HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 02-18-04 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
February18,2004
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) January 21, 2004 Minutes ............................................... (A)
2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments .................................................. (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
4) Conditional Use Permit #01-04 of Susie C. Yost, forre-establishing a legally nonconforming
use (antique and collectible shop). The property is located at 9263 North Frederick Pike and
is identified with Property Identification Number 6-A-77 in the Gainesboro Magisterial
District.
Mr. Cheran ............................................................ (B)
PUBLIC MEETING
5) Site Plan #02-04 of Shenandoah Mobile Court, prepared by Greenway Engineering, for 17
mobile homes and a request to expand the existing private street system. The property is
located on the east side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 S), approximately 1,000 feet south o
the intersection of Front Royal Pike and Papermill Road (Route 644), and is identified by
Property Identification Number 76-A-1 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Mr. Camp............................................................. (C)
DISCUSSION
6) Discussion to add the definition of Minor Site Plan to the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cheran ............................................................ (D)
7) Other
•
•
n
u
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 21, 2004.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie
F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; John
H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District;
Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Barbara E. Van Osten, Board of
Supervisors' Liaison; Gary W. Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal
Counsel.
ABSENT: William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District;
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning
Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; Mark
R. Cheran, Planner I; and, Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES - DECEMBER 3, 2003 AND DECEMBER 17 2003
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, the minutes
of December 3, 2003 were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Gochenour, the
minutes of December 17, 2003 were unanimously approved as presented.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of January 21, 2004 Page 1237
-2 -
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 01/12/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS is continuing with their discussions on the rural
areas.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 01/20/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB received a presentation by Ms. Diane Kerns
which provided an overview of the Community Consensus Coalition (CCC). Commissioner Gochenour said
that according to their mission statement, the CCC wants to provide educational forums on issues impacting
the region and to encourage regional community-based planning. She added that Ms. Kerns was seeking the
HRAB's continuing support and to send at least two representatives to the general meeting in March.
Commissioner Gochenour said the HRAB's 2004 Work Program was also discussed. She said the HRAB
members will be receiving training over the next two months on implementing their preservation goals as
outlined in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Frederick County - Winchester Battlefield
Network Plan.
Economic Development Commission (EDC) - 01/16/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the EDC discussed a branding program to provide better
name recognition for Winchester -Frederick County economic and business development. It is hoped that the
program will improve the ability of our area to attract business.
Sanitation Authority (SA) - 01/20/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Fisher reported that the SA authorized the engineer/director to initiate design
of the southeastern regional sewage project, which is a $2'/Z million sewer line project to increase the capacity
south of Senseny Road down to the Opequon wastewater plant. In addition, Commissioner Fisher shared some
highlights of the conclusions of the Dr. Berby report on the water management model.
(Note: Commissioner Ours arrived at this point of the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of January 21, 2004 Page 1238
-3 -
PUBLIC HEARING
Adoption of the proposed West Juba[ Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP). The WJELUP identifies future
residential and mixed land uses, a transportation network, and includes an expansion of the Urban
Development Area (UDA), for an approximate 350 -acre area portion of the County. The site is located
adjacent to and west of the City of Winchester, east of Rt. 37, and adjacent to and south of Merriman's
Lane (Rt. 621). The WJELUP is located in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Commissioner Unger said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item,
due to a possible conflict of interest.
Planner Abbe S. Kennedy reported that the Commission reviewed a draft plan of the Western
Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP) on November 19, 2003 which included an Urban Development Area
(UDA) expansion request. Subsequently, the Commission forwarded a recommendation of endorsement to the
Board for the UDA expansion and recommended the land use plan for information purposes only. Planner
Kennedy said that the staff presented the WJELUP to the Board at a public hearing on December 10, 2003 and,
at that time, the Board expressed concerns regarding the UDA expansion approval without the accompanying
recommendation of a land use plan. The Board motioned to return this request to the Planning Commission
so that the Commission would have the opportunity to further review the WJELUP and to provide a formal
recommendation to the Board.
Planner Kennedy next proceeded to describe the WJELUP for the Commission. She said that
the subject land within the WJELUP is planned as a transitional area between the City of Winchester and
western Frederick County. The principal land uses envisioned with this land use plan are urban and suburban
residential, intended to be compatible with the existing lower density residential patterns of the City. She said
that the predominant transportation element is Jubal Early Drive and is proposed from its terminus in the City
of Winchester, all the way to an interchange with Rt. 37. She added that the mixed use development pattern
is intended to provide commercial and employment opportunities for the residents within the area. She next
described the proposed densities of development for the Commission.
Planning Director Eric Lawrence added that the mixed use area illustrated allows flexibility
for the developer to decide if they would prefer multi -family or commercial uses and it is the intent of the land
use plan to concentrate potential mixed uses at the intersection of the two planned roads.
Commissioner Gochenour inquired if any geological surveys had been conducted to detect sink
holes and steep slopes and, in addition, if any studies were conducted to determine possible environmental
impacts of the proposed development, especially since this land was within the Abrams Creek Corridor.
Director Lawrence pointed out that significant environmental issues have already been identified; specifically,
a sink hole has been identified and the wetlands have been delineated. He said that during the rezoning phase
of development, further geotechnical studies will be conducted.
In light ofthe Planning Commission forwarding a positive endorsement ofthe UDA expansion
to the Board of Supervisors and the Board requesting that the Commission consider a land use plan before the
Board takes complete action, Commissioner Thomas inquired ifthe language within the proposed land use plan,
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of January 21, 2004 Page 1239
WE
along with the inference of proffers, were binding to the developer when submitting a rezoning request for
consideration. Specifically, Cominissioner Thomas stated that if the proposed land use plan is recommended
for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors, with the language
included, it would become a part of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Therefore, within the WJELUP, there will
be components detailing densities; specifically, that the residential in the mixed use will be limited to 75%
maximum density, the residential will be four units per acre, and the developer of the property will pay for the
road and the connection to Rt. 37. Director Lawrence replied that this language is consistent with what has
typically been incorporated into the Comprehensive Policy Plan over the last ten years. Director Lawrence said
that the Comprehensive Policy Plan is a policy to help guide development.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the developer agreed with the proposed land use plan and
secondly, would the Plarming Commission be within its purview to deny a future rezoning on the basis that all
of the conditions in the policy had not been met. Director Lawrence stated that the applicant, Greenway
Engineering, assisted in drafting the language and one would hope they have represented the interests of the
property owners. Director Lawrence stated that if a rezoning application would follow the adoption of this
policy, it would be up to the Board whether or not they believed the language in the policy document is
addressed through the rezoning application. Furthermore, if the Board believes the applicant is not addressing
the County's policies or not mitigating the impacts, the Board is in a position to deny the rezoning.
Commissioner Light suggested that a specified density for the mixed use areas be designated
within the plan so there is no uncertainty for future land use requests. Commissioner Light also pointed out
that the traffic impacts to Merrimans Lane have not been addressed within the WJELUP. He believed a
statement suggesting a potential upgrade or placement in the Secondary Road Improvement Plan would be
appropriate.
Commissioner Ours considered the potential transportation plan for this area to be a plus for
both Frederick County and the City of Winchester. He believed that if the City was in agreement and if the
transportation was done properly, it would take traffic off Merrimans Lane, which is currently a major cut
through, especially through the Meadowbranch subdivision.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering stated that they hired a professional
environmental consultant service to conduct a wetlands analysis on the property, as well as a Phase I
Environmental Study. Mr. Wyatt felt confident that the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designated
on the map will be fairly accurate to the Core of Engineers' ultimate designation of the wetlands. He pointed
out a large sinkhole feature on the lower part of the Marshal property and he said that geo-tech analysis would
have to be done to identify smaller sinkholes. Mr. Wyatt stated that they have participated with both the City
and the County Planning Staff, the City Engineering Staff, and Mr. Jim Lawrence, who represented some of
the environmental interests, as well as the Green Circle Trail System.
Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that as far as the developer being bound by the language within
the WJELUP, as with any land use plan, there could be some implied issues that would be expected because
it is a policy document; however, he did not think one could point to any single part of it and say that a
developer was bound to the specific language. Regarding the transportation aspect, Mr. Wyatt stated that a
traffic impact analysis is conducted at the rezoning stage to determine the possible impacts generated by a
proposed land use. He commented that there is a fair -share issue involved with regional transportation
improvements. He believed there was an expectation for right-of-way to be set aside for the ultimate build -out,
but not necessarily for the ultimate road section to be constructed by the developer.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of January 21, 2004 Page 1240
-5 -
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to
speak:
Mr. Jeff Solenberger stated that his family owns 198 acres, of which 183 acres are currently
within the Agricultural and Forestal District. He. said that his family ivar,ted to go on record that they
supported the inclusion of the WJELUP in the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan as proposed. Mr.
Solenberger added that his family was involved in the initial process of removing their property from the
Agriculture and Forestal District and they are pursuing the possibility of inclusion within the WJELUP in the
future.
Mr. Jerry Copp, Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
at Edinburg, came forward to answer questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Copp for his opinion on the probability of VDOT approving
an additional entrance onto Rt. 37 at this location. Mr. Copp replied that an entrance is designated in the
WATS for that general location and it was possible from an engineering standpoint to construct an additional
lane between Cedar Creek Grade and Rt. 50. Mr. Copp pointed out that funding for the project has not yet
been designated in any particular program and Frederick County would be in competition with the other 11
counties in the Staunton District. Mr. Copp made a couple funding possibilities suggestions.
Commissioner Ours asked Mr. Copp if it made sense to have an interchange at this location
and if it would enhance the area's transportation plan. Mr. Copp replied that according to the WATS, an east -
west corridor through the City of Winchester with a connection to Rt. 37 did make sense and he agreed that
it would enhance the transportation plan of the area.
Commissioner Gochenour believed this area needed further study before Frederick County
included it into a land use plan within the UDA. She commented that there was a tremendous amount of
building construction in this area and she believed it had an impact on flooding conditions in her district, as well
as sections of the Shawnee District.
Cormnissioner Straub raised the issue of overcrowded elementary schools; she estimated the
possibility of 1,000 school children being generated from approximately 1,400 homes. She commented that
the Shockey project and the Glaize project, along with other pending projects, needed to be kept in mind before
including more land within the UDA. Commissioner Straub expressed her hope that consideration be given
to reserving land for at least one elementary school within the WJELUP.
Conunissioner Light expressed his hope that this area would be developed in a progressive
manner with design standards to attract not just homeowners, but professional job opportunists, and result in
the development of an up -scale residential scenario. He did not believe this should be viewed primarily as a
housing subdivision, but as an economic job potential for our area that could draw professional people and
opportunities, possibly changing our economic base from a production -worker area to high -skilled individuals
that may bring high-quality job opportunities to our area. Commissioner Light believed this was one of the best
locations and best development opportunities in the entire area. Other Commissioners agreed.
Commissioner Fisher agreed this area was suited for UDA expansion, however, he raised
several transportation questions: Who will be responsible for the road connection to existing Jubal Early in the
City? What happens if the funding is not available and the interchange is not constructed? Where is the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of January 21, 2004 Page 1241
M
terminus for the collector road heading south and south-west?
Commissioner Ours asked Mr. Wyatt about the possibility of designating a portion of the area
for age -restricted housing, to help mitigate some of the potential impacts. Mr. Wyatt said that any housing type
is potentially available under the proposed language.
Chairman DeHaven also agreed the proposed land use plan was appropriate. He said there
was no question the proposed uses represented the highest and best uses for this property. Chairman DeHaven
believed the language adequately addressed the transportation issues, which were his biggest concern. He did
disagree, however, with several of the comments made concerning the specific language. It was Chairman
DeHaven's opinion that the language will make the Comprehensive Policy Plan very clear as far as what is
expected when possible future rezoning proposals come forward.
A motion to endorse the WJELUP was made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by
Commissioner Thomas. By a majority vote, the Commission recommended approval.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby endorse the adoption of the
proposed West Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP), which identifies future residential and mixed land uses,
a transportation network, and includes an expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA), for an
approximate 350 -acre area portion of the County. This site is located adjacent to and west of the City of
Winchester, east of Rt. 37, and adjacent to and south of Merriman's Lane (Rt. 621), within the Shawnee
Magisterial District.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE): Triplett, Fisher, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Watt
NO: Straub, Gochenour
ABSTAIN: Unger
(Note: Commissioner Rosenberry was absent from the meeting.)
Conditional Use Permit #13-03 of Shared Towers, Inc./ White Tail Lane Tower, presented by Greenway
Engineering, for a 195' high lattice -type telecommunications facility. This property is located on White
Tail Lane off of North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522N) and is identified with P.I.N. 19-A-27 in the Gainesboro
Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Mr. Mark R. Cheran, Planner, reported that this application is a request to revise a condition
previously placed on Conditional Use Permit (CUP) # 16-02 approved by the Board of Supervisors on January
22, 2003. He explained that Condition 45 of CUP # 16-02 states, "In the event the telecommunications tower
is not erected within 12 months of approval (January 22, 2004), the CUP shall be deemed invalid." Planner
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of January 21, 2004 Page 1242
-7-
Cheran reported that the applicant has stated that the tower will not be erected by that date and has requested
an amendment to this condition of his permit.
Planner Cheran continued, stating that staff believes this application for a commercial
telecommunications facility has adequately addressed the requirements of the zoning ordinance in that a need
for this facility, based on a lack of coverage and capacity in this part of the County has been demonstrated.
Planner Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission recommend approval of
the permit, essentially granting the applicant an extension of 12 months to construct the tower.
Commissioners inquired if there were customers for the tower and if the tower construction
had started.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was representing the applicant, Shared
Towers, Inc./ White Tail Lane Tower. Mr. Wyatt said this is one of four towers proposed by Shared Towers,
Inc. through a series of CUPs. He explained that at the time of original submittal, a competing company was
also submitting CUPS for towers. Since that time, the other company has withdrawn their applications for
towers, eliminating the competition for this site. Mr. Wyatt knew of no other CUPS vying for space on the Rt.
522 Corridor between Winchester and West Virginia.
Mr. Wyatt reported that the Hunting Ridge Tower has been completed; the Cross Junction
Tower is currently under construction with a completion date of late January or early February, 2004; and a
building permit has been issued for the Reynolds Store Tower. He explained that the White Tail Lane Tower
has received an approved site plan, however, Shentel has not yet made a commitment for this tower, nor has
a building permit been applied for. He said there was not a specific target date for construction and the
applicant wants to be assured of users before making the investment. Mr. Wyatt added that everything remains
the same; they are just looking for additional time to construct.
Chainnan DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one was present to speak.
No other issues were raised and the Commission believed the extension was appropriate with
the recommended conditions.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #13-03 of Shared Towers, Inc./ White Tail Lane Tower, presented by
Greenway Engineering, for a 195' high lattice -type telecommunications facility on White Tail Lane, off of
North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522N), with the following conditions:
All Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and complied with
at ail times.
2. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers.
A minor site plan shall be approved by the County.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of January 21, 2004 Page 1243
11LM
The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of
abandonment of operation.
In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within 12 months of the approval of this
conditional use permit, then the conditional use permit 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.
DISCUSSION
Proposed amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to change Section 165-27D to reflect
a new definition of semi -trailers/ trailers and a new definition for business vehicles in the RP (Residential
Performance) District, used with home occupations.
Plamier Mark R. Cheran presented a proposed ordinance amendment regarding a revised
definition for semi -trailers. Planner Cheran said that the current ordinance states that no trailer, regardless of
its size or type, may be kept anywhere within the RP, R5, R4, MS (residential component) or MEI Zoning
Districts. He explained that the current definition was not intended to include all types of trailers, such as boat
trailers, camper trailers, and utility trailers, but was primarily intended to regulate commercial vehicles.
Planner Cheran stated that the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) discussed this issue
at their meeting of October 23, 2003 and have recommended a modification to the ordinance for the Planning
Commission's discussion.
There was considerable discussion by the Planning Commission and a number of issues were
raised, including aspects of enforcement. It was noted that activities on public roads would be a "law-
enforcement" issue enforced by the sheriff; issues involving subdivisions would fall under "code -enforcement"
and are enforced by the Zoning Administrator; and homeowners' association issues would be covered by "deed
restrictions" and resolved by the courts. Possible inconsistencies in the proposed amendment were pointed out
in the definitions for trailers and axle lengths, and it was pointed out that the 10,000 pound limit would prohibit
today's standard -sized pick-up truck or van. It was also pointed out that the new dual -wheeled Dodges and
Fords all weighed over 1'/z tons.
Members of the DRRS explained that this issue was precipitated by the small -lot subdivisions
with cul-de-sacs serving, for example, five homes with only 40'-50' of curb available in front of each house to
park vehicles. It was noted that most residents today own two and three vehicles, sometimes with an RV or
pick-up, and they are unable to fit all of their vehicles into their driveways. Consequently, vying for parking
space around the cul-de-sac becomes an issue.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to
speak.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of January 21, 2004 Page 1244
Mr. Mike Wise came forward to say that he is having problems with his neighbor who is trying
to park a 25' car hauler within the 50' radius cul-de-sac. Mr. Wise provided photographs showing his
neighbor's car hauler blocking the Wise's driveway and mailbox, Mr. Wise said that he is a volunteer fire
fighter and his truck has been blocked in by the neighbor's car hauler. Mr. Wise added that his mother has a
heart condition and he has concerns about his driveway being blocked in during the night. Mr. Wise further
added that he has contacted other counties, such as CIarke, Warren, and Shenandoah, and no other counties
allow trailers, recreational vehicles, or utility vehicles to be parked on the street or in cul-de-sacs.
A suggestion was made for the addition of a codicil to the amendment that specifically
addressed cul-de-sacs. It was pointed out that if the cul-de-sac is a state -maintained road, the County can not
create an ordinance that mandates parking on a public street. It was decided that more discussion was needed
by the DRRS with input from representatives of the Sheriffs office, VDOT, the Fire Marshal, and the Zoning
Administrator in order to receive input from all of the agencies involved. Commissioners agreed this would
be appropriate and regardless of the end result, the amendment needed to be implemented consistently and
fairly.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a
unanimous vote at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of January 21, 2004 Page 1245
•
a
J
`Gx CSU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #01-04
SUSIE C. YOST
Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting
Prepared: February 5, 2004
y, na Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, 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.
Planning Commission:
Board of Supervisors:
Reviewed
Action
02/18/04
Pending
03/10/04
Pending
LOCATION: This subject property is located at 9263 North Frederick Pike.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 6-A-77
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District
Land Use: Country store
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RA (Rural Areas) and B-2 (Business, General
District) Zoning District.
Land Use: Residential and Gas Station
PROPOSED USE: Re-establish a legally nonconforming use (Antique and collectible shop)
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this
property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 522 the VDOT facility which would
provide access to the property. Prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance
must be constructed to our minimum standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the
property. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use
permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond
coverage.
Inspections Department: This is not a change of use, former and new use is all mercantile.
No building permit is needed.
C.U.P. #01-04
February 5, 2004
Page 2
Fire Marshal: No significant fire department impact
Health Department: Health Department has no objection to request
Planning and Zoning: This property is subject to Conditional Use Permit #14-01, which
was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 2001. This approval was for re-
establishing a legally non -conforming use. (A country store with a twenty-four (24) seat
restaurant use - Alkire's Country Store) Condition #5 of this Conditional Use Permit states:
"Any change of use or modification will require a new Conditional Use Permit." The
applicant is seeking to operate an antique shop, and has requested a new Conditional Use
Permit to do such. This new proposed use for an antique shop would have a lesser impact on
the surrounding community than a country store with a 24 -seat restaurant. No exterior
alterations or changes to the property or building are being proposed. The re-establishing of
this non -conforming use will be appropriate to bring the property into compliance with the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
An inspection of the property revealed that the parking area is not delineated by striping or
wheel stops. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires that parking areas outside
the UDA and SWSA are to have a minimum of double prime -and -seal treatment of all
parking areas, with striping and wheel stops. The Department of Transportation revealed the
northern most entrance does not meet minimum standards for sight distance due to
topography. VDOT has indicated their preference to use Cumberland Trail Road (Route
694) for egress from the site. Staff would recommend any signage be limited to one (1)
illuminated free standing business sign, not to exceed fifty (50) square feet in area, and ten
(10) feet in height along the frontage of North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522). An engineered site
plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County. All identified site
improvements shall be installed within six (6) months of CUP approval.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 02-18-04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this application, the following
conditions of approval would be appropriate:
1. All review agency comments and requirements must be compiled with at all times.
2. An engineered site plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County. All
identified improvements shall be installed within six (6) months of CUP approval. All
parking shall be in compliance with zoning district standards.
3. Signage shall be limited to one (1) illuminated free standing business sign; not to exceed
fifty (50) square feet in area and ten (10) feet in height along the frontage of North Frederick
Pike (Rt. 522).
4. Any change of use or modification will require a new CUP application.
Curr O l#nd Trail lid f
s s
��i.. � r�1•
I - BEARINGS ARE MAGNETIC
2 = SCALE 1" - 60'
3 - TAX MAP - 6-A-77
4 - DATUM AS SHOWN HEREON IS ACCORDING
TO RECORDED INFORMATION AND IS A
CURRENT FIELD SURVEY.
5 - NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED
THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN IN FLLOD ZONE C W
S 86°14'30"E
191.51MONTANA 8 ALMA
CROSEN
2281484
- 0 255/158
S
LEGEND
E
------
o
• -IRON PIN FOUND
rn
-E ■ -MONUMENT
N -r5-54'1z
S 86'14 3 " U = UTILITY LINE
1 1 1-T 1' 4^ UTILITY POLE
60.1 I' v 0 -PEDESTAL
O -SIGN POST
!9 -WELL
W'
S0' SBL "-"'"� O =MONITOR WELL
—Y
--"""-" D = POINT
BLOCK PIT
w co
N
F
� aD
CD
m t
% 1p
O
N 2
O
V
��
0 v
r' :GRAVEL
y
AREA
BUILDING F -'-V PAVED N
a 5.623 ACRES
oa
z
' 2-STOR
( BRICK 8
OLD WELL
FRAME 3g 6
BUILDINGPA D
Q
P -
.A"
' 60' SBL
�S 21°27'20'E
/ 20.09'
r' CURVE DATA
-A"
-B"
N 89°21'02"W 192'
CURVE DATA .83
R= 30.00
r A- 37.98
R= 879.00 CUMBERLAND TRAIL
CH- 35.49'
ROAD
A- 75.02 STATE ROUTE 694
.••°•••••+
.• Ff TH 0 •.o CH BRG= S 18°31'28"W
•�,yf F
C- 75.00' POSTED AS REYNOLDS
` "B.
�P��
CH BRG= N 86°54'21'W ROAD ��p R= 471.7
TITLE SURVEY OF 5.623 ACRES..o
/7 %g A- 149.85'
LOCATED IN GAINSBORO DISTRICT, FREDERICK
�U RANDlLLL N N -➢i CH= 149.22'
f6 BRG= S 76°39'26"W
COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
N E WMA N SURVEYING
OWNER: J. W. PROPERTIES L.L.0
INSTRUMENT NO. 01001 1 665
'•°�•S'R.•'(�'.
Professional Land Surveyor
Mi. Jackson, Virginia 22842
INSTRUMENT NO. 030027636 PLAT DECEMBER 11, 2003
( 540) 477-3730
6e -,#- 0 /'oy
Submittal Deadline -)'f'J Z3 9y
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting /0 0
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1. Annlicant (The applicant if the V owner other)
NAME: `DLc-5 r'L L . YO 5
ADDRESS: �� J / 1 /� 'C��it�� c C, �� f� 'c S J Cep, e et v '� `
TELEPHONE i' �° k A'
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
3. The property is located
at: (please give
exact directions and
include the route number of your
road or street)
4. The property has a road frontage of i1feet and a
depth of feet and consists of ,!3 acres.
(Please be exact)/4s
5. The property is owned by S1 as
evidenced by deed from ES recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. S'Sff on page as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. Tax(Parcel) Identification (I.D. )No. Tn1 -1i(�-'-/t
Magisterial District
Current Zoning
7. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North Sr 0—
East RE S ZA .)A N 2 3 2004
South-amfGCrr
West 5',b �}
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:
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear
and in front of (across street from) the property where the
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application:
NAME
PROPERTY ID# 06- 1 '14
NAME k23 P Carmen
ADDRESS g d - q I N 4 -el d6e,`cL (�
ADDRESS1-4
PROPERTY IDI r A " I -S�D r
NAME -Z- M, 4, V\ C4 Y�'1 0�� DDRESS
PROPERTY ID# ) &' t - TS T_
NAME k i, r- n S J C-wrz W
PROPERTY ID# �% A
fl-PP�re�tti�i y l/ � �1
NAME oS ! /TI a�T�/h�frtl
ROPERTY ID#
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
i&Jef(1 c(
Goss t�� V.J.
ADDRESSC7
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
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 Applicant
Signature of Owner
Owners' Mailing Address
Owners' Telephone No.
It N: d64
Cleo
[M_
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
0
L
•
•
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
RE: Public Meeting - Site Plan #02-04, Shenandoah Mobile Court pe,
FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II
DATE: February 5, 2004
The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the site plan for Shenandoah Mobile Court on
February 18, 2004. Site plans are typically handled administratively by staff, however, the Zoning
Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission approve the expansion ofprivate streets in mobile
home parks'. This project may also have significant interest to the Planning Commission because
of its previous involvement with the planning process of the new collector road and new middle
school located off of Front Royal Pike.
At this point in time, preliminary approval has been recommended by each agency other than
Planning, Public Works and GIS. The site plan comment letter from Public Works and the
applicant's response to Planning Staff's preliminary review comments are attached for your
information, as is the site plan application, MDP waiver approval letter, and a copy of the site plan.
The proposed private streets will need to be named and approved by Department of GIS prior to final
approval.
Following the Planning Commission's review of the site plan, and decision regarding the applicant's
request to expand the existing private road system, planning staff will coordinate with the applicant
what issues need to be addressed for final administrative approval. Please note that the Zoning
Ordinance does not require the Board of Supervisors to review this site plan.
The applicant is seeking approval from the Planning Commission to expand the existing private
street system to accommodate 17 new mobile homes.
JFC/ERL/bad
Attachments
'Section 165-81 C. Streets (2)
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
SITE PLAN APPLICATION
Department of Planning and Development Use Only.
j
Date application received i' 6 � � Application #
❑ CorilplctL
❑ Incomplete
1. Project Title:
Date of Acceptance
Date of return
2. Location of Property
(street address)
3. Property Owner:
Address:
Telephone
4, Applicant/Agent Address
Telephone
5. Designer:
Address:
Telephone:
Contact:
Shenandoah Mobil Court
East side of US Route 522 South
(Front Royal Pike), 1000' south of
the intersection of US Route 522
and Papermill Road (Route 644).
Shenandoah Mobile Court
1405 Front Royal Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
(540) 662-3343
Shenandoah Mobile Court
1405 Front Royal Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
(540) 662-3343
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester
VA 22602
(540) 662-4185
Mark D. Smith
6. Is this an original or revised site plan? Original ® Revised ❑
7a. Total acreage of parcel to be developed: 7.09 Acres
7b. Total acreage of parcel: 7.09 Acres
8. Property Information:
a) Property Identification Number:
b) Current Zoning:
c) Present Use:
d) Proposed Use:
e) Adjoining Property Use(s)
f) Adjoining Property Identification Number(s)
g) Magisterial District(s)
TAX MAP 76 -((A)) -I
MH -1
Agricultural
Mobile Home Courts
Residential,MH, Agriculture
See attached plans
Shawnee
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the
Frederick County Planning Department. I also understand that all required material will
be complete prior to the submissiofy
Signature: _ __ ._ -"A
' lik-kZK�
Date: Ll
7
October 29. 2003
Mr. Mark D. Smith, P.E.
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
RE: Site Plan Comments - Shenandoah Mobile Court
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Mark:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAX: 540/678-0682
Upon review of the subject site plan, we offer the following comments:
1) Provide all of the specified erosion and sediment control details on the plan.
Indicate inlet and outlet protection, reinforced silt fence, etc. Specify seeding
schedules in accordance with VESCH Standard 3.31 and 3.32.
2) It will be necessary to ensure that no units will be impacted by the post -developed
runoff from the proposed culverts. Grading will be required on the lots for units 5
and 6, 8 and 9, and 11, 12, and 13 to ensure that the structures will not be
impacted by a 100 -year storm event.
Once theses comments have been addressed, submit two (2) copies of the site plan for
further review.
Sincerely,
Joe C. Wilder
Deputy Director
JCW/rls
cc: Patrick Davenport, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator ' ``:� r'
107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
RREENINAY ENGINEERING
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Founded in 1971
January 12, 2004
County of Frederick
Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Attn: Jeremy Camp, Planner 11
Re: Shenandoah Mobile Courts Comments
Dear Mr. Camp:
We have revised the Subdivision Design Plan based on the comments received and dated December 22,
2003 from the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development and offer the following
responses to those comments:
Comments. from Frederick County Department of Planning and Development
Comment 1: Master Development Plan. A master development plan is required for the subdivision or
development of property within the MH -1 Zoning district. Staff has reviewed the preliminary documents
previously provided and it appears that there is a potential for a waiver of the master development plan
requirement. The conditions for qualifying for a waiver to the master development plan process are
specified in Section 165-134 of the Frederick. County Zoning Ordinance. If it is your intent to pursue such a
waiver, please submit a letter requesting a waiver with the officially submitted site plan. The letter should
effectively describe why the proposed development qualifies for this waiver. Ultimately, administrative
approval of a master plan waiver will be contingent on meeting all ordinance conditions and consistency
with the rezoning application.
Response: We have included a letter of Waiver Request for the Comprehensive Development as suggested
by you (attached).
Comment 2: Expansion of Private Streets. The expansion of the private .vreet in an existing tnobile Home
park may only occur with the approval by the planning Commission. Please be advised that the site plan
will be scheduled for review by the Planning Conunission upon its forinal submission so this issue can be
reviewed. Private streets shall meet or exceed the design standards specified in Sec -,ion 165-81 C. (2).
Please provide the street design standards on the site plan., including typical road and pavement details.
Response: We have provided the typical road and pavement details and their design have exceeded the
requirements set by Frederick County. Since the proposed street to the cul-de-sac is an extension from the
existing street (First Street), we will use First Street accordingly. We have removed the future expansion
road.
Comment 3: Rt. 522 Entrance. Please show the Rt. 522 entrance to be removed as part of this site plan.
Response: This entrance has been shown on sheet 2 of 9. For your information, please understand this
work is being performed with the school site plan.
Engineers Surveyors
File #3644/IHL/jw/dhn Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528
wwevgreenwayeng.com
Comment 4: Cul-de-sac Length. Please provide the length of the proposed cul-de-sac on the site plan. The
maximum length of the cul-de-sac in the MHI zoning district is 1,000 feet.
Response: The distance to the cul-de-sac is more than 1000' and therefore a stub street is included.
Comment 5: Landscaping. Please provide a landscaping plan detailing the location, species, and size of
all requiredlproposed plants. This includes either ornamental or street tree landscaping, plus landscaping
required for the road efficiency buffer and for any parking lots.
Response: We have provided twenty four (24) red oak trees for street landscaping.
Comment 6: Road Efficiency Buffer Along Future Major Collector Road. Please provide the required
road efficiency buffer (inactive and active portions) along the future collector road to the south of the
proposed location and type.
Response: We have shown the inactive and active portions of the road efficiency buffers on our site plan.
The school site will be installing the berm and planting.
Comment 7: Recreational Units. Please provide at least one recreational unit for this development. Please
show its proposed location and type.
Response: A tot lot has been provided on unit 16 and its location is shown on sheet 2 of 9.
C livnent 8: Signage. Please show the location of all proposed signs. This includes any location signs,
directional signs, entrance signs, and traffic safety signs. A stop sign should be provided at the entrance to
the.,inure collector road.
Response: We have provided two stop signs for the proposed street and they are shown on the site plan.
Comment 9: Setbacks. Please more detailed setback information. The following information. needs to be
stated on the site plan: 1) no mobile home shall be place within twenty (20) feet of another, 2) the tnini+rrum
lot size shall be 4,000 square feet for each dwelling unit, 3) all dwelling units shall be located a minitnum
of twenty (20) feet fi-om any right -of --way and at least ten (10) feet from parking lots, common areas, and
sidewalks, and 4) all uses shall be setback at least fifty (50) feet fiom the perimeter boundary.
Response: This statement has been added on our site plan.
Comment 10: Lot Dimensions. Please show lot dimensions for all proposed mobile home lot areas.
Regardless if individual lot will actually be subdivided, each residential building lot must satisfy
dimensional requirements.
Response: We have shown all dimensions and each lot area is more than 4000 square foot.
Comment 11: Common Space Requirements. Please provide information regarding the size of common
areas. The zoning ordinance requires that mobile home parks have at least 4,000 square feet of common
areas or 15% of the total gross area. Also, show the location of all common areas.
Response: We have provided common areas of more than 15% of the total acreage in the backyard lots
Continent 12: Parking Calculations. Please provide parking calculations for all required spaces. Please
also show and label all spaces. Two ('2) off-street parking spaces are required for each dwelling unit. If
parking lot is proposed, it must meet all requirements for a parking lot, found in the Zoning Ordinance.
Response: We have provided two (2) paved parking spaces per mobile home -unit. All parking lots are
dimensioned.
Pile #3644/IHUjw/dlm
Comment 13: Outdoor Trash Receptacles: Please show the locations of all proposed outdoor trash
receptacles, such as dumpsters or community garbage can storage areas.
Response: Trash is individually collected twice a week. There is no community dumpster.
Comment 14: Outdoors Storage. Please provide a statement to the effect that there will be no outdoor
storage on property.
Response: A statement depicting no outdoors storage on property has been added to the site plan.
Comment 15: Mailbox. Please show the location of all proposed community mailboxes.
Response: Please see sheet 2 of 9 for the mailboxes relocation.
Comment 16: Stub Street. Please specify the intended use and relationship to adjoining parcels of the
proposed stub street.
Response: Stub Street is provided because the distance from the beginning of the proposed road to the cul-
de-sac is more than 1000 feet.
Comment 17. Underground Utilities. Please provide a statement to the effect that all utility lines (ie.
Electric, water sewer, cable, gas, telephone) shall be located underground.
Response: Statements regarding underground utilities have been provided and is shown on sheet 2 of 9.
Please contact us at your convenience if you have any questions or wish to schedule a meeting if any of the
comments need further discussion.
Sincerely,
Greenway Engineering
Ian H. Li ng
Cc: Mark Smith, PE, LS - Greenway Engineering
File #3644/IHUjw/dlm
o
�r f cvc c1f f a�
nucopy-
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
m178 3FAX: 540/665-6395
e
January 26, 2004
Mr. Ian H. Liong
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
RE: MDP (Master Development Plan) Waiver Request
Shenandoah Mobile Court
Zoning District: NMI
Property Identification Number (PIN) 76-A-1 (7.09 acres)
Dear Ian:
I am in receipt of your letter, received on January 15, 2004, which requests a waiver to the requirement
for a master development plan for the development of seventeen (17) mobile homes on the above -
referenced property. This is the same property which was rezoned (with proffers) from the RA (Rural
Areas) Zoning District to the MH1 (Mobile Home Community) District by the Board of Supervisors
on October 8, 2003.
Section 165-134 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance gives the Director of Planning and
Development the ability to waive the requirement for a master development plan under certain
conditions. The proposed development meets these conditions. It does not contain any new lots; is
not an integral portion of a future development; does not propose any new pubic streets; and is
harmonious with proffered General Development Plan, Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, your request for a waiver to the master development plan requirement is appropriate in this
situation. Please be advised that this waiver does not eliminate any applicable development and design
requirements of the Frederick County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. Prior to the development
of this property, a site plan must be reviewed and approved by Frederick County. It should also be
noted that the site plan for this project shall be reviewed by the Frederick County Planning
Commission.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sin rely,
E c R. Lawrence, AICP
Planning Director
JFC/PTD/CMM/ERL/bad
cc: Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator
,AI-,Trk D. Smith, Greenway Engineering
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
•
C:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Mark Cheran, Planner I /0//c—...
RE: Discussion: Adding Minor Site Plan to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
DATE: Febuary 6, 2004
The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee at it's January 29, 2004, meeting
discussed adding the Minor Site Plan to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This Minor Site
Plan concept was proposed when the new Development Review Fee Schedule was approved by the
Board of Supervisors on December 17, 2002. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance has not
reflected this change. Staff would recommend adding the definition of Minor Site Plan to the
Ordinance, and including Minor Site Plan with Section 165-144 of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance. The definition of minor site plan is below in bold print. 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.
Definition of Minor Site Plan - A site plan that increases the existing structure area by twenty
percent (20%) or less, and does not exceed 5,000 square feet.
Section 165-144 E - A Minor site plan is required when an existing structure or area increases
by twenty percent (20%) or less, and does not exceed 5,000 square feet.
MRC/bad
Attachments
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000