The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 01-21-04 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room. Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia January 21, 2004 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) December 3, 2003 and December 17, 2003 Minutes .......................... (A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments .................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Adoption of the Proposed West Jubal 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 Route 37, and adjacent to and south of Merriman's Lane (Route 621). The WJELUP is located in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Mrs. Kennedy.......................................................... (B) 5) Conditional Use Permit #13-03 of Shared Towers, Inc./White Tail Lane Tower, presented by Greenway Engineering, for a 195 -foot -high lattice -type telecommunications facility. This property is located on White Tail Lane off of North Frederick Pike (Route 522N) and is identified with Property Identification Number 19-A-27 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran ............................................................ (C) DISCUSSION 6) Proposed Amendment to Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to change Section 165-27 D to reflect a new definition of semi-trailers/trailers; and, a new definition for business vehicles in the RP used with home occupations Mr. Cheran ............................................................ (D) 7) Other C: • • 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 December 3, 2003. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall 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; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director; Jeremy F. Camp, Plainer II; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; and, Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chainnan DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 5, 2003 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of November 5, 2003 was unanimously approved as presented. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #12-03 of Craftsman Auto Body, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 2.38 acres from B2 (Business General) District to B3 (Industrial Transition) District for an automobile body shop with automobile leasing services. This property is located at the intersection of Valley Pike (Rt. 11) and Prosperity Drive and is identified with P.I.N. 75 -A -2E in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 3, 2003 Page 1192 -2 - Action - Recommended Denial Planner Jeremy F. Camp reported that the parcel is located entirely within the Urban Development Area (UDA), as well as the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and it is also located within the Kernstown Business Park. From a transportation perspective, he said that the proposed development would increase traffic on Valley Pike by less than one percent and VDOT has noted that this does not constitute a measurable impact. Planner Camp reviewed the applicant's proffer statement with the Commission. Planner Camp pointed out that the primary issue identified by staff with this particular rezoning request is the possible incompatibility of an industrial transition use adjoining an existing business general use. He said that two adjoining businesses, Affordable Dentures and Valley Farm Credit, have contacted the staff to express their opposition to the rezoning petition for this reason. Planner Camp also identified an issue with landscaping. He said that the Rt. 11 South Corridor Land Use Plan calls for enhanced landscaping along Valley Pike and this rezoning application does not offer additional landscaping. In order to achieve the intentions of the Rt. 11 South Land Use Plan, the staff has recommended additional landscaping along Valley Pike, similar to that provided by Valley Farm Credit, located across the street. Conunissioner Straub referred to the letter provided to the Commission from Valley Farm Credit and she inquired if it was accurate. Planner Camp explained that Valley Farm Credit had submitted a letter of opposition in which they point out a conflict with the B3 Zoning to the covenants of the Kernstown Business Park. Planner Camp said that Frederick County does not enforce covenants. The Planning Commission's legal counsel, Mr. Jay Cook, stated that enforcing covenants is a civil matter that would need to be resolved through the courts, if other landowners also believed the covenants had been violated. Mr. John Lewis of Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. was present to represent Craftsman Auto Body. Mr. Lewis handed out a few photographs of the Craftsman facilities in Purceville and Prince William County. He said the site is 2.38 acres and the proposed building is 11,000 square feet. Mr. Lewis said this site was chosen by the Craftsman Management Team because of the excellent visibility offered by Rt. 11. He said it was the owner's intention to have an aesthetically pleasing structure and site. Mr. Lewis commented that there is little or no B3 Zoning in Frederick County with this kind of visibility. He believed this development would enhance the corridor entrance into Frederick County and they will ensure that this will happen through their generalized development plan (GDP) and proffer statement. Mr. Lewis next reviewed the proffers that were being offered, detailing the screening, the landscaping and bene, the architectural rendering ofthe building, and the designated areas for specific parking (vehicles awaiting repair, employee parking, automobile leasing, customer parking). He commented that vehicles awaiting repair are within screened areas. Mr. Lewis believe the proposed use was compatible; he believed their proposal made the use aesthetically as good or better, than some of the B2 uses that could be allowed on this parcel. Mr. Michael (Mike) McCarroll of the Craftsman Management Team remarked that because of the nature of the work, his business, and his competitors' businesses, have been attempting to change the image of their businesses and are moving themselves into more visible areas with nicer facilities. Mr. McCarroll said they need to have their businesses look better, their customers expect it, and he believed he could provide that. Referring to Valley Farm Credit's letter, Commissioner Gochenour commented about the visibility of the property coming down off of Prosperity Drive. Mr. McCarroll pointed out the berm area; he noted that the top of his building will be visible from Rt. 11, but not the bottom. Mr. McCarroll said that the vehicles awaiting repair will be screened from the road with landscaping. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 3, 2003 Page 1193 -3 - Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition: Mr. Rick Edwards, came forward to represent Affordable Care, a North Carolina based dental practice management company, trading in this area as Affordable Dentures. Mr. Edwards stated that their company has been in tl- is area since 1989 and two years ago, moved to their new location behind the property in question. He explained that they are very uncomfortable with the proposed zoning change and are adamantly opposed. Mr. Edwards was concerned about their patients looking down at wrecked vehicles and he commented that this was still a body shop, despite the outward appearance. Mr. Robert Carpenter, President and C.E.O. of Valley Farm Credit (VFC), located at 125 Prosperity Drive in the Kernstown Business Park, next carne forward to represent the Board of Directors of VFC, the legal property owners. Mr. Carpenter said that the Board of Directors of VFC has officially taken a position of opposition to the proposed rezoning, based on the legality of the restrictive covenants within the deed of dedication establishing the Kernstown Business Park back in 1995. He contended that this zoning restriction was placed on the lots at the front of the Kernstown Business Park as a protection to those landowners who would invest considerable sums to enhance the property frontage along Rt. 11. He said that VFC purchased two lots, totaling three acres, and has invested in excess of $2 million with the understanding that KernstoNvn Business Park contained restrictive covenants that would allow for the development of similar businesses. He said that VFC will strongly oppose any attempt to override those restrictive covenants and would be willing to consider appropriate remedies at their disposal to uphold the restrictive deed covenants. He also considered the proposed rezoning to be spot zoning. Mr. Mohsen Sadeghzadeh came forward to oppose the proposed rezoning because it would be detrimental, both environmentally and economically, to adjoining landowners. In particular, he pointed out that the noise and fiunes of a body shop were not well suited to the existing neighboring businesses and would limit the possibilities of all similar B2 land development in the area. Mr. Sadeghzadeh provided the Commission with a letter of opposition. In addition, he was concerned about the number of vehicles that would eventually be located on the site. Mr. Daniel (Dan) Harlow, the owner of New Collision Repair, located at the top of the hill, said that three years ago, he also wanted to purchase the property under consideration because of its visibility from the Rt. 11; however, to avoid the possibility of opposition due to the nature of his business, he ended up purchasing property in the rear. Mr. Harlow commented that his building is attractive and described his extensive screening. He believed the back parking area of the proposed facility would be visible from Affordable Dentures and Valley Farm Credit because those structures are higher in elevation. He also commented about the traffic congestion at the end of Prosperity Drive. Since everyone who wished to speak had been given an opportunity to do so, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Morris had the opinion that the proposed structure would be aesthetically appealing and it appeared to be a good company for Frederick County, however, he believed this was absolutely the wrong location. Conunissioner Morris believed that rezoning this property to B3 would be unfair to the surrounding established B2 businesses who have already invested large sums of money. He added that there are many undesirable B3 businesses that could locate here, if for some reason the Craftsman Auto Body business left the property. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 3, 2003 Page 1194 -4 - Commissioner Light also had the opinion that, in this particular situation, to change the zoning would be a misrepresentation shown to the existing businesses who have invested considerable sums of money in their properties. Commissioner Light remarked that the County's zoning laws were established to provide protection and compatibility and is the basis for comprehensively planning the County. Commissioner Light also had concerns about the possibility of other B3 uses on the property iii the future. Referring his question to legal counsel, Commissioner Rosenberry asked if a prejudice to any future civil case would be created, should the County approve this rezoning. Mr. Jay Cook, legal counsel, stated that a rezoning would have no affect on a possible future civil case. Chairman DeHaven commented that this was an outstanding application and he believed the community would welcome this business, however, the existing zoning on the subject property is there to implement a very comprehensive land use plan for that area. He did not think it would be appropriate for those individuals who have already made their purchase decisions based on that planning and the existing zoning. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Morris, BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Rezoning Application #12-03 of Craftsman Auto Body, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 2.38 acres from B2 (Business General) District to B3 (Industrial Transition) District for an automobile body shop with automobile leasing services to be located at the intersection of Valley Pike (Rt. 11) and Prosperity Drive. The vote was as follows: YES (TO DENY): Triplett, Fisher, Kriz, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Gochenour, Straub, DeHaven NO: Rosenberry * *Please Note: Conunissioner Rosenberry announced that he mistakenly voted against this motion. He said that his intent was to vote for denial of the proposed rezoning, based on the comments he made during the discussion. (Commissioners Thomas and Ours were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #07-03 of Hiatt Run Condominiums, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., for multi -family residential condominiums. The property is located at the intersection of Rt. I I and Rt. 838, near Stephenson, and is identified with P.I.N. 44-A-17 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Denial Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 3, 2003 Page 1195 -5 - Plainer Jeremy F. Camp said that the Hiatt Run Condominiums is a master development plan for 96 garden apartments on 10.0 acres, zoned RP (Residential Performance) District. Planner Camp stated that this site is located within the Second and Third Winchester Core Battlefield, which is part of the Stephensons Depot Historical Area. He noted that the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviewed this application during their September 2003 meeting and the HRAB believed that the proposed development was not compatible with the surrounding area. The HRAB offered suggestions on how to improve the site, such as adding a country fence around the property, reducing the proposed height of the structures, and changing the building design to something more architecturally compatible with the area. Planner Camp stated that the proposed plan meets or exceeds the Zoning Ordinance's requirements for environmental preservation; however, little is offered to preserve the historical integrity of the property. He said that while this can not be required, because it is not an ordinance requirement, staff strongly encourages the applicant to consider the suggestions of the HRAB. Mr. John Lewis of Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., presented two exhibits which represented aproposed rendering of the project upon completion and the actual master development plan. Mr. Lewis described the project for the Commission. Commissioner Gochenour, a member ofthe HRAB, stated that the HRAB is deeply concerned about this proposal and the historic integrity of the area. In particular, she mentioned the density of 96 units on 10 acres. She conmmented about the three-story buildings in direct view of the Third Battle of inchester and Stephenson Depot. She was also concerned about the environmental impact of 96 units along Hiatt Run, particularly the effect of construction, and she inquired about any environmental protection measures. Mr. Lewis replied that the developer would consider the preservation of the stone wall along McCann's Road, however, he did not believe it would be economically practical for the developer to consider a reduction in a density that was permitted by the zoning ordinance. He said this was a market-driven project. Regarding the protection of Hiatt Run, Mr. Lewis replied that they would provide the 35 -foot riparian buffer as required. Commissioner Rosenberry asked Planner Camp if he knew the density of the neighboring property. Planner Camp replied that the surrounding properties are all single-family homes, typically, one unit per acre. Commissioner Rosenberry commented that the density of the proposed development was quite a contrast to the existing density of the surrounding area. Commissioner Fisher suggested that a dark brown color for the building exterior, rather than white or yellow siding, would be more visually appealing for the area. Mr. Lewis stated that the rendering shown is one of an existing development by this developer and is the style that will be used for the proposed development. Commissioner Unger inquired if it would be possible to add some brick to the front of the buildings and reduce them to two-story structures rather than three-story. Mr. Lewis replied that it was not economically feasible for the developer to reduce the size of the structures. At this time, Chairman DeHaven called for public comments. The following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Vincent (Vince) Lord, property owner just to the north, was opposed to the proposed development. Mr. Lord expressed concern about drainage to the north. He said during the recent heavy rains, Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 3. 2003 Page1196 Wom the drainage ditch from Rt. 11 flooded one of the culverts in his driveway and water flowed into his yard. Mr. Lord was also concerned about security of his property, due to the density of the proposed development. Mr. David (Dave) Holliday wanted to point out for the record that he was not the developer for this application. Regarding the concern about drainage, Mr. Lewis stated that the majority of the site slopes towards Hiatt Run and only a minor portion of the site slopes to the north. Mr. Lewis explained that the roof leaders drain to the parking lots and the parking lots drain to the south. Therefore, he did not anticipate a problem. He assured the Commission that he would address all of the drainage issues at the site plan stage. Commissioners questioned their ability to influence the building materials and architectural features of the proposed development. Members of the Commission pointed out that this was one of those few situations that was unintentionally created in the County. It was noted that RP Zoning was placed on this land in 1983 and officials at that time probably never envisioned the SWSA and the UDA on the parcel. It was also pointed out that RP Zoning was placed on this property to protect the existing single-family residential uses along the corridor. Although recent circumstances have given the parcel UDA and SWSA status, the intent is clear in several instances within the Comprehensive Plan regarding future land uses being sensitive to existing and planned land uses. Additionally, this area is designated as a developmentally -sensitive area and a historical preservation area. Members of the Commission commented that residential land uses should be compatible with existing residential densities and lot sizes. Commissioners believed there was a responsibility to maintain compatibility. Other Commissioners pointed out that Frederick County has a definite lack of affordable housing; those members said they would welcome this type of housing in a denser portion of the UDA, but not in this particular area. Once again, it was pointed out that this was a well-designed project, however, it was proposed for the wrong location. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of Master Development Plan 907-03 of Hiatt Run Condominiums, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., for multi -family residential condominiums. The property is located at the intersection of Rt. 1 I and Rt. 838, near Stephenson. (Commissioners Thomas and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Subdivision Request #12-03 for Vine Lane Subdivision, submitted by Bowman Consulting on behalf of Dave Holliday Construction, Inc., for the subdivision of 1.15 acres, zoned RP (Residential Performance) into three single-family detached lots. The property is zoned RP (Residential Performance) District and is located 2.2 miles south on Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522) from the intersection of Front Royal Pike and Rt. 50, and is identified with P.I.N. 64-2-D4 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Planner Mark R. Cheran referred the Commission to Page 2 ofthe staff report noting that this Frederick Count)- Plannin; Commission Draft Minutes of December 3, 2003 Page 1197 Sri! page incorrectly refers to Mr. and Mrs. Hubert Stone as the owners of the property. Planner Cheran pointed out for the record that the property is owned by Dave Holliday Construction, Inc. Planner Cheran stated that there were no adverse comments from any of the reviewing agencies. He said the proposal is to create three new lots containing a minimum of 15,000 square feet each for single-family detached traditional housing. He noted that this housing type is permitted in the RP Zoning District and public water and sewer will be utilized. He added that the property is located within the UDA and the SWSA. He further added that the master development plan has been waived for this project, therefore, Board of Supervisors review and action is required. Planner Cheran noted that Mr. David Holliday, the property owner, and Mr. David L. Frank, the Project Manager, with Bowman Consulting Group, LTD, were present to answer questions from the Commission. Corrunissioner Gochenour asked the staff to explain the conditions enabling the waiver of a master development plan. Planner Cheran described the conditions enabling a waiver of the master development plan for this particular request. Those conditions included: the number of lots to be created consisted of ten or less; no roads or regional storm water management facilities were proposed; and, the request was compatible with surrounding properties. Commissioner Gochenour asked for an explanation of the comment made by Mr. Joe Wilder of the Public Works Department regarding the location of one of the lots near the storm water pond at the front of the property. Mr. David Frank with Bowman Consulting was present to represent the property owner. Mr. Frank stated that the regional storm water management facility, as well as all of the other infrastructure for this property, has been in place for many years, possibly in 1965. He said that the lots being created are completely consistent with what was originally placed on Vine Lane. Mr. Frank explained that the comment made by Mr. Wilder pertains to the acquisition of a grading permit or a building permit for a residential lot. Mr. Frank said that Mr. Wilder is seeking verification that the regional storm water management facility will not flood onto the lot or pose any problems with the residential units. Mrs. Gochenour expressed concern that the storm water management facility appeared to be in poor condition. Mr. Frank replied that this particular facility is owned and maintained by VDOT. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. The Commission believed the proposed subdivision appeared to satisfy the requirements of the zoning ordinance and was compatible with the surrounding development in the area. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Subdivision Request 412-03 for Vine Lane Subdivision, submitted by Bowman Consulting on behalf of Dave Holliday Construction, Inc., for the subdivision of 1.15 acres, zoned RP (Residential Performance) into three single-family detached lots. The property is zoned RP (Residential Performance) District and is located 2.2 miles south on Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522) from the intersection of Front Royal Pike and Rt. 50. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 3, 2003 Page 1198 -8 - The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Rosenberry, Triplett, Fisher, KrIz, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub, DeHaven NO: Gochenour (Commissioners Thomas and Ours were absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION Review of the site plan for the new Frederick County Middle School. The site is located on the eastern side of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522), south of its intersection with Papermill Road (Rt. 644). No Action Required Planner Jeremy F. Camp presented the site plan for the fourth Frederick County Middle School for review and input. Plarmer Camp said that access will be provided to Front Royal Pike via a new major collector road and school access road. He said the school facility includes 243 parking spaces with required handicapped access, 26 bus parking spaces, and an emergency fire lane around the entire school building. Also planned for the site were a football field, a track, basketball courts, softball field, a soccer field, and discus and shotput throwing areas. Planner Camp noted that Dr. William C. Dean, Superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools, was present to answer any questions from the Commission. Commission members inquired about the need for a traffic signal at the entrance to the school. Dr. William C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools, stated that the School Board has signed an agreement with VDOT, and the School Board will be responsible for placing a traffic signal at the intersection should, should traffic warrant one within the next ten years. Chairman DeHaven inquired if the access roadways, in particular, the entrance road, the new collector road, and the school access road, were on School Board property. Planner Camp replied that they were not. Commission members inquired about the possibility of achieving greater coordination between the School Board and the County on the planning of school locations. Commission members believed that coordination with the School Board on school site locations would influence the direction ofthe Comprehensive Plan regarding the Urban Development Area. Plarming Director Eric R. Lawrence commented that the Planning Staff has been working much more closely with the School Board in the previous year. Director Lawrence stated that the goal is to incorporate future school projects into the County's long range planning program. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 3, 2003 Page 1199 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence announced that the 2004 Planning Commission Retreat will be held on February 7, 2004. ADJOURNMENT at 8:30 p.m. By a unanimous vote, the meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission adjourned Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 3, 2003 Page 1200 C7 • • 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 December 17, 2003. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT:Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; and Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; and, Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 12/08/03 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS continued their discussions on the Rural Areas Study. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Conunissioner Gochenour reported that the regularly scheduled meeting was canceled. However, Commissioner Gochenour mentioned the $8,000.00 grant received by the HRAB which will be used Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 17, 2003 Page 1192 -2 - for educating HRAB members in their review of rezoning applications proposed for the historically -sensitive areas of the county. She said the HRAB is in the process of hiring a consultant and the desire is to create a booklet which will contain helpful guidelines. Winchester City Planning Commission City of Winchester's Liaison to the Planning Commission, Mr. Vincent DiBenedetto, announced that due to term limits, he will no longer be serving on the Winchester City Planning Commission and this was the final Frederick County Planning Commission meeting he would be attending as liaison. Mr. DiBenedetto stated that he has served as the liaison to the Frederick County Planning Commission for ten years and has enjoyed doing so. He commented how much he has admired the way the Frederick County Planning Commission operates under Chairman DeHaven and he has tried to emulate how Chairman DeHaven has conducted Commission meetings. Mr. DiBenedetto said that he used the Planning Commission's bylaws as a template to create bylaws for the City Planning Commission. Mr. DiBenedetto admired how diligent each of the Commissioners are, the way in which research is done, how opinions are expressed, and the amount of time the Conunission takes to listen and respectfully respond to the citizenry. In conclusion, he said that he has admired the manner in which the Commission works with the planning staff. He considered the County Planning Staff to be very professional. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Bob Stiff, a resident at 104 Stirrup Cup Circle in Saratoga Meadows, came forward to discuss a reoccurring issue regarding the pending development of an adjoining property with a car wash. Mr. Stiff believed the development of the property was misrepresented at the time of its rezoning; he explained that the information provided indicated a low profile, neighborhood -friendly building with tinted windows, low lighting, etc. He said that the intention now is to establish one of the new no -brush car washes, which are extremely noisy. He pointed out that similar car washes are located along highways, however, this particular one is adjoined on three sides by residences. Mr. Stiff said that he has a swimming pool and the quality of life for his family will be impacted by the car wash. In addition, he believed it would impact the value of his property. Mr. Stiff commented that there are 41 homes in Saratoga Meadows and everyone is concerned about this situation, which they consider to be spot zoning. Mr. Stiff said that the residents of Saratoga Meadows are concerned about the impacts of traffic congestion, the limited turning radius available on the site, the low water pressure on Senseny Road, and the possible impacts to fire and rescue services. Chairman DeHaven thanked Mr. Stiff for his comments and noted that the Commission shares the concerns raised. (At the end of the meeting, Director Lawrence pointed out that an option available within the zoning ordinance provides for a site plan to be reviewed and commented on by the Planning Commission, if potential impacts of the development could possibly affect the surrounding properties, areas, or traffic. The Commission believed it would be beneficial for them to review this site plan and asked the staff to bring the plan in for their review.) Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 17, 2003 Page 1193 -3 - DISCUSSION 2004-2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR FREDERICK COUNTY Planner Abbe S. Kennedy reported that the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) and Frederick County Department representatives have been actively engaged in the development of the Draft 2004-2005 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County. Planner Kennedy said that earlier this year, the Board of Supervisors directed the Planning Staff to pursue a process revision concerning the methods used in forming the County's CIP. She explained that it was agreed that neither the Planning Department nor the CPPS would engage in the prioritization or evaluation of the various departmental requests, but the role of the CPPS would be to ensure that the departmental project requests were properly supported by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In addition, she emphasized that the costs associated with the project requests are not considered by the CPPS, but instead, are considered by the CPPS in relation to policy and in the context of the cross functional alignment of departmental needs. Plainer Kennedy continued, stating that the Draft 2004-2005 CIP consists of 34 capital projects, which is an increase over the 30 projects included in last year's CIP. She said that all of the projects in the previous CIP have been carried over, with the exception of the James Wood Middle School renovations, which will be completed in May of 2004, and the airport's Route 645 relocation project, which is fully funded and is expected to be completed in 2004. Planner Kennedy reported that the proposed CIP contains six new capital projects, which include: an updated master development plan for the north side development at the airport, two new land acquisition projects along Bufflick Road to facilitate the regional airport's noise attenuation program, a renovations project request from Frederick County Public Schools for Robert E. Aylor Middle School, and two new projects submitted by the CFFW Regional Jail. Planner Kennedy acknowledged the presence of various representatives from many of the requesting departments and she also acknowledged the exceptional cooperation from the department directors in working with the Planning Department on revising the CIP process. Commissioner Morris commented that the State Code stipulates that before proffers can be accepted, projects must be identified in the CIP. Commissioner Morris asked if staff could review how the County accounts for and tracks proffer monies relating to items on the CIP and, in addition, if monies are typically proffered for a specific project or if the funds are placed in a general fund to be spread across the entire CIP program. Commissioner Moms also inquired how proffered money is accounted for if a proposed project does not become a reality. Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence explained that the County uses the dollar values from the adopted CIP and incorporates them into its impact modeling exercise so that at the time of a rezoning, the capital facility impacts can be identified. Director Lawrence stated that rather than focusing on a particular facility, the County incorporates all of the Park's projects together or all of the school projects together, and the monies are placed into a capital facilities account for that specific department. Director Lawrence explained that the money will remain in the account until there is a capital project request and then the Finance Department disburses the funds. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 17, 2003 Page 1194 -4 - Commissioner Rosenberry inquired why projected expenditures are not a legitimate item to evaluate, if the State Code requires expenditures to be included in the CIP. Chairman DeHaven explained that finance performance and impacts are to be evaluated by another committee, but not the Planning Commission. Director Lawrence added that the Planning Commission reviews the project list in terms of Comprehensive a,.n Planning aspects and then works with the Finance Department or another County entity to �� evaluate u,.e u.,.ar values. Director Lawrence said that the Board of Supervisors is ultimately the adoption body and would evaluate all aspects of the CIP. Commissioner Straub inquired if a site had been chosen for the new elementary school. Mr. Al Orndorff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools, replied that the 25 -acre site chosen for the I I' elementary school is adjacent to the new middle school property. Referring to items 3A and 3B, the transportation facility and the administration building renovations, Commissioner Straub inquired if those two projects went together for some reason. Mr. Orndorff replied that in order to accommodate changes from last year's CIP, in particular, moving the I I' elementary school ahead of the administration building, and due to economies of scale, these two similar projects were grouped together. Commissioner Light asked Mr. Omdorff if he knew the final cost of renovating James Wood School. Mr. Orndorff was confident that the $11.75 million budgeted for the James Wood School renovations would be sufficient for the project, which was scheduled to be completed in May. Referring to the justification section, Commissioner Morris suggested that Department Directors make better use of benchmarks of evaluation as a measurement technique to clarify or quantify project requests. In doing so, he believed it would be easier to determine how a specific county agency compared against a particular set of established standards. For example, how many books per capita in a county of our size is the standard for a library and is the County's library meeting that standard. Conunissioner Light expressed a desire for the Planning Department, the Board of Supervisors, and the Department Directors to meet once a year for discussion of potential co -location of multi-purpose facilities as an avenue for cost-saving. He also was in favor of establishing a development tracking system that could detail the impacts of particular areas on infrastructure; he believed the system would aid the Commission in their considerations during a rezoning process. In addition, Commissioner Light raised the issue of schools being located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA), when the preference was to have them inside the UDA. He realized that price, location, and transportation affect school location, however, he believed that the planning of school locations could be improved to make this a better working situation. Commissioners agreed that the new uniform content of the CIP was a considerable improvement for reviewing the CIP and they thanked the department directors for their willingness to provide this standardization. The Commission supported the Draft 2004-2005 Capital Improvements Plan for Frederick County as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 17, 2003 Page 1195 -5 - ADJOURNMENT By a unanimous vote, the meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of December 17, 2003 Page 1196 C C • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner a RE: Public Hearing - Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP) to include Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) DATE: January 7, 2004 The proposed Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP), to include expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA), was presented at the public hearing of the Planning Commission on November 19, 2003. The draft land use plan had not been reviewed or discussed prior to this meeting. Prior to the November public hearing, however, the UDA expansion request had been reviewed and endorsed by the CPPS and considered as a discussion item by the Planning Commission. As you are aware, the resulting action of the Planning Commission was a recommendation to consider the WJELUP for informational purposes only and to recommend approval of the UDA expansion request. On December 10, 2003, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing regarding the proposed Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP), which included expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA). The Board expressed concern regarding the approval of the UDA expansion without a formal recommendation concerning the land use plan. The applicant noted that there are critical transportation improvements included in the land use plan, and requested the Board's action be postponed so that additional dialogue could take place. The resulting action of the Board was to postpone action on the WJELUP, to include the expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA), until the Planning Commission had ample opportunity to provide a formal recommendation on the land use plan. Please find attached the draft policy language for the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP) and the corresponding land use map for your reference. No revisions to the draft policy language nor the land use map have occurred since the Board of Supervisor's December 10, 2003 meeting. After review and discussion of the attached materials, and following the public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to provide a formal recommendation on the WJELUP, to include expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA), to the Board of Supervisors. ASK/bad Attachments 107 Nlu tIi Kent Street o Winchester, Virginia 226Gt-50aa PUBLIC HEARING - WESTERN JUBAL EARLY LAND USE PLAN (WJELUP) and to include UDA EXPANSION Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: January 7, 2004 Staff Contact: Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in the discussion of this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this comprehensive planning matter. CPPS: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Planning Commission: PROPOSAL: Reviewed Action 07/14/03 Recommended for discussion 09/03/03 (Discussion) Comments offered to Board 09/10/03 (Discussion) Directed scheduling of Public Hearing 11/19/03 (Public Hearing) Recommended UDA Expansion Request and accepted WJELUP for information purposes only 12/10/03 (Public Hearing) Postponed Action; deferred to PC for recommendation 01/21/04 (Public Hearing) Pending To adopt a Land Use Plan for Western Jubal Early Drive that includes expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) by approximately 350 acres. PLANNED USE: Residential and Mixed Use LOCATION: The property is located adjacent to and west of the City of Winchester, east of Route 37, and adjacent to and south of Merriman's Lane (Route 621). The proposed expansion area is connected to Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) by the southernmost parcel. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 53-A-91, 63 -A -2A, 53-A-92, 53 -A -92A, 53 -A -92B, 53-A-90, 53 -3 - Al, 53-A-94, 53-A-95 PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION: Existing Conditions Suburban residential development (Meadow Branch, Morlyn Hills, Meadow Branch South, and Orchard Hill) is located in the City of Winchester adjacent to the northern and easiern boundaries of the subject properties. Merriman's Chase in Frederick County adjoins the subject properties in the northwestern corner (zoned RP), and The Village at Harvest Ridge (zoned RP) adjoins the southeastern tip of the subject properties. Three of the subject parcels adjoin an approximate 190 -acre tract of the South Frederick Agricultural District. The subject site, as well as the properties adjoining to the east and south, are presently zoned RA, and are in agricultural uses. Comprehensive Policy Plan Land Use Plan The subject properties are not included in any of the small study area land use plans included in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The properties were generally identified for agricultural use. There is no plan for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) to serve that area with public water and sewer. There is a 183 -acre tract of the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District adjoining a large portion of the southern boundary of the site. The Urban Development Area (UDA) boundary is presently located immediately northwest of the subject site; none of the subject parcels are in the UDA or SWSA. The UDA boundary lies immediately west of Merriman's Lane which adjoins the property line along the site's western edge. Merriman's Chase subdivision, within the UDA, adjoins the subject site on the west. No portion of the 320 acre expansion area is presently in the UDA. Transportation The Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) Plan identifies a planned Major Collector Road, Jubal Early Drive extending from Meadow Branch Drive to Route 37. The City of Winchester supports this road, as it is consistent with the WATS Plan. The planned WATS collector road would transverse the subject properties. The future location of the interchange connection to Route 37 will guide the design and alignment of Jubal Early Drive. The area of the proposed request is not in a specific study area of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; however, staff would contend that a minor collector road extending from Cedar Creek Grade through the site and connecting to a western portion of the Jubal Early Drive would be appropriate. This connection would be necessary for serving the proposed development of the property as well as for emergency service vehicles to access the site through the county road system. Community Facilities and Service The FCSA does not serve this area. For the area to be served by the City, the FCSA must state their willingness to allow City service. The City of Winchester believes that water and sewer services would be available to this development; however, the availability may depend upon where the proposed facilities would ultimately connect to the City's facilities. The City of Winchester notes that where connecting facilities (water, sewer, transportation or other) are deemed to be inadequate due to the development's needs, it may be necessary for the developers to make modifications and improvements to existing facilities to minimize the impact. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE (CPPS) SUMMARY & ACTION OF 07/14/03 MEETING: (summary of applicable discussions) The CPPS was generally supportive in concept to the proposal of the UDA expansion request. Infrastructure concerns regarding water and sewer service and transportation were expressed. Consideration of a land use study for the area west of the city and east of Route 37 was addressed. Staff would note that Charles DeHaven, Robert Morris, Roger Thomas and Sue Ann Teal were absent from the July 14, 2003 CPPS meeting at such time this request was considered. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 09/03/03 MEETING: Some commissioners expressed concern for adding such a large amount of land into the UDA because of the number of existing lots available for development currently within the UDA. Other commissioners believed this area was a logical location for UDA-style development, due to the surrounding development within the City of Winchester and its location inside Route 3 7. Consideration of this area as a transitional zone, utilizing one to two -acre lot sizes, was suggested as a way of making the development more compatible with the adjacent low density, up -scale area. The idea of placing only a portion of the proposed acreage into the UDA, and not all of it, was also raised. Concerns regarding the site's infrastructure, particularly transportation issues and the availability of sewer and water prevailed however, and the need for a land use study for the area east of Route 37 was suggested. Also suggested was the possibility of postponing the request until the CPPS completed its Rural Areas Policy Study, which would take into consideration densities in rural areas. Other developmental concerns raised were the impacts to schools; impacts to and preservation of environmental features, such as the wetlands and flood plains; impacts to the taxpayers; and precedent setting for future UDA expansion requests. No action was formally taken by the Commission. Commissioners Ours and Fisher were absent from the meeting. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISCUSSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 09/10/03 MEETING: Chairman Shickle asked if the acreage involved in the expansion request included the parcel to the right, the Bridgeforth Family. Staff stated that there had been no other requests for inclusion from landowners adjoining the original subject area. It was noted by Planning Director Eric Lawrence that an additional public hearing would need to be scheduled, should the remaining landowners make a similar request for UDA inclusion. Several of the Board members felt that this was a good location to provide housing. Additionally, the Board was mindful of the beautiful wetlands on the site, and of the City of Winchester's stance on Jubal Early Drive. It was advised that a general plan be presented for the Board to review. The Board of Supervisors -voted to send this item to public hearing. pending the development of a general land use plan. YES (TO SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC HEARING): Shickle, Sager, Reyes, Smith, Douglas, Tyler ABSTAIN: Forrester PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY & ACTION OF 11/19/03: Two citizens came forward to speak regarding this UDA expansion request. The first, a professor of environmental studies and biology at Shenandoah University and a participant in the establishment of the Abrams Creek Wetlands Preserve and the Green Circle Trail, stated that he has spent considerable time studying the wetlands on the White's property with his students. Although he did not wish to comment either in favor or opposition to the request, he offered three recommendations for the Commission to consider in their discussion of the developmentally -sensitive areas. First, he recommended that the actual wetlands boundaries be delineated on the ground so they could be exactly identified. Second, he recommended protection of the existing wetlands through setbacks from wetlands boundaries and any other environmentally -sensitive features. Third, he recommended that a plan be developed to actively monitor and manage the environmentally -sensitive area as a natural preserve. He suggested that the area might be added to Winchester's existing 25 -acre Abrams Creek Wetlands Preserve and managed jointly. The other citizen, a resident of the City of Winchester who was also involved in the establishment of the Abrams Creek Wetlands Preserve, encouraged the Commission to consider adding the White's property wetlands to the Abrams Creek Preserve to create a large, continuous wetland area for water quality preservation and to create parkland for use by future generations. In addition, he questioned the need for a new interchange on Rt. 37 and he expressed concern for how Merriman's Lane would handle the increased traffic. The staff believed the need for an interchange was significant to ensure a regional improvement that will accommodate the traffic needs for the entire area. Furthermore, although the planning staff had no problem with the applicant's long-range plan indicating a potential north -south major collector road across adjoining properties, they pointed out that those properties are currently protected by their inclusion in the Agricultural District. In order to avoid any contradiction of policies, the staff suggested postponing the addition of this improvement to the policy document until those properties are withdrawn from the Agricultural District. Commission members believed that including this property within the UDA was appropriate for the long term; however, numerous issues dealing with transportation, the rate of growth in the County, the number of units possible, and the boundaries of the wetlands area were not entirely addressed to some of the Commissioners' satisfaction. They agreed that the best opportunity to achieve a commitment on these issues from the applicant and to provide input on the developmentally -sensitive areas would be at the rezoning stage. Because of the transportation challenges of the area, Commission members believed the inclusion of the Jubal Early extension with a potential connection to Rt. 37 was paramount to the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan. Although the Commission initially included the Jubal Early extension and Rt. 37 connection into their motions for approval of the UDA expansion, some members believed it was more appropriate to consider the two issues separately. As a result, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the UDA expansion request and accepted the Jubal Early Land Use Plan for information only at this point in time. (Please Note: Commissioner Unger abstained. Commissioner Rosenberry was absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSION FOR 12/10/03 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING: In September, after the review of the UDA expansion request by the CPPS and discussion by the Planning Commission and the Board, the Board of Supervisors provided planning staff with direction regarding this request. The Board directed staff to bring the original UDA Expansion request to public hearing once a small area land use plan had been developed in collaboration with the owner's representatives. At the Planning Commission meeting of November 19, 2003 staff presented draft policy language and a draft land use map which was prepared by Greenway Engineering, with staff input. The land use plan is referred to as the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP). Staff would note that prior to the Planning Commission public hearing regarding the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan and UDA Expansion request, neither the CPPS, the Planning Commission, nor the public had reviewed or discussed a land use plan for the subject study area. The CPPS and Planning Commission had previously discussed only the request for UDA Expansion. The resulting action of the Planning Commission was a recommendation to consider the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP) for information only, and to recommend the expansion of the UDA. This of course, leaves the Board of Supervisors with a number of options to consider for action. 1. Approve or deny the proposed WJELUP policy language and map as presented to include expansion of the UDA; 2. Approve the Urban Development Area expansion only, as recommended by the Planning Commission; or 3. Defer action on the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan and UDA Expansion Request pending more thorough review. Staff would note that if the UDA expansion is approved without an accompanying land use plan, the 350 acre study area would be open to future rezoning proposals without the guidance of land use policy. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUMMARY AND ACTION OF 12/10/03 PUBLIC HEARING The Board of Supervisors expressed concern regarding a UDA expansion approval without an accompanying land use plan that had been reviewed and voted upon by the Planning Commission. At the request of the applicant, to further resolve questions of responsibility concerning completion of planned transportation improvements, the Board motioned to postpone action. A motion ultimately passed to send the proposed WJELUP back to the Planning Commission for a formal recommendation. STAFF CONCLUSION FOR 01/21/04 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: In September of 2003, the Board directed staff to bring the original UDA expansion request to public hearing once a small area land use plan had been developed. At the Planning Commission public hearing on November 19, 2003, commission members believed that due to the transportation challenges in the area, the inclusion of the Jubal Early Drive extension with a connection to Rt 37 via the new interchange should be a paramount objective of the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan. However, the ultimate recommendation to the Board was limited to an endorsement of the UDA expansion request, with no formal action taken concerning the draft plan. The text and mapping has been refined since last seen by the Planning Commission. The Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan and draft policy language comprehensively addresses land use, the environment, and transportation in the subject area. The Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP), to include expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA), is a proposed policy amendment to the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to forward a formal recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. WESTERN JUBAL EARLY LAND USE PLAN DR,4FT - 1113103 (Revised 1211/03) A request to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) to incorporate parcels owned by the White and Marshall families was endorsed by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) in July 2003. These parcels, totaling approximately 350 acres, are located in a quadrant of land bound by Route 37 to the west, Merriman's Lane (Route 62 1) to the north, Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) to the south, and the City of Winchester to the east. The proposed expansion of the UDA does not incorporate all properties within this quadrant, as much of the acreage in the southern portion of the quadrant is reserved for agricultural use within the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP) is intended to guide future land use planning and development for property within the quadrant that is captured by the UDA expansion. Land Use Residential The land included within the WJELUP represents a transitional area between the City of Winchester and the rural areas of western Frederick County. The WJELUP area is distinguished by its pristine environmental resources and prime farmland soils and has therefore historically supported both agricultural and low density residential land uses. Adjoining land within the City of Winchester has developed extensively with urban and suburban residential uses, most notably within the Meadow Branch, Morlyn Hills, Meadow Branch South, and Orchard Hill subdivisions. Additionally, suburban residential land use has been established within the UDA adjacent and north of the WJELUP area through the Merriman's Chase subdivision. The predominant land uses envisioned within the WJELUP area are urban and suburban residential uses. The residential designation is intended to continue the established land use pattern in the vicinity of the WJELUP area. As such, new residential development within the WJELUP area is expected to consist primarily of single family detached and single family small lot units, and be compatible with the design of existing residential uses on adjoining property. The gross residential density for residential developments within the WJELUP area should not exceed four dwelling units per acre. Mixed Use Areas of mixed residential and commercial land use are designated along the planned route of the Jubal Early Drive extension. The mixed use development pattern is intended to provide commercial and employment opportunities that are accessible for residents within the WJELUP area via alternative modes of transportation, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Enhanced accessibility is anticipated through the integration of land uses within the mixed use areas and the connection of such areas to the surrounding residential neighborhoods by a network of multi-purpose trails and sidewalks. It is further expected that residential and commercial uses will be designed and configured in a complementary and unified manner to ensure development of a visually distinctive and functionally efficient comnnunity. The residential component of areas designated for mixed use development is not to exceed 75% of the gross project land area, with the remaining acreage reserved and planned for commercial use. Gross residential densities within mixed use areas should be consistent with those ofthe surrounding residential neighborhoods and therefore not exceed four dwelling units per acre. Residential densities are envisioned to be achieved through a mixture of housing types. The commercial component will comprise at least 25%, but no more than 50%, of the gross project land area for mixed use development. The commercial component is envisioned to consist of neighborhood scale commercial uses and high-end office uses, consistent with the commercial development that has occurred along Jubal Early Drive west of its intersection with Valley Avenue. Strip commercial development is strongly discouraged. Transportation The Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) identifies Jubal Early Drive extending in an east -west direction from its terminus in the City of Winchester to a new interchange with the Route 37 western by-pass. The proposed expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) should incorporate the extension of Jubal Early Drive as the principal transportation component of the WJELUP. The extension of Jubal Early Drive through this portion of the UDA is envisioned as an urban divided four -lane cross-section that includes landscaped medians as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The final location and alignment of Jubal Early Drive should remain flexible to ensure that the development of the future extension conforms to final transportation studies and engineering. The design and alignment of the road will facilitate its connection with the new interchange planned for Route 37. Indeed, the value of Jubal Early Drive as a regional transportation improvement is dependant upon its ultimate connection to Route 37 via this new interchange. The initial component of a major collector road system is planned to facilitate traffic movement in a north -south direction to provide a connection between Jubal Early Drive and Cedar Creek Grade. The ultimate location of the north -south collector road should also remain flexible; however, the WJELUP envisions design and construction of only the initial segment of this collector road in order to protect the adjoining South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The development of new road systems and new signalization, and any improvements to existing road systems will be the responsibility of private property owners and developers, unless the Board of Supervisors determines that public - private partnerships are appropriate. Environment The WJELUP designates environmental resources associated with the Abrams Creek corridor as Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA). These areas should be preserved through the development process with improvements limited to required road crossings and passive recreational amenities. A conservation oriented approach to the design of residential and mixed use projects within the WJELUP area is encouraged to maximize DSA preservation. As such, the precise study and identification of DSA designated resources should occur as a critical first step in the design process for all development in the WJELUP area. Completion of this resource inventory and the delineation of preservation areas is to be followed and accommodated by layouts and engineering for building sites, lots, drainage and infrastructure. Full density credit will be provided for DSA designated land conserved through the development process. A portion of the Green Circle Trail, as developed by the City of Winchester, has been constructed on the north side of the Winchester -Western Railroad. The WJELUP envisions completion of this portion of the trail to Merriman's Lane. Additionally, a connector trail should be developed that extends from the existing trail along the railroad right-of-way to Cedar Creek Grade as an enhancement to the Green Circle Trail. The connecting trail should be located to enhance the interaction of the user with any environmental features or view sheds that are conserved through implementation of the WJELUP. U:\COMMITTEES\CPPS\Projects\2003 Projects\White-Marshall UDA\WJELUP DRAFT TEXT.wpd Future Interchzin N 37 South-frectenck Agricultural & Forestal District West Jubal Early Land Use Plan (DRAFT) Map Features A/ UDAISWS4 Winchester City Boundary Land Use Study Area (362 acres) Parcels Streams Lakes/PondsWetiands Planned Transportation A/ Road ROW Road CL Railroads Existing Trails Proposed Trails Planned Land Use CDDevelopmentally Sensitive Areas lAxed Use Residential Use Future Interchange South Frederick Agricultural & Forestal District N -+IF S 0 500 Feet --u-ly Depadment of Planing &Development CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #13-03 Ww �� SHARED TOWERSIWHITE TAIL LANE TOWER Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: January 5, 2004 Staff Contact: Mark 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 01/21/04 Pending 02/25/04 Pending LOCATION: This property is located on White Tail Lane off of North Frederick Pike (Route 522). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 19-A-27 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential and Agricultural PROPOSED USE: 195 -foot tall lattice -type telecommunications facility. Planning and Zonings This application is a request to revise a condition previously placed on Conditional Use Permit #16-02. The condition stated that: "5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deemed invalid." CUP # 13-03 January 5, 2004 Page 2 Conditional Use Permit #16-02 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 23, 2002. Therefore, Condition #5 requires that the tower be erected by January 22, 2004. The applicant does not believe that the tower will be erected by the anniversary date of the CUP approval, and has requested that this condition be revised to allow for an additional 12 months. Background In late 2001, the applicant ("Shared Towers, Inc.") submitted four (4) Conditional Use Permit applications for telecommunication towers to be constructed along the Route 522 North corridor. Shortly after Shared Towers, Inc. submitted the CUP applications, another applicant (SBA Properties/Triton PCS) submitted three (3) CUP requests for competing sites along the corridor. Both applicants provided documentation illustrating that the existing telecommunication network along the Route 522 North corridor was inadequate, and that additional towers were warranted. The Board of Supervisors ultimately granted the CUP tower requests to Shared Towers, Inc. following extensive discussions with both Shared Towers, Inc. and SBA Properties/Triton PCS. A condition was placed on the approved Shared Towers, Inc. requests stating that the towers were to be constructed within a 12 -month period. It was believed that if the tower was not constructed, this condition would enable the County to reevaluate the applicant's proposal, as well as the applications submitted by SBA Properties/Triton PCS. At the request of SBA Properties/Triton PCS, Board action on their three (3) Conditional Use Permit applications had been deferred. These three applications were withdrawn by the applicant on October 29, 2002. Site Plan One condition placed on the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP #16-02) was that a site plan be submitted and approved by the County. This site plan illustrates the tower's location on the property, setbacks, screening, and access. The site plan associated with CUP # 16-02 for the White Tail Lane Tower was approved on May 14, 2002. Approval of the site plan enabled the construction of a 195 -foot lattice telecommunications tower. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 01-21-04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff believes that this application for a Commercial Telecommunication Facility has adequately addressed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in that need for this facility, based on a lack of coverage and capacity in this part of the County, has been demonstrated. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this application, essentially granting the applicant an extension of 12 months to construct the tower, the following conditions of approval would be appropriate: CUP # 13-03 January 5, 2004 Page 3 Ali Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers. A minor site plan shall be approved by the County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of abandonment of operation 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deemed invalid. 6. A certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed, and will be constructed, in a manner that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be contained in an area around the tower, with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of the base of the tower. 77 fi � u 54 3e#' o� 3 r 01 .i xi � � '� .. Shia 7"� ,.��. .• - K �r �... � mac"` �a. � ,: ;t rI .. a � �f.. F,'r'r ��'�✓ J!r .� �� K';' � �' �, � f � fir. - N .' r. yea yr �,� x - �; ';x' r� rws. �' � .� r � �' , '�� ,�.. -,� •: Twee x ' , to IPA , p d� : r A _ . '� �`- ''✓ 'moi ,t � .,'4�aG K .. .. -.. � -. , sir•. ,..{ � ....�.`_ _ llXlr� �� fir•: �v � � '� .. Shia 7"� ,.��. .• - K �r �... � mac"` �a. � ,: ;t rI .. a � �f.. F,'r'r ��'�✓ J!r .� �� K';' � �' �, � f � fir. - N .' r. yea yr �,� x - �; ';x' r� rws. �' � .� r � �' , '�� ,�.. -,� •: Twee x ' , to IPA , p d� : r A _ . '� �`- ''✓ 'moi ,t � .,'4�aG K .. .. -.. � -. , sir•. ,..{ � ....�.`_ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING ACTION (date) APPROVAL Signed , County Adm. DENIAL Date Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Applicant (The applicant if the ❑ owner X other) NAME: Greenway Engineering ADDRESS: 151 WindHill Lane Winchester VA 22602 TELEPHONE 540-662-4185 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Winchester -Frederick County Conservation Club, Inc. 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of our road or street) White Tail Lane off of North Frederick Pike 4. The property has a road frontage of 1300.4 feet and a depth of 3750 feet and consists of 138.19 acres. (Please be exact) S. The property is owned by Winchester -Frederick County Conservation Club Inc as evidenced by deed from Betty S. Lockwood (previous owner) recorded as Instrument Number 020011507, as recorded in the records of the clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 19-A-27 Magisterial District Gainesboro Current Zoning RA 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North Aoriculture, Single Family RA East Agriculture RA South Agriculture RA West Agriculture RA 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) Unmanned Commercial telecommunications facilities It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 195' tall lattice tower structure inside a 100' x 100' leased area for ground equipment/shelters to be placed on concrete pads. All equipment and lattice will be secured by a fence. 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in from of (across the street) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on next page if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME Kenneth Allen Cbilds,Jr ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# 19-3-1 NAME Samuel F. Shane PROPERTY ID# 19-3-2 NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# Mary Claire McDonald 19-A-26 David & Tina Marie Mohn 19-3-4 NAME Shelby J. Gochenour PROPERTY ID# 19-3-6, 8 ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS N. A,.iE � rrei4oia H. _'-"=;..hh w uDDpLSS PROPERTY ID# Tracy Rosenberger 19-3-9 32668 Mount Weather Rd Bluemont, VA 20135 100 Sunset Drive Winchester, VA 22602 8005 Greeley Blvd. Springfield, VA 22152 1029 Allen Drive Winchester, VA 22601 6917 Haycock Road Falls Church, VA 22043 10'7 D....,7 1/ / YIVVJV 1\VIiV Berryville, VA 22611 NAME Winchester -Frederick PROPERTY ID# Countv Conservation PROPERTY ID# 19 -A -27A ADDRESS 1118 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 ADDRESS Club 19-A-49, 50, 52E NAME Elwood W. Eaton PROPERTY ID# 19-A-51 NAME Kenneth & Nelda PROPERTY ID# Gentry 19-A-37 NAME Nancy Rhodes PROPERTY ID# 19-A-24 NAME Kim & Jacqueline Nail PROPERTY ID# 19 -A -27A ADDRESS 1118 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 ADDRESS 4736 N. Frederick Pike Winchester, VA 22603 ADDRESS 2007 Collinsville Road Cross Junction, VA 22625 ADDRESS 252 White Tail Lane Winchester, VA 22603 ADDRESS 307 White Tail Lane Winchester, VA 22603 L'O ,YV/,U �;--vIT i /aj 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 12. Additional comments, if any: If (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 Appli�a-1 Signature of Owner Owner's Mailing Address 1118 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 Owner's Telephone No. 540-888-7913, 540-667-3082 (Dave Fahnestock) TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: r. USE CODE: H nENE,"rVtA-fL DATE: ' Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Kamal Doshi, president Shared Towers, Inc. (Phone) 703-893-1571 (Address) 6501 Sandy Knoll Court, McLean, VA 22101 the Contract he j mXof all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by ( Please see attached Agreement) Instrument No. 020011507 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 27 Lot: A Block: Section: 19 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone)540-662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) IN Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this -77 day of E' c. , 200 Signature(s) State of Virginia, City �of Frederick , TG -wt I� Donna L. Meliso , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this ay of D� o Le 003 . �J J My Commission Expires: February 29, 2004 Notary Public I was commissioned a Notary as Donna L. Stephens E. EUGENE GUNTER LAW OFFICE E. EUGENE GUNTER THE KENT BUILDING 16 SOUTH KENT STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1750 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-8250 November 5, 2002 Kamal C. Doshi, President SHARED TOWERS, INC. C/O Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 AREA CODE 540 TELEPHONE: 067-4243 FACSIMILE: 667-4281 RE: SHARED TOWERS, INC. V. WINCHESTER -FREDERICK COUNTY CONSERVATION CLUB, INC. OUR FILE NO. 6177-M Dear Mr. Doshi: Pursuant to the various communications between this Law Office and Douglas J. Sanderson, Esquire, and your Facsimile transmission of this afternoon, I provide herewith, in care of Greenway Engineering, the following: an original copy of the Addendum To Site Lease Agreement By And Between Betty S. Lockwood and Shared Towers, Inc., which has already been executed by David A. Fahnestock, President, Winchester -Frederick County Conservation Club, Inc., so that you may execute it on behalf of Shared Towers, Inc., acknowledge.your signature before a Notary Public, and have such copy returned to this Law Office; and 2. the original copy of your company's Application for Conditional Use Permit, which has been duly executed by Mr. Fahnestock on behalf of the current owner, together with a photostatic copy thereof. Thanking you for your cooperation in this regard, I remain Very truly yours, Wm. Douglas Taylo ` Law Clerk Encl: (3) cc: Douglas J. Sanderson, Esquire David A. Fahnestock, President George W. Quarles, Treasurer WDT 5177-M 11/02/02 TM 19-A-27 NO Consider, ADDENDUM TO SITE LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN BETTY S. LOCKWOOD AND SHARED TOWERS, INC. THIS ADDENDUM TO SITE LEASE AGREEMENT is made this 2"' day of November, 2002, by and between )__INC-HESTER--FREDER-CK COUNTY CONSERVATION CJ.,-UB,--IN-C,, a Virginia Corporation, and SHARED_TOWERS, INC,, also a Virginia Corporation. WHEREAS, Betty S. Lockwood, the previous owner of that certain tract or parcel of real estate located in Gainesboro District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 138.1944 acres, more or less, and identified as Tax Map Reference 19-A-27, entered into a certain Site Lease Agreement with Shared Towers, Inc., which agreement is dated November 13, 2001, as documented by that certain Memorandum of Site Lease Agreement, which was recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Frederick County Circuit Court on February 14, 2002, as Instrument No. 020002530; WHEREAS, the said Betty S. Lockwood, by Deed dated the 10th day of July, 2002, which Deed was recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office on the 1 I th day of July, 2002, as Instrument No. 020011507, conveyed the aforesaid tract or parcel of real estate E. EUGENE GUNTER ATCORNEYATLAW to Winchester -Frederick County Conservation Club, Inc.; THE KENT BUILDING TH KENT ST. . .ESTER. VA. Page 1 of 5 22601 EUGENE GUNTER ATTORNEY AT LAW THE KENT BUQ.DING 1F TH KENT ST. .ESTER. vA. 22601 WHEREAS, certain disagreements have developed between the parties hereto with respect to the terms and conditions of such Site Lease Agreement, which disagreement is disruptive to the process of gaining approval for a Conditional Use Permit from Frederick County, Virginia, which is necessary in order for Shared Towers, Inc., to proceed with its intended construction of an Unmarried Commercial Telecommunications Facility and Tower on the aforesaid tract or parcel of real estate; WHEREAS, in the spirit of compromise, the parties hereto have settled their disagreement with respect to the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Site Lease Agreement and, in furtherance of such agreement, have determined to memorialize it by way of this Addendum to such Agreement. NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH: In and for the consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein and the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, WINCHESTER -FREDERICK COUNTY CONSERVATION CLUB, INC., and SHARED TOWERS, INC., hereby covenant and agree that the aforesaid Site Lease Agreement shall be and hereby is AMENDED AND MODIFIED as follows: 1. That Owner's duty of cooperation pursuant to Section 6 of the Site Lease Agreement does and shall continue to include the duty, promptly following requests by Lessee, to cooperate in the Lessee's procurement, maintenance and, as applicable, extensions of conditional use permits and other licenses and permits that Owner may be required or requested by applicable governmental or quasi - governmental authorities to request or approve. 2. Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Site Lease Agreement hereby is replaced in its Page 2 of 5 EUGENE GUNTER ATTORNEY AT LAW FHE KENT BUIMING If 'TP KENT ST. .ESTER. vA. 22601 entirety with the following: " Provided that Owner shall have cooperated in executing and delivering to Lessee's engineers or other designated agent an executed Application for Conditional Use Permit for construction of the Facility (hereinafter, the "2002 Application"), then, beginning with the first day of the month following the second annual anniversary of the date upon which the applicable authorities of Frederick County, Virginia, shall have approved the 2002 Application, OR beginning with the first day of the calender quarter next occurring after the date upon which construction of the Facility is completed, WHICHEVER EVENT FIRST OCCURS, rent will be paid quarterly by Lessee to Owner, on the first day of each calender quarter, at the rate of $1,000.00, U.S. currency, per quarter, partial months to be prorated. The rent shall be $1,250.00, U.S. currency, per quartet- if there are more than one user of the Site. Furthermore, it is expressly agreed and understood by and between Owner and Lessee that should Lessee, for any reason other than pursuant to the terms of a subsequent written Addendum to the aforesaid Site Lease Agreement, fail to deliver the prescribed rent to Owner, then such Site Lease Agreement and all Addendums thereto shall automatically and without any notice from either party to the other shall terminate and be of no other force nor effect, and Lessee shall have no liability to Owner for any rent. In the event of such termination as aforesaid, Lessee shall, within Ten (10) days of the date thereof, cause to be recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Frederick County Circuit Court, at Lessee's sole expense, a MEMORANDUM OF RELEASE AND TERMINATION AS TO SITE LEASE AGREEMENT." All terms and conditions of the above-mentioned Site Lease Agreement that are not expressly modified by the terms of this Addendum hereby are ratified and reconfirmed. This Addendum applies to and binds the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto; it is governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia; it (and the aforesaid Site Lease Agreement, as amended and modified hereby) constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements; any further amendment to said Agreement and/or this Addendum Page 3 of 5 thereto must be executed by and on behalf of both parties; and that execution hereof by Facsimile Transmission shall be equally effective to an original signature. `VVIT13ESS T IIE F VLLOWING SIGIVA T TURES ANL SEALJ. "OWNER" Winchester -Frederick County Conservation Club, Inc By - DAVID A. FAHNESTOCK Its President 1118 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF WINCHESTER, to wit: "LESSEE" Shared Towers, Inc. By;, KAMAL C. DOSHI Its President 6501 Sandy Knoll Ct. McLean, Virginia 22201 The foregoing Addendum to Site Lease Agreement was acknowledged before me in my said jurisdiction by DAVID A. FAHNESTOCK, President of Winchester - Frederick County Conservation Club, Inc., a Virginia corporation, (Owner) on behalf of said corporation, this . _ day of November, 2002. My commission expires: - -- //140--- _ (Affix Notarial Seal) E. EUGENE GUNTER ATTORNEY AT LAW THE KENT BUILDING if TH KENT ST. .ESTER, VA. 22601 Page 4 of 5 NOTARY PUBLIC EUGENE GUNTER ATTORNEY AT LAW TTTE KENT BUQDRJG 7H KENT ST. &ZMR, YA. 22601 STATE -OF VIRGINIA CITY/QUNTY..OF 60---C, tc. to wit: The foregoing Addendum to Site Lease Agreement was acknowledged before me in my said jurisdiction by KAMAL C. DOSHI, President of Shared Towers, Inc., a Virginia corporation, (Lessee) on behalf of said corporation, this -., i, _ day of November, 2002. My commission expires: t e t9ruc.v ,�-(?ci, Lc<jy- (Affix Notarial Seal) NOTARY UBLI . Page 5 of 5 a • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark Cheran, Planner I RE: Discussion of Ordinance Change for Semi -Trailers DATE: January 7, 2004 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee at it's October 23, 2003, meeting discussed the existing zoning ordinance requirements regarding semi -trailers. The current ordinance is written such that, no trailer, regardless of its size or type may be kept anywhere in the RP, R5, R4, MS (Residential Component) or MH 1 Zoning Districts. It has been recognized that the semi -trailer 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. Staff has researched how other jurisdictions regulate trailers, and proposes changes to the current Frederick Zoning Ordinance to regulate semi -trailers. Section 165-27 D of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance has been amended to reflect the new definition of semi -trailers. A new definition of Business Vehicle RP has been added for use with a Home Occupation. 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. Existing: Section 165-27 D of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states the following: No part of a tractor truck, tractor truck trailer, semitrailer, bus or dump truck shall be parked or stored within the RP Residential Performance District, the RS Residential Community District or the MI -I] Mobile Home Community District. Any truck with a total length of 25 feet or greater shall not be parked or stored within the RP, R5 or MHI Zoning Districts. [Amended 6-9-1993] 107 north Kent Street -, Winchester, Virginia 2201-5000 Proposed Section 165-27 D as amended: No part of an over -the -road tractor -trailer truck, tractor truck, tractor -truck trailer, bus, dump truck over twenty-five (25) feet in length or greater, or shipping container with a trailer twenty (20) feet or greater in length, shall be parked or stored within the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community, the R5 Residential Community District, the MHI Mobile Home Community District, or the MS Medical Support District (Residential Component). Any vehicle or trailer used in conjunction with a home occupation must be in compliance with the definition of Business Vehicle RP of the Zoning Ordinance. Existing The Zoning Ordinance defines a semi -trailer as: Every vehicle of the trailer type so designed and used in conjunction with a motor vehicle that some part of its own weight and that of its own load rests on or is carried by another vehicle. Proposed The new Zoning Ordinance definition of a trailer: A trailer that is greater than twenty (20) feet in length used in conjunction with a motor vehicle over one- and -one-half (1.5) tons, equipped with a coupling device to be pulled on the highway. Proposed The new Zoning Ordinance definition of Business Vehicle RP: Business Vehicle RP: Any vehicle and or utility trailer used by the owner or tenant in conjunction with a home occupation shall not exceed a rated capacity of one -and -one-half (1.5) tons. Such vehicle or trailer shall not have more than two (2) axles and total length of twenty-five (25) feet. All business vehicles must be in compliance with Section 165-27 D of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The business name, address, telephone number, and/or e-mail address can be located on the vehicle. Prohibited uses: Tow trucks, roll -back trucks, dump trucks, box trucks, stake bed trucks, heavy equipment and heavy equipment flat bed trailers or step -vans with a gross weight of greater than 10,000 pounds.