Loading...
PC 07-21-04 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia July 21, 2004 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) June 2, 2004 and June 16, 2004 Minutes .................................... (A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................ (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments ................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Rezoning #07-04 of William H. Lawrence, III, submitted by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone 1.965 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located south and adjacent to Clearbrook Presbyterian Church on the east side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 N), surrounded to the east and south by Clearbrook Park, and is identified with Property Identification Number 33-A-162 in the Stonewall Magisterial District Mr. Mohn............................................................ (B) 5) 2005-2006 Update of the Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvement Plans. The Secondary, Primary and Interstate Road improvement Plans establish local priorities for improvements to the Secondary, Arterial, and Interstate Roads in Frederick County. Comments from the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. The priorities recommended by the Board of Supervisors shall be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for funding consideration. Mr. Camp............................................................(C) PUBLIC MEETING 6) The Revocation of Conditional Use Permit #017-90 of White Oak Trading Post for an existing campground and expansion of the store by 75%. The property is located at the northwest corner of Routes 277 and 636 and is identified with Property Identification Number 86 -A -143-A in the Opequon Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran ...........................................................(D) 7) Master Development Plan 902-03 for Regents Crescent, submitted by Bowman Consulting, for residential and commercial uses. The property is located on North Frederick Pike (Route 522 N), approximately 450 feet south of Oakside Lane, in the Sunnyside neighborhood, and is identified with Property Identification Number 53-A-53, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Camp............................................................ (E) DISCUSSION 8) Ordinance Amendment - Adding MS (Medical Support) District within the Ordinance Mr. Cheran ........................................................... (F) 9) Ordinance Amendment - Adding Tractor/Trailer Definition within the Ordinance, Section 165-27 Mr. Cheran ...........................................................(G) 10) Other • • .-. 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 June 2, 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; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; and Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II, Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; David Beniamino, Planner I; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 7, 2004 Upon motion made by Commissioner Fisher and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of April 7, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1304 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 05/27/04 Commissioner Thomas reported that DRRS discussed possible changes to the ordinance regarding drive-in lanes and they discussed whether conditions should be included with car washes locating in a B2 Zoning District. Commissioner Thomas said that other topics of discussion for future DRRS meetings will include hog farming, buffers, and flex tech. Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Commissioner Light reported that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors held a joint work session to discuss and determine the direction of the Rural Areas Study. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #08-04 of Virginia Edwards for a Cottage Occupation/ Photography Studio. This property, zoned RP (Residential Performance), is located at 143 Darby Drive (Rt. 1524), in the Ravenwing development, and is identified with P.I.N. 64G-2-3-151 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner David Beniamino read the background information and review agency continents. Planner Beniamino stated that the applicant has advised that the activity will be conducted in a room inside the residence and that customers will be handled on an appointment -only basis. He said there were no negative comments from any of the reviewing agencies and there will be no employees other than those who reside on the premises. Planner Beniamino read the staff's list of recommended conditions for the permit. Referring to Condition #3, which limited the number of customers to ten per week, a member of the Commission questioned how it would be possible for the staff to enforce limiting the number of customers. There were also questions on how the staff arrived at the customer quota and if the limitation was necessary. Staff replied that although the customer limitation was not enforceable, it offered a tool to measure any increase in the intensity of the use. Staff noted that the number was determined through conversations with the applicant. Mrs. Virginia Edwards, the applicant, said that she was satisfied with the number of customers specified within the conditions. To give the Planning Commission a perspective on the number of clients she expects, Mrs. Edwards explained that while working out of her home in Loudoun County, she had no more than 45 customers per year over the previous 16 years. She commented that her business is only part-time and normally, she would go to the client's location. Mrs. Edwards was not interested in erecting a sign. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1305 -3- A Planning Commissioner pointed out the request by the Winchester Regional Airport that their comments concerning airport noise be acknowledged by the owner in the approval process. Mrs. Edwards said that she was aware of the airport's concerns and did not believe it would present any problems for her; she said she used to live next to Dulles Airport. There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Straub, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Pernut #08-04 of Virginia Edwards fora Cottage Occupation/ Photography Studio at 143 Darby Drive with the following conditions: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No signs associated with this conditional use permit will be allowed on the property. 3. No more than ten customers per week shall come to the residence in association with this conditional use permit. 4. Any expansion or modification of the facilities will require a new conditional use permit. (Note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) Conditional Use Permit #09-04 of James A. Bayliss and Barbara V. Bayliss for a Cottage Occupation/ Real Estate Brokerage. This property is located at 2680 Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50 West) and is identified with P.I.N. 52-A-56 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner Mark R. Cheran read the background information and stated there were no adverse comments received from any of the reviewing agencies. Planner Cheran stated that the proposed application was in response to a zoning complaint that the staff received. He said the applicant, Mr. Bayliss, reported to staff that the proposed use would occur at his residence; there will be no large-scale real estate sales activity; the customer base is managed over the telephone and computer; and, there will be no employees associated with the proposed use, other than those residing in the dwelling. Planner Cheran stated that based on the limited scale of the proposed use and an evaluation of the property, it appears the use would not have a significant impact on the adjoining properties. A member of the Commission asked about the nature of the complaint received by the staff. Mr. Cheran explained that during the review of Mr. Bayliss's business license review form, it was determined that the applicant was not in compliance for a cottage occupation. In addition, a field check of the site indicated Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1306 -4 - the applicant had an illegal sign. Mr. James A. Bayliss, the applicant, explained that this will be a family business, primarily just himself and his wife. Mr. Bayliss said that after some reflection, he wondered whether it would be possible to have the option of one temporary administrative employee and one licensed employee, if by chance an illness would happen to either himself or his wife. Members of the Commission explained to Mr. Bayliss that the requirement for the sign size was two -feet by two -feet, not four -feet by four -feet. Mr. Bayliss said that he would modify the size of his existing sign to meet those requirements. Commissioners also asked Mr. Bayliss if he was comfortable with the condition which limited the number of customers to five at any one time on the site. Mr. Bayliss believed that limiting the number of customers to five would be adequate and he was comfortable with that condition. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. The Planning Commission believed the request for the two temporary employees would not have an adverse affect on the neighborhood; therefore, it was added as a fifth condition to those conditions recommended by the staff. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Straub, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #09-04 of James A. Bayliss and Barbara V. Bayliss for a Cottage Occupation/ Real Estate Brokerage at 2680 Northwestern Pike with the following five conditions: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than five customers at any one time on site. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements; and shall not exceed four square feet in size. 4. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit. 5. Up to two temporary employees allowed. (Please note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) Conditional Use Permit #10-04 of Charles D. Brown for a Motel/ Bed and Breakfast at 161 McCarty Lane (Rt. 50 East). This property is identified with P.I.N. 65-3-8 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner Mark R. Cheran provided the background information and stated that the proposed application is in response to a zoning complaint that staff received. Planner Cberan stated that the applicant Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1307 -5 - was cited for operating a motel/ bed and breakfast use without an approved conditional use permit. He said the applicant's proposed use will take place on five acres of land with the nearest adjacent residence being 50 feet from the proposed use. The applicant proposes to have outdoor events at this site, such as weddings and other outdoor events, consisting of no more than 25 people at any one event. Planner Cheran said that staff would require a site plan and a new conditional use permit, if events exceed 25 people at any one event. He added there will be no employees associated with the proposed use, other than those persons residing in the dwelling. He further added that based on the limited scale of the proposed use and evaluation of the property, it appears the use would not have any significant impacts on the adjoining properties. Mr. Charles D. Brown, the applicant, stated that they are starting their tenth year in business. Mr. Brown said he was one of the first in the county to be approved for a bed and breakfast and, at that time, all that was required was a business license and a health permit. He said the Health Department visits annually and their water is tested. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and two adjoining property owners came forward to speak regarding the motel/ bed and breakfast. Mr. Joseph Alger, the adjoining property owner to the west, said that initially, he did not object to the bed and breakfast; but recently it has grown into a sizable business and commercial enterprises are prohibited by the deed covenants to the properties in this area. Mr. Alger expressed concerns about impacts of traffic on the gravel road and possible impacts to the groundwater and septic system. He said that he has gotten the impression from the applicant that he can not conduct normal, outside maintenance work in his yard at his own time and discretion. Mr. Donald Pearson, an adjoining property owner to the south, had no issues with the bed and breakfast operation and was supportive of the permit approval. A member ofthe Commission raised a concern about the amount oftraffic associated with the bed and breakfast. No other outstanding issues of concern were raised by the Planning Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Thomas to approve the conditional use permit with conditions. This motion passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit # 10-04 of Charles D. Brown for a Motel/ Bed and Breakfast at 161 McCarty Lane, with the following conditions: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than five overnight guests allowed on any given day. No more than 25 people per any one event under this conditional use permit. 4. Any proposed business sign shall conform to cottage occupation sign requirements; and shall not exceed four square feet in size. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1308 Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit with a site plan. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Fisher, Kriz, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub NO: Rosenberry, Gochenour (Please note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #06-04 of Rutherford, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc., to rezone 13.4 acres from the RA (Rural Areas); B2 (Business General); B3 (Industrial Transition); and MI (Light Industrial) Districts to the B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) Districts. The subject acreage is located within the northwest quadrant of the Interstate 81 interchange area, which is north and adjacent to Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North), and east and adjacent to Interstate 81, and is identified by Property Identification Number(s) 43 -A -96,43 -A -97,43 -A -98,43 -A -99,43-A-100, 43-A-101, and 43-A- 111 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, explained that approximately two years ago, a rezoning was approved for Rutherford, LLC on property consisting of about 150 acres. He said that recently, the applicant was able to acquire an adjoining 0.75 -acre parcel which they are interested incorporating within their 132 zoning. When the applicant conducted a market analysis, however, they realized that shifting some of the zoning district boundaries would enhance the property's marketability. Director Lawrence said that the traffic analysis is not impacted, nothing that was considered two years ago at the original rezoning is impacted, and the proffer submitted by the applicant is identical to what submitted two years ago, in order to provide consistency. Commission members raised the issue of whether the applicant's public improvements plan would still accommodate the project with the 20% additional trips per day generated as a result of the increase in B 1 and 132 uses and the decrease in M1 uses. It was pointed out that the change in the traffic mix could alter the amount of stacking lanes needed and the amount of back-up expected entering and exiting I-81 during peak hours. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, the applicant's representative, stated that their analysis concluded that the slight change in the uses for the property did not compromise the integrity of the public improvements plan that was engineered from the original proffers. The applicant stated that based on the new traffic mix, VDOT was comfortable that the original traffic proffers would adequately mitigate the additional traffic. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1309 -7- VDOT representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, confirmed that considering the reconfiguration of the new traffic mix and increased vehicle trips per day, in addition to the existing traffic, VDOT was comfortable there would be sufficient stacking and turn lanes to accommodate the numbers. In addition, Mr. Ingram mentioned the two entrances, one consisting of a continuous right and the other a full intersection, along with the road layout, all of which, he believed, would contribute to the proper flow of traffic. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommended approval of Rezoning #06-04 of Rutherford, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc., to rezone 13.4 acres from the RA (Rural Areas); B2 (Business General); B3 (Industrial Transition); and M1 (Light Industrial) Districts to the B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) Districts. (Please note: Commissioners Triplett and Ours were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #03-04 for Fieldstone Subdivision, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for up to 63 single-family detached urban homes and 225 townhouses. The property is located south of Valley Mill Road (Route 659), to the east of Carlisle Heights Subdivision, and is identified with Property Identification Number 55-A-181, in the Red Bud District. Action - Recommended Approval of the Master Development Plan and Recommended Approval of the Lot Access Waiver Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that the preliminary master development plan (MDP) revision for Fieldstone Subdivision was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 7, 2004, primarily based on the MDP's insufficient transportation planning. The Planning Commission also denied a waiver request during this meeting which would have allowed individual lots to be in excess of 500 feet from a state -maintained road. Planner Camp stated that on May 12, 2004, the Board of Supervisors voted to send the Fieldstone Subdivision MDP revision back to the Planning Commission; the Board made this decision in order to give the applicant another opportunity to address the density and transportation concerns the Planning Commission had raised during their review on April 7, 2004. Planner Camp continued, stating that the applicant has chosen not to extend the proposed state road to the property line to allow for possible future development; nor has the applicant made any other changes to the plan since the Planning Commission recommended denial on April 7, 2004. He explained that the failure to extend Nassau Drive to the eastern property line may impact the development potential of the properties to the east, and may not provide for an improved future transportation network to serve this area of Frederick County as well. Planner Camp said the original Fieldstone MDP was approved in 1988, prior to the adoption of the Eastern Road Plan; this is why previous revisions to the Fieldstone Subdivision did not require Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1310 -8 - the development to extend the road to the eastern property line. He said that both the 1996 and 2002 revisions proposed a reduction in the total number of residential units. Planner Camp pointed out that the proposed revision under consideration this evening is an increase of 135 units, consisting of a change from single-family detached dwellings to townhouses, and the revision has changed the internal public road network to a private road network. He said the staff believes the changes will generate additional impacts to Frederick County residents and because of these impacts, the staff looks to the developer to provide basic transportation improvements. Several representatives for the applicant, Arcadia Building Company, were available to address the various issues that had previously been raised at the Commission's April 7, 2004 meeting. Those representatives included Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, the design engineers for the project; Mr. John Callow, Vice President with Patton, Harris, & Rust, the transportation engineers; and Mr. Doug Flemming, legal counsel. It was the representatives' opinion that the MDP was well within the required density. Specifically, it was noted that the revision involved only Section 2 by changing the 90 single-family units to 225 townhouses; the staff report indicated that 5.5 units per acre was the allowable density for this project. The applicant's representatives stated that with the change in their MDP, including the 63 single- family dwelling units in Section 1, they have 288 total units, which is 230 units less than what is permitted by the ordinance. Regarding the requested waiver, the applicant's representatives stated that the Planning Commission has granted such waivers in the past for similar subdivisions, if a satisfactory circulation pattern had been provided. The circulation pattern proposed was described; they noted that if the waiver was not approved, they would simply extend the state road portion to meet the 500 -foot requirement. The applicant's representatives next addressed the issue of the overall transportation network and the issue of Nassau Drive not connecting to the east. The applicant's representatives noted that the Channing Drive construction, which is a key component of the Eastern Road Plan, had been accomplished through the Fieldstone subdivision from Valley Mill Road to the northern property limits. They believed the developers have done their part to implement the Comprehensive Policy Plan by constructing their portion of Charming Drive and by contributing $20,000 towards the traffic signal at the Greenwood Road/ Valley Mill Road intersection, and by entering into a signalization agreement with VDOT at Channing Drive. It was noted by the representatives that the Comprehensive Plan does not call for nor promote an east -west collector road through the Fieldstone community. In addition, it was their opinion that the subdivision ordinance did not mandate a road connection to the adjoining Adams property. In addition, there seemed to be a discrepancy from the applicant's point of view as to why the Board of Supervisors was sending the MDP back to the Planning Commission. The applicant Is representatives believed the Board of Supervisors' motion was, "...to direct the Planning Commission to resolve the density issues and bring back the MDP to the Board's first meeting in June." The applicant believed this was not accurately represented in the staff's report. Members ofthe Planning Commission were of the opinion that VDOT had requested a revised traffic impact analysis because of the number of trips per day had doubled with the revision of the townhouses in Section 2. However, after further discussion, it was determined that a revised traffic analysis was not conducted; the applicant's representatives noted that when the developer came forward with their contribution for the traffic signal, there was no further discussion from VDOT regarding the need for additional revisions Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of .lune 2, 2004 Page 1311 to the traffic study. Other transportation issues raised involved the Commission's desire for inter -parcel connectors and their dislike of funneling traffic from a four -lane road down to a one -lane bridge. Some of the Commissioners anticipated major future transportation problems. Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments and four citizens who live in the vicinity of this development spoke, as follows: Mr. Bob Carter, a resident on Valley Mill Road, came forward to speak about his concerns regarding traffic on Valley Mill Road. Mr. Carter did not believe the developers were doing their part in the way of contributing money towards road improvements. Mr. Tim Stafford, area resident, offered to employ, at his own expense, an outside traffic engineer to review and comment on the transportation issues in order to get another point of view. Mr. Stafford said that he did not understand how Fieldstone could be developed without a storm water management system. He expressed concern that the water runoff from the clear-cut slopes along the Channing Drive construction route flowed directly into Abrams Creek. He said that each time it rains, he loses another 50 -year old tree on his farm because of impervious areas that are not being managed. Mr. Stafford believed that developers coming into Frederick County from other areas should be required to do a greater amount of improvements before they are granted approval for their projects. He believed that the Frederick County taxpayers will be left to maintain and manage public facilities long after the developers have gone. Mr. Gary Adams, the executor of the adjacent Goldies, LLC tract, wanted to go on record to state that this property is currently under contract for development with a major contractor out of the Washington, D.C. area. Mr. Adams said that at one time, when Mr. George Glaize owned the property before Arcadia bought it, he had a master development plan that showed two connector roads going into Goldies, LLC. Mr. Richard Racey, resident across from Channing Drive, agreed with all of the other comments that were made. Additionally, Mr. Racey raised concerns about the impacts to schools, roads, and the environment. He also questioned the need for these townhouses. Because the waiver associated with this request had been recommended for denial at the Commission's April 7, 2004 meeting, members ofthe Commission were ofthe opinion that the master plan was not in compliance with the subdivision ordinance. Commissioners believed the master plan should not be approved without re -addressing the waiver request. Mr. Lawrence Ambrogi, legal counsel for the Commission, believed that both issues could be considered together. Mr. Ambrogi also advised that the master plan should be approved, if all ordinance requirements were met. The Planning Commission expressed their concern about the cumulative affect of the traffic impacts from previously -approved developments in this area. Commission members stated that it was difficult to predict the cumulative traffic impact when the densities of proposed developments continue to change. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1312 -10 - BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of a lot access distance waiver, allowing residences on private drives up to 624 feet from a public road, and also recommends approval of MDP #03-04 Fieldstone subdivision. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, Thomas, Kriz, Fisher NO: Straub, Gochenour, DeHaven, Rosenberry (Commissioners Triplett and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Master Development Plan #06-04 of Winchester Medical Center II, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, for retail, commercial and medical support use on approximately 102 acres, zoned B2 (Business General) and MS (Medical Support) Districts. The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 37 and Route 50 West, and is identified with Property Identification Number 53-A-68, in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Planner Jeremy F. Camp reported the background information for the Commission. He stated that the parcel is entirely within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area); there are no known environmental restraints; the proposed internal private road network will be designed to meet state road standards as required by the zoning ordinance; and, a waiver by the Board of Supervisors will be required to allow individual lots to access private roads. He noted that Botanical Boulevard, the proffered major collector road, is the only proposed public road into the development. Planner Camp next read the list of the applicant's proffers, most of which focused on the mitigation of traffic. Members of the Commission noted that VDOT had raised a number of issues and they questioned whether those issues had been resolved. Planner Camp replied that VDOT was comfortable with the plan and he believed the issues identified would not prohibit the plan from proceeding forward. In addition, the Commission raised questions concerning the timing of development, the possibility of a western access to the Route 37 Interchange, and the construction of Echo Lane. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with G. W. Clifford & Associates, a division of Patton, Harris, and Rust, the design engineers for this project, was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Maddox gave a presentation of the master plan to the Commission. He assured the Commission that the road plan will be in place as part of the first use established within the B2 portion of development. It was determined that the Planning Commission did not need to provide a formal recommendation on the requested lot access waiver because the granting of the waiver required only Board of Supervisors' action. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1313 -11 - Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend that administrative approval be authorized for the Winchester Medical Center II Master Development Plan #06- 04, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, for retail, commercial, and medical support use on approximately 102 acres, zoned B2 (Business General) and MS (Medical Support) Districts. (Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) Master Development Plan #07-04 of the WWW Property (Round Hill Crossing), submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. for retail and commercial uses on 23 acres, zoned B2 (Business General) District. The property is located north and adjacent to Route 50 West, approximately 1,700 feet west of Rt. 37, and is identified with P.I.N.s 52 -A -B and 53-A-79 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Planner Jeremy F. Camp gave the background information and spoke about the phasing of the major collector road. He pointed out that the proffer statement indicates that the timing and phasing of Petticoat Gap Lane will be established during the MDP process. Planner Camp said that upon consideration of the amount of traffic expected during Phase 1 of the development, which is anticipated to be large retail, staff believed it was crucial to establish the connection with the WMC (Winchester Medical Center) site during Phase 1. He said that this was in conflict with the applicant's proposal to construct Petticoat Gap Lane during Phase 2 of the development. He commented that not constructing the road until Phase 2 fails to provide connection until after the majority of traffic impacts are realized. Planner Camp stated that a connection with the WMC during Phase 1 will reduce the impact of traffic on Northwestern Pike (Rt 50W), by allowing vehicles to travel between commercial developments rather than having to get back onto the arterial road. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., a division of Patton, Harris, & Rust, the project design engineers, was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Maddox stated that there was a significant amount of transportation improvements planned for Phase 1 on this project; he proceeded to describe those for the Commission. Commission members had questions concerning how the phasing of Petticoat Gap Lane could be accomplished. Mr. Maddox agreed to construct two of the proffered four lanes of Petticoat Gap Lane during Phase I construction, so long as Botanical Boulevard on the WMC II property is constructed, and to leave the remaining two lanes until Phase 2. Mr. Maddox said that the applicant is requesting a waiver to the section of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance which requires all lots to have direct access to a public street or right-of-way. This waiver would allow individual commercial lots to be subdivided with access to the proposed private internal circulation road, referred to as Little North Mount Road on the preliminary MDP. Staff pointed out Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1314 -12 - that the Board of Supervisors could grant the lot access waiver; therefore, a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission was not necessary. Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments, however, no one came forward to speak. A member of the Commission believed that the types of businesses proposed in this MDP were in direct conflict with what is being envisioned for the community centers promoted by the Rural Areas Study. Other members ofthe Commission believed the MDP was appropriate and was consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Plann g Commission does hereby recommend that administrative approval be authorized for the WWW Property (Round Hill Crossing), Master Development Plan 407-04, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. for retail and commercial uses on 23 acres, zoned B2 (Business General) District. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Rosenberry, Fisher, Kriz, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub NO: Gochenour (Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PIPESTEM LOTS; SPECIFICALLY, RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH A DISPROPORTIONATELY NARROW STRIP OF LAND USED FOR ACCESS. County Planner Mark R. Cheran stated that the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) evaluated a request to allow pipestem lots as an alternative lot design in Frederick County. He reported the DRRS did not support allowing an unlimited number of pipestem lots per development, nor did they support pipestems on shared driveways and lots; the DRRS believed that pipestem lots with shared driveways would create problems between property owners. Mr. Cheran said that the DRRS recommended a proposed ordinance amendment for pipestem lots which incorporated several design standards. He said the key design standards included limiting the total number of pipestem lots in a development to no more than 5% of all lots, and restricting all pipestem lots except those with single -lot driveways. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1315 -13 - Planner Cheran continued, stating that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment at a public hearing on February 4, 2004. However, at the Board of Supervisors' public hearing on February 25, 2004, the Board defeated the proposed amendment by a majority vote and referred the amendment back to the Planning Commission for further study. Planner Cheran said that specifically, the Board had concerns about Fire and Rescue accessibility and, in addition, they were concerned about pipestems coming off of cul-de-sacs. Planner Cheran said that he contacted Fire and Rescue and they were comfortable with the length of the pipestems described in the proposed amendment. Regarding pipestems off cul-de-sacs, Planner Cheran said that as long as the developer was meeting the design standards of the ordinance, he did not believe this situation would present a problem. Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering had initiated this ordinance amendment request for the Commission's and Board's consideration. Mr. Smith and his staff used a pictorial presentation to illustrate the various potential scenarios where a pipestem lot would be utilized. He noted that the request for pipestems would only occur in developments within the UDA (Urban Development Area)_ He explained that these small areas within a proposed development would not be considered good, quality open space; therefore, they believed the space could be better utilized with a dwelling unit. A member of the Commission inquired if the pipestem drive would be considered a private driveway and included as part of the residence. Mr. Smith replied that it would and is fee simple to the lot. Commission members commented that from a marketing perspective, lots with pipestems may be considered as a more desirable lot; they said the length of the driveway actually created the "sense" of a larger lot. Greenway representatives agreed and noted that lots with long driveways are considered to be premium lots. Commissioners pointed out that long, unpaved driveways are currently being utilized in the rural areas with no regulations. Board of Supervisors' Liaison, Mr. Gary Dove, said that the Board turned down the ordinance amendment by a six -to -one vote. Mr. Dove said he believed the pictorial presentation by Greenway should be done for the Board. He added that the Board considered pipestem lots to be undesirable lots, however, to the contrary, they are considered by home buyers to be premium lots. Mr. Dove believed this was a good use of the land; he said he voted in favor of it and would like to see it sent back to the Board. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. stated that he was in support of the proposed amendment; he believed it would help the UDA effort and is a better utilization of land. The Planning Commission believed the recommendations of the DRRS were sound and were in favor of sending the amendment back to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission unanimously endorses the ordinance amendment for pipestem lots in the UDA with design standards as recommended by the DRRS and does hereby forward the amendment to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1316 -14 - DISCUSSION OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF LISTING USES BY STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION CODES IN THE B2 (BUSINESS GENERAL) ZONING DISTRICT. County Planner Mark R. Cheran stated that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) recommended the exclusion of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) uses from the B2 (Business General) Zoning District at their meeting on April 29, 2004. The DRRS believed these SIC uses may not be appropriate, nor meet the intent of the B2 Zoning District, and recommended that they be added to the appropriate zoning districts. The Planning Commission believed the amendment would assist in clarification of the code and was appropriate as recommended by the DRRS. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, the Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the adoption ofthe ordinance amendment to exclude uses listed by Standard Industrial Classification Codes in the B2 (Business General) Zoning District and to include these uses within their appropriate zoning districts in the code, as recommended by the DRRS. This proposed amendment is to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 144-17L, CURB AND GUTTER CONSTRUCTION, TO AMEND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT FROM 12,000 SQUARE FEET TO 15,000 SQUARE FEET. County Planner Mark R. Cheran stated that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) recommended a change to Section 144-17L, Curbs and Gutters, of the Subdivision Ordinance at their meeting of May 17, 2004. Planner Cheran said that a potential discrepancy in the language regarding residential curb and gutter requirements was identified. The suggested text amendment would clarify that residential developments with lot sizes less than 15,000 square feet would require curb and gutter. Planner Cheran noted that this is not a new requirement, but merely a clarification point. County Zoning Administrator Patrick T. Davenport explained that the zoning ordinance has a lot size category of 12,000 square feet and up, while the subdivision ordinance specifies 12,000 square feet or less. Zoning Administrator Davenport said that staff was seeking to clarify the requirement for curb and gutter on lots between 12,000 and 15,000 square feet. He stated that this amendment will clarify that all lots less than 15,000 square feet will be required to have curb and gutter. Commissioner Thomas recalled that when the curb and gutter requirements were initially placed within the ordinance, the intent at that time was specifically for lots 15,000 square feet and under. The Planning Commission believed the amendment was appropriate as presented by the DRRS. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1317 -15 - Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the adoption of the subdivision ordinance amendment to Section 144-17L, Curb and Gutter Construction, to amend the square footage requirement from 12,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet, as recommended by the DRRS, and sends this amendment forward to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. OTHF,R DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence raised the issue of the master development plan process for discussion. Director Lawrence inquired whether the Planning Commission would prefer to continue to review master development plans at a public meeting or if they would prefer to have them be reviewed and approved administratively. He said that historically, the Planning Commission has given citizens the opportunity to comment during a public meeting format, however, the Board of Supervisors does not provide that opportunity because a master development plan is considered to be an administrative review process. Planning Commissioners believed the public meetings with citizen comments have provided considerable beneficial information and they were in favor of continuing in that same format. However, they also sought to have a better understanding of what the Commission can or can not do, based on the guidance oftheir legal counsel. A suggestion was made to have additional work sessions to discuss the issues pertaining to various items on agendas. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes at June 2, 2004 Page 1318 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 June 16, 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; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; and Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II, Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; Candice Mills, Planner I; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 21 2004 AND MAY 5 2004 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, the minutes of April 21, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes of May 5, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 16, 2004 Page 1319 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS is continuing with the rural areas discussions. Commissioner Light said the meetings generally are an overview of where we progressed from and where we hope to progress to. He said the CPPS is diligently working towards these answers. Transportation Committee Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee will meet tomorrow evening, June 17, 2004 to begin review of the road improvement plans. Historic Resources Advisory Board Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB members have completed their training and are eager to put into practice what they have learned. She said the HRAB members are especially anxious to work with applicants who have property with historic significance and are anxious to show how to preserve the historical integrity to the financial benefit of the applicant. Sanitation Authority (Authority) - 06/15/04 Mtg. Commissioner Fisher stated that the Authority's Engineer/ Director, Wellington H. Jones, reported that the Service Authority approved the expansion of the Parkins Mill wastewater plant; in addition, the water and sewer project to extend service to the Route 50 West area is just about ready to go to bid. Commissioner Fisher said the Authority received a request for water and sewer service to the Willow Run Service Area (White -Marshal Properties). He explained that the original request had been for City service, however, the Sanitation Authority passed a motion for the Authority to provide the requested service. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #11-04 of Douglas Lowell for an antique shop trading as Country Treasures. The property is located at 4850 Front Royal Pike (Rt. 5225) and is identified with P.I.N. 94A-1-3-1 in Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 16, 2004 Page 1320 -3 - the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions County Planner Candice Mills provided the background information to the Commission. Planner Mills stated the 1.5 -acre property is currently vacant, however, the applicant is seeking to construct a 50 -foot by 100 -foot structure for his proposed business. Planner Mills reported that there were no negative comments from the reviewing agencies. She presented a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following citizens came forward to speak: Mr. William Mathews, a property owner behind the Wishing Well Gift Shop, wanted to know how many stories were proposed for the new building because he was concerned about the structure blocking his view. Mr. Hampton Thomas, an adjoining property owner, was concerned about possible fumes that may be generated from refinishing furniture at the proposed antique shop. Mr. Douglas Lowell, the applicant, stated that the building will be a 50 -foot by 100 -foot, one- story structure. Mr. Lowell said that his shop will retail furniture, home decor, candles, and gifts. He assured the Commission there will be no refinishing work done on the premises. No issues of concern were raised by the Planning Commission and they believed the use to be appropriate. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval ofthe conditional use permit with the same conditions as recommended by the staff, as follows: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. An engineered site plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County; this includes landscaping requirements per §165-27E of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. All identified improvements shall be installed prior to issuance of a business license. Additional landscaping shall be provided to enhance the commercial corridor of Front Royal Pike. This landscaping shall be in addition to what is required by § 165-27E of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. 3. Signage shall be limited to one illuminated free-standing business sign, not to exceed 50 square feet in area and ten (10) feet in height, along the frontage of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522S.) 4. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited. Any expansions, modifications, or changes of use shall require approval of a new conditional use permit. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 16, 2004 Page 1321 -4 - The revocation of Conditional Use Permit #17-90 of White Oak Trading Post for an existing campground and expansion of the store by 75%. This property is located at the northwest corner of Routes 277 and 636 and is identified with P.I.N. 86-A-143 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Tabled for 30 Days County Planner, Mark R. Cheran, stated that Conditional Use Permit (CUP) # 17-90 of White Oak Trading Post was approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 12, 1990 to allow for an existing campground and expansion of the store by 75%. Planner Cheran read the conditions of approval for this CUP. He said that after receiving complaints of zoning violations on the property, the staff inspected the property on March 24, 2004 and confirmed there were violations of the existing conditions placed on CUP #17-90. Planner Cheran noted that the violation involving automobile sales has ceased, however, the violation of inoperable motor vehicles is ongoing with regards to campers. In addition, he said that during the March 24 inspection, staff noted that tenants at the campground are staying longer than 30 days and a restaurant is being operated from the country store, both of which constitute violations of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and conditions of the CUP. Mrs. Katherine Yancey, the owner of the property, said that she moved into White Oak on May 30, 1987 and purchased the property on September 24, 1987. Mrs. Yancey said that she is not currently operating White Oak; for the previous 12 months, she has leased the property. Chairman DeHaven confirmed with Mrs. Yancey that she does indeed have a written lease agreement and he assumed the lease holder would be responsible under the terms of the lease for meeting the requirements of the County. Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that the applicant has retained counsel, but unfortunately, the counsel is in Federal Court in Harrisonburg and could not be at this evening's meeting. Chairman DeHaven advised that this individual deserves to be involved in this process. Mrs. Phyllis Mainhart, the lease holder, said that when she began her lease with Mrs. Yancey about a year ago, the full-time campers were already there and the deli was already set up. She said there was nothing in the lease agreement specifying that people couldn't live in the campground. She said she applied for and received an approved health permit. Mrs. Mainhart said that she did not add anything extra to the kitchen, nor did she increase the seating; however, her food production increased because she geared the business to working people in the area. She said she just took over the business and ran it like it had always been run. She added that neighbors asked her if they could sell their car and she did not think there would be anything wrong with that. She said that no alcoholic beverages are sold. Mrs. Mainhart said that as soon as Mrs. Yancey told her of the violations, she called the neighbors to remove their vehicles and she notified the campers that they needed to bring their vehicles into compliance. Commission members discussed what needed to be done to bring this business into compliance. Planner Cheran stated that a new conditional use permit would need to be applied for to expand the business. He said the Health Department comments from the 1990 CUP specified there would be no restaurant use; the 1991 approved site plan for expansion of the store included a retail storage addition and parking, however, there was no mention of a restaurant use. A member of the Commission asked the staff what their recommendation on a new CUP might be with all of the activities that are occurring on the site. Planner Cheran replied that the County Code contains performance standards for campgrounds dealing with density; in addition, revised agency review comments would be needed, including the Health Department. He advised that those comments would have an influence on the staff's recommendation on the CUP_ Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 16, 2004 Page 1322 -5 - Commission members did not wish to shut down Mrs. Mainhart's business, but were primarily interested in how they could bring her business into compliance with the Frederick County Code. They also believed a tabling of the consideration ofthe revocation would be appropriate in order to allow all the interested parties to be involved in the process and to give Mrs. Mainhart an opportunity to apply for a new conditional use permit. Chairman DeHaven next called for citizen comments. Mr. Mike Fogal, the campground manager for White Oak Trading Post, stated that as soon as they became aware of the violations, he began notifying owners of the campers that their vehicle and camper needed to be operable; he said the owners are working to accomplish this. Mr. Fogal said they were not aware there was a maximum 30 -day limit on staying at the campground. He said that when Mrs. Mainhart took over the campground, there were several persons already living there from between three to five years. Mr. Fogal said that if these campers are not grandfathered to remain in the campground, he and Mrs. Mainhart will do what they need to, in order to comply with the County. Mr. Paul Floyd, a 27 -year resident of the Stephens City area, said that he has been going to Mrs. Yancey's store for 17 years. Mr. Floyd said that when Mrs. Mainhart took over the store, she cleaned it up and re -arranged things; he said her business has significantly increased and it's a more enjoyable place to go. Mr. Floyd said the clientele are local people; he thought it would be a terrible thing for this business to be closed down. Mr. Floyd next read a letter from Rev. Jackie Battle, who is the pastor at Liberty Baptist Church, as follows: "To Whom It May Concern: It is my understanding that the Planning and Zoning Commission will have a meeting to determine the status of a license issued to Phyllis Mainhart, White Oak Campground and Trading Post. Please allow me just a minute ofyour time to address this issue. I have lived in the area almost 20years and pastor within one mile of the campgrounds. I can say, with some certainty, that the campgrounds and store are being maintained in a fashion jar ahead of any previous operation. The campgrounds have improved, store facilities have enhanced, and cleanliness has improved. Daily meals are offered at a rate that most working day men and women can afford. It appears to me that the store is an asset to the community, not one that should be closed. Instead of another 7-11, Sheetz, or `pump and go, " we have local people, who are not just drawing a check or making money; they take pride in a job well done. I understand the store has been in violation of some county ordinances. After talking with Mrs. Mainheart, it seems that she is more than ready, in fact eager, to comply with any ordinance that she is not in compliance with. I am sure that with just a trivial amount of time, the entire facility will meet county codes. Rather than close down an asset to the community, it seems to me it would be beneficial to the communityfor the Planning Commission to work with her to insure a decent, honest place to gather. Sincerely yours, Jackie Battle Pastor, Liberty Baptist Church. " Another citizen, who did not state his name, said that he and his wife have lived about two miles from the White Oak Trading Post for the past 20 years. He said the store is maintained and is very clean. He spoke very highly of Mrs. Mainhart and her generosity towards others. He also spoke about how good the food was and that it was affordable. Mr. Ronald Dunlap, Sr. said that he has known Mrs. Mainhart for 40 years. Mr. Dunlap said that he used to live in one room at the Johnson Williams Community Apartments in Berryville. He had an opportunity to purchase a camper and he moved to the campground; he said he couldn't believe that people are now telling him that he can't stay where he wants to live. Mr. Dunlap said there are quite a number of people Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 16, 2004 Page 1323 M who live in the campers because it's the only place they have to live. Mr. Dunlap hoped the County would allow him and the others to stay at the campground because they are happy there and are pleased with Mrs. Mainhart. Mr. Billy Collins said that he painted the White Oak Trading Post for Mrs. Mainhart and he commented about its cleanliness. He also spoke highly of Mrs. Mainhart's generosity and kindness. He also stated that she makes excellent food. Ms. Diane Randall, an employee of Mrs. Mainhart for the past year, said that she enjoys working for Mrs. Mainhart. Ms. Randall said they see more new people everyday; she said that everyone enjoys coming and they like the food. Ms. Randall said they have had two inspections from the Health Department with no violations and an inspector from Richmond told Mrs. Mainhart they were doing a tremendous job and to keep up the good work. No one else wished to speak and Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Regarding the campground situation, some Commissioners were of the opinion that this campground did not necessarily fall within the traditional definition of a campground. Staff noted that they would work with the property owner's counsel and the building official to see what options are available. Staff also agreed to work with the applicant on applying for a new conditional use permit. Commissioner Gochenour moved to table the revocation for 30 days, or longer if needed, in order to give Mrs. Mainhart time to apply for a new conditional use permit. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table consideration of the revocation of Conditional Use Permit # 17-90 of White Oak Trading Post for 30 days, with the option of extending the tabling if additional time is needed by the applicant. Rezoning #03-04 of the Racey Tract (Meadows Edge), submitted by Blue Springs View, L.L.C., to rezone 105.65 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District. This property is located east of I-81, approximately'/ mile south of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), east of Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012), and to the south of Ridgefield Avenue (Rt. 1065), along Ewing Lane. This property is south of Ridgefield Subdivision, east of Stephens Ridge Subdivision, and west of Woodside Subdivision, in the Opequon Magisterial District. It is identified with P.I.N.s 85-A-140. Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers Planner Jeremy F. Camp provided the background information and stated that the application is a request to rezone 105.65 acres of land to the RP District to allow for the development of up to 228 single- family detached housing units. Planner Camp explained that on March 17, 2004, the Planning Commission tabled the rezoning because a public hearing sign had not been posted on the property. He said that public input was still received during the meeting and area residents spoke about their concerns, primarily in regards Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 16, 2004 Page 1324 -7 - to the closure of the Stephens City lagoon and transportation impacts. He stated that since March 17, the applicant has revised the rezoning application to include additional proffers and more detailed information; the sign has also been posted. Planner Camp stated that the revised proffer statement is both comprehensive and thorough in its attempt to mitigate potential impacts. He said the uncertainties raised during the Planning Commission's previous review of this application appear to have been addressed. Planner Camp continued, stating that the staff would like to point out four additional concerns regarding the proffer statement which staff believes need to be adequately addressed by the applicant. He identified those concerns as follows: 1) the proffer does not specifically guarantee the upgrade of Town Run Lane; 2) the proffer does not guarantee to have the proposed access road from Town Run Lane to the Racey Tract property line as the primary access to the site, nor is there a guarantee for it to be built prior to the connection with the Branch Court and Driftwood Drive connections; 3) the proffer does not guarantee that construction traffic will be limited to the access road which goes from Town Run Lane to the site; and 4) the proffer does not guarantee that the swimming pool will be constructed if the applicant stops construction at the 149'' building permit. A member of the Commission questioned the timeliness of these additional concerns. Staff responded that these were issues that have previously been raised with the applicant and through discussions had resolution; however, during a final review of the proffer, it was discovered not to have been properly captured. Mr. Scott C. Plein with Equinox Investments and Blue Springs View, LLC, the applicant for the rezoning, said that he had no problems committing to each of the items raised by the Planning Staff and clarifying those issues. Mr. Plein hoped the rezoning application could move forward to the Board of Supervisors with the caveat that those four items would be put into the proffers in language that is acceptable to the staff and the County attorney. Mr. Plein next summarized various aspects of the development and the proffers which he believed were highlights of the development. Those points included: the 26 acres outside of the UDA will be available to the County for the next 99 years; an 80 -foot right-of-way will be available through the green space area; the road off of Town Run Lane will be constructed to the standards required for a four -lane road; language within the Homeowners Association documents will be strengthened, as well as language concerning buffers; an 11 -point program has been established for the closing of the Stephens City lagoon and will be done in cooperation with the Town of Stephens City; the improvements to the Stickley Drive/ Rt. 277 intersection will be completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit; a connection through Woodside will not be done until the Double Church Road improvements are completed; various techniques have been employed to mitigate traffic impacts to the Woodside community; and finally, monies have been placed in escrow for signs and other incidentals, should they be needed in the future. Commissioner Unger inquired about how the two-lane road was going to be constructed to four -lane standards. Mr. Bryan Condie and Mr. Louis Canonico, P.E., both of Christopher Consultants, LTD, explained the technical aspects of how this would be accomplished. Mr. Canonico stated that they will work with the County and VDOT to determine how best to build that section; they will grade the full 80 -foot right-of- way to accommodate four lanes, if and when they are built. Mr. Canonico said that the initial two lanes could either be constructed as the outside two lanes in one direction of the ultimate four lanes or the center two lanes could be constructed with shoulders. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 16, 2004 Page 1325 -8 - Commissioner Rosenberry inquired about which roads within the development would be constructed to state standards. Mr. Canonico replied that all of the roads will be public roads and they would be designed and built to VDOT standards and ultimately, maintained by VDOT. Commissioner Gochenour pointed out that the closure of the lagoon will give the applicant road access to the property and she asked for an explanation of a possible commercial element that is a part of the closure, which includes a building pad. Mr. Plein replied that they would place suitable fill in the emptied lagoon that would allow for the construction of a typical building structure. Regarding the 80 -foot right-of-way proposal for the portion which traverses the open space within the UDA line, Chairman DeHaven inquired if there was any room for flexibility on the location of the right-of-way. Mr. Plein replied that the right-of-way could be placed anywhere within that open space area the County would determine to be appropriate. Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Dennis Scothorn, part-owner of the agricultural land to the south, said that Ewing Lane is currently his only access and he spoke with Mr. Plein about a future second access further to the east. Mr. Scothorn wanted assurance that he could have access from one of the applicant's roads, in case his family should subdivide at some future time. Mr. Plein said they have provided language within the proffer allowing additional reasonable easements across the open space for homeowners in this situation. Mr. Gary Scothorn stated that the traffic impact analysis for this development did not include the 200 homes in Stephens City; he was concerned about the impact on response time for emergency services vehicles traveling on Rt. 277. In addition, Mr. Scothorn was concerned about the amount of traffic that would go through Woodside Estates. Ms. Sandra Ritenour said she was grateful for the amount of attention this subdivision has received by the Planning Commission, the applicant, and the Planning Department. She believed it was important to thoroughly examine the proposal right up until the last minute. Ms. Ritenour said that her concerns remain with traffic, particularly at the interstate, where a Level of Service F is expected. She wondered how the county would deal with that over the next possibly five, seven, or ten years until the money became available for the new interstate exchange. She believed the Comprehensive Policy Plan should have language included that would require infrastructure to be in place before developments are approved. Ms. Ritenour raised an issue concerning the developer's statement that roads will be constructed prior to building permits and she wondered what type of site work is conducted prior to building permits being issued; she was concerned about the construction traffic that may have to be dealt with on Town Run Lane. Mr. John Milam, a property owner near Town Run Lane, also commended the applicant for building a dialogue with the residents in the area. However, Mr. Milam did not believe the proffers were substantial enough with regards to schools, especially in light of overcrowding and maintaining adequate teachers salaries and adequate student -to -faculty ratios. Mr. Milam stated that adequate transportation infrastructure was not in place and believed it should be a defining aspect of the Comprehensive Plan. He was also concerned about the impacts to the response times for emergency services vehicles. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 16, 2004 Page 1326 Ms. Carol Forno was concerned that the applicant, Mr. Plein, had not contacted the Woodside Estates I Homeowners Association to address the problems raised by the homeowners. She questioned Mr. Plein's reliability since he had not contacted the homeowners and because he would not give them specific directions to other developments he has been involved with. Ms. Forno stated that she passed two traffic accidents along Rt. 277 on her way to this evening's meeting. Mr. Hal Marks, a Woodside II resident, said that he realized that development of the Racey tract was inevitable; however, he believed that Mr. Plein has maintained a good dialogue with the adjoining Woodside II residents and he has proposed a well-planned community that will be a future asset. Mr. Marks said that traffic issues still needed to be worked through. He added that if development had to occ r at this location, then Mr. Plein was the kind of individual he wanted to do it. Mr. Mike Keough, the Town Manager for the Town of Stephens City, came forward to address the lagoon issue. Mr. Keough stated that the lagoon is located within Frederick County and is zoned RA (Rural Areas). He explained that the Town of Stephens City took this opportunity to work with the developer to close the lagoon and convert it into a useable site, which the Town will probably sell. He said that in its present state, the lagoon was probably a liability. Mr. Keough said there were negligible wastewater impacts on this site; it contained no heavy metals. He assured the Commission that the Town will closely monitor the closing; its closure was bonded through the agreement. Mr. Keough said that the Town of Stephens City's only other concern was with traffic, particularly at the interchange and traffic light. Mr. John Murphy was concerned about the increased traffic impacts between Stickley Road and Double Church Road on Rt. 277. He commented that it was congested now and he was concerned about the traffic increasing with additional development. Since no one else wished to make a comment, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Scott Plein returned to the podium and addressed some of the comments raised by the citizens who spoke. Commissioner Thomas had numerous technical questions regarding the traffic impact analysis and the methodology used. These questions were answered by Mr. Michael J. Workosky with Wells & Associates, LLC, the traffic, transportation, and parking consultants for the project. It was concluded that there were no cases where the level of service was degraded and not improved, except for one, which was the northbound off ramp on I-81. Commissioner Thomas commented that the developer was committing to quite a bit of expenditures before selling the first lot. Commissioner Thomas asked what protection the County and VDOT will have that all the promised work will be accomplished. Mr. Plein said that the road projects and other projects will be fully bonded for the appropriate amount. Commissioner Ours agreed that the traffic was a consideration with this proposal; however, he said that during his tenure on the Commission, he has never seen a time when the roads were built before a housing development came about. Commissioner Ours believed this was a very good plan; he hoped this plan would set a precedent for fi,re development in Frederick County. He said the Countyhas asked much of this Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 16, 2004 Page 1327 -10 - developer and the developer has delivered. Next, Commissioner Ours read a letter into the record that was sent to him from Ron and Ellen Rogers of 127 Branch Court in Woodside, Stephens City, as follows: `Mr. Ours.- As urs.As lam sure thatyou are aware, in your next board meeting you will be asked to vote to accept the rezoning of the "Racey Tract" for development. I would ask that you vote `yes" for this developer. When my family and I moved to Woodside Estates II, we knew that eventually the property adjacent to our property would be developed for more homes. It was obvious, especially for the barriers at the end of Trunk Drive andDriftwoodDrive. But, still we moved here. Southern Hills development was approved without enough consideration give to the impact it would create on Fairfax Pike. The current developer for Meadows Edge has bent over backwards to help the state and countyfix the traffic issues with improvements to be made to Fairfax Pike and I-81 connectors. Mr. Plein, has met with many homeowners of WSEII and WSEI to include their concerns in the proffers. I don't think the community could ask for any more cooperation from the developer. Mr. Plein haspromised to fix runoffproblems that were created by our developer and to even put money in an escrow account to assist in the solution of traffic issues that may occur in WSEII or WSEI. As a member of Woodside Estates 11 HOA Board of Directors, we agree that this developer should be given the rezoning permit to continue with the `Racey Tract" development. My only regret is that I did not get more involved in the approval of Signal Hill and the Hartwood developments, as they seem to have gotten approved without enough community involvement... " Commissioner Rosenberry quoted some of the literature received from the Frederick County Public Schools, as follows: "...based on the information in the application packet, it is anticipated that the proposed 228 single-family homes will yield 89 high school students, 32 middle school students, and 39 elementary school students, for a total of 160 students upon build -out.... significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this community having student enrollments nearing or exceeding their practical capacity. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be addressed during the approval process. " Commissioner Rosenberry quoted some of the information received from VDOT, as follows: "...however, there are no improvements detailed that would address the proposed impacts to the Level of Service at the intersections ofRt. 277 (Fairfax Pike) and I-81 North and South -bound ramps.... the proposed development would further exacerbate conditions at the interchange of Rt. 277 (Fairfax Pike) and] -81 North and South -bound ramps. " Commissioner Rosenberry said he realized the developer could not do much about that situation, however, a traffic problem existed. He believed that placing additional housing would create more problems. Commissioner Rosenberry said the concern about emergency services getting across I-81, whether or not it's this development or another development, will continue to be a problem. He wondered if Fire and Rescue was considering another station. Commissioner Ours said that based on his previous comments, he would move for a recommendation of approval for Rezoning #03-04 of the Racey Tract (Meadows Edge). This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz. BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning #03-04 of the Racey Tract (Meadows Edge), submitted by Blue Springs View, L.L.C., to rezone 105.65 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 16, 2004 Page 1328 -11 - The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Unger, Morris, Light, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett NO: Straub, Gochenour, Watt, Rosenberry, DeHaven Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Planning Commission unanimously included the letters of concern from Mr. Gary Scothorn and from Ron and Ellen Rogers as a part of the Racey Tract (Meadows Edge) official record. OTHER GUIDANCE ON LEGAL OPINIONS Commissioner Rosenberry stated that during the previous meeting, Commission members were given information regarding legal opinions for the Planning Commission when considering applications. Commissioner Rosenberry inquired if it was possible to arrange for a roundtable discussion with County attorneys to help members of the Commission understand the information. Other Commissioners agreed, commenting that the discussion should involve guidance on the implications and implementations of the legal opinions. It was suggested that a checklist could be developed to guide Commissioners on what issues could be discussed at each phase of application submittal. The Planning Commission authorized the staff to arrange a work session as soon as possible. Board Liaison, Barbara Van Osten, suggested that the Board of Supervisors be included in the discussions. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENTS JOINT WORK SESSION Chairman DeHaven reminded everyone ofthe Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments Joint Work Session with the Board of Supervisors on July 12, 2004 at 12:00 noon. Planning Director Lawrence said that packets of information regarding the applications will be sent to the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 16, 2004 Page 1329 -12 - ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of June 16, 2004 Page 1330 C� • REZONING APPLICATION #07-04 WILLIAM H. LAWRENCE, III Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Hearing Prepared: July 7, 2004 Staff Contact: Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 07/21/04 Pending Board of Supervisors: 08/25/04 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 1.965 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District. LOCATION: The property is located east of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) and south of the Clearbrook Presbyterian Church property, approximately 150 feet south of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Brucetown Road (Route 672), in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The property is further bounded by Clearbrook Park to the east and south. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 33-A-162 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Rural Areas (RA), Woolen Shop ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: NORTH: RA (Rural Areas), Institutional (Clearbrook Presbyterian Church) SOUTH: RA (Rural Areas), Public Recreation (Clearbrook Park) EAST: RA (Rural Areas), Public Recreation (Clearbrook Park) WEST: B3 (Industrial Transition), Commercial PROPOSED USE: General Commercial REZ #07-04, William H. Lawrence, III Page 2 July 7, 2004 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 11. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the William H. Lawrence, III rezoning application dated June 23, 2004 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: It is possible that additional fire hydrants and fire protection may be required dependent on the type and size of any new structures. It is difficult to identify whether the proffer amount is an appropriate amount without knowing what specific occupancy would be constructed. Plan approval recommended. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. County Engineer: We have no comments concerning the proposed rezoning. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered this rezoning proposal during their meeting of April 20, 2004. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report as well as information given by the applicant. The subject parcel contains the Old Woolen Shop and although it is not listed in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report (due to not being part of the time frame that the Survey covered), it is a significant part of the landscape and it is adjacent to the Clearbrook Presbyterian Church (#34-708) which is listed as potentially significant. The origin of the Woolen Shop building is not completely known; however, it has been part of the community since the 1930's. The HRAB recognizes that this structure is an historic and significant piece of the Martinsburg Pike corridor. If this property is developed for commercial use, the HRAB suggests the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: I. Existing Structures: The existing buildings on the site should be incorporated into the development proposal instead of demolishing it to build a new commercial building. 2. Screening: The new commercial use should be screened from the adjacent church; the use of a dense vegetative screen should be considered. 3. Building Facade: If a new building is constructed on the site, it should complement the surrounding historic properties. The HRAB suggests the applicant consider using materials that are similar to what is found on the existing building. REZ #07-04, William H. Lawrence, III Page 3 July 7, 2004 4. Commercial Use: Very few uses have been proffered out for this proposal. Consideration should be taken to identify more uses that would not be appropriate for this site based on its location to and the adjacent historic properties. In addition, the new use of the building should not put any hardships on the adjacent church. 5. Building Location: If the existing structure is removed from the property, consider moving the new building forward and place the parking at the rear of the property. Also consider the possibility of not using a berm at the front of the property in the 20' landscape easement along Martinsburg Pike. 6. Historic Marker: If the intent is to remove the structure from the property, an historic marker with a photograph of the original building should be placed on the property. County Attorney: Appears to meet all legal requirements. Frederick Coun1y Inspections: No comment required at this time. Shall comment at the time of site plan review. Winchester Regional Airport: This proposal has been reviewed and it appears that the proposed site plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed development lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 surfaces. Frederick County Parks & Recreation: This parcel lies adjacent to the picnic areas of Clearbrook Park. As outlined in the Planning Department's "Northeast Land Use Plan," Clearbrook Park is identified as a developmental sensitive area and must be considered when entertaining the rezoning of adjacent property. Frederick -Winchester Health Dot.: The Health Department has no comment as long as no public or private water sources, as well as no effluent disposal areas, are impacted. Frederick County Public Schools: No comment at this time. Planning & Zoning_ 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Inwood, WV Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcel as being zoned A-1 (Agricultural, Limited). On November 8, 1971, the Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning #073-71, which rezoned 55.0 acres that included the subject parcel from A-1 to A-2 (Agricultural, General). This rezoning application was filed by Clearbrook Woolen Company, Inc., for the purpose of establishing a campground use on the site, and also resulted in the rezoning of approximately 35 acres located north of Brucetown Road from A-1 to M-1 (Light Industrial). The County's agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. REZ #07-04, William H. Lawrence, III Page 4 July 7, 2004 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The subject property is located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and is included within the boundaries of the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). The NELUP does not expressly identify a planned land use for the subject parcel, although commercial and office uses are generally supported along the Route 11 North corridor if compatible with surrounding land uses. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-3 8, 6-38.2) Planning Staff Comment The applicant has sought to address the compatibility concerns of the NELUP by proffering to install landscaped buffers adjacent to both the Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) right-of-way and the parcel's east boundary, which is shared with Clearbrook Park. The south boundary of the site is also shared with Clearbrook Park and is formed by Clearbrook Run, against which a 35 foot wide riparian buffer will be required by ordinance. The applicant has further proffered to prohibit certain uses on the site that would otherwise be permitted on B2 zoned property, to include gasoline service stations, automotive dealers, and truck stop facilities. Coupled with boundary and corridor buffer areas, such land use restrictions constitute an appropriate approach for achieving compatibility between the future commercial use of the site and surrounding land uses. It is noted that the site will not be completely buffered against surrounding land uses, as neither the Zoning Ordinance nor the proposed proffer statement provides for buffering or screening adjacent to the Clearbrook Presbyterian Church property. Moreover, unique site design elements are limited exclusively to the above-mentioned buffer areas. This application does not include enhanced guidelines for either signage or building design, which are techniques commonly employed to satisfy land use compatibility goals. 3) Site Suitability The site contains areas of wetlands/hydrologic soils that generally follow the path of Clearbrook Run, a perennial stream that forms the south boundary of the subject property. Such environmentally sensitive areas will be contained within the 35 foot wide riparian buffer required by ordinance. Disturbance of the riparian buffer and its constituent resources is prohibited, with minimal exceptions for public facilities, public utilities, and road crossings. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick Counly, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Oaklet-Carbo-Chilhowie soil association. It is noted that the Oaklet-Carbo-Chilhowie soil association presents some limitations to site development due to slow permeability and clayey subsoil. The management of such characteristics must be demonstrated through the site engineering process associated with subsequent development applications for the site. 4) Potential Impacts. a) Transportation Impact Analysis Statement: The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this REZ #07-04, William H. Lawrence, III Page 5 July 7, 2004 application calculated transportation impacts based upon the following development assumptions: • Retail: 20,000 square feet Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7t' Edition, the applicant projects traffic impacts for the development in terms of project build -out, which is expected to occur by 2006. The TIA indicates that at project build out, the planned uses will result in the generation of 2,386 new average daily trips (ADT). The new trips generated by the development will be absorbed by an external road network consisting of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North), Hopewell Road (Route 672) and the Exit 321 interchange of Interstate 81. (See "A Traffic ImpactAnalysis of the William H. Lawrence, III Property, "p. 4) The TIA concludes that the impacts generated by the application will result in overall Level of Service (LOS) Category "C" conditions or better on study area roads during peak traffic periods at project build -out (2006). A critical exception to this overall condition is the continued existence of LOS Category "E" peak hour conditions at the intersection of Hopewell Road and Martinsburg Pike. The TIA indicates that the future signalization of this intersection will improve conditions to the desired LOS "C." It is noted that the subject rezoning proposal does not provide, either in whole or in part, for the necessary signalization of the intersection of Hopewell Road and Martinsburg Pike. VDOT Comment (excerpt): The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 11. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the William H. Lawrence, III, rezoning application dated June 23, 2004 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. b) Historic Resources The subject property does not contain any potentially significant structures and is not located within the core area of any identified Civil War battlefield. The site is proximate to two structures that are identified in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report as potentially significant resources. Specifically, these sites are the Clearbrook Presbyterian Church (#34-708), located north and adjacent to the subject parcel, and the Clearbrook Feed and Seed (#34-935), which sits approximately 500 feet north of the subject property on the opposite side of Martinsburg Pike. As noted previously in this report, the applicant has not proposed any buffering or screening along the boundary shared with Clearbrook Presbyterian Church, and no buffering or screening is required by ordinance. HRAB Comment: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered this rezoning proposal during their meeting of April 20, 2004. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report as well as information given by the applicant. The subject parcel contains the REZ #07-04, William H. Lawrence, III Page 6 July 7, 2004 Old Woolen Shop and although it is not listed in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report (due to not being part of the time frame that the Survey covered), it is a significant part of the landscape and it is adjacent to the Clearbrook Presbyterian Church (#34-708) which is listed as potentially significant. The origin of the Woolen Shop building is not completely known; however, it has been part of the community since the 1930's. The HRAB recognizes that this structure is an historic and significant piece of the Martinsburg Pike corridor. If this property is developed for commercial use, the HRAB suggests the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: 1. Existing Structures: The existing buildings on the site should be incorporated into the development proposal instead of demolishing it to build a new commercial building. 2. Screening: The new commercial use should be screened from the adjacent church; the use of a dense vegetative screen should be considered. 2. Building Facade: If a new building is constructed on the site, it should complement the surrounding historic properties. The HRAB suggests the applicant consider using materials that are similar to what is found on the existing building. 3. Commercial Use: Very few uses have been proffered out for this proposal. Consideration should be taken to identify more uses that would not be appropriate for this site based on its location to and the adjacent historic properties. In addition, the new use of the building should not put any hardships on the adjacent church. 4. Building Location: If the existing structure is removed from the property, consider moving the new building forward and place the parking at the rear of the property. Also consider the possibility of not using a berm at the front of the property in the 20' landscape easement along Martinsburg Pike. 5. Historic Marker: If the intent is to remove the structure from the property, an historic marker with a photograph of the original building should be placed on the property. C) Water & Sewer The applicant indicates that public water and sewer will be provided to the site via infrastructure improved through the Clearbrook water and sewer extension project. The ultimate water source will be the Northeast Regional Water Plant. It is noted that an existing 20 inch water main is located within the Martinsburg Pike right-of- way and a six inch water line currently crosses the site. The applicant reports that sufficient capacity will exist to adequately serve the future commercial use(s) on the site. 5) Proffer Statement - Revised Through June 23, 2004 • Generalized Development Plan The applicant has included a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) with the proposed proffer statement. The GDP identifies the REZ #07-04, William H. Lawrence, III Page 7 July 7, 2004 general location of proffered site improvements, to include the following: (1) single entrance on Martinsburg Pike; (2) 20 foot wide landscaped buffer adjacent to the Martinsburg Pike right-of-way; and (3) ten foot wide landscaped buffer adjacent to the shared boundary with Clearbrook Park (east parcel boundary). • Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The applicant has proffered monetary contributions to Frederick County in the respective amounts of $2,000 for Fire and Rescue Services and $2,000 for the Sheriff's Office. These contributions will be made in a lump sum payment at the time of issuance of the first building permit for the site. • Prohibited Uses on the Site The applicant has proffered to prohibit the following B2 uses on the subject site: SIC 41 Local and suburban transit and inter -urban highway passenger transportation SIC 42 Motor freight transportation and warehousing SIC 45 Transportation by air SIC 55 Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations including truck stop facility SIC 721 Laundry, dry-cleaning and garment services SIC 75 Drive-in motion picture theaters • Site Improvements The applicant has proffered the following site improvements: (1) Site access will be limited to a single commercial entrance on Martinsburg Pike. (2) A 20 foot wide landscaped buffer will be provided adjacent to the Martinsburg Pike right-of-way. This buffer will contain a "low" berm of at least two feet in height as well as a mixture of ornamental plantings. (3) A ten foot wide landscaped buffer will be provided adjacent to the shared boundary with Clearbrook Park. This buffer will consist of a mixture of deciduous shrubs and/or trees. Planning Staff Comment: The composition of the proposed buffer areas is relatively undefined by proffer. As such, the final appearance of the buffers will depend upon dialogue between planning staff and the applicant at the time of master development plan or site development plan review, both of which are administrative processes. Should either the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors prefer greater detail and/or input concerning the composition of the proffered buffers, the applicant should be asked to respond to such interest during the rezoning process. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/21/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposed rezoning is a request to rezone 1.965 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (Business General) District to accommodate general commercial land uses. The subject parcel is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and the request generally conforms with the applicable policies of the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). `tayl F. aY tF'15 S 1k u dCyy�, N w s .•. 33 A 159 i •,�&�,� �:x.' 33 A 158 JOBE CLEARBROOK Y PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH s �y (MIS ^TIO 33 A 162 �- r,; kr } LAWRENCE hf 33 A 1648 DICK o, 33 A 1628 FREDERICK, COUNTY OF Ktz-371' -U4 - vvilliam H. Lawrence III (PIN: -3 - A - 162) © [� � Y j d t p J .1 tt -T• � I N -r4 1 d -, �033 A 58 J� E E � r .. �. �f - 3 r _ t t :C,i F RriRC].i^S •I�',� �"�' § �� �. � t � Z R GAJpp ��jj r ./l� ` 4' 't � ! ` '. d --. , I • �' .. - n X11 �S.ef - ? v -. � �� �rat'�Yy' ti�4� ra=r N�e `�v1x �r'5` � d � ��� r � F. i-� r ��<. k-*� w-.,fc�� ��.Y.r'✓;.-}.��`�,�; r�42�.Ff _ '.�� ��Y�t ��i.�t '� _ } y..,,,r. + +# -.` i� �, eiz �� f+i7 .�L]L"�• o7� e•"r f.; 4�dvf.f� �,'§,$ ENC, es A 1648 r `, rp �51r +� } It F,.'• .a? -- J -4y4 7A'( ,„� ``;t �, F.. 4f ,fit' � kax � .'�� '° 'Q�;•�i tF !n , ark?! q ,f� � �,.. jp s # rn-11Md P ,7yy �'+� q 3 f:M a: itri 5 FQ�yg rr FIE[�ERICn CcJ'� ._.�]�::';� r} z" nkgg r , , „ - sus „+ . ; p �� a ; y ? ,; f'• . •' •' "' �. y s 3 �..:'J'4. + "!W.;. 1�.C'� I lye` �i iii, 't"e1 •.I,. �::.4,5� P �q; • k S. { �' i MVMVIVMFFRFR— - --- -- --, E, 10 REZOiINIMOT AP l-LICts.TION FORTA I+PXDER,fCK COUNTY, VIRGHWA To be completed by Planning Staff PCC A,mcuu Paid Zoning Amendment Number Date Received PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, heal Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name. Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Telephone: 667-2139 Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: William H. Lawrence, Irr Address.- P.O. Box 8 Clearbrook, VA 22624 3. Contact person if other than al;®ve Telephone- 667-7646 Name- Chuck Maddox Telephone.- 667-2139 4. Check5st: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map Plat Deed of property Verification of taxes paid Agency Comments Fees Impact Analysis Statement Proffer Statement I 5. 'the Code of Virginia a`lom�vs os to rPquPst full disclosure of cuwipefrship in relation to 0 rezoning applications,, ID Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: William H. Lawrence, III b. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached PARCEL » NUMBED USE Woolen Shore Commercial ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). South and adjacent to Clearbrook Presbyterian Church on the east side of U.S Route 11, surrounded to the east and south by Clearbrook Dark. 2 0 1 Information to Sasmitted for Capital Fpciiities linpact Model 11 • In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the cpecificc of the proposed»se. ether:vise, tl:e planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. ?parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 33-A-162 Magisterial: Stonewall Fire Service: Clearbrook Rescue Service: Clearbrook Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School: _ James Wood James Wood Stonewall 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zonin Re nested 1.965 RA B-2 1.965 Total acreage -to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home Townhome Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Warehouse Other t a�;Z S-ig-s'.ain-re: (we), the undemignet% do hereby respectfully ma..c appli`:.ation and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to arnerid the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of a�rederic.k County, Virginia. 1 (we) authorize Frederick County, officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted roust be plaucd at the ffont property line at least seven days'prior to the Planning Commission public bearing and the board of Supervisors' public hearing and onaintained so as to be visibie frorn the road right-of-way until the hearing. 1 (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. a� I Applicant(s) � ___ �-�r�'' Date � Date Owner(s) � (��u t< 11 J.: j t Date er Bate _ Tax ID # 33-A-158 Name Clearbrook Presbyter 33-A-159 Allen B. Jobe, et als 33 -A -162B County of Frederick 33-A-163 Third Generation L.P 33 -A -164B HMC LP, LLP to 4p Lawrence Rezoning Church C/o Bobby F. Lamina, Stephenson, VA 22656 RA 2719 Brucetown Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624 RA 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 RA 1701 Fall Hill Ave., Fredericksburg, VA 22401 B-2 920 Hopewell Road, Clearbrook, VA 22624 RA Residential Clearbrook Park Convenience & Restaurant Vacant REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 33A162 Stonewall Magisterial District William H. Lawrence, III 3416 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, Virginia Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. Seq.. of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional rezoning, the undersigned applicant herby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of 1.965 acres from the present R -A to B-2. Development of the subject property. shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successor or assigns. General Development Plan The Generalized Development Plan (GDP) attached to this proffer shows current uses only; an end user has not been identified at the time of rezoning. The GDP shows an entrance location proffered by the applicant and a 20' road landscape buffer. Future use of the property shall be identified in accordance with the site plan requirements of Frederick County. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffer that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 1.965 acre tract near Clearbrook, Virginia in the Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from existing RA to B-2 the undersigned will pay to Frederick County, at the time a building permit is issued for the first future use, a lump sum payment of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for Fire and Rescue Company and two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for Sheriffs Office. Prohibited Uses on This Site In reviewing the types of use allowed in the B-2 zone, the owner has determined certain classes of uses are inconsistent with good planning on this site. The undersigned owner shall voluntarily prohibit the following uses from existing on the subject properties: SIC 41 Local and suburban transit and interurban highway passenger transportation SIC 42 Motor freight transportation and warehousing SIC 45 Transportation by air SIC 55 Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations including truck stop facility SIC 721 Laundry, dry-cleaning and garment services Page 1 of 3 Revised 6/23/04 REZONING RE Q'r TEST P. OTEER Property Identification Number 33AI62 Stonewall Magisterial District William H. Lawrence, III SIC 75 Drive-in motion picture flieaters Site Improvements Refer to Figure 4 for General Locations - _Applicable to An Future Uses) 1. Site entrances on Routes 11 and 664 shall be limited to one on U.S. Route 11. (See 1) 2. A 20' roadside landscape buffer shall be provided including a low berm (2' height) with mixed ornamental plantings consistent with good sight line characteristics for highway entrances. (See 2) 3. A 10' landscaped buffer consisting of deciduous shrubs or trees shall be provided along the common boundary with the Clearbrook Park. (See 3). The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PROPERTY OWNER By ; Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: --� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 151h day of 3UV Q , 2004, by � ,\� \CGt)1 �Qw; 2a�ce My commis�sion expires Notary Public Page 2 of 3 Revised 6/23/04 Sheet 3 OF Impact Statement June 23, 2004 The Clearbrook Woolen Mill owned by Mr. William Lawrence and family has historically been involved with manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing woolen products since 1939. With the elimination of woolen manufacturing, the majority of the property was sold to Frederick County for use as the Clearbrook Park and approximately 1.965 acres were reserved for continuing commercial activities that began in 1946. It is now the owner's intention to bring the zoning of the property to be consistent with commercial nature of the property. Attached is a location map, Figure 1, and a site plat with topography, Figure 2. This site is shown on the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan for business use. Figure 3 provides an insert look at the North East Land Use Plan and this location. Site characteristics are generally level with Clearbrook Run flowing along the southern boundary of the property. This stream valley includes wetlands and will be preserved by the county required riparian buffer. Figure 4 provides a generalized land use plan for the property. Site access will be restricted to one commercial entrance as shown on Figure 4 with alignment during site plan to meet VDOT and Frederick County requirements. It is anticipated that any change of the use of the property will require VDOT land use permit procedures which will involve edge widening of Route 11 and improvements as normally required by VDOT. The owner believes this site may change in use in the future however, no specific use is planned for this rezoning. Close review of the "allowed uses" in the B-2 zone has prompted the owner to voluntarily restrict certain uses on the site. The following uses shall not be proposed for use on the site: Golf driving range (SIC 7999) Self service storage facilities Commercial Batting Cages Adult retail uses under CUP. The owner has consistently cooperated with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority in providing easements and rights of ways as shown for the installation of regional water and sewer utilities. It is anticipated with the completion of the Clearbrook water and sewer extensions connecting the northeast regional water plant and the sewer force main currently existing at the site that access for an existing or future commercial use capacity would be provided by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Site drainage can be easily handled by discharge release to the stream channel existing on site with appropriate storm water management design as required by the Frederick County Department of Public Works. Solid waste will be transferred to the Frederick County Landfill facility by commercial carrier. The site has some historic importance as it exists along the Valley Pike (U.S. Route 11) and was used in a woolen goods producing activity for at least 65 years. There are no listed sites of historic importance on the site in the Frederick County register. Since the site will be devoted entirely to commercial purposes the impact model produced for this project exerts a positive economic impact on the Frederick County budget. It is not anticipated that this project will have any measurable impact on existing residential uses since the land use surrounding the site does not include a residential component. We appreciate Frederick County considering and approving this rezoning petition. Sincerely, GILBERT W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice President O PDl.5Y.90 S P b saki O o MANHOLEW RtAILB=pX \ *LOCATED OBJECT I t TRAFFIC POLE t .,RE KIVRANT / a ✓ L f / a Clearbrook Proebyt Church 33-A-1 / Zoned: RA Use: Rel / B20 • / � 1 a r Oc� J 2VALAW Kra to AR 617 P. 73�-tG3 � 197 AG mr. 1 1WGDlAl7 ma GD9)unw LA M D rm 672 a fl Zoned: Uee: Relsedenti�D / -Q y 1 - E 7 - 4✓ SAND p 1P! 0 01 /-ty of Frederick 33-A-1626 Zoned: RA t Ceorbrock Pork / .� �"� YRLE78ALL N. Cor len Dick u / 33-A-1848 Zoned: RA h WILLIAM H. LAWRENCE, 111 PROPERTY gilbert w. clifford & associates a diof SITE PLAT Patton, Harris, Rustst ik Associates, pc o 117 E Pico* 5t Voidiater, York 22601 FREDERICK COUNTY, I/IROVA VOICE (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Figure 2 LEGEND C3 E U I F vir 3 f'TlA" hla ,I t�;' r" RA I R UiaA RO: 64, Rao J L_ j _�p WM 1. 1A M H. LA Wl?f Wf PROPERTY gilbert m Clifford associates a division of o \ NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc O 117 E Picadilly St W&mder, Vij6c 2260I FREDERICK COUNTY, MOM VOICE (540) 667-2139 FAX- (540) 665-0493 Figure 3 a 10' safe 4[1C Zone¢: R i f�ksi�es pec" Rea ial � 1 J 0 � t72 pr �jy of FrefdKck 53-A-#6214 Zen�dt RA , Qlearbrack Pack. Wl� . 4b f MLAY H. LAWRENCE, /// PROPERTY gibert w. cMd & ussvcOa 11 z 1+ � a division of Rust & CENER,4LIZE© DEVE DPAAENT PLAN PattonBarri , s, Associates; pc FRElIERIM— COMM [/lI MA&A VOICE (W) 667-2139 FAX (540) 665 -MJ rigure ti SYMBOLS POLE }3 51CN c MANHOLE * MAILBOX e LOCATED OBJECT _ # fRAMC POLE ~ $ F71E HYmmT �`/ llllll a 10' safe 4[1C Zone¢: R i f�ksi�es pec" Rea ial � 1 J 0 � t72 pr �jy of FrefdKck 53-A-#6214 Zen�dt RA , Qlearbrack Pack. Wl� . 4b f MLAY H. LAWRENCE, /// PROPERTY gibert w. cMd & ussvcOa 11 z 1+ � a division of Rust & CENER,4LIZE© DEVE DPAAENT PLAN PattonBarri , s, Associates; pc FRElIERIM— COMM [/lI MA&A VOICE (W) 667-2139 FAX (540) 665 -MJ rigure ti - D ~ h Ocatbrook Preabyte an Church R -A -7b Zoned: RA. - .e Alt& fid - f b - 39 -76P H IL'E, ftf f VbEfAN UL97 Ar _ - 99---169 Ir v 9i1697ID77 Tann numrav La. l U /t LLJJ "`lll al Er1t7`OfK Pn x"m sa rt Lai Cd —1.d DO u P � f a 10' safe 4[1C Zone¢: R i f�ksi�es pec" Rea ial � 1 J 0 � t72 pr �jy of FrefdKck 53-A-#6214 Zen�dt RA , Qlearbrack Pack. Wl� . 4b f MLAY H. LAWRENCE, /// PROPERTY gibert w. cMd & ussvcOa 11 z 1+ � a division of Rust & CENER,4LIZE© DEVE DPAAENT PLAN PattonBarri , s, Associates; pc FRElIERIM— COMM [/lI MA&A VOICE (W) 667-2139 FAX (540) 665 -MJ rigure ti WILLIAM H. LAWRENCE, ll/ PROPERTY RURAL LANDMARK PLAN FROMCK COUMY, VhWhYI4 RURAL LANDMARKS P0TEN MUY NUMBER DEWORM SDV#?CANr 935 C/eanbrook Feed & Seed Yes 708 C/edrbrook Presbyterian Church Yes gilbert w. Clifford & associates a &cion of Potton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. St IfthesW, Wqk 22601 VOICE (540) 667-2139 FAX (540) 665-M3 Future 5 pedRl. Limited Power at Attolrvoey County of Frederick, Virginia. Fredei Aek r i'i0-" 9 _Web Site:ydww.co.frederick.V8.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) William H. Lawrence III (Phone) 540-667-7646 (Address) P.O. Box 8 Clearbrook VA 22624 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Deed Book 647 on Page 157 and is described as Parcel: 162 Lot: Block: A Section:33 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: Gregory F. Hutchinson (540) 667-7646 OR (Name)Patton Harris Rust & Associates c/o Charles E. Maddox Jr. (Phone)540-667-2139 db"Address) 117E. Piccadilly Street, Winchester, VA 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) 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 day^cam 200 ' , Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/hof �� ^ To -wit: I,� ` f l-�� LG - +rr} 6.��! . a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument persopally appeared before me and h acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this _day of--L,-,e , 200 . otary Public My Commission Expires. + -�-� �� ✓C�G� K847?015 U.TA O made and 'dat*d "' is 30th day of April, 1907, by and batv**a the CLEARSRW.y wwLEN CW.pAtiyv IMORPORATIM. a Virginia corporation,. Farty of the first part, hereinafter viferred to ass the Grantor: and WILLIM H. LAh'RENCE, III, 14krty of the oreearnd part, hereinafter referred to as trier Granted. MtRIASs By a resolution dated Novembax 28, 1986, the stockholders and ,Directors of the Clearbrook Morl4m Company' Incorporated, ariopted a•playa of Liquidation pursuant to Section of the •Internale Revenue Code of 2954 ago am*ndad 1i1HIMBA 1 The iDir*ctor, Internal Revenue service Center, waa'notified of the plan of Liquidation by the filing of loses 966.* Kit Villian B. Laurence, III, own4ed 335 shares of tb* CcAwMA Stook of the Corperati*n and accopts the hereinafter described prop" as his distributive share of the Corporation. 1PI'fl .MI That for and in consideration of the liquidation of Clearbrook Woolen COW+, ny, Incorporated, and distribution to its stockholders, the Grantor does hereby i grant and convey with general warranty of tithe unto the Grantee, ixs fee simple, all of that certain property, together with appurtenanoaa and isaproveeontw t1wrounto �lo.�u?riny, YyizxaAd Grsiarg situtta. eau 9tonwall 14giaterial District, Fged9rA&, Co%ilty,' Virgiw11k,, oontaLMLDq 1.963 aeras, sacra *;mrrtxcul&r1y dtscrMe44 isy that oertaia plat 4wA snrve3 ,. Vrepared by J.R. xic�k%y,. ti daateti September -11, 19721" a tafhea 'htizsto tkilii x4ference I&., % axile h Paxt nm this djiwl and baro+ t%* xa,"Fp property convzy,&d to Clearbrooh herein try d darted the JA day of • 4.1 f ?• , 190, of record in the Clerlk.ls office. of the Circuit Court of ` Treci+rick County, Virgiasia, in Deed Book 196, page 7w This conveyance is wsada, however, subject to all rights of way, casements and/or conditions of record, if any, affecting the aforesaid realty. WITNESS the following signatures and. 80411 ..•"""•..� s y� S:� /45 )r3� Sys °i • •y ZS I.) iT11T>s" � VIRGIMIA,� ••• �u�' 3,40 to-vitt The foregoing inistrwkftnt was acknowledged before me this day, of , 1987, t-y�sli�d of the Clearbrook len Company, Incorporated. My cmission expires otary PuBI c =•L •'.� ''F.•' •�,•'• � °� Irl ` .•• ... ., , r • 3 -�.�,`m.o;.�ca.<.�aa.o:=.r.w .:rw'.�;.gr�raa:.:.n �i�+•c��..a�.a..varar,�xs. ' = � p.lL A �C�R • .- i •�- • • . .,gyp � � •' -. � ; � fe•.t S � '1 ;• � ' • ��s q�.».�"°�i�"" rig qS.. • aVF _ asfi,ii"�� �/r Y ��.�e°.,+c es•• R�•�.�r-tea asp' tr :« r rt Cpl P4 Sr i` l o �. " u CCMftW.Aft • 103Z 0 w^�':+.+�iw�1►a��� aK�►�•� t3��".�v.s+A:r�i��f �a:'•� � .��tiu s •ar.�n ttR!'ON�+LN OQIYfit, !Lb'��Y'�W'd.N��ipP'tr.:�' f � rr Y+s� r IP %zawj "as fl1t*+twMVA;. ,,W,�.;�,. 1 "z!� P5 04 09--05a g. . i rfor 5c3C. 54t% -6 -6S -n493 Rap-SLam ES Lawrence i•�,..ae ;,. 'fir`: vice Autht'riep Fred -Winn Service Autho-I!, AitxL -fees!-r W. DIS��� u�iiv� P-0, Box 4-1 107,• North Ker. Strcet %nch CL Ertl 22604 _ (540172245-10 t � PPlinc�az ..*r ive aut . c f . i ft95ubDIe, .3}0 t�- 83Si tic .. Depariiu�t •71, �:� �n s Nwne: Gilbert W. Uifford s -ca- - "� l Uiii:: 15 EfiJ : � 3 ; 213Q iYi$iiiYlg l dOreSs; tt[ C!'3 €i4X Jr., o. _ VP �, j Street suiic 2- 73rd ;che -tgr, 3cw-i-c'u. iii Property, Cvu*,ii aad adia,-,,c ?t `�` t'a'i £ g+ �3X prc:uO} eEYSiiia C.:Pisi ,Zell OYI the ca -el Side of U.S. Route 11surramdea to the cast and scij& bN C:ca7br- k g ar vorvrb_s. zo ;inge7zaested; l -,A reage [ Fred-'inc S v7Ce�t uthoritV s °�bir1i41833SS: Fred -Wine scrvice ignature e: Date__ Nlotizm # Servkc Au&&rje T -Forte° to the Applicant 22 �-L Page 1 of 2 Thomas W. Price From: Chris Mohn [Cmohn@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:31 PM To: Thomas W. Price Cc: Copp, Jerry; Ingram, Lloyd Subject: Lawrence Rezoning - Preliminary Comments Tom, I have reviewed the subject rezoning proposal, which seeks to rezone 1.965 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). The property is located east of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) and south of the Clearbrook Presbyterian Church property, approximately 150 feet south of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Brucetown Road (Route 672), in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The property is further bounded by Clearbrook Park to the east and south. The property is identified by PIN 33-A-162. The subject property is located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and is included within the boundaries of the Northeast Land Use Plan (1`TELUP). The NELUP does not expressly identify a planned land use for the subject parcel, although commercial and office uses are generally supported along the Route 11 North corridor if compatible with surrounding land uses. Therefore, particular attention is necessary to ensure that prospective commercial sites are properly designed when adjoined by residential, public, and/or institutional land uses. It is noted that the subject site is adjacent to both a church and public park. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-38, 6-38.2) 10 The following preliminary comments are offered to assist in the finalization of this rezoning petition: Access Management The preliminary application materials propose two (2) entrances to the site from Martinsburg Pike. It is recommended that the site be limited to one (1) entrance to minimize conflict points for traffic along this section of Martinsburg Pike. This issue is especially significant given the multiple access points used by the existing commercial use located on the opposite side of the road from the subject site. Moreover, limiting access to a single entrance would conform with the transportation policies of the Northeast Land Use Plan, which encourage minimizing new driveways and access points on Martinsburg Pike to reduce traffic disruptions. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-38.21) Landscaped Buffer �t is recommended that a detail of the proffered 20 -foot landscaped buffer be provided to guide future implementation activities. Adioining Properties/Land Use Compatibility As noted above, the subject site is adjacent to both a church and public park. Pursuant to Section 165-37 of the Zoning Ordinance, a zoning district buffer is not required on B2 zoned land that is located adjacent to RA zoned land unless the RA property is used residentially. A buffer will therefore not be required on the subject site against either the church or public park. To ensure conformance with the compatibility policies of the NEIJTP, the provision of a heavily landscaped buffer with berm adjacent to the church and park properties would arguably be appropriate. Should the applicant decide to address compatibility via such boundary treatments, it is recommended that a detail or cross-section of any planned buffer areas and/or screening be included with the 5/21/2004 Page 2 of 2 application. Martinsburg Pike (Route_? 1 North) *It is noted that the proposed rezoning does not provide for any improvements to TN/1-artinsburg Pike. In particular, the application does not include a turn/taper lane on the northbound side of the roadway to facilitate safe and efficient site access. Moreover, the NELUP envisions the expansion of Martinsburg Pike to a four - lane roadway, the realization of which may require additional right-of-way along the corridor_ It is recommended that the applicant consult with the VDOT Edinburg Residency concerning the adequacy of the existing right-of-way along this segment of Martinsburg Pike. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-38.2) • Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or concerns regarding this correspondence. Sincerely, Chris Christopher M. Mohn, AICP Deputy Planning Director County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Dent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540.665.5651 (voice) 540.665.6395 (fax) cmohn@co.frederick.va.us 5/21/2004 a April 29, 2004 4nn..�:an.�-�:..•�r.�: r..e.-.wra-.,-rte^ - �.x^ _. _.--. - v.�ze _ .. Mr. Chuck Maddox Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Lawrence Rezoning The Old Woolen Shop on Martinsburg Pike Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Maddox: Deparitmer:t of P$aniini,�!g and Developrnem 546/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of April 20, 2004. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report as well as information given by the applicant. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The subject parcel currently contains the Old Woolen Shop and although it is not listed in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report (due to not being part of the time frame that the Survey covered), it is a significant part of the landscape and it is adjacent to the Clearbrook Presbyterian Church (#34-708) which is listed as potentially significant. The origin of the Woolen Shop building is not completely known, however, it has been part of the community since the 1930's. The HRAB recognizes that this structure is an historic and significant piece of the Martinsburg Pike corridor. If this property is developed for commercial use, the HRAB suggests the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: Existing Structures: The existing buildings on the site should be incorporated into the development proposal instead of demolishing it to build a new commercial building. Screening: The new commercial use should be screened from the adjacent church; the use of a dense vegetative screen should be considered. 107 NTorti Ker41, Sheet e V0nch€:seer, Virginia 22601-5,50 Mr. Chuck Maddox Re: Lawrence Rezoning April 29, 2004 Page 2 Building Facade: If a new building is constructed on the site, it should complement the surrounding historic properties. The HRAB suggests the applicant consider using materials that are similar to what is found on the existing building. Commercial Use: Very few uses have been proffered out for this proposal. Consideration should be taken to identify more uses that would not be appropriate for this site based on its location to and the adjacent historic properties. In addition, the new use of the building should not put any hardships on the adjacent church. Building Location: If the existing structure is removed from the property, consider moving the new building forward and place the parking at the rear of the property. Also consider the possibility of not using a berm at the front of the property in the 20' landscape easement along Martinsburg Pike. Historic Marker: If the intent is to remove the structure from the property, an historic marker with a photograph of the original building should be placed on the property. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely, Candice E. Mills Planner I CEM/bad cc: Bessie Solenberger, HRAB Chairperson Lynda Tyler, Stonewall District Supervisor Chris Mohn, Deputy Director Phoebe Kilby, Sympoetica 0 0 0 :V"�ezq�lin,2 FI-edr.nick County I ikspecf-iwwk-, Ki a ILI ; HEnd 4"L�-_Ver to... Fredet -ick County Inspections Dept. Frederick County hispections Dept. 107 N. Kent Street %-Io. Administration Bldg., 4th Floor Winchester, VA 22601 107 N. Ke-Tyi Strest (540) 665-5651 "Nincheste;, VA 22601 f11ppiX,nr#t,, Please fill out the inf6rviaiden as, accurately is ros3.`bl-- i--,, of -der to assist the Hisvto6c X--sc,"irces Attvisorf -!iozrd vo-&- chf`irce-view. Attach a copy of,your appitcation fariFfi,, wnp., -irOffer statement, impact an4ys;st, wwy other rvrtiri.,ewv-, Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. C11(ifford 8, Assoc. Phone: (540)66'7-2139 Mailing Address: c/o C. E. h/Aaddn Jr., P.E., V -P 117 E. Piccadilly Strqet, Suite 20C -Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: South and adjacent to Clearbrook Presbyterian Church on the east side of U.S. Route 11, surrounded to the, east and south by 0--liearbrook Park. Cur -rent Zoning: Q, -A Zoning Requested: -B-2 Acreage.- 11.965 7- :4 Signature & Date N0,946.,,'to 1wrectiont D. -PL - fW6 Retv m Ais r,4 orm to the Ai plicaat .oe 24 0 Rezoning co - me-ats_ _ _—. x.awrence Frederick., Coun t Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Co. Administration Bldg., 2-d Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicants .Please fill out the ` information as accurately as possible in order t4 Department of Parks &Recreation v�rith their review._ Attach a copy of yon apPCafia location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and a,iy other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Mailing Address Location of Property: Crilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. c/c C. E. Maddox JriP E VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Phone: 540)667-2139 South and adjacent to Clearbrook Presbyterian Church on the east side of U.S. -u- 11, ,u11vuuuCu to Lne east and south by Clearbrook Park. Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: B-2 Acreage_ 1.965 Dept. of Parks & Recreation Comments: This parcel lies adjacent to the picnic areas of Clearbrook Park. As outlined in the Planning Department's "Northeast Land Use Plan," Clearbrook Park is identified as a developmental sensitive area_and must be considered wen en er alning e adjacent property. F. toe & Date: Signature o ,'•. Notice to Dq#� of Parks & Recreation — Please Return This Form to the Applicant v form, , 13 ronin Comments Larc Frederick Gam,;ty De ni-t7ment of Pu de 'i;V IV} aii to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Public Wcrks Atin: Dir=cr of Engineering 107 North tent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5643 Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. rept. of Public Works Attn: Director of E,ngineerin�g Co. Administration Bldg., 4 Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 ApW.;cant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Public Vrorks with their review. Attnch r. copy of your apglicatlan form, location map, proffer statemznt, impact aaa3ysis, and any other perrVaeat information. Applicant's Name- Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property - South and adjacent to Ciecarbrook Presbyterian Church on the east side of U. S. Route 11, surrounded to the Past and south by Clearbrool: Park. Current Zoning: 1A Zoring ?cequested- B-2 Acreage: 1.965 Departmeu,t of FOIL-- !Vcrk's Comments: Public Works Signature & Date-j_f i;,., Ari ` , Notice to Dept. of Public Works I Pleasc Taeturba This Form to the Applicant 10 � e SERVINGTHE 491 AIRPORT ROAD TOP OF VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 -4 �i (540) 662-2422 April 13, 2004 G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. % Charles E. Maddox 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Comments William H. Lawrence, III Property Clearbrook Woolen Mill Stonewall Magisterial District Dear Mr. Maddox: The above referenced proposal has been reviewed and it appears that the proposed site plan will not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. '81 While the proposed development lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 surfaces. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director • 11 • V122A.I to, Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive .Director 491 Airport.Road Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Wincl.esier Regional Aft—port �2rd cl�li��r t�: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA- Applicant's A AppikznI: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible ir, order to assist the Winchester Regional Airport with weir review. -A rich a c i�p y of your app 1, canon ToTm, location map, proffer sl2ieme t, impact aaaiysis, and any other pertinent infhrr+mtiom. Applicant's Name: &itbert W. Clif%rd & Assoc. Phone: ','540)667-2139 Mailing Address: Location of Property: c/o C, E. Maddox. Jr., P.E., VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 South and adjacent to Clem brook Presbyterian Church on the east side of U.S. Route 11, surrounded to the east and south by Crearbrock Park. Current Zening: 1�;,A Zoning Requested: B-2 Acreage: 1.965 F,"Aachester i'Regliqu[` l 1?s ;rpe:19 J Winchester Regional Airport Signature & Date:q Notice +u I'V inch ester *g iont..l As a--ar,r; – Pleaqe Retur-n his Form to the Applicant 20 9 Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Hydrant Location Adequate Roadway/Aisleway Width Not Identified Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By 49 Yes K. Steudl Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards No Signature Title k Control number Date received Date reviewed Date Revised RZ04-0004 3/17/2004 4/3/2004 Project Name Applicant Clearbrook Woolen Mill Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Address City State Zip Applicant Phone 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester VA 22601 540-667-2139 Type Application Tax ID Number Fire District Rescue District rezoning 33-A-162 13 13 Current Zoning Election District RA Recommendations Stonewall Automatic Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm System Residential Sprinkler System Yes Yes No Other recommendation 9 Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Hydrant Location Adequate Roadway/Aisleway Width Not Identified Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By 49 Yes K. Steudl Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards No Signature Title a L-1 • Rezoning Comments —_ Lzwrenee -- Mail to: Frederick Co. Fire Marshal 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-6350 Frederick County Fire 1Vhrshal Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Fire & Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal Co. Administration Bldg., 1't Floor 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Fire Marshal with his review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox. Jr., P.E., VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: South and adjacent to Clearbrook Presbyterian Church on the east side of U_ S. Route 11, surrounded to the east and south by Clearbrook Park Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: B-2 Acreage: 1.965 Fire Marshal's Comments: Fire Marshal's Signature & Date Notice to Marshal – Please Return This Foran to the Applicant 12 • /— is Rezovigsg CGmments _ Lawrence _ t, --s ede- ick — Wiachesae_f ReAth 1 epar tmeat Flail toto Hand € eliver ter® Frederick -Winchester iealth Dept. Frederick -Winchester Health Dept. Attn; Sanitation Engineer Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Dent Stree' 107 North ?Kent St., Suite 201 `hTinchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VFX 22601 (540) 722-3480 (540) 722-3480 Applicant: Please fill ou-. the information as accurately as possible in cider to assist the Frederick - Winchester Health Department with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, lockt:ion Many pyofr& stakEmenA, impact an0ysa,.z,,md any other pertiaent informatlo-:. Applicant's Name Mailing Address: Location of -Property: Gilbert W. Ciiff-ord ,& Assoc. c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr. P.E. 117 E. Piccadilly Street. Sude 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540)667-2139 South and adjacent to Clearbrook Presbyterian Church on the east side of U.S. Route 11, surrounded to the east and south by Clearbrock Park. Curren, Zoning: Zoning Requested: E-2 Acreage: 1.965 Fr-ederidk— Wir_chester HeRith Departo at's Comments° _`1© L-1,1 �i �2 / s^.� Z %1c%cV 11x, aJ �Ey t e'w /2ca /,t�Inir_ r7 i Signature & Date:_ ( �� / , lVa y` , - �' Notice to"Heaf h DepartraeAt — P`leam lRetury TWs Form to the Applicant 16 5-25-04; 1:36Ph4; G. W. CI Iff Ord ;540 H84 5607 # 1 Jun Ca U'! CJs; 1•1,p u- W. O11rt t7F"L7 d 35soc. .:'FC1->-,0 Z. -Cfiys P. b Rez nin Comn*jlb ha... IR Revr' ed 6/23 O4 V -o , , out rtntion M it to.- Virgini-a ofTranVortetion sid€ntngineer PIMI f3td Valley !wile. � VA -22824 Ha:Adwe>r tos Virginia Dept. of Transportation -Atte, Resident Engimcr 1,4031 Old Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22601 A ° �rnras �y Possible in MJW to assist the V-irgWa Depulumt-Ofm! !- A& with -their "view. Atseii fli ee 4 ajPj s. of- ouiF uppl M ioa farm, ltn7ms�y prnffe�' s%me�ui, imps:�sis. ��ad staff+ otber - Applicant's Name: Ma"S�-Ad&*w.. Location of Property: W_ lifford A chye EE- It dzio Jr FE- VP 147__E�Piccadill _ Winchester VA 226o1 -P- e:- 67 2139 South and adjacent to Clearbrook Presbyterian zhAwlkE s cine of U.S. Route 11, surround-edto the.easrardsOuthby Clearbrook -Park - Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: B-2 Acreage: 1.965 Virginia Depart nent of Fr . - 'Che documentallam-mddila-da=applicatimioLn=methis property appears. to. have little measurable impact on Route 11. This route Es the H. Lawrence, III reaonirig.application dated June -23,,-4S adtlress"Aranspottation concerns associated with-thts-ruqoesL Before development ftsignS, drama featuresTand traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Generation Manoal. SeveatA- €d tEon for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all t -of -way ne s, mg - and off site roadway Improvements and drainage. Any wiark per -formed on,the-Statn rIght-or-way must7becovered under a use P"M This -permit -is -Issued by- aU, tUty bund VD= %gw",n &- Date. �. Notice to A& is& Bim, — Mft='ilus Fvxm to the ApOcant 40 Rem% LIri Y �L� nt3 ��eo_._..� , n-- s. �,_.+��. JlA+i ,re—nmem_.s.ov. i'-redL n -' C jaunty Atterney m2i-A to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540)665-6383 I-ITa nd J efiver to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Streei VIinchester, -VA- Applicant: A Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the County Attornev's office with their review. Aaach a copy of ywu� application Form, location map, praf er Aakemeni, iLEpart :�noLyS&3, and aL y Gi-her pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox, ,;r., r.E., VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester_ VA 22501 Location of Property: South and adjacent to Clearbrook Fresbyterian Church on the east side of U.S. Route 11, surrounded to the east and south by Clearbrook Park. Current Zoning: F.4 Zoning Requested: B-2 Acreage: 1.965 CG -arty Attor-,cley's Comments, Assistant Count; Att` ory's f Signature & 17at��-°- "- 111:1etize W County Attorney - Please i Ptak $ 7 204 FREDEDOCKGOUNW 7 ?'. 'B1&6I�mentS �_nce NQl 3'�fin £sn +�f a of Fa ---,d '5 ick C'S„ Public Seh". Is Mali IX. Frederick Co. Public Schools Attn: Superintendent a.O. Box 3508 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 662-3888 Hand depiyer to: Frederick Cc. Public Schools Attn: Superintendent School Administration Bldg. 1415 Amherst St. Winchester, VA 22601 Apph"at: Please fill. out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Superintendent of Public Schools with his review. A ach a copy of your application Toxin, j� lacation map, proffer s r—lemE!,a y3 kt7,i�.pza ana lyy &*7's, ,ap-d`t fury Othier pel,-V�EneII;t in od,,t,.a tion. ,I Applicant's Name: Gilbert liar. CRIT-ord. , Assoc. Phone: (540)667-1139 Mailing Address: c/o 'I". -PP. Maddox, Jr., F.1✓. 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: South and adjacent to Clearbrook Presbyterian Church on the east side of U.S. Route 11, surrounded to the east and south by Clearbrook Park. Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: B-2 superAw ft" htde nt of Public sch,00J-1s, c amm erais'. Acreage: 1.965 Superintendent Signature & Dated L Notice to Schoo$ S'uperintendeat — Please ezay a This 74®rm ta the Applicant • 14 0 Rezoah-d -1 Frede ek Count Sanft�0-&.- Authoritty- Bail 0 Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 868-1061 H`ipad delivers t'v Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: ?engineer 315 'Tasker Road Stephens City, VA 4 n h Anpiicaa.nt: Please fli out the information as`accuraiely as posaibie in order to assist the Sanitation Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your applic t 7v -a foz-m, lecation map, preger statement, impact a n*sis, aEid any Gther pertiaeW informatnc-. Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox. Jr., P.E., IvT 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: IDSouth and adjacent to Clearbrook Presbyterian Church on the east side of U.S. Route 11, surrounded to the east and south by Ciea.rbrook Paxk. Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: 13-2 Acreage: 1.965 ,Sarntationi Authiozrity C+iDxx7Ck 'is s' , 40 a% Fit A, AM, ,r Sanitation Authority Signature & Novice to Sanithtionn A - NeaWe 'eb rs. This Fcnm to the Applicaut 15 a A Traffic Impact Analysis of the William H. Lawrence III Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Si rveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. April 22, 2004 208 Church Street, SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175 T 703.777.3616 H_�+ F 703.777.3725 April 22, 2004 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed William H. Lawrence III Property located along Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), south of Hopewell Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The site proposes 20,000 square feet of retail development located along the east side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). Build -out is anticipated to occur over a single transportation phase by the year 2006. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the William H. Lawrence III Property were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: , • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed William H. Lawrence III Property site, • Distribution and assignment of the William H. Lawrence Property generated trips onto the study area road network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route I IBrucetown Road, Route I I/Hopewell Road, Hopewell Road/I-81 northbound ramps and Hopewell Road/I-81 southbound ramps. To determine the existing ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of the study area roadway links, PHR+A utilized recently conducted 24-hour traffic counts along Route 11 to calculate a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 8.3%. Figure 1 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 2 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Trak Impact Analysis of the William H. Lawrence III Property PH R+A Apri122, 2004 Page 1 No Scale �e q � (26 33(110) - (2S)2221► ~128(105) _ e 3)47 49(159) Flo cv N X32(43) 1► ��� PeweflRd o a � �So(94) �� 1 Brucetown oa S On O Site,����e #1 11 SITE Site DrZYe b 11 '-�O #2 xoPew,] 1 Road �l (158)78 (52)33` i bopR f AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 1 Existing Traffic Volumes A Traffic Impact Analysis of the William H. Lawrence III Property PH R+A Apri122, 2 Pagee 2 2 e No Scale Unsignalized Intersection f Z_ cz o� CC Figure 2 Unsignalized Intersection �1F NOPetie�ROad q PH R+A Unsignalized Intersection SITE Site - .°p r'Ve #z AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement Denotes continuous two-way left -turn lane Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the William H. Lawrence III Property April 22, 2004 Page 3 2006 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2006. Figure 3 shows the 2006 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 4 shows the respective 2006 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. PHR+A utilized the report titled: A Traffic Impact Analysis of Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Facility, by PHR+A, dated October 6, 2003, to incorporate all trips relating to "other developments" located within the vicinity of the proposed William H. Lawrence III Property site. Based upon the information published in the previously referenced report; PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2006 "other developments" trip generation. Figure A is included in the Appendix to show the background trip distribution percentages. Table 1 Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Trip Generation Summary Land Use Source of Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Milk Processing/ Distribution Center Delivery Trucks Employees Visitors 10 40 3 20 2 1 30 42 4 20 2 1 10 40 3 30 42 4 150 135 35 Total Tris 53 23 76 23 53 76 320 TRIP GENERATION The total trips produced by and attracted to the William H. Lawrence III Property were established using equations and rates provided in the 7t' Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed William H. Lawrence III Property. Table 2 William H. Lawrence III Property Tri» Generation Summary ITE Weekday Land Ust Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code ADT In Out Total In Out Total 820 Retail 20,000 SF 36 23 60 104 113 216 2,386 Total Trips 1 36 23 60 104 113 216 2,386 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the William H. Lawrence III Property April 22, 2004 Page 4 No Scale Figure 3 PH1Zt� AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Aver2ge Daily Trips 2006 Background Traffic Volumes A Traffic Impact Analysis of the William H. Lawrence III Property April 22, 2004 Page 5 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement Denotes continuous two-way left -turn lane Figure 4 2006 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service p HRA A Traffic Impact Analysis of the William H. Lawrence III Properly April 22, 2004 Page 6 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 5 to assign the William H. Lawrence III Property trips (Table 2) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 6 shows the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2006 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The William= H. Lawrence assigned trips (Figure 6) were added to the 2006 background traffic volumes (Figure 3) to obtain 2006 build -out conditions. Figure 7 shows the 2006 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 8 shows the respective 2006 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the William H. Lawrence III Property site are acceptable and manageable. During 2006 build -out conditions, the intersection of Hopewell Road/ Route 11 will maintain levels of service "E" or better. All of the remaining analyzed intersections will maintain levels of service "C" or better. Figure 8 shows the addition of a traffic signal at intersection Hopewell Road/Route 11 which will maintain levels of service of "C" or better. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the William H. Lawrence III Property PH ILA April 22, 2004 Page 7 Figure 5 Mal Trip Distribution Percentages A Trak Impact Analysis of the William H. Lawrence III Property April 22, 2004 Page 8 No Scale Figure 6 PHRA F x(34) (31)11 * 9(45) ay1 L a ^ SITE site ti oa Dave #2 2(6) c Unsignalized Intersection c r Site- I � Drive #1 11 N� ham" 1 %--9(4-5) X2(11) Unsignalized Intersecfion �c Site- F AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) I Average Daily Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the William H. Lawrence III Property April 22, 2004 Page 9 r I No Scale Figure 7 PHRn *` 56(II$) I92(25l) 10,�� J�� xO'beN'ell ROad �b 11 e ^� �zi(6)S ) Unsignalzd tiintersection Site -1 k v v o o 38(57) 114(155) L :1 B ZZ -Z�oo She #I Site Dr SITE #2 �Ve 0 11 `NN N h` I� L9(45) Unsignalized Intersection �� Site- AMPeak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 2006 Build -out Traffic Volumes A Traffic Impact Analysis of the William H. Lawrence III Property April 22, 2004 Page 10 b4go��o� °P°q ell Ro ad �/ (1 3) ,:� 4 i PHRn *` 56(II$) I92(25l) 10,�� J�� xO'beN'ell ROad �b 11 e ^� �zi(6)S ) Unsignalzd tiintersection Site -1 k v v o o 38(57) 114(155) L :1 B ZZ -Z�oo She #I Site Dr SITE #2 �Ve 0 11 `NN N h` I� L9(45) Unsignalized Intersection �� Site- AMPeak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 2006 Build -out Traffic Volumes A Traffic Impact Analysis of the William H. Lawrence III Property April 22, 2004 Page 10 i �� • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner 11 PC Subject: Public Hearing - 2005-2006 Secondary Road Improvement Plan Date: July 5, 2004 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan is a six (6) year transportation plan for all secondary roads in Frederick County. The Secondary Road Plan is divided into the following three categories: Major Road Improvement Projects, Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects, and Incidental Road Improvement Projects. Major road improvement projects include the construction of new roads or the upgrading of existing roads. Warrior Drive is an example of a major road improvement project. Hardsurface road improvement projects include the paving of existing Secondary Roads which are unpaved. The third category of Secondary Road Improvement Plan is the Incidental Road Improvement Plan. The transportation projects within this category include spot improvements on existing roads. An example of an incidental road improvement project is widening a hazardous turn. The Frederick County Transportation Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the attached draft 2005-2006 Secondary Road Improvement flan during their meeting held on June 17, 2004. The most significant changes include the addition of Old Baltimore Road (Route 677) to the list of Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects, the re -rating of all unscheduled roads to be paved, and a recommendation to add several roads to the Rural Rustic Road Program. This year also marks the completion of Warrior Drive. The Transportation r� a s +�. ++ i a a +� v, i n +: ,. �.�, %..,mmittee Re�:,i77Tiie,:iueu wxa� i,lle following roads vG add t0 �u� i.�irai i.uSLLC, Road Program: Back Creek Road (Route 704), Gough Road (Route 618), Ebenezer Church Road (Route 705), Indian Hollow Road (Route 679), Chestnut Grove Road (Route 681), Carter Lane (Route 629), Pack Horse Road (Route 692), and Old Baltimore Road (Route 677). The Rural Rustic Road Program is an option which may be used which allows public roads on the Hardsurface Road 107 North Kent Street o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Re: Draft 2005-2006 Secondary Road Improvement Plan July 5, 2004 Improvement Plan to be hardsurfaced with lesser design standards and a lower cost. Currently the only road in Frederick County which has been approved as a Rural Rustic Road is Adams Road (Route 689). Prior to entrance into the Rural Rustic Road Program, the Board of Supervisors must pass a resolution of request. VDOT is ultimately responsible for determining if a road qualifies for this program. A copy of the Rural Rustic Road guidelines is attached for your information. The process to update the Secondary Road Improvement Plan begins in Frederick County and ends in Richmond. After review by the Frederick County Transportation Committee and Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors will forward a recommended update to the Virginia Department of Transportation for their consideration. Ultimately, VDOT is responsible for establishing the priority of projects in Frederick County, and generally accomplishes such in early spring of 2005. Please find attached a copy of the draft Secondary Road Improvement Plan for the 2005-2006 update, including a staff prepared map showing scheduled hardsurfacing road improvement (HRI) projects and major road improvement (MRI) projects. JFC/bad 2005-2006 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT 06/08/04 FREDERICK COUNTY MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2005/2006 through 2010/2011 Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to enhance public safety. Improvements required for road width, road alignment, road strength, and road gradient are considered major road improvements projects. * To be constructed as one project Page 1 of 6 U. LU z LU u1i U) I C1 d 1a) 647 Aylor Road 0.22 mi. N 1.1 mi. N of 6900 0.9 miles OP/SH $5,886,623 03/04 Under of Rt. 277 Rt. 277 Construction 1b) 647 Aylor Road 1.1 mi N of Route 642 6800 1.2 miles OP/SH $3,039,000 03/06 Rt. 277 2) 719 Warrior Drive Route 277 Route 642 n/a 1.55 miles OP Revenue Complete Sharing Fund 3) 656. Greenwood Road Route 657 Route 655 4300 1.36 miles SH/RB $4,224,114 UN/SH Feasibility Phase 4) 655" Sulphur Springs Route 656 Route 50 5000 0.78 miles SH $5,653,395 UN/SH Feasibility Road - Phase 5) 1520 Inverlee Way — 0.45 Mi. N. Route 657 New 0.61 miles SH $1,800,000 UNlSH Feasibility Revenue Sharino Rt, 50 1 Road I I Phase * To be constructed as one project Page 1 of 6 06/08/04 FREDERICK COUNTY UNSCHEDULED MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2005/2006 through 2010/2011 Page 2 of 6 E o z a a o c I - LL o in Q 1- 608 Wardensville Grade Route 50 West Route 616 1100 2.83 miles BC 659 Valley Mill Road Route 820 Route 7 500 0.2 mile RB Towns curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Stephens City Towns curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Middletown 664 Jordan Springs Road Route 761 Route 660 1500 1.1 miles ST 660 Woods Mill Road Route 664 Route 7 1300 2.13 miles ST East 622 Cedar Creek Grade Winchester City Route 37 12,000 1.03 miles BC Limits 600 North Hayfield Road 1 1.07 Mi. N Rte. 679 Route 684 760 1.93 miles GA 659 Valley Mill Road Route 656 Route 820 4900 1.8 miles RB 657 Senseny Road Winchester City Route 656 9800 1.6 miles SH/RB Limits 739 Apple Pie Ridge Road Route 673 Route 522 3100 1.66 miles GA North 636 White Oak Road Route 277 Route 642 1400 1.6 miles OP/SH 644 Papermill Road Winchester City Route 522 7400 1.36 miles SH Limits South 661 Redbud Road Route 11 North Route 660 760 3,24 miles ST 622 Cedar Creek Grade Route 629 Route 37 3800 5.86 miles BC 657 Senseny Road Route 656 Clarke Co. 5200 2.07 miles RB Line 641 Double Church Road Route 647 Route 277 4200 0.68 mile OP 761 Old Charlestown Route 11 North Route 664 2500 1.13 miles ST Road 659 Valley Mill Road Route 7 Route 656 6700 1.09 miles RB 636 Hudson Hollow Road Route 277 1.5 Mi. S. 1100 1.5 miles OP Rte, 277 621 Jones Road Route 1109 Route 628 1900 0.57 mile BC 600 Back Mountain Road Route 753 Route 614 3100 1.8 miles BC 642 Tasker Road 0.2 Mi. W. Rtel187 Route 1031 9800 0.9 mile OP/SH 661 Welltown Road Route 663 Route 11 3900 1.21 miles ST/GA North 628 Middle Road Route 621 Winchester 3700 1.25 miles BC City Limits 627 Reliance Road Interstate 81 Route 11 1500 0.49 mile OP South 704 Back Creek Road Route 751 Route 683 1100 4.11 miles BC Page 2 of 6 06/08/04 FREDERICK COUNTY HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2005/2006 through 2010/2011 Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction of non-hardsurfaced secondary roads. Hardsurface improvement projects are prioritized by an objective rating .system, which considers average daily traffic volumes; occupied structures; physical road conditions including geometrics, drainage, and accident reports; school bus routing; and the time that project requests have been on the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Page 3 of 6 C M. �- dr wQ w �- I.- I U Z a 20ti Q� F- L) w 1) 689 Adams Road Route 600 2.30 Mi_ N. 100 2.3 miles GA $834,000 10/03 Complete S. Rt. 600 S. 2) 689 Adams Road 2.54 Mi. N. Route 600 100 1.7 miles GA $702,800 10/04 Rural Rustic Rt. 600 S. N. 3) 704 Back Creek Road Route 683 Route 617 160 1.66 miles BC. $552;000 03/05 Potential Rural Rustic 4) 704 Back Creek Road Route 617 W. VA Line 70 1.68 miles BC $559,000 03/06 1 Potential Rural Rustic 5) 618 Gough Road Route 622 Route 616 60 1.75 miles BC .$581,000 03/07 Potential Rural Rustic 6) 618 Gough Road Route 616 Route 608 60 1.32 miles BC $4.45,000 03/08 Potential Rua Rustic 7) 705 Ebenezer Church Road 0.25 Mi. E. Route 522 160 4.25 miles GA ..$1,594,100 UN/SH Potential Rural Rt. 703 Rustic Page 3 of 6 06/08/04 FREDERICK COUNTY UNSCHEDULED HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RATINGS UPDATED MAY, 2004 2005/2006 through 2010/2011 Route 522 Route 694.ry I W 1.3 GA 58 Ridge Road North I miles 0 cca o � 1) 707 Hollow Road W. VA Line Route 610 200 1.6 BC/GA 80 miles 2) 709 Ridings Mill Route 636 Route 735 160 2.7 OP 80 Road miles 3) 676 Warm 0.83 Mi. N Rt. Route 677 240 .0.87 GA 77 Springs Road 677 mile 4) 629 Carter Lane Route 631 Route 625 290 1.8 BC 76 miles 5) 681 Chestnut Route 805 Route 685 100 1.62 GA 76 Grove Road miles 6) 734 North Sleepy 1.27 Mi. SW 2.27 Mi. SW Rt. 140 1 mile GA 73 Creek Road Rt. 522 N. 522 N. 7) 692 Pack Horse 1.2 Mi, NE Rt. Route 671 200 1.4 GA 73 Road 600 miles 8) 679 Indian Hollow 0.3 Mi, W. Rt. 0.5 Mi. E. Rt. 600 140 2.5 GA 72 Road 608 miles 9) 636 Canterburg Route 640 Route 641 130 1.5 OP 71 Road miles 10) 612 Fishel Road Route 600 Route 600 30 1.6 BC 69 miles 11) 733 Fletcher Road Route 50 Route 707 120 1.3 GA 67 West miles 12) 607 Heishman Route 600 End of State 100 0.78 BC 66 Lane Maintenance mile 13) 638 Clark Road Route 625 Route 759 70 0.8 BC 64 mile 14) 644 East Parkins Route 50 East Clarke Co. 260 0.81 SH 63 Mill Road mile 15) 636 Huttle Road Route 709 Route 735 150 1.1 OP 63 miles 16) 677 Old Baltimore Route 739 Route 1360 450 0.38 GA 63 Road mile 17) 695 Middle Fork 2.3 miles W. VA State Line 30 0.9 GA 63 Road north Rt. 522 mile 18) 671 Woodside Route 669 W. VA State Line 220 0.3 ST 62 Road I mile 19) 836 Walters Mill Route 11 I End of State I 130 1 0.8 I ST i 61 I Lane North NAnintPnan!`P milt 20) 696 1 South Timber I Route 522 Route 694.ry I 130 1 1.3 GA 58 Ridge Road North I miles Page 4 of 6 06/08/04 Page 5 of 6 LU U. a " z z LUw w ° w�`o r= v 00�Q� c�a 21) 634 Cougill Road Route 635 Route 11 South 280 0.25 BC 50 mile 22) 811 Timberlakes Route 671 End of State 180 0.25 ST 48 Lane Maintenance mile Page 5 of 6 06/08/04 FREDERICK COUNTY INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION 2005/2006 through 2010/2011 Incidental construction projects are defined as minor construction projects that cost less than $100,000. Examples involve drainage improvements, site distance improvements, spot widening, replacing overflow pipes with box culverts, and the application of plant mix on existing road surfaces. The Virginia Department of Transportation determines if a proposed project qualifies for Incidental Construction based on the overall scnnp of thin imnrnvamont Page 6 of 6 Q F- ❑ h (�L W Wz U U 0 j tib ©❑ 1) 1323 Park Centre at 0.4 miles East of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing- Improve ST $8,000 2003/04 Requesting Drive Surface 10% Federal matchin Funds 2) 657 Senseny Road From Rt. 1204 to Rt. 1265 Construct Center turn RB/S $10,000 .2003/04 Requesting lane, widen pavement H 10% Federal &bride matching Funds 3) 657 Senseny Road From Rt. 1265 to 0.06 Construct center turn -RB/S $10,000 2003104 Requesting 14) miles east of Rt. 1225 lane H 10% Federal matchin Funds County -wide Improvement Install guardrail at $20,000 2004/05 various locations 5) 681 Chestnut From: 0.58 Mi. S of Rt. 608 Add extra pipes GA $80,000 2004/05 Grove Road To: 0.80 Mi. S. of Rt. 608 6) 699 New Hope From: 0.16 Mi. W. of Rt. Widen slope to GA $40,000 2004/05 Road 522 improve sight distance To: 0.23 Mi. W. of Rt. 522 7) Town of Middletown Various roads Plant Mix BC $130,000 2005/06 8) Town of Stephens City Various roads Plant Mix OP $120,000 2005/06 9) 661 Redbud Road 0.45 mile east of Rt. 11 Install flashing lights & SW $15,000 2005106 Requesting bells at RR crossing Federal Funds 10) 620 Singhas Road 0.05 mile south of Rt. 803 Install flashing lights & BC $17,500 2005106 Requesting bells/upgrade crossing Federal Funds 11) 684 Gainesboro 234' southeast of Rt. 522 Install flashing lights & GA $17,500 2005/06 Requesting Road bells/upgrade crossing Federal Funds 12) 684 Gainesboro 0.20 mile east of Rt. 600 Install flashing lights & GA $17,500 2005106 Requesting Road bells/upgrade crossing Federal Funds 13) 672 Brucetown 0.45 mile east of Rt. 11 Install flashing lights & SW $15,000 2005/06 Requesting Road bells at RR crossing Federal Funds Page 6 of 6 06/08/04 Page 7 of 6 LU z Z I q © cn 0 0 Ui I w U U 0)Q Ef> O o Q uri "' Q 0 w © w v 14) 704 Back Creek From: 0.37 mile south of Improve drainage & BC $85,000 2005/06 Road Rt. 783 widen roadway To: 0.80 mile south of Rt. 783 15) 1054 Westmoreland Frederick Towne Estates Plant Mix OP $140,000 2006/07 Drive 16) 1349 Forrest Drive Battleview Subdivision Plant Mix SW $46,000 2006/07 17) 1326 Confederate Third Battle Subdivision Plant Mix SW $40,000 2006/07 Drive 18) 749 Quarry Lane 0.05 mile southwest of Rt. Install flashing lights & SW $13,000 2006/07 672 bells 19) 649 Springdale 0.55 mile west of Rt. 11 Install flashing lights & BC $13,000 2006/07 Road I I bells Page 7 of 6 Frederick County Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects Scheduled List 2005/2006 through 2010/2011 DRAFT N E S 7 104Z k 14r Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects (HRI I 1. Ad Rood, - s vmut thern portion 2. Adams Road - northern portion 3. Back Creek Road - notthern portion 4. Back Creek Road - southern portion 5. Goucih Road - southern poition G. Gough Road - northern portion 7. Ebenezer Church Road t - ' t C F o f Fi l . 1• f � -L i f{J r'. h RAFT a i N 1 a. Ayfor Road - PHASE 1 1 b, Air" Road - PHASE Al— Warrior Drive 3, Greenwood Road 4. Sulphur Springs Road 5. InvierFlee Way Revenue Sharing= Y 3 { 5 r ., e r'. h RAFT a i N 1 a. Ayfor Road - PHASE 1 1 b, Air" Road - PHASE Al— Warrior Drive 3, Greenwood Road 4. Sulphur Springs Road 5. InvierFlee Way Revenue Sharing= HARD SURFACE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RATING SYSTEM POLICY Adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on October 7, 1997 The following procedures are intended to delineate the steps necessary for the application of this rating system policy. Adherence to these procedures will ensure consistency in the application of this rating system policy for existing and future hard surface road improvement project requests. This policy shall be effective following the adoption of these procedures through a public hearing process held by the Board of Supervisors and shall only be altered through the same process. Information pertaining to the rating system application for each hard surface road improvement project shall be maintained in the Frederick County Planning Department database system. The Board of Supervisors shall have the authority to revise the Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan subsequent to the application of the rating system to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Frederick County. RATING SYSTEM REVIEW AGENCIES • Candidate projects shall be rated by the Frederick County Planning Department, the Frederick County Transportation Committee, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). • One rating sheet shall be prepared for each candidate project by each review entity. • The Frederick County Planning Department shall rate each candidate project. • The Transportation Committee members shall rate each candidate project within their respective magisterial districts. • The VDOT Residency shall rate each candidate project through information received from the Maintenance Supervisors for all roads within their respective maintenance districts. RATING SYSTEM APPLICATION METHODOLOGY • Candidate projects shall be rated utilizing the following information and methodology for each category: 1) Average Daily Traffic Count - utilize the most recent traffic counts for each candidate project provided by the VDOT Residency. 2) Occupied Structures - utilize the Frederick County Planning Department addressing database and digital mapping system to determine the total number of occupied structures that have direct access to, or whose only means of ingress and egress from a private road is achieved by each candidate project. 3) Physical Road Conditions/Safety a) Surface Width - obtain surface width data for each candidate project through the VDOT Residency Maintenance Supervisors. b) Shoulder Width - obtain shoulder width data for each candidate project through the VDOT Residency Maintenance Supervisors. C) Horizontal Curvature - horizontal curvature is determined to be deficient if sight distance around the curve is limited by cut sections or vegetation traveling at normal driving speeds. 41 RATING SYSTEM APPLICATION METHODOLOGY (Continued) d) Vertical Curvature - vertical curvature is determined to be deficient if sight distance is significantly reduced or eliminated due to the rise and fall of the road segment traveling at normal driving speeds. e) Drainage - candidate projects shall be determined to have good, fair, or poor drainage utilizing the following guidelines: Good: Pipes are of adequate size and number. Water drains away from the roadway and creates no problem with surface maintenance. Ditches are of adequate size which produce no flooding within the roadway. Fair: Pipes are of adequate size; however, additional pipes may be needed. Water drains away from the roadway with minimal maintenance problems. Drainage ditches are in good condition, require little maintenance, and produce no flooding within the roadway. Poor: Pipes are not adequate in size or number. Ditch lines are inadequate and require extra maintenance. Water does not drain from the roadway effectively, creating maintenance problems and flooding. i Accident Data - obtain police accident report data reflecting property damage and personal injury from the VDOT Residency Traffic Engineering Division. 4) School Bus Travel - utilize information reflecting current or proposed school bus travel routes for each candidate project provided by the Frederick County Public Schools Transportation Supervisor. 5) Time On Road Plan - utilize information from current and previously approved Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plans maintained within the Frederick County Planning Department to determine when candidate projects were incorporated. 3 RATING SYSTEM POINTS APPLICATION • Total points are determined for each category element. A cumulative total is obtained for each candidate project utilizing the total points derived from each category element. • The cumulative total for each candidate project is provided to the Frederick County Planning Department by all review entities. An average is determined for each candidate project utilizing the cumulative points from each review entity sheet and dividing by three. • All candidate projects are ranked from the highest cumulative point average to the lowest cumulative point average within their respective classification. • If two or more candidate projects have the same cumulative point average, a tie -breaking system will be utilized. Each affected candidate project will be compared to the others starting with the category of greatest weight and working through the categories of lesser weights respectively until the tie is broken. • The cumulative point average for each candidate project shall be final. Any citizen request or Board action which results in the alteration of a previously rated and ranked candidate project will require a new rating application by all review entities. The altered candidate project will then be incorporated into the Hard Surface Road Improvement Plan accordingly. HARD SURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FORMAT • The Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan will reflect the candidate projects with the highest cumulative point average that can be incorporated into the VDOT Six -Year Fiscal Plan based on available funding. This information will be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department by the VDOT Residency. • All remaining candidateprojects will be placed on an Unscheduled Hard Surface Improvement Projects list which will be incorporated within the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Candidate projects incorporated into this section of the plan will be ranked from the highest cumulative point average to the lowest cumulative point average. 4 HARD SURFACE ROAD EMPROVElV1ENT PLAN FORMAT (Continued) • The VDOT will advise the Frederick County Transportation Committee when funding is available for the inclusion of new candidate projects within the Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. All candidate projects placed on the Unscheduled Hard Surface Improvement Projects list, as well as newly requested candidate projects, will be reviewed by all review agencies to determine current conditions. Appropriate ranking for all candidate projects will be determined at that time and placed accordingly. NEW PROJECT REQUESTS A written request must be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department which describes the location of the candidate project, the origin and terminus of the segment, and a petition signed by at least 51 % of all property owners fronting on the proposed segment indicating their willingness to participate in right-of-way dedication should the project receive favorable recommendation by the Board of Supervisors. The Transportation Committee shall recommend new project requests which meet this criteria after determining that the candidate project includes a segment of a state route that has a rational origin and terminus. — PROJECT REMOVAL Road improvements projects shall be removed from the plan once VDOT has notified Frederick County that the project has been funded and advertised for bid. The Board of Supervisors may remove projects from the plan. if VDOT has provided notification that right-of-way efforts have been ceased. E1 Virginia Department of Transportation's Rural Rustic Road Program Prepared by the Office of Local Assistance Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 James S. Givens, Director June 2003 We KeepV1111 ■' Virginia 14fovit�g July 1, 2003 Foreword The Local Assistance Division and the Rural Rustic Road Policy Committee are pleased to present these Guidelines for Rural Rustic Roads. This concept, first enacted by the 2002 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia, is a practical approach to paving Virginia's Low Volume Unpaved Roads. A pilot program implemented in July 2002, demonstrated the success of this program concept. It ensures that we practice environmental and financial stewardship while providing basic paved access to more of our rural countryside. The 2003 Session of the General Assembly amended the legislation to provide that this method will be considered as a first alternative for improving all unpaved roads in the future. The Rural Rustic Road Program is effective July 1,2003. Special appreciation is expressed to the Members of the Rural Rustic Road Policy Committee: Julie R. Brown Michael C. McCormack Local Assistance Division Amherst Residency Rob N. Bowman, P.E. Amelia Residency Judith C. Dunn Programming Division James S. Givens Local Assistance Division Junior H. Goad, P.E. Hillsville Residency Conrad L. Hill Lebanon Residency Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Fredericksburg Residency Brennan B. Snyder Environmental Division Joe F. Staton Warsaw Residency David A. Steele, P.E. Waverly Residency Stephen A.Tyrrell, P.E. Leesburg Residency Jerry R. VanLear, P.E. Verona Residency Jimmy W. White, Jr. Lexington Residency C. F. 'Frank' Gee, P.E. Chief Engineer of Operations July 1, 2003 RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PROGRAM Table of Contents Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 Unpaved Road Improvement Program Options.................................................................. 1 Guidelines For Rural Rustic Road Program................................................................................... 2 EligibilityCriteria............................................................................................................... 2 VDOT Review Of Rural Rustic Road Candidate Projects ................................................. 3 ApprovalProcess................................................................................................................ 4 Environmental Requirements For Rural Rustic Road Program .......................................... 5 Sample Resolution For Rural Rustic Road Project......................................................................... 6 ScopingDocument.......................................................................................................................... 7 EnablingLegislation....................................................................................................................... 8 July 1, 2003 Introduction The Rural Rustic Road Program will significantly improve VDOT's ability to pave the vast backlog of unpaved roads. The following chart will help guide whether the Rural Rustic Road option is the best alternative for a given road. Unpaved Road Improvement Program Options 7/2/03 Un aved Road Pave -In -Place Rural Rustic Road The road must already be a state maintained road in the secondary system of Roadway Status state highways. These programs do not apply to the addition and improvement of roads that are privately maintained. Traffic Volume 50 vpd minimum for VPD = vehicles per day paved road funds, otherwise no minimum for 50 — 750 vpd 50 — 500 vpd Limitations are based on normal secondary funding (see below). construction funding. Project must be in the County's County Project must be in the Project must be in the Secondary Six -Year Plan (SSYP) of improvements. Board must Government County's Secondary Six- County's Secondary Six- also request the Rural Rustic Action and Funding Year Plan (SSYP) of Year Plan (SSYP) of Road Program be used, by improvements. improvements. passing a special resolution declaring the road a "Rural Rustic Road." The County Board indicates Land Use growth and traffic generated Growth Factor No restrictions. No restrictions. by the land are not expected to increase significantly over the next 10 years. Safety factors are Safety factors are Ideally, the road can be paved Safety addressed as part of the addressed as part of the as it is without any special needs regarding alignment, project. project. drainage or safety issues. Generally, the existing Reconstruct as necessary to Minor changes in alignment should be capable of Alignment improve alignment and alignment may be safely handling the traffic grade. necessary to address volume and increased speeds issues. that may result from the improved riding conditions. Drainage Roadway drainage will be Roadway drainage will Existing drainage provisions should be sufficient with improved, if needed. be improved, if needed. minimal improvement. Paving may be done within the existing right Abutting property owners of way, but abutting Paving may be done within Right of Way will need to provide property owners are the existing right of way, additional right of way, normally expected to which may be a minimum of normally 50 feet in width. donate additional right- 30 feet. of -way for spot widening, if necessary for safety. 7/2/03 GUIDELINES FOR RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PROGRAM Effective July 1, 2003 The following guidelines apply to the Rural Rustic Road Program: Eligibility Criteria ❑ Must be an unpaved road already within the State Secondary System. ❑ Must carry at least 50 but no more than 500 vehicles per day. ❑ Must be a priority (line item) in an approved Secondary Six -Year Plan, even if the funding source is not from normal, secondary construction allocations. ❑ Governing body of County, in consultation with VDOT's Resident Engineer or designee, must designate a road or road segment as a Rural Rustic Road. ❑ Roadway or roadway section must be predominately for local traffic use. ❑ The local nature of the road means that most motorists using the road have traveled it before and are familiar with its features. ❑ County Board of Supervisors will endeavor to limit growth on roads improved under the Rural Rustic Road program and cooperate with the Department through its comprehensive planning process to develop lands consistent with rural rustic road concepts. ❑ Requires a special Resolution designating the road as a Rural Rustic Road by County Board of Supervisors for each individual road (see page 6). 2 7/2/03 VDOT Review of Rural Rustic Road Candidate Projects ❑ Consider the views of the governing body making the request and of the residents and owners of the adjacent property. ❑ Consider the historical and aesthetic significance of such road and its surroundings. ❑ Focus on leaving trees, vegetation, side slopes, and open drainage abutting the roadway undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. ❑ Improvements along Rural Rustic Roads may be less than minimum design standards, as outlined in the Chief Engineer's memorandum dated June 11, 2002. AASHTO's Guidelines For Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads (ADT <= 400) may be used as a guide. ❑ Look for evidence of site-specific safety problems and focus safety expenditures on those sites where a site-specific safety problem exists. Consideration should be given to appropriate warning signs as needed. ❑ Low volume local roads have very few crashes. Even when 5 — 10 year crash data are available, this data will often be so sparse that other indicators of safety problems should be considered as well. Such other indicators may include field reviews to note skid marks or roadside damage, speed data (which may indicate whether speeds are substantially higher than the intended design speed), or concerns raised by police or local residents. 7/2/03 Approval Process ❑ *Resident Engineer is VDOT's designated representative in dealing with County Boards of Supervisors regarding Rural Rustic Roads. ❑ Board of Supervisors requests the Resident Engineer to evaluate a section of road as a candidate for the Rural Rustic Road program. ❑ Resident Engineer advises Board whether road appears to be a good candidate for program. ❑ Resident Engineer will review all proposed unpaved road projects in the approved Secondary Six -Year Plan for eligibility as a Rural Rustic Road project. ❑ Board of Supervisors designates road as Rural Rustic Road, by resolution. ❑ Resident Engineer concurs in designation and determines if improvements can be made according to Rural Rustic Road concepts and advises Board of project concept. ❑ If for some reason the Board of Supervisors does not accept the final decision from the Resident Engineer after consideration by the District Administrator's office, a final appeal may be sent through the Resident Engineer and District Administrator to the Chief Engineer, for consideration by the Commissioner. ❑ Resident Engineer requests assistance from other divisions, as needed in developing project in accordance with Rural Rustic Road Guidelines. ❑ Requires State Environmental Review Process and permit determination by Environmental staff of VDOT. ❑ Requires scoping documentation (either LD -430 package or modified scoping document developed by Programming Division, see page 7). *Note: The Transportation Manager will be VDOT's designated representative in Northern Virginia. 4 7/2/03 Environmental Requirements for Rural Rustic Road Program All projects being considered for this program should be reviewed by the Residency Environmental Specialist or District Environmental Staff for consideration of the following: SERP (Requires 60-90 days) • Is not required if there are: i. No improvements, ii. No horizontal/vertical realignments, iii. No widening, and iv. No acquisition of right of way. 2. Water Quality Permits (Requires 1-135 days) • Are not required if there are: i. No streams, ii. No water bodies, iii. No wetlands, iv. No water in pipes/culverts/ditches, and v. No intermittent/sometimes dry channels. 3. Cultural Resources (Requires 7-30 days) • No coordination is required if there are: i. No water quality permits and ii. Project is not located within a Rural Historic District listed in the Virginia Landmarks Register and/or the National Register of Historic Places. Such districts include, but may not be limited to, the Green Springs Historic District (Louisa Counties), the Catoctin Rural Historic District (Loudoun and Fauquier Counties), and the Madison - Barbour Rural Historic District (Madison and Orange Counties). 4. Threatened and Endangered Species (Requires 30-135 days) • A database search on the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries website must be conducted by Environmental staff for all projects. • No further coordination is required if there are: i. No water quality permits and ii. No threatened and endangered species identified in collections on the DGIF database. 5. Agricultural and Forestal Districts (Requires 30-60 days) • No coordination is required if there will be: i. No purchase of right of way and ii. No exchange of right of way for work performed by VDOT. 1. Straight donation of right of way is acceptable. 6. VPDES Permit (Requires 14 days) • Is not required if there is: i. No clearing, grading, or excavating (earthwork or manipulation of subgrade and shoulders) that results in land disturbance equal to or greater than 1 acre on one project or any combination of adjacent projects. 7. Hazardous Materials (Requires variable amount of time) • No coordination is required if there is: i. No obvious signs of contamination within the project vicinity. 7/2/03 Sample Resolution for Rural Rustic Road Project The Board of Supervisors of , in regular meeting on the day of , adopted the following: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, during the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to revise §33.1-70.1 of the code of Virginia, to allow for the improvement and hard surfacing of certain unpaved roads deemed to qualify for and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and WHEREAS, such roads must be located in a low-density development area and have a minimum of 50 vehicles per day (vpd), and have no more than 500 vpd; and WHEREAS, this Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect the existing traffic on the road; and WHEREAS, the citizens that utilize this road have been aware of this road being paved with minimal improvements; and WHEREAS, this Board believes Route a Rural Rustic Road, From: To: should be designated owing to its qualifying characteristics; and WHEREAS, the road aforesaid is in this Board's six-year plan for improvements to its secondary system of state highways: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board hereby designates and requests VDOT's Resident Engineer to concur in the aforesaid road as a Rural Rustic Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests that this road be hard surfaced and, to the fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right of way and ditch -lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural rustic character along the road in their current state. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution is forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Seconded By: Signed Yeas: Printed Name Nays: Title 0 7/2/03 A Copy Teste: Enabling Legislation § 33.1-70.1. Requesting Department to hard -surface secondary roads; paving of certain secondary roads within existing rights-of-way; designation as Rural Rustic Road. A. Whenever the governing body of any county, after consultation with personnel of the Department of Transportation, adopts a resolution requesting the Department of Transportation to hard -surface any secondary road in such county that carries fifty or more vehicles per day with a hard surface of width and strength adequate for such traffic volume, the Department of Transportation shall give consideration to such resolution in establishing priority in expending the funds allocated to such county. The Department shall consider the paving of roads with a right-of-way width of less than forty feet under this subsection when land is, has been, or can be acquired by gift for the purpose of constructing a hard -surface road. B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A of this section, any unpaved secondary road that carries at least fifty but no more than 750 vehicles per day may be paved or improved and paved within its existing right-of-way or within a wider right-of-way that is less than forty feet wide if the following conditions are met: 1. The governing body of the county in which the road is located has requested paving of such road as part of the six-year plan for the county under § 33.1-70.01 and transmitted that request to the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner. 2. The Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner, after having considered only (i) the safety of such road in its current condition and in its paved or improved condition, including the desirability of reduced speed limits and installation of other warning signs or devices, (ii) the views of the residents and owners of property adjacent to or served by such road, (iii) the views of the governing body making the request, (iv) the historical and aesthetic significance of such road and its 7/2/03 surroundings, (v) the availability of any additional land that has been or may be acquired by gift or other means for the purpose of paving such road within its existing right-of-way or within a wider right-of-way that is less than forty feet wide, and (vi) environmental considerations, shall grant or deny the request for the paving of such road under this subsection. C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections A and B, the governing body of any county, in consultation with the Department, may designate a road or road segment as a Rural Rustic Road provided such road or road segment (i) is located in a low-density development area and has an average daily traffic volume of no more than 500 vehicles per day and (ii) has a posted speed limit consistent with the topography and features along the road. For a road or road segment so designated, improvements shall utilize a paved surface width based on reduced and flexible standards that leave trees, vegetation, side slopes and open drainage abutting the roadway undisturbed to the maximum extent possible without compromising public safety. The provisions of this subsection shall become effective July 1, 2003. D. The Commonwealth, its agencies, instrumentalities, departments, officers, and employees acting within the scope of their duties and authority shall be immune for damages by reason of actions taken in conformity with the provisions of this section. Immunity for the governing body of any political subdivision requesting paving under this section and the officers and employees of any such political subdivision shall be limited to that immunity provided pursuant to § 15.2-1405. COUNTY of FREDERICK �Sia>�Y*sa=as�.n.�a - Mlt�lll ■ — - � Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM r To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner 11 Subject: Public Hearing - 2005-2006 Primary Road Improvement Plan Date: July 5, 2004 The Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan focuses on improvements to existing major and minor arterial roads within Frederick County. Arterial Roads in Frederick County include Routes 7, 11, 37, 50, 55, 277, and 522. The Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan is updated annually through a public hearing process involving reviews by the Transportation Committee, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The adopted plan is submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration during the funding process; the Commonwealth Transportation Board will take final action on this plan in early spring of 2005. On June 17, 2204 the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended to add the Route 37 Eastern Bypass to the Primary Road Improvement Plan as the top priority. Therefore, the attached draft plan includes the Route, 37 Eastern Bypass as the top priority, with the exception that the Phase I segment of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) is prioritized after the southern and northern segments of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass, but before Route 37 is completed. This prioritization is consistent with previous road plans which have included the Route 37 Eastern Bypass. Other improvements listed on the 2005-2006 Primary Road Improvement Plan include upgrades to Route 11; spot improvements to intersections along Routes 50 and 277; and, the establishment of a commuter parking and ride share lot on Route 7. Please find attached a copy of the draft Primary Improvement Plan for the 2005-2006 update, including a staffprepared map showing project locations. JFC/bad 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2005-2006 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA r1m 1) Route 37 Eastern Bypass (Alternative C) A) Route 37 - Phase 1 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the southern segment of the Route 3 7 Eastern Bypass from Interstate 1 -8 1 to Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) and the northern segment from Interstate 81 to Route 3 7. (As illustrated on map as priority ]A) B) Note: It is intended that the first phase of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), as identified under item #2, shown below, be programmed for construction following the completion of Phase I of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass. (As illustrated on map as priority 1B) C) Route 37 - Phase 2 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the preferred alternative between Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) and Interstate 81 to the north of Exit 317. (As illustrated on map as priority 1 C) 2) Route 277 (East of Stephens City) From: I-81/Route 277/Route 647 Intersection (East of Stephens City) To: Route 340/Route 522 South Intersection (East of Double Toll Gate) Phase 1: From the 1-81/277 Interchange to Route 636 (As indicated under note for priority 1B) Phase 2: From Route 636 to Route 340/Route 522 (As indicated on map as priority 2) County staff to work with site developers to acquire dedicated right-of-way and achieve grading, drainage, and construction improvements in conjunction with development projects which occur along the corridor until such time that funding is available for construction. Establish a construction schedule for the phased improvement of Fairfax Pike (Route 277). Program funding for the completion of right-of-way acquisition and construction of each phase as described above. 3) Route 11 (North and South of Winchester) A) Establish an Urban Four Lane System From: Southern limits of the City of Winchester To: Intersection of Route 37 South, Exit 310 (As illustrated on map as priority 3A) B) Establish an Urban Four Lane System From: Northern limits of the City of Winchester To: Intersection of Route 761 (As illustrated on map as priority 3B) 4) Spot Improvements A) Route 50/17 Program funds to initiate engineering and design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction involving the relocation of the existing entrance to Carper's Valley Golf Club to align with the major collector road entering the Ravens Development; to construct a new crossover at this intersection location with turn lanes on Route 50/17; and, to eliminate the existing crossover serving Carper's Valley Golf Club. This spot safety improvement will ensure conformance with the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) and the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan's Eastern Road Plan. (As illustrated on map as priority 4A) B) Sulfur Springs Road and Route 50 Program funds to install Traffic Light at intersection of Sulfur Springs Road (Route 655) and Millwood Pike (Route 50) (As illustrated on map as priority 4B) C) White Oak Road and Route 277 Program funds to install Traffic Light at intersection of White Oak Road (Route 63 6) and Fairfax Pike (Route 277) (As illustrated on map as priority 4C) 5) Commuter Park and Ride Lots Establish a new park and ride facility along the Berryville Pike (Route 7) corridor. Work with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to determine appropriate locations for park and ride facilities at other strategic locations within the County's Urban Development Area. (As illustrated on map as priority S) C,reaiea Dy ine uepar[ment of tlianning and Development, July 6, 2004 s Primary Road Improvment Projects 2005 - 2006 Primary Road Improvement Plan COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 rEMoRArm_UM To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II Subject: Public Hearing - 2005-2006 Interstate Road Improvement Plan Date: July 5, 2004 The Frederick County Interstate Road Improvement Plan is updated annually through a public hearing process involving reviews by the Transportation Committee, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The adopted plan is submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration during the funding process; the Commonwealth Transportation Board will take final action on this plan, and the State's Commonwealth Transportation Board, in early spring of 2005. No changes have been made from last years Interstate Road Improvement Plan. Please find attached a copy of the draft Interstate Improvement Plan for the 2005-2006 update, including a staff prepared map showing project locations. JFC/bad 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2005-2006 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT 1-81 Improvements: Provide additional travel lanes on the main line, collector -distributor lanes adjacent to the main line, modifications to existing interchange areas, and develop new interchange areas and bridge crossings of the main line as recommended by the Interstate 81 Study and the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WAIS). Moreover, the County of Frederick supports exploration of the potential for rail transportation as a component of the Interstate 81 Corridor improvements. A) Widen Abrams Creek Bridge and Extension of Northbound Acceleration and Southbound Deceleration Lanes, Exit 313 (As illustrated on map as priority I -81A) B) Extend Southbound Acceleration Lane, Exit 310 From: Route 37 To: Southbound I-81 (As illustrated on map as priority 1-81B) C) Widen I-81 from Fairfax Pike to Route 37 North. This should include the relocation of the 277 Interchange, Exit 307, further south to alleviate existing and future congestion on Fairfax Pike. From: Route 277, Exit 307 To: Route 37 North, Exit 310 (As illustrated on map as priority I-81 C) D) Widen Remainder of I-81 in Frederick County From: West Virginia line To: Warren County line (As illustrated on map as priority 1-81D) Interstate Road Improvement Projects F 1-81A F1BJ 1-81 B ALO 1-81C 1-81 D 2005 - 2006 Interstate Road Improvement Plan •'a ,.e soo WINGFR 666 9' \ 37 y i9 622 1-81 B 1-81 A 626 501 STEPHENS 1 CI �. 631 ' 277 627 1 r 641 { DDLET '+ N 1 522 T — 627 Created by the Department of Planning and Development, July 6, 2004 • C, J COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Planner I AVCS RE: Revocation of Conditional Use Permit #017-90 for White Oak Trading Post DATE: July 9, 2004 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #017-90 for White Oak Trading Post on December 12, 1990, to allow for an existing campground and expansion of the store by 75% on property identified with P.I.N. #86-A-143 in the Opequon Magisterial District. This CUP was approved with the following conditions: 1) Any change in use shall require a new conditional use permit. 2) This permit will be subject to annual review and renewal. 3) A site plan, meeting the requirements of the Frederick County Code, must be submitted for approval. 4) Additional expansion of the facility, beyond what is currently proposed, will require an amended site plan ane a revised CUP. Violation of Conditions Staff received a complaint regarding violations of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance at this property. Staff inspected the property on March 24, 2004, and noted the violations. These violations constitute a violation ofthe conditions placed on Conditional Use Permit 17-90, approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 12, 1990. Staff noted automobile sales and inoperable motor vehicles located on this property during inspection on March 24, 2004. The sale of automobiles has stopped; however, the violation of inoperable motor vehicles is ongoing, in regards to campers. On May 20, 2004, staff visited the property and noted a restaurant operating from the country store, which constitutes a violation of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of Conditional Use Permit 17-90. Staff further noted that tenants at this campground are staying longer than thirty (30) days, which also constitutes a violation of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Over the years, this property has been in violation of the Conditional Use Permit. In recent months, a letter of violation was issued, as was a notice of revocation for violations of the conditions of Conditional Use Permit 17-90. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Frederick County Planning Commission Re: Revocation of CUP #017-90 for White Oak Trading Post July 9, 2004 Staff conclusions for the 06/16/04 Planning Commission meeting: The holder of Conditional Use Permit 17-90 is in violation of the above -reference conditions with regards to the zoning violations that staff has received. A recommendation from the Planning Commission for continuation or revocation of Conditional Use Permit 17-90 would be appropriate. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisor for their consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 06/16/04 MEETING: The owner of the property, Mrs. Katherine Yancey, together with the lease holder, Mrs. Phyllis Mainhart, were present to answer questions from the Commission. Mrs. Yancey said that she purchased the property in 1987; Mrs. Mainhart said that she has been operating for approximately 12 months. Mrs. Mainhart said she took over the business and ran it like it had always been run; she said there were already full-time campers on site and the deli was already set up. She said there was nothing in the lease agreement to indicate that people could not live in the campground. She said that she did not add any kitchen equipment, nor did she increase the seating. Mrs. Mainhart said the food production increased because she tailored the business to working people in the area. She said she did not know she was in violation of any codes; as soon as the owner told her of the violations, she called the neighbors to remove their vehicles that were parked on the property for sale and she notified the campers that they needed to bring their vehicles into compliance. Four local residents spoke at the meeting and one read a letter of support from the pastor of the Liberty Baptist Church. All of the local residents who spoke were in support of Mrs. Mainhart continuing with her business. All of the residents commented on the improvements to the appearance of the store and campground since Ms. Mainhart took over the business; they all spoke highly of Mrs. Mainhart and her generosity towards others. They said the store was frequented by local residents as a gathering place because the food was good and it was affordable. One gentleman, who was a resident of the campground, said that he was one of a number of people who enjoyed living at the campground and wanted to stay. The campground manager said that as soon as they became aware of the inoperable vehicle violations, they began to notify campers to bring their vehicles into compliance. He said he was unaware of the 30 -day limit on staying at the campground and when Mrs. Mainhart took over the campground, there were already several persons living there from between three to five years. One of the kitchen helpers said they had been inspected by the County Health Department twice, with no violations, and once by a State health official who commended them on doing a good job. Commission members did not wish to close down Mrs. Mainhart's business, but were primarily interested in how they could bring her business into compliance with Frederick County Codes. Staff recommended that a new application for a conditional use permit be submitted. During discussion, the point was raised that this campground did not fall under the traditional definition of campground. It was also pointed out that the 30 - day time limit for campers was not only a zoning code requirement; but was also a requirement of the building code. In addition, it was noted that Mrs. Yancey's legal counsel was not able to be present and the Commission believed that her counsel needed to be given the opportunity to be involved in this review process. The Staff said they would work with the property owner's counsel and the building official to see what options were available. Staff also agreed to work with the applicants on applying for a new conditional use permit. Page 3 Frederick County Planning Commission Re: Revocation of CUP #017-90 for White Oak Trading Post July 9, 2004 The Commission unanimously voted to table the consideration of the revocation for 30 days, or longer if needed, in order to give the applicants the opportunity to work with the staff and to apply for a new conditional use permit. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07-21-04 PLANNING COMMISSION• Staff has met with the property owner's counsel and explained the violations of Conditional Use Permit 17- 90. Staff explained that a new Conditional Use Permit to expand the country store to include a restaurant is needed. Site improvements must be complete prior to a new Conditional Use Permit application being accepted. A site plan for this property was approved in 1991. The improvements are currently not in place. The Frederick County Building Official conducted an inspection at the property on July 2, 2004, and cited the property for violations of Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code noted in your agenda. This thirty- one (3 1) seat restaurant use was never allowed or permitted at this property, and is in violation of the building code. These are violations of the conditions placed on Conditional Use Permit 17-90. The noted violations of the building must to be abated prior to a new Conditional Use Permit application being accepted. The tenants are currently staying at this campground longer then thirty (30) days. This constitutes a violation of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. As of this date these violations of the conditions that have been. placed on Conditional Use Permit 17-90 have not been abated. Staff would recommend pursuant, to Section 165-21 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, that this revocation be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for action. CERTIFIED July 7, 2004 Mrs. Katherine Yancey P.O. Box 511 Stephens City, VA 22655 COUNTY of FREDERICK Inspections Department John S. Trenary, Building Official 540/665-5656 Fax 540/678-0682 RE: Complaint Inspection, White Oak Trading Post, 1039 Fairfax Pike, Tax Map Number 86- A -143A Dear Mrs. Yancey: On July 2, 2004, our department responded to a complaint and conducted an inspection at the above mentioned location. At that time, the following was discovered: The existing store had been partially converted to a restaurant with seating for 31 people. This is a violation of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, Section 111.1 When a Permit is Required. Section 111.1 When a Permit is Required. (2) Changing the use of a structure either within the same group classification when the new use requires greater degrees of structural strength, fire protection, exit facilities, ventilation or sanitary provisions. The change of use permit shall require the approval under Section 111.7 Functional Design Approval by the Frederick County Planning & Development Department and the Virginia Environmental Health Department. After approvals are granted, a change of use permit application shall be submitted including a floor plan along with a structural evaluation by a Virginia Licensed Design Professional. Both documents shall be sealed by the professional at the time of submittal. 2. The kitchen was utilizing a commercial electric hot plate, producing grease laden vapors, under a non -approved commercial hood without an approved fire suppression system. A three compartment sink in the kitchen does not have a grease interceptor installed on the drainage system. The structure has one water closet. and one lavatory for public use. The code requires a minimum of two accessible restrooms when the occupant load exceeds 15 and food is served. This is a violation of the International Plumbing Code and the International Mechanical Code. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Yancey Letter Page Two Other items noted during the inspection were a back egress door, in the seating areas, was being blocked by a large piece of furniture. This is a violation of the International Property Maintenance Code/2000 and shall be removed immediately. The above items are violations of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code/2000, Section 105 Violations. Section 105.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful to construct, alter, remove, demolish or occupy, or fail to maintain in accordance with Part III of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, any structure or equipment regulated by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Please submit the proper paperwork for permit application or abate the violations above and schedule a follow-up inspection within 15 days from the receipt of this letter. The above is subject to Section 106.0 Appeals of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Please contact me at (540) 665-5656 if you have any questions. Sincere, ,r John S. Trenary, C Building Code Off cc John R. Riley, County Administrator Larry Ambrogi, Commonwealth County Attorney Denny Linaburg, Fire Marshal Marc Charen, Planning & Development Steve Lee, Department of Environmental Health Phyllis Louise Mainhart, Tenant MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #02-03 REGENTS CRESCENT Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: July 2, 2004 Staff Contact: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 05/19/04 Tabled 07/21/04 Pending Board of Supervisors: 08/11/04 Pending LOCATION: This property is located on North Frederick Pike (Route 522 N), approximately 450 feet south of Oakside Lane, in the Sunnyside neighborhood. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 53-A-53 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District B2 (Business General) District ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District B2 (Business General) District South Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District East Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District B2 (Business General) District West Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District PROPOSED USE: Residential & Commercial Uses Use: Vacant Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Vacant Use: Residential MDP #02-03, Regents Crescent Page 2 July 6, 2004 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The preliminary master plan for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 522, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. All previous comments have been addressed. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the ITE Trip Generation manual, Seventh Edition, for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to construction on the State's right-of-way the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work. Fire Marshal: Water supplies shall meet the requirements of Frederick County Code Section 90-4. Fire hydrants shall be within three feet of the curb. Connecting of water supplies to the Westminster Canterbury site would greatly enhance fire flows. Plan approval recommended. Sanitation Authority: Approved Building Official: No comment required at this time. Shall comment at time of subdivision submittal. Parks & Recreation: The revised Master Development Plan summary dated May 24, 2004 states that adequate recreational units and open space will be provided. Detailed information regarding the planned recreational units and the usable open space provided will be needed during the site plan review stage of this project. Winchester Regional Airport: The referenced revised master plan has been reviewed and it appears that the proposed site plan will not have an impact on operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. No special requirements are requested on behalf of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority. Health Department: Public water and sewer must be provided. Department of Public Works: We offer no comments at this time. A comprehensive review of stormwater management and downstream drainage issues shall be reviewed at the time of subdivision plan submission. Planning & Zoning: A) Master Development Plan Requirement A master development plan is required for most subdivisions and development of properly in Frederick County. Before a master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision. Ordinances. The purpose of the master development plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County that suits the MDP #02-03, Regents Crescent Page 3 July 6, 2004 characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. B) Location The site of the proposed development consists of one parcel of land approximately 11 %2 acres in size. The property is located on North Frederick Pike (Route 522 N), approximately 450 feet south of Oakside Lane, in the Sunnyside neighborhood. Zoning is split on the parcel. There are precisely 2.81 acres zoned B2 in the front and 8.77 acres zoned RP in the rear. A portion of the Westminister Canterbury property is located directly behind the subject parcel. C) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the subject parcel as B-2 (Business General) District and R-3 (Residential Limited) District. No zoning changes have been made to the portion of the property zoned B-2 District. The portion of the property zoned R-3 District was changed to RP (Residential General) District on September 28, 1983 when the R1, R2, R3, and R6 zoning districts were reclassified. D) Site Suitability Land Use Compatibility: The proposed development is located in the Sunnyside neighborhood of Frederick County. A mixture of residential and commercial uses exist in the vicinity of the subject parcel. Westminister Canterbury is located to the rear of the subject parcel and single-family detached residential dwellings exist along the northwest property line, along the east property line, and across North Frederick Pike (Route 522 N). Commercial properties also exist across North Frederick Pike (Route 522 N). The adjoining parcel to the east is split zoned, as is the subject property, with the B2 (Business General) District zoning designation located along Route 522 N and the RP (Residential Performance) District located in the rear. Historic Resources: The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any potentially significant historic resources on the site of the proposed master development plan. Furthermore, according to the National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia the subject site does not contain any core battlefield resources. Environment: No environmental features are located on the property. The property is mostly wooded at this time. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Swimley soil association. These soil MDP #02-03, Regents Crescent Page 4 July 6, 2004 types are common west of Interstate 81, primarily in areas with limestone geological formations. It is noted that these soil types present some limitations to site development due to rock outcrops, slope and low strength. Transportation: Access to the site will come from North Frederick Pike (Route 522 N) and a new proposed local road, referred to on the plan as Trafalgar Square. The applicant is also proposing a network of private roads to access the proposed residential units in the portion of the property zoned RP District. The portion of North Frederick Pike (Route 522N) which adjoins the subject property is classified as a minor arterial road. Waiver #1 With a speed limit of 45 inph on North Frederick Pike (Route 522 N), Section 165-29 (4) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires an entrance spacing of 200 feet. This is measured Malk from the tangents to the curb return. The applicant is proposing an entrance spacing waiver to allow a spacing of approximately 90' from the private entrance to the northwest. The entrance to the northwest will remain open; however, the applicants will be providing an access easement and driveway to allow the existing residents to access Trafalgar Square. Planning Staff Note: The applicant has informed staff that the entrance to the private road is not being eliminated altogether because at least one of the adjoining property owners opposes its removal. Therefore, if the entrance spacing waiver is granted by the Planning Commission to allow the construction of the new road (Trafalgar Square) the property owners to the northwest would have the option to use either entrance. The entrance for the proposed driveway has been moved to the cul-de-sac. Planning Staff Note: It may be more appropriate to coordinate a transportation plan with the property to the southeast, rather than requesting a waiver and adding a new entrance off of North Frederick Pike (Route 522 N). The adjoining property to the southeast is currently undeveloped. Waiver #2 The applicants are also requesting a waiver to allow individual lot (yard) areas to be greater than 500 feet from a state road. The Subdivision Ordinance gives the Planning Commission the ability to allow lots to be located as much as 800 feet from a state road in cases where enhanced circulation is provided with a driveway loop. Comprehensive Policy Plan: The proposed 11.58 -acre parcel is zoned both RP (Residential Performance) and B2 (Business General) and is within the LDA (Trrban Development Areal and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). There is no small area land use plan for the Sunnyside neighborhood. The development proposal for commercial land uses along North Frederick Pike (Route 522 N) with residential land uses in the rear is generally in conformance with the layout of existing land uses in the area. MDP #02-03, Regents Crescent Page 5 July 6, 2004 Density: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance stipulates a maximum density of 8.0 residential units per acre for the proposed townhouse and single family detached cluster development. For the 8.77 acres zoned RP (Residential Performance) District, a maximum of 70 residential units is allowed Recreational Facilities, Landscaping, Buffers, and Open Space Waiver #3 A Zoning District Buffer is required between the proposed residential uses and the proposed commercial uses, as well as between the proposed commercial uses and the existing residential uses to the northwest. The applicant has requested a waiver to the requirement for an internal residential screen from the Planning Commission. An internal residential screen consists of a ten foot wide landscape easement with a double row of evergreen trees. Section 165-37 C.(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that "if natural barriers, topography or other features achieve the function of an internal separation buffer, the requirement may be waived by the Planning Commission. The applicant indicates that the "other features" include the unique style of their development, being that no individual residential lots are proposed. The applicant refers to this as a condominium style of development. Further, the applicant will plant the required trees for this buffer elsewhere on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 05/19/04 MEETING: The staff informed the Commission that just yesterday, the applicant's representative had submitted a modified plan which would impact the private road network, the storm water improvements, and the utility line locations. The staff suggested that the applicant request a tabling of consideration of the master development plan (MDP) in order to allow time for the applicant to prepare a completed application package with revised review agency comments; however, the applicant desired to make a presentation to the Commission. A discrepancy in the location of the B2 District line between what was shown on the boundary line survey plat provided by the applicant and what was depicted on the County's zoning map was pointed out. The Zoning and Subdivision Administrator confirmed for the Commission that the zoning district boundary shown on the engineered plat was correct. Two residents, who owned property along the existing access easement to the north, came forward to express concerns. One of the residents had concerns that the 20 -foot right-of-way might not be recognized across the entire 150 -foot frontage of his lot. The other resident said he was not interested in the state road connection offered by the applicant because there was nothing to deter residents at the new development from driving over onto his private drive. This resident was also concerned that the right-hand turn access off of Route 522 didn't have sufficient length to handle the speed of approaching vehicles, nor was it long enough to accommodate the amount of traffic it would have to absorb. Both of the residents were disappointed with the buffer between their homes and the new development. Next, there was a discussion about whether the revised plan could be sent forward to the Board. No reviewing agencies had seen the revised plan; the applicant believed the changes were not significant enough to affect any of the review comments. Although the changes seemed to be minor, members of the Commission preferred to see a Fire and Rescue review because of the different road layout proposed. MDP #02-03, Regents Crescent Page 6 July 6, 2004 It was also pointed out by the Commission that if the connection was 60-80 feet with only a 24 -foot pavement section, they would prefer to have Fire and Rescue's reassurance that the emergency vehicle access was indeed satisfactory in the case of a multi -alarm situation. Other Commissioners agreed and, in addition, had concerns about forwarding an uncompleted application package to the Board of Supervisors. By a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission agreed to table the master plan until such time as the applicant could submit a completed revised application package to the staff with revised review agency comments. (Commissioner Rosenberry was absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/21/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Since the Planning Commission's review of this MDP on May 19, 2004, the applicant has revised the MDP to reflect the modified road layout. Furthermore, the applicant has provided revised review comments from the Fire Marshal, and also from VDOT, Sanitation Authority, Building Inspections, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works. Other than the change in the road layout, the applicant has made a few other modifications since the Planning Commission's previous review. The most significant of these changes includes the reduction in the number of recreational units from 3 to 2; the construction of a driveway with the proposed easement for use by the adjoining property owners along the northwest property line; correction of the proposed density to meet ordinance requirements; and a request to waive the requirement for an internal residential screen, but to plant the trees required for this screen elsewhere on the property. The subject parcel is 11.58 acres in size, consisting of 2.81 acres in the B2 (Business General) District and 8.77 acres in the RP (Residential Performance) District. The proposed preliminary MDP calls for the development of the subject parcel into two future parcels. Parcel 1 would consist of 9.48 acres for the development of up to 70 residential dwelling units. Twenty eight single-family detached cluster dwellings are proposed around the perimeter of this parcel and 42 townhouses are proposed in the center. Parcel 2 would consist of 1.41 acres for future commercial use. Access for all proposed uses would be provided via a new state road and an internal private road system. The development will provide an easement and driveway to link the existing private road along the northwest property line with the cul- de-sac of the proposed state road. Upon resolution of the three requested waiver requests, the proposed development would meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. All of the issues identified by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed by the applicant prior to a recommendation to the Board. A summary of concerns and comments from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this master development plan application would be appropriate. In addition, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a decision regardin the applicants three waiver requests listed on the ollowing page. 1. Entrance facing Waiver to allow a spacing of approximately 90'from the proposed entrance (Trafalgar Square) to the entrance to the northwest; MDP #02-03, Regents Crescent Page 7 July 6, 2004 2. Lot Access Waiver to allow lot areas to be up to 800 feet from a state road; and 3. Internal Residential Screen Waiver to eliminate the requirement for an internal residential screen between the two proposed housing types but to plant the required landscaping for that buffer elsewhere on the site. March 10, 2004 Mr. Jeremy F. Camp Frederick County Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Preliminary Master Development Plan Review Comments — Regents Crescent (Formerly New London Estates) BCG Project # 1955-01-001 Dear Mr. Camp: We have received your comments dated December 1, 2003 and are formally requesting a waiver from the Frederick County Planning Commission on Section 165-29.A.4 (Motor Vehicle Access) per Section 165-29.13 (Alternative Methods) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. We have addressed all other comments and request that we be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda. The subject property, property identification number 53-A-53, is located approximately 3.000 feet from the City of Winchester and Frederick County boundary along route 522 North Frederick Pike. This property is well within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and is proposing a mixed single-family detached, townhouse, and retail/office land use. The subject property currently has two existing access points to route 522 North Frederick Pike and the property owner is requesting to upgrade one of the existing entrances found on the subject property. Section 165-29.A.4 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires that "new driveways" maintain a minimum driveway spacing of 200 feet on primary and arterial highways with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The property has 286.06 linear feet of total frontage on route 522. A total of approximately 385 linear feet exists from the northern most edge of route 522 frontage for the subject property to the existing Autumn View Lane entrance onto route 522. Within this distance the subject property has two existing driveways, of which one is recorded in the land records of Frederick County as a shared access easement. A more detailed physical description of the existing conditions will assist in clarifying the justification for the requested variance. One of the current driveways for the subject property is located approximately 240 feet north of the existing Autumn View Lane entrance to route 522. This same driveway is located 145 feet to the south of the second on-site shared access driveway located at the northern most edge of the subject property's frontage to route 522. This second driveway is the shared access driveway that is recorded in the land records of Frederick County. Three additional off-site driveways are located on route 522 within 160 feet north of the existing shared access driveway located Mr. Jeremy F. Camp February 23, 2004 Page 2 of 2 on the subject property. The existing shared driveway entrance to route 522 has a spacing of approximately 80 linear feet from the next driveway entrance. The request for a variance to the required driveway spacing separation is justified through the construction of a safer means of ingress and egress for one of the two existing entrances of the subject property and the properties currently accessing route 522 via the existing shared access easement. The planning and design efforts for the development of this project have incorporated the safety concerns of the Virginia Department of Highways Edinburg residency, property owner, and the property owner's civil engineer, land planner and architect. We are submitting the desired solution for a well-planned access to the subject property, while considering the zoning separation buffers and the safe and current intersection access design and construction standards required by VDOT. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance addresses driveway spacing exceptions and alternative methods. It is the request of this landowner that the Planning Commission approve the proposed alternative method of access for the subject property. This Master Development Plan has received approval from VDOT and will provide a safer alternative for access to route 522 for the adjacent properties that currently use the shared access easement. The proposed alternative preserves the intent of the zoning buffer requirement between the B-2 zoning and the RP zoning along route 522; it provides access and easement rights for the adjacent property owners to use the proposed VDOT roadway being constructed for the subject property; it provides 295 linear feet of separation from the centerline intersection of Autumn View Lane and the proposed Trafalgar Way; it provides 200 linear feet of separation from the centerline of Trafalgar Square and the first driveway beyond the on -property shared access easement. The waiver request is therefore justified through the efforts of sound planning and engineering design in conjunction to VDOT requirements and requests to achieve upgraded access to a parcel of land currently possessing two points of access to route 522. The ordinance (Section 165-29.A.7.b.1 and 2) allows for driveway spacing exceptions when shared access is addressed. This Master Development Plan proposes shared access to continue for the existing easement as well as for access to a properly planned Trafalgar Square. Per section 165-29.B.1 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the landowner requests that approval to this waiver request is granted as depicted in the proposed Master Development Plan also before the Planning Commission for approval. I would like to thank the commission for its time and consideration, and should you have any further questions please feel free to contact me or my consultant. Sincerely, Wade Clements Property Owner BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP David L. Frank, CLA Project Manager March 10, 2004 Jeremy Camp Planner II County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Tax Map 53 (A) Parcel 53 Waiver of maximum cul-de-sac length Dear Mr. Camp: This is a formal request for a waiver of the maximum cul-de-sac length for Tax map 53 (A) Parcel 53 be granted by the Frederick County Planning Commission. Specifically, this request is to allow this property to construct a series of well-designed internal loop travel aisles not to exceed an allowable 800 linear feet from the proposed State right-of-way cul-de-sac. Section 144-24.0 (2)(b) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance specifies that "The Planning Commission may allow lots to be located as much as 800 feet from a state maintained road in cases where enhanced circulation is provided with a driveway loop." The Master Development Plan demonstrates an internal loop street network that services the single-family detached units on the perimeter and the single-family attached units at the residential core. This project is being modeled after the Crescent in London, England and respects the dual zoning established by Frederick County. The property is currently governed by two zoning districts, and comprises of approximately 11 acres. This property fronts southbound Route 522, approximately 450 feet south from Oak Side Lane. The property abuts RP zoning to the north, west and rear of the south. The B-2 zoning is continued to the south fronting along Route 522, North Frederick Pike. The RP portion to the rear of this parcel is adjacent to the residential duplex land use area of the Westminster -Canterbury project. I appreciate your time in reviewing this matter and request placement on the April 21, 2004 Planning Commission agenda along with the current Master Development Plan application. Should you have any questions or concerns on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. Since ly, Wade Clements Owner/Developer Bowman C 0 N S U P T I Pi G June 2, 2004 Mr. Jeremy F. Camp Frederick County Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Preliminary Master Development Plan Review Comments — Regents Crescent (Formerly New London Estates) BCG Project# 1955-01-001 Dear Mr. Camp: The subject property, property identification number 53-A-53, is located approximately 3,000 feet from the City of Winchester and Frederick County boundary along route 522 North Frederick Pike. This property is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and is proposing a mixed single-family detached, townhouse, and retail/office land use. We have received new agency approvals for the Regents Crescent master development plan pursuant the direction of the Planning Commission at the May 19, 2004 public hearing. The master development plan has been revised to reflect the site plan rendering displayed by the architect at that hearing. Please accept this letter as a formal request for a modification of the standards outlined in section 165-37.C(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance stipulates that a strip 10 feet wide containing a double row of evergreen plantings is required between the single-family detached cluster housing type and the single-family attached townhouse housing type. The plan revisions that have led to the re -orientation of the residential component of the project have raised concerns regarding this internal residential separation buffer requirement. It is the request of this development to redistribute the quantity of plantings that this ordinance requires throughout the development and to have those plantings be any combination of either canopy/shade trees, ornamental trees or evergreen trees. The urban style and design of this development will not be enhanced by the double row of evergreen plantings, however, redistributing the same number of various plantings throughout the development will. The ordinance (Section 165-37.C.(3)) allows for the Planning Commission to grant a waiver in the cases of natural features, topography or other features. The other features being proposed are the architectural design and compatibility of the unit types and overall development concept. This Master Development Plan proposes the use of other planting materials to be planted in the place of the required double row of evergreens and some of those plantings redistributed to enhance the architectural design and compatibility of the detached and attached areas of the development. Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 124 East Cork Street ® Winchester,VA 22601 Phone: 540.722.2343 Fax: 540.722.5080 . www.bowmanconsulting.com Mr. Jeremy F. Camp June 2, 2004 Page 2 of 2 The landowner requests that approval to this variance request is granted along with the proposed Master Development Plan also before the Planning Commission for approval. It is also requested that this request be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda along with the revised Master Development Plan. I would like to thank the commission for its time and consideration, and should you have any further questions please feel free to contact my consultant or me. Sincerely, L W+f Wade Clements Property Owner BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP David L. Frank, CLA Project Manager RP 4�a �. \q; RP RP Westminster - Canterbury 53 A 63A RP Westminster - Canterbury 53 A 63A WA A �Y r Wetzel i 1 A A d"cf.,.,� gEa , Lintz , . 3 53A A '� a 1" r z`nir SKr4-41 Sovereign Homes 53 A 53 RP RP Fincham 53 A S i RP Heitt / 53 A 61 RP t, erg' 7 u�'j \ 'A A 6 i [+ 7 y MDP #02-03 r � t5 Regents Crescent tR a L tS PIN: 53 - A -53 N WE S 0 200 Feet grill 'OK Qa��:1f�a, ;�., a•,' `;: i:i n W14, N •, !'r -�'}�; t+, r'� ar�M a ^ s Er • :,I xk hw 5�-. ,{ ��� •r, . �,� !a 'v �.., 4 \',, F/A 64 r. i .j} P .. . r..P rt„�y^ rf^' N T;Y A % Y Fr ..4' u. ' �'•,• �y�' .�.�J► i i {N s t .y r Regents Cri- oK v� *m,� MAN w1 -1— y Kr r OR W E Sol NEI Yr err t ,� ,' ■■■■ 1 1y2ra ryly� gtr.m 0 100 Feet Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Department of Planning and Development Use Only.. Date application received j 3 Application ## �. Complete. Date of acceptance. lne� ole. Date of return. �I3 1. Project Title : 2. Owner's Name: 3. Applicant Address: Phone Number: 4. Design Company: Address: Phone Number: Contact Name: (Please list the names of all dwners or parties in interest) New Wvt sS V wAl�-r 1<2 G 4 4 reYc 4u, Page 11 a__, C\ S ( A k S hi Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: 6. Total Acreage: 7. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): b) Current Zoning: C) Present Use: d) Proposed Uses: 45-6 l ell -0 rt�- e) Adjoining Property Information: Property Identification Numbers Property Uses North --- I V, t South East - WestrJ>iS-(-- f) Magisterial District: S. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original X- Amended _ I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my mast r development plan. application. Signature: Date: 13'a3 T� � D , 9 lR .� u Page 12 d iAN 13 200.E Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Adjoining Property Owners MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is anyy property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. NAME Name c"e- r- [ /Vi"e' f, ;714 „) r - s //. „r. I -,-- Page 18 ADDRESS / PROPERTY NUMBER Address: ��` 4 > I'%.: Nr.�. - - .s i L: I --X / Property # —31 _3 l%�GrrC�� _._,� moi; • fi •x• L'`r REC s� k JAIL 13 2003 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package ro Page 19 A L-'17 C - A - Z a� -3 -4 --: Jl -71-e;ci. 226IC- JAN 1 3 2003 "IT Address ' ",.,I - L, . ? y J)r Name . h , 4 Property N c--13.4 6,, A 3 c, .4,,c A A —3 3 4,1 457 r _Tp ZI 67 Z—h ro Page 19 A L-'17 C - A - Z a� -3 -4 --: Jl -71-e;ci. 226IC- JAN 1 3 2003 "IT csaa�G�lc County. Virginia Master Development Plan � i 2003Page 19 JAN 3 ^r1� C� • 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 �✓1'AL — RE: Discussion of adding MS (Medical Support) District to Sections 165-47 C (1) and 165-133 & 134 DATE: July 2, 2004 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its June 24, 2004, meeting discussed adding "MS (Medical Support) District" to sections of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This change would include references to the MS (Medical Support) District Section 165- 47 C (1) and Sections 165-133 & 134 of the zoning ordinance, the proposed changes are in bold print (See attachments). The existing zoning ordinance requirements regarding the MS District are not included in these sections of the zoning ordinance as written. Staff supports the DRRS recommendation of adding MS (Medical Support) District in the relevant sections of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. 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 165-47 C (1) Inoperable motor vehicles shall not be stored outside of a total enclosed building in the following zoning districts: RP Residential Performance R4 Residential Planned Community R5 Residential Recreational Community MH 1 Mobile Home Community HE High Education Bl Business Neighborhood B2 Business General B3 Industrial Transition M 1 Industrial Light M2 Industrial General EM Extractive Manufacturing 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Proposed: Section 165-47 C (1) as amended: Inoperable motor vehicles shall not be stored outside of a total enclosed building in the following zoning districts: RP Residential Perfonnance R4 Residential Planned Community R5 Residential Recreational Community MH 1 Mobile Home Community HE High Education MS Medical Support Bl Business Neighborhood B2 Business General B3 Industrial Transition Ml Industrial Light M2 Industrial General EM Extractive Manufacturing ARTICLE XVIII Master Development Plan Existing: Section 165-133 When Required. A. A preliminary Master Development Plan (MDP) and a final MDP shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development for Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approval prior to any subdivision or development of property in any of the following zoning districts: RP Residential Performance R4 Residential Planned Community R5 Residential Recreational Community MH1 Mobile Home Community HE High Education B 1 Business Neighborhood B2 Business General B3 Industrial Transition M1 Industrial Light M2 Industrial General EM Extractive Manufacturing Proposed: Section 165-133 When Required A. A preliminary Master Development Plan (MDP) and a final MDP shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development for Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approval prior to any subdivision or development of property in any of the following zoning districts: RP Residential Performance R4 Residential Planned Community R5 Residential Recreational Community MH1 Mobile Home Community HE High Education MS Medical Support BI Business Neighborhood B2 Business General B3 Industrial Transition M 1 Industrial Light M2 Industrial General EM Extractive Manufacturing Existing: Section 165-134 Waivers A. RP, R4, R5, and MH1 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirements of a MDP in the Residential Performance District, Residential Planned Community, Residential Recreational Community, and Mobile Home Community District, if the proposed property for subdivision or development: Proposed: Section 165-134 Waivers A. RP, R4, R5, MS and MH1 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirements of a MDP in the Residential Performance District, Residential Planned Community, Residential Recreational Community, Medical Support, and Mobile Horne Community District, if the proposed property for subdivision or development: • C� • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark Cheran, Planner IZ=--_� RE: Discussion of Ordinance Change for Semi -Trailers and Trailers DATE: July 2, 2004 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) 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 propose 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 has been added for use with a Home Occupation. This definition would only apply to private property in the above -referenced zoning districts, not public right-of-ways, roads, or highways. Public right- of-ways, roads ,and highways are regulated by law enforcement or VDOT. 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 R5 Residential Community District or the MHI Mobile Home Community District. Any truck with a total length of 25 feet or greater shall 107 North Kent Street a Winchester, Virglfnia 22601-5000 not be parked or stored within the RP, R5 or MHI Zoning Districts. [Amended 6-9-1993] Proposed Section 165-27 D as amended: No part of an over -the -road tractor -trailer truck, tractor truck, tractor -truck trailer, bus, or 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. Prod 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 Zoning Ordinance definition of Business Vehicle: Business Vehicle: 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, step -vans, or buses with a gross weight of greater than 12,000 pounds.