PC 03-02-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
March 2, 2005
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) January 19, 2005 Minutes and February 2, 2005 Minutes ............................................... (A)
2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
4) Conditional Use Permit #25-04 of Dean A. Harvey for a Cottage Occupation— Office Use and
Off -Premise Business Sign. These properties are located at 4784 Front Royal Pike (Route 522
South) and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 94A -1-11-4A (Cottage
Occupation) and 94A-1-2-7 (Off -Premise Sign) in the Opequon Magisterial District.
Mr. Beniamino................................................................................................................ (B)
PUBLIC MEETING
5) Master Development Plan #03-05 for Whitehall Commerce Center, submitted by G. W.
Clifford & Associates, Inc., for Commercial and Industrial Uses. The property is located east
and adjacent to the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Rest Church Road (Route
669), and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 34-A-2 and 34-A-4, in the
Stonewall Magisterial District.
Ms. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (C)
6) Master Development Plan #04-05 for Kernstown Commons, submitted by Patton Harris
Rust and Associates, PC, for Commercial Use. This property is located northeast and
adjacent to the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Woodbine Road (Route 669),
and is identified with Property Identification Number 75-A-10, in the Shawnee Magisterial
District.
Ms. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D)
DISCUSSION
7) Planning Commission Retreat Summary
Mr. Lawrence.................................................................................................................. (E)
8) Other FILE COPY
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on January 19, 2005
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris,
Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours,
Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger,
Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Barbara
Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District;
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director;
Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Candice Perkins, Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
WELCOME NEW AT -LARGE MEMBER, H. PAIGE MANUEL
Chairman DeHaven welcomed the new Member -At -Large to the Planning Commission, Mr. H.
Paige Manuel.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Conunissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes
of December 15, 2004 were unanimously approved.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1441
Draft Minutes of January 19, 2005
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS
Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS, the working group, the Planning Commission, and
the Board of Supervisors held a work session together on January 5, 2005. Commissioner Light said that he
believed all but one of the Board of Supervisors members supported the rezoning option and the by -right option
for the rural areas. He said the proposal was then sent to the Board of Supervisors on January 12, 2005 as a
discussion item and a large number of land owners were present to speak in opposition. Commissioner Light said
that because of the landowners' objections, the Board appointed an Ad -Hoc Committee, chaired by Mr. John P.
Goode and assisted by Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, to develop their own proposal for the rural areas. Commissioner
Light was concerned because the Ad -Hoc Committee was given no direction, no guidance, no objective, nor rules
to follow.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
Commissioner Gochenour stated that her report this evening was in the form of a request.
Commissioner Gochenour stated that the HRAB did not have their regularly scheduled meeting last night, January
18, 2005, and regrettably, this has been the trend over the past three years that she has served as the liaison from
the Planning Commission. She said she realized there were many mitigating circumstances why the HRAB is not
operating at its fullest potential; however, due to the historic value of the community, it should be a vibrant leader
in land use plans and protecting the irreplaceable. Commissioner Gochenour said that she was, therefore,
requesting the cooperation of the Planning Commissioners, the Planning Staff, and the Board of Supervisors to
look into ways of helping to revitalize this very important component of the planning process.
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
Commissioner Thomas reported that the EDC talked about their upcoming program for the
year and branding initiatives. He said the EDC also introduced and demonstrated their new website.
Sanitation Authority
Commissioner Unger reported the following information from the December Sanitation
Authority meeting: The month of December had normal rainfall in the amount of 3'/z inches; both plants are
working in very good shape; 2005 expenses were reviewed; and, connection fees for water meters and sewers
were predicted to double by January of 2006.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1442
Draft Minutes of January 19, 2005
Winchester Planning Commission (WPC)
Commissioner Ours reported that the WPC has appointed a new liaison to the Frederick County
Planning Commission, Mr. David Shore, who will be attending the Frederick County Planning Commission
meetings in the near future.
In addition, Commissioner Ours reported on an interesting discussion by the Winchester
Planning Commission dealing with residential -commercial development and how to best structure the City's
ordinances. Commissioner Ours said the subject arose with the proposed development of land adjacent to Sacred
Heart Church. He said the discussion included the subject of corridor overlay and at some point, there may be the
opportunity for some beneficial dialogue between Frederick County and Winchester to work together on corridor
appearance. He said that for the most part, the Winchester Planning Commission discussed their new PC
(Planned Commercial) Zoning. Specifically, they talked about how to model the new PC Zoning from the former
Planned Shopping Center Zoning and determining what is the best type of commercial development to occur in
and adjacent to the residential areas.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Ms. Diane Kerns, representing the Community Consensus Coalition (CCC), announced that the
CCC, along with the Virginia Citizens Planning Education Council (VCPEC), formerly the VCPA, will be
sponsoring a Citizens Planning Workshop focusing on Comprehensive Policy Plans. She said the workshop is
scheduled for Thursday evening, February 10, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at the Winchester Medical Center Conference
Center. Ms. Kerns gave a brief explanation on how the educational session will be conducted; she also supplied
the Commission and the members of the public with flyers about the workshop.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning #13-04 of Westbury Commons, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.13 acres from
B2 (Business General) District to RP (Residential Performance) District. The property fronts on the east
side of Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Rt. 1318), approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of
North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522). This property is further identified with P.I.N.s 53-4-3-E and 53-4-3-F in
the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers
Plainer Candice Perkins presented the background information for the Commission. Ms.
Perkins stated that although the land requested for rezoning is within the Urban Development Area (UDA), the
Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan indicates that the property should be used for commercial
use. She said that due to the subject site's location adjacent to the RP -zoned Westminster -Canterbury
development, a rezoning from 132 to RP may be supported to continue the consistency and compatibility of the
area, if all impacts are appropriately mitigated.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1443
Draft Minutes of January 19, 2005
Ms. Perkins next summarized the proffered conditions associated with this rezoning. She noted
there were still issues regarding the proffers that needed to be resolved by the applicant. She said the first issue
deals with the dollar amount being proffered by the applicant, based on the Capital Facilities Impact Model. She
noted that this age -restricted development will create impacts on Fire & Rescue, Parks & Recreation, the public
library, the Sheriff's Department, and County Administration; she said the Capital Facilities Impact Model
projects a fiscal impact of $2,081 per dwelling, excluding the public school system because of the age -restricted
designation. Ms. Perkins explained that the applicant is proffering a $1,000 contribution for each residential
unit; this amount equates to a $1,081 deficit in the public services required for this project. In addition, she said
the maintenance for the trail system, the buffers and fencing, and the community center is unclear. Ms. Perkins
believed it would be appropriate to include language in the proffer to the effect that the community center shall be
located as generally shown on the GDP and will be handicapped accessible, provide for parking, and meet other
requirements of the county's ordinances.
Commissioner Kriz questioned the appropriateness of having a community center for the 11
homes designated for this project. Due to the small scale of the homeowners association, he felt the maintenance
and upkeep would be too costly and he doubted it would get full use. He suggested eliminating the community
center and improving the circular area as a community gathering place. Commissioner Kriz also suggested the
possibility of the developer donating the surplus funds to Parks and Recreation. In addition, he believed the
proposed four -foot fence alongside the road was not in keeping with the surrounding area there.
Ms. Perkins responded that the four -foot fence was not a requirement of the ordinance, but was
proposed by the applicant. She said the community center, however, is a zoning ordinance requirement for this
housing type and currently, there is no waiver option for it. She said an ordinance revision would be required to
remove the community center requirement from the single-family, small -lot housing type.
Commissioner Straub mentioned the one-way in and one-way out condition of this project; she
asked about the possibility of providing a horse-shoe type entrance instead of just the one street.
Commissioner Gochenour inquired if the street within the project could be state -maintained so
that the senior citizens living in the development would not have to worry about snow removal.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, the design engineers representing the owner,
Harvest Communities, described the proposal as an in -fill development and he noted that the residential
component is in keeping with the majority of land uses surrounding this project. Regarding the one point of
access, Mr. Wyatt explained that the circular road was designed specifically for limited accessibility by the
outside public because this will be a private community. He said there was not a great distance from the public
street into the project and he didn't believe there would be a problem for emergency vehicles to access the
properties in the off chance the entrance would be blocked. He pointed out that even though the HOA is
responsible for maintenance of the street, they have a provision in the proffer that the road will be constructed to
meet or exceed the public street pavement section utilized by VDOT.
Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that Harvest Communities is in favor of working towards an
ordinance amendment to eliminate the community center. He suggested the possibility of a waiver option
allowing 30 units or under to provide a recreational equivalent, based on the total number of dwelling units, in lieu
of the community center. However, Mr. Wyatt suggested that possibly, a portion of the money could be kept on
site for the benefit of the residents of the community and another portion designated to the county for regional
parks, etc.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1444
Draft Minutes of January 19, 2005
Regarding fiscal impacts, Mr. Wyatt commented that age -restricted communities tend to use
emergency and police services more than other agencies. He noted that the in the fiscal model, the two line items
for both Sheriff and Fire & Rescue combined were less than $500.00; he said they have attempted to double that
dollar amount, which is how they arrived at the $1,000 per residential unit.
Mr. Wyatt next offered some letters of support from adjoining hon;eow;iers in the Canterbury
Square Subdivision and the residents along Hickory Lane.
Commissioner Unger also questioned whether the four -foot fence would look appropriate along
the front of this property. Chairman DeHaven pointed out that landscaping goes along with the fence. Mr.
Wyatt said the property owners would be willing to eliminate the fence, if it was not a requirement.
Commissioner Light was concerned about the capability of a homeowners association of this
small size to take care of the streets in perpetuity. Mr. Wyatt replied that purchasers of homes in these types of
communities are well aware of what they are buying into. He said that prospective buyers want the private street
that is not open to the public.
There were no citizen comments.
There was a consensus among the Commissioners that the ordinance needed to be reviewed
concerning the possibility of providing a waiver of a community center for a development of this size. They did
not want to hold up the applicant's rezoning application, however, until this was accomplished.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Rezoning Application 413-04 of Westbury Commons, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.13 acres
from B2 (Business General) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with the proffers as submitted by
the applicant.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE): Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Manuel
NO: Straub, Gochenour
(Note: Commissioner Rosenberry was absent from the meeting.)
Rezoning Request #14-04 of the Haggerty Property, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc.
to rezone 111.56 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District. This
property is located adjacent and east of Eddys Lane (Rt. 820), approximately three miles east of
Winchester and 1,500 feet south of Route 7. Furthermore, the subject site is located adjacent and south of
the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant property and adjacent and west of Opequon Creek, which
forms the boundary of Clarke County. This property is identified with P.I.N.s 55-A-212 and 55 -A -212A in
the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1445
Draft Minutes of January 19, 2005
Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers
Con„r;ssione-r —H Paige Manuel said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this
matter due to a possible conflict of interest.
Planning Deputy Director Michael T. Ruddy read the background material for the Commission's
information. He said the Haggerty rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick
County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. He said the staff report also identifies several
impacts generated by this rezoning request that have not been fully mitigated with the details of this application.
Mr. Ruddy stated that it may be appropriate for the applicant to modify the rezoning application and proffer
statement to ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning application are fully mitigated. Mr. Ruddy
identified those impacts as: 1) The proffer regarding the land dedication of the Route 37 right-of-way and the
desirability of the ten-year sunset clause on the dedication of the right-of-way. 2) The implementation of the
suggested improvements and lane geometry at the new collector road intersection with Route 7, identified as being
needed to maintain an acceptable level of service, should be fully implemented and guaranteed with the Haggerty
project. 3) The dedication of the 20 acres of land for public use should be guaranteed by incorporating it into the
proffer statement for the Haggerty project.
Mr. Ruddy noted that Mr. Jerry Copp and Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT were present to answer
questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Kriz believed the sunset clause should be lengthened from ten years to 25 or 30
years; he commented that after that period of time, it should be known whether Route 37 will be built or not. He
believed ten years was too short an amount of time to get anything accomplished.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc. was present to represent
the owner, Mr. David Holiday, on the Haggerty Property (formerly known as The Canyon). Mr. Maddox said the
history of this project dates back 12 years or so with a project known as Twin Lakes. He explained that the
Haggerty proposal includes a connection with Route 7, which is recognized as a very important issue with the
County. Mr. Maddox began by discussing the transportation issues and he noted that this has been a cooperative
effort with a number of agencies and the issues involving the Valley Mill Road corridor, the Route 7 corridor, the
Greenwood Road project, the intersection at Greenwood Road, and the Senseny Road corridor have all been taken
into consideration. He said the conclusion was reached that the very best alternative is to provide a right-of-way
which would parallel the future Route 37 corridor. It will be designed to be available as a local street after Rt. 37
is built and, in the interim, it would function as a Rt. 37. He said that his client has graciously agreed to do the
construction and to negotiate with the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority on right -of --way and additional
lands that may be needed for buffering.
Mr. Maddox continued, stating that the proffer will be revised to eliminate the sunset clause and
this land will be perpetually available for Rt. 37. He said that a Phasing Plan will be provided which extends
three years from the master development plan approval and provides for 100 lots per year, beginning with the
anniversary of the MDP. The Frederick -Winchester Service Authority will be able to close their Rt. 7 connection
and his client will provide and build a connection to the Service Authority from their road, allowing access to the
traffic light off of Rt. 7. In order to finance and provide cash flows to implement the proffers, they are requesting
the allowance of 50 residential units to utilize the existing road system. The new road system would have to be
available by the issuance of the 51" building permit.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1446
Draft Minutes of January 19, 2005
Commissioner Kriz said he realized there would be cash flow problems, particularly at the onset
of the project, but he was wondering if it would be possible to phase the project out to five years instead of three
to better enable the County to handle the fiscal impacts. Mr. Maddox replied that they are sensitive to not only
the transportation needs, but also school delivery and would be willing to slow the project from three to four
years.
Commissioner Straub inquired about the type of residential units proposed and if a homeowners
association would be established. She also pointed out that this section of the Senseny Road -Greenwood corridor
has well over 1,000 homes; she said Senseny Road School and Red Bud School are either over or at capacity and
she was not aware of another school planned for this area. Commissioner Straub asked Mr. Maddox for his
thoughts on this situation. Mr. Maddox responded that single-family homes are planned on the east side and the
west side will consist of innovative mixed uses, such as garden units, zero lot lines, or atrium homes. He said the
types of units will be finalized at the MDP stage and a homeowners association will be established. Mr. Maddox
said they had spoken with representatives of the Frederick County School Board about a school site; however,
there may be some issue with the proximity of the treatment plant. Mr. Maddox said that land will be available
for public use and he believed there was a beautiful site on the property for a community park with access to the
Opequon.
Additional transportation questions were raised by the Commissioners and a lengthy discussion
followed on the impacts and location alternatives of the proposed road going from Route 7 to Senseny Road.
Issues discussed included the possible impacts to traffic on Route 7 and Route 659; traffic studies and
projections; responsibility of road construction from the Haggerty property out to Senseny; the type of
improvements proposed for Route 7; and, the appropriateness of proposed locations for connectors, alignment,
and right-of-ways. Mr. Maddox believed the primary issue was the acceptability of an at -grade intersection on
Rt. 37.
(Note: Commissioner Ours left the meeting at this point.)
Commissioner Gochenour was concerned about the availability of water. Commissioner
Gochenour suggested the possibility of reservoir construction for a sustainable water supply.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following citizen came forward to speak:
Mr. Tim Stafford, a resident at Valley Mill Farm in the Red Bud District, stated that he was in
favor of the proposed project. Mr. Stafford thanked Mr. Holiday, Mr. Maddox, Mr. Copp, and Supervisor
Forrester for inviting him to meetings involving this project and for taking his concerns, as a resident on Valley
Mill Road, into consideration. He believed this was a great example of smart growth. He said that he, his wife,
and his neighbors were all in favor of this project.
Commissioner Thomas asked about the potential for using the Route 37 right-of-way bed for the
north connector road to Rt. 7, assuming Rt. 37 would be limited access. Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT replied that
it probably will not be practical because a road system will still be needed for vehicular access to Rt. 7 and to Rt.
37 for the new homes that will be constructed; he believed two road systems would be necessary. Commissioner
Thomas also inquired about what type of connection would be required for the crossover and Mr. Lloyd replied
that it will probably be a fly -over bridge.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1447
Draft Minutes of January 19, 2005
Commissioner Straub asked Mr. Ingram for his comments on the letter received from Clarke
County's Planning Director, Mr. Charles Johnston, in which Mr. Johnston raised concerns about increasing traffic
on Route 7. Mr. Ingram said that the Route 7 design was capable of handling the additional traffic.
Commissioner Straub believed that some alternative for moving traffic onto and off -of limited access roads was
needed.
Members of the Commission commented that the amount of time and agency cooperation
invested in this project had certainly provided a positive affect on the final results of the design.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Rezoning Application # 14-04 for the Haggerty Property, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc. to
rezone 111.56 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with the amended
proffers offered by the applicant, specifically, the elimination of the sunset clause for the Route 37 dedication and
the change to the maximum number of dwelling units per year to 75 with a 48 -month phasing plan.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE): Triplett, Kriz, Thomas, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, DeHaven
NO: Gochenour, Straub
ABSTAIN• Manuel
(Note: Commissioner Ours was absent for this vote; Commissioner Rosenberry was absent from the meeting.)
OTHER
PLANNING COMMISSION 2005 ANNUAL RETREAT
Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence reminded all the Commissioners that Saturday, February 5,
2005 is the Planning Commission's 2005 Annual Retreat. He said the discussion will be emphasizing the Urban
Development Area (UDA), anticipating that this will be the next major task the Planning Commission, the
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subconmiittee, and the staff will be undertaking in the upcoming year.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES
Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence announced that this morning, January 19, 2005, the Finance
Committee reviewed and endorsed the revised Development Review Fees Schedule. He said the revised Review
Fredrick County Planning Commission Yage 14425
Draft Minutes of January 19, 2005
Fee Schedule will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for adoption. He added that the staff has been
directed to begin circulating the revised schedule to the development community for information.
DISCUSSION ON THE RURAL AREAS ISSUES
As the Chairman of the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS),
Commissioner Light spoke with the Commission members about his dismay with the outcome of the Board of
Supervisors' actions on the Rural Areas Study at the Board's meeting of January 12, 2005. Commissioner Light
believed it was the Planning Commission's role to lead the community toward best management practices through
land use plans; however, he felt the goal for the CPPS to development a plan was derailed by the political process.
Commissioner Light talked about how the study originated and how the CPPS proceeded with
the study and the public meetings. He mentioned that certain landowners who voiced opposition to the proposals
had not attended any of the public meetings. Looking back, he believed there was no clear direction from the
Board about what they supported or the exact goals they wanted to achieve. Commissioner Light was open for
suggestions on how the process could be modified for future studies.
Commissioner Thomas added that the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee
(DRRS) has been postponing ordinance revisions and criteria updates, waiting for this Rural Areas Study to be
completed. He said the DRRS has been waiting for over a year and there are issues that are coming to the point
where they need to be addressed. Commissioner Thomas said that if the Rural Areas Study is going to continue
for another year, the DRRS is going to have to proceed with some action on ordinance revisions for design
standards.
Chainnan DeHaven felt confident that in 60 days, the Planning Commission, the CPPS, and the
DRRS would have direction from the Board of Supervisors on the outcome for the Rural Areas Study.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a
unanimous vote at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1449
Draft Minutes of January 19, 2005
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on February 2, 2005
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris,
Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett,
Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van
Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi,
Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District;
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R_ Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Susan K.
Eddy, Senior Planner; David M. Beniamino, Planner; Bernard Suchicital, Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
WELCOME NEW LIAISON FOR THE CITY OF WINCHESTER
Chairman DeHaven welcomed the new liaison from the City of Winchester, Mr. David Shore.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 01/27/05 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS reviewed the SIC Codes for the M2 Zoning
District and talked about whether anything should be added or removed. He said the DRRS also discussed
agricultural setbacks in the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the RP (Residential Performance) District to
make sure land is not being wasted by using buffers and setbacks.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1450
Draft Minutes of February 5, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING
2005-2006 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County. The CIP is a prioritized list of capital
projects requested by various County departments and agencies, to be reviewed for potential allocation in
the ensuing five-year period. The CIP is created as an informational document to assist in the
development of the County's annual budget. The CIP is an advisory document; projects are not
necessarily funded because of their inclusion in the CIP.
Action — Recommended Approval
Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy presented the 2005-2006 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for
Frederick County. Planner Eddy said the proposed CIP includes 43 capital projects, 12 of which are new projects,
including: five new projects from the public schools, including a fourth high school and fifth middle school; four
new projects from the Department of Parks & Recreation, including an indoor swimming pool; two new projects
from the Department of Public Works, including the expansion of the Greenwood Road Convenience Site and
relocation of the Gainesboro Convenience Site; and a terminal building renovation at the Winchester Regional
Airport. She said that all of the other projects in the 2005-2006 CIP are carried forward from the 2004-2005
CIP. She also presented a map indicating the approximate locations for the proposed projects.
Ms. Eddy said the draft CIP was reviewed by the Comprehensive Plans & Programs
Subcommittee (CPPS) at their meeting of November 8, 2004, and the CPPS agreed that all of the requests were in
conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; the CPPS forwarded the draft CIP to the Planning Commission
as a discussion item. She said that the Planning Commission considered the CIP as a discussion item at their
meeting of December 15, 2004 and the consensus of the Commission was that the projects proposed within the
CIP were in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; the Commission forwarded the draft CIP to the
Board of Supervisors for discussion. Ms. Eddy stated that the Board of Supervisors considered the CIP as a
discussion item at their meeting of January 12, 2005 and agreed to schedule public hearings. She said that
members of the public spoke in support of an indoor swinuning poollaquatic facility at all three of these meetings.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment, however, no one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Straub was pleased to see that the County was seeking park land in the eastern
portion of Frederick County. Commissioner Straub commented that 60% of the residents of Frederick County are
concentrated in this small area and she believed the park should be located near where the most people lived. She
hoped there was a way to have the aquatic facility within the proposed park area. Commissioner Gochenour
echoed Commissioner Straub's comments.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the 2005-2006 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County, which is a prioritized list of
capital projects requested by various County departments and agencies, to be reviewed for potential allocation in
the ensuing five-year period.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1451
Draft Minutes of February 5, 2005
Conditional Use Permit #01-05 of Cingular Wireless — M&M LP, LLP for a telecommunication facility
located at 3035 Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622). This property is identified with P.I.N. 61-A-118 in the Back
Creek District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning Administrator Mark R. Cheran read the background information and reviewing agencies'
comments. Mr. Cheran added that the staff believes the application has adequately addressed the requirements of
Section 165-48.6 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance in that a need for this facility, based on a lack of
coverage and capacity in this part of Frederick County, has been demonstrated. He further added that the
applicant has modified his request with a reduction in the tower height from 200 feet to 120 feet. Mr. Cheran
next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate.
Referring to the comments received from the Winchester Regional Airport, Commissioner
Thomas asked for clarification on whether or not the tower is to be lighted. Mr. Cheran replied that lighting is not
required under the height regulations because the proposed tower is below 200 feet. He said the Planning
Commission has the authority to add a condition requiring the tower to be lighted, if the Commission believes it is
appropriate.
Commissioner Gochenour inquired about possible impacts to the Opequon Historic District.
Mr. Carl Nelson, representing Cingular Wireless, stated that whenever they are attempting to
locate a facility near a site that is on, or eligible to be on, the National Register of Historic Places, they are
required to contact the governing body for the historic site, which in this case was the Opequon Historic District.
As a result of those discussions and negotiations, the decision was made to lower the height of the tower to 120
feet and to replace the lattice structure with a monopole, to diminish visibility from the historic village. Mr.
Nelson said that their negotiations with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) lead to this
compromise and is actually the origin of the reduction in tower height. He added that the VDHR actually
provided them with a letter stating there were no adverse affects.
Commissioner Ours inquired if opportunities for collocation on other towers in the area had been
explored. Mr. Nelson said that Cingular is not a tower company and their policy is to locate on existing facilities.
He said that in this particular case, there simply wasn't anything available. He noted that the taller structures
visible on the horizon from the Marker -Miller Orchards are simply too far away to enable penetration of the target
area they need to cover.
Chairman DeHaven called for public continents and the following person came forward to speak:
Ms. Page Huffer, representing Shenandoah Personal Communications in Edinburg, was present
to speak in support of Mr. Nelson's application. Ms. Huffer said that her company is currently negotiating with
Cingular Wireless to place their cell antennas on this structure as well, so that they will not have to build an
additional structure.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Straub,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommended
approval of Conditional Use Permit #01-05 of Cingular Wireless—M&M LP, LLP for a 120 -foot monopole,
commercial telecommunication facility at 3035 Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622), with the following conditions:
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1452
Draft Minutes of February 5, 2005
1. All Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and
complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless services providers.
3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County.
4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within 12 months of abandonment of
operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within 12 months of the approval of this conditional
use permit, then the CUP will be deemed invalid.
6. A certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed and will be constructed in a
manner that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be contained in an area around
the tower with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of the base of the
tower.
Revocation of Conditional Use Permit #30-99 of Winchester Motor Service ("The Van Man") to operate a
public garage without body repair at 2372 Berryville Pike (Rt. 7 East). This property is identified with
P.I.N. 55-A-102 in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 90 Days
Zoning Administrator Mark R. Cheran reported that the Board of Supervisors approved
Conditional Use Permit 430-99 for Winchester Motor Service on January 26, 2000, to operate a public garage
without body repair at 2372 Berryville Pike (Rt. 7 East) with nine conditions. Mr. Cheran stated that the staff
received a complaint regarding violations of the county ordinance at this property. He said the staff inspected the
property on December 21, 2004 and noted the presence of tractor -trailers, debris, and tires on the property. He
said that a letter of violation was issued, as well as a notice of revocation of the conditional use permit (CUP) for
violations of the conditions.
Commission members asked what specific conditions were in violation to cause the revocation
and Mr. Cheran replied that the parking of tractor -trailers on the property was the source of the violation. Mr.
Cheran explained that any CUP issued by Frederick County for a public garage, with or without body repair, is
for privately -owned vehicles; the vehicles on this property were over -the -road vehicles, constituting a fleet
maintenance facility, which is not allowed in the RA Zoning District.
Commissioners inquired if the applicant knew she was in violation of her CUP and if she had
responded to the violation notice she was given. Mr. Cheran replied that the owner is cleaning up the site; he said
the owner was present to answer questions from the Commission.
Ms. Shelia Beach, the property owner, said that with the help of her lawyer, the lessee is going to
be evicted from her property for violating the lease agreement. Ms. Beach said that the lessee was very aware of
not being allowed to operate anything other than the garage and office, which is specifically stated in the lease.
She said that she has removed approximately $1,500 worth of tires in the previous two weeks.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1453
Draft Minutes of February 5, 2005
Chairman DeHaven asked Mrs. Beach how much additional time she needed to bring the site into
total compliance and Mrs. Beach replied she needed at least two more months.
Commissioner Ours pointed out that this site has a history of similar concerns and it is in an area
that everyone would like to see cleaned up. He asked Mrs. Beach if it was her intent, even though the current
lessee is being evicted, to continue to operate the facility in the same manner. Mrs. Beach replied that she has a
person interested in renting the garage specifically for mechanical use. Mrs. Beach said that she did not want to
lose the CUP because it would affect her ability to generate income to remove the tires. Mrs. Beach said that she
has photographs of the property showing the lot was cleaned up and all the salvage was removed. She said that
her tenants have again left her with drums, tires, and other junk. Mrs. Beach said that her long-term plans were to
clean up the property the best that she could, fill it in with soil, and then sell the property.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mr. Michael Hopkins, an adjoining property owner, stated that the site is a "real mess" and an
eyesore. He added that the property is adjacent to a historic site, a battlefield, and there is also a creek that runs
through the middle of the property. He also reported an abandoned vehicle near the creek, four trailers, and he
was certain there were chemicals on the property.
Mr. Roger Harteau, an adjoining property owner, reported that the mechanic who leased the
property was parking semi -trailers overnight and the trailers were left running throughout the night. Mr. Harteau
said that if the CUP remains in place, the Board should validate the removal of the tires.
Ms. Barbara Vance, adjoining property owner along Calvary Drive, said that she has been a
resident here for over 11 years and these issues have continued to be an ongoing problem with this property. She
commented that everyone was pleased to see the salvage yard removed because of the problems it created. Ms.
Vance noted that Supervisor Lynda Tyler has photographs, taken by a neighbor, showing persons hitting a gas
tank, held up by a forklift over a vat, with an ax to get the gas out. She said the gasoline was going into the soil.
Ms. Vance was concerned about the long-term environmental affects this type of activity has had on the property
and the creek. She also mentioned possible involvement by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
She believed there would have to be considerable cleanup on the property before it could be sold. She said that
she and her neighbors were concerned for the safety, the appearance, and for the long-term environmental affects
of the property and they hoped the County would look into the situation.
Mr. Bill Hamman, an adjoining property owner, said that for a number of weeks in December, it
appeared that someone was living in one of the mobile homes; he observed new electrical lines and even a port -o -
john. Mr. Hamman was not pleased with having a port -o john next to his residence. He said the site was an eye-
sore and needed to be cleaned up. He added that when the salvage yard was removed, they witnessed fluids from
vehicles being emptied out onto the ground while they crushed the vehicles to remove them. He, too, was
concerned about the long-term environmental affects on the stream and ultimately, the watershed.
Mrs. Beach returned to the podium and said that she approached her tenant about the violations,
but he would not take care of things. Ms. Beach said that when she inherited the property from her step -father,
Mr. Loy, she removed approximately $3,700 worth of tires. She said the tires currently on the property are new.
Mrs. Beach said she realized that she was responsible for the property and she is struggling to get the money to
take care of the property.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1454
Draft Minutes of February 5, 2005
Board of Supervisors Liaison, Barbara VanOsten, inquired about the contents ofthe drums; she
was concerned about the possibility of chemicals.
Commissioner Thomas asked Mrs. Beach about the remainder of the items on the property, such
as the trailers and the drums. Mrs. Beach said she did not realize there was a problem with the two trailers
because the property is zoned RA (Rural Areas) District and the trailers were not mentioned in any of the letters
she received from the County. Mrs. Beach said that she spoke with the County's Recycling Coordinator, Ms.
Gloria Puffnberger, in August about removal of the drums.
Commissioner Thomas said he agreed the area was an eye sore; however, it seemed that the
owner, Mrs. Beach, has good intentions of cleaning up the property. Commissioner Thomas suggested that the
Commission give Mrs. Beach 90 days to clean up the property and then have the staff visit the site and write a
staff report. He said that if the property has been cleaned up and Mrs. Beach's CUP is allowed to continue, the
staff should automatically visit the site in another six months to make sure the property is being maintained
properly.
Commissioner Unger suggested that the Commission be more specific as to the outcome of the
drums and the trailers. Commissioner Thomas said the contents of the drums will need to be investigated.
Zoning Administrator, Mark R Cheran, stated that he could coordinate the inspection of the site with either the
recycling coordinator or the fire marshal. Regarding the mobile home, Mr. Cheran stated that the unoccupied
mobile home was located on the property when this site was a salvage yard; he explained that the mobile home is
a housing type that is permitted in this zoning district. Mr. Cheran said that he could arrange with the building
official to inspect the mobile home to determine if it is habitable. He said that if the Planning Commission
believes it should be removed, it could certainly be added to the conditions. He recalled that the other mobile
home has been used as an office space since this CUP was issued.
Commissioner Thomas requested that the staff arrange for either the DEQ or the County
Engineer to conduct an assessment of whether or not the creek has been polluted. Chairman DeHaven requested
that the staff also coordinate the site visit with the fire marshal and the building official to assess the drums and
the mobile homes.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Gochenour,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table the
Revocation of CUP #30-99 of Winchester Motor Service ("The Van Man") for 90 days to allow the property
owner time to clean up the site and to come into compliance with her conditional use permit; and, at the end of the
90 -day period, this CUP will come back to the Commission for action with a staff report containing an evaluation
of site clean-up and CUP compliance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That if the owner is in compliance and
the recommendation of the Commission is for the continuation of the CUP, the staff will automatically schedule
an additional site visit in six months to verify that the property continues to be properly maintained and the owner
remains in compliance.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1455
Draft Minutes of February 5, 2005
PUBLIC MEETING
Master Development Plan #12-04 for Easy Living Mobile Home Community, submitted by Valley
Engineering -Surveying -Planning, for 41 mobile home dwelling units. The property is located on the west
side of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. I IN), 600 feet north of Valley Pike (Rt. 11S) and Old Charlestown Road (Rt.
761). This property is identified with P.I.1V.s 44-1-C, 44-1-D, and 448-1-3A in the Stonewall Magisterial
District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Waivers
Planner David M. Beniamino reported that East Living Mobile Home Community is a master
development plan for an additional 41 mobile home units on three existing MH1 (Mobile Home Community)
parcels, totaling 11.642 acres. He said the property is located entirely within the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA). Mr. Beniamino stated that prior to administrative approval, it will be necessary for the applicant to
provide an acceptable Category B buffer along the northern property line. In addition, he said that the applicant is
requesting consideration of two waiver requests: the first request is a waiver to allow portions of a required
riparian buffer to be located in the setbacks for 13 of the proposed 41 lots; the second request is a waiver to allow
existing private streets to be extended into the new section in order to provide access to a state -maintained road.
Mr. Beniamino next answered questions from the Commission. Commissioner Morris referred
to the staff's recommendation that the walking trail should be eight feet in width; he said the Parks & Recreation
Department's standard was ten feet. Mr. Benjamin replied that the proposed trail through the park is not a part
of the required recreational units; in addition, because the trail is located within the riparian buffer, it would not
need to meet the same trail requirements, which would be ten -foot wide and paved.
Commissioner Gochenour inquired if the applicant was seeking an additional entrance to Rt. 11.
Mr. Beniamino replied that the waiver is to allow the continuation of private streets within the existing mobile
home park; he noted there will not be another access to Rt. 11.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the riparian buffer areas were included in the 100 -year storm
map and Mr. Beniamino replied no.
Commissioner Gochenour inquired if the applicant had intended to relocate portions of the
intermittent stream. Mr. Beniamino replied that the only portion of the stream anticipated to be relocated is at the
northern end of the site where a culvert will be provided under one of the roads; he said this is permitted under the
zoning ordinance.
Mr. Michael M. Artz, land surveyor with Artz and Associates, PLC, a subsidiary of Valley
Engineering, PLC, was representing the applicant, Easy Living Associates. Commissioner Gochenour asked Mr.
Artz about the water and sewer situation; she understood the park had public water, but not public sewer. Mr.
Artz replied that the Sanitation Authority has provided initial approval to supply the new units with public water
and sewer. He said the existing mobile homes are served by individual drainfield sites, which are functioning
properly. He said there is no intention by the applicant, as of this time, to expand the sanitary sewer service to
include the entire mobile home park. Mr. Artz explained that recently, the owners of the mobile home park
participated in a cost-sharing program that helped to extend the sewer service to the new VDOT welcoming
center. As part of that program, the owners received an opportunity to connect to the sewer service.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1456
Draft Minutes of February 5, 2005
Regarding the roads, Mr. Artz explained that the existing internal roads will be upgraded and
used to access the 40 new sites; he said that VDOT will address the entrance area during the site plan stage of
development. Mr. Artz added that the new sites will leased, not sold.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment, however, no one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Morris commented that it was common knowledge that housing within certain
economic environments is difficult to acquire and he believed this proposal met a need within the community.
Commissioner Morris moved to recommend approval of the master development plan and the
two requested waivers. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Master Development Plan 412-04 for Easy Living Mobile Home Community, submitted by Valley Engineering -
Surveying -Planning, for 41 mobile home dwelling units with the following two waivers: 1) to allow portions of
the required riparian buffer to be located in the setbacks for 13 of the proposed 41 lots; and 2) to allow existing
private streets to be extended to the new, proposed section in order to provide access to a state -maintained road.
This recommendation for approval was passed by the following majority vote:
YES (TO APPROVE): Manuel, Triplett, Ours, Thomas, DeHaven, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub
NO: Gochenour
(Note: Commissioners Kriz and Light were absent from the meeting.)
Chairman DeHaven expressed his hope that the owners of the property would continue to pursue
converting the existing structures over to public water and sewer. He noted that since public water and sewer was
now available, it would certainly be the most environmentally sound thing to do.
CITIZENS PLANNING WORKSHOP
On behalf of the Community Consensus Coalition (CCC), Commissioner Moms announced that
next Thursday evening, February 10, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., there will be a citizens planning workshop, sponsored by
the CCC, at the Winchester Medical Center's Conference Center. Commissioner Morris explained that the basic
forum will address the subject of what guides land use decisions and an overview will be presented by the
Virginia Citizens Planning Education Council (VCPEC). He said a panel, made up of Planning Commissioners
from Winchester City, Frederick County, Clarke County, and Shenandoah County, will entertain questions from
the audience. Commissioner Morris said the workshop will be very informative and it will be a great educational
opportunity for anyone in the community who has an interest in planning.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1457
Draft Minutes of February 5, 2005
2005 ANNUAL PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT
Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence reminded the Commission of the 2005 Annual Planning
Commission Retreat on Saturday, February 5, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., at the Wayside Inn in Middletown. Mr.
Lawrence said the doors will open at 8:30 a.m. and everyone is welcome to enjoy coffee and breakfast pastries
and the retreat will start at 9:00 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a
unanimous vote at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1458
Draft Minutes of February 5, 2005
CO��.t CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #25-04
DEAN A. HARVEY
w
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: February 14, 2005
Staff Contact: David M. Beniamino, Planner I
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
request. It may also be useful to others interested in this Zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 03/02/05 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 03/23/05 Pending
LOCATION: This subject property is located at 4784 Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 94A -1-11-4A & 94A-1-2-7
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District
Land Use: Residential
PROPOSED USE: Cottage Occupation — Office use for home renovation business and
Conditional Use Permit — Off -premise business sign for proposed cottage occupation.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: In accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
no private advertisement sign can be placed on the State's right-of-way. Prior to erection on private
property, a permit may have to be applied for through our District Office in Staunton. You may do
so by contacting Mr. Larry Curry at 540-332-9098.
CUP #25-04, Dean A. Harvey
February 14, 2005
Page 2
Fire Marshal: Site visit revealed no hazards by parking vehicles. Plan approval recommended.
Inspections Department: Sign shall comply with The Virginia Statewide Building Code and
Section 312, use group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of The International Building Code/2000.
Structural plans shall be submitted for permit application. No additional comment is required
provided no structures are utilized.
Winchester -Frederick County Health_ Department: Health Department has no objection to
request for conditional use as required sewage disposal has been provided.
Planning and Zoning: This proposed Conditional Use Permit application is for a cottage
occupation for an office use for a home restoration business, as well as for an off -premise sign for
the aforementioned cottage occupation. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows both cottage
occupations and off -premise signs in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposed cottage occupation use would occur at the applicant's
residence, with no other structures associated with this CUP located on site. If granted, this CUP will
only allow office -related uses to be performed on site. There will be only one employee associated
with this cottage occupation on site at any one time. Based on the limited scale of this proposed use
and evaluation of the property, it appears that this use would not have any significant impacts on the
adjoining properties.
The applicant is also requesting a four by ten (4 x 10) or forty square foot sign to be placed on the
property that abuts Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and is directly in front of the property requesting
the cottage occupation. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance gives Cottage Occupation
applicants the ability to request a four (4) square foot sign to be placed on their property. However, in
this case, the applicant is requesting a much larger sign than the ordinance allows. Since there are no
customers proposed to be associated with this cottage occupation, staff would not be in support of a
sign that is in excess of the four (4) square feet in area requirement laid out in section 165-30 (H) 2
of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 03/02/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Should the Planning Commission find the cottage occupation use appropriate, staff would
recommend the following conditions:
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. No more than five (5) customers at any one time on site.
CUP 425-04, Dean A. Harvey
February 1.4, 2005
Page 3
3. Any proposed business signs shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements; and
shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size.
4. No more than one (1) employee vehicle and one (1) company vehicle will be parked on
site at any one time.
5. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit.
Should the Planning Commission find the off -premise sign use appropriate, staff would recommend
the following conditions:
Sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area, per section 165-30 (H) 2 of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance.
2. The sign shall only be utilized in association with the Cottage Occupation.
3. Before this sign may be constructed, a sign permit shall be obtained from the Frederick
County Building Official.
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.
0
,o. CUP # 25 - 04 - Dean A. Harvey N
(94A-1 -11 -4A&94A-1 -2-7qj
94A 8
RILEY, P ON JAMES &
94 A 5 94A 111 12
Y, PRESTON JAMES & BESSI C
94A 111 11
Y, PRESTON JAMES & BESSI C
94A 110 4
94A 111 10 FINCHAM, EDDIE C SR & VICKIE L
`,PRESTON JAMES & BESSI C
r
Uni
mp�o,e
93 A
7
EFG, LCd` Third3fr�et
9q
19
84A 191 4A HgRVEY 01kF k
HARVEY, DIXIE K
94q 94q
�I �� ygRt/EY�X/Fk �,RVFy�Jx,Rk
�J HqR FY7g s NqR Fy12
�o °jx/FK
N
j
F
C W s94,4N
�o O CC DOIJ 19 S yq1122
a
bOU94A 12 5
GCg1ss4 ELL, DOUGLAS S & DONNA K
4,D0/V/V' k �Q
94A Ill I
THOMAS, SUZANNE COW <<' 00604 19 ELL, DOUGLAS S &DONNA =�
f /
°Ohrgrq if O
COW SCC bOUGC19
gg 2 ELL, DOUGLAS S &DONNA
94A 1 9 S& DO/V q k 94A 1 2
LOW LL, DOUGLAS S & DO LOW LL, DOUGLAS S & DO
)\ W E
\
\ 0 50 100 200
S
Feel
I"\
RILEY,7P
6,� kJAM
CY
W
94A 11
t.
TON JA I c
.4
INC 5R.& VICKIE L
REST
c.
AF 4
h
94A, 1 1`1 4AJk
A;j8RVEY,,g)XIEK
'4
y
tm%
-p
x
9
94A -M
W L m
OUGLAS,S& DONNA
THOMAS: SUZAN94A 1
UG 4 j s -DOUGLAS S & DONN-
.9
7:
4
A
1)3 1,9 94
EL D 1XkONNA
"A
-94A 19
94A 1 2-
0 L, D
AS
1.
�OUGLAS S
os
CUP # 25 - 04 - Dean A. Harvey N
(94A-1 -11 - 4A & 94A - 1 -2-7) E
0 so 700 200
s
FW
•
D E W E
f
1. Applicant
NAME:
ADDRESS:
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
FREDERICK COUNTY BOS Meeting
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
(The applicant if the owner other)
"10-
TELEPHONE -7N 1)— 8'b t — I? IVO /
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
,x
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
�q d
4. The property has a road frontage of l��� feet and a
depth of Ly� feet and consists of acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by as
evidenced by deed from ��.;+,5 p�, L-�z5�2w recorded
(previous owfier)
in deed book no. :T:7 -B on page -T& 2 as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. Tax(Parcel)Identification (I . D.) No.1`��''r
Magisterial District�ur:,,
Current Zoning 0/
7. Adjoining Property:
TJSy
ZONING
North
East
South
West
S. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing)
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will, be
constructed: —
o f
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:
PROPERTY ID#� Z
NAME (F),,LJ�{'r-ri �, Ire L-
PROPERTY ID#12L0
NAME iR e 2-z-0- > 4 LIL 5: L. C -
PROPERTY ID# l
NAME
PROPERTY ID# �u'+
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
iiDDRESS OV 7 J
ADDRESS
ADDRESSL.}
ADDRESS
else
ADDRESS
NAME
ADDRESS
.1, N L
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
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 Applicanti�
Signature of Owner
Owners' Mailing Address �-� 6
Owners' Telephone No. qt,. %
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651
Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We)
(Name) p t !,.. ,f ..:_>." (Phone)'
(Address)
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 F,yederick, Virginia, by
Instrument No. 03 on Page ( t , and is described as
Parcel: Lot: Block: Section:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name)t
Subdivision:
(Phone) � G-, �,' - ` 11--, L
(Address) ` � 7 ��-y , ( � D r \�-- (t e
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described
Property, including:
❑ Rezoning (Including proffers)
lr Conditional Use Permits
❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
❑ Subdivision
❑ Site Plan
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to
previously approved proffered conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified.
In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this 1 S day of tq.6200 2 ,
Signature(s)
State of Virginia, City/Counwf �.:r ;; , To -wit:
Kc G_. , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s)
who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me
and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this I L_ day of 2601 .
£;:ea =��t•� �i My Commission Expires: 3)
Notary Public
4�x �oU Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting d
AI'P" CATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <'D ! &AI
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other)
NAME:C
ADDRESS: y {S� (yr, t c. i �' V� od � Ic ?-"SI
TELEPHONE:
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
5
W
The property has a road frontage of '3 01 feet and a depth of
consists of t -`m `y ft p _ LZ feet and
� acres. (Please be exact}
The property is owned by e
from I- s -e �" C« ,
(41 -roe --j
recorded
as evidenced by deed
(previous owner)
in deed book no. �r on page 1Z Z , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court, County of Frederick.
Tax (Parcel) Identification No. (P.I.N.) `N
Magisterial District O P f c,, -
Current Zoning '7
VV) I- 1e C-
�-
L;�:'
�3�i oE� V, 6-22
4
5
W
The property has a road frontage of '3 01 feet and a depth of
consists of t -`m `y ft p _ LZ feet and
� acres. (Please be exact}
The property is owned by e
from I- s -e �" C« ,
(41 -roe --j
recorded
as evidenced by deed
(previous owner)
in deed book no. �r on page 1Z Z , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court, County of Frederick.
Tax (Parcel) Identification No. (P.I.N.) `N
Magisterial District O P f c,, -
Current Zoning '7
7. Adjoining Property:
USE
North Uacc,,+
East V cculi
South Uaccv.+
West VL -C -4
ZONING
2 i+
2
Z i4
8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing)
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed:
ft Ll' X 1C7' �jc'�1 loa�� I-v�4� SZZ
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:
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#_
NAME
PROPERTY ID#_
NAME
PROPERTY ID#_
NAME
PROPERTY ID#_
NAME
PROPERTY ID#_
NAME
PROPERTY ID#_
NAME
PROPERTY ID#_
NAME
PROPERTY ID#_
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
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:
C -110V, � -z--I If S ZZ
t 6e y j x Iv cC( /Or'c-1,�(
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 /-L'w J
Signature of Owner
Owners' Mailing Address
Owners' Telephone No.
LI Ly
SLI C _ ,�('&- - ,&u i
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
LOT C01VSOUDA77ON
av
LOT54-9—BLOCK 11
NO RIDGEWA Y HEIGHTS
OPEOUON D157PICT
F77EDE77/CK COUNTY, Y7R WAIA
TAX MAP ,{ 94A-1-11-4 THROUGH 9 ZONE. RA USE SINGLE FAMILY RES/DENAAL
y�z
w
SURVEYOR'S CER 77RCATE"
ICE
/ EDWARD W. DOVE; A DULY AUTHORIZED LAND SURWMR, DO HEREBY
CERAFY THAT LOTS 4 THROUGH 9 ARE /N 7HE NAME OF JACK A• DENISE
McaEAREN AND 1S ALL THE LAND CON WYEV 70 THEM BY DEED DATED
OCTOBER 29 1997 AND RECORDED AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF 7HE'
C LERX OI- 7HE aRal1T COURT CF- FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGYN/A IN DEED
BOOK 891 AT PACE' 1605
` EDWARD W. DOVE; CS ,
0WERS' CER 77f70A 7E-
THE
E
THE ABOW AND FOREGOING LOT COVSOLIDA7701V OF L075 4 - 9 IS
KITH 7NE FREE CONSENT AND /N ACCORDANCE 2WTH 77 -IE DESIRES OF
E UNDERS/GIVED OHIJER. y PROPR/E70R4 AND 7RU57EES; IF ANY.
cmow rieenz 12l C1- m -W7.
1 W. W --'-+Klin A NOTARY PUSUC /N AND FC14 7RE COUNTY AVD STAT£ ArORE',,ND,
DO HC•RiSYCfR7TFY THAT Aai1SE M CCLEAc* NyOSE NAMES ARE S aVW 7D 7HE FC�%ZMG MM77NG
DA mu N.3 r Al 11 't 4 HAY£ fV?MWALLY APPEAAW 9gZW ME: W MY COUNTY AFDMS&g AND AMOW-
LEDGED THE S.WME
�PTUYHAAV7HAS 1- DAY 0- ��fiVrL�4rLY r9
7NOTAR FtMUl
MY cavA*.w DvvaS /yl A�rQGff 3f . ZBOO
MINOR SUBD/WgaV
APPROVED
of 2=15
Ram
_ r ATF
D= ENGINEERS
DATED JANUARY IJ 1998
PLANNERS
& AATES SURVEYORS
SCALD NONE
3078 SHAWNEE DRIVE
DRAIM BY AA
P.O. BOX 2033
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
SHEET 1 OF 2
(540)667-1103
r,,(Q/ , _ QI{ 8 9 rjI'G 12 12
L -O 'r �_
a�10
x ra 11STCRY Z :
BRIG'C & FRAMEkJ a �¢ sss
v
r' RE5YDENCE ., m MEWED w
2zE 1
BASEMENT7 i+
TRENY li P
.FRAME TR ' r
GARAGE L �A`
0
i 1
Ia r ry 35,581 O. FT.
o L—*-�
RS _
Rs Pf�OfV/E�DJp� S 34 30 BO' W t��JoaOD' r x
SleMii4l R UEl.P.F. N 34 30!10" E 15a 00'
l.P.F
� 4F.
4 C:L_v�.ri
x
"HAL r 1 t
ORlVF AY�I
TRA T 2
40,938 FT. Y 4 ----
FT l `
� 1 1
_ 1 ----- ---
- I
PA 4ED
ACCE=
ROAD �- t
>vN eion inF S 3C5T18 8 W a v ung f5o.19 1 {F
CSV UNE
luta - i -Z —`
STATE HWY RE 522 N-
L
.
LOT cOmsm 77oN
D,v GRAPIUC SCALE
LOTS 4— 9 N BLOCK 11 0 30 0o 120
RIDGEWA Y HEIGHTS
amwav Dismlcr
f7MOSWCK COMM MGM IN FM
1 inch = BOIL
SHEET 2 OF 2
THIS PIAT HAS BEEN PREPARED NINOUT THE 8ENEnT OF A DILE REPORT DATE• JANUARY 13, 1998 SCALE 1 = 60'
AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE ALL ENCUTABRANCES ON THE PROPERTY.
OWNER- HUTCHINGS PURLY-IASER. McCLEAREN W.O. f 98008 A, rs:w-
l OFLODD N07E -MVE• c COMMUNITY NO' 510063 PANEL• 0200 8 DA 7E• 7-17-78DOVE
Vilf3lOII GOSRi1�6EL W. DOVEA IlC�'PY'f1iTF� fwdw. N0.
f A) 964
n, i t -rrt, !e' A a.
,v/, rvc./.r„v
V
lurrr
1 1 ,WenAr A.F
a� r' RESVENCF s. z
.:: FRAAIQ MACT 1
GARAGE 35.581 5Q. Fr i f
�* n' A&WAL r f
VMWWAY
�,.�d Stjk,A �1 A
rT —• —W It
HJ ,♦:.ocATION SURYcY I M IS A X719+7'
&4A►AM ACGAIF Si/IPFI-r OF bEf: F'Iie r`r5.
/ ov �otsa MMM. AFS WA WOW AAF NO Et15a;—
fsRol'o$'?
O;r'S 6
BLOW
ENTRY
�
HJ ,♦:.ocATION SURYcY I M IS A X719+7'
&4A►AM ACGAIF Si/IPFI-r OF bEf: F'Iie r`r5.
/ ov �otsa MMM. AFS WA WOW AAF NO Et15a;—
fsRol'o$'?
O;r'S 6
BLOW
C:
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #03-05
IV' IV' H.TEHALL 00"�"JL�"ERvE vE"ITER
Staff Report for the Planning Oommisaiion Public Meeting
Prepared: February 10, 2005
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins — Planner II
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application.
It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 03/02/05 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 03/23/05 Pending
LOCATION: This property is located northeast and adjacent to the intersection of Martinsburg
Pike (Route 11) and Woodbine Road (Route 669).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 34-A-2 and 34-A-4
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: B2 (Business, General) and M1 (Industrial, Light) Use: Unimproved
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
Berkeley County, WV Residential, Vacant
South Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
M1 (Light Industrial) Industrial (Butler Manufacturing)
East Zoned: Rural Areas (RA) District Use: Residential, Vacant
West Zoned: Rural Areas (RA) District Use: Residential, Institutional
Business General (132) District Commercial
PROPOSED USE: Commercial and Industrial Uses
MDP #03-05, Whitehall Commerce Center
February 10, 2005
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The Master Development Plan for this property
appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 11, the VDOT facility which would
provide access to the property. The Master Development Plan submitted to the Edinburg
Residence on January 27, 2005 appears to meet VDOT requirements and is acceptable. Before
making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage
calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for
review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way
dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to
construction on the State's right-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this office for
issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work.
Frederick County Fire Marshal: Fire lanes and signs shall be delineated during the site plan
process. Municipal water supplies shall comply with Frederick County Code Section 90-4.
Plan approval recommended.
Frederick County Public Works: The proposed site for the commerce center is located in a
karst region of Frederick County. Our site visit revealed sinkholes scattered throughout the site.
These obvious sinkholes should be accurately delineated during the master development phase of
the project to avoid locating roads and stormwater management facilities in these areas. More
detailed geotechnical investigations will be required for each individual site plan. Our site visit
also revealed the existence of potential wetlands within the project boundaries. A detailed
wetlands study should be performed to accurately delineate these areas. The results should be
tabulated under the environmental features listing shown on the preliminary master development
plan. The table of environmental features should also be revised to reflect natural retention
areas. The alignment of Business Boulevard should be revised to reflect the alignment shown on
the generalized development plan included with the rezoning application.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: No comment.
Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment.
Frederick County Inspections Department: Demolition and asbestos inspection required to
remove any existing structures. No additional comment required at this time. Shall comment at
the time of site plan reviews.
Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation: No comment.
Frederick County -Winchester Health Department: As long as no existing septic systems and
wells are impacted and water/sewer is provided by FCSA, the department has no objections or
comments.
MDP 403-05, Whitehall Commerce Center
February 10, 2005
Page 3
Department of Geographic Information Systems (GIS): The road name of Business
Boulevard has been approved and reserved for use in the Frederick County Road Naming
System. Structure numbers will be assigned during the building permit process.
Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed master development plan has been reviewed and
it appears that the proposed development plan will not have an impact on operations at the
Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed development lies within the airport's airspace,
it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 surfaces.
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.
Planning & Zoning:
A) Master Development Plan Requirement
A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a
master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only
be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick
County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development
plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County
that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in
the best interest of the general public.
B) Location
The property is located northeast and adjacent to Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) and
north and adjacent to Woodbine Road (Route 669).
C) Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Inwood Quadrangle) identifies the
subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural
zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of
an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The
corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject
properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. On April 27, 2004
these parcels were rezoned with proffers from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the MI
(Light Industrial) District.
The Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) was amended by the Board of Supervisors on
November 12, 2003 to modify land use and transportation provisions applicable to the
subject site. Specifically, the path of a planned major collector road was relocated to
follow existing Woodbine Road (Route 669), as opposed to bisecting the site as originally
envisioned. Additionally, the business land use designation was added in the vicinity of
MDP 403-05, Whitehall Commerce Center
February 10, 2005
Page 4
the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) and Rest Church Road (Route
669), which coincides with the frontage of the subject site.
D) Intended Use
The total site area is 112.27 acres, and consists of 10.35 acres of B2 (Business General)
District and 101.92 acres of M1 (Industrial Light) District. The proposed master
development plan could facilitate the establishment of any permitted use in the B2
(Business General) Zoning District and the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. The
applicant has prepared a master development plan for the 112.27 acre site to
accommodate a mix of commercial and industrial land uses.
During the rezoning process, the applicant offered a number of proffer conditions, which
were intended to help minimize the potential impacts of development. A summary of the
most significant proffers is listed below:
General Development Plan
The applicant has proffered that development of the site will occur in conformance with
the General Development Plan (GDP) submitted with the proposed proffer statement
(dated March 8, 2004). The GDP references the location of certain proffered
improvements (i.e., transportation features) and further delineates the proposed
commercial and industrial components of the site.
Street Improvements
a. Martinsburg Pike Frontage: The applicant has proffered to complete the
following improvements along the site's Martinsburg Pike frontage:
(1) Construction of a 12 -foot wide lane on the northbound side of Martinsburg
Pike;
(2) Dedication of 14 feet of additional right-of-way for Martinsburg Pike; and
(3) Installation of two commercial entrances on the north and south sides of
the connector road intersection with Martinsburg Pike.
b. Industrial Access/Internal Connector Road: The applicant has proffered to
construct an industrial access road that will align with Rest Church Road at its
intersection with Martinsburg Pike. This internal connector road will traverse
through the site and link with Woodbine Road. The right-of-way for the road is
proffered to consist of 80 feet.
C. Signal Modification: The applicant has proffered to modify the VDOT-proposed
three (3) way traffic signal at the Rest Church Road/Martinsburg Pike
intersection to accommodate a four (4) way intersection.
d. Signalization Agreement: The applicant has proffered to enter into a
signalization agreement involving partial cost sharing for the Woodbine
Road/Martinsburg Pike intersection. The establishment of this agreement is
MDP #03-05, Whitehall Commerce Center
February 10, 2005
Page 5
proffered to occur prior to approval of the first site plan for the M1 zoned portion
of the site.
e. Traffic Impact Anal: The applicant has proffered to provide a traffic impact
analysis (T iA) with each site plan for an industrial use on the site. Any
additional road improvements deemed necessary by the TIA to maintain
acceptable level of service conditions will be negotiated between the applicant
and VDOT prior to site plan approval.
Landscape Design Features
a. A twenty foot (20') landscaped green strip along the US Route 11 frontage
portion of the site. Features within the landscape green strip include a low berm
(30" or less) with suitable low profile landscaping that will not conflict with
sight distance at entrances.
On Site Development
The applicant expects the industrial zoned portion of the site to develop with a minimum
of one and maximum of eight end users depending on market conditions at the time of
sale. Covenants and restrictions of record shall control the standards of construction to
include:
a. Fagade materials of buildings facing the street to be concrete masonry (CMU)
brick, architectural block, dry vit or other simulated stucco, real or simulated
wood or glass.
b. All buildings within the development shall be constructed using comparable
architectural style and materials, and signage for such buildings shall be of a
similar style and materials.
C. All buildings within the property shall be developed as a cohesive entity,
ensuring that building placement, architectural treatment, parking lot lighting,
landscaping, trash disposal, vehicular and pedestrian circulation and other
development elements work together functionally and aesthetically.
Additional Site Proffers
The applicant has proffered to employ the following site design standards, which will be
administered and enforced by county staff during review of subsequent development
applications:
a. All utilities will be installed underground.
b. Two inch caliper street trees on 50' centers along both sides of industrial access
road.
C. Stormwater management pond facilities will be lined with impervious liner
materials to protect against groundwater impacts.
d. All commercial and industrial structures shall have a geotechnical analysis and
study prepared prior to site plan approval.
MDP #03-05, Whitehall Commerce Center
February 10, 2005
Page 6
e. Any use involving the retail or wholesale sale of diesel fuel for over -the -road
truck carriers shall not be conducted or performed on this site either in the
commercial or industrial zones.
Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development
The applicant has proffered to contribute a total of $20,000 to Frederick County to aid
mitigation of fiscal impacts associated with the proposed development. This contribution
will be submitted by the applicant at the time of issuance of the first building permit for
the site. The applicant has proffered that this contribution be disbursed as follows:
• Fire and Rescue Services $15,000
• Sheriff $ 3,000
• Administration Building $ 2,000
E) Site Suitability & Project Scope
Land Use Compatibility:
The configuration of zoning districts achieved through the rezoning process correctly
corresponds with the multiple planned land use designations applicable to the site, with
the Ml (Light Industrial) District and B2 (Business General) District applied to the areas
designated for industrial and business land uses, respectively.
Historic Resources:
The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any potentially
significant historic resources on the site of the proposed rezoning. Moreover, according
to the National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of
Vim, the subject site is not included in any battlefield study area and does not contain
any core battlefield resources.
It is noted that several structures included in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks
Survey are located on properties adjacent to the subject site. Of these resources, only
Saspirilla Springs (#156) is identified as potentially significant, which is located
immediately east of the site and is occupied by the applicant as a single family residence.
The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered this rezoning proposal at its
February 25, 2003 meeting. The HRAB offered no adverse comments concerning the
proposal.
Environment:
The subject properties do not contain any environmental features or constraints that
would either hinder or preclude site development. In particular, the site does not include
any areas of steep slopes, flood plain, or wetlands/hydrologic soils.
The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the
soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Oaklet-Carbo-Chilhowie soil
MDP #03-05, Whitehall Commerce Center
February 10, 2005
Page 7
association. The predominant soil type on the site is Oaklet silt loam, two to seven
percent slopes (map symbol 32B), which is identified by the survey as prime farmland.
With the rezoning, the applicant proffered that a geotechnical analysis will be completed
prior to site plan approval for any commercial or industrial development on the site.
Effective management of unique geological characteristics or conditions identified through
such analysis will be required to secure site plan approval.
Transportation:
Consistent with the general transportation policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, the
NELUP specifies that proposed development should only occur if impacted road systems
will function at Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better. The NELUP indicates that
improvement of roads to maintain this level of service objective is the responsibility of
the private property owner or developer. Moreover, the transportation policies of the
NELUP encourage the development of connector roadways within industrial areas and
the implementation of measures that will facilitate the improvement of Martinsburg Pike
(Route 11 North) to a four lane highway. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-36.2, 6-36.3,
7-5)
The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for the rezoning application calculated
transportation impacts based upon the following development assumptions:
• Industrial Park: 1,197,900 square feet
• Retail: 98,000 square feet
Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, the
applicant projects traffic impacts for the development in terms of project build -out, which
is expected to occur by 2012. The TIA indicates that at project build out, the planned uses
will result in the generation of 13,422 new average daily trips (ADT). (See `A Traffic
Impact Analysis of the Sempeles Property, "p. 4)
The new trips generated by the development will be absorbed by an external road
network consisting of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), Woodbine Road (Route 669) and the
Exit 323 interchange of Interstate 81 at Rest Church Road (Route 669). This external
network will be linked to the development via a proffered internal connector road, which
will align with Rest Church Road at its intersection with Martinsburg Pike and extend
through the site to link with Woodbine Road.
Access management is critical to the build out projections of the TIA. The TIA assumes
that site access for all truck traffic will be restricted to the Woodbine Road entrance.
Outbound truck traffic will exit the site via the connector road at either the Woodbine
Road or Martinsburg Pike site entrances. To facilitate this access arrangement, the
applicant proffered to participate in a signalization agreement for the intersection of
Martinsburg Pike and Woodbine Road.
MDP #03-05, Whitehall Commerce Center
February 10, 2005
Page 8
Landscaping & Buffers:
During the rezoning process the applicant included some additional landscaping features.
These include a twenty (20) foot wide landscaped green strip along the site's frontage on
Martinsburg Pike. Included within this landscaped area will be a low berm
complemented by suitable low profile landscaping. Also, street trees will be planted
along both sides of the proffered industrial access/internal connector road. The street
trees will be installed on 50' centers and will consist of a minimum caliper of two inches
at time of planting.
F. Issues:
Staff's review of the subject master development plan does not highlight any substantial
problems. However, staff would note the following concerns for consideration during the
review process:
1. Southern Entrance. The southern commercial entrance on Route 11 is proffered to be
a right-in/right-out only. In order to promote safe entrance, staff feels that a median
should be implemented on Route 11 to prohibit inappropriate left turn movement.
2. Sinkholes. The master development plan should include sinkholes in its analysis of
existing environmental features. If the intent is to provide a comprehensive soil
analysis for each individual site plan, then the master development plan should state
this.
3. Wetlands. Potential wetlands were identified by the Frederick County Department of
Public Works. It was asked that with the master development plan, the applicant
provide a wetlands study to identify these areas and that the results be tabulated under
the environmental features. It was also asked that the natural retention areas be
reflected under the environmental features tabulation. It is noted that the MDP has
not addressed these concerns.
4. Easements. Legal references for all existing easements need to be provided on the
MDP.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 03/02/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This Master Development Plan is consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master
Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. The preliminary master development plan is also
in accordance with the proffers of the rezoning. All of the issues identified by staff, as well as
those issues brought forth by the Planning Commission, should be appropriately addressed prior
to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this MDP conformance with County
codes and review agency comments. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning
Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration.
MDP #03-05
aosM Whitehall Commerce Center N
(34-A-2,34-A-4) W E
250 wo 1.00 I'sw
Feet
FA
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Department of Planning and Development Use Only
Date application received -),/7/,7
Complete - Date of acceptance
Incomplete - Date of Return
1.
2.
3.
Application # 03 - 0,'S -
1.
s
Project Title: Whitehall Commerce Center
Owner's Name: George M. Sempeles
Carol T. Sempeles
(Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest)
Applicant: G.W. Clifford & Associates Inc.
Address: c/o Charles E. Maddox Jr.
117 E. Piccadilly St. Winchester VA 22601
Phone: (540) 667-2139
4. Design Company: G. W. Clifford & Associates. Inc.
Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester VA 22601
Phone Number: (540) 667-2139
Contact Name:
W E
FED - 7
FREDERICK COUNITY
PLAPdP"ll .IJ & DEVELOP('V%ENT
APPLICATION cont'd
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5. Location of Property: East and Adjacent to Intersection of
US Route 11 and Route 669 (Woodbine Road)
6. Total Acreage: 112.2681 Acres
7. Property Information:
a)
Property Identification Number (PIN)
b)
Current Zoning:
c)
Present Use:
d)
Proposed Use:
e) Adjoining Property Information
Property Identification
North
South
East
West
34-A-2 and 34-A-4
B-2 & M-1
Vacant
Office, Retail, Restaurant,
Convenience.
Manufacturing and
Warehouse
See Attached
f) Magisterial District: Stonewall
Property Uses
8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original x Amended
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick
County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development
plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material
will be complete prior to the s bmission of my master development plan applications
Signature: L—
Date: 2-;� ,���
Pa
Sempeles
ID#
Name
Address
Zoned
Use
24-A-1
Virgil & Ruth D Fiddler
4836 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA,
Residential
24-A-2
Marvin O & Elizabeth S Renner
4822 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
24-A-3
Otis E & Margie K Golliday
4810 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA.
Residential
24-A-4
Otis E & Margie K Golliday
4810 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Vacant
24-A-5
Otis E & Margie K Golliday
4810 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Vacant
24-A-6
Otis E & Margie K Golliday
4810 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Vacant
24-A-7
Sanford L Silver
4804 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
24-A-9
Boyd L Bloomer
4784 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
24-A-11
Rhonda Coe Lynch
4754 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA,
Residential
24-A-10
John Francis & Rhonda Coe Lynch
4754 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
34 -A -5A
George M. Sem les
331 Woodside Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Agricultural
34 -A -6A
Butler Manufacturing Co.
P.O. Box 25, Clearbrook, VA 22624
Ml.
Industrial
34 -A -6B
John Huyett Light
2973 Woodside Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA,
Vacant
34-A-1
Rest Methodist Church
1233 Rest Church Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA,
Religious
33A -A-25
George M & Carol T Sem les
331 Woodbine Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA,
Residential
33A -A-26
Stephen & Jessica Swiger
4552 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA.
Residential
33A -A-27
Delores Esther Ellis
4568 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
33A -A -27A
Molden Real Estate
2400 Valley Avenue, Winchester, VA 22601
RA.
Residential
33A -A-28
Roger L & Phyllis A Helsley
497 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22601
RA
Residential
33A -A-29
Thelma M Curry & Robin A Light
4592 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
"1
Residential
33A -A-30
Fred Milton & Rebecca A Kitts
4600 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
33A -A-31
Donald Y & Barbara N Smallwood
108 Juliet Lane, Bunker Hill, WV 25413
RA,
Vacant
33A -A-33
Delmar B & Cynthia K Larrick
4622 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
33A -A-11
H. N. Funkhouser & Co.
2150 S. Loudoun Street, Winchester, VA 22601
B2
Commercial
33A -A-12
Patrick & Audrey Manning
#6 Bellerive County Club, Groutown & Country, MD 63141
M2
Vacant
33-A-104
Manuel C DeHaven
4273 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Agricultural
33A -A-24
Allen J & Linda L Pau h
208 Woodbine Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
33A -A-16
Betty L Stine Cooke, etals
4481 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
33A -A-17
Mary C Kerns
146 Woodbine Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Vacant
33A -A-18
Molden Real Estate
2400 Valley Avenue, Winchester, VA 22601
RA.
Residential
33A -A-19
Betty M Shillin burg
160 Woodbine Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
33A -A-20
Benjamin D Fitzwater, Jr
166 Woodbine Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
33A -A-21
John W Harden & Katherine L Elland
174 Woodbine Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
33A -A-22
John & Tera Royston
184 Woodbine Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
33A -A-23
Lester B McDonald
P.O. Box 4435, Leesburg, VA 20177
RA
Residential
33A -A-24
Allan & Linda Paugh
208 Woodbine Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624
RA
Residential
33A -A-34
FThe Rainbow Group
1908 S. Loudoun Street, Winchester, VA 22601
RA
Vacant
Special Limited Powe of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us
Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia,
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We)
(Name)_ Georsze M. & Carol T. SMeles (Phone) (540) 662-5802_
(Address) 331 Woodbine Road Clearbrook„ Virginia 22624
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
746 212
Instrument No. 909 on Page 1159 , and is described as
Parcel: 2 & 4 Lot: Block: A Section: 34 Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Charles E. Maddox Jr. — P.E. Phone: (540) 667-2139
(Address} PIIRA 117 E. Picadill Street Winchester VA 22601
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described
Property, including:
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:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified.
In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of , 200
Signature(s)
r '-
State of Virgini City /County of ( ) i ��'�[/���� ,To -wit:
I, 0 �'A �` le cic 1 S U 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 me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this 2,5 day of, , 2001,IL x_.
My Commission Expires: rx_I 1 �5G 70c)`Z_
Notary Public
C
C
•
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #04-05
KERNSTOWN COMMONS
Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Meeting
Prepared: February 16, 2005
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins — Planner II
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application.
It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 03/02/05 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 03/23/05 Pending
LOCATION: This property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Route 11
and Route 37 in Kernstown.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-10
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: B2 (Business, General)
Use: Unimproved
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North Zoned: Route 37 Interchange
B3 (Industrial Transition) District
South Zoned: B2 (Business General) District
Use: Interstate
Vacant
Use: Automobile Sales
East Zoned: Interstate 1-81 Use: Interstate
West Zoned: B2 (Business General) District Use: Commercial/Vacant
PROPOSED USE: Commercial Uses.
MDP #04-05, Kernstown Commons
February 16, 2005
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of 'Transportation: We are in the process of reviewing the Kernstown
Commons MDP. Overall the plan appears to be acceptable to the Residency. There are,
however, some questions on the lane geometry and turning movements. Information concerning
these items has been forwarded to District Traffic Engineering for a detailed review. We do not
foresee denial of this MDP at this time, it is just a matter of addressing minor details. Therefore,
we have no objections to this MDP moving forward through the County process.
Frederick County Fire Marshal: Emergency vehicle access and fire lanes shall be identified
during the site planning process. Extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting shall
meet the requirements of Frederick County Code Section 90-4. Plan approval recommended.
Frederick County Public Works: A comprehensive review of the development shall occur at
site plan submission. We agree with the approach to provide a regional stormwater facility for
development.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: 2nd review — approved.
Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment.
Frederick County Inspections Department: No comment required at this time. Shall
comment at site plan review.
Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation: No comment.
Frederick County -Winchester Health Department: The Health Department does not
comment on preliminary plans.
Department of Geographic Information Systems (GIS): Roadways designated with the
numbers 1, 2, 3 must be named. For optimum 911 response and structure numbering, roadways
designated as 4 and 5 should also be named and numbered. Submit road name requests for
review to this department.
Winchester Regional Airport: It has been determined that this proposal should not impact
operations at the Winchester Regional Airport since it lies outside the airport's Part 77 surfaces
and does not exceed height limitations.
Department of Parks and Recreation: No comment.
Frederick County Public Schools: No additional comments at this time.
Planning & Zoning:
MDP #04-05, Kernstown Commons
February 16, 2005
Page 3
A) Master Development Plan Requirement
A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a
master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only
be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick
County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development
plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County
that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in
the best interest of the general public.
B) Location
The subject site is located in the Kernstown area, at the southeast corner of the
intersection of Route 11 and Route 37. The property is within the Back Creek
Magisterial District.
C) Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City, VA Quadrangle)
depicts the zoning for the subject parcel as B2 (Business General) -District.
D) Intended Use
Commercial Uses
E) Site Suitability & Project Scope
Land Use Compatibility:
The site of the proposed development is located along the Route 11 Corridor adjacent to
existing commercial land uses and interstate uses in an area of Frederick County which is
predominately commercial in nature.
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
The subject property is part of the Route 11 South Corridor land use plan, as found on
pages 6-23 through 6-27 of the 2003 Comprehensive Polices. This land use plan
covers an area which extends from Route 37 to the northern portion of the Town of
Stephens City. It outlines a future plan for the area to become a business/office corridor
where Valley Pike would take a "parkway -like appearance". The 31.5327 -acre parcel is
zoned commercial and is within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA
(Sewer and Water Service Area).
The "Route 11 South Corridor" land use plan calls for enhanced design standards along
Valley Pike from Route 37 to the northern portion of Stephens City. The most stressed
design standard is the need for "extensive screening and setbacks" adjacent to Valley
Pike. Some of the other design standards recommended include enhanced landscaping
along Valley Pike, a bike and pedestrian trail, traditional board fencing along Valley Pike
and within developments, monument style signs, and no individual entrances along the
frontage of Valley Pike. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, page 6-24)
MDP #04-05, Kernstown Commons
February 16, 2005
Page 4
and within developments, monument style signs, and no individual entrances along the
frontage of Valley Pike. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, page 6-24)
Historic Resources:
The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any potentially
significant historic resources on the site of the proposed master development plan.
Furthermore, according to the National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the
Shenandoah Valley of Vir ig ph, the subject site is not included in any battlefield study
area and does not contain any core battlefield resources.
Environment:
The subject property does not contain any areas of steep slopes or floodplain. There is an
existing drainage channel that flows eastward thought the northern portion of the
property.
Transportation:
Access to the site is proposed via two commercial entrances and one right in/right out
located on Valley Pike (Route 11) which is a major arterial road. As required for all
major arterial roads with a speed limit over 35mph, a minimum entrance separation of
200' is required for all new entrances [Section 165-29.A (4)].
Valley Pike is a major collector road and an important corridor in Frederick County.
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) provided by the applicant, existing traffic
count information for Valley Pike shows that this segment has 22,230 Average Daily
Trips. Based on the proposed uses shown in the TIA, the addition of this commercial site
would add 16,851 average daily trips to Valley Pike, equating to a 92% increase.
Staff Comment: The preliminary master development plan shows two commercial
entrances and a right-in/right-out. VDOT has only approved the southern commercial
entrance and is still reviewing the additional two entrances. It should be noted that upon
final approval of the plan by VDOT, the northern two entrances could potentially be
eliminated.
F) Issues
Staff has identified numerous issues that still remain. They are as follows:
I. Interstate Overlay District. It should be noted on the MDP that only one interstate
overlay sign is permitted on the property. In accordance with Article XVII (IA Interstate
Area Overlay District) Section 165-131C of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance,
only one interstate overlay sign may be erected. This one sign is permitted for the
property identified by 75-A-10. The number of signs will not change regardless of
future subdivisions of the property.
MDP #04-05, Kernstown Commons
February 16, 2005
Page 5
2. Corridor Design Standards. This property is identified as being located in a business
corridor by the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan. This section of Route 11 currently
contains grass medians. This project proposes to remove these medians to expand Route
11. The Comprehensive Policy Plan envisions a planted median strip when Route 11
South becomes four lanes. By removing the median strips from Route 11, this master
development plan is not in conformance with the policies of the Comprehensive Policy
Plan. It would be appropriate for the applicant to work with Frederick County and VDOT
to ensure that planted median strips remain in the center of Route 11. This could possibly
be accomplished by the applicant providing additional right-of-way on the site to
accommodate both the widening of Route 11 as well as the preservation of the existing
median strips. The potential may exist for the strips to be landscaped and maintained by
the applicant through the Kernstown Commons Property Owners Association.
The Comprehensive Policy Plan also calls for the use of extensive setbacks and
monumental signs along Route 11. The applicant has not addressed these requirements
of the Plan on the preliminary master development plan. It would be appropriate to limit
the height of signs and incorporate only monumental style signs utilize additional
landscaping and berms, architectural standards and increased parking lot screening
3. Future Route 37 & I-81 Improvements. The 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan
recommends that all land uses proposed adjacent to the planned Route 37 and I-81
interchange road improvements be situated a minimum of 100' from these right-of-ways.
The master development plan should show these increased setbacks.
4. Private Streets. This development is proposing to utilize a private road network. If any
subdivision of lots is to occur, a waiver to allow commercial lots to be accessed by a
private road must be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
5. Setbacks. The minimum setbacks should be listed in a table on the MPD.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 03/02/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This preliminary Master Development Plan is generally consistent with the requirements of
Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of some
minor issues; however; it currently is not in conformance with the 2003 Frederick County
Comprehensive Policy Plan in regards to corridor design standards All of the issues identified
by staff, as well as those issues brought forth by the Planning Commission, should be
appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this MDP conformance with County
codes and review agency comments. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning
Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration.
0 250 500 1.000 1.500
MDP#04-05
tODSM �,, Kernstown Commons
(75-A-10)
0 250 s00 1,000 1,500
,
NO
Frederick County, Virginia Master Developwent Plan Application Package
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. Project Title: Kernstown Commons
2. Owner's Name: Orange Partners, LLC
C/O Nerangis Management Corp.
500 Pegasus Court
Winchester, VA 22602
(Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest)
Nicholas J. Nerangis, Nicholas J. Nerangis, Jr.,
Stephen T. Nerangis, Lisa N. Limoges
3. Applicant: Patton Harris Rust and Associates pc
Address: c/o Charles E. Maddox -
117 E. Piccadilly St...Winchester, VA 22601
Phone: L540) 667-2139
4. Design Company: Patton Harris Rust and Associates pc
Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester. VA 22601
Phone Number: _ 540 667-2139
Contact Name: Charles E. Maddox
�I
I s _ `I
FEB 9.� _�
FREDERICK G"UjNTY
1 PLAN! %'1!N ?, DHI F I OPiVENT
Frederick County, Vireiagia Master Development Plan Application Package
A. FPCATION cont'd
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5. J ovation of Property: Southeast corner at intersection of US Route 11
And Route 37 in Kernstown.
b. Total Acreage: 31.5327 acres
7. Property Information:
a) Property Identification Number (PIN): 75-A-10
b) Current Zoning: B2
c) Present Use: Vacant
d) Proposed Use: Commercial Uses
e) Adjoining Property Information: See Attached
Property Identification Property Uses
North
South
East
West
f) Magisterial District: Shawnee
8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
fll[
�„l_
Original X Amended B 9 '-=
FREDERICK COU(VTY
PL 11\111'1x r;FUe.' OP11 1
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is Irquilcu
County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development
plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material
will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application.
Signature:
Date: I �L�.-�,�✓l
2
75 -A -11C
George & John Miller c/o Miller Auto
75 -A -2E
M&C Prosperity, LLC
75A -6-B-41 B
Tom's LLC
75-A-3
Mohsen Sadeghzadeh
75-A-4
Scott &Michele McMichael
75-4-2
SHIHO, Inc
75-A-89
Glaize Developments, Inc.
75 -A -89A
Glaize eeIopments, Inc.
75-A-90
Glaize Developments, Inc.
75 -A -10A
Winchester -81 LLC c/o Urghart & Co
75-A-5
T G Adams
Kernstown Commons
3985 Valley Avenue, Winchester, VA 22602
Gonin
B2
Use
2864 Hartland Road, Falls Church, VA 22043
B2
Retail
P.O. Box 3243, Winchester, VA 22604
Vacant
501 Jefferson Street,B2
Winchester, VA 22601
Vacant
607 Lower Valley Road, Strasburg, VA 22657
B2
B2
Vacant
P.O. Box 3276, Winchester, VA 22604
Commercial
P.O. Box 888, Winchester, VA 22604
B2
Vacant
P.O. Box 888, Winchester, VA 22604
B2
Vacant
P.O. Box 888, Winchester, VA 22604
B2
Vacant
14144 Walton Drive, Manassas, VA 20112
B2
B3
Vacant
3632 Valle Pike,Winchester, VA 22602
Vacant
B2
Commercial
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick`, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us
Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virgis�a## 1, (i
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 L d=FEB9---7
E�
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
J
Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We)
FRC7E-R!CK COL LINTY
(Name) Nick Neraneis, Nick Nerangis Jr Steve Nerangis & Lisa Limoges (Phone) 540-667-132=---RL---.„`;',i ' uEb'rLOrf,'irlff _
(Address) 500 Pegasus Court 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
Deed Book on Page and is described as
Parcel: 10 Lot: Block: A Section: 75 Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name)Charles E. Maddox PHR+A (Phone)540-667-2139
(Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester VA 22601
To act as my true and lawful attomey-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described
Property, including
Rezoning (including proffers)
_ Conditional Use Permits
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:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified.
In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of 200
Signature(s) v
State of Virginia, City/County of To -wit:
(�/�
---�
1, ' J-0 a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction
aforesaid, certify that the rson(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me
and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this D �D day o UUll , 200 ,
Qp \ )� 'k
QL My Commission Expires: 11-7 -7 ��
Notary Public Q ---,
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc
Engineers. airveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
Pi4 R 1A 208 Church Street S.E.
Leesburg, Virginia 20175
Phone: 7.3.777.361616
Fax: 703.777.3725
To:
Organ izationlCompany:
From:
Date:
Project Name/Subject:
PHR+A Project file Number:
Kernstown Commons File
IMemorandu�
n , ri,j
Nerangis Management Corporation
Michael Glickman, PE
September 14, 2004
An Addendum to: A Tra,�L Iz actAnalvsis of the Kernstonrn Commons
12814-1-0
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared an addendum to: A Traffic Impact
Analysis of the Kernstown Commons by PHR+A, dated August 26, 2004. The purpose of this
document is to correct a typographical error contained in Table lA (page 5) of the submission.
The revised table provided below was the basis for the analyses included in the August 26, 2004
report.
Table 1A
Background Development #1: Crosspointe Center Development (Phase 1)
Trin Generation Summar
Code
Land Use
Amount
In
AM Peak Hour
Out Total
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
ADT
210
Single -Family Detached
415 units
75
225
300
248
139
387
4,150
230
Townhouse/Condo
100 units
9
43
51
41
20
61
870
253
Elderly Housing - Attach
100 units
4
3
7
6
4
10
348
820
Retail
370,000 SF
213
136
348
715
774
1,489
15,810
Total Tris
301
406
707
1,009
938
1,948
21,178
Total Internal
54
54
108
231
231
462
4,901
Total Pass -by
26
26
52
112
112
223
2,371
Total "New
Trips"
221
326
546
667
596
1,263
13,905
Page 1 of 1
OVERVIEW
Report Summary
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to
present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Kernstown Commons
development located along the east side of US Route 11 (Valley Pike), south of Route 37,
in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to include a 120 room hotel, a 16
screen movie theater, 85,500 square feet of retail, a 4,250 square foot convenience mart
with gasoline pumps, a 3,500 square foot bank with drive through, three (3) 6,000 square
foot restaurants, a 4,000 square foot restaurant and a 3,500 square foot fast food restaurant.
Due to potential Route 37 limited access line constraints along Route 50, PHR+A has
provided the following two (2) alternative site -access scenarios: Scenario A maintains
site -access for Kernstown Commons without infringing upon the current Route 37 limited
access line along Route 50. Under this scenario, one (1) site -driveway would be provided
along the .east side of US Route 11. Scenario B maintains site -access for Kernstown
Commons that would require modifying the Route 37 limited access line along Route 50.
Under this scenario, three (3) site driveways would be provided along the east side of US
Route 11. The proposed development will be built -out in a single phase by the year 2007.
Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Kernstown Commons with respect to
the surrounding roadway network.
Methodology
The traffic impacts accompanying the Kernstown Commons development were
obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document:
• Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of
impact,
• Calculation of trip generation for Kernstown Commons,
• Distribution and assignment of Kernstown Commons generated trips onto the study
area road network,
• Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway
capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions.
A Traffic Impact Analysis of Kernstown Commons
PJanuary 14, 2005
Project Number -12814-1-0
HPage 1
. +
�
Figure I
PR+A
H
Vcinky Map - Kernstown Commons
wTnicImpact Analysis oK ms »,C mm_*
January 1%2m5
Project Nmber a JlA,2
P72
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PHR+A obtained AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the
intersection of US Route 11/Route 839 as well as at each of the Route 37 ramps located
along US Route 11. PHR+A established the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of
the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes
to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 9% which is consistent with following reports: 1) A Phased
Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center, by PHR+A, dated September 10, 2003; and
2) A Traffic Impact Analysis for Villages atArtrip, by PHR+A, dated July 21, 2004.
Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key
locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry
and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of
service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report.
A Tia zc Impact Analysis ofKernstown Commons
PHR+A
January 14, 2005
Project Number -12814-1-0
Page 3
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)I
Figure 2 Existing ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
R+A
A Traffc Impact Analysis of Kernstown Commons
PH January 14, 2005
Project Number -12814-1-0
Page 4
No Scale
Neis
SgOn Ra Unsignalized
�P m'D Intersection
37
°Gf SE o ff Ra op�'o
N8
�9 71
(C nsignalized
Intersection
�j
oh,
37
P
4�
°GtVB Jro
3y
se
NB�S �P
BOG Unsignalized
Intersection
SITE
4
Jro
tt
Denotes Free -Flow Lane
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
h AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Ti affic Impact Analysis of Kernstown Commons
January 14, 2005
R+A Project Number -12814-1-0
PHPage 5
2007 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
In order to accurately depict future conditions within the study area, PHR+A
utilized the following traffic studies to determine the trips associated with not yet
completed area developments: 1) A Phased Trak Impact Analysis of CrosWointe Center,
by PHR+A, dated September 10, 2003; 2) A Trak Impact Analvsis for Wakeland Manor,
by KELLERCO, dated June 30, 2003 and 3) A Trak Impact Analysis for Villages at
At ZYip, by PHR+A, dated July 2l , 2004. Based upon the 7�' Edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, Tables 1A, 1B and 1C are
provided to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2007 "other
developments".
Table 1A
Phase 1: Crosspointe Center Development
Trin GPneratinn Cnmmary
Code
Land Use
Amount
AM Peak Hour
In Out Total
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
ADT
Percent
age of
210
Single -Family Detached
415 units
75
225
300
248
139
387
4,150
112
230
Townhouse/Condo
100 units
9
43
51
41
20
61
870
253
Elderly Housing - Attach
100 units
4
3
7
6
4
10
348
820
Retail
370,000 SF
213
136
348
715
774
1,489
15,810
Total Tris
301
406
707
1 009
938
1,948
21 178
100%
Total Internal
54
54
108
231
231
462
4,901
20%
Total Pass -by
26
26
52
112
112
223
2,371
10%
Total "New Trips"
221
326
546
667
596
1,263
13,905
70%
Table 1B
Background Development #2: Wakeland Manor
Trip Generation Summa
Code Land Use Amount
In
AM Peak Hour
Out Total
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
ADT
210 Single -Family Detached 397 units
72
215
287
234 137
371
3,970
230 Townhouse/Condo 214 units
16
79
95
75 37
112
1,862
Total Tris
88
294
382
309 174
483
5,832
A Trac Impact Analysis ofKernstown Commons
TT{R+A
January 14, 2005
ProjectNumber-12814-1-0
Page 6
Table 1C
Background Development #3: Villages at Artrip
T.S..i rn4i�n �im iiw ry
In addition to the trips relating to the specific background developments described
above, existing traffic volumes were increased along US Route 11 using an historic growth
rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2007. Figure 4 show the 2007
background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the
study area for roadway. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2007 background lane
geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets
are provided in the Appendix section of this report.
A Traffic Jmpact Analysis ofKernstown Commons
PH
R+A
January 14, 2005
ProjectNumber-12814-I-0
Page 7
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Code
Land Use
Amount
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
Land Bav A
210
Single -Family Detached
139 units
27
80
107
91
53
144
1,390
220
Apartment
76 units
8
33
41
39
21
59
456
230
Townhouse/Condo
438 units
29
140
168
135
67
202
3,811
710
Office
60,000 SF
110
15
125
25
121
146
900
820
Retail
103,700 SF
98
62
160
308
333
641
6,953
932
H -T Restaurant
6,000 SF
36
33
69
40
26
66
763
932
H -T Restaurant
6,000 SF
36
33
69
40
26
66
763
Land Bay B
210
Single -Family Detached
51 units
11
34
45
37
22
58
510
Land Bay C
Consists ofyouth soccer fields and will be a
negligible source ofpeak
hour
trip generation.
Land Bay D
820 Retail
(4.2 -acres @ 0.25 FAR)
45,738 SF
60
38
98
179
194
374
4,084
Land Bay E
220
Apartment
116 units
12
48
61
53
29
81
696
Total Tris
426
517
942
946
891
1,837
20,326
Total Internal
55
55
110
161
161
322
3,404
Total Pass -by
19
19
39
76
76
152
1,656
Total "New
Trips"
351
442
793
709
654
1,363
15,267
In addition to the trips relating to the specific background developments described
above, existing traffic volumes were increased along US Route 11 using an historic growth
rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2007. Figure 4 show the 2007
background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the
study area for roadway. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2007 background lane
geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets
are provided in the Appendix section of this report.
A Traffic Jmpact Analysis ofKernstown Commons
PH
R+A
January 14, 2005
ProjectNumber-12814-I-0
Page 7
h
SBO frka
No Scale
O���Q r4s)3253`�A 3j
n �
Q
37 ha
b
SB C)
�O 4
J9 I� ti
11 Vb ?.p
d�A 37
Q
¢� P
�o4fe .1m ab q�ti
839 SB �° np
NB/Sg .o
0R
Q� , crimp i
Mi b
11 `q
z ♦�Ite
SITE
Jro �•
'y■■'�j) /A� AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
■-T TV+ 1
Figure 4 2007 Background ADT and AM PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
PR+AH
A Traffic Impact Analysis ofKernstown Commons
ofKernstown Commons
January 14, 2005
Project Number -12814-1-0
Page 8
No Scale
R
Denotes Free -Flow Lane
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 5 2007 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Ti arc Impact Analysis ofKernstown Commons
PHR+A
January 12 2005
ProjcctNumber-128]4-I-0
Page 9
TRIP GENERATION
The total trips produced by and attracted to the Kernstown Commons site were
established using the 1 th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (i'fE) Trlp
Generation Report. PHR+A applied a 15% pass -by trip reduction to account for
background thru traffic along US Route 11 that will utilize the retail and convenience mart
with gasoline pumps components of Kernstown Commons. Table 2 summarizes the trip
generation results, along with pass -by trip reductions, for the proposed Kernstown
Commons development.
Table 2
Kernstown Commons
Trip Generation Summary
Code
Land Use
Amount
AM Peak Hour
In Out Total
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
ADT
Percentage
of Total
310
Hotel
120 rooms
31
20
51
38
33
71
701
444
Theater w/ Mat.
16 screens
11
3
14
129
194
324
2,453
820
Retail
85,500 SF
87
56
142
271
294
565
6,134
853
Conven. Mart w\pumps
4,250 SF
97
97
194
129
129
258
3,594
912
Drive-in Bank
3,500 SF
24
19
43
80
80
160
895
932
H -T Restaurant
6,000 SF
36
33
69
40
26
66
763
932
H -T Restaurant
4,000 SF
24
22
46
27
17
44
509
932
H -T Restaurant
6,000 SF
36
33
69
40
26
66
763
932
H -T Restaurant
6,000 SF
36
33
69
40
26
66
763
934
Fast Food w/ DT
3,500 SF
95
91
186
63
58
121
1,736
Total
477
407
884
856
882
1,738
18,310
100%
'Total Pass By:
25
25
50
62
62
124
1,459
8%
Total "New Trips":
452
382
833
794
820
1,614
16,851
92%
t -ass tsy uips ate iuteen percent l iDw) or total retau oeveiopmenr ana convenience Mart
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
For Scenarios A and B, PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in
Figures 6A and 613, respectively, to assign the Kernstown Commons trips (Table 2)
throughout the study area roadway network. Figures 7A and 713 show the corresponding
development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments.
2007 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS
The Kernstown Commons assigned trips (Figures 7A and 713) were added to the
2007 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2007 build -out conditions. Figures
8A and 813 provide the 2007 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key
locations throughout the study area for Scenarios A and B, respectively. Figures 9A and
913 shows the corresponding 2007 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.
A Tragic Impact Analysis of Kernstown Commons
PH
�� -{A January 14, 2005
�...CCt ProjectNumbcr-12814-1-0
Page 10
No Scale
�0
37
�� 77
SB Off -Ram
P
On �
atljA 37
,
!l'o47e8
J9
.1`tr
S�re�°�PW4 SITE
Q
J�
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
T -rP+A
X 1 Scenario A
Figure 6A Trip Distribution Percentages
A Traf zc Impact Analysis of Kernstown Commons
PH
R+A January 14, 2005
�,,,(([ ProjectNumber-12814-1-0
Page l l
r
No Scale
37
alp
SB Off -(tamp
N8�S�0 S�reQrr�
o Ra e"•!
Op 37
'Ip4 e#2
rP
83' C
z
5
J
SITE
a
I'
J�(� AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
T TP+( mmmm�_
X X Scenario B
Figure 6B Trip Distribution Percentages
A Traffic Impact Analysis ofKernstown Commons
January 14, 2005
Project Number -12814-1-0
Page 12
** Denotes Pass -by Trip Reduction
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
-E-
JL l Scenario A
Figure 7A Development -Generated Trip Assignments
Pi4-
A Tra(fc ImpactAnalvsis ofKernstown Commons
�A January 14, 2005
111 111 Project Number -Page 1 3
Page 13
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
Scenario B
Figure 7B Development -Generated Trip Assignments
P�n
A Tra f is Impact Analysis o[Kernstown Commons
January 14, 2005
Project Number -12814-1-0
Page 14
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
-l -
i 1 Scenario A
Figure 8A 2007 Build -out ADT and AN"M Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
A T7Lg is Impact Analysis of Kernstown Commons
pl�i January 14, 2005
l Project Number - Page ] 5
Page 15
n
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
Scenario B
Figure 8B 2007 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
PH
R+A
A Traffic Impact Analysis ofKernstown Commons
January 14, 2005
Pro_jectNumber-Page 1 6
Page 16
X X Scenario A
Figure 9A 2007 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
R+A
A Tia f lc Impact Analysis of Kernstown Commons
January 14, 2005
iii ProjectNumber-]2814-1-0
Page 17
SB Off Unsignalized
Intersection
No Scale
a50
Signalized Roadway
(p)F
Intersection Improvements
Q�
LOS--B(C) Required�Q
t,
Off,
`1
BOff
R�np�%/
SB !l
Signalized Roadway
Ona 37
Intersection Improvements
(Cid,
LOS C(C) Required
SB Off.-Ramp
S8 off
R��A
2
Unsignalized ,t
(C�8 jjj
Intersection
U
Ng s ffRah
&O°Ra 11 des&
��a�
(F)F�I
37
j
I p
4
Signalized Roadway
IntersectionImprovements
LOS--B(B) Required
��9171
,7
f
r% Unsignalized r-CJgJ
Intersection +r [}}
G, Signalized
a Intersection
11� LLOS-B(C) SITE
re(c)
l
ay
t,
O A four-lane section (currently two-lanes at this location)
of Route 11 would be required at this intersection.
Denotes Free-Flow Lane
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
PY TP+
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
X X Scenario A
Figure 9A 2007 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
R+A
A Tia f lc Impact Analysis of Kernstown Commons
January 14, 2005
iii ProjectNumber-]2814-1-0
Page 17
1 1 Scenario B
Figure 9B 2007 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
PH
R+A A Tra fic Impact Analysis ofKernstown Commons
January 14, 2005
Project Number -12814-1-0
Page 18
�e'S8
No ScaleO�'1't
SB Off Unsignalized
p Intersection
Signalized
Roadway
(FjF 3I j
m
Intersection
LOS--B(D) Improvements
a
Required
S8 O�
oo, s
Signalized Roadway
37
re � +'� �j
Intcrsectioo
LOS=B(C) Improvements
s.
j* �e s� 11
Required
SB pff-(lamp
BSS
Oh R
ff��A
Unsigoalized
Intersection 11
jr�
rc/8 yr I
Se°
N
Bis8 A �" t
°R��
"(FjF. r� n P eo
n4efi!
FrFI s �,�hp ^
37
l r`Ol
pe
SignalizedRoadwa
Intersection y
4°oP
LOS=B(C) Improvements
Required
Unsigualized
Ge
X39
Intersection
Vj
re�e t
SITE
11�
t
Signalized r+I
Intersection r�
LOS--B(C) J S��eO
„
a� O A four -lane section of Route 11 (currently two
-lanes at this location)
would be required at this intersection.
Denotes Free -Flow Lane
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
j�
T TR+! \
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
1 1 Scenario B
Figure 9B 2007 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
PH
R+A A Tra fic Impact Analysis ofKernstown Commons
January 14, 2005
Project Number -12814-1-0
Page 18
CONCLUSION
The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Kernstown Commons
development are acceptable and manageable. For Scenario A, assuming the improvements
shown in Figure9A, all intersections will maintain levels of service to "C" or better during
2007 background and build -out conditions. For Scenario B, assuming the improvements
shown in Figure9B, all intersections will maintain levels of service to "D" or better during
2007 background and build -out conditions. The improvements suggested for each of
existing intersections will be necessary with and without the proposed development. The
following reiterates the off-site roadway improvements recommended for each of the study
area intersections:
• US Route 11 2 Route 37 northern ramps: In order to achieve acceptable
levels of service, this intersection will require traffic signalization as well as
an eastbound turn -lane (currently there is one shared lane eastbound) for
both Scenarios A and B.
• US Route 11 P, Route 37 southern ramps: In order to achieve acceptable
levels of service, this intersection will require traffic signalization as well as
an eastbound turn -lane (currently there is one shared lane eastbound) for
both Scenarios A and B. In addition to the previously mentioned
improvements, Scenario B will require a southbound left turn lane to
service Site Drive #2.
• US Route 11 g Route 839: In order to achieve acceptable levels of service,
this intersection will require traffic signalization for Scenarios A and B. ,
The amount of traffic entering and exiting Route 839, however, is so
minimal that it is unlikely that it would ever be warranted.
A Traffic Impact Analysis ofKernstown Commons
PHR+A
January 14, 2005
Project Number -12814-1-0
Page 19
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: 2005 Planning Commission Retreat
Retreat Summary and Identified UDA Study Issues
DATE: February 17, 2005
Thank you for participating in the 2005 Planning Commission Retreat!
During the 2005 Planning Commission Retreat, staff presented information pertaining to Urban
Development Area trends and identified design issues that could be considered during the
comprehensive study of the UDA. Following these presentations, staff facilitated an issues
identification session with the meeting participants to determine various visions, issues, and
concerns associated with the UDA development patterns. This information is intended to be
utilized by staff at the various subcommittee levels to complete a comprehensive review of
current goals, objectives, and strategies associated with the County's UDA policies.
Attached is a summary of the issues that were identified by the retreat participants, and copies of
the various powerpoint presentations that staff utilized during the retreat.
Please contact the Planning Department with any questions about these materials. And again,
thank you for participating in the Planning Commission Retreat and establishing a planning work
program for the upcoming year.
ERL/bad
Attachments
107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
2005 PC Retreat Summary
Presentation 1: 2004 Annual Report
The Frederick County Annual Report is prepared each year for the Frederick County Planning
Commission, Board of Supervisors, and citizens. The purpose of the report is to evaluate past
and present planning activities and to aid in comprehensive planning and development for the up
coming year. The 2005 Planning Commission Retreat began with a presentation of this report.
No questions were raised at this time.
Presentation 2: Current Development Trends and Issues in the Urban Development Area
(UDA)
Issues raised during the discussion:
• What is the right size the UDA?
• Average statistics for rural development was requested.
• Why is the Rural Areas (RA) district so popular? Are we making it too difficult or
expensive to settle in the Residential Performance district (RP)?
• The R5 statistics should be separated from the RA statistics
• The RA number is harder to get a handle on because the approval process is not as
stringent and lacks a proper tracking mechanism.
• UDA Policy permits a higher density than what the zoning ordinance may enable.
• Re -Structure the ordinance and design standards; The maximum density allows higher
uses, but there is no way to get the higher density because of the structure of the
ordinance.
• The ultimate yield of units is unclear; we need to know the actual number (of units)
possible in the UDA as we study the UDA.
• Concern was expressed about our commercial land inventory; we have a low industrial
tax base, and the lack of industry is raising the real estate tax. We need to encourage and
attract more industrial rezoning and development.
Presentation 3: Innovative Planning Concepts — Albemarle County and Hanover County
Issues raised during the discussion that will assist UDA study effort:
• Permit numbers, tax rates, and demographics of Hanover County were requested.
• Is Hanover County experiencing any infill problems?
• What is the ratio of state -maintained streets and private streets in the new developments
of Albemarle County.
• How much of the neighborhood model is being implemented.
• A request was made for the demographics for Albemarle County, specifically on the tax
rate, home sales value, population, and the rural vs. urban area size.
• Is it possible to utilize these concepts in the rural community centers: It would require
density changes.
• How does industry fit into these models?
Projects, like Crosspointe (a neighborhood model), need lots of space to fully incorporate
these uses.
How were these planning tools implemented in Hanover and Albemarle?
Presentation 4: The Future of Frederick County's UDA
Issues raised during the discussion:
• How will affordable housing play into the UDA study?
• To accomplish some of these efforts, we will need a mix of ownership of the land. Need
clarification: is it accurate that right now, the majority of the land is owned by a
minority?
Presentation 5: Community Facilities in the UDA
Issues raised during the discussion:
• Would the community support a 70/30 (residential/non-residential) split? Or is that the
wrong direction for Frederick County.
• We need to encourage more livable communities and "urban" development within the
UDA.
• The UDA study should also consider amenities, services, and quality of life.
• We should consider a plan like Hanover County's, because we need more livable and
walkable communities.
• A suggestion was made that we work backwards toward expansion concepts, and that we
should look at the existing framework. Also, the design criteria should be enhanced, and
the density should increase in some areas, that way we could see if expansion is
appropriate for Frederick County.
• Is there a tracking method to see if rezoned land is being held by some people? What
year will the current UDA reach build -out?
• An inquiry was made about the County's growth rate, and if the number of lots made
available in the UDA would affect it. — Supply/demand modeling.
• The lots available do not affect the growth rate, but the value of lots would decrease if the
number of lots were to increase.
• A transitional zoning is needed between the RA and the UDA.
• A suggestion was made that we offer density incentives for subsidized housing, and that
we should consider identifying a strategic picture of mix -housing.
• A mix of industrial land is needed in the UDA.
• It is essential to identify good industrial sites in the county and not to ignore them. We
must preserve them so they will be available for future needs.
• Parameters need to be set for where the Board of Supervisors wants the UDA/SWSA to
be adjusted. It needs to be more comprehensive, include stakeholders, and recognize
geographic features and the understanding that higher densities will demand better
municipal services. Also, a buffer between the UDA and RA is needed, and that the open
space ordinance needs a hard look -over because the HOA's have a difficult time with
maintaining them.
• The availability of schools and parks affect the quality of life, and we must provide parks
for the current and future population.
• A suggestion was made that we revisit the corridor design standards.
Open Discussion of Issues and Work Program Priorities
-Methodology-
• A request was made for a year long study to look at R5 issues.
• Conduct a comprehensive analysis and get input to formulate assumptions that may be
presented to stakeholders. Then put a timeframe on it and set goals.
• It was suggested that we send out questionnaires, possibly even online.
• We should go to the stakeholder groups first.
• A comment was made that the CPPS can accomplish a framework through regular
meetings, and at some point more meetings will be needed to consolidate the information
gathered.
• Prioritize that the CPPS has a good UDA citizen representation.
-Priorities-
It was suggested that we should invite the transportation committee to MPO meetings.
A comment was made that the transportation plan wording is limited, the MPO does not
go far enough, and blend MDP with WATS to take a longer range beyond. Also, a study
should be included that defines they types of industrial uses we want to promote, and
lands that are still available for industrial purposes. Also, design a program to keep these
lands available for future industry.
This was seconded, with importance to reviewing the SIC Codes.
-R5 Development — Private health systems-
• A suggestion was made that the 50% reserve and conditional approval should be
evaluated
• What is the life expectancy of the private health systems?
U IPC RETREA n2005 PC RetreatlRetreat Summary. doc
Introduction to the Urban Development
Area (U DA)
• What i5 the UDA?
• UDA Facts & Figures.
• Current UDA Policy,
L
• Development Trends in
r.i
�:
}
the UDA,
:JA,
2DD5 Planning Commission
Retreat
What i5 the UDA?
• The UDA is an important growth management
tool that designates the general location of
planned urban development and anticipates
the provision of utilities, improved roads and
other urban facilities that are needed to
accommodate the more urbanized growth in
the UDA.
20D5 Planning
Commission Retreat
What io the UDA?
• The Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan contains policy language that seeks to
guide Suburban (residential and Business and
Industrial development within the UDA.
2005 Planning
Commission Retreat
What io the UDA?
• The Urban Development
Area (UDA) i5 a defined
area of Frederick
County in which more
1ntensivc forms of
residential development
will occur.
'.
2005 Planning
Commvsron Retreat
1
r. .` .�
'�<:'•'- _ it
'r�� a '✓'
r.i
�:
}
:JA,
w
ti
2C05 Planning
commission Retreat
M
iN4-!R M/1
1
r. .` .�
'�<:'•'- _ it
'r�� a '✓'
r.i
�:
}
:JA,
w
JO
2C05 Planning
commission Retreat
1
UDA Facto & Figures.
established in 1989
• Approximately 22,483
acres in Size.
• Approximately 8% of
the total land area in
Frederick Gounty.
• Population of
approximately 30, Doo
2005 Planning
Canmission Retreat
Current UDA Policy ...
• More urban land needs to be provided than will
actually be developed to maintain a
competitive housing and real estate market.
• It is not expected that the UDA will be fully
developed during the next five or ten years.
2DD5 Planning
Commission Retreat
Current UDA Policy ...
• Growth in the UDA needs to be continuously
monitored to determine the need for new or
expanded facilitie6 a5 well a5 for the expansion
of the UDA itself.
• The average overall density of the UDA should
at no time exceed three units per acre.
2005 Planning
Commission Retreat
Current UDA Policy.
• The UD?, is intended. to contain enough land -to
accommodate the urban and suburban
development that will occur throughout the
next decade.
• There i5 a need to provide a diversity of types
and locations for various types of development
to accommodate a competitive land market,
and provide for consumer choice.
2005 Planning
Car ion Retreat
Current UDA Policy ...
• Urban and suburban development should be
confined to the UDA in order to allow for the
provision of the facilities and Services needed
to support such development.
• In order for new areas of urban and suburban
user, to be established in the UDA, roads and
public facilities of sufficient capacity should be
provided to serve the new urban areas.
2005 Planning
Commission Retreat
Development Trendo in the UDA.
• Over the past five years, 2000-2004, 67
percent of all residential lots were created in
the UDA and 33 percent were created in the
RA.
2005 Planning
Commission Retreat
2
Development Trendo in the UDA...
• Over the past five years, 2000-2004, 60 percent of
all residential building permits and Certificates of
Occupancy were issued in the UDA and 40 percent
were i55ued in the Rural Areas.
z -WD1 Leuirtprea JCA up,% d —WA Nen lICA%
5ulldln9 5805 2588 61i r50' m
Permlt•
Grgac�iee d Sf.66 ?fi16 6C1 L9iD ML
2005 Planning
Commission Retreat
Kcoli entially Zoned Development
Information in the UDA.
• Zoned Land — Unplanned
– Maximum yield 5,402 units based on permittcd densities
Master Planned Projects
- 650 units panned
• Current Residential Oubdivision5 under
Development
– 5.150 units available
• Grand Total:
– 9,191 residential unite (approved, planned, or potential).
2005 Planning
Commission Retreat
FRFDERICK COUNTY 2305 UDA ANALYSIS
Building Permits & ON
/
7
t;
tt
C
f !
� ` r
- t o
FS
�f !a as
f S
h +
Kcoli entially Zoned Development
Information in the UDA.
• Zoned Land — Unplanned
– Maximum yield 5,402 units based on permittcd densities
Master Planned Projects
- 650 units panned
• Current Residential Oubdivision5 under
Development
– 5.150 units available
• Grand Total:
– 9,191 residential unite (approved, planned, or potential).
2005 Planning
Commission Retreat
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 UDA ANALYSIS
Building Permits & ON
/
7
tt
C
f !
7 Itis
ae 'i
- t o
FS
�f !a as
f S
Kcoli entially Zoned Development
Information in the UDA.
• Zoned Land — Unplanned
– Maximum yield 5,402 units based on permittcd densities
Master Planned Projects
- 650 units panned
• Current Residential Oubdivision5 under
Development
– 5.150 units available
• Grand Total:
– 9,191 residential unite (approved, planned, or potential).
2005 Planning
Commission Retreat
FREDFRICK COUNTY 2D05 UDA ANALYSIS
Building Permits & ON
Issued 2000 - 20D4
c.
7
Yom' . f�
'=rf,
f !
- t o
�f !a as
f S
Kcoli entially Zoned Development
Information in the UDA.
• Zoned Land — Unplanned
– Maximum yield 5,402 units based on permittcd densities
Master Planned Projects
- 650 units panned
• Current Residential Oubdivision5 under
Development
– 5.150 units available
• Grand Total:
– 9,191 residential unite (approved, planned, or potential).
2005 Planning
Commission Retreat
3
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 UDA ANALYSIS
7
f !
- t o
�f !a as
f S
3
Development Trends in the UDA...
• Y.eSidentially Zoned Development Potential
9,191 residential unite (approved, planned, or potential).
• UDA Development Potential
— 35,086 unite (Gl5 analysis)
(8esed on parcel acreage and permitted Kr density ranges.
Includes 9,191 reeidentislly zoned unite noted above).
2005 Plannin0
Commission Ratmat
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 uDA ANALYSIS
FREDERICK CUUNTY 20D5 UDA ANALYSIS
+ J
Development Trends in the UDA...
• Y.eSidentially Zoned Development Potential
9,191 residential unite (approved, planned, or potential).
• UDA Development Potential
— 35,086 unite (Gl5 analysis)
(8esed on parcel acreage and permitted Kr density ranges.
Includes 9,191 reeidentislly zoned unite noted above).
2005 Plannin0
Commission Ratmat
Commercial and Industrial
Development in the UDA .
Zoned Land Commercial & Industrial
in the UDA. — 4211 acres (18.7%)
• Residential
— 5079 acres (22.6%)
• Residual (un -zoned)
— 8585 acres (38.2 %)
• Infrastructure
— 5059 acres (225%)
2005 Planning
Commission Retreat
Relationehip between the UDA and the
5WSA, Sewer and Water Service Area.
V 6M_
2005 Planning
Commission Rat—t
2
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 uDA ANALYSIS
�f
+ J
sig
tlj/Fg
AV—
Commercial and Industrial
Development in the UDA .
Zoned Land Commercial & Industrial
in the UDA. — 4211 acres (18.7%)
• Residential
— 5079 acres (22.6%)
• Residual (un -zoned)
— 8585 acres (38.2 %)
• Infrastructure
— 5059 acres (225%)
2005 Planning
Commission Retreat
Relationehip between the UDA and the
5WSA, Sewer and Water Service Area.
V 6M_
2005 Planning
Commission Rat—t
2
Development Trends in the UDA...
• The average overall density of the UDA Should
at no time exceed three units per acre.
• The average overall density of the UDA i5
estimated at 2.4 units per acre.
200.5 Planning
Commission Retreat
Summary
Further analy5i5 and Study of the UDA would
provide the County (Planning Commission and
board of 5upervi5or5) with a timely
opportunity to ensure that the current UDA
policies and a55ociated transportation,
community facilities and Services policies are
relevant to the present and future needs of the
County and its rcoident5.
2gg5 Planning
Commission Retreat
5
Hanover County
• Rural Character
. High Growth Area
• Direct Development to a Suburban
Service Area
;r Evolution
• Created in 1982 Plan
• 1982 Plan had five year expansions to 2002
• Comprehensive Plan reviews re-evaluated
boundaries
• 1994 Plan had five year expansions to 2012
,i
• 2003 Plan has five year expansions to 2022
The County's Water and Wastewater Facilities Master
Plan is updated after each Comprehensive Plan
Update
r
-J
Suburban Service Area
-` • Established in 1982
Existing Service Areas
Urban Expansion Areas (5 year phasing for a 20
year period)
Interchange Sectors
• Based on provision of public facilities, principally
sewer and water, and stormwater drainage
• Forms a compact pattern that avoids scattered
sprawl
HANOVER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT
'
PHASED SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN
_ 2002
-' Location
�®
bow
-J
Suburban Service Area
-` • Established in 1982
Existing Service Areas
Urban Expansion Areas (5 year phasing for a 20
year period)
Interchange Sectors
• Based on provision of public facilities, principally
sewer and water, and stormwater drainage
• Forms a compact pattern that avoids scattered
sprawl
HANOVER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT
'
PHASED SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN
_ 2002
Objectives of Plan (adopted 2003)
. Average Annual Growth Rate of 2.5%
• Residential Building Permits
70% Suburban
30% Rural
Note: most recent expansion
area (2017-2022) only includes
land planned for a business park
Allowed Uses
+11�1�1
• Low and Medium Density residential
development
(overall SSA density of 2.5 units per acre)
(densities up to 15 units per acre)
• Shopping facilities
• Employment facilities
• Public service facilities
Experience
• Accepted method for directing growth
• Many inquiries for comp plan amendments,
to change boundaries or phasing, none ever
submitted
• Boundaries and phasing examined
comprehensively every five years & have
been altered
Operation
• County provides sewer and water line to
edge at each expansion area at beginning of
time period
• Further County provision is not guaranteed at
the beginning of the time period
• Comprehensive Plan shows appropriate
uses
2
y
`'yy GENERAL LANG USE PLAN
"`-41 HARAL LA COUNTY".
a� 2UD2
i
2
Interchange Sectors
• Vicinity of 1-295 interchanges
• Apartments, townhouses and higher density
subdivisions
• Shopping centers, highway service
businesses and office complexes
• Light industry
Summary
`'' • Simple • Doesn't allow quick
• Consistent reaction to changing
• Creates certainty conditions
"70
t _ Mz :
a e�
Small Area Plans
• Detailed plans for expansion areas
• Developed with input from residents
. Design criteria, roads & land use
3
Hanover County, Virginia - Statistics
Population
Area
1980 Census
150,398
1990 Census
63,306
2000 Census
186,320 J
;2003 Estimate
193,880
,2013 Projected 1120,411
100%
2023 Projected [157,829
aource: lyOu-zwu u.a. auredu of uie t-.ensus, cvurcuco ndnover i.ounry
Average annual growth rate = 2.5%
Labor Force Population
Civilian i ; Unemployment
Area Labor Force I Employment Rate
.Hanover County 151,088 49,933 X2.3%
Richmond/Petersburg MSA 1547,838 1527,078 13.8%
Source: Virginia Employment Commission, December 2004
Land Area (2000)
aource: rianover t.ounry uumprenensive rian — vision zuuz kAoopiea June zuus)
Residential Bu
Permits
2001 2002
'# Permits 916 I — 954 J
Source: Hanover County Housing and Demographic Report 2003
Taxes (2004)
Tax
Real estate tax
Personal property tax
Amount
$0.86 cents per $100 of assessed value
$3.64 per $100 of assessed value
Business personal property $3.64 per $100 of assessed value
tax
Area
% of County
Suburban Services Area (includes Ashland)
77 sq. mi.
16% i
Rural Areas
395 sq mi
84%
Hanover County
472 sq. mi.
100%
aource: rianover t.ounry uumprenensive rian — vision zuuz kAoopiea June zuus)
Residential Bu
Permits
2001 2002
'# Permits 916 I — 954 J
Source: Hanover County Housing and Demographic Report 2003
Taxes (2004)
Tax
Real estate tax
Personal property tax
Amount
$0.86 cents per $100 of assessed value
$3.64 per $100 of assessed value
Business personal property $3.64 per $100 of assessed value
tax
Machinery and tools tax
$3.64 per $100 of assessed value
(assessed value = 10% of original
capitalized cost excluding capitalized
interest)
Merchants capital tax
$1.90 per $100 of assessed value
(assessed value = 10% of market value)
Aircraft tax
$1.00 per $100 of assessed value
Contractors and business
$0.10 per $100 of gross receipts
license tax
(applies only if gross receipts exceed
$100,000)
Transient occupancy tax
8% of the amount paid for lodging to
hotel, motel, boarding house or travel
campground for continuous occupancy
for fewer than 30 consecutive days
Public service corporations
$0.86 cents per $100 of assessed value
for real estate and $3.64 per $100 of
assessed value for personal property
Public service corporations
$0.49 cents per $100 of assessed value
(generating facilities)
Source: Hanover County commissioner of the Revenue
The Future of Frederick County's UDA.
• What is the vision for the UDA?
i 1
• The size and location of the UDA.
• The denslty and mix of uses in the
UDA. —
,T-.�
• The desi n, character, and
identtty of the UDA.
Ten Principles. 7.. -'•t l�' I
2005 Planrvna Commimml
Retrad
What io the vision for the UDA?
Rural Area Study Emmplr.
Goals for the Rural Areas.
The overall goal for the nual areas is to preserve the rural character.
This, an imprecise goal, but of rural character have brsa defined and
farther goals m elatifv the ova ]goal have becu articulated and received wide
commuutty suppom a goals of the rural areas plan will be to:
Prm eopmrp—
Proteetnstard resoureea
Proamt bistgriy arebealogical and culturd fmtsrs
Eueounge agni-INre -d f.—".E—urage a diverse mrd ee000my that is mospatible with the rural eharocter.
RTmi ahe the amoaat of laud used for residential developmeae
Mtdmi,, the impact of d—lepmeut
Direct residsatid dmelopmaat to the Urbau Develnpm t Area (UDA).
Mdobdo aad enhasm the R -A C—ily Ceaten.
2005 Plamirp
Commisslen Retreat
What io the vision for the UDA?
Current Comprehensive Plan Goals for the UDA:
— Confine urban forms of development to the UDA.
— Provide sufficient land for a competitive market
within the UDA.
— Provide efficient and environmentally sensitive use
of the land in the UDA.
20M Planting
CornMedon Rexed
What i5 the vision for the UDA?
• How do current devclopmernt trends in the County, in
particular within the UDA, relate to the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan?
• Are the present goals valid?
• Are the goals being achieved and arc they relevant to
the UDA in 2005?
• Do the policies of the Comprehensive Plan provide a
clear long range vision for Frederick County's UDA?
205 Planning
C—.,d- Retrad
What io the vision for the UDA?
205 Planning
Oommiseion Retreat
1
What i5 the vision for the UDA?
2WS F1.11.
c.--. Rw-a
w
f
The Size and location of the UDA.
• 5ince the UDA was created in 1989 several
modifications of the UDA have occurred
resulting in a net increase of the UDA of 1,315
acres (approximately 6 percent).
2msammrw
Cu+�Y�ion Rebeat
IJ
CD
The aize and location of the UDA...
e In 2004, the Board of 5upervi9ors adopted a policy creating a
process for amendments to the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
This policy addresses modifications to the UDA•
e An analysis and Study of the UDA would provide an
opportunity to ensure that the size of the UDA is sufficient
and that it is in the appropriate locations.
e If the UDA boundary needs to be expanded, what criteria
should be used to determine expansion areas?
2005 Plimmw
Commission Retreat
3
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 UDA ANALYSIS
O
v
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 JDA ANALYSIS
O
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 JDA ANALYSIS
d
The density and mix of uoe5 in the
UDA.
• Gomprehenaivc Plan Policy density.
— Average overall density of 3 units per acre.
• Current practice:
— Average overall density of 2.4 units per acre
• Density:
Parcels: 0-10 acres 10 units per acre
10-100 acme 55 units per acre
100 acres and above 4 units per acre
2005 Planning
Commi-on Retreat
12
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 UDA ANALYSIS
.
•b,� o .a
i P-
Q�.+•�
r,� www �•
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 UDA ANALYSIS
O
v
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 JDA ANALYSIS
O
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 JDA ANALYSIS
d
The density and mix of uoe5 in the
UDA.
• Gomprehenaivc Plan Policy density.
— Average overall density of 3 units per acre.
• Current practice:
— Average overall density of 2.4 units per acre
• Density:
Parcels: 0-10 acres 10 units per acre
10-100 acme 55 units per acre
100 acres and above 4 units per acre
2005 Planning
Commi-on Retreat
12
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 UDA ANALYSIS
O • k,
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 UDA ANALYSIS
O
v
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 JDA ANALYSIS
O
FREDERICK COUNTY 2005 JDA ANALYSIS
d
The density and mix of uoe5 in the
UDA.
• Gomprehenaivc Plan Policy density.
— Average overall density of 3 units per acre.
• Current practice:
— Average overall density of 2.4 units per acre
• Density:
Parcels: 0-10 acres 10 units per acre
10-100 acme 55 units per acre
100 acres and above 4 units per acre
2005 Planning
Commi-on Retreat
12
The density and mix of uses in the
UDA...
• The concept of urban growth boundaries is based
upon the theory that more compact, dense
development i5 better than extensive, low density
development.
• Do the den5itie5 and land use de5ignation5 in the
UDA make Sense and do they promote an efFicjsnt;
use of land re5ource5.
2005 Pl-.p
Commission Rabeal
The density and mix of u5e5 in the
UDA...
• Mixed-use development:
-- The development of a tract of land with two or more
different uses such as but not limited to residential, office,
retail, public, or entertainment, in a compact urban form.
• An analysis and Study of the UDA would provide an
opportunity to ensure that the denoity and mix of
uses in the UDA i5 appropriate for the more urban
areas of Frederick County and Sufficient to
accommodate the development trends and growth
pre55ure5 within the region .
20D5 Pl—jrg
Commission R WYet
The density and mix of u5e5 in the
UDA...
• Exi5ting Suburban and commercial land uoeo in
Frederick County are often Separated from each
other in a Euclidian manner.
• Recent area Plano have started to introduce the
mixed use concept into Frederick County.
• Exi5ting Comprehensive Plan policies appear to be
antiquated and may frustrate modern planning
techniqueo that may be conoidered more innovative
and 5u5tainable.
2005 Planninp
Commission R W oat
The density and mix of uses in the
UDA...
• I5 there a desired mix of u5e5 in the UDA?
• Are the commercial and Industrial to
residential ratios acceptable?
• Are there a full and appropriate range of
community facilities and services available,
and are transportation options provided for, in
the UDA?
2DD5 Planning
Canml9aion Robaat
6'1
u
The design, character, and identity of
the UDA...
205 Pmnning
Cwnnicaian Retread
The design, character, and identity of
the UDA...
• Place Making.
— The effective programming and design of a mix of
uses, within a pedestrian, human scale,
environment. The development of Town Gentere,
Main Streets and Urban Villages. The creation of
place identity. CU LI)
• A re5pon5e to the "guest for community".
2005 Pivnning
Cwrvnia.ign Retrad
The design, character, and identity of
the UDA...
• The opportunity exists to enhance the UDA by
providing for a diversity of housing types and lifestyle
opportunities, supporting green infrastructure,
promoting mixed use projects and other economic
development opportunities.
• The opportunity exists to ensure a sustainable and
livable community.
• The opportunity to define the identity of Frederick
County's UDA is also available.
20M Planning
Commi.a. RWW
The design, character, and identity of
the UDA...
• Urban Neighborhood Community Centers
• 5hould the concept of neighborhood community
centers within the UDA be promoted in a similar
manner to the Rural Community Center concept of
the Rural Areas?
• Does the opportunity exist to create neighborhood
centers within the UDA?
2005 Planning
CmMli9&an Retread
Ten Principles for
Smart Grouirth on the
suburban Fringe
" 59e4 m h
.:_ larntAy a..e S.xaF Groan I.Iraanaatve
�; Reme..b.r tl.at We Right Yae:9n F the
't' Wrong Pleee b Not $mart Growl,
�. porta.! Er lk-.
- Spabms aM
-' C—Raueev
Proaida Dw— N-9 7VPM a,d Oppwmnl6n
": 6.9d C.atpa @ C.a=antwea Mhe• Y.ea
Multiple Cora.—s m l:nh — Md Lty
a..a c.eweuen
'-', YeMe. 6uvtai.ulAa T�e^.Partatmn ca.oloe.
`Piae.rr. ti,. cnmm�.nva cha.aw.r
._: Mahe Y Eaay m Do the Mob, rhF9
N
The Future of Frederick County's UDA
• Other conoWoratione
— Tranoportationlnfrastructurc
— Water and Sewer
(FCSA Master Plan)
— Capital necds of required community facilities
• Existing UDA concerns.
— Problcm5 that need to be addressed.
2075 Plamv.p
The Future of Frederick County's UDA.
Potential approaches for a Study of the UDA.
Comprehensive approach.
— 51milar to the approach of Albemarle County.
Strategic approach.
— 5pecific elements approached in a strategic
manner.
2005 PI—Ma
Cemm�m ReyePy
7
Development Impact Model
Prepared For:
Frederick County Planning Commission
February 5, 2005
Economic Impact
• Reflects Overall Economy of the Community
• Primary Factors are Job Creation and Real
Disposable Income
Process
• Task 1: Initial Meeting/Data Collection
r Agreement on model structure (funds)
P Discuss probable/desired applications
P Discussion of scenarios to be developed to calibrate the
model
Fiscal Impact Analysis
• Cost of Growth or Cash Flow to the Public Sector
Are the revenues generated by new growth enough to cover the
resulting service and facility demands?
• Reflects Operating Expenses, Capital Costs and
Revenues
Potential Applications
• The Frederick County Development Impact Model
Can be Used to Analyze:
Master Plan Scenarios
6 Rezonings
Specific Development Projects
Capital Facility Impacts
Economic Development Proposals
Process (continued)
• Task 2: Review of Relevant Material and
Historical Analysis
P Will provide the groundwork for Task 3 discussions
. Review of CAFR, economic, demographic and tax rate
statistics
. Identification of relevant trends from a financial, economic
and demographic perspective
Process (continued)
Task 3: Onsite Interviews
r Meet with County service providers to discuss:
. Department structure
. Drivers of demand
. Fixed vs. variable costs as well as facility vs. program -
related operating costs
. Levels of service
. Capital facilities
Solicit input for consideration in designing the model:
. Interface
. Outputs and reporting
. Formatting
. Other
In Summary
• What will the model project?
r Local public finances of Frederick County, Virginia
• What will the model NOT project?
P Private Sectors Economic Impacts
I Social Impacts
r Transportation Impacts
r Environmental Impacts
Conclusion
. For the UDA Study, what are some of the
questions you would like to ask the model?
Process (continued)
• Task 4: Design Development Impact Model
• Task 5: User Documentation
r User's Manual
r Communicates model assumptions
• Task 6: Implementation - TODAY
In Summary
Proffer Model vs. Development Impact Model
• The development impact model is NOT
r A proffer model
r An updated version of the current proffer model
• The development impact model will provide
r both ooeratina and capital revenues and costs for Frederick
County, Virginia local public finances
r outputs which can replace the current Capital Facilities Fiscal
Impact Model
. If approved by the SOS
I
Establishing Priorities
for 2005
Department of Planning and Development's
Work Program
Long Range Projects con't
Expand opportunities for citizens to access various departmental
information through the county's webpage.
Continue efforts to implement the Winchester -Frederick County
Battlefield Network Plan through the development of grant
applications and assistance in plan preparation.
Develop an on-line process for the review and completion of various
development applications.
Develop a long range transportation plan which complements the
regional effort made by the MPO.
Develop Corridor Land Use Plans to enhance gateways into the
community.
Current Planning Projects cont
Review development design standards for commercial corridors
within the county, primarily those leading into the City of Winchester.
Develop a process and standards for the implementation of
proportional site development improvements.
Create Growth Tracking Report.
Develop ordinance amendments to implement Long Range Planning
projects.
z�"lot x
Long Range Projects
institute a study f^_r the development of a land use plan for the
Route 5221 Route 277 "triangle.'
Comprehensive review of the County's Comprehensive Policy
Plan.
Conduct an analysis of the Urban Development Area and
develop strategies and policies which guide boundary
adjustments.
Develop a review and recommendation process for public
projects to ensure compliance with section 15.2- 2232 of the
Code of Virginia.
Assist in improvements to the county's Geographic Information
System database to allow for enhanced analytical capabilities.
Current Planning Projects
Complete a comprehensive review and revision of Chapter 165 -
Zoning Ordinance of the Frederick County Code.
Complete a comprehensive review and revision of Chapter 144 -
Subdivision Ordinance of the Frederick County Code.
Develop an objective rating system for the prioritization of major
secondary road improvement projects within Frederick County
Review Planning Department application packages and procedures
to ensure that current standards and policies are adhered to.
Questions to Ponder
• What are the top Long Range priorities for the
coming year that the Planning Department
should undertake?
• What are the top Short Range priorities for the
coming year that the Planning Department
should undertake?
• What aspects of the UDA policy should receive
the greatest emphasis?
1
Other Concerns to Ponder
• R-5 Recreational Community health
systems - Shawneeland and Mountain
Falls
— Historically recreational homes
— Recently more year round residents
— Small lots (1/4 to 1 t/ acres)
Other Concerns to Ponder
• Postponements
— Since 1998 at Board level
19 agenda items that Board heard
9 items postponed action at Applicant request
• Waivers
7
R.5 health systems
— All private health systems
— Under designed for uses
— Challenging lope and geology
— Proliferation of alternative systems
— Proliferation of conditional approvals
— 50 % reserve areas
Results:
4 bedroom houses
— On 2 bedroom health systems
— With reserve areas too small to accommodate replacements
• Should Health Systems be studiod?
Priorities
• Please return to the Planning Department
by Friday, February 11, 2005
n -w^
2
C'tnm1, .1'Albmluflc
CJuparlsncu! I,Iu,d Cln,nuuwn ac4alnpum,t
C>�4clypuicntAAL I.IlaI�:,li �;;SYtiti='iugCwlmiinticIDISC}
•I lit tiumliburllulld ]li dels
1111ildm', alr ek for Illi- Dee,<lollnrrul ,mals
lIll plo ntingt1wCttnrprOwnsivi:Man
+ pa6 hllds I fi II d. Iql nLl11 IN IlIII n IN Dc4slopnlcIit Alc is
-
I' I.), lui, r. rhe i7,_, Alp sruu AT e:rs II er III at, 0 ,t'+n.un, un61 ltlaul a I CAs.a
+ 1 '%flue leslduur 1 land Ilse deu:Maes ill llelrluplllrrn An,
WI'lWl' »auxof11b do cl
IIIcGelnpnlamaAreaslusuppmrreeaderaeed:+
i:rlIf
• i-1au :..,1 p, r;, idc Ircccis:,le Awwc.
Conventional
Sprati,, 1:
,u, n•> Laub rr•r '—_--`""—
•]alp ILIll,..0 bu nah
• V pan ysr<r n. nr.alvLn h lu,r •°r • nnl awr:J urth draw
•! Ya,�„i,.-d'Ivn,u l�•. hrinr,u J:III� Ilrrh
-Irllr.,l�,:a,l,., n,3:, r,1 •».,k.�•.,i, I.. :I, a, e... � .,�I if,l f, I.II
I„I aJ,, 0�1nlrlu
• f l'1111n •Ir.l l'I�
• k.�ynre.�, In r�r�r.ulJ I II..Ih
_af�f� f•i .,R�� _ v
.r
Planning. for Growh in Albt:marle County
The Neighborlw d Mudd:
Changing lhl: Fano O'Dec'J:lupmeitl
Marko Aplical
* l'ullttisln;ll
•,i ainlahlr
•11i hQu,alo oPLife
The
Neiy�l3bc�rl>Iu1,d
Model:
' 4i'irVHllln,ll'dlr°., R,Ill.l','n-lI,I.......Ilii p,al,I II' 1fII1L,11111'1IIIIYIII
° [11o1'I, till:arxaulr el':II II. ,a, 1�1 ;.11 ,.Iral_II
• I;u dJnl�,4.n,Y1
11141 11 arr Lu luau x,Jad
- tlll „:'pnr:un a;u�, Vu;; dru•u ir..
C aril;,in, a .1.Ia .a r,al a
•tinrrra.
lylll J,rl ,I� I.n �.II .•I•! rrl ,ilr
• .511�,In,LI., h. I'.Yle,
td.li Luiaa r6.0 oJm, hrin ran brY,dr,lnlllul 4rra+:nu1 liural t
-I��ly i,s�..r r�llr,l ,I,°11,.11 in ll,;�L]r,rrLlYurl n�rnli•rs
I k Nvw Iihmh ildModslApplird-
1�.111lClpti
r ,rrrdururra •'�•,
The Nogbborhood Model Applrcd -
Pantops
1t M
Aetghh a*."d
40>,f.•f
Density ky Design
I'alYauf,u \Alh.
•I iyh.-I J,"'1% A'-, II I I, Ill.nv i, . 16i
Hl 10 ,I,IIrn� rill I"'. I, IIS III -I.,: ( —I. I, :.II„r,hiw c,:lnd a t :,4,1 jw,
• Ih"hGi dcli,lo 1111,01 dn:l ni J I , . o—, L .II,I.h, G I, 111-1 IP+..... llLul
• h;. Lrl ,1_'11.,1} I, ,ul • ��I .I I...l,'I glhdil; rf aEi v. b. q>I n: III .Yud a 1u;I.r qLk e} ISI III:
The Neighharhl d IA,,del Applied -
P11111ops
Oki-
Densit\, ky Design
�� �Z!1111 A�l
Design hb aan ltlrre th:m Uelisily
Principles of the Nei-;hbol^I)oilo Nj9 )del
I. Vc&',%tria ll Ciricnlalioll
2. Nu=hhurlwod rrlondl-%Streets and hills
Iniercontwelcd Streets and Tonsponation Net.%arks
4 1' a k and Open 5p,lec
$, Nui hhnriiood Center;
ft. noildin gs and SlwicstlCllwwirl Scale
7 kele ilwd Parting
b Kin. til, I.ISCS
9. IAi% of Housing Typrs tend Afford8hility witlt DigniTy
I U. Vcdes elopment of er than Abandonanent
I I . Site I'larnling that Ite%peets I errain
12. (lc;lr t:Jzes
I . Fetic;:tritan Crrieaalnlit,n
4 {CA¢
Y i '
j
tom. } + s 1�, :ya,
�' 'fl1cl
a�
' Wv'hatl'cdrstrhw%Need:
• Cumcnicnec and SuieN
Dctlilaatiutrs
"�• " ti - [ t,IrljrYrt
I Ncighborhuud Friend]%, Slrccts and Paths
�.."
r
66Z
I nt, e.,c,nncctcd Strict; ;and Transpnnation Vena o s
Vie fbIloxing are nr}11tis'
• Cul -dc -sues are ilia s,nit prclrrred dcveltipment patlern.
Inuotonaceted titrC z urs Inl,ra b\pc ask c It, build.
C ul-de-sacs are mm IitlniI%-ll'icndh'.
". Neighhurhood Friendly SUccts and Patlls
?. Nei2llhmhond Friendly SITecL: and Path;;
Thr COWIn ink are myths:
• Narrow slreels are no adcgnutc ror lire
' Narrow 81a'"b result illmorc Vehicular accidellt$.
* Namm streets allo%c inadequate accos for service vellielc5.
d. PN*s and Open Spitae
'- l � • T
PF
N rc'�
ti �'� a 1h,s'ilr�laartsrrr
. Oitcn ria usetahle public tapeo space,
a. Park. and upc:n Space
A', -s ;lrlwrhvod
.1ludd
Inlrertll 10 COIAIIJL11144 &%iC I
kcsidcnls IM c acts.%, to part., puhlic'_ `Lllu;rin %paces ,tud natural
3 iclvk al I1wne. ucxk ur pht+
C'an 11013 a idl statin alter reCIr,lr�3e
6- Roilaiin_p and SP.IcLai I lumall Scale
('r�rn•crorli�+aerl Lhr�•b;tarncyN \i•i};h6urlrr;rxl.ilrrlr•/
l5uildin� as Obicu Space as Objcct
7. Rele'Lalcd Parkin
71
Corrt'cvrrerurulllrtelrpnrx°rrr iNrinhhurluuxl.4lr�rlr!
Parking in from of buildings I Most parking behind buitdin sO
'p;nallcl parkin, I•ilr5q i, v,w,,urjpc l
w. NoglibuthafO Comers
6. Buildings and Spaces of I hunmp Scatc
a,
' lip
I� .
�I
7, Itetevacd PuMug
Parking in IiunL of hau e s
1eOphorhood.11odel
NrLilt dtchind buildings*
-i-wild U, q WI.5115'[1 !'e vt,cour3,vd
t
Liz
1�0
f `rfalx°urrraa�rl In•crlrgrurwu i ��dc�hhurli„r.!1,1 J.nit•!
kctail mu-palmi from rtnidewial kelail it irllr=zral illi r„,rtlullllA
& Mix G1 usys
9 Mi, ut I ku.ln_• Tcpcs and AHordabilih° with Diann}° 9. Mix of Mou�iq T%prs and AlTotdabihiy with Dight
9. M O' Housing Ty s and Affordability with Dianity � 9. Mix of Wawin Tvpgs 5nd Anuidability with Di;;nnv
~�S J
L
pM spa
�4 •• a .1 iAt iaa � 1
Ill, kcdc: chlpnicnt rathcr Mai Ahamdonnient
I fl. Rvdei•ellipmcnt rather than Abandrinnirm
i�
t L.I.
11. Sita Planning that RespLeisTomin
I U, kv&d clopmci7t raker thin Ahandunni nt
I II Siie I Immilm that 2cspecu Terrain
12: dear Ed^cs
.�r II 111�911��II:II Ia JIM1111k'
�11nt ti—r"",
The Nre_h'horhoud Madel Ap;)I-,'d
To%%els Lind Trum
The NciLhhurhwd Mudd Applied
Toy %ers Land Trust
.Aha` mate Plar %hc ry ing Trodrl inn al
I�G�hI'ulnc�7i9d Devdki j nhill undcT
the Cwnnl)r benSi%4 Ilan Dasignaiioa
5
The Nci:thh(-rhr-od Mudd Appl,ed
R)i1eN Lmd Trust
'i r!}I'� f711rilki i
r,� rsLyu,rr���
C'onvanlional Plan of Suburban
Developm=nl under the
(:QMP%'hUANi%e P1411 Desi;;llati0n
I hu I'JCmd lnlrllvnd modcl: IlrlaaIt. I.i%able Dnclopltlunl .Adis' , _ � 1111dojopud Rural Awwa