drainage structures, as well as as -built conditions of the existing on-site ponds for stormwater retention. These design criteria will be developed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected based upon each household having an annual average volume (AAV) of 5.4 cubic yards of landfill volume (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4th edition). The following figures show the increase in daily volume based on the proffered density of 70 dwellings. AAV = 5.4 cu. yd. per dwelling AAV = 5.4 cu. yd. X 70 dwellings AAV = 378 cu. yd. It is estimated that the proposed development will provide an approximately .7% increase in solid waste generation annually. The Municipal Solid Waste portion of the Regional Landfill has the capacity to accommodate this increase in solid waste generation. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES 1. Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks The only historic landmark in the immediate vicinity inventoried by the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks is the Evandale School, file #34-433. The former schoolhouse has been converted to a private residence. 2. Winchester Regional Preservation Office Department of Historic Resources There were no archeological artifacts found on the site. The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviewed the previous rezoning proposal for much of the subject property, then known as the Doris Casey rezoning. The HRAB provided a letter dated February 6, 2002, stating that development of the Doris Casey File #3230/EAW/ajc 7 Greenway Engineering April 21, 2004 Freedom Manor Rezoning Revised July 27, 2004 Revised October 7, 2004 Revised April 18, 2005 property would not significantly impact any historic sites. The Frederick County Department of Planning and Development has determined that further HRAB review is not necessary at this time. L OTHER IMPACTS The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been applied to the proffered to the proffered development of 70 single-family detached dwelling units. The results of this model run indicate that the development of the subject site will result in a net fiscal impact of $9,845 per dwelling unit. The applicants have proffered a monetary contribution consistent with the results of the fiscal model run to adequately address this matter. Attachments: 1. Location and Existing Zoning Exhibit for Freedom Manor 2. Existing Wetlands Exhibit for Freedom Manor 3. Existing Soils Exhibit for Freedom Manor 4. Generalized Development Plan Exhibit for Freedom Manor 5. Conditional Zoning Proffer Statement for Freedom Manor File #3230/EAWlajc 8 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. PH208 Church Street, S.E. R—ALeesburg, Virginia 20175 Phone: 703.777.3616 Memorandum Fax: 703.777.3725 To: Evan Wyatt Organization/Company: Greenway Engineering From: Michael Glickman, PE Date: July 9, 2004 Project Name/Subject: Freedom Manor PHR+A Project file Number: 13083-1-0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Freedom Manor site to be located northwest of the Papermill Road/Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) intersection in Frederick County, Virginia. The project is to include a total of 120 single family detached residential units with primary site -access to be provided along Route 522 and secondary site -access to be provided along Papermill Road. The development will be built -out in a single transportation phase by the year 2006. PHR+A has provided Figure 1 to illustrate the location of the Freedom Manor site with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Freedom Manor site were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of the Freedom Manor trip generation, • Distribution and assignment of the Freedom Manor generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and levels of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. Page 1 of 11 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum To: Evan Wyatt Page 2 of 11 No Scale — H. t:1 t Freedom Manor Figure 1 Vicinity Map Engineers • Surveyors a Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum To: Evan Wyatt Page 3of11 Existing Conditions PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Papermill Road/Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) in Frederick County, Virginia. In order to determine the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along the study area roadway links, a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 9.2% was calculated based upon existing traffic volumes (design hour and 24-hour) published by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Papermill Road/Route 522. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour HCS -2000 levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this memorandum. 2006 Background Conditions PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes along Papermill Road and Route 522 using a conservative growth rate of five percent (5%) per year through Year 2006. Figure 4 shows the 2006 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Papermill Road/Route 522. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2006 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour HCS -2000 levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this memorandum. Trip Generation The total trips produced by and attracted to the Freedom Manor site were established using equations and rates provided in the 7`h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tnz Generation Roori. Table 1 shows the trip generation results for the proposed Freedom Manor development. Table 1 Freedom Manor Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 120 units 23 70 93 80 47 126 1,200 Total 23 70 93 80 47 126 1,200 Engineers 9 Surveyors a Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc No Scale I—MIA l " Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions Memorandum T0: Evan Wyatt Page 4 of 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum To: Evan Wyatt Page 5of11 No Scale w 0 0 0 b Links Analysis LOS = A(A) 522 Links Analysis SITE LOS = A(B) Signalized Intersection .e LOS = B(B) X11 522 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum To: Evan Wyatt Page 6 of 11 No Scale w a� H r b 522 SITE N .�+ O u J N �1 (122)88 j � T (9 43 ✓ v` ✓ 522 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 4- A Figure 4 2006 Background Traffic Conditions Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum To: Evan Wyatt Page 7 of 11 No Scale .p 0 Jo � d Links Analysis LOS = A(A) 522 Links Analysis SITE LOS = A(B) Signalized Intersection LOS = B(B) ,� 11 522 y■■''��■ A AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) �T T � \ �� 1 Figure 5 2006 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum To: Evan Wyatt Page 8of11 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. Figure 6 represents the distribution percentages for trips produced by and attracted to Freedom Manor. 2006 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Freedom Manor assigned trips (Table 1) were added to the 2006 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain the 2006 build -out conditions. Figure 7 shows the 2006 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Papermill Road/Route 522. Figure 8 shows the corresponding 2006 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour HCS -2000 levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this memorandum. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the build -out of Freedom Manor are acceptable and manageable. The following details the HCS -2000 levels of service results: HCS -2000 "Signals" Intersection Analyses: The intersection of Papermill Road/Route 522 will operate with levels of service "B" or better during existing, 2006 background and 2006 build -out conditions. HCS -2000 "Multi -lane" Link Analyses: Route 522, north of the intersection of Papermill Road/Route 522, will operate with levels of service "A" during existing, 2006 background and 2006 build -out conditions. HCS -2000 "Two-lane" Link Analyses: Papermill Road, west of the intersection of Papermill Road/Route 522, will operate with levels of service `B" or better during existing, 2006 background and 2006 build -out conditions. Engineers 9 Surveyors . Planners 9 Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum To: Evan Wyatt Page 9 of 11 No Scale 1 1 W H d O b 522 SITE 522 R_ tT Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages Engineers 9 Surveyors 9 Planners 9 Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum To: Evan Wyatt Page 10 of 11 No Scale .4 w �P M 0 0 o b 522 SITE N � o � N � J � �1 t (122)88 (113)64 � N N ~ o g� 522 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 7 A 1. '" N-1 i Figure 7 2006 Build -out Traffic Conditions Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners 9 Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum T o : Evan Wyatt Page 11 of 11 No Scale w 0 111 a b Links Analysis LOS = A(A) 522 Links Analysis SITE LOS = B(B) Signalized Intersection LOS = B(B) all 0 I -S titt 522 A n DAM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) , H& - Figure 8 2006 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners 9 Landscape Architects REZONING APPLICATION FORM JUIN 7 -005 The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Steve A. DuBrueler,et als Telephone: 540-667-7071 Address: 158 Front Royal Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Steve A. DuBrueler, et als Telephone: 540-667-7071 Address: 158 Front Royal Pike Winchester, VA 22602 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Evan A. Wyatt,_AICP 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Steve A. DuBrueler Ray N. DuBrueler Madeline F. DuBrueler 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Unimproved B) Proposed Use of the Property: Residential 7. Adjoining Property: 63 - ((A))) - 14646 single family residential RA 64 - ((2)) - D single family residential RP 64 - ((2)) — D2 single family residential RP 64 - ((3)) - A commercial cemetery RA 64-Q funeral home B2 64 - (A)) - 19 agricultural RP 64 - ((A)) - 23A vacant comm/res structure RA 64 - ((A))_- 24 single family residential RA 64D - ((1)) - (B) - A single family residential RP 64D - ((2)) - (A) -1 single family residential RP 64D - ((2)) - (A) - 2 single family residential RP 64D - ((2)) - (A) - 3 single family residential RP 64D - ((2)) - (A) - 4 single family residential RP 64D - ((2)) - (A) - 5 single family residential RP 64D - ((2)) - (A) - 6 single family residential RP 64D - ((4)) - 1 single family residential RP 64D- ((4)) -2 single family residential RP 64D - ((4)) - 3 single family residential RP 64D - ((Q)) - 4 single family residential RP 64D - ((A)) - 27 single family_ residential RP 64D - ((A)) - 28 single family residential RP 64D - A - 30 single family residential RP Adjoining Property Owners Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property L __u___ _ a__7 a_ aL_ •d_ a-_ S•—__al__ Lli- a titling the requested property oal bile s1Ue of rear or any propCrLy uli-el:lly across a PUD11l: right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name: Thomas W. & Mabel L. Breedlove 3575 Papermill Road 63-((A))-146 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Dave Holiday Construction, Inc. P.Q. Box 2715 64-((2))-D Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Jose D. Hernandez 800 National Avenue 64 - ((2)) — D2 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Shenandoah Memorial Park, Inc 155 Rittenhouse Circle 64 - ((3)) — A Bristol, PA 19007 Name: JUCAPA 1600 Amherst Street 64 - ((3)) - A 1 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Steve A. DuBrueler, et als 1686 S Pleasant Valley Road 64 - ((A)) — 19 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Robin Casey-Wilisch 21 Peyton Street 64 - ((A)) - 23A Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Paul M. Haldeman, Jr 38 Rouss Avenue % BB&T Trust Winchester, VA 22601 64 - ((A)) — 24 Name: Robert O. & Mildred L. Detlefsen 207 Westwood Drive 64D - ((I)) - (B) — A Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Robert M. & Patsy O. Largent 141 Westwood Drive 64D - ((2)) - (A) —1 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Jeffrey B. & Brenda S. Dodd 155 Westwood Drive 64D - ((2)) - 2 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Raymond N. & E. Jean Mayhew 366 Singhass Road 64D - ((2)) - (A) — 3 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Barbara L. Midkiff 179 Westwood Drive 64D - ((2)) - (A) — 4 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Pau641) - ((2)) - (A) — 5 l D. & Willene C. 224 Quail Run Lane Brooks Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Johnny H. Anderson 197 Westwood Drive 64D - ((2)) - (A) — 6 Winchester, VA 22602 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name: Robert P. & Dorothy E. Elliott 1215 Front Royal Pike 64D - ((4)) — 1 Winchester, VA 22602 Flame: Elwood H. & Turessa K. Fox 1231 Front Royal Pike 64D - ((4)) — 2 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Elwood H. & Turessa K. Fox 1231 Front Royal Pike 64D - ((4)) — 3 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Elwood H. & Turessa K. Fox 1231 Front Royal Pike 64D - ((4)) — 4 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Louise Craig Madigan, et als 1154 Front Royal Pike 64D - ((A)) — 27 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Louise Craig Madigan, et als 1154 Front Royal Pike 64D - ((A)) — 28 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Ann S. Cross 1170 Front Royal Pike 64D - ((A)) — 30 Winchester, VA 22602 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): Fronting on the east side of Papermill Road (Route 644) approximately 2,300 feet west- northwest of the intersection of Papermill Road and Front Royal Pike (Route 522) Information to be submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: TM 64-((A))-23 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service ChawnPP Millwood Station Millwood Station Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School Millbrook High School James Wood Middle School Armel Elementary School 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Parcel Current Zoning Zoning Requested Acres 64-((A))-23 RA RP 26.87 ALL Total acreage to be rezoned: 26.87 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 70 Townhome: 0 Multi -Family: 0 Non -Residential Lots: 0 Mobile Home: 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Hotel Rooms: 0 Office: 0 Service Station: 0 Retail: 0 Manufacturing: 0 Restaurant: 0 Warehouse: 0 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Owner/Applicant: ,Steve A. DuBrueler Ray N. DuBrueler Madeline F. DuBrueler 1 c G. Date Date Date i Special Limited Power of Attorney Col-nty of 'Frederick-, Virginia Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Steve A. DuBrueler, Ray N. DuBrueler, & Madeline F. DuBrueler (Phone) (540) 667-7071 (Address) 158 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 030029417 on Page 0412, and is described as Parcel: 64 Lot: A Block: - Section: _ Subdivision: 23 do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering_ (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan My attomey-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 hergto set my (our) hand and seal this day of -jic; ,200_:'!, Signature(s) i State of Virginia, City/County of , To -wit: JAS I, , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdictionsr�his Zv day ofApc;� 200_,5. My Commission Expires: Notary Public MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION c:) r I O. THE / STANDING IN THE MME / i SHAWNEEDORIS F. CASEY h a' ' AWWT FROMCK JANUARY 9, 2002 tEf fl A All OWAW?'S CERMYCATE THE ABOVE' AND FANG SUROMSnV OF A POR77ON OF THE LAND OF DORIS F. CASEY, AS APRE4RS ON THE ACCOAPPN MNG PLATS IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT MIO /N AGCOAW4E WTH THE DESIRES OF THE lA1/DEJ?_gW0 OWNERS, PROPRIEi7RS, AND 7RUSIMS, IF ANY. COM OF VIRGYAW I CITY /N7Y _ a&ri ck_ , TO Wff. THE Fi1REC,aAfG OWNER'S COMF7CA7F WAS ACKNO*UE)GEO BEFORE ME 7H/S 54-k Q4Y OF 2QQ3 BY Di5 F (3Q .�eV j 71- til Q_5 — , SURVEYOR'S CERWYCATE I HEREBY CERTIFY 774AT THE LAND CONTAIN® IN THIS MINOR RURAL SUBDMSION IS A PORTION OF THE [AND CONVEYED 70 DaW F. CASEY, BY WILfTt� IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERKS LS. ear TAX PARCEL IDEAITIF7G41TON DORS F. CASEY 77d 64-((A))-23 30.3100 ACRES ZONE R4 USE RESID/YAG4NT FAMILY 000N GRANTEE NEW T.M. 64-A-234 3.4367 ACRES •- ROBIN LOCH G4aY (LAUGHTER) APPR/jOVAW. 7 Engineers Surveyors in 1971 iz S w 63 a4 TE ,42,0&Z_,0 DATE WAY ENGINEI 151 ■ n mr HIM tui VWCEiUTM YA. 886M =mpmm ("o) 668-4185 TAX (Dao) 7=-9586 MARK D. SMITH 5 No.002009 -7,ZI-4.01i„4j 3230 SFIM 1 of 4 ADVOINING PROPERTY TABLE TAX I.D. OWNa? a>F 7nur 110c" UNE TABLE LEGEND.• p� F+lJ. s ___ ___ _ aW �L/7E PER IRS — IRON REW SET IRF = IRONY AEW FOUND IPF - /ROW PIPE FOUND MON. - CONCRETE A:ONUA/ENT FDUND OVERHEAD QECTRIC UNE FENCE UNE ACREAGE SUMAL4RY NEW TAX PARCEL 64-A-234 = 3.4367 ACRES RESIDUE OF TM. 64-A-23 = 26.8733 ACRES TOTAL AREA .SL47DAVE0 = 30,3100 ACRES NOTES• 1. NO TTTLE REPORT fURAMbED. E4 EMENTS OTHER THW SMWN WY EXIST. 2. THE BOUN11 W INFORMA7701V IS SASED ON A CURRENT nELD SURVEY BY THIS c7RM. 3 7HE BOUNLWY SHOW H£REOW LIES ENRRELY WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIA14L FLOODING, PER FEW FJ)ZM. COA/A/UN/7Y-PANEL 1510063-0200 8 DATED JULY 17, 1978 REVISED. JULY 24 20103 f7AG1L PLAT FOR MINOR RURAL SUBDMS/ON FAMILY DAI&W) OF THE LAAV STANDING /N THE NAME OF DORMS F. CASEY SMWNEE MAG/STERML, DISTRICT, fREDSWK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: NIA I DATE: JANUARY 9, 2002 GREENWAY ENGINEERII 161 wow HuzUm Engineers WMMEMP, VA. Surveyors TZUUIBM&' (640) ee2-4186 FAX- (640)) 722-8628 1971 www gr9salraJeaks.own MARK Q. SMITH 5: No. 002009 -7, ZL-1 •4734j 4 0 POST L (3.23% TM 63-((A))-146 MERD14M TEDD ON �E� SE 6 S THOAMIS W. 49REEDLOVE do IAD 6j (199 VIRGINIA A44BEL L. BREEDLOVE PER CPS OBSERVA jO�y P RRI'" v�+�'�- 599 99 a O.B. 401, PG 672 ,,,,,8" r ZONE. RA USE. RESID. _e23� 1 60 IPF \ Q, (0.3 F COAAP Iir► WG+NK �M fR�F,y� NOR I aECTR► � pc, 285 ---0-E „ as --E �� i rM 64-((3))-A 0 SHENANDAAH MEMORAL PARK, INC.RESIDUE OF © V D.B. 934, PG. 694 'n TM 64-((A))-23 ZONE.• RA USE' CEMETERY 26.8733 ACRES (Z) LQ o Y) © �_ o O 2 o IRF EWE s oras o I E £ IPF tRF 60.08' L3. qEE] SHEET 4 TM 64 -((.3)) -Al IRF L (( W v JUCAPA LC ro j NEW TM 64 -A -23A 0 D.B. 955, PG. 37 j 3.4367 ACRES ZONE. 82 USE. COMM. -- IRS L7 L6 L5 IRS L1 Ex. 20' PftA FRONT ROYAL PIKE srw. SENO f5mT. ROUTE 522 TM 640-((A))-30 D.B. 902, PC. IJW R/W VARIES ANN S. CROSS D.8. 761, PG. 512 250 0 125 150 SEE SHEET 2 FOR GRAPHIC SCALE NOTES, LEGEND, AND LINE TABLE (IN FEET) REVISED: JULY 24, 2003 MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION (FAMILY DIVISION) OF THE LAND STANDING IN THE NAME OF DORIS F. CASEY i. SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGIUM c.) ARK D. SMITH 5 - SCALE: 1" = 250` F DATE: JANUARY 9. 2002 No. 002009 GREENWAY YENGINEERING 7 2Lj � XLANE 04 Engineers WINCHE TER. FULL A. 22802 �d SUR Surveyors TELEPHONE: (540) 662-4185 9528 Founded in 1971 wwww (�� - 3230 SHEET 3 OF 4 it amen yon,. { Oka A9? AAD aj 14 O IGM TRACT civ nt 64-0)-2J DORIS F. CASEY o Wa 94 PaL 5" A3100 ACRES � TRACT 2WJJ Act IRF 0 r B IRF. � � I Ex 4 s 02'.5'0 1 1, E 460,08'• WIAIKNW E:�S Wr %` h c� Z ze NEW LOT \ .1+RW IRS ( L6 a - swk ROUTE' 522 MO t�vr: as M PQ 15M R/w VARIES k is VIRUINIA: FREDERICK MUNTY, SC'I T.Ids Wstrummt of writing waa prodwW to me on IRS } :� - -a at -cy) and with certificate of aftowledgement thereto•anneXe was ada-&ted to rccord. T imposed by See. 58.1-802 o: 100 0 100 /N �" w S , and 58.1-401 have been paid, if assessa lc 4ew 4,4 , Cletk v" i ice o� cd 0 IRF IRS D( 20' PMAIE - Sw • SEll£R Ewr DA 902, PC 1356 CD i A�ER/044� 84 ro ON 1 �1RGIN,(A cRIO PER 991) GPS OBS1 RVA7 ERVATION i + RESIDUE OF TM 64-((A)%-23 SEE SHEET J N 02'35 V I " W 460.08 IPF lE ISIM f7f1SAHG PARAW HOUSEE' t ARFA GRA Y61 RW 1 ! `� • r Q, v a ~FAMILY DM -WN LO"� NEW TAX PARCEL C� l 3.4367 ACE 60' BRL M1 o II L7 c L6 L5 ks IRS 1 ROUTE 522 R/W VARIES 100 0 100 jmr GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) , .- SEE SHEET 2 FOR NOTES, LEGEND, ANO LINE TABLE FIA IAL PLAT FOR MINOR RURAL. SUBDMSION (,AMILY DIVISION OF THE LANA STANDING IN 7HE NAME OF BORIS F. CASEY SHAWNEE MAGISTERAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: I" = 100' 1 DATE: JANUARY 9, 2002 GREENWAY ENGINEER11 151 WINDY HILL LANE � Engineers WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 Surveyors TELEPHONE: (540) 892-4185 FAX: (540) 722-8628 nmifed in 1971 www.gr"rLwayeng.com RiVISED.JULY 24, 2003 VV v vv\/ x MARK D. SMITH 9 No. 002009 4OF4 .rte T,M, 64-(() ROAD EFFICIENTCY BUFFER AND — BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY OB NO 32 s Z cr I > LIJ Q o ^0 LU fn wt: 3 ..� ® ; Wo U LL A- o Liu W w CJI LU W Id z T- U) U) OB NO 32 �r J t o 5 d _ 1 s f. _ 1dV, r:...<- -_ . ., T.M. 64- A -19 '- a 1 t a ■-- P a • s r __...... � � �. (1 } S / " N s� T.M. 64-((A))-23 _,.._. s ZONING LEGEND ss^^E ORA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT 3. RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY RS RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY ® MHI MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT E }x. 81 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT ® B2 BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT ® 83 INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT Ml LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT "- INDUSTRIAL GENERAL DISTRICT ® I EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT ® HE i t � a I � v„rr✓,. y „e,,.,w t i i i 4 1 iK x h _ f T.M.64-((A))-20 f i i t e w e f r k ti t t- i ' ZONING LEGEND ss^^E ORA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT R4 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY RS RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY ® MHI MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT 81 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT ® B2 BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT ® 83 INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT Ml LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT M2 INDUSTRIAL GENERAL DISTRICT ® EM EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT ® HE HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT Z 0 t - _U Z O U) (_ � Z r a �> wz o� ;o Q 2 Y W wr W w w � LuLu �LL _ LL� 0) DATE: 4/20/05 SCALE: 1"=400' DESIGNED BY: HNW/EAW JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 WETLANDS LEGEND r' PUBHh EXISTING WETLANDS T.M. 64-((A))-20 s .. ... . ... t } , e d r ¢ _ p _ .................. r i i Z 0 af w Q a x U w Z_ O U)U U) fff� G CCQQ� G Q w Z U) 0 WETLANDS LEGEND r' PUBHh EXISTING WETLANDS T.M. 64-((A))-20 s .. ... . ... t } , e d r ¢ _ p _ .................. r i i Z 0 af w Q a x U w Z_ O U)U U) Z 6 2� t } , e d r ¢ _ p _ .................. r i i Z 0 af w Q a x U w Z_ O U)U U) Z 6 2� G CCQQ� G Q w Z U) 0 W03c)0 LL O � U WwE2 z W w �w 3:C) H LJ. _ LL U) U) X w DATE: 4/20/05 SCALE: 1"=400' DESIGNED BY: HNW/EAW JOB NO. 3230 _», _ ,u, ,_«_.. ;i r : SHEET 1 OF 1 // �/f�..,. 4 �~/p✓ps^� cif C� t� f W �l -4 - _ __ ..__,_, _ri,._ �.,... � „ 4 I i ..., f f - _ 3 i m, 11 £ ----------- --- may .._.m_._ Jt f f {00 ,.M"' ,...w,✓,..1 e .yam.,., ! f Z •~ i x, U f Ul ff f T.M. 64-((A))-20 6 ri C J f f t I 1111T s T.M. 64-((A))-19 SOILS LEGEND WETLAND AREAS 3B-BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 96-CLEARBROOK CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 2-7% SLOPES 41D-WEIKERT-BERGS CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 15-29 SLOPES AH z O U) i w w a 0 m x LU cn cn 0 Z cn X LU I— U_ O Z p Q Q > w Z o� cf)o 0 Q U � U Www Www Z LL Q W =w co DATE: 4/20/05 SCALE: V=400' DESIGNED BY: HNW/EAW JOB NO. 3230 SHEET 1 OF 1 REZONING APPLICATION #I0-05 WAKELAND PROPERTIES Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: June 23, 2005 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 07/06/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 08/10/05 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 7.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to 132 (General Business) District for commercial uses. LOCA'T'ION: The properties are located east and adjacent to Front Royal Pike (Route 522), approximately 350 feet south of the Papermill Road intersection. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64-A-29 and 64-A-30 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) Use: Residential South: MH1 Mobile Home Community Use: Residential East: MH 1 Mobile Home Community Use: Residential West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Vacant PROPOSED USES: Commercial Rezoning #10-05 — Wakeland Properties June 23, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 522. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to this property. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Wakeland Properties rezoning application dated April 15, 2005 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: The proffer model indicates a $37,571 impact to Fire & Rescue. The tax credits that cover this amount go directly to the general fund and are distributed without regard to the impact to fire and rescue. Plan approval recommended. Millwood Station Fire & Rescue: Proper hydrant space. If the site develops into self -storage, we will need 24 hour access by way of Knox Box. Public Works Department: We recommend that the generalized development plan be revised to reflect the location of Justes Drive and the proposed realignment of Papermill Road. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposed rezoning providing the zoning and any proposed construction does not impact any existing or proposed drainfields. Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request for Wakeland Properties is in conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan and the proposed zoning is compatible with airport operations. It appears that this rezoning will not impact business operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Rezoning # 10-05 — Wakeland Properties June 23, 2005 Page 3 Frederick County Attorney: Please see the attached letter dated January 24, 2005, signed by Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that this rezoning would directly impact. These properties are within the study area of the Second Battle of Kernstown; however, due to the development in the area, they have been deemed to have lost their integrity. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies this property as being zoned A-2 (Agriculture General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning ,Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and the Urban Development Area (UDA). This site is within the boundaries of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan does not identify any specific land use for this site. The plan identifies industrial uses to the east and south. However, a new middle school is under construction east of this site and a new elementary school is planned for the same area. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan identifies a Planned Unit Development to the west. No land use has been designated to the north. At present the site is immediately surrounded to the north, south and east by residential development. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan seeks to concentrate industrial and commercial uses near and around interstate, arterial, and major collector interchanges and intersections. Since the Rezoning #10-05 — Wakeland Properties June 23, 2005 Page 4 adoption of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan in 1999, Justes Drive has been partially constructed and it will eventually form a major collector road linked to Airport Road. In addition, the relocation of Papermill Road south to the intersection with Justes Drive has been added to the County's Draft Six Year Road Plan. Therefore that intersection, located approximately 300 feet south of this site, is evolving into a major intersection suitable for commercial development as per the land use plan. However, given that the site is surrounded on three sides by existing residences, staff and the County Attorney had suggested to the applicant that he consider restricting some B2 uses that might otherwise be allowed on the property. The Comprehensive Policy Plan promotes quality design along business corridors. In particular the size, number and spacing of signs are highlighted for further consideration. Given the prominent location of this site, reduced signage warrants further consideration. Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for a new major collector between Papermill Road and Airport Road. The new Justes Drive, in coordination with a re- routed Papermill Road, will form this connection. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan seeks signalization at major intersections to promote efficient traffic movement and specifically encourages intermodal opportunities including bicycle and pedestrian systems. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan designates Route 522 as a short-term designated route. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplain or wetlands/hydrologic soils on the parcels identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel fall under the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Clearbrook channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes (map symbol 9B), as shown on map sheet number 42 of the survey. An area of Berks channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes (map symbol 113), also exists along the frontage of the site. These soil types are not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of these soil types and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application assumed a maximum land use intensity of 80,000 square feet of general retail uses. Using trip generation figures from the I.T.E.Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, the proposed rezoning is projected to generate 5,874 average daily trips (ADT). The TIA prepared for this application evaluated the impacts of the project generated traffic on two distinct road configuration scenarios. The first scenario reflects Rezoning #10-05 — Wakeland Properties June 23, 2005 Page 5 north of the site. The second scenario assumes the future relocation of Papermiil Road to align with Justes Drive at its intersection with Front Royal Pike south of Shenandoah Mobile Home Park. The TIA indicates that Level of Service C conditions or better will be maintained on study roads and intersections, regardless of the ultimate road configuration scenario. As the applicant did not proffer to limit the floorspace of mini-warehouse/self storage facilities, Patton Harris Rust and Associates provided supplemental information, not included in the TIA, on trip generation from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manuel, 7t' Edition. Development of the entire 7.26 acre site with mini-warehouse/self storage uses would produce approximately 442 trips per day (ADT). Peak trips are estimated to total 30 at AM peak hour (18 in/12 out) and 45 at PM peak hour (23 in/22 out). The acreage based projection equates to approximately 180,000 square feet of mini-warehouse/self storage uses on the site (0.57 FAR). B. Sewer and Water A 12" water main extends across the frontage of the subject property adjacent to the Front Royal Pike right of way. The subject site is further traversed by an 8" gravity sewer main. Applying the standard water consumption rate for general commercial/retail uses of 200 GPD per 1,000 square feet of floor area, the proposed use of the project is expected to consume approximately 16,000 GPD of water and produce equivalent sewer flows. The Sanitation Authority and Service Authority offered "no comment" for this rezoning. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff s Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net positive fiscal impact at the build out of the project. However, in recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community to the Fire and Rescue services and Sheriff's office, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $2,000 to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes and $2,000 to Frederick County for Sheriffs office purposes. The timing of this contribution is dependant upon future site development activity. 5) Proffer Statement — Bated June 10, 2005 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP dated June 10, 2005) for the site. The GDP shows a single entrance on Route 522 and a 20' landscaped corridor buffer along Route 522. B) Land Use The applicant has proffered to develop the site with B2 land uses not to exceed 80,000 square feet of gross floor area, excluding the floor area of mini-warehouse/self storage facilities, which shall be permitted on the site without restriction to floor area, except as otherwise governed by Rezoning #10-05 — Wakeland Properties June 23, 2005 Page 6 the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. (Staff Note: While the proffered maximum square footage is 80, 000 square feet, plus mini- warehouse/self storage facilities, the applicant will still be required to meet all criteria in the Zoning Ordinance and may not be able to accommodate 80, 000 square feet of B2 uses. In addition, restricting uses within the B2 District should be considered as per the comments of staff and the County Attorney.) C) Site Development The applicant has proffered to limit site entrances to one as shown on the GDP. Also proffered is a 20' landscaped corridor buffer along the Route 522 frontage which will include mixed ornamental plantings consistent with good site line characteristics for highway entrances. This buffer will be in addition to the buffering and landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has further proffered to limit freestanding signs in the buffer area to one. (Staff Note: The term "mixed ornamental plantings" is imprecise. Staff review ofthe landscape plan, as per the attorney's comments, should be considered.) D) Transportation The applicant has proffered $19,000 for signalization of the intersection of Justes Drive and Front Royal Pike and/or future design and construction of the re -aligned Papermill Road. The applicant has proffered to install turn lane improvements on Front Royal Pike. The applicant has proffered to identify and reserve locations for inter -parcel pedestrian and vehicular access during the master development plan (MDP) and or site development plan (SDP) process. (Staff Note: Given this sites proximity to two schools it might be appropriate to establish the applicant's commitment to pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks and bicycle trails at the rezoning stage. The master development plan (MDP) and site development plan (SDP) stages are administrative processes.) E) Monetary Contribution The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $2,000 to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes and $2,000 to Frederick County for Sheriff's Office purposes. Both of the above contributions shall be made at the time of issuance of the first commercial building permit for the site. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 07/06/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The use of the Wakeland Properties site is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. Attention should be paid to the provision of a sidewalk and bicycle lane along Route 522 and corridor appearance standards for enhanced landscaping Rezoning # 10-05 — Wakeland Properties June 23, 2005 Page 7 and reduced signage. The applicant should carefully examine uses allowed in the B2 District which may not be appropriate given the adjoining residences. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. Following the requirement for a puhlic hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezonin application would he appropriate. The implicant should he prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MI' WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE O. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW I S 7 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET LEESBURG, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 546662-3200 FAX 540-662-4304 E-MAIL lawyersahallmonahan.com January 24, 2005 Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner. Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601-5000 Fi 1 ��} A,1 I� } 2 ! PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Wakeland Properties -- Front Royal Pike (Wakeland Manor Land Trust) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Susan: I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. , ,It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and is legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following: 1. The Rezoning Number should be inserted at the beginning of the Proposed Proffer Statement. 2. The second sentence of the second paragraph, which reads "The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein", should be deleted. The timing of the respective proffers in this Proposed Proffer Statement should be set forth in the individual proffer item. 3. With respect to Proffer No. 1 (Land Ilse), staff should review the permitted uses in the B-2 district to determine whether any other uses should be proffered to be prohibited, given the specific characteristics of this site. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner January 24, 2005 Page 2 4. In Proffer No. 2.2, the time of the installation of the landscaped corridor buffer should be set forth, and should probably provide that the buffer will be installed prior to the issuance of the first building permit on the site. Also, this proffer should provide for County staff approval of the landscaping design, unless staff feels that existing zoning ordinance landscaping regulations are sufficient to control the (lesign. 5. With respect to Proffer No. 3. 1, it would appear that the Applicant may not intend to develop the site under a single site plan, but rather development on the site may be incremental. Therefore, under the proposed pronul-ierffer, there eico is be ni up to 79,000 square feet of floor area l�n act analysis (TIA) is required. warehouse/self-storage facilities) before a trafficp Y The County should deterliline if this is acceptable for this site. If this is acceptable to the County, the proffer should. further provide that any road improvements rlor to the indicated by the TTA shall be made by Applicant, iApplicant's issuance of an occupancy permit for any floor area n excess of 79,000 square feet. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific site, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing, please contact me. V RTM/ks truly yours, OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Wakeland Properties Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE B2 Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For REAL EST VAL $5,207,071 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per FIRE & RESCUE = 6 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes, Other (Unadjusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $38,047 $0 $0 $38,047 #DIV/O! Elementary Schools $0 ---- Middle Schools $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV10! High Schools $0 --_- Parks and Recreation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV10! Public Library $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/01 Sheriffs Offices $0 $3,116 $0 $0 $3,116 $3,116 $0 #DIV/0! Administration Building $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/O! Other Miscellaneous Facilities $0 $7,471 $8,249 $15,720 $15,720 $0 #DIV/0! SUBTOTAL $38,047 $10,587 $8,249 $0 $18,836 $18,836 $19,211 #DIV10! LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $3,660,133 $3,660,133 $3,660,133 ($3,660,1331 #DIV/0! NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $0 #DIVlO! INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 ---------------------------------------------- PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 ------------------------- Ratio to Co Avg 1.342 METHODOLOGY: 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. --------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -------------------- 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include ---------------------------------------------- include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- are debt financed. ---------------------------------------------- NOTES: Model Run Date 06/20/05 SKE --------------------- ---------------------- ------------------- --- -------------------- Project Description: Assumes 80,000 square feet of retail use on 7.26 acres zoned B2 District Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. ESTHER T 64 A 33 64 4 A BURGHOLZER, JAMES P GRIFFITH, FLOYD C & ANNE 0 64 A 32 WILLIS, MARGARET C ETALS 64 A 30 64 A 31 WAKELAND MANOR LAND TRUST TEVALT, PATRICK H 64 A 28 WALLACE, RANDALL S --1 C CA Map Features 64 A 29 WAKELAND MANOR LAND TRUST Zoning REZ # 10 05 Application Bndges Culverts B1 (Business, Neighborhood District - ) * MS (Medical Support District) Lakes/Poods ^Dams 'J B2(Business, General District) Q R4(Residential, Planned Community District) Wakeland Properties �+.-- streams ^/ Retaining Walls �' B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) 9 R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) Buildings Tanks Road Centerlines ev ' EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) + HE (Higher Education District) Q RA (Rural Areas District) Q RP (Residential Performance ( 64 A 29, 30 ) 7_., /V *1 M1 (Industrial, Light District) District) Parcels \i Trails n M2 (Industrial, General District) N 0 75 150 300 bSWSA 0�e uDA 4' MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) W E A�"�i11iS��NN//" Feet I�V Bridges /'/ c.1 -ft ' B7 (Business, Neighborhood District) Dams ,, 32 (Business, General District) hyo Retaining Walls ® B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) Road Centerlines + EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) + HE (Higher Education District) + M1 (industrial, Light District) +,,• trails 'C� M2 (Industrial, General District) uDA * MHt (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) Wakeland R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Areas District) (64 - A RP (Residential Performance District) N 0 75 150 300 WE S Feet RtZ# 10 -05 TAlalkelan+d Properties (64-A-29, 30 ) Proffer Statement PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # 10-05 Rural Areas (RA) to Business General (B2) PROPERTY: 7.26 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 64-A-29 & 30 (the "Property') RECORD OWNER Wakeland Manor Land Trust APPLICANT: Wakeland Manor Land Trust PROJECT NAME: Wakeland Properties - Front Royal Pike ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 10, 2005 REVISIONDATE(S): N/A Wakeland Properties The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced B2 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning maybe contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Wakeland Properties" dated June 10, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shallinclude the following: 1. Land Use 1.1 The development of the site with B2 land uses shall not exceed 80,000 square feet of gross floor area, excluding the floor area of mini-warehouse/self-storage facilities, which shall be permitted on the site without restriction to floor area except as otherwise governed by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Page 1 of 3 6/10/05 Proffer Statement 2. Site Development Wakeland Properties 2.1 Site entrances shall be limited to one (1) as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP), the exact design and location of which shall be determined upon final engineering thereof pursuant to the specifications and approv 1 of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). (See 1 on GDP) 2.2 A 20' landscaped corridor buffer shall be provided along the Front Royal Pike (Route 522) frontage of the site, which will include mixed ornamental plantings consistent with good sight line characteristics for highway entrances. Said buffer shall be installed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the site, and shall be provided in addition to the buffering and/or landscaping requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance otherwise applicable to the site. One (1) freestanding sign shall be permitted within the buffer area at the project entrance. No other structures or impervious surfaces shall be permitted within the corridor buffer, except those required for utilities and site access. (See 2 on GDP) Transportation 3.1 The Applicant shall place the amount of $19,000 in an escrow account for signalization of the intersection of Justes Drive and Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and/or future design and construction of re -aligned Papermill Road. Such funds shall be escrowed within six (6) months of rezoning approval, and shall be released to the County within 90 days of a written request by the County. 3.2 The Applicant shall install turn lane improvements on Front Royal Pike (Route 522) to ensure safe and efficient site access. The exact location and design of such improvements shall be determined upon final engineering thereof, and shall be in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) specifications. 3.3 The Applicant shall identify and reserve locations for inter -parcel pedestrian and vehicular access during the master development plan (MDP) and/or site development plan (SDP) process. 4. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) to Frederick County for fire and rescue purposes. Said contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the first commercial building permit for the site. 4.2 The Applicant shall contribute the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) to Frederick County for Sheriff's Office purposes. Said contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the first commercial building permit for the site. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES 6/10/05 Page 2 of 3 Proffer Statement Respectfully submitted, WAKE LAND iviANOR By.�� Date: Wakeland Properties STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisday of 2005, by � 1 QAC S—�ci L�n My commission expires on i NotaryPublic Page 3 of 3 6/10/05 Impact Analysis Statement Wakeland Proper,tes WAKELAND PROPERTIES — FRONT ROYAL PIKE REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT June 2005 A. INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the conditional rezoning of parcels 64-A-29 & 30, owned by Wakeland Manor Land Trust, which total 7.26 acres. The subject parcels are located on the east side of Front Royal Pike (U.S. Route 522), approximately 380 feet south of its intersection with Papermill Road (Route 644). The subject parcels are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). This application proposes the rezoning of the 7.26 -acre site to the B2 (Business General) District. The applicant has proposed a short-term development program that involves development of a portion of the site with mini-warehouse/self-storage facilities. However, this application does not propose any limitation on the ultimate commercial land uses possible on the site. The applicant desires to maintain sufficient flexibility to allow the long-term transition of the site to accommodate changes in the local market and the surrounding community. Recent studies concerning actual commercial development intensities in the Winchester — Frederick County area revealed that the average commercial project develops at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.192. For example, Sunnyside Plaza shopping center was developed at an FAR of 0. 12, Delco Plaza at a 0.23 FAR, and Apple Blossom Corners on Pleasant Valley Road at a 0.18 FAR. The average commercial FAR for the area is well below the FAR allowable by ordinance (1.0), and is much less than the "worst case" intensity scenario suggested by the impact analysis guidelines of the county's rezoning application (0.50). It is reasonable to expect this intensity trend to continue, as it is largely facilitated by the site design criteria applicable to all commercial development, which include minimum requirements for parking, landscaping, open space, building setbacks, and buffers. Unless structured parking is provided, it is difficult to increase retail intensity above the historical average and still maintain conformance with applicable site development standards. Thus, while the land use intensities possible under B2 zoning are theoretically significant, the realities of site design and the prevailing retail market effectively limit the ultimate intensities of site development that can rationally be expected. ' Source: Rutherford's Farm Rezoning Proposal Impact Analysis Statement, Floor to Area Ratio Data for Shopping Center and Office Land Use in Frederick County/Winchester, prepared by Greenway Engineering, March 17, 2004. Impact Analysis Statement Wakeland Properties This impact analysis statement therefore assumes long-term commercial build out of the site at an FAR of 0.25, which would yield approximately 80,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. All impacts projected in the following sections of this report are based upon this development scenario. B. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The subject parcels are located within the boundaries of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The properties are located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and Urban Development Area (UDA). The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan does not identify a particular planned land use for the site. The site is generally proximate to areas designated for planned unit development (PUD) and industrial land uses, respectively. The land use objectives of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan encourage the concentration of commercial uses near and around the intersections of major collector and arterial roadways. As noted in the introduction, the site is located in close proximity to the existing signalized intersection of Front Royal Pike and Papermill Road. Moreover, the intersection established by the newly constructed Justes Drive is located immediately south of the site, on the opposite side of the adjoining Shenandoah Mobile Home Court. The land situated between these major intersections forms a prominent node that is ideal for future commercial development. The relative silence of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan concerning the planned land use of the site enables a measure of interpretation as to its most appropriate use. However, when the land use objectives of this plan are considered, it is reasonable to conclude that the site is properly located for commercial use, and that such development is consistent with the long term vision for the study area. The proposed rezoning further constitutes a timely request in the context of an evolving segment of the Front Royal Pike corridor. Indeed, the commercial use of the site will serve a complementary role to the new school complex being developed nearby on Justes Drive, which, once operational, will effectively transform the area into a destination for the larger community. C. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE The site is currently developed with four single family residences, all of which are located on a single parcel of RA -zoned land (PIN 64-A-29) with individual entrances onto Front Royal Pike. Pursuant to the requirements of the RA Zoning District, only one principal dwelling unit is permitted on a given parcel. The presence of four such units on the site therefore constitutes a legal non- conformity, as the subject dwellings were constructed prior to the adoption of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The rezoning of the site to the B2 District will facilitate resolution of these non -conformities, as its ultimate redevelopment 2 Impact Analysis Statement Wakeland Properties with commercial uses will occur pursuant to current site development requirements. Access The subject site has approximately 230 feet of frontage along Front Royal Pike (U.S. Route 522). The site is accessed directly from Front Royal Pike, with each of the existing residential uses possessing individual entrances. The proposed commercial development of the site will result in improved access management along Front Royal Pike. The four existing entrances will be eliminated and a single entrance will be installed as the sole point of access to the site from Front Royal Pike. Such measures will minimize potential conflict points and enhance the safety and efficiency of traffic movement on the impacted segment of this arterial roadway. Environmental Features The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, flood plain or wetlands/hydrologic soils on the parcels included in this application. Soils The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Wei kert-Berks-Blairton soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Clearbrook channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes (map symbol 913), as shown on map sheet number 42 of the survey. An area of Berks channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes (map symbol 113), also exists along the frontage of the site. These soil types are not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of these soil types and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. D. TRANSPORTATION Front Royal Pike is classified as a major arterial road. The segment of Front Royal Pike adjoining the site consists of four travel lanes (two northbound, two southbound) and a center turn lane. The transition area for the left turn lane at the Papermill Road intersection begins at a point roughly coincident with the middle of the site's frontage. 3 Impact Analysis Statement Wakeland Properties The traffic impact analysis (TIA)2 prepared for this application assumes a maximum land use intensity of 80,000 square feet of general retail uses. Using trip generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, the proposed rezoning is projected to generate the following traffic: Proposed Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total ADT Retail -80,000 s.f. ( .l.a. 137 540 5,874 R *g.l.a. = gross leasable area. According to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the average daily traffic (ADT) volume estimated for this segment of Front Royal Pike was 15,000 AADT in 2003. The projected traffic therefore represents approximately 39% of the existing weekday traffic volume for the impacted segment of Front Royal Pike. The projected traffic impact is nominal in the context of a major arterial road that currently experiences relatively free traffic flow along the impacted segment. The applicant has proffered a contribution of $19,000 towards the signalization of the newly formed intersection of Justes Drive and Front Royal Pike and/or the design and construction of the future realignment of Papermill Road. The applicant recognizes that these future enhancements to the transportation network are in the best interest of the community. As noted previously in this report, access to the site will occur through a single entrance on Front Royal Pike. This entrance will be served by a right turn/taper lane, and will be installed as generally depicted on the proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP), pursuant to the specifications and requirements of both VDOT and Frederick County. The traffic impact analysis prepared for this application evaluated the impacts of project generated traffic on two distinct road configuration scenarios. The first scenario reflects the existing external road network, with Papermill Road intersecting Front Royal Pike immediately north of the site. The second scenario assumes the future relocation of Papermill Road to align with Justes Drive at its intersection with Front Royal Pike south of Shenandoah Mobile Home Park. The conclusions of the TIA indicate that Level of Service C conditions or better will be maintained on study area roads and intersections, regardless of the ultimate road configuration scenario. As such, the improvements proffered by the applicant, coupled with the existing configuration of Front Royal Pike, will ensure traffic conditions consistent with the transportation policies of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. 2 See A Phased Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development, dated February 16, 2005, prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc. 4 Impact Analysis Statement Wakeland Properties E. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY A 12" water main extends across the frontage of the subject property adjacent to the Front Royal Pike right of way. Extensions from this main into the site will provide sufficient water supply and pressure for domestic and fire protection purposes on the subject site. The subject property is further traversed by an 8" gravity sewer main. This existing main will provide adequate sewer service to the site. Wastewater produced on site will be conveyed to the Route 50 force main and ultimately to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant via the Abrams Creek Interceptor. Applying the standard water consumption rate for general commercial/retail uses of 200 GPD per 1,000 square feet of floor area, the project is expected to consume approximately 16,000 GPD of water and produce equivalent sewer flows. F. DRAINAGE The 7.26 acre -site naturally drains to the north. It is anticipated that low impact development techniques together with good erosion control practice will mitigate adverse stormwater discharge impacts. Actual specification of temporary and permanent facilities will be provided with final engineering and will comply with all local, state and federal regulations. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The planned development of the subject site is projected to generate 8,000 pounds of solid waste per day (4.00 T/day). Solid waste will be transferred to the Frederick County landfill by commercial carrier. This projection assumes the development of 80,000 square feet of retail uses on the site. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any potentially significant structures on the 7.26 -acre or within close proximity of the properties. Moreover, the subject properties are not located within the core area boundaries of any identified Civil War battlefield. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model was run to assess the likely impact of the proposed project on capital facilities. The output module generated by this analysis indicated that the proposed land uses would result in a net positive fiscal impact. Nevertheless, the applicant has proffered to contribute a total of $4,000 15 Impact Analysis Statement Wakeland Properties to Frederick County to be distributed evenly for Fire and Rescue Department and Sheriff's Office purposes, respectively. This contribution is offered in recognition of the unique demands on public safety services commonly associated with commercial development. on qpl—_ . •w, r ye? • XI 'N p r,` sem, tix • rt--� y, � u a�� :�a�'�.A � Li '!: 0 Ay t -n... - l 1 `S wai tl E ilk a" Red Fax Runi's ftj " r RkY9`.Y..'t w WE- E ryL k r j py..,y�,M r' R .t $ R' "5 e �> f ' "� :Sheri -doah + i i4 x h Mobil Court L. Y WAKLAND PROPERTIES Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc II LOCATION MAP 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 p U a VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGIMM Nain �� Hayfield4� f3_ _� ,p ek e ,mowr' rep on °* 40 41. �k IN 42 Leetm Jordan S A 1 so ' Round' A �' ,. 4f r O�Burnt 53 37a - t (iii - r p f a 4* k3 /1 �i 501 \..hi=oje� ite ` as on it 522 .- 3 I 76 177 1�4rmel .„� 27.,, 84 ! 85 86--#, 716DoubleT Ilgate C L Oak N WAIKELAND PROPERTIES Patton, Harris, Rust &Associates, pc o i� in' ZONING CONTEXT MAP 117 E. PicOdilly St. Vinchester, Virginia 22601 Cb OMCE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGINIA A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeiand Properties Development Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Wakeland Manor, Inc. 300 Craig Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architect. PfP,-+A'00' Avenue, Suite 54 Ma Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 Martinsburg, T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 February 16, 2005 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7t' Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2 was prepared to summarize the total trip generation associated with the Wakeland Properties development. Table 2 Wakeland Properties Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 820 Retail 80,000 SF 84 53 137 259 281 540 5,874 Total 84 53 137 259 281 540 5,874 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the Wakeland Properties development. For Scenarios #1 and #2, PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figures 6a and 6b, respectively, to assign the Wakeland Properties development trips throughout the study area. Figures 7a and 7b show the corresponding development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Wakeland Properties development assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were added to the 2010 background volumes (Figures 4a and 4b) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and AMIPM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PHRn A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330-2-0 February 16, 2005 Page 11 1� No Scale 0 o ro O � a 522 Site -Driveway SITE 522 : � f P, -,,P+/ \ _. Ni - Figure 6a Scenario#1: Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330-2-0 R+A 12February 16, 20HPage 12 No Scale r 0 r � � b 522 0 �a J Site -Driveway SITS Justes Drive 522 Figure 6b Scenario#2: Trip Distribution Percentages PHRA A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330-2-0 February 16, 2005 Page 13 i No Scale � o �f o 571 O b � 32(169) 522 ,e-21(112) SITE � f Site -Driveway M 0 r+. w w �1 (52117 "�~• ,4 •� r Site -Driveway SITE 522 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) ■-T TP + JL 1T N__L Figure 7a Scenarioft Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330-2-0 February 1 R ^ 6, 20 1 Page 14 14H4 No Scale 0 522 1-6 o e-32(169) 4' Site -Driveway 522tno tn a Site -Driveway SITE 522 � N 9 0 Justes Drive JIt (52)17., Justes Drive semi mems_ fn 7 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) LST -YP+A Figure 7b Scenario#2: Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development A Project Number:07330-2-0 R + \ February 16, 2005 PH 111 Page 15 No Scale 0 o v f O a cxo 522 SITE N � O T � V UA � V A 1 522Ln 'x.32(169) (201)157 w j 1 x-21(112) Site -Driveway Site -Driveway SITE 522 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 3 p.., TrP+n Figure 8a Scenario#1: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions AA Trac Impact Analysis o f the Wakeland Properties Development Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330-2-0 P -R , %� February 105 20 F----1 16 Page 16 N No Scale Go AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 8b Scenario#2: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330-2-0 PH'�,tAFebruary 16, 2005 Page 17 1 � 1 No Scale 0 0 0 � A b D 522 SITE Signalized Intersection LOS = B(B) � t a� Unsignalized "New Intersection Intersection" 3r° Leg NB - 1 Right SB -1 Len Site -Driveway SITE ca � 1 � wcr Site-DDriveway 522 iil 522 Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) T AAM Den otes Unsignalized Critical Movement __L N1 X-[ Figure 9a Scenario#1: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330-2-0 R+A February 16, 2005 Page 18 Figure 9b Scenario#2: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330-2-0 RAPageFebruary 16, 19H 19 No Scale H C7 r C, b ND a C C, ' C,Unsignalized 522 "New Intersection Intersection" 31 Leg 0 - - NB -1 Right -at - SB - 1 Left �1 �+B(C)* Site -Driveway fir 572 Site -Driveway SITE Signalized "Assumed Improvements" Intersection Realignment of Papermill Road LOS=B(c) Justes Drive as 41 leg NB - 1 Left, 1 Right SB - I Left, 1 Right Justes Drive U C(C) Justes Drive (C)Cr 522 P? AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) TT�JJ * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Figure 9b Scenario#2: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Wakeland Properties Development Project Number:07330-2-0 RAPageFebruary 16, 19H 19 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff Fee Amount Paid S Zoning Amendment Number Date Received PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, 1. Applicant: Name: Wakeland Manor Land Trust Telephone: 540-869-3644 Address: 300 Craig Drive Stephens City Virginia 22655 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Wakeland Manor Land Trust Telephone: 540-869-3644 Address: 300 Craig Drive _ Stephens City, Virginia 22655 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Charles E. Maddox Jr., P.E., Sr. VP (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 4, Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Wakeland Manor Land Trust Rex Wakeman 6. A) Current Use of the Properties: B) Proposed Use of the Properties: 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached PARCEL ID NUMBER 64-A-24 64-A-28 64-A-31 64-A-32 76-A-1 USE Unimproved Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Self Storage- General Commercial ZONING RA (Rural Areas) RA (Rural Areas) RA (Rural Areas) RA (Rural Areas) MH1 (Mobile Home Comm.) 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The properties are located east and adjacent to Front Royal Pike (U.S. Route 522), approximately 280 feet south of the Papermill Road intersection. 2 WAKELAND PROPERTIES — FRONT ROYAL PIKE Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number: 64-A-29 & 30 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: Shawnee Millwood Millwood Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School: Sherando James Wood Armel 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 7.26 RA B2 7.26 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home 0 Townhome 0 Non -Residential Lots 0 Mobile Home 0 Multi -Family 0 Hotel Rooms 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office 0 Service Station Retail 80,000 Manufacturing Restaurant 0 Warehouse Other 0 0 3 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s) 1��y—� Date 6/10/05 Rex Wakeman Wakeland Manor Land Trust Owner(s) Date 6/10/05 Rex Wakeman Wakeland Manor Land Trust Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Paul M. Haldeman, Jr. Trust CIO BB&T Trust Property #: 64-A-24 38 Rouss Avenue Winchester, Virginia 22601 Name: Randall S. Wallace 1375 Front Royal Pike Property #: 64-A-28 Winchester, Virginia 22602 Name: Patrick H. Tevalt 1351 Front Royal Pike Property #: 64-A-31 Winchester, Virginia 22602 Name: Margaret C. Willis et al 735 Red Bud Road Property #: 64-A-32 Winchester, Virginia 22603 Name: Shenandoah Mobile Court, Inc. 1405 Front Royal Pike Property #: 76-A-1 Winchester, Virginia 22602 Name: Property #: Name: Property #: Name: Property #: Name: Property #: Name: Property #: R Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick Virginia -ick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.ns Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) Wakeland Manor Land Trust (c/o Rex Wakeman) (Phone) 540-869-3644 (Address) 300 Craig Drive, Stephens City, Virginia 22655 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Deed Book 776 Page Number 0685 and is (are) described as Parcels: 29.30 Lot: Block: A Section/Tax Map 64 Subdivision: NA do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates, vc. (Phone) 540-667-2139 (Address) 117 E. PiccadillyStreet, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits X Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: N/A This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until itis otherwise rescinded or modified. y� In witness thereof,, (we) have heretorset 4 (our) hand and seal this 1& day of, , 2005, Signahue(s State of Virginia, City/Conn of L0 r)cAznT _ , To -wit: -MQ h I, !ccno�ODC2,,K-r` � ,%C)T-\ a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this 1041--1 day 4 U�, 2005. R My Commission Expires: Notary Public �_ IPF 0 f / ( �' POST P� N ry � 0865 \ \ q c (!OTA) co / O / 6 Q 0 (o ( N / N � Q (O 2 NOS 3 1' 95' l wy /c �Nc V� X PROPERTY OUTLINE FRO No� 24®50 PROPERTY OF: WAKELAND MANOR 3O3j„w O% RO r� LAND TRUST DEED BOOK 776, PAGE 685 r P /� OPEOUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT iR�W S FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1” = 100' DATE: JUNE 10, 2005 CARIE �2 PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CONSULTING ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - PLANNING 117 E. PICCADILLY STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (540) 667-2139 SHEET 1 OF 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator r' ,-- RE: Waiver Request — Charles and Thelma Snapp DATE: June 15, 2005 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Mr. and Mrs. Charles Snapp are requesting a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance requirement to enable a family subdivision of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. The property is located on Snappy Lane, off Whissens Ridge Road (Route 616), approximately 1.1 miles southwest of intersection with Wardensville Grade (Route 608) in the Back Creek Magisterial District. This proposed driveway access right-of-way is illustrated on Exhibit "A." Mr. and Mrs. Snapp have stated the reason for the waiver request is to provide relief from a 50 foot right-of-way; they currently have a 30 foot right-of-way. Included in the agenda are three letters from Mr. and Mrs. Snapp, requesting an easement from the property owners. All three property owners declined to grant this easement. The requested waiver would only apply to the creation of a single lot, as illustrated in Exhibit "A". A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors is requested. VA F 116711 • Attachments 107 North gent Street, Suite 202 ,Ninchester, Virginia 22601-5000 os a 62E v z �z 11 64 3 GRUBBS \ 4 60 3 4 a so SNgpp 5 4 e? o0 z-, o C so F1sy 6 yJo� 2B o 62 PITCOCK 60 A 62 62G P P 0�r�o 66A 00 66B 60 A r 66B 68 MARPLE 60 A 68 15 14 .j.10% �g�� a NIS 6 7 WINGFIELD 60 3 7 67 SNAPP 60 A 67 8 ADLER 60 3 8 SNAPP 66 60 A 66 4B WAGNER 61 A 413 12 CURLEY 60 3 12 11 O'DONNELL 60 3 11 Ob ON 10 60 3 N_44 10 9 RIGGLEMAN 5 60 3 9 PRICHARD 61 A 5 Map Features WAV # 05 - 05 �A/\/ Ciders pPlicabon ' Parcels °i°r Charles &Thelma Snapp Lakes/Ponds ^V Dams A9r1<Wtural8 Forestral Districts - Streams " Retaining Walls Double Cfwch Buildings Road Centerlines ` � Ref g,Churoh W E 60 - A - 66 Wj Tanks South Frederick Trails S 0 75150 300 Feet / A� h 50 ti Q �V� t''P 00 63A o° 4 so yo �G y F � ci 62D �klql P 0 00 os a 62E v z �z 11 64 3 GRUBBS \ 4 60 3 4 a so SNgpp 5 4 e? o0 z-, o C so F1sy 6 yJo� 2B o 62 PITCOCK 60 A 62 62G P P 0�r�o 66A 00 66B 60 A r 66B 68 MARPLE 60 A 68 15 14 .j.10% �g�� a NIS 6 7 WINGFIELD 60 3 7 67 SNAPP 60 A 67 8 ADLER 60 3 8 SNAPP 66 60 A 66 4B WAGNER 61 A 413 12 CURLEY 60 3 12 11 O'DONNELL 60 3 11 Ob ON 10 60 3 N_44 10 9 RIGGLEMAN 5 60 3 9 PRICHARD 61 A 5 Map Features WAV # 05 - 05 �A/\/ Ciders pPlicabon ' Parcels °i°r Charles &Thelma Snapp Lakes/Ponds ^V Dams A9r1<Wtural8 Forestral Districts - Streams " Retaining Walls Double Cfwch Buildings Road Centerlines ` � Ref g,Churoh W E 60 - A - 66 Wj Tanks South Frederick Trails S 0 75150 300 Feet / a s,9 e 4 ,rA 6 �C 0 66A�?�� w626 psi 66B 60 A r S�E3 ra. v 4w 62EkL11 4•v� , , 5Tt y''7JJSA"7j. �� I ar n PITCOCtK f62 60 A 62 4` o 1 i s � s 'AF i &0 62G F' R� 4B WAGNER 13 6� y 61 A - Q tx: I�wl', 92 CUf�LEY 67 O'DONNELL • 64,�3"�1,1 8 ADLER x , 60 3 8 g ��GyyG .jENIAnH 5 . i 60 3 7 E 8 i SHAPP 66 r 60 A 66 i K-waLSKI 58 61 .A 5B Map Features WAV # 05 - 05 Plication ^/ Bridges Charles Lakes/Ponds Dams /,/De0 Agricultural Agneultural8 Forestral Districts ]v & Thelma Snapp streame Buildings fNs/RehiningWalls Road Centerlines 0DailyaChurch 10 Refuge Church �] E (60 - A - 66 ) 01 Tanks C, South Frederick IV • Trails s 0 75150 300 Feet 1.2 MILES To 1. 1 MILES To ROUTE 618 WARDENswLLE GRADE -ROUTE 608 GOUGH ROAD - WHISSENS RIDGE ROAD (VA. ROUTE 616) _ _ o o WIDTH UNKNOWN OWNER UNDETERMINED D -i ru an_e_a�n 1 cDi LOT 4 JAMES L m n I1 GRUBBS EX. 30' R/W T.M. 60-A-6203 OB 463 PG 281 BRYAN P. PITCOCK T.M. ET UX 60 -A - DOLLY SNAPP Z LOT 5 X D RICHARD W. _ _ FISHEL, ET OZ k UX i EX. 30' R/W LOT 6 DB 463 PG 281 ^� m o z I LOR/N R. r%SUT710N, JR., N XVD kET UX U) rEX. 50' R/W INST. NO. 000003474 < I 1 1 1RUJICG EGRESS EASEMENT T.M. 60-A-66 CHARLES J. � T.M 60-A-67 THELMA H. PPV-.:.. DOLLY DOLLY SNAPP 20.000 AC DB. 463 PG. 281 k>'. INSTR. 000003104 i i ROPO yED r ( A. -J T.M. 61-A-5 FL PRICHARD ESTATE COMPOSITE PLOT SHOW/NG SNAPPY LANA LOT JAN ADLER, E LOT 9 JACK E. RIGGLEMAN, ✓R. NOTES: THIS PLAT HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS, ANT IS NOT PURPORTED TO BE A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE LANDS SHOWN. 400 0 400 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) SCALE: 1" = 400' DATE: JUNE 7, 2005 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 1*4� Engine Survey Founded in 1971 Exhibit "A" www.greenwayeng. com TH OF L 9 J SONG. BLY No. 2619 BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 4351 SHEET 1 OF 1 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street ! Winchester,' Vir4'� N226(q Telephone: 540/665-5651 F : 540/665-6395 WAIVER/EXCEPTIONS REQUEST APPLICATION T 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property owner (if different than above): Name: Charles and Thelma Snapp Address: 609 Whissens Ridge Road Winchester. VA 22602 3. Contact person (if other than above): Name: Evan Wyatt Telephone: 540-662-4185 Telephone: 540-877-1692 Telephone: 540-662-4185 4. Waiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): The applicant is requesting a waiver of section 144-31C(3) of the Frederick Count Subdivison Ordinance, which requires a 50' minimum right-of-way width for shared private driveways. Snappy lane is an existing_right-of-way of variable width, which serves five parcels. The applicant has received letters from the owners indicating that they are unable or unwilling to o establish a 50' right-of-way on their prolerty. Therefor, a waiver to this ordinance section is being sought to allow for the creation of a family lot 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): Located on Snappy Lane off Whissens Ridge Road Route 616 a roximatel 1.1 miles southwest of intersection with Wardensville Grade Route 608). 6. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 60-A-66 Magisterial District: Back Creek 7. Property zoning and current use: Zoned: Ra - Rural Areas District 8. Attachments: Adjoining Property Owners List X Existing/recorded and Proposed Plats X G� The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the waiver 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 Charles and Thelma Address 609 Whissens Ridge Road Snapp Property ID# 60 -A -62C Winchester, VA 22602 NAME Dolly Snapp Address 225 Snappy Lane Property ID# _ 60 -A -66A Winchester, VA 22602 NAME Dolly Snapp Address _ 225 Snappy Lane Property ID# 60-A-67 Winchester, VA 22602 NAME Bryan P. and Nancy E. Address 691 Whissens Ridge Road Pitcock Property ID# 60-A-62 Winchester, VA 22602 NAME James L. and Marsha A. Address 577 Whissens Ridge Road Grubbs Property ID# 60-3-4 Winchester, VA 22602 NAME Richard W. and Gayla Address 176 Conner Lane S. Fishel Property ID# 60-3-5 Winchester, VA 22602 NAME Stephen D. Ott, ET UX Address _220 Snappy Lane Property ID# 60 -A -66B Winchester, VA 22602 NAME F.I. Prichards Estate Address 1607 Valley Avenue Property ID# 61-A-5 Winchester, VA 22602 NAME Jack E. Riggleman, Jr. Address 341 Conner Lane Property ID# 60-3-9 Winchester, VA 22602 NAME Jan M. Adler, Et Ux Address 262 Conner Lane Property ID# 60-3-8 Winchester, VA 22602 NAME Dennis E. Wingfield Address 242 Conner Lane Property ID# 60-3-7 Winchester, VA 22602 NAME Lorin R. Sutton, Jr., Et Address 202 Conner Lane Ux Property ID# 60-3-6 Winchester, VA 22602 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Charles J Snapp and Thelma H. Snapp (Phone) (540) 877-1692 (Address) 609 Whissens Ridge Road Winchester, VA 22602 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. Deed Book 463 on Page 2812 and is described as Parcel: 60 Lot: 66 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ® Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. C!)44 In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this v day of �, _� , 2004 Signature(s) , 2-1 State of Virginia, Cit Count f�,`��j�,�rTo-wit: I, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this �+'Nlay of J .W e , 200 CD My Commission Expires: Notary Public I i I GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane a %477-1W Virginia 22602 `` Founded in 1971 June 8, 2005 Frederick County Planning Department Attn: Mark Cheran, Subdivision Administrator 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Charles & Thelma Snapp Subdivision Waiver Request Dear Mark: On behalf of Charles and Thelma Snapp, Greenway Engineering is requesting Board of Supervisor approval of a waiver to the minimum right-of-way width for shared private driveways as permitted under Section 144-5 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. Charles and Thelma Snapp own a 20 -acre parcel of land in the Back Creek Magisterial District that is only accessible on Snappy Lane, which has a variable right-of- way width between Whissens Ridge Road (Route 616) and the 20 -acre parcel. The Snapp's desire to create a Family Lot for their son; however, the variable right-of- way width along Snappy Lane does not meet the requirements of Section 144-31 C(3), which requires a 50 -foot right-of-way for shared private driveways. The Snapp's have discussed this matter with the property owners along Snappy Lane and have received letters indicating that the property owners are unable or unwilling to establish a 50 -foot right-of-way on their property. Therefore, a Board of Supervisor waiver to this ordinance requirement is necessary to create this Family Lot. Please find attached copies of the letters from the property owners along Snappy Lane indicating their inability to establish the 50 -foot right-of-way, as well as copies of the composite plat and aerial composite plat for the Snapp property and adjoining properties. Please accept this information for consideration by the Planning Commission at their July 6, 2005 meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this request, or if you need any additional information. Sincerely, ` Euc- Evan Wyatt, AlCP Greenway Engineering Cc: Charles & Thelma Snapp Engineers Surveyors Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 File #4351/EAW www.greenwayeng.com April 26, 2005 R e Mr. & Mrs. James Grubbs 577 Whissens Ridge Road Winchester VA 22602 REFERENCE: Easement for Driveway Dear Mr. & Mrs. Grubbs: As stated in our letter of April 8, 2005, Mr. & Mrs. Charle. ppe Jr. d, planning it must be proven on their property located at the end of Snappy Lane. In order to complete Frederick County they are unable to obtain additional land for easementfoot from property owners bounding Snappy Lane. In the pas, yusatedyou we e unable t provide additionalfootage to increase the width of Snappy Lane from your property. If you are still unable to provide land for the widening of the described land, please sign below and return to Mr. & Mrs. Snapp in the pre - addressed and stamped envelope. This documentation will be provided to Frederick County. 005, perhaps you are willing to allow an As you did not respond to our request of April 8, 2lease note Below your willingness or sign that easement from your property. If this is the case, p you are not able to grant this request. We are not able or willing to provide footage for an easement for the widening of Snappy Lane Date Date We are willing to provide footage for an easement for the widening of Snappy Lane. Marsha Grubbs Date James Grubbs Date Thank you very much. Charles J. and Tammy L Snapp, Jr. April 8, 2005 Mr. & Mrs. Bryan Pitcock Whissens Ridge Road Winchester VA 22602 REFERENCE-. Easement for Driveway Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pitcook; Mr. & Mrs. Charles J. Snapp, Jr. are planning to build on their property located at the end of Snappy Lane. In order to complete their deed, it must be proven to Frederick County they are unable to obtain additional land for a fifty -foot easement from property owners bounding Snappy Lane. In the past, you stated you were unable to provide additional footage to increase the width. of Snappy Lane from your property. If you are still unable to provide land for the widening of the described land, please sign below and return to Mr. & Mrs. Snapp in the pre -addressed and stamped envelope. Ti -lis documentation will be provided to Frederick County. Thank you. We are not able or willing to provide footage for an easement for the widening of Snappy Lane. Bryan Pitcock ADA1 i Nancy Pltc k Enclosure April S, 2005 Mrs. Cora. "Dolly" Snapp 225 Snappy Lane Winchester VA 22602 REFERENCE: Easement for Driveway Dear Mrs. Snapp Mr. & Mrs. Charles J. Snapp, Jr. are planning to build on their property located at the end of Snappy Lane. In order to complete their deed, it must be proven to Frederick County they are unable to obtain additional land for a fifty -foot easement. from property owners bounding Snappy Lane. In the past, you stated you were unable to provide additional footage to increase the width of Snappy Lane from your property because to this widening would almost touch your house. If this information is still current, and you are still unable to provide land for the widening of the described land, please sign below and return to Mr. & Mrs. Snapp in the pre -addressed and stamped envelope. This documentation will be provided to Frederick County. Thank you. I am not able to provide footage for an easement for the widening of Snappy Lane. Cara Virginia " olly" Snapp `.Z. 4�`or ati s y Cs //3�/ AV e - i SO. �.• '� Q� Fid 60. `. OOOp®'p/ iP AGO FT Q A. Q49 �O. e Aoill+ 300► 0 ;•' 300 GRAPHIC SCALE ~..' ? Af*':� ' (IN FEET) O NOTES.- THIS OTES.THIS PLAT HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM AVAILABLE RECORD S, ANT IS NOT PURPORTED TO 8E A BOUNDARY SUR'vEY OF THE LANES SHOWN. A"o log. T.M. 60—A-66 / h CHARLES J. & THEL MA H. SNAPP 20.000 AC `a DB. 463 PG, 281 Q INSTR. 000003104 O '✓ 60. Q� F.I. PRICHARD ESTATE I I, I a Z W LLIZ Z W N 0 a .2 N E d L '2� m N V �0 L l Z 2L �c",3 W W o6 Y! t 0 m _ .}3 C T min Q 0 L Z O ,y r x. Y Q) Ar i W j O N e O = iP AGO FT Q A. Q49 �O. e Aoill+ 300► 0 ;•' 300 GRAPHIC SCALE ~..' ? Af*':� ' (IN FEET) O NOTES.- THIS OTES.THIS PLAT HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM AVAILABLE RECORD S, ANT IS NOT PURPORTED TO 8E A BOUNDARY SUR'vEY OF THE LANES SHOWN. A"o log. T.M. 60—A-66 / h CHARLES J. & THEL MA H. SNAPP 20.000 AC `a DB. 463 PG, 281 Q INSTR. 000003104 O '✓ 60. Q� F.I. PRICHARD ESTATE I I, I a Z W LLIZ Z W N 0 a .2 N E d L '2� m N V �0 L l Z 2L �c",3 W W o6 Y! t 0 m _ .}3 C T min Q 0 I DATE: JUNE 7, 2005 1 SCALE: 1'= 300' DESIGNED BY: JOB NO. 4351 SHEET OF L Z O Y Q) W j O It O = ~ CL OO Q LZ � r^ W Q) C) m I DATE: JUNE 7, 2005 1 SCALE: 1'= 300' DESIGNED BY: JOB NO. 4351 SHEET OF n C-: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner JC � SUBJECT: Rural Areas Study — Discussion Item DATE: June 20, 2005 The Board of Supervisors on May 11, 2005 reviewed a table of land development proposals for the Rural Areas (see attachment). The Board unanimously voted to send this table to the Planning Commission for review and study. Since that meeting, staff has revised the Draft Rural Areas Study (as endorsed by the CPPS on January 4, 2005) to reflect the proposals contained in the table. This draft plan, dated June 6, 2005, is attached for your review. Thus, should the Board of Supervisors desire to adopt these land development proposals, draft policy text is available. In order to make review of this new draft plan easier, staff has struck -through text and used a different font for the new text. You will note that some wording has been taken from the Ad-hoc Committee's Plan, dated March 21, 2005, when appropriate. At their meeting on June 13, 2005, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) reviewed the land development table and the June 6, 2005 draft plan. Many comments were given at that meeting, and these are attached. The Rural Areas proposal will be considered by the Planning Commission as a discussion item at your meeting on July 6th. It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to provide comments that could be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. The Board of Supervisors is tentatively scheduled to consider this item at their meeting on July 13, 2005. If you have any questions, please contact me at 665-5651. Attachments SKE/bad 107 North Kent Sireet, Suite 202 e Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • C� RURAL PRESERVATION DIRECTION CHART Revised 4/18/2005 Set Backs (State Roads and . Non -Residential R -A.) Without Waiver Yes (3 or more) (b) Yes (b) With Waiver (Staff) No (2 or less) N/A Fencing Against Non -Residential R.A. (V -Dot Specs) Yes Yes Approvals Plat/Sketck (Staff) MDP Process Proffers No No Allowed within Defined Community Center Without Waiver No No With Waiver Yes Yes a,.aly Varience Lots (a) (a) (a) Per State Code and/or Local Ordinance (b) Requires Existing Set Back Ordinance Adjustments 100 Acre Five Acre 100 Acre Rural 100 Acre 30,000 sq. ft. By -Right Max Preservation Max M' 'num Lot Size 5 acnes 2 acres .jensity 1 in 5 acres 20 1 in 5 acres plus 1 Set Aside 50% N/A Yes 21 Set Aside 60% N/A N/A Set Aside 70% N/A N/A Phasing No Yes (Negotiated) Green Infrastructure Primary Yes Yes Secondary -Voluntary No Yes Public Streets Without Waiver Yes Yes With Waiver No No Environmental Review Without Waiver Yes Yes With Waiver (Staff) No N/A Transportation Review Without Waiver Yes (3 or more) Yes (3 or more) With Waiver (Staff) No (2 or less) No (2 or less) .aw of Historic Sites "ormally identified only) Yes Yes Community Water/Sewer No No Off -Site Drainfield No Yes Set Backs (State Roads and . Non -Residential R -A.) Without Waiver Yes (3 or more) (b) Yes (b) With Waiver (Staff) No (2 or less) N/A Fencing Against Non -Residential R.A. (V -Dot Specs) Yes Yes Approvals Plat/Sketck (Staff) MDP Process Proffers No No Allowed within Defined Community Center Without Waiver No No With Waiver Yes Yes a,.aly Varience Lots (a) (a) (a) Per State Code and/or Local Ordinance (b) Requires Existing Set Back Ordinance Adjustments 100 Acre Rezoning Max. 30,000 sq. ft. Various Yes 21 25% Bonus 25 50% Bonus 30 Yes (Negotiated) Yes Yes Yes No Yes N/A Yes (AI I) N/A Yes Optional Yes Yes (b) N/A Yes Rezoning & MDP Yes Yes N/A (a) DRAFT - x/6/05 Rural Areas Study Draft Plan —June 6, 2005 DRAFT — 6/6/05 Table of Contents Introduction Background Goals Green Infrastructure Introduction Designing the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network Implementing the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network Expanding the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network Green Infrastructure Policies Land Development Introduction Density Phasing Process Conservation Design Subdivisions Family Division Lots Buffers Health Systems Roads Other Rural Residential Development Conservation Easements Land Development Policies Rural Economy Introduction Rural Economy and the Green Infrastructure Agriculture Forestry Existing Agricultural and Forestal Programs New Agricultural and Forestal Tools Land Stewardship Rural Diversification Equine Industry Rural Tourism and Active Recreation Tuscarora Trail Other Industrial and Mining Activities Rural Economy Policies Rural Community Centers Background Rural Areas Study Rural Community Center Policies -2- DRAFT — 6/6/05 Introduction The rural areas of Frederick County are valued by residents, business owners, employees and visitors piimar-ily for their rural character. With a rich inventory of natural, heritage, and agricultural resources, the rural areas have historically defined the physical and cultural landscape of Frederick County and remain a keystone of the County's identity. Preservation of the rural character is the overall goal of this rural areas plan. Background The rural areas of Frederick County consist of all land located outside of the County's designated Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The rural areas comprise the majority of Frederick County's land area and consist of several distinct communities that are home to half of the County's population. Frederick County has been experienced steady overall growth since the 1970's. The rural areas annually capture approximately 30% of all new residential units built in the County, with the remaining 70% developing within the UDA. Just in the last year (2004) this statistic has altered so that the rural areas are capturing 40% of the new residential development with the remaining 60% in the UDA. Some of this trend can be identified as the recent upsurge in new residential construction in the R5 (Residential Recreational Community) Districts, such as Shawneeland and the Summit, which are also considered a part of the rural areas. Agri e the ^ erne„ of housing • its it the fuf' areas hasnot ehanged, The aetual number of new residential lots has risen dramatically, from 137 lots created in the RA (Rural Areas) District in 1999 to 292 lots created in 2004. Much of this growth can be attributed to a thriving economy in Northern Virginia and in the Winchester/Frederick County area itself. Accompanying the growth in residential development since the 1970's has been a decline in agriculture in the County, particularly in the apple industry. Together the decline in agriculture and the increase in residential dwellings have led to a loss of open space, a much valued feature of the rural landscape. Recognition of these trends prompted concem with the impact of new development on rural resources, community services, and the long-standing rural character of Frederick County. In response to such interest, the County conducted a rural areas study in from 2003 X004 through 2005. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) of the Planning Commission was tasked with undertaking the rural areas study. Public participation was the foundation of the rural areas study process. A variety of formats were used to obtain the input of stakeholders and the general public throughout the process, this included visioning and issue identification meetings, a resident's survey, stakeholder presentations, and general information meetings. In addition a group of large rural landowners -3- DRAFT — 6/6/05 developed an alternate rural areas plan and then worked with the Planning Commission to refine common proposals. The rural areas study was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in (date) of 2005 and now forms part of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Goals The overall goal for the rural areas is to preserve the rural character. This is an imprecise goal, but aspects of rural character have been defined and further goals to clarify the overall goal have been articulated and received wide community support. The goals of the rural areas plan will be to: • Preserve open space. • Protect natural resources. • Protect historic, ' ' ^"`' eult,,,-.,1 features. • Encourage agriculture and forestry. • Encourage a diverse rural economy that is compatible with the rural character. • Minimize the amount of land used for residential development. • Minimize the impact of development. • Direct residential development to the Urban Development Area (UDA). • Maintain and enhance the Rural Community Centers. Preserve open space Many of the concerns raised during the development of the rural areas study centered on the loss of open space. The County loses its rural character as it loses its open space. Specific strategies have been formulated in this plan to preserve open space. These include!w subdiNisi increasing the open space set-aside parcels in rural preservation subdivisions, giving incentives, through a rezoning option, for even larger open space set -asides, and encouraging conservation easements Protect natural resources .4- DRAFT — 6/6/05 Another key feature of the rural character is the natural resources of the County. This includes waterways, wetlands and mountains. This plan emphasizes the Green Infrastructure, the network of interconnected natural resources. All planning in the rural areas should be based on the Green Infrastructure. The County will encourage developers to take into account natural features not currently protected by current ordinances, such as prime agricultural soils and woodlands, should iiew be taken into aeeoufA when new develepments are designed. and work with the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District to encourage effective planning of these resources. Protect historic, aFeheologieal and eultu features Frederick County contains a wealth of historic, features, few of which are currently protected by ordinances and regulations. This plan encourages the County to investigate placing additional properties on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places, so they too can be protected. This Plan includes historic, few properties within the framework of the Green Infrastructure and states that they should be taken into account when new developments are designed. Encourage agriculture and forestry Agriculture and forestry are the activities most associated with the rural areas. While the agriculture industry in particular is undergoing changes, the County should continue to support these activities through the continuation of its agricultural and forestal districts and its land use taxation program. The County should mer actively encourage agriculture and forestry in the open space set -asides of rural residential subdivisions. t h t +r l t e a � t en o u } r r i The County should also work with other agencies and commissions to actively promote agriculture and forestry. Encourage a diverse rural economy that is compatible with the rural character The County recognizes that changes in the agricultural industry make it impessible difficult for some farmers to continue with their current occupations. In order to encourage land owners to stay on their land and to offer a viable alternate to subdividing and selling land, the County should encourage rural diversification. The chief strategy for implementing this goal should be to review current ordinances to enable a range of uses, such as equestrian activities, specialty farming ventures (i.e. nursery production, small fruit and vegetable production, alternative livestock production, etc.) and tourist accommodation, in the rural areas. Minimize the amount of land used for residential development Large residential subdivisions are not in keeping with the rural landscape. However, the County has sought to maintain current densities to protect the interest of landowners. In -5- DRAFT — 6/6/45 order to maintain current densities while preserving the rural character, the County should increase the required amount of open space in fesidential rural preservation subdivisions The County should further introduce a rezoning option for residential subdivisions which would have a significantly larger open space requirement and smaller lots sizes. adept Minimize the impact of development mue Some development in the rural areas is not in keeping with the character of the rural landscape. This includes the physical and visual impacts of development as well as the impact on the County itself to provide facilities and services for this development. The County should seek quality development appropriate to a rural area and should pursue the means for mitigating fiscal and physical impacts. To that end the County should introduce an option to rezone property in the rural area to a new rural residential district. Direct residential development to the Urban Development Area (UDA) The UDA is the appropriate location for urban and suburban development. Through its designation of the UDA boundary, the County commits itself to providing services for this type of development including utilities, improved roads and other urban facilities. Sewer and water lines should not be extended into the rural areas for residential development. Furthermore, lafge subufban denser subdivisions should only be allowed in the rural areas through a rezoning process and they should be required to mitigate all impacts as in the UDA. Maintain and enhance the Rural Community Centers. The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies eleven Rural Community Centers. A detailed study of each rural community center should be undertaken to examine in greater detail development patterns and trends and to formulate polices for their development. In the interim, small-scale commercial development should be allowed. The residential density in the rural community centers should remain the same as the rest of the Rural Area District, with a rezoning option, if this is appropriate to the character of the Rural Community Center. -6- DRAFT — 6/6/05 Green Infrastructure Introduction The fi-a a b h An important feature of the Rural Areas Plan is based -is the concept of Green Infrastructure. Green Infrastructure is the County's natural life support system - an interconnected network of land and water that supports native species, maintains natural ecological processes, sustains air and water resources and contributes to the health and quality of life for this community and its people. Green Infrastructure encompasses farmland, streambeds, woodlands, parks and scenic views. The Green Infrastructure includes those features which enrich the quality of life and are necessary for the protection of clean air, water, and natural resources, and will serve as the central organizing concept for future land use in the rural areas. The Green Infrastructure concept identifies critical areas for conservation, establishes priorities for protection, and recommends tactics for implementation. It focuses on ecologically important resource areas (woodlands, high quality wildlife habitat), highly productive working landscapes (farmland and forestland) and critical areas for the protection of aquatic resources (wetlands, riparian corridors, floodplains). It can also include culturally important resources such as historic buildings and battlefields, which while not part of the Green Network, are valued by the community and contribute to the overall character of the area. The Green Infrastructure concept has been endorsed by Frederick County for its rural areas. General Green Infrastructure concepts were evaluated and modified locally as part of the County's Rural Area Study in order to reflect this community's values, future vision, and local interests. Designing the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network In order to design the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network, desired network attributes were identified and data gathered on their spatial arrangements. Firstly, all land features protected by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance were considered. These included: • floodplains; • lakes and ponds; • wetlands, natural waterways and riparian buffers; • sinkholes; • natural stormwater retention areas; and • steep slopes. These areas warrant the highest level of protection, and are 'may generally unbuildable land unfit for development. These areas are the Primary Conservation Resources of the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network. -7- DRAFT - 6/6/05 Secondly, other landscape features were evaluated for possible inclusion in the Green Infrastructure Network. These were based on input from the public and stakeholders that was received through the Rural Areas Study process. Suggested features worthy of consideration in the development process include: • Woodlands; • Prime agricultural soil; • Agricultural and forestal districts; • Meadows; • Orchards; • Ridgelines; • Scenic viewsheds (when defined)-, • Unusual geologic formations; • Existing corridor screening; • Land under conservation easements; • Parks; and • Trails. Land resources such as these should be classified as Secondary Conservation Resources of the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network. Thirdly, historic features were evaluated for possible inclusion in the Green Infrastructure Network. Ther also based en input -free publie a stakeholders t + eensi,_ __ in the a. el tonJ •,hide Historic Properties listed in the ��„ Rural Landmarks Survey Report, Frederick County, Virginia, and Civil War Battlefields and Sites (as defined by the National Parks Service Shenandoah Valley Civil War Sites Study), should be classified as Secondary Resources. Secondary conservation resources will not have the same level of protection as primary resources. However, their presence on a site wi14 should be a consideration in designing any new developments. Land owners and developers should be -eqtiired to work a +'= G t l a„n ors to fe t at will be encouraged to protect secondary conservation resources, but this will be done on a voluntary basis.-presen heneve” pessi le An exception to this will be the historic features designated as secondary ff:M DRAFT — 6/6/05 resources. 'these should be taken into consideration by land owners and developers. Implementing the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network Based on the elements of the Green Infrastructure accepted by this community, the network was mapped. The Green Infrastructure Map shows the known Frederick County Green Infrastructure. While this map illustrates a community -wide inventory, it will be superset enhanced by more detailed analyses provided with individual applications. It should be a requirement of all applications for development in the rural areas to identify and map primary conservation resources and designated historic resources. Applicants should .also be required to consider the primary and seeendary designated historic resources of surrounding properties. Land owners and developers will be encouraged to identify and map secondary conservation resources, but this will be done on a voluntary basis. it will be—eiafemely impeAant Land owners and developers will be encouraged to work with County planners at an early stage, before costly engineering studies have been undertaken, to determine which portion of a site is apprepfiate best suited for development. The common goal will be to steer development away from both primary and secondary conservation resources, to maximize an efficient use of the property Over time, as detailed plans showing the primary and secondary resources are submitted with applications, County planners will be able to build a Vefy more detailed map of the County's Green Infrastructure. Development will be is prohibited in Primary Conservation Areas. This is ,,,,nsisten v4th by current ordinances. Property owners will continue to get credit towards a site's overall residential density for primary conservation areas, even though they will not be building in those areas. The County will require encourage eensenxatien deli ,,, rural preservation subdivisions, instead of traditional five -acre lot subdivisions, for all new residential development in the rural areas. C. nsei . mlien subdivision design a _ _ _..ibex r-esi4ei�Aial development in whieh the majority of the land is pr-eteeted ftem developme and plaeed in an tall. enhanced set aside par -eel � / f 601 f the � 4*. In rural preservation subdivisions, the County will require place Beth primary and eenda yconservation features =mill- to be placed in the set- aside parcel and will encourage the placement of secondary conservation features in the set-aside parcel. Land owners and developers should have their subdivision plans reviewed by the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District. This review will focus on the plan's conservation of primary resources and the secondary resources identified by the applicant. The District will offer technical -9- DRAFT — 6/6/05 advice to mitigate any negative impacts of development. Applicants will not be required to accept the Soil and Water Conservation District's advice, and developers of traditional five acre lots may have this review requirement waived by the Planning Department. Expanding the Frederick County Green Infrastructure Network The Frederick County Green Infrastructure will contract and expand as development occurs. Some of the Green Infrastructure, such as farmland, will be lost as houses are built. However, some conservation features of eaeh sites will be saved due to the preservation of 6"0 50% or greater site 4eBffiJ-efthaR e of the parent tract. The County should adopt other strategies for expanding the Green Infrastructure. This could includes increasing land for parks and trails, both public and private. This could also includes encouraging conservation easements (see the section on land development). The County shcould also consider expanding the Green Infrastructure Network to cover the whole County, including the Urban Development Area (JDA) and ahcould encourage the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to extend the Green Infrastructure Network throughout the region. -10- DRAFT — 6/6/05 Green Infrastructure Policies Goal - Preserve the rural character Goal - Preserve open space Goal - Protect natural resources Goal - Protect historic, features Strategy 1 — Adopt the Green Infrastructure concept as the framework for maintaining the character of the rural areas and for protecting the natural environment. Strategy 2 — Prohibit development in Primary Conservation Areas. Strategy 3 - Guide devej-ft* way ft—e Encourage the protection of Secondary Conservation features. Strategy 4 — Promote a linked network of protected green space. Implementation Measures: 1. Map the primary conservation resources and update as new information is made available. 2. f t Tl �-, c aror¢xxrcnzc� the ..� dJ 3. Map the known secondary conservation resources. 4. Develop a program to identify and map additional information on secondary conservation resources. areas 6. Review and develop ordinances to promote the Green Infrastructure Network. 7. Review and develop ordinances to prohibit development in the primary conservation areas. 8. Review and develop ordinances to establish a consistent definition of steep slopes. 9. Require detailed information and a map sur-vey of the primary and -seeony conservation resources with all developments which require a rezoning, master development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or preliminary sketch plan. 10. Require information and a map of the designated historic resources with all developments which require a rezoning, master development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or preliminary sketch plan. DRAFT - 616105 11. Encourage information and a map of the secondary conservation resources with all developments which require a rezoning, master development plan, subdivision design plan or a site plan. 12. Require a consideration of the primary an4-seaen4aFy conservation resources and designated historic resources of the surrounding area with all developments which require a rezoning, master development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or preliminary sketch plan. 13. Encourage rural preservation subdivisions. 14. Promote the protection of the Green Infrastructure (both especially primary and seeendai�-resources) as the highest priority in designating the set-aside portion of conservation design subdivisions. 15. Encourage linked + " �"'""' set-aside parcels. 16. Set up an environmental review process of rural subdivisions by the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District. 17. Promote the use of conservation easements and the purchase of development rights to enlarge the Green Infrastructure Network. 1 g. Seek to expand the Green Infrastructure Network. 19. Establish a trail system linked to the Green Infrastructure Network. 20. Survey County owned land to identify land to be included in the Green Infrastructure network. 21. Commit the County to designating appropriate future County owned land for inclusion in the Green Infrastructure network. 22. Consider expanding the Green Infrastructure Network to cover the whole County, including the Urban Development Area (JDA). 23. Encourage the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to extend the Green Infrastructure Network throughout the region. -12- DRAFT — 6/6/05 Land Development Introduction Residential land development in the rural areas of Frederick County has been sporadic, randomly located and market-driven for many years. The prized landscape of the rural areas has been shied altered by a succession of free standing large lot residential subdivisions. In recent years, the number of residential lots created has risen dramatically. feu The proportion of new rural lots, to overall county lots, has remaiRed steady increased topr--,.;,,.,.,telt, 30.1,1,;. almost 40%. New Lots Created Year # of RP lots created . # of RA lots created RA lots - % total lots created 1999 310 137 31% 2000 311 235 43% 2001 571 206 27% 2002 536 226 30% 2003 456 226 33% 2004 507 292 37% TOTAL 2,691 1,322 33% The majority of lots created in the rural areas are scattered throughout the County. In 2093 2004 for example, 226 292 rural lots were created in the RA District. 6-9 110 were created in rural preservation lots, where the houses are clustered and 40% of the site remains in a set-aside parcel. -5-22 lots were created in a major subdivision, a subdivision with four or more traditional five acre lots. The vast majority, X3160 lots, were created in minor subdivisions, which include subdivisions resulting in three or fewer traditional five acre lots, family division lots or agricultural lots. The result is that most new residential development is strung out along existing state roads in an unplanned fashion. Residential development in the rural areas has been by -right and new developments have not mitigated their impacts either physically or fiscally. The County has had no control over the timing of this development. The burden has fallen to the County residents in general to supply the roads, schools, fire and rescue services etc that are needed to support the new housing, whenever and wherever it is constructed. One clear goal of the rural areas study undertaken tin from 2003 and 2004 through 2005 was to establish a system to better manage the residential growth in the rural areas. Five guiding principles endorsed by the Board of Supervisors in May of 2004 shape the land development policies of the rural areas. These are: • Gross density to average one dwelling per five acres: • Maximize conserved open space; • Preference to cluster new dwellings to conserve rural resources; -13- DRAFT — 6/6/0 • Rezoning process for rural areas to address physical and fiscal impacts and costs; and • Protect and support agriculture via policies and programs. Density The residential density for land in the Rural Areas District (RA) should in general remain at one dwelling per five acres. Density bonuses should be given only in the case of a rezoning, where the impacts of development are mitigated. The density bonus, possibly as much as 50% of the total number of units, would be given based on standards and criteria to be set out in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, provided the County could cope with the impacts of the increased density. Tryffrr Y. Density The residential density for land in the Rural Areas District (RA) should in general remain at one dwelling per five acres. Density bonuses should be given only in the case of a rezoning, where the impacts of development are mitigated. The density bonus, possibly as much as 50% of the total number of units, would be given based on standards and criteria to be set out in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, provided the County could cope with the impacts of the increased density. By -right Subdivisions Process Two options for by -right rural subdivisions will remain in the RA District - five acre traditional lots and rural preservation subdivisions, which allow for lots as small as two acres and have a mandatory open space set-aside parcel. In order to foster the goal of increasing open space in the rural areas, the open space set-aside parcel in rural preservation subdivisions -14- Y. By -right Subdivisions Process Two options for by -right rural subdivisions will remain in the RA District - five acre traditional lots and rural preservation subdivisions, which allow for lots as small as two acres and have a mandatory open space set-aside parcel. In order to foster the goal of increasing open space in the rural areas, the open space set-aside parcel in rural preservation subdivisions -14- DRAFT — 6/6/05 should be increased to a minimum of 50%. An additional development right will continue to be allowed for the open space set-aside parcel as a ponies to encourage this type of development. Land owTrers wishing to subdivide, by -right, rural lots would only be required to submit a sketch plan. Theselots ' d eotHA to vz-ardsa par-ent t,-ra*'+' by_,lr__._& tt ftnlots in any c yeappefod A land owner seeking to develop threeor- mare rural preservation lots would be 3-equired allowed and encouraged to submit a master development plan (MDP). These rural MDPs would be somewhat similar to a master development plan in the Urban Development Area (UDA). The plan would show the primary and seee dart' conservation features, designated historic properties, secondary conservation features as chosen by the applicant, the location of roads, >,,�s setbacks, and the general location of houses. A key feature to be shown on the Rural MDPs would be the location of drainfields and well sites. This would insure that the lots could meet health department requirements. While phasing of the houses would be shown, this would be general phasing and would not commit either the property owner or the County to construction of particular houses in designated years. Land owners would be fequir-ed encouraged to master plan contiguous parcels in common ownership. The main advantage of a rural MDP for a landowner would be to vest the plan. Rezoning Option Land owners seeking to subdivide to allow more than the by -right allowance of 10 bets in 5 ye3 one dwelling per five acres, would need to secure a rezoning from the RA District to a new Rural Residential District. This would require approval from the County Board of Supervisors. Rural preservation style development, not five acre lots, would be mandatory. It is envisioned that a density bonus of 25% could be granted if a set-aside parcel of at least 60% of the site were established. It is further envisioned that a density bonus of 50% could be granted if a set-aside parcel of at least 70% of the site were established. In order to accommodate these large set-aside parcels, the minimum lot size in the new Zoning District should be reduced to 30,000 square feet. All requests for rezonings to the new district would require the submission of a rural master development plan and a report analyzing the impacts of the rezoning. Successful rezomngs would be required to mitigate the identified impacts. Rezonings would only be granted in cases where the impacts of the development, including the impact on roads and capital facilities, such as schools, were mitigated. it is likely +Rezonings would also include a voluntary phasing plan. In general, rezonings would be allowed in the appropriate rural community centers and near to major roads that could cope with the increased volume of traffic. Criteria for the new Rural Residential District, 15- DRAFT — 6/6/05 including the appropriate locations and design standards, would be established in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Consentation Design Subdivisions t7 a +' 1 ' 1 -+ v. v u .. .....r J "� amu... t,.W--r --- of the Gfeen .�a-�....-�- __ _ -- 1eantain details of the--��'�eattffes E)f the site as well as Set-aside Parcels -16- DRAFT — 6/6/0 It is proposed that uses compatible with a rural setting and not incompatible with rural residential development be encouraged in the set-aside parcels of eonsefvatior desig rural preservation subdivisions. These would likely include some types of agriculture, forestry, passive and active recreation and equestrian activities. The County will actively encourage such uses. These uses help to maintain the rural character and will provide affordable land for future farms. Each set-aside parcel will have one additional residential development right, as described above from vthi the over-all density of one dwelling per- 5 aer-es. In many circumstances it will be an original house on the set-aside parcel. It is not intended that homeowner associations will own the set-aside parcels. This will be possible though, as some uses, such as an equestrian establishment, might lend themselves to a homeowners association. Family Divisions Lots Family division lots should continue to be allowed by -right as per state and local ordinances. for- up to two new lots. A waiver- should be requi,-,,ed for- the 44d subsequent lots. Family division lots sh&ald eei-Ainue to counA towards a pai7enl tfaet's everall density. in keeping NN4th the new pr-eposal for- time release subdivisions, the recording of family lots ,A411 eount towards a par -eat tr-aet's by right allawanee of 10 lots - in any 5 year- per-iod. The Zoning Or-dinanee will alse be reviewed to require oymer-ship for a set period of time to diseoufage abuse of the family division le Setbacks Setbacks should continue to be required as per the existing ordinance along state roads. The Planning Department could be allowed to waive this setback requirement for less than two new houses. Existing setbacks against agricultural land and orchards should be maintained. Setbacks against other non-residential RA uses should be investigated further. Health Systems As stated in the introduction, residential growth in this County is targeted to the Urban Development Area (UDA), where public water and sewer are provided. No water and sewer lines are proposed for residential development in the rural areas. No .ffm+._.. health "ys---- __ rF-, ren-- --the---a-----. Therefore, all Health systems must should be accommodated on individual lots, although easements to nearby lots will be allowed for rural preservation lots. Five -acre traditional lots will be required to accommodate their own health systems and wells on-site. Alternative systems acceptable to the Virginia Department of Health will continue to be acceptable to Frederick County, „ idea 4iat they are not eenimunal. -17- DRAFT — 6/6/05 In order to provide a solution for drainfields that may fail in the future, it is recommended that the amount of land for a reserve drainfield should be increased from the current 50% to 100%. It is also recommended that increased inspection of health systems be investigated. Communal water and sewer facilities may be allowed with rezonings. In all cases these systems should be built to Frederick County Sanitation Authority standards and should be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. In the rural community centers, communal water and sewer facilities should include capacity to accommodate existing residences in the center. Roads Ag—Rural subdivision should have public roads that meet County and Virginia Department of Transportation standards and requirements. Up to two new lots will be allowed on an existing state road or on a private road. Construction of a third house would trigger the requirement for a state road. This state road requirement could be waived by the Hoard of Supervisors, but the road would still need to be constructed to state standards. Curb and gutter wiIl should not be required with rural ral subdivisions. Sidewalks and streetlights wiU should not be required with rural residential 4design subdivisions. Underground utilities will should be required in �o �a ign the new Rural residential District. Fencing Fencing against non-residential development would be required in new RA and RR subdivisions. This would be fencing that meets Virginia Department of Transportation Standards. Other Rural Residential Development Not all land outside of the UDA and SWSA is zoned RA. Four sites in the rural area are zoned R5 - Residential Recreational Community District (Lake Holiday, Shawnee -Land, Wilde Acres and Shenandoah). All but Shenandoah have some development, but all four have the potential for further house construction. The R5 communities were developed with an emphasis on recreational and open space uses. All were required to provide environmental protection. While these developments serve a unique demand in the housing market, they effectively allow dense subdivisions in the rural area, contrary to the goals of this plan. No further R5 developments are encouraged. Also within the rural area are six sites zoned MH1 - Mobile Home Community District. These small sites are near Gore, Albin, Bethel Grange, Double Tollgate, Armel, and Middletown. While these sites serve a niche in the market, and provide affordable housing, they effectively allow dense residential development in the rural area, contrary to the goals of this plan. No further mobile home communities are enee aged likely in the foreseeable future. DRAFT -- 6/6/05 Conservation Easements A recurrent theme in the public participation phase of the rural area study is the wish of many rural landowners not to develop their land. Often they want to keep a working farm or preserve a family's property to pass down to future generations. However, due to the changing agricultural economy and personal circumstances, landowners often need to get value out of their land. In order to preserve rural character and discourage further subdivision, the County will encourage landowners to enter into conservation easements to protect rural land. A conservation easement is a simple legal agreement between a landowner and a government agency or a non-profit conservation organization that places permanent limits on the future development of the property in order to protect the conservation value of the land. The easement may also specifically protect natural, scenic or historic features of the property. Conservation easements, while typically donated, can also be purchased by a government agency or a non-profit conservation organization where funding is available. There are currently 10 conservation easements in Frederick County. Nine are held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF), a state agency established by the Virginia General Assembly to hold easements in public trust. These include: SITE Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation Chapin, William A. Civil War Preservation Trust Fort Collier Civil War Center, Inc. Kernstown Battlefield Association Kernstown Battlefield Association, Inc. National Trust for Historic Preservation Wells, Harry W. & Mary Louisa Pollard ACREAGE RECORDED 15 06/29/01 135 06/29/01 143 09/13/02 222 11/09/00 10 09/13/02 62 08/28/03 108 03/28/03 183 10/29/02 1,019 11/04/98 At present there is also one riparian easement in Frederick County. A riparian easement permanently restricts uses along a stream to those consistent with protecting water quality. 19.8 acres of land along .91 miles of Brush Creek are protected by a riparian easement. The Brush Creek easement is held by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Valley Conservation Council. The voluntary donation of a conservation easement is an excellent method of open space, natural resource and heritage protection. The landowner who donates a conservation easement permanently protects the land, while retaining ownership and enjoyment of the property. There is no public access to conservation easement properties. In many cases the donation of a conservation easement provides substantial federal, state and local tax advantages and estate planning benefits to the landowner. The public benefits through the protection of important natural and cultural resources and scenic vistas. In addition ME DRAFT — 6/6/05 local taxpayers will never have to pay for the expensive public services, such as schools, roads, police, etc. that a new residential development would have demanded. Due to the many benefits of conservation easements, the County should commit itself to the establishment of a Conservation Easement Au4herity Program. This authority would ha -,,e the power enable the County to accept voluntary conservation easements and would also to purchase conservation easements should funding become available. -20- DRAFT — 6/6/05 Land Development Policies Goal - Preserve open space Geral — Protect natural resources Goal — Protect historic, features Goal — Minimize the amount of land used for residential development Goal - Minimize the impact of development Goal — Direct residential development to the Urban Development Area (UDA) Strategy I — Base land development regulations on the Green Infrastructure concept Strategy 2 — Deq that Encourage new developments to be carefully designed around a site's conservation features Strategy 3 — Rhe Encourage eensan,.,,-;,.,., rural preservation subdivisions. desigH Strategy 4 - Establish a Rural Residential District designed to preserve greater open space areas. Strategy 5 - Require large subdivisions that developments granted through a rezoning process te-mitigate their physical and fiscal impacts Strategy 7 — Promote the use of conservation easements Implementation Measures: 1. Require information and a spy map of primary conservation features and designated historic features with all developments which require a rezoning, master development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or sketch plan. _21_ DRAFT — 6/6/05 2. Reqe-Encourage a consideration of the secondary conservation features of the ding ar-e with all developments which require a rezoning, master development plan, subdivision design plan, or site plan, of skE4e 3 . Encourage rural preservation subdivisions. 4. Continue to prohibit development on primary conservation features. 5. Review ordinances to establish a consistent definition of steep slopes. 6. Promote the protection of the G - T tr tufe (ba Primary conservation a seeeRdary resources) as the highest priority in designating the set-aside portion of n des rural preservation subdivisions. 7. Establish a 601 nepAally enh eed minimum 50% set aside parcel in _ +____ desi rural preservation subdivisions. inte +1 Ufban Development A R Q A\ at which h Y + a rezaiHRg l .a 1— 9. Require Allow one extra development right (ffafn the overall density of 1 per-5� to remain with each open space set-aside parcel. 10. Encourage farming and forestry in the set-aside parcel of rural preservation desig subdivisions. 11. Allow uses in the set-aside parcel of design rural preservation subdivisions that are compatible with the sites need for protection and with the maintenance its rural character. 1 + + a • - 13. Establish a new Rural Residential Zoning District to encourage the preservation of large tracts of open space. for- large subdivisions (these ffiat e)Eeeed the by fight 14. Allow a higher density in the new Rural Residential Zoning District 15. Allow lot sizes as small as 30,000 square feet in the new Rural Residential Zoning District 16. Establish standards for the new Rural Residential Zoning District to insure that development is in an appropriate location and mitigates its physical and fiscal impacts and costs. 17. Require a sketch plan for up4e--two- new RA subdivisions. 18. Require Establish a rural areas master development plan, that would be voluntary, that would provide vesting for the property owner far +1,a twe lots. 19. Encourage master development plans that cover all contiguous parcels within a single ownership. 22. Re-examine setbacks between residential RA development and non-residential RA development. 23. Allow off-site drainfield easements only for rural preservation subdivisions. -22- DRAFT - 6/6/05 24. Ivestigate the increased inspection of health systems. 25. Require a 100% reserve drainfield. 26. Allow communal water and sewer facilities with a rezoning. -27. ReEfdke a waiver- for- 43:-ee or- faor-e new family divisioil le 28. Require that all new roads in the rural areas be public roads, unless a waiver is granted. 29. Require fencing against non-residential development in new RA and RR subdivisions. 30. Establish a Conservation Easement AtAheizit Program. -23 - DRAFT — 6/6/05 Rural Economy Introduction The rural economy of Frederick County plays a significant role in the life and livelihood of its inhabitants. The rural areas are not a mere scenic backdrop for the urban areas, but are a source of jobs and livelihood worth preserving. The rural economy generates a net revenue for the County. The taxes paid by a low donsit , an agricultural economy exceed the cost of services provided. A thriving rural economy is a critical component of the future vision for the rural areas. Rural Economy and the Green Infrastructure The vast majority of the land in the rural areas is in agricultural or forestry use. Agriculture and forestry have a greater role than a purely economic one. Agriculture provides much more than food. Forests provide much more than timber. These lands also supply pr-oduets with little market value, have great cultural and environmental importance, }'' * "nP'"` mg and provide open space, wildlife habitats, clean air and water, flood control, groundwater recharge, scenic views and cultural heritage. Farms and forests give Frederick County its rural character. Agricultural and forest land account for the majority of the county's Green Infrastructure. The farms and forests are the largest pieces of land which hold together the county's natural ecosystem. Protection of the County's rural economy — especially through preservation of farms and forests — achieves conservation of the County's Green Infrastructure and its rural character. Agriculture Agriculture has historically served as the foundation of Frederick County's rural economy. In particular, Frederick County is associated with the apple industry and its various support services.However-, Agricultural activities occur on both a large and small scale in the rural areas, with open land devoted not only to orchards, but also to hay production, cattle grazing, and crop cultivation. The central role of agriculture to the rural economy translated into the land use patterns that shaped the rural landscape traditionally associated with Frederick County. The County contains large areas of prime agricultural soil. The 1982 Soil Survey of Frederick County prepared by the Soil Conservation Service of the US Department of Agriculture classified all soils and designated some as prime farmland. The largest concentration of prime agricultural soil is in a band approximately five miles wide, running north to south, west of Interstate 81 (see map). Over the past 20 years the agriculture industry has undergone great change. This change has been driven by many factors, not the least of which is an increasingly competitive -24- DRAFT — 6/6/€15 global market. In Frederick County, this period of transition has been accompanied by a decline in large scale farming operations, as well as diminishing farm profits. The table below shows general farm characteristics for Frederick County. Overall both the, iiiuuber of farrns and the number of acres in farmland have increased since 1987. However, these figures should be treated cautiously as the Census of Agriculture's definition of a farm changed in 1997 and the census methodology changed in 2002. Many small farms have since been included. Inclusion of these small farms is also a factor in lowering the average size of a local farm, identified as 156 acres in 2002. Farm Characteristics Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 A further breakdown of farm sizes is contained in the table below. This shows the clear increase in number of small farms, especially those under 50 acres and the decrease in large farms of 500 - 999 acres. Number of Farms by Farm Size Farm Characteristics Farm Size year 1987 1992 1997 2002 Change from 1987- 2002 Percent Change 1987 - 2002 Number of Farms 555 536 568 720 165 30% Farmland (Acres) 111,116 98,142 99,926 112,675 1,559 1% Avg. Farm Size (Acres) 200 183 178 156 -44 -220/. Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 A further breakdown of farm sizes is contained in the table below. This shows the clear increase in number of small farms, especially those under 50 acres and the decrease in large farms of 500 - 999 acres. Number of Farms by Farm Size Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 Frederick County has long been associated with the apple industry and its various support services. However, all indicators point to a significant decline in apple growing locally. The number of acres in apple trees has declined 13% in the last 15 years (see table below), with the largest decline occurring in the last five years. Further, the amount of apples produced has fallen from 162,586,000 pounds in 1987 to 111,452,000 pounds in ID411 Number of Farms by Farm Size Year [1987 1992 1997 2002 Change from 1987-2002 Percent Change 1987-2002 1 - 9 Acres 28 31 30 51 23 82% 10 — 49 Acres 141 147 146 231 90 64% 50 - 179 Acres 198 202 227 260 62 31% 180 - 499 Acres 137 106 120 138 1 <1% 500 - 999 Acres 40 37 35 28 -12 -30% 1000 + Acres 11 13 10 12 1 9% Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 Frederick County has long been associated with the apple industry and its various support services. However, all indicators point to a significant decline in apple growing locally. The number of acres in apple trees has declined 13% in the last 15 years (see table below), with the largest decline occurring in the last five years. Further, the amount of apples produced has fallen from 162,586,000 pounds in 1987 to 111,452,000 pounds in ID411 DRAFT — 6/6/05 2002, a decline of 31 %. Despite this decline, Frederick County retains its position as the number one apple producing county in Virginia. Frederick County also leads the state in peach production. However, the number of acres of peach orchards declined from 77.7 acres in 1987 to 414 acres in 2002, a decline of 47%. Characteristics of Agriculture Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service Countering the decline in acreage for orchards has been the increase in land in forage, principally hay. The number of acres of forage grew by 38% between 1987 and 2002. The dry tonnage of forage produced increased by a similar percentage. Nursery and green house sales have also risen dramatically in the last five years, but they remain a small part of the county's agricultural sector. Employment in agriculture also ,,,,, tiff es to has been decreasinge. The 1990 U.S. Census listed 663 workers in farming, forestry and fisheries occupations. In 2000, 378 people were working in farming, forestry and fisheries occupations. These numbers do not include those employed in farm related occupations such as food processing and sales. Employment in agriculture is likely to drop further as the average age of a Virginia farmer is now 56.7 years. The decline of the local orchard industry and diminished profits in agriculture overall suggest that the agricultural industry in Frederick County is in a significant period of transition. While the county should continue to promote and protect agriculture, alternative markets and alternative crops must be explored. In addition commercial alternatives to agriculture must be examined for those unable to continue with traditional farming. -26- Characteristics of Agriculture (Products) Year 1987 1992 1997 2002 Change from 1987-2002 Percent Change 1987-2002 Cattle and Calves (Units) 17,799 19,078 18,234 20,113 2,314 13% Corn (Acres) 2,762 2,644 3,053 3,254 492 18% Forage (Acres) 18,458 20,030 19,665 25,530 7,072 38% Orchards (Acres) 9,459 9,743 9,670 7,902 -1557 -16% Apple Orchards (Acres) 8,602 9,068 9,017 7,442 -1160 -13% Peach Orchards (Acres) Apple Production (1000 Pounds) 777 162,586 615 150,985 607 112,354 414 111,452 -363 -47% 51,134 -31% Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service Countering the decline in acreage for orchards has been the increase in land in forage, principally hay. The number of acres of forage grew by 38% between 1987 and 2002. The dry tonnage of forage produced increased by a similar percentage. Nursery and green house sales have also risen dramatically in the last five years, but they remain a small part of the county's agricultural sector. Employment in agriculture also ,,,,, tiff es to has been decreasinge. The 1990 U.S. Census listed 663 workers in farming, forestry and fisheries occupations. In 2000, 378 people were working in farming, forestry and fisheries occupations. These numbers do not include those employed in farm related occupations such as food processing and sales. Employment in agriculture is likely to drop further as the average age of a Virginia farmer is now 56.7 years. The decline of the local orchard industry and diminished profits in agriculture overall suggest that the agricultural industry in Frederick County is in a significant period of transition. While the county should continue to promote and protect agriculture, alternative markets and alternative crops must be explored. In addition commercial alternatives to agriculture must be examined for those unable to continue with traditional farming. -26- lel FT — 6/6/45 Forestry Forest land accounts for approximately 56% of the total land in Frederick County. The latest estimate (2001 Virginia Forest Survey) of forest land for the County is 151,543 acres. This is a 17% increase from the 1992 figure of 129,262 acres. The vast majority of forest land in the County is in private ownership. The George Washington National Forest accounts for 4,431 acres of the County's forest land. The dominant forest type in the County is Oak -hickory (75% of all acreage) with some Oak -pine as well (19%). Frederick County's average annual timber harvest value between 1986 and 2001 was $458,853. This places the county 81" among the 98 counties in Virginia. Despite its vast forests, Frederick County is not a major force in the Virginia timber industry. While detailed information for Frederick County is not available, throughout Virginia there is an increasing parcelization of forested land. Small parcels and proximity to houses make commercial forest management more difficult. With the advent of the Forest Stewardship Program in 1978, private landowners have been encouraged to develop a written management plan. These plans are comprehensive, multi -resource management plans that can cover timber, wildlife habitat, watershed protection and recreational opportunities. Throughout the state of Virginia only 17 percent of private forest -land owners have a written management plan. These are generally owners of large (500+ acres) forests. Much more could be done in Frederick County to both encourage comprehensive forest management and increase timber yields. Existing Agricultural and Forestal Programs Frederick County has long been supportive of agriculture and forestry and actively encourages and promotes these uses. Two key programs are described below. 1. Agricultural and Forestal Districts Agricultural and forestal districts are rural areas reserved for the production of agricultural products and timber. A district constitutes a voluntary agreement between landowners and the County that no new, non-agricultural uses will take place in the district. However, an agricultural and forestal district is not a zoning district. From the landowner's point of view, the district provides 1) strength in numbers with neighboring farmers; 2) land use taxation; 3) protection from nuisance suits 4) assurance that the district will be taken into account in local planning decisions, such as rezonings; and 5) protection in most cases from government acquisition of land or special assessments for public utilities. _27_ DRAFT — 6/6/05 Landowners agree not to subdivide their land to a more intensive non-agricultural use during the term of the district. The County agrees to shield the district from development pressure. There are wee two agricultural and forestal districts in Frederick County —South Frederick uc=��, �� „�) and Double Church (see map) (1,51 ' acres) and Ref= -be i ,hufeh 472 aeres„ ,lTee t tb �•,Y r 2005 . Participation in the districts has declined significantly since 2000. Agricultural and forestal districts currently do not offer enough incentives for many participants to continue. Further benefits could encourage greater and more prolonged participation. 2. Land Use Tax Deferral Frederick County has adopted a land use tax deferral program. Taxpayers owning and operating qualifying agricultural, horticultural and forestry uses are eligible for a special annual deferment of real estate taxes on the property. The land is assessed at its value for agriculture, horticultural or forestry, instead of at its full fair market value, which is generally higher. This ensures that owners of farms, orchards, and forests do not find it necessary to sell their land because they can not pay real estate taxes based upon market rate assessments. When property is removed from land use, due to a change in use, roll -back taxes are applied for the current and preceding five (5) years plus interest. New Agricultural and Forestal Tools in addition to continuing its existing programs, the County should promote additional tools for protecting farmland. These will also benefit forest lands. 1. GenseFvation Desi __ Rural Subdivision Set -Asides Theration desib._ rural preservation subdivisions detailed in the section on land development require that 6"0 50% of the land in these subdivisions be set aside fef ensenza*i __ as open space. Even greater set -asides will result with rezonings. This open space set-aside will be promoted for agricultural or forestry use compatible with the adjacent residential properties. The exclusion of such uses in the deeds and covenants recorded with approved rural subdivisions should be discouraged. 2. Conservation Easements/Purchase of Development Rights A conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and a government agency or a non-profit conservation organization that places permanent limits on the future development of the property in order to protect the conservation value of the land. Grantors generally retain the right to use their land for farming or similar purposes. They continue to hold title to their property and may restrict public access _28_ DRAFT — 6/6/05 and sell their property. A more detailed description of easements in contained in the section on land development. In the past landowners in Frederick County have had to look elsewhere for "' , �, a +: ,, o„+� p'archase development ri A c organizations wi�1mg to uOIu cor�e� a«�l� easem. �.�, �. It is a proposal of this plan to establish a Frederick County Conservation Easement "" Program to enable the County to hold voluntary easements and to purchase development rights. Land Stewardship Agricultural and forestry uses provide many benefits to the natural environment including flood control and groundwater recharge. However, some practices, such as draining wetlands or farming highly erodable land, can have negative impacts on the environment. The County will encourage environmentally sound farm and forest management practices. Financial or "cost share" assistance is available to private landowners for many management activities. Most federal programs are administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm Services Agency (FSA), and Soil & Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs). Major programs include the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). The primary goal of these programs is to preserve wetlands and water quality, prevent soil erosion, and improve wildlife habitat through the adoption of Best Management Practices and conversion of sensitive agricultural lands to streamside or riparian buffers. State programs are administered by the Virginia Department of Forestry (DOF) and include the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) and Reforestation of Timberlands (RT). The primary goal of both programs is the reforestation of harvested lands. In 2002 the Virginia General Assembly enacted a Riparian Buffer Tax Credit which provides tax credits for owners of timberlands which abut a waterway. The County will work with the Virginia Extension Service to promote good stewardship and conservation practices of all rural land and to publicize programs and funds to aid land conservation. Rural Diversification Despite the County's best efforts to protect and promote agriculture, the health of the agriculture industry is largely dependent on factors well beyond the control of the County. These factors include foreign competition, availability of labor, government regulations, fuel prices and interest rates. In light of the changing face of agriculture, the County will complement its continued support of agriculture and forestry with greater opportunities for diversification. -29- DRAFT — 6/6105 Economic activity which is compatible with agriculture will be encouraged and promoted in the rural areas. Any activity must be compatible in terms of scale, use and intensity with the rural environment. Activities such as small hotels and horse stable can play a valuable role in providing a balanced rural economy. Land based tourism and recreation particularly lend themselves to the rural environment, but their very success is contingent on the maintenance of the rural character. However, rural diversification should ideally complement agriculture and should not be allowed to prejudice agricultural activities. The County commits itself to the creation of a Rural Economy Task Force to further study economic diversification. This task force will draw members from the local farm community, local businesses, the Winchester Frederick County Economic Development Commission and the Chamber of Commerce. The task force will examine in greater detail the existing rural economy and explore alternatives to insure a vibrant rural economy. One task force undertaking should be to provide input to the Planning Commission in a review of ordinances to enable rural diversification. The County will encourage, not impede, appropriate economic development. Such appropriate development may be allowed by -right or with a conditional use permit, subject to meeting performance standards including traffic capacity limits, employee limits and site design standards. The County should make the rural economy a significant focus of the Winchester Frederick County Economic Development Commission. Equine Industry Virginia is the 5th largest equine state in the U.S. The equine industry is Virginia is centered in the Northern Region, which includes Frederick County, but is largely based in Loudoun and Fauquier Counties. To date Frederick County has not been a major force in the equine industry. Trail riding and pleasure are the largest equine uses in Virginia. Breeding, competition/shows and racing are far behind. With the strength and growth of the equine industry in the northern region of Virginia and the dominance of small, recreational facilities, Frederick County could take on a greater role in the Virginia equine industry. A first step is to review current ordinances to allow additional equine related activities in the rural areas. Rural Tourism and Active Recreation Tourism is a growing industry in Virginia, expanding more than 47% from 1994 through 2002. According to the Virginia Tourism Corporation (VTC), tourism is the third largest employer in Virginia behind business services and health services. Frederick County's share of the Virginia tourism industry is small but growing. The VTC estimates that travel employment in Frederick County grew from 520 in 1993 to 778 in 2001 and that travel spending in the County grew from $31,690,000 in 1993 to $52,142,570. -30- DRAFT — 6/6/05 While it is not possible to separate the rural tourism figures from the County figures, it is possible to conclude that with the continued growth in the tourism industry, there is scope for additional tourism related development in the rural areas. Some forms of tourism particularly lend themselves to rural areas. These include scenic drives, hiking, wildlife observation, equestrian activities, mountain biking, camps and bed and breakfast accommodation, to name just a few. The County could take a stronger lead in promoting tourism and recreation activities in the rural areas. A first step is to review current ordinances to allow additional tourism related activities in the rural areas. The local tourism industry is strongly based aroun4 linked to the County's rich historic and cultural resources. The County should continue its protection of these resources and investigate placing further properties on the state and national registers of historic places. designate *hem w....___„dai: ^n____l=yatio __________ within the mob...... ..� � J� fiFafne work of the GyI fas aetuTe. In particular the County should continue to promote and preserve its Civil War Battlefields (see chapter on History). The County should also work with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission in developing its Walking and Wheeling program that links communities and historic, recreational, and scenic areas via roads and trails. Tuscarora Trail The Tuscarora Trail is a 249 smile hiking trail situated generally along the mountain ranges to the west of the Shenandoah and Cumberland Valley. It connects to the Appalachian Trail in Shenandoah National Park and in Pennsylvania northeast of Carlisle. Approximately 26 miles of the Tuscarora Trail is in Frederick County (see map). Of this total, approximately 11.25 trail miles are protected by easements on private property, 3.75 trail miles are on unprotected private property and 11 trail miles are on public roads. This trail is an important feature in the county for recreation and for the promotion of tourism. For safety reasons, the County supports the relocation of the trail off of the public roads wherever possible. The County supports voluntary trail easements for sections of the trail on private property to insure the long-term viability of the Tuscarora Trail and also encourages conservation easements that protect viewsheds from the Tuscarora Trail. Other Industrial and Mining Activities There are some industrial and mineral extraction sites in the rural areas unrelated to agriculture or forestry. These sites include the many quarries, Bluestone Industrial Park and isolated industrial sites. In keeping a,ith the guiding ^ ple of this Fffal plan amu •31- DRAFT — 6116/05 pr-E).3es,ed for! these other- industfial and miner -a! e3tt-action sites and no new laf:ge sites ai:e pr-egiesed. Isolated requests for new industrial sites will likely not be supported. The County may however, in the future, designate additional locations for industrial uses as part of a comprehensive planning effort. Under such a scenario, existing rural areas land might be planned for industrial development. -32- DRAFT — 6/6/01 Economy Policies Goal: Encourage agriculture and forestry Goal: Encourage a diverse rural economy that is compatible with the rural character Goal: Minimize the impact of development Strategy 1 — Protect agricultural land and promote the local agricultural industry Strategy 2 — Protect forest land and promote healthy, sustainable forest resources. Strategy 3 - Allow economic activities compatible with a rural setting. Strategy 4 — Encourage good stewardship and conservation practices on all rural land. Strategy 5 — Promote the use of conservation easements. Implementation Methods: 1. Review ordinances to enable the full a greeter range of agricultural and forestry related activities in the rural areas. 2. Allow and encourage agricultural and forestry uses within the ea son,atio .,re set aside portion of ^ nser-vatie des ,, rural subdivisions. 4. Engage the Winchester Frederick County Economic Development Commission and the Winchester Frederick County Chamber of Commerce to proactively promote agriculture as an important element of the local economy. Specifically, these organizations should coordinate community education initiatives and industry and market research, as well as strategic marketing and small business development in support of local agriculturalists. 5. Encourage the expansion of existing agricultural and forestal districts and the creation of additional districts. 6. Protect land located within agricultural and forestal districts from encroachment by suburban and urban land uses. Discourage expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) to include land adjacent to an existing agricultural and forestal district. 7. Investigate and adopt measures to increase the value of joining and remaining in an agricultural and forestal district, such as priority treatment in any future purchase of conservation easement/development rights program and enhanced tax benefits and/or relief. 8. Work with the Virginia Tech Agricultural Research Center in Frederick County to develop relationships and programs that benefit the local agricultural community. -33 - DRAFT — 6/6/05 9. Work with the Virginia Horse Industry Board to promote the development of the equine industry in Frederick County. 10. Retain land use taxation. 11. Establish a Rural Economy Task Force to further study economic diversification. 12.I?evie ' ordinances t0 allow appropriate Cviiuii',;a!, und'»c ?�, employment and institutional uses in the Rural Area to diversify the rural economy. 13. Coordinate with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to establish a Walking and Wheeling program that links communities and historic, recreational, and scenic areas via roads and rails. 14. Encourage voluntary trail easements for properties along the Tuscarora Trail, and also encourage conservation easements that protect viewsheds from the Tuscarora Trail. 15. Establish a Conservation Easement Authefity Program and investigate funding sources for a Purchase of Development Rights Program. 16. Promote forest management plans. 17. Promote state and federal programs that provide financial and technical assistance for the conservation of natural resources and the encouragement of wildlife habitats. 18. Work with the Virginia Extension Service to promote good stewardship and conservation practices of all rural land. -34- DRAFT 6/6/05 Rural Community Centers Background Rural community centers are small activity nodes or small centers of residential development in the rural areas of Frederick County. They are settlements that preceded the steady residential growth in the rural areas that began in the 1970's. Some have historical buildings and historical connections. The 1976 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan designated a number of population centers as "Development Areas". The 1982 Comprehensive Plan refined these into Rural Community Centers. 13 Rural Community Centers, including the towns of Stephens City and Middletown, were designated, and the 1982 Plan recommended detailed studies of each center to take account of unique characteristics. From 1984 to 1985 a study of the Rural Community Centers, which included a series of public meetings, took place. Among the issues studied at that time were residential development, commercial development, housing density, mobile homes and public services, particularly the provision of public water and sewer. The 1984/85 study led to the formulation of rural community centers policies in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. 11 Rural Community Centers were identified in the 1989 Plan. The current Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies these same eleven Rural Community Centers. They are shown on the map below. These are: Gore Reynolds Store Gainsboro Round Hill Armel Shawneeland/North Mountain Star Tannery Whitacre/Cross Junction Albin Clearbrook/Brucetown Stephenson Five Rural Community Centers (Gore, Gainsboro, Clearbrook/Brucetown, Stephenson and Round Hill) have identified boundaries on the Current Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The other six are identified only by circles on the map. To date a detailed plan has been prepared only for the Round Hill Community Center. It now forms part of the adopted Comprehensive Policy Plan. Rural Areas Study The rural areas study in 2003-2004 examined the development patterns and roles of the eleven rural community centers. The rural community centers have very different sizes and functions. It is recommended that a detailed study of each rural community center be undertaken to examine in greater detail development patterns and trends and to formulate polices for development. The studies should examine both land uses and design issues. Particular attention should be given to historic buildings and structures as these often give the centers much of their character. Health systems will also need to be examined in detail. The studies and any resulting policies should be developed with the close cooperation of the residents of those centers. B&Z DRAFT — 6/6/05 These studies may take years to complete and an interim set of general policies for all of the rural community centers needed to be developed. The general policies were based on an assessment of each center (see below). Commercial development that is of a use, scale and intensity that is consistent with the rest of the center will be encouraged. Until detailed studies are completed, residential density WiA should in general remain the same as the rest of the Rural Areas (RA) District. However, because the rural community centers have established population centers, five acre lots and rural preservation lots should not be allowed in these centers without a waiver from the Board of Supervisors. Instead, rezonings should be encouraged in those rural community centers as detailed below. Rezonings allow for smaller lots, which are often consistent with those found in the rural community centers. In addition, rezonings allow for communal water and sewer systems which could be of great benefit to existing residents in these centers. Reynolds Store, Shawneeland/North Mountain and Whitacre/Cross Junction function as commercial nodes. Each serves a large, dispersed catchment area. It is proposed that these rural community centers remain very small commercial nodes. Some new commercial development, particularly development that serves the needs of the catchment area, such as a retail store or a restaurant, would be appropriate. It is recommended that boundaries be designated in the detailed studies to remove any doubt that commercial development is appropriate only in a small area. Additional residential development is not proposed for these three areas. Star Tannery is a small crossroads serving a catchment population in the far southwest corner of the County. It is proposed that Star Tannery remain a small commercial node with some increase in commercial uses to serve the surrounding population. Star Tannery will likely come under further development pressure in the future as the Corridor H (Route 55) widening takes place in West Virginia. Residential development in this rural community center is very low density and no intensification of residential development, through a rezoning, is proposed. Albin is primarily a residential community with commercial nodes at the north and south entrances. Additional commercial development to serve the surrounding population could be accommodated in Albin. A detailed study of Albin would determine whether commercial development should be confined to the two existing commercial areas or be interspersed throughout the Albin rural community center. The study should also recommend boundaries for the center and examine residential densities. Armel is also a residential enclave with a small commercial node. Additional commercial establishments could be accommodated in this area to serve the local population. The nearby Shenandoah Community may, when developed, generate a larger market for commercial uses in Armel. The remainder of the rural community center is residential. The Eastgate Industrial Park is located near the Armel rural community -36- DRAFT — 6/6/05 center. However, it does not function as part of the center and should not be included within the center boundaries. A detailed study of Armel should designate center boundaries, identify appropriate areas for modest commercial development, and examine in detail residential density. Gore is one of the oldest settlements in Frederick County. It is now largely a residential community but contains some non-residential uses. Additional commercial establishments could be accommodated in this area to serve the local population. A detailed study of Gore should re-examine the center's boundaries and identify areas for appropriate commercial development and denser residential development. Gainsboro is a rural community center with a dispersed population. It ,is largely residential, but with a less dense pattern of development than some of the other rural community centers. Gainsboro has a small cluster of non-residential uses. Additional commercial establishments could be accommodated in this area to. serve the local population. A detailed study of Gainsboro should re-examine the center's boundaries and identify areas for appropriate commercial development and possibly denser residential development. Clearbrook/Brucetown is within the area covered by the Northeast Land Use Plan. Clearbrook/Brucetown has a variety of commercial and residential components. The Clearbrook area, along route 11 is included in the Sewer and Water Services Area (SWSA) and contains many commercial and industrial facilities along with residences. The Brucetown area is a more traditional rural center with a few commercial facilities and a clustering of older residences. A detailed study of Clearbrook/Brucetown should re-examine the center's boundaries and identify areas for appropriate commercial development, which might actually be different for the two areas. It should also explore residential densities in greater detail. Stephenson is a rural community center in transition. A significant portion of the rural community center is now part of the Urban Development Area (UDA). This allows for connection to county sewer and water lines. Most of the rural community center is within the Sewer and Water Services Area (SWSA). Sewer and water service is available to commercial and industrial sites and existing houses within the SWSA. The rezoning of Stephenson Village from the RA District to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District will greatly impact the Stephenson rural community center. Due to the many changes affecting the Stephenson area, a detailed study of this rural community center is vital. Prior to a detailed study of the Stephenson rural community center, the interim policies for all rural community centers will be relevant. A detailed study of the Round Hill rural community center was adopted in 1996 and is included within this rural areas plan. Due to recent changes in the Round Hill area however, a new study of Round Hill may be necessary in the future. The goals, strategies and policies in this section will apply to all rural community centers, with the exception of Round Hill which already has a detailed plan. -37- DRAFT — 6/6/05 Rural Community Center Policies The, Rural Community Center policies apply to all centers except Round Hill, which already has a detailed pian incorporated into the Comprehensive Poucy Dlan. Goal: Maintain and enhance the Rural Community Centers. Strategy 1 Encourage commercial development in the Rural Community Centers that is of a use, scale and intensity that is consistent with the rest of the center. Strategy 2 Prevent the Rural Community Centers from becoming high growth areas. Strategy 2 Allow residential development at the me density as with the rest of the Rural Areas (RA) District. Strategy 3 Allow educational and governmental uses that are of a suitable use, scale and intensity. Strategy 4 Prepare detailed studies of each rural community center Implementation Measures: 1. Allow commercial development that serves the local area and is compatible in use, scale and character to the rural community center. 7 c 3. Allow five acre traditional lots and rural preservation subdivisions only with a waiver from the Board of Supervisors. 4. Encourage rezonings in the rural community centers. 5. Encourage the clustered houses associated with any rezoning to be located near existing residences. 6. Encourage rezonings to provide communal water and sewer facilities that benefit the wider rural community center. 7. Consider educational and governmental uses on a case by case basis 8. Prepare a detailed study for each rural community center 9. Secure the cooperation of local residents in developing policies for each center 10. Establish design guidelines for each center 11. Promote the retention and re -use of historic structures 12. Develop boundaries for centers that are currently only noted by a circle on the land use map 13. Review those center boundaries already delineated on the land use map 14. Consider overlay districts to guide development in individual centers -38- DRAFT — 6/6/05 15. Consider ordinance changes to allow a higher residential density 16. Consider ordinance changes to promote small scale commercial development -39- Comments on Land Development Table and Draft Rural Areas Study (June 6, 2005) Comments Given by Individuals at the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Meeting on June 13, 2005 General • This draft is a different direction from where joint Ad-hoc/PC/CPPS group was headed; • Proposal does not solve RA problems; • Will this be good for Frederick County?; • New draft has much softer language than CPPS version; • CPPS Plan had requirements, this plan only encourages; • Concern with early involvement of DRRS before policy language is decided; • Some outright opposition to proposal; • Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) restrictions will push people into the RA; • This is not a radical step; • This draft is too detailed - some items are best left to ordinances; • This will appeal to those who oppose over -regulation; • This will accelerate growth in the rural areas; • Process will have a negative impact on future public participation; • A consensus had almost been reached and then a table just appeared; • Options can be a good thing; • Increased density is troubling; • Strong opposition to rezoning; • This will encourage RA development; • Consider the cumulative effect over 3-4 years; • The process failed; • The plan is not visionary; • Concern with overall effect on County in terms of taxes and schools. Rural Community Centers (RCC) • All RCCs should not be treated the same; • There is inconsistency in the treatment of RCCs (waiver v. rezoning); • RCCs were meant to be studied in depth before policies were decided; Other • Concern over concept of fencing and fencing details; • Some strong opposition to fencing; • Concern over restricting off-site drainage easements on five acre lots (How to deal with existing lots and failing systems?); • Some strong opposition to package plants; • Package plants can be good for the environment- other growth tools could cut density; • Opposition to keeping five acre lot option; • Disappointment over some "lost issues" such as reduced lot sizes with rural preservation lots; • Transportation impacts are still not adequately addressed; 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 Administratorz�%�`W.. RE: Discussion: Changes to 165-156 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance; Definitions and Word Usage DATE: June 15, 2005 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its May 26, 2005, meeting discussed proposed changes to Section 165-156 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. These proposed changes would add clarification and understanding to the definitions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The DRRS recommended changing the full_ screen and landscape screen definitions as these definitions are in reversed order. Staff has included the current and proposed changes for your review. (See below) 165-156 Definitions and Word Usage. Words and Terms set forth below shall have the meanings ascribed to them. Any word, term(s), or phrase used in this Zoning Ordinance not defined below shall have the meaning ascribed to such word, term or phrase in the most recent edition of Merriam -Webster's Dictionary, unless in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, established customs or practices in Frederick County, Virginia justify a different or additional meaning. Furthermore, the purpose of this Zoning Ordinance, certain words, terms and phrases are herein defined as follows: 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Staff is seeking changes to the definitions located below. These proposed changes are for clarification. Full Screen - Full screening plus a six (6) feet in height opaque fence, hedge, wall, mound or berm. Landscape Screen - A landscape easement containing plants and other futures approved by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance; which provide a complete visual screen. This proposed ordinance amendment is presented as a discussion item to enable the Planning Commission to raise issues and seek clarification. Staff will be available to respond to your questions. Comments raised during this discussion will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. MRC/bad § 165-156 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-156 FLOODWAY DISTRICT— The channel portions of the floodplain capable of carrying the waters of a flood occurrina with an average frequency of once per every 106 years without increasing the water surface elevation of that flood by more than one foot. FLOOR AREA, GROSS — The sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of a building measured from the exterior face of exterior walls or from the center line of a wall separating two buildings. FLOOR AREA RATIO — The gross floor area of all buildings divided by the lot area. 34- FULL SCREEN — A landscaped easement containing plants or other features which provide a complete visual screen. GARAGE, BODY REPAIR — A building or portion thereof; other than a private garage or public garage, designed or used for body or fender repair or spray painting. GARAGE, PRIVATE — A deck, building or structure or part thereof used or intended to be used for the parking and storage of vehicles. GARAGE, PUBLIC — A building or portion thereof, other than a private garage, designed or used for servicing, repairing or equipping motor vehicles, but not including spray painting, body or fender repair, service stations or vehicle sales. GOLF COURSE — A tract of land used for playing golf, improved with tees, greens, fairways and other features, including accessory uses and structures. GOLF DRIVING RANGE — An area in which individuals drive golf balls from a central tee. GROSS AREA— The total area of the land contained within the boundaries of the lot or tract or within the perimeter boundaries of a development. GROSS DENSITY — The total number of dwellings divided by the total gross area within the perimeter boundaries of a development. The "gross density" within a section of a development shall be the number of dwellings in the section divided by the total area of residential lots, common yard areas, common open space required in the section and right-of-way areas of roads and easements that are interior to the section. 16696 10-25-2001 49 165-156 ZONING § 165-156 municipally owned or operated building, structure or land used for public purposes. INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION — An educational institution whose primary purpose is to provide a collegiate or graduate education. INTER -PARCEL CONNECTOR — An at -grade entrance between adjoining properties that is designed to facilitate vehicular access between land uses without use of the street system. [Added 9-12-20011 JUNKYARD — Any area, lot, land, parcel, building or structure or part thereof used for the storage, collection, processing, purchase, sale or abandonment of wastepaper, rags, scrap metal or other scrap or discarded goods, materials or machinery. KENNEL— A place prepared to house, board, breed, handle or otherwise keep or care for dogs for sale or in return for compensation. LAKES and PONDS — Natural or artificial bodies of water which retain water year round. Such bodies shall be considered to extend from the maximum water level plus an additional 10 feet. LANDFILL— A sanitary landfill site used for the disposal of solid wastes beneath layers of soil and other materials. LANDSCAPE SCREENING — Full screening plus a six -foot -high opaque fence, hedge, wall, mound or berm. LDN — A term referring to the average day -night sound level for areas adjacent to the Winchester Regional Airport. LDN MAP — A map showing the average day -night sound levels of 65 LDN and above for areas adjacent to the Winchester Regional Airport. LEGALLY NONCONFORMING SIGN — Any sign lawfully existing on the effective date of an ordinance, or amendment thereto, that renders such sign nonconforming because it does not conform to all the standards and regulations of the adopted or amended ordinance. [Added 8-14-20021 LEGALLY NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE — A structure, the size, dimensions, or location of which was lawful prior to the adoption, revision, or amendment to the Zoning Ordinance but that fails by 16699 04-25-2005 § 165-156 ZONING § 165-156 ARTICLE XXII Definitions § 165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Amended 11-13-19911 Unless a contrary intention clearly appears, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning given in this section. All words and terms not defined herein shall be used with a meaning of standard usage. ABUT— To physically touch or border upon or to share a common property line. ACCESS — A way or means of vehicular or pedestrian approach to provide physical entrance to a property. ACCESSORY USE — A use of land or of a building or portion thereof customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and located on the same lot with such principal use. ACTIVE DISTANCE BUFFER — A distance buffer which contains no building or principal structure of activity but which may contain an accessory use or activity. ADDITION — A structure added to the original structure at some time after the completion of the original. ADJACENT OR ADJOINING LOT OR LAND — A lot or parcel of land which shares all or part of a common lot line with another lot or parcel or land or which is immediately across a street or road from said parcel or lot. ADULT CARE RESIDENCES and ASSISTED LIVING CARE FACILITIES — Any place, establishment or institution, public or private, operated or maintained for the maintenance or care of four or more adults who are aged, infirm or disabled and who are cared for in a primarily residential setting, except a facility or portion of a facility licensed by the State Board of Health or the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services; and the home or residence of an individual who cares for or maintains only persons related to him by blood or marriage; and a facility or portion of a facility serving infirm or disabled persons between the ages of 18 and 21. [Added 2-26-19971 ADULT RETAIL – A retail establishment for which 25% or more of its stock in trade, as determined by floor area, is in videos, magazines, 16687 6-10-2003