Loading...
PC 11-16-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNT' PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia November 16, 2005 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) October 5, 2005 and October 19, 2005 Minutes.............................................................. (A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARdNG 4) Ordinance Amendment — Frederick County Zoning Code, Article 1V — Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-30 — Signs, G — Height, and 1~I - Size — Changes to the height and size of business signs located in the RA Rural Areas Zoning District. Mr. Cheran............................................................ (B) ...................................................... 5) Ordinance Amendment — Frederick County Zoning Code, Article XII -. Definitions, Section 165-156 - Definitions and Word Usage — Changes to the intent and definition of full - screen and landscape screen. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (C) PUBLIC MEETING 6) Waiver Request of Frank Klebieko, submitted by Artz & Associates, PLC, for a waiver request for exceptions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as follows: Article V, RA Rural Areas District, §165-52A Permitted Residential Density— Exception; and, § 165-54A - Permitted Lot Sizes, pertaining to creating two lots with an area less than five acres. The property is located off of North Frederick Pike (Route 522), west approximately .l 1 miles to Becher Place, and is identified with Property Identification Number 41 -A-103 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, Mr. Cheran..................................................................................................................... (D) DISCUSSION 7) Urban Development Area (UDA) Study Upiate Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (E) FILE COPY 8) Ordinance Amendment — Frederick County Zoning Code, Article X - Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 165-82A -Neighborhood Business District —Addition of Health Clubs in the B1 District. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (F) 9) Other 0 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 October 5, 2005. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; June M. Wilmot, Shawnee District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner, Candice Perkins, Planner 11; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission minutes of September 7, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 09/29/05 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS reviewed SIC codes to accommodate small health clubs, 5,000 square feet and less, in the B 1 Zoning Districts. He said the subcommittee also began to review the section of the ordinance dealing with signs. Frederick County Planning Commission�} Minutes of October 5, 2005 J I I I p 1 Page 1609 -2— Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS is continuing with their discussions on the UDA (Urban Development Area) Study and a product will soon be ready to forward to the Board of Supervisors for their suggestions. Commissioner Light added that another meeting is scheduled for October 10 at 7:30 p.m. Sanitation Authority —10/04/05 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of August was down 2.1 inches; the September reading was not yet available, but is expected to be low; and flows for all plants were down. He reported that the State has approved five million gallons per day for the Parkins Mill plant; this plant is expected to be completed by 2009. Commissioner Unger said the Authority is also working on an inter -connection of water systems with Berkeley County in order to share water in case of emergencies. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #15-05 of the Leon Largent Estate, submitted by Triad Engineering, Inc., to rezone 30.01 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to MI (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The property is located off of Airport Road (Rt. 645), approximately 1.2 miles from the intersection of Airport Road and Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522), directly southeast of the Airport property. The property is further identified with PIN 64- 5-1 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval With Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this application proposes to rezone 30.01 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M 1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers for the establishment of an industrial warehouse. Mr. Ruddy reported that the property is located within the UDA (Urban Development Area), the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area), and it is located within the Rt. 50 East Land Use Plan (LUP). He said that the Rt. 50 East LUP envisions office and industrial land uses on the property and recognizes the potential for additional commercial growth in conjunction Mth the airport; the property is also located within the Airport Support Area. Mr. Ruddy pointed out that the applicant has proffered to preserve a strip of land containing a portion of Buffalo Lick Run and its associated floodplain as a conservation area, providing a continuation of the environmental stream corridor previously established with the Airport Business Park. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1610 Minutes of October 5, 2005 L 0 -3 - Regarding transportation, Mr. Ruddy said that VDOT has recently completed the Airport Road re -alignment project and has improved the intersection of Airport Road with Victory Lane; he said these improvements have provided good road infrastructure in front of the project and have improved traffic flow in this immediate vicinity. He said that presently, access to the Largent property is across land currently owned by the Airport Authority; however, this property is in the process of being reverted back to VDOT and should be completed in the upcoming months. He noted that the provision of a commercial entrance will ensure direct access to the state -maintained road. Mr. Ruddy added that a positive fiscal impact for the project has been indicated, he further added that the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution to provide some financial resource to the fire and rescue company serving this project. Mr. Denny Dunlap with Triad Engineering was representing this application and came forward to answer questions from the Commission members. Commissioner Gochenour inquired if the property owner might consider expanding the conservation easements to contain all of the steep slopes on the property that drain down into Buffalo Lick Run_ Mr. Dunlap replied that a large portion of the property is not developable because of the steep slopes and those steep slope areas will not be disturbed. Commissioner Gochenour said that she would like to see a wetlands delineation study performed on the property prior to the approval of a rezoning, particularly because a portion of the property crosses Buffalo Lick Run. Commissioner Thomas inquired about the applicant's calculations for the monetary contribution to fire and rescue; he considered the amount to be low for a one-time payment. Mr. Dunlap said the proffered amount is $.015 per building square foot. He said that assuming 200,000 square feet of building area, the total amount of money proffered would be $3,000.00. He added that the calculations were based on previous applications submitted for approval and their effort to maintain consistency. Commissioner Gochenour was concerned about how the two existing storm water management ponds might be impacted by the construction of an entrance and road between them. Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT's Resident Engineer, stated that VDOT will ensure all work will be done appropriately and the integrity of the ponds will be maintained before VDOT will issue a permit. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. David Worthington, a landowner on Middle Road in Marshal Acres, stated that the Russell 150 rezoning application, approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 28, 2005, had proffered both a very wide area around Buffalo Lick Run and low -impact storm -water drainage methods. Mr. Worthington said he would like to see those items included in this application as well, so that environmental protection would be consistent along this entire length of Buffalo Lick Run. Commissioner Thomas suggested two items for the applicant to consider before the rezoning was heard by the Board of Supervisors. The first was to use low -intensity management concepts to protect the environmental features along Buffalo Lick Run; and secondly, that the applicant take another look at their calculations on the proffered amount for fire and rescue. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1611 Minutes of October 5, 2005 MOM -4 - Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application # 15-05 of the Leon Largent Estate, submitted by Triad Engineering, Inc., to rezone 30.01 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The majority vote was as follows: _YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Wilmot, Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger, Straub NO: Gochenour (Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Rezoning Application #12-05 of the Village at Artrip to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, for the proposed mixed-use development of 905 residential units and retail, restaurant, and office uses. The property is located one mile west of I-81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Rt. 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Rt. 1176), and west of Canter Estates, Section V. The property is also identified with P.I.N. 75 -A -99A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (The public hearing was held on August 3, 2005) Action — Tabled for 60 Days Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the applicant provided the County with a revised rezoning application package and the revised materials contained an updated executive summary, a revised proffer statement, and a revised master development plan. Mr. Ruddy said that the two most significant changes provided by the applicant were to: limit development to Phase II until the Warrior Drive road connection could be completed north of the project through the Crosspointe development to I-81; and to increase the commercial component from 10,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet for the first two phases of development. Other changes included the elimination of the immediate connection of Warrior Drive to Wakeland Manor, until the end of Phase 1; this will relieve the burden placed on the adjacent residential neighborhoods, which is the crux of the transportation improvement and the TIA. Mr. Ruddy stated that, based upon the revised proffer statements, the staff has concluded that while the R4 rezoning application proposed creativity of the R4 community district, the applicant had not demonstrated that the resulting impacts to the County's transportation network and the community facilities infrastructure had been addressed. He said that based on this conclusion, and the failure to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive, which is a major element of the County's road network, the application did not appear to justify the requested modifications sought with the rezoning application. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1612 Minutes of October 5, 2005 ONVY -5 - Mr. Ruddy continued, stating that since this most recent report was sent to the Planning Commission, the applicant provided another revised proffer statement. He said the applicant has forwarded the revised proffer statement to members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ruddy said that the revised proffer statement appears to be an improvement over what was submitted for the September 9, 2005 staff report; however, the Commission should carefully consider the timing of the receipt of the revised proffers and the content of the revisions. Commissioner Kriz inquired if the County Attorney had time to review the most recent revisions to the proffer statement. Mr. Ruddy replied that Mr. Mitchell, the County Attorney, was relatively comfortable with the initial form of the proffer statement; however, much of the content and the implications associated with it is the responsibility of the staff to review. Mr. John Foote of Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Terpak, PC, was the attorney representing the applicant in this rezoning. Mr. Foote reviewed the latest changes in the application, the proffer statement, and the preliminary master development plan with the Commission. He stated that the bridge into Wakeland Manor would be constructed at the onset of development. He presented a letter from the director of the Sanitation Authority, Mr. Wellington H. Jones, indicating the Authority's commitment to dedicate five acres of the Lakeside Detention Facility site, to be added to the Tower Companies' dedicated 11 acres, for anew elementary school and the Sanitation Authority's consent for the Tower Companies to access their property at the end of Lakeside Drive for construction purposes. Mr. Foote stated that they eliminated the reversionary clause associated with the dedication of their property for a school site. In addition, he said they have specified on the plan all sidewalks, the urban and rural road sections, and the bicycle trails across the bridge. A Commission member asked for clarification on the areas proposed for a school site and whether the school had commented on the proposed sites. Mr. Foote provided clarification on the two proposed sites. Each site included the 11 -acre dedicated portion of the Tower property, with the option of an additional five acres granted from the adjacent Sanitation Authority property, or the alternative five -acre area on the Tower site, located below the traffic circle. He said the school site can be laid out on either of those configurations: either all 16 acres on the Tower property or 11 acres of Tower property and the Authority's property. Mr. Foote said the school board representatives had not seen the layouts, but agreed this area was a good location for a school site. Mr. Jim Brown from Dewberry & Davis stepped forward to present his two layout options for school facilities. He said that although the topography is steep on the eastern side of the Tower Company's five - acre portion, there is sufficient room at the top, where there is a level plateau, to position a school with required parking, a playground, and circulation. Mr. Brown said the same school template is used for the alternative layout, which crosses over their property line onto the Sanitation Authority's property. Commission members continued to have concerns about the traffic impacts and specifically, the potential traffic that could be generated without the benefit of the completion of Warrior Drive. Mr. John Callow, traffic consultant with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, said that this project builds a major portion of a required Comprehensive Policy Plan road that neither VDOT nor the County has the financial ability to construct. Mr. Callow said that this project, along with the many other pending projects along the proposed Warrior Drive corridor, will complete the transportation network needed. A member of the Commission wanted to see the phasing of the various housing types designated on the plan and which parts of the center core area are to be constructed with each phase. Mr. Foote agreed to make those designations on the plan. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 5, 2005 _ Page 1613 V51 1.{ tl Q. Commission members had questions about access to the project and expressed concern about single -access subdivisions. Concern was raised for the existing residents in Canter Estates who will be exposed to continuing traffic through their neighborhood, during what could be a long construction period, by the project's new residential traffic and tradesmen working on the site. Chairman DeHaven had questions about the rear - loading areas and some front -loading areas where the applicant was requesting a reduction in setbacks to 15 feet. He was concerned about parked vehicles blocking portions of the alley in the rear or blocking sidewalks in the front. Mr. Brown replied that it was not their intent to provide visitor parking in the alley; he said that all visitor parking will be accommodated in the neo -traditional fashion in the front, with parallel parking on both sides of the street. Chairman DeHaven made the observation that in instances like this one, where everything is tight, a resident could not back his vehicle out of the garage to wash it, without blocking 5 0% of the pavement section of the alley. Mr. Brown replied that the alleys will be painted with stripes and designated as fire lanes; therefore, no - parking is permitted. Commissioner Light commented that he has been a long-time proponent of development tracking along the Route 522 South and Route 50 East corridor. He posed the question of how many units, in projects currently underway and undeveloped, but rezoned and capable of moving forward, were capable of impacting the Route 522 South corridor. The staff estimated there may be about 5,000 units, including those with commercial implications. Commissioner Light recognized the benefits of the Artrip project contributing to the completion of Warrior Drive; however, he questioned the ability of one road to serve 5-6,000 future units. He said that the significant road improvements designated in the South Frederick Land Use Plan are probably not 20% of what will be needed in the future to accommodate all the traffic from projects currently active. Chairman DeHaven suggested that the staff request additional comments from the Sanitation Authority, the school system, and possibly Public Works, when the final submittals are received from the applicant. Commissioner Kriz said that in view of the lateness with which the Planning Commission received this latest revision from the applicant, he believed there had not been enough time to study the information provided. Commissioner Kriz moved that the rezoning be tabled for another 60 days and this motion was seconded by Commissioner Straub. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to table Rezoning Application # 12-05 of the Village at Artrip to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, for the proposed mixed-use development of 905 residential units and retail, restaurant, and office uses for 60 days. (Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) Request by Robert and Sylvia Johnson to consider an entrance spacing waiver permitted in Article IV, Section 165-29B(1), of the Frederick County Code to allow a commercial entrance less than 150 feet from an existing residential driveway and a state road. The subject property is located at 3595 Valley Pike and is identified with P.I.N. 63-A-83 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Denied Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1614 Minutes of October 5, 2005 0 0 nh -7 - Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that staff has received a waiver request from Robert and Sylvia Johnson to allow for the reduction in the minimum entrance spacing for business entrances on major collector roads. Ms. Perkins said that the property, zoned B3 (Industrial Transition), is located at 3595 Valley Pike and contains a single-family dwelling. She said the entrance spacing requirement for this site is 150 feet and the approval of this waiver —Oulu allow the placement of a new commercial entrance approximately 30 to 40 feet off of the adjacent residential driveway and about 90 to 100 feet off of Commonwealth Court. She said the applicant would need a waiver of approximately 100 to 120 feet off of the adjacent residential driveway and a waiver of approximately 50 to 60 feet off of Commonwealth Court to enable the placement ofthe entrance at this location. Ms. Perkins added that the staff believes the waiver should only be granted if the parking lot and entrance are reversed which would allow the commercial entrance to straddle the two property lines of the Johnson and Broy properties, so a shared entrance could be utilized. Commissioner Unger asked if the adjacent property owner had been informed of the waiver and the possibility of the shared entrance. Ms. Perkins said that the both the staff and applicant have talked with the adjacent property owner. She noted that the adjacent properties are also zoned commercial. Commission members did not favorably view the possibility of having three entrances within the spacing of 150 to 160 feet. They pointed out that the lane in front of the properties was designed as an acceleration lane for Commonwealth Drive. Commissioners stated that there is an existing residential entrance within 50 to 70 feet of Commonwealth Drive and creating an additional commercial entrance within another 50 to 70 feet, which would be bumped out into the acceleration lane, is unreasonable and would create a safety hazard. Commission members did not want to encumber the use of the property, but believed other details would have to be worked out before they would consider a waiver request. Commissioners said that if an agreement was worked out between the two property owners to create one shared entrance, they would be more inclined to vote favorably. Another suggestion was to possibly work out an access across the development strip retained to parallel with the entrance to CarQuest; and hopefully, vehicles could proceed further north where spacing was more practical. Mr. Robert Johnson, the property owner requesting the waiver, introduced himself and Mr. William E. Broy, the adjoining property owner. Mr. Johnson said that he was fine with the staff's suggestion of reversing the entrance and parking area in order to provide access to the Broy's property. Mr. Johnson said there would be a problem creating an entrance in the rear off of Commonwealth Drive, however, due to water and sewer lines and drainfield areas. Mrs. Sylvia T. Johnson, wife of Mr. Robert Johnson, said that they want to establish a small office that would operate "by -appointment only;" she said it would not be a commercial use with a lot of traffic going in and out. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, but no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Morris moved for denial of the requested waiver. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger. BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby deny the request by Robert and Sylvia Johnson for an entrance spacing waiver to allow a commercial entrance less than 150 feet from an existing residential driveway and a state road. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 5, 2005 M Page 1615 IRM The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO DENY THE WAIVER): Wilmot, Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger, Gochenour NO: Straub (Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION Consideration of a request by Greenway Engineering to include approximately 59.09 acres of land into the Urban Development Area (UDA) and to modify the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. The Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The property is located north and adjacent to Millwood Pike (Rt. 50), approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection of Carpers Valley Road (Rt. 723), across from the Westview Business Center. The property is also identified with P.I.N. 65-A-116 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial of the Request Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that the subject property is within the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) and it is within the limits of the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. Ms. Eddy stated that the applicant is requesting that the UDA (Urban Development Area) boundary be expanded to include this parcel. In addition, the applicant is requesting that the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan be modified to change the land use designation from business to mixed use. She said these two actions would collectively allow the site to develop some residential use, subject, of course, to a rezoning. Ms. Eddy said that while the applicant has called this a mixed-use development, if considered in its most simplest form, it is a request to reduce the amount of planned and zoned commercial development to provide for residential development. Ms. Eddy continued, stating that the CPPS (Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee) considered this request at their meeting on August 8. She said the CPPS had serious concerns with this request, primarily the loss of commercial land along a business corridor planned and zoned for commercial and industrial uses. She said that concerns were also raised about the effect of residences on the established adjacent industrial - zoned property to the west. Ms. Eddy said the future Route 37 was discussed and the members of the CPPS expressed a desire to see commercial uses at this future interchange. She said the members also took into account the concerns raised by the Frederick County Public Schools. In conclusion, Ms. Eddy said that members of the CPPS were satisfied with the current business designation in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and unanimously recommended to the Planning Commission that this CPPA (Comprehensive Plans and Programs Amendment) request be denied. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering came forward to represent the property owners, Arcadia Development Company. Mr. Wyatt presented the request to change the Route 50 Land Use Plan to a mixed—use development in this area. Frederick County Plarming Commission Minutes of October 5, 2005 V113 Page 1616 � J a am Commissioner Straub said she preferred to see this type of request postponed until after the RA (Rural Areas) Study and the UDA (Urban Development Area) Study had been completed. She said that considering the number of homes possible and the lack of schools, she couldn't foresee adding more into the mix at this time. Other Commissioners were opposed to the mixed-use aspect of this request. They were not in favor of reducing the existing planned and zoned commercial areas and replacing it with residential uses. A reduction in the anticipated tax base was given as one reason for their opposition. There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Unger, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of the request by Greenway Engineering to include approximately 59.09 acres of land into the Urban Development Area (UDA) and to modify the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. The Planning Commission did not believe it was appropriate to change the UDA at this time. Consideration of a request by Greenway Engineering to include approximately 79.41 acres of land, known as the Bowman -Shoemaker Properties, into the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The properties are located south and adjacent to Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), approximately 720 feet east of Double Church Road (Rt. 641). The properties are also identified with P.I.N.s 86-A-78, 86-A-79, 86-A-80, and 86-A-81 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, stated that this request by Greenway Engineering for the Bowman -Shoemaker Properties is to expand the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) by approximately 79.41 acres in order to accommodate a mixed use of commercial and residential. Ms. Eddy noted that the subject properties are not covered by any small area land use plans of the Comprehensive Policy Plan; however, the Eastern Frederick County Long -Range Land Use Plan designates the northern portion of the B2 -zoned properties for business use. She pointed out that the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District borders the Bowman -Shoemaker properties to the south. Ms. Eddy said that the CPPS (Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee) had reservations about this UDA/SWSA expansion request. She said one primary concern was the piecemeal planning of an area in advance of the UDA Study and they were also concerned about maintaining the integrity of the adjacent Agricultural and Forestal District. Ms. Eddy said that CPPS members were hesitant to add more residential development to the area when the Fairfax Pike (Route 277) improvements had not yet been programmed. In addition, they had concerns about promoting Warrior Drive south, particularly as it related to individual properties, when this road was not yet included in the Eastern Road Plan. Furthermore, there was little support among CPPS members for promoting a large amount of residential land uses here. In conclusion, Ms. Eddy said that the CPPS's recommendation was for denial of the CPPA (Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment) request. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1617 Minutes of October 5, 2005 0 0 (;l -10 - Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, came forward as the representative for the Bowman -Shoemaker properties in this request. Mr. Wyatt said that during the initial work session on this request, the Board of Supervisors recognized the transportation benefits of this project. He noted that the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) Vision Plan calls for Warrior Drive to be realigned and extended south to a ne:v Interstate 81 Exit 307 Interchange and this is shown on their land use plan, along the eastern end of the subject properties. Mr. Wyatt also talked about the School Board's positive comments about using a reserved portion of their site for school use. He explained that their proposal was solely for the purpose of comprehensive planning for future land use for an area that will ultimately develop over time. Mr. Wyatt believed that a mixed- use environment, utilizing residential, commercial, and public benefit, on an existing planned corridor and in proximity to an existing school and park facilities, was a positive concept for a comprehensive planning effort. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Kenneth Wymer, a property owner to the south, was opposed to the promotion of Warrior Drive to the south and said he would not change the use of his property or grant access in his lifetime. Mr. Wymer told the Commission that he uses his property for grazing cattle and other farm operations. He said the land south of his property belongs to Mr. Robert Shiley and Mr. Shiley is also opposed to granting access to his property. In addition, Mr. Wymer said the proposed road going over to Double Church Road is shown going through church property. Mr. Wymer next described to the Commission many of the problems he is having with people trespassing onto his property and abusing his property. He said people drive four -wheelers and trucks over his property, they discard litter, the bottles and cans hamper his hay -making, and people hunt out of season Mr. Wymer said this application would only increase his problems and he was opposed to it. Ms. Lorretta Wymer, wife of Mr. Kenneth Wymer, said that Sherando High School has access to an additional road through the park which they use when needed. Ms. Wymer requested that the Commission deny this request. She said that this development should occur further along into the future, but not at this time. Commissioner Straub said she had the same concerns with this request as she did for the previous UDA expansion request by Arcadia Development Company. In particular, she was opposed to additional residential use and while there was a lack of schools to accommodate students. She understood the transportation concerns and eventually, she believed these improvements would occur. However, she did not think this request should be promoted until the County has caught up with its infrastructure needs. Commissioner Ours agreed with all of the concerns raised by the CPPS. Commissioner Ours said that this area has been discussed in the past and it has always come down to transportation issues, especially Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277). He said that since there are no improvements in sight, he could not support this request. Commissioner Gochenour agreed with the issues raised by the CPPS, especially with the possible impacts to the Agricultural and Forestal District. She also believed the UDA Study needed to be completed before any additional land is added to the UDA. Chairman DeHaven believed the applicant's concept had some merit; however, he believed it was way too soon in the process to be considered at this time. He said the potential for residential use adjacent to an agricultural and forestal district would be a mistake. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1618 Minutes of October 5, 2005 on n N F 7 -11 - Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of the request by Greenway Engineering to include approximately 79.41 acres of land, known as the Bowman - Shoemaker Properties, into the Urban Development Area (LTDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Planning Commission did not believe it was appropriate to change the SWSA or the UDA at this time. OTHER CITIZENS PLANNING & EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF VIRGINIA - ANNUAL PLANNING Si ZONING CONFERENCE Commissioner Morris announced that the Citizens Planning and Education Association (CPEA) will be having its Annual Planning and Zoning Conference this weekend. He said that during the conference, awards are presented to organizations throughout the state that exemplify citizen planning efforts. Commissioner Morris was pleased to announce that the local CCC (Community Consensus Coalition) is going to be the recipient of one of the annual awards. STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT TRACKING Commissioner Light believed the Route 522 South Corridor would be an interesting study for development tracking and for determining the total impacts of traffic to be generated over the next 20-30 years, along with the potential use of Route 37 and future road alignments. Commissioner Light suggested to staff that this may be an interesting discussion item for the Planning Commission's next annual retreat. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Plamling Conunission 1 "Z1 ® Page 1619 Minutes of October 5, 20050 1�]' 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 October 19, 2005. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; June M. Wilmot, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission minutes of September 21, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) —10/18/05 Mtg. Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB discussed the proposed Willow Run rezoning presented by Greenway Engineering. She said that historic sites on and near the project were discussed and the following recommendations were made: screening of historic Homespun through landscaping; environmental studies should be conducted around the historic Pembrook Cove Farm complex; and the preservation of the historic homes, numbers 740 and 750, through the rezoning process. Commissioner Gochenour said the HRAB Frederick County Plarming Commission Page 1620 Minutes of October 19, 2005 0 0 nh �tJ also heard a presentation by the President of the Winchester -Frederick Historic Society, Mr. Robert Boxley. She said the HRAB discussed how they could become more involved with the Historic Society. PUBLIC MEETING Subdivision Request #21-05 of Macedonia Acres, submitted by BC Consultants, to subdivide 4.20 acres into eight single-family detached traditional housing lots, containing four existing homes and four proposed new homes. The property, zoned RP (Residential Performance), is located immediately north of the intersection of existing Macedonia Church Road (Rt. 756) and Owens Lane/ Maryland Drive. The property is further identified with PINS 75C-1-9, 75C -1-10A, 75C-1-11, 75C-1-12, 75C-1-13 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, reported that this application proposes the subdivision of 4.20 acres into eight single-family detached traditional housing lots, containing four existing homes and four proposed new homes; the lot sizes range from 15,000 to 32,000 square feet. He said the proposed lots will have access via Owens Lane and Macedonia Church Road. Mr. Cheran noted that design details consistent with the Wakeland Manor, Phase 6, subdivision will be incorporated and include such features as street lights and sidewalks. He added that the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and is located within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). Mr. Cheran stated that this proposed subdivision appears to satisfy agency and ordinance requirements and has had the MDP (master development plan) requirement waived; he said the proposed lots comply with the dimensional requirements of the single-family detached traditional urban housing type. Mr. Cheran concluded his report by noting that a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors is desired to allow the staff to administratively approve this subdivision. Commissioner Gochenour had questions on how this proposal fit in with the existing Wakeland Manor and if this was to become a part of Wakeland Manor; she also had concerns about water quantity and quality in this area. Commissioner Gochenour added that she was not in favor of filling up the only vacant space in this area with four additional houses, in light of all the numerous existing homes here. Mr. Rex Wakeman, the property owner, came forward to clarify that he was proposing four new houses, not eight; he said the existing four houses will remain. Mr. Wakeman said this was a part of the Macedonia Acres subdivision, subdivided in the mid -fifties, and is not a part of the Wakeland Manor subdivision; he said the homes vAIill be constructed in the style of those in Wakeland Manor. Commissioner Wilmot commented favorably on the improvements made to Owens Lane. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1621 Minutes of October 19, 2005 I 0_1 � V Y -3 - Commissioner Morris believed this proposal will clean-up this particular area and create a much better overall project; he said there is no real incentive to keep the older long, deep lots trimmed and mowed Upon motion made by Conu3,issioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision Request #21-05 of Macedonia Acres, submitted by BC Consultants, to subdivide 4.20 acres into eight single-family detached traditional housing lots, containing four existing homes and four proposed new homes. (Note: Commissioners Thomas, Light, and Unger were absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION Site Plan 456-05 of Crooked Run Wastewater Reclamation Facility to be located in the Shenandoah Development (Lake Frederick), a 2,130 -unit, age -restricted community off of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522 South) on Crappie Lane. This capital improvement project is being presented to the Planning Commission for informational purposes and no action is required. No Action Required Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, stated that projects involving public facilities are customarily brought before the Planning Commission for information prior to site plan approval. Mr. Cheran said that a site plan has been submitted to the Planning Department for the Crooked Run Wastewater Reclamation Facility to be located in the Shenandoah development (Lake Frederick). He explained that Shenandoah is a 2,130 -unit, age -restricted community off of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522 South) on Crappie Lane. He added that the site for the Shenandoah development is currently being prepped for construction and land disturbance and construction of the road to the site is underway. Mr_ Ronald Mislowski with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, the project engineers, was available to answer questions from the Commission regarding the new facility. Mr. Mislowski stated that all of the permits have been issued for the plant. The Board of Supervisors' Liaison, Mr. Gary Dove, inquired about the capacity of the facility and if the plant's discharge would count against the County's nutrient load quota in streams. Mr. Mislowski replied that the permit was issued for 250,000 gallons per day (GPD) which will serve all of Shenandoah, in addition to the jail property, the mobile home park just north of Shenandoah, and some potential commercial areas in Clarke County. Mr. Mislowski said that approximately five years ago, a VPDES permit was initially issued by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and several years ago, that permit was re -authorized. Mr. Mislowski stated that this plant has been designed to meet those discharge limits and has been approved.by the DEQ. Mr. Mislowski added that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority will own and operate the plant once there are a designated number of homes being served by the plant. Frederick County Planning CommissionQD �n Page 1622 Minutes of October 19, 2005 0 � -4 - Commissioner Morris asked if the dwellings connected to the system would require any specialized equipment and how much of the plant's operation was new technology. Mr. Mislowski replied that the basic technology, oxidation ditches, is proven technology and has been used for a long time; he said there was some new technology due to the nutrient removal required by the `JPDES permit. Commissioner Gochenour said A was her understanding that Crooked Run was at least one Crile dry from the damn and this was the proposed location for this facility. Commissioner Gochenour believed it should be established that this plant will meet the new standards for tributary discharge. Mr. Mislowski confirmed that the new plant meets the required limits of the discharge permit as mandated by the State; he added that DEQ has approved the design of this plant and the plant meets the requirements of the discharge permit. Commissioner Gochenour commented that it was also her understanding that the Shenandoah development will require about one million gallons of water per day. Commissioner Gochenour said she had requested from the Sanitation Authority, through the Planning Department, an annual report comparing the quantity of available water from all sources for last year, versus this year, along with a source -water protection map. Commissioner Straub asked if the lake water would be used in the plant operation. Mr. Mislowski replied that the lake is not a part of the plant operation; he said the lake is strictly for recreation. Mr. Cheran added that the Crooked Run Wastewater Reclamation Facility is being constructed to serve the 2,130 units in the Shenandoah development; he said that any growth outside of this R5 development would require a Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment. Mr. Cheran added that even though the plant might be over capacity, anyone else wanting to use the plant would have to go through the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment process and ultimately, obtain approval by the Board of Supervisors. No action was required by the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R- Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning CommissionPage 1623 Minutes of October 19, 2005 DO ® 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrators! L 540/665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 RE: Public Dearing: Changes to 165-30 G & H of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance; Business Signs DATE: November 2, 2005 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) reviewed and discussed proposed changes to Section 165-30 G and H of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance at its meeting on April 28, 2005. The proposed changes would regulate business signs in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows business signs to have a maximum height of 35 feet and 100 square feet in area. A standardized franchise sign may have up to 150 square feet in area. The DRRS believes this permitted use is not in keeping with the rural character of Frederick County. This permitted use will add typical commercial signage to the rural areas of the county. The DRRS would propose adding a standard height and area size for business signs in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District - The Board of Supervisors reviewed these proposed changes to Section 165-30 G&H in their June 10, 2005 mail out. The Board of Supervisors provided no comments or changes to section. The current and proposed ordinance sections are in bold print below for your review. 165-30 G. Height. No sign shall exceed the maximum height requirement for the zoning district in which they are located. Business signs located :n the RA (Raral Areas) Zoning District shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. All signs other than business signs shall be no more than ten (10) feet in height. No freestanding business entrance sign shall exceed five (5) feet in height. 165-30 H. The following restrictions shall apply to the size of signs: (1) No business sign or directional sign shall exceed 100 square feet in area. Standardized franchise signs may exceed 100 square feet in area, but shall not exceed 150 square feet in area. In the B-1 (Neighborhood Business) District and RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, no business sign or directional sign shall exceed 50 square feet. This proposed ordinance amendment is presented to the Planning Commission as a public hearing. Staff will be available to respond to your questions. MRC/bad 107 Forth lent Street, suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 § 165-30 . ZONING § 165-30 the separation between the two signs was reduced from the required 50 feet. G. Height. No sign shall exceed the maximum height requirement for.the zoning district in which they are located. All signs other than business signs shall be no more than 10 feet in height. No freestanding business entrance sign shall exceed five feet in height. H. Size. The following restrictions shall apply to the size of signs: (1) No business sign or directional sign shall exceed 100 square feet in area. Standardized, _franchised signs may exceed 100 square feet in area but shall not exceed 150 square feet in area. In the -131 Neighborhood Business District, no business or directional sign shall exceed 50 square feet in area. (2) Cottage occupation signs shall not exceed four square feet in area. (3) Wall -mounted business signs in the B2 Business General, the B3 Industrial Transition, M1 Light Industrial, the M2 Industrial General or the MS Medical Support Districts shall be permitted to encompass 20% of the area of the wall to which the sign is attached, provided that the total area of the wall -mounted business sign does not exceed 200 square feet. [Amended 9-12-20011 (4) No freestanding building entrance sign shall exceed four square feet in area. I. Maintenance. All signs shall be maintained in a state of good repair. Signs that are damaged, structurally unsound or poorly maintained shall be repaired or removed within 30 days. (1) If an off -premises sign advertises a business or activity that is no longer being operated or conducted or if a directional sign refers to a location where the advertised activities no longer exist, that sign shall be considered to be abandoned and shall be removed by the owner within 30 days. (2) If the message portion of a sign is removed, the supporting structural components shall be removed or the message portion replaced within 30 days. J. Sign permits. [Amended 6-9-19931 16549 6-10-2003 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administratorfjrx.< RE: Public Hearing: Changes to Section 165-156 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance DATE: November 2, 2005 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its May 26, 2005, recommended changing the intent of Section 165-156 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The DRRS believes theses proposed changes will add clarification, understanding, and word usage of the definitions located within the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors reviewed these proposed changes to Section 165-156 in their August 5, 2005 mail out. The Board of Supervisors provided no comments or changes to the section. The current and proposed ordinance sections are in bold print below for your review. 165-156 Iyer nitions and Word Usage. Words and Terms set forth below shall have the meanings ascribed to them. Any word, term(s), or phrase used in this Zoning Ordinance not defined below shall have the meaning ascribed to such word, term or phrase in the most recent edition of Merriam -Webster's Dictiona , unless in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, established customs or practices in Frederick County, Virginia justify a different or additions! meaning. Furthermore, the purpose of this Zoning Ordinance, certain wards, terms and phrases are herein defined as follows: This proposed ordinance amendment is presented as a public hearing. Staff will be available to respond to your questions. Comments raised during this public hearing will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Attachment MRC/bad 107 North bent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 § 165-156 ZONING § 165-156 ARTICLE XXII Definitions § 165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Amended 11-13-1991] Unless a contrary intention clearly appears, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning given in this section. All words and terms not defined herein shall be used with a meaning of standard usage. ABUT— To physically touch or border upon or to share a common property line. ACCESS — A way or means of vehicular or pedestrian approach to provide physical entrance to a property. ACCESSORY USE — A use of land or of a building or portion thereof customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and located on the same lot with such principal use. ACTIVE DISTANCE BUFFER — A distance buffer which contains no building or principal structure of activity but which may contain an accessory use or activity. ADDITION — A structure added to the original structure at some time after the completion of the original. ADJACENT OR ADJOINING LOT OR LAND —A lot or parcel of land which shares all or part of a common lot line with another lot or parcel or land or which is immediately across a street or road from said parcel or lot. ADULT CARE RESIDENCES and ASSISTED LIVING CARE FACILITIES —Any place, establishment or institution, public or private, operated or maintained for the maintenance or care of four or more adults who are aged, infirm or disabled and who are cared for in a primarily residential setting, except a facility or portion of a facility licensed by the State Board of Health or the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services; and the home or residence of an individual who cares for or maintains only persons related to him by blood or marriage; and a facility or portion of a facility serving infirm or disabled persons between the ages of 18 and 21. [Added 2-26-19971 ADULT RETAIL – A retail establishment for which 25% or more of its stock in trade, as determined by floor area, is in videos, magazines, 16687 6-10-2003 J • • COUNTY of FREDERICK artment of Planning and Development TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrato��;-�___. RF: Subdivision Waiver Request, Section 144-4 - Klebieko Property DATE: November 3, 2005 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/60'5-6395 This waiver is a request to waive the requirements of Section (s) 165-52 A and 165-54 A, of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. These sections address density and lot size in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. This 3.460 acre property is located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, and was acquired by the applicant in 2005. Mr. Michael M. Artz of Artz & Associates is proposing the subdivision of this property. Exhibit "A" illustrates the existing conditions and proposed subdivision of the property. Currently two (2) dwellings are located on this three acre property. This property is legally nonconforming as the two dwellings have existed for 60 years. The property owners wish to subdivide the parcel in a manner that would have each house situated on an individual parcel. The proposed subdivision will also create two new lots, both less than five acres in area. Chapter 165-54 (A) requires that the minimum lot size in the RA District must be five acres with the exception of Family Variance lots or Rural Preservation Iots. This subdivision will create a new property line separating the two existing dwellings, setbacks for the two (2) parcels will be: 60 feet front and 50 feet sides and rear ; theses setbacks are applicable to the RA zoning district. The lots on this proposed subdivision will have 250 feet of road frontage as specified by the ordinance. The lots currently have approved septic systems. The property owners are requesting two (2) waivers of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The first waiver pertains to the permitted residential density specified in Section 165-52 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance. The second waiver pertains to creating two lots with an area less than five acres per Section 165-54(A). The waiver requests apply to both parcels. Granting of the requested waivers would increase the non -conformity of the property. A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the request is desired. Attachments MRC/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 BELL 30A 1 2 ,41 FLOWERS/ 3 �4 G,P2 30 A 177 MEOLA / 30A 1 1 / o�y awe c C� FLETCHE 30 A 1799 R8 aa 4 gTNT4(/ B % S 8 S COUNTRY 30 A 184 SHELLY 41 A 100 S 8 S COUNTRY 30 8 2 PIERCE 41 A 105 S & S COUNTRY 30 8 10 KLEBIEKO 41 A 103 S 8 S COUNTRY 30 8 9 S & S COUNTRY 30 8 8 WHITING 42 A 2 COOPER 42 A 1 MAY 31 A 47 BRILL 42 A 3 y o e HARMAN $ i 42 1 2 y3 WARD 42 1 1 DICK FELTNER 41 A 107 42 A 7E DICK 42 A 7B Map Features Zoning Rakes/Ponds Ppli-t- Bridges Wav Request CulvertsB1 (Business, Neighborhood District) MS (Medical Support District) 4", Dams n B2 (Business, General District) <j R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) Frank KI e b i e ko +'w✓- Streams /`./ Retaining W ® on aRa B3 (Business, Industrial TransitiDistrict) � R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) Buildings Road Centerlines ' EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) O RA (Rural Areas District) Tanks HE (Higher Education District) O RP (Residential Performance District) (41 A 103 ) _ F3J Mi (Industrial, Light District) Parcels Trails rl M2 (Indushial, General District) p,�/N SWSA • MH i (Mobile Home Community District) V/p)t�; E 0 75 150 300 S Feet SUTPHIN 31 A 48 0 SUTPHIN o 31 A 48A 3 a CARDEN 42 A 4 CARDEN FAMILY INVESTMENTS 42 A 5 L 4 * rl <. BE 4 1', 2 S$S COUNTRY •• RLOwERS a , Jp rgG • �; • a i IffOLA 9F8•. e 3SSCOi1HT.RY 30 e" 2 - w f• S&SCOUNTRY r . 6 '(�1'j �{ rev 30 8'.• 4 MAY. FLETCHER • 1 !i1)rJ (r �l r r ?; * "� 3i' A 47 4 Y?8 SISC RYiCOUNf'>� •. � y�, 30 0 10 S { SCOVRTRY ,ems �• • ! •, a �i -- � r � � S` 1 � _ s • 4 �� E.., I F + BRILL ( A N M1H1rING' , 42 A i, iyI �••� PkIL -ERO 43 A• 2 lb 4t A 103 ,r L L ! • .�* . M SHf LLY, 41 A ion �e . - �• COOPER r f 7 R 1 � �l pt`s � •;� a. • .'4 L I PIERCE 41 A 105 HARMAN r ' d v 12 1 2• t • r,M WARD FE_4iNER r Al UA R1-37 •s•L. 42 A 7E • .. •1 - 0!CK 9.° A ?3 Map Features Zoning Application //Bridges Wav Request /�� Culverts ,,��:`` J BI (Business, Neighborhood District) * MS (Medical Support District) Lakes/Ponds .v Dams S2 (Business, General District) * R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) •�-- Stream,/taining s "ReWalls ® B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) + R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) F ra n k KI e b i e ko Buildings Road Centerlines F" EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) 4 RA (Rural Areas District) ® Tanks HE (Higher Education District) O RP (Residential Performance District) * MI (Industrial, Light District) (41 - A 103 ) Parcels ^/ ' `�..• Trails �j M2 (Industrial, General District) N r JDA SWSA • •r � • MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) WE 0 75 150 300 S Feet NOTES: "A" � OF 2 1. BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON WAS DETERMINED BY A FIELD RUN SURVEY EXHIBIT PERFORMED BY AR77 & ASSOCIATES ON FEBRUARY 7, 2005. G 2. THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD, 3. ALL PROPERTIES ZONED RA ALL USES ARE RESIDENTIAL. VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. 165-52A. - MAXIMUM DENSITY. 2. 165-54A. - MINIMUM LOT SIZE. TM #30-A-184 5 & 5 COUNTRY, INC. DB 638, PG 289 6� 1�1 REBAR FOUND UNE BEARING DISTANCE L1 N 47'03'58" E 66.37' L2 N 25'21'28" E 60.00' L3 N 61'43'08" E 188.38' L4 N 22'49'39" E 89.72' TM #30-8-10 5 & 5 COUNTRY, INC. DB 638, PG 289 S 15 F �EXIST. WELL �2k7;7) w�`0 BRC 0 LOT 1 Ex1sr. DWLc. IRON FOUND 1.909 AC. REBAR 41 6JQJ, SET 1,� 04� 0.11 mi. i TO BECHER PLACE TM #31-A-47 EDGAR J. & DORIS I. MAY AND ROGER L. & LOU ANN CUNNINGHAM \ 801/104 sg.pg, REBAR REBAR SET (187323 SET EXIST. / REBAR SET/ • 2 DRAINFIELD \ �� /7$T EXIST. WELL B�\(APPROX.) y p pR(� CONC. MON. IV X786 B FOUND 64316 RSET / J NSR �S RTTyF�F�Fn'_ /bgRigec C�P� CYipry� AREA TABULATION EXISTING: TM 141—A-103 3.460 AC. PROPOSED: LOT 1 1.909 AC. LOT 2 1.551 AC. LOT C- REBAR 1 i4, qp FI\ 1.551 /� SET �A9��sr AC. i m� 98) sp• BRA \ / �`7 M CON C. TM #42-A-1 N 6>3 CONCMON.. FOUND 1 �l' MARY 0. x, 19 FOUND REBAR WB 07, PG 092 388' FOUND 0.16 mi. t TO RONNER LANE (VA. RTE. 746) N 674-08 w 2.11' FINAL PLAT, MINOR RURAL DIVISION of 3.460 ACRES GAINESBORO DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" =100' DATE: MAY 20, 2005 PRESENT OWNER: TM #41 A-103 KOIN5WUMENT #050�009473y PROJECT #21131 MICHAEL M. ARTZ v No. 1951 Artz and Ufiociateo, PLd A Subsidiary of VaHey Engineering, PLC LAND SURVEYING LAND PLANNING DEVELOP ENT 16 East Piccadilly Street WINCHESTER, VA 22601-4740 TEL 540-667-3233 FAX 549-667-9188 TOLL FREE 1-800-755-7320 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street ! Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 WAIVER/EXCEPTIONS REQUEST APPLICATION 1. Applicant: r Name: d r� (JJ f Telephone: Address: �'c5-S�C;aCd ST -;rte , `is` i a ► tl w `J'iC'i V LoO J 2. Property owner (if different than above): Name: � � e b EO<o Telephone: 88 8 - - 7 1 Address: 11 ,7 f,. C 3. Contact person (if other than above): Name: Telephone: 4. Waiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): I S 5. Property Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): .i0 svi,lz t ko - CeC:her- P`cwC'_ WesA; , �-(C'v -h -I-uAPr1c-k Pi 1� , 1 Oe- 5ZZ 6. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number zi 1 p 3 Magisterial District: 61o. nesbot-o 7. Property zoning and current use: Zoned: RR District CurrentUse: 8. Attachments: Adjoining Property Owners List a✓' Existing/recorded and Proposed Plats 1!— OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $500 enclosed: L/ Receipt #: �4 A- 9. List of Adjoining Properties: The following names and addresses are all ofthe individuals, firms, or corporations owning properly adjacent to the property for which the waiver or exception is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application. NAME C'ao�1 . LnG Address 39�, Olcunsboro POCK,r Y�' ZZ� Property ID # 3o A 1 5 eoo-n 'Enc, Address,`39IF C` l� as b2FO i lesle-r iffy- Zzwef Property ID # _-2,o - riS L ° M POT e- - f' t'c'"AAnq i'w�tl�n�l Address lv"] i('�r, nc'r LC3+' W �nChesfrr. V4 zr-c 53 Property ID # 3 ; R _ Li -1 Address .2p I ova _ n °� r fA Property ID # 1� Z— A 1 Ie_n T Pr e rc: e— Address 3 24c )j. E"r e Pi yrs oxf5(f r, Property ID # ;� J Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # - Page 2 - SI- 3 The UDA Working Group and the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) have been progressing with their efforts toward the execution of the Urban Development Area Study. At this point, in their efforts it is appropriate for the Group to check in with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to ensure that both entities are aware of the status of the study, that the direction of the Group continues to be endorsed by the Commission and Board, and that any feedback, concerns, or issues are incorporated into the ongoing efforts of the Group. To that end, the UDA Working Group will be requesting a joint work session between the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors during the month of December. A December work session will be timely, given that the Planning Commission's Annual Retreat is scheduled for February of 2006. Following last years retreat, the UDA Working Group established an approach to the study of the County's Urban Development Area and over the past several months the efforts of the group have focused around the following: Establishing goals for the UDA Study Strategies for achieving the goals of the UDA Study Addressing the Land Use Policy language of the Comprehensive Plan The implementation of the UDA Study The goals developed for the UDA Study portray the guiding principles or philosophies envisioned for the study. The many strategies and issues were identified to realize the goals. The solicitation and involvement of key stakeholder groups was accomplished in the initial stages of the study and provided the foundation for many of the strategies. The group engaged several key stakeholder groups in an effort to fully understand the concerns of these groups, what impact development patterns within the UDA would have on these groups, and potential approaches that could be incorporated into the UDA Study to address the needs of these groups. The Land Use Policy language of the Comprehensive Plan and how it could be modified to implement the UDA Study has been part of the most recent efforts of the UDA Working Group, The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee continues to collaborate with the Working Group has endorsed the ongoing efforts of the UDA Working Group. At the November 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting,° Staff will provide the Commission with an overview of the UDA Working Groups efforts to date and look to the Planning Commission for additional input in anticipation of the joint work session with the Board of Supervisors. Attached to this memorandum please find the an overview of the UDA Study, the Goals and Strategies summary, and the potential structure and content of the Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan as endorsed by the UDA Working Group and CPPS. UDA Study General tasks: Development of UDA analysis model Refinement and update of UDA tables Mapping of adjacent UDA areas 277 Triangle analyses UDA Goals related tasks: fdeptification of strategies for achieving the prioritized goals of UDA Study Staff drafting/rewriting of Land Use section of Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to UDA Study Development of new small area plans/location specific plans designed to implement UDA Study goals Review of existing small area land use plans for consistency with UDA Study Staff development of potential land use alternatives for adjacent UDA areas General study targets: CPPS endorsement of strategies for achieving the prioritized goals of UDA Study CPPS endorsement of Staff drafting/rewriting of Land Use section of Comprehensive Plan CPPS endorsement of new small area plans/location specific plans designed to implement UDA Study goals CPPS endorsement of potential land use alternatives for adjacent UDA areas Board of Supervisors involvement: Work Session with CPPS/PC/BOS (Oct/Nov) Planning Commission Retreat Strategies to achieve the goals for the UDA Study (updated 09/06/05). 1. Identify criteria and principles to guide future modifications of the UDA/SWSA. Strategies: Conformance with Comprehensive Plan — Provide increased clarity regarding the policy expectations as they relate to UDA and SWSA Community Facility Capacities and Capabilities - Elevate the bar for the accommodation and provision of' public uses and facilities identified in the Comprehensive Plan. There should be a greater expectancy that such community facilities will be addressed by the development community. Address public water and sewer costs and capacities. Implementation of County Transportation Planning Efforts Innovative and Creative design that further goals of Comp. Plan. Unique proposal that addresses an expressed need of the County Economic development opportunity Affordable housing as a goal of future modifications when a component of a balanced housing approach. Similar standards should be translated and applied to areas within the existing UDA to guide rezonings, CIP's, and other community decisions. 2. Adopt a philosophy of development that concentrates on creating neighborhoods which incorporate residential, retail, educational, and public uses, commercial services, opportunity for employment, and institutional and recreational resources. Strategies: Establish principles for development within the UDA (e.g's Neighborhood Model, Principles of New Urbanism and Traditional Neighborhood Development) Mixed Use Mixed Housing types and opportunities Neighborhood Centers Creation of Community Identity within the UDA — Community character A new philosophy and a new way of thinking - not just a quick fix. Efficiency of community resources Focus on built environment — architectural design, form based codes. Provide examples and general endorsement of concepts. Consider new implementation strategies and concepts that are adaptable from larger projects to smaller infill projects. Existing projects and plans are opportunities to realize a new, more creative approach to the development of the UDA. Promotion of multiple forms of design and development. There is not just one approach to address development. Provide incentives and bonuses for parcels of all sizes in an effort to get more for the County„ Greater opportunity to address the broader community needs may exist in larger acreages. Ensure availability of spaces for public places and spaces. Affordable housing. 3. Provide for a comprehensive transportation system that enhances local and regional connectivity and incorporates all types and modes of transportation. Strategies: MPO Coordination Eastern Road Plan Update Road Design Alternative modes of transportation — Multimodality. MPO Mobility planning efforts. 4. Achieve a business development strategy that seeks to provide appropriate locations for commercial and industrial opportunities and seeks to achieve a balanced ratio between the residential and commercial/industrial growth of 60 percent residential to 40 percent commercial/industrial (60/40) within the UDA/SWSA. Strategies: Identify and preserve locations for industrial opportunities Ensure capacity and ability to reserve community resources (water and sewer) for Economic Development opportunities. Expansion of mixed use opportunities Mixing of commercial and residential may be appropriate to further the mixed use opportunities. Industrial should still be protected from residential encroachment. Visa versa. Phased inclusion of residential and commercial projects to maintain balance/achieve balance. Work with existing resources to explore types and locations for various economic development opportunities. Encourage industrial users that can handle own wastewater needs in areas outside SWSA? EDC coordination to address targeted industries. Examples may include biomedical, medical support. Health system is a resource. 5. Identify and sustain green infrastructure and protect the County's environmental systems and resources by preserving green space and open space linkages and connectivity. Strategies: Provide a synergy with the green infrastructure concepts of the Rural Area Study. Implement proactive approaches to addressing the non -point source TMDL issue associated with urbanizing areas. Pursue enhanced watershed management strategies. Develop a linked network of green spaces for passive and active recreational opportunities. Enhance public access to these areas of open spaces. MPO mobility planning efforts should reflect community open space linkages. 6. Promote a balance of housing opportunities to address lifestyle, size, cost, and availability. Strategies: See goal #2 Encourage the development of mixed use, mixed housing type neighborhood communities. Incentivize and encourage the provision of housing opportunities that address the above. Mix it up. Traditional RP housing suggests separation of uses and housing types. Encourage variety. Ensure that infill is compatible with surrounding land uses and is designed to address the concepts of the Comprehensive Plan. Provide new zoning regulations that would accommodate a variety of housing opportunities carefully designed in the appropriate environment. 7. Establish a creative system of rewarding innovative residential and commercial development practices in the UDA that further the vision of the UDA and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Strategies: Density Alternative designs - Innovation Flexible zoning standards Understand what the County would like to see and require it. Improve base standards Identify desired public needs to be provided. Innovation that addresses quality of life issues and the provision of public facilities is desirable and should be encouraged 8. Develop a water and sewer facilities plan that is designed to facilitate the County's UDA/SWSA land use planning efforts. Strategies: Planning efforts should be more comprehensive and project further into the future. Long range planning. Encourage public facilities as opposed to private facilities Address the relationship between the Sanitation Authority and the Service Authority The relationship between the County and the City with regards to these public services should be reevaluated. This could be done in light of current consolidation discussions. 9. Provide adequate areas for regional, community, and neighborhood parks and ensure broad access to a variety of recreational opportunities. Strategies: See # 10 for mutually beneficial strategies. Hierachy of parks. Focus on community scale parks. Evaluate the public-private relationship regarding the provision of recreational amenities. Seek a greater public involvement through ownership and maintenance. Encourage creativity in the expansion of the park system Take advantage of the natural features of the County when planning for other recreational opportunities. Make connectivity between uses, facilities, and resources a priority. 10. Develop principles that address the future land needs of the school system, guide the location of school facilities, and promote collaboration. Strategies: Pursue co -location opportunities exist with Parks and Recreation (facilities and land) Understand the similarities and needs that exist with other community facility providers. Ensure conformance with State guidelines while at the same time maintaining and promoting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Promotion of neighborhoods built around schools. Emphasize long range planning and legislative efforts by the school board. Encourage the additional of additional capabilities and resources. Emphasize an adequate and equitable cost structure between developer and local government. 2003 Comprehensive Policy flan Land Use (Chapter 6) Introduction Urban Development Area Creating Community in the Urban Development Area: A new form of development for the UDA. Urban Development Area Conclusion Sewer and Water Service Area Sewer and Water Service Area Conclusion Neighborhood Mixed Use Urban Community Centers Goal Development principles Neighborhood Residential Land Uses Neighborhood Commercial Land Uses Public and Institutional Land Uses Planned Communities Business and Industrial Land Uses Business and Industrial Areas Conclusion Business Corridors Corridor Land Use Plans Route 50 East Route 11 South Route 7 Small Area Laud Use Plans Stephens City/Frederick County Northeast Frederick Southern Frederick Route 37 West Neighborhood Urian Community Center Land Use Plans Examples for future planning efforts (Large Scale and Small Scale). Airport Support Area Landfill Support Area Rural Areas Rural Community Centers Land Use policy Summaries General Policies Modifications Urban Development Area Sewer and Water Service Areas Neighborhood Mixed Use Urban Community Centers Neighborhood Residential Areas Neighborhood Commercial Areas Business and Industrial Areas Business Corridors Small Area Land Use Plans Neighborhood Urban Community Center Land Use Plans Rural Areas Rural Community Centers 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan Land Use (Chapter 6) Introduction General introduction to land use section of plan. Description of existing land use patterns. Vision for future land use patterns throughout the County. Relationship of UDA/RA Rationale of preserving Rural Areas and promoting development of Urban Areas. Creation of a thriving urban community. Urban Development Area Creating Community in the Urban Development Area: A new form of development for the UDA. Vision of a future UDA Vibrant urban communities Variety and mix of residential and commercial land uses Livable neighborhoods Integrated community facilities Economically and environmentally sustainable Density and intensity of development in UDA Embrace increase in overall density with a related emphasis on design and planning. Recognition of need to effectively provide public infrastructure commensurate with increased development potential Urban Development Area Conclusion Growth Management tool — Facilitate urban planning principles Planned and efficient provision of public utility and facility infrastructure UDA Residential, Commercial, and Industrial UDA/SWSA coexist to serve residential UDA should not extend beyond SWSA Sewer and Water Service Area Area in which public water and sewer may be provided. Serves residential, commercial, and industrial. May extend beyond UDA to serve non residential uses Effective tool to promote commercial and industrial development Planned extension of SWSA to achieve desired community economic development goals Coordination and relationship with FCSA/FWSA Reservation of community resources for Economic Development Opportunities SWSA facilitates separation of industrial uses from residential and neighborhood centers. In conjunction with UDA, facilitates more urbanized neighborhood community centers. Sewer and Water Service Area Conclusion 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan Land Use (Chapter 6) Continued... Neigh, borhood Mixed Use Urban Community Centers Goals Creating Community in the Urban Development Area: A new form of development for the UDA. Diverse and vibrant Appealing and functional Creates identity Provides a high standard of living for broad cross section of the community A new philosophy of development that creates neighborhoods which incorporate residential, retail, educational, and public uses, cormnercial services, opportunity for employment, and institutional and recreational resources. Accommodates anticipated community growth in urban environment Development principles Mix and integration of a variety of uses Mix and diversity of housing opportunities Connectivity Walkability and mobility Density in an urban form Enhanced design and planning — creation of a sense of place Community focal points Open spaces Environmental sustainability Neighborhood Residential Land Uses Embrace increase in overall density with a related emphasis on design and planning. Livable neighborhoods Variety of housing opportunities Neighborhood Commercial Land Uses Vibrant urban communities Variety and mix of residential and commercial land uses Economically sustainable Community focal point Public and Institutional Land Uses Recognition of need to effectively provide public infrastructure commensurate with increased development potential Integrated community facilities Community focal point Planned Communities Large Scale development projects Small scale infill opportunities Residential or commercial emphasis COUNTY of :FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM � FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning AdministratorQ— RE: Discussion: Changes to 165-82 (A) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance DATE: November 2, 2005 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) reviewed and discussed proposed changes to Section 165-82 (A) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance at its meeting on September 29, 2005. The zoning ordinance currently does not allow health clubs SIC 7991 to be located in the B-1 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District. The DRRS felt that health clubs should be an allowed use in the B-1 Zoning District. These health clubs would be limited to 5,000 sq. ft., to keep with the intent of the B-1 Zoning District. This limitation on square footage will ensure that no large commercial indoor recreational use would occur in the 13- 1 Zoning District. The proposed change to this section is located below; the current section is located in your agenda. 165-82 A SIC 7991- Health Cubs it larger than 5,000 sq. ft. This proposed ordinance amendment is presented as a discussion item to enable the Planning Commission to raise issues and seek clarification. Staff will be available to respond to your questions. Comments raised during this discussion will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Attachment MRC/bad 107 North lent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 § 165-81 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE disposal before the mobile home park will sewer service must be provided through community systems. All community systems public authority. § 165-82 be approved. Water and the use of public or shall be dedicated to a ARTICLE X Business and Industrial Zoning Districts § 165-82. District use regulations. The following tables describe the business and industrial zoning districts in Frederick County, the intent of those districts and the uses allowed in each district. Standard industrial classification numbers are provided for particular uses to assist the Zoning Administrator in classifying uses. Determining whether a particular use should be classified under a particular category remains subject to interpretation on the part of the Zoning Administrator. A. [Amended 4-10-19911 B1 Neighborhood Business District. The intent of this district is to provide small business areas to serve the daily household needs of surrounding residential neighborhoods. Uses allowed primarily consist of limited retailing and personal service uses. Business uses in this district should be small in size and should not produce substantial vehicle traffic in excess of what is usual in the residential neighborhoods. Standard Industrial Classification Allowed Uses (SIC) Food stores 54 Apparel and accessory stores 56 Drugstores 591 Miscellaneous shopping goods stores 594 Finance, insurance and real estate offices - Personal services, except the following: 72 Industrial launderers 7217 16612 w I% § 165-82 ZONING Allowed Uses Funeral homes and crematories Car washes Videotape rental Medical offices § 165-82 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 726 7542 784 801, 802, 803 and 804 Child day-care services 835 Civic, social and fraternal organizations 864 Public buildings - Public utility distribution facilities - Business signs — Directional signs — Residential uses which are accessory to allowed business uses - Parks - Churches - Restaurants [Added 12-9-1992] 5812 Art dealers, art supplies and art framing - [Added 4-26-19951 Fire stations, companies and rescue squads - [Added 10-27-19991 Tobacco stores [Added 1-10-20011 5993 Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services [Added 1-10-20011 B. [Amended 8-8-1990; 6-11-1991; 6-8-1994; 7-10-1996; 2-26-1997; 8-13-19971 B2 Business General District. The intent of this district is to provide large areas for a variety of business, office and service uses. Ste= 16613 12-15-2004