Loading...
PC 03-03-04 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia March 3, 2004 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) February 4, 2004 Minutes ............................................... (A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments .................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Rezoning #01-04 of Shepard Properties, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 1.17 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South), approximately 1,500 feet south from the Airport Road (Route 645) intersection, and is identified with Property Identification Number(s) 64-A-14 and 64-A-15 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Mr. Mohn............................................................. (B) DISCUSSION 5) PIanning Commission Retreat Summary Mr. Lawrence .......................................................... (C) 6) Other C :7 C MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on February 4, 2004. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Barbara E. Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; and, Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - JANUARY 7, 2004 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of January 7, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of February 4, 2004 Page 1246 MR COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 01/29/04 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed buffer areas between the RP (Residential Performance) District, at the edge of the Urban Development Area (UDA), and the RA (Rural Areas) District. He reported that many ideas were presented and discussed. Commissioner Thomas anticipated considerably more discussion and he invited everyone to participate. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Diane Kerns, Valley Conservation Council Ms. Diane Kerns, a member ofthe Valley Conservation Council (VCC), provided the Planning Commission with copies of the State of the Valley Report which was produced by the VCC. She said that several years ago, the VCC produced Better Models for Development in the Shenandoah Valley which contained five established principles. She said the VCC compared facts and figures for the various counties throughout the Valley and compiled the infonnation for their report. In addition, Ms. Kerns announced that the Community Consensus Coalition (CCC) has scheduled the Virginia Citizens Planning Association on their program for Thursday, March 11, 2004. She said that the CCC is hoping to work with Frederick County Planning, Winchester City Planning, and some of the other areas, such as Clarke County, Stephens City, and Middletown in their quest to help the public understand more about the planning process and how to become involved. She said the program was free and open to the public. Mr. Steve White, Stonewall District Mr. Steve White, a resident of the Stonewall District, came forward to elicit support for the proposed aquatic center in Frederick County. Mr. White believed Frederick County needed the aquatic center, not only for the high school students, but for physical therapy, and as an infrastructure addition to attract tourism as well as a number of other industries that would view this as a positive influence for establishing their companies in this area. Mr. White hoped that when this subject came up for consideration, that the Planning Commission would show its support. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of February 4, 2004 Page 1247 -3 - PUBLIC HEARING The 2004-2005 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County. The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County agencies, to be reviewed for potential allocation in the ensuing five-year period. The plan is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. The CIP is an advisory document; projects are not necessarily funded because of their inclusion in the CIP. Action - Recommended Approval Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that the CIP (Capital Improvements Plan) information presented this evening is consistent with what the Commission has previously seen at the subcommittee level and as the Draft CIP presented to the Commission in December of 2003. Director Lawrence stated that the Board of Supervisors has directed the staff to proceed with the public hearing process. Director Lawrence next summarized the new projects for the Commission. He added that some of the various department directors were present to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioner Thomas asked for a brief summary on the significance of whether or not a project is funded; in particular, on Page 5 of the spread sheet, the public safety center and the field house/ indoor pool do not have specified funding. Commissioner Thomas also inquired if the dollar figure, attached or not, affected the project's ability to be eligible for a proffer from a developer. Director Lawrence replied that none of the projects on the spread sheet have been funded; the figures are merely estimated costs. He explained that the public safety center is the number one priority in the County Administration section and the field house/ indoor pool, is the number one priority for the Department of Parks & Recreation. He further explained that neither of those two projects had estimated costs associated with them and that is the reason why those figures were not included on the spread sheet. Director Lawrence said that the numbers presented are not certified, but are merely estimates provided by the various departments. He noted that as long as the projects are identified on the CIP, they will be eligible for receiving proffer contributions. Director Lawrence continued, stating that over the previous year, the County has taken a different perspective in its review by strengthening the CIP and its link to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He said that as a result, in the upcoming year, the County will have a facilities map identifying all the capital improvements projects and this facilities map will be inserted into the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Director Lawrence added that this will strengthen the State Code requirements that all capital projects must be linked and identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Chainnan DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Connnissioner Thomas said that he whole-heartedly supported the 'inclusion of an aquatic center for the County and believed it would represent a quality of life improvement for the residents of Frederick County. Other Cormnissioners agreed. Upon motion made by Connnissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Plan for Frederick County, as submitted. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of February 4, 2004 Page 1248 -4 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE SECTION 165-65 AND SECTION 165-156 PERTAINING TO PIPESTEM LOTS. Action - Recommended Approval Planner Mark R. Cheran reported that after extensive review, the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) recommended a pipestem lot ordinance amendment at their meeting in August of 2003. Planner Cheran said that the ordinance incorporates several design standards for pipestem lots. He said that key design standards include 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. Planner Cheran continued, stating that during the Planning Commission's discussion of this amendinent on October 15, 2003, the majority of Commissioners supported the amendment. He said that Commissioners noted that they were not opposed to giving the design community some flexibility, because it can be an avenue for creative and constructive design; however, they did not want to see pipestem lots become standard procedure. He added that the Board of Supervisors directed the staff to schedule the proposed amendment for a public hearing at their meeting of November 12, 2003. Planner Cheran added that VDOT has recommended that pipestem lots have a minimum road frontage of 20', versus the 18' designated in the proposed ordinance, under § 165-65 Dimensional Requirements, P (2). Planner Cheran further added that VDOT's recommendation was received after the agenda had already been mailed. Chairman DeHaven asked legal counsel if re -advertisement was necessary, if the Planning Commission changed the minimum road frontage from 18' to 20'. Mr. Lawrence R. Ambrogi, the Planning Commission's legal counsel, stated that re -advertisement was not necessary, in his opinion. Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering came forward to address Item Number 5 under 165-65 Dimensional Requirements, "A pipestem lot shall not adjoin other pipestem lots." He believed the intention was not to have two "stems" of pipestem lots together, although there could be occasions when the the lots would come together. Commissioner Thomas stated that the DRRS put a considerable amount of work into the proposed amendment. He agreed with Mr. Smith's assessment of the intent and was comfortable making the proposed change. Chairman DeHaven suggested the wording, "Pipestem lot driveways shall not adjoin other pipestem lot driveways." Everyone agreed the amended wording clarified the intent. Legal Counsel believed re -advertisement was not necessary for this change in wording. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of February 4, 2004 Page 1249 -5 - BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-65 Dimensional Requirements, P. Pipestem Lots, and Section 165-156, Definitions and :Nord usage, Lot, Pipeste.��, with the following changes: (2) Pipestem lots shall have a minimum road frontage of 20 (twenty) feet. (5) Pipestem lot driveways shall not adjoin other pipestem lot driveways. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of February 4, 2004 Page 1250 REZONING APPLICATION #01-04 SHEPARD PROPERTIES Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Hearing Prepared: February 18, 2004 Staff Contact: Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy 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. As this application proceeds through the legislative reviewprocess, the methods) of resolution for each issue proposed by the applicant(s) and/or recommended by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors will be stated in the text of this report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 03/03/04 Pending Board of Supervisors: 04/14/04 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone two parcels totaling 1.17 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to 132 (Business General) District. LOCATION: The properties are located west and adjacent to Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South), approximately 1,500 feet south from the intersection with Airport Road (Route 645). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 64-A-14 and 64-A-15 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Areas) District, Unimproved ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: NORTH: RA (Rural Areas) District, Agricultural SOUTH: RA (Rural Areas) District, Unimproved EAST: RP (Residential Performance) District, Residential WEST: RA (Rural Areas) District, Unimproved PROPOSED USE: General commercial and/or office land uses. REZ #01-04, Shepard Properties Page 2 February 18, 2004 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT): The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 522. 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 rezoning application dated December 8, 2003 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 Manual, Sixth 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. County Attorney: Proffers appear to be in proper form. Fire Marshal: Parcel size in relation to the allowable uses do not present significant changes to emergency response. Plan approval recommended. First Responder - Millwood Fire & Rescue Company: Proper hydrant coverage. Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA): No comment. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority (FWSA): No comments. County Engineer/Public Works: The impact analysis should address stormwater management under "site drainage". It should be noted that onsite stormwater management will be difficult, if not impossible, if the two parcels are developed at different times. Planning Staff Comment: The applicants have addressed the County Engineer comment by providing additional stormwater management information in the Impact Analysis Statement. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not impact historic resources. The Rural Landmarks Survey and the Comprehensive Policy Plan do not identify any battlefields or significant historic structures either on or adjacent to the subject properties. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request for the Shepard properties is in conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and the proposed zoning is compatible with airport operations. It appears that this rezoning will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. REZ #01-04, Shepard Properties Page 3 February 18, 2004 Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subj ect parcels as being zoned R-1 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re -mapped from R-1 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently 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 property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Site Suitability The subject properties do not contain any environmental features or constraints that would either hinder or preclude site development. In particular, the site does not include any areas of steep slopes, flood plain, or wetlands/hydrologic soils. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association, which is the predominant association on land located east of Interstate 81. It is noted that the Weikert- Berks-Blairton soil association presents some limitations to site development due to a seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and slope. The management of such characteristics must be demonstrated through the site engineering process associated with subsequent development applications for the proposed project. It is noted that the majority of the site is wooded. As reported in the Impact Analysis Statement, the wooded areas consist principally of mature pine trees with an understory of deciduous vegetation. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The subject properties are located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The properties are included within the boundaries of the South Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP), and are more specifically located within the SFLUP Central Area. The subject parcels are contained within an area planned for mixed use development. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-42.9) The SFLUP promotes mixed use areas as an alternative to the single use development pattern that has typified land use within the UDA. Indeed, the mixed use areas are envisioned to consist of residential and commercial components that are integrated through a multi -modal REZ #01-04, Shepard Properties Page 4 February 18, 2004 residential component of a mixed use area comprise no more than 75% of the total land area. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-42.4, 6-42.5) Planning Staff Comment: Although not a mixed use proposal in itself, it is reasonable to recognize the applicants' request as consistent with the SFLUP, as the commercial use of the subject parcels will contribute to the mixed use development pattern envisioned by policy. The applicants have endeavored to enable future integration of the site with the larger mixed use area by proffering pedestrian access easements that will allow linkages to adjoining parcels. It is noted that careful evaluation of future development proposals for the mixed use area will be necessary to ensure that any existing commercial uses on the corridor are effectively incorporated into an overarching design scheme. 4) Potential Impacts a) Transportation As noted in the Impact Analysis Statement, the guidelines concerning maximum use intensities included with the County's rezoning application identify 21,361 square feet of retail use(s) as the most intensive land use possible on one acre of B2 zoned land. Given this assumption, the most intensive development outcome possible on the subject parcels would be 24,992 square feet of retail use(s). To project the traffic impacts associated with such a land use scenario, the applicants employed trip generation data for shopping center facilities published in The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6' Edition. The trip generation figures provided for shopping centers are 42.92 average vehicle trips (VPD) per 1,000 square feet of floor area on weekdays and 49.97 VPD per 1,000 square feet of floor area on Saturdays. The projected traffic generated by the applicant's proposal would therefore range between 1,072 VPD (weekdays) and 1,248 VPD (Saturdays). VDOT research indicates that the daily volume on Front Royal Pike between Papermill Road (Route 644) and Millwood Pike (Route 50/17) is 14,000 VPD. The projected traffic generated by this rezoning application would thus increase average daily traffic volumes on the referenced segment of Front Royal Pike by 7.66% and 8.91% on weekdays and Saturdays, respectively. The segment of Front Royal Pike serving the subject parcels is comprised of four (4) travel lanes (dual north - south) and a center turn lane. The applicants have proffered that access to the properties will occur through a shared entrance on Front Royal Pike. The applicants have further proffered to install a right turn/taper lane on Front Royal Pike to facilitate site access. VDOT Comment: The application to rezone these properties appears to have little measurable impact on Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South), which is the state route providing access to the site. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered with this rezoning application, REZ #01-04, Shepard Properties Page 5 February 18, 2004 dated December 8, 2003, address transportation concerns associated with this request. Planning Staff Comment: The addition of trips to public roads is acknowledged as a discernable impact of all new development. However, as per VDOT's comment above, Front Royal Pike should be able to adequately accommodate the trip generation projections associated with this application. Staff concurs with VDOT that the improvements proffered by the applicant are sufficient to address the transportation impacts of the proposed rezoning. b) Historic Resources The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any potentially significant historic resources on the site of the proposed rezoning. Moreover, according to the National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley Virginia, the subject site is not included in any battlefield study area and does not contain any core battlefield resources. C) Water & Sewer The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) is authorized to serve the subject site with public water and sewer due to its location within the UDA and SWSA. The FCSA is the agency responsible for the operation and maintenance of the public water and sewer system to include the Diehl Water Plant and Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility, which are the primary treatment facilities that will serve the commercial use(s) of the properties. It is noted that the FCSA chose to offer no comment concerning the impacts of the proposed rezoning on the public water and sewer system. At maximum possible build -out, the applicant projects that the proposed commercial area will consume approximately 4,998 gallons per day (GPD) of water and generate an average daily sewage flow of 4,998 GPD. The applicant has indicated that water service for the project will originate from the Diehl Water Plant via the 20 inch primary distribution main that runs adjacent to the site. The applicant notes that sewage originating from the site will be conveyed to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility for treatment. Sewage conveyance is expected to occur via an existing 8 inch sewer line located on the east side of Front Royal Pike that will be extended to the site. As an alternative, the applicant notes that an existing 8 inch sewer line located on the west side of Front Royal Pike may be used for conveyance should future development result in its extension from its current terminus north of the site. The applicant indicates that the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility possesses adequate capacity to accommodate the sewage flow projected with this proposal. Specifically, it is stated that this facility has a hydraulic capacity of 2.0 MGD and is currently experiencing average sewage flows of 1.0 to 1.2 MGD. REZ 901-04, Shepard Properties Page 6 February 18, 2004 5) Proffer Statement - Dated December 8, 2003 A) Site Access 1. The applicants have proffered to provide a shared entrance for access to the two parcels from Front Royal Pike. The applicants have further proffered to install a right turn/taper lane on the south bound side of Front Royal Pike to facilitate site access. 2. The applicants have proffered to establish 10 -foot wide pedestrian access easements to enable linkages with the properties located immediately south and north of the site. The establishment of the easements is proffered to occur during the site plan phase of the development process. Planning Sta„ ff Comment: It is noted that the applicants have not committed to the installation of pedestrian facilities within the referenced easements. The responsibility for future construction of such facilities is therefore uncertain. Staff acknowledges the difficulty in determining the appropriate location for inter -parcel pedestrian connections in advance of development proposals for the adjoining parcels. However, without the commitment of the applicants to construction of such facilities, it is possible that the connections necessary to integrate the site with the remainder of the planned mixed use area will not materialize. An approach that would facilitate the desired connectivity and alleviate uncertainty concerning the design of adjoining pedestrian systems would be the installation of pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities in the proffered corridor enhancement area. The provision of such facilities on the subject site would establish clear points for linkages through future development on adjoining properties, thereby contributing to the multi -modal transportation system envisioned for the planned mixed use area. It is noted that Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) is identified for short-term development of bicycle facilities in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Indeed, the County has adopted the Bicycle cle Plan for the City of Winchester and Frederick County as a guide for the development of non - motorized facilities. Such non -motorized systems are considered integral to the creation of a complete networked transportation system for Frederick County and the City of Winchester. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-3, 7-14, 7-17) B) Corridor Appearance 1. The applicants have proffered to install enhanced landscaping along the frontage of the site consistent with a conceptual landscape plan that is included with the proposed Proffer Statement. The proffered landscaped area will include an earth berm and a variety of plant types to ensure seasonal color along this portion of the Front Royal Pike corridor. REZ #01-04, Shepard Properties Page 7 February 18, 2004 2. The applicants have proffered that no more than two (21 fireestanding business signs will be installed on the site, with no more than one (1) such sign on each of the constituent parcels. Moreover, the applicants have proffered to limit the height of freestanding business signs to a maximum of twenty (20) feet. Planning Staff Comment: The Zoning Ordinance does not limit the number of freestanding business signs permitted on a commercial site, although such signs must be separated by a distance of at least 50 feet. Given the relatively small size of the subject site, it may be appropriate to consider combining the freestanding signage possible for each constituent parcel into a single monument style freestanding sign serving the site as a whole. It is noted that the Zoning Ordinance permits freestanding signs on commercial property to reach a maximum height of 35 feet. The height limitation proffered by the applicants therefore represents a 15 -foot reduction in permitted sign height on the subject site. C) Land Use Restrictions The applicants have proffered to prohibit the following land uses that would otherwise be permitted on B2 zoned land: SIC 483 Radio and Television Broadcasting Stations SIC 49 Electric, Gas and Sanitary Facilities, Excluding Offices SIC 551 Motor Vehicle Dealers (New and Used) SIC 552 Motor Vehicle Dealers (Used Only) SIC 555 Boat Dealers SIC 556 Recreational Vehicle Dealers SIC 557 Motorcycle Dealers SIC 559 Automotive Dealers, Not Elsewhere Classified SIC 701 Hotels and Motels SIC 704 Organization Hotels and Lodging SIC 7542 Car Washes SIC 7832 Motion Picture Theaters ----------- Adult Retail Uses D. Monetary Contribution for Fire and Rescue Services The applicants have proffered to contribute the sum of $200 to the County of Frederick for fire and rescue services. The applicants have proffered to provide this contribution at the time of building permit issuance for the first structure developed on the 1.17 acre site. REZ #01-04, Shepard Properties Page 8 February 18, 2004 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 03/03/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposed rezoning is a request to rezone two parcels comprising 1.17 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (Business General) District to accommodate general commercial and/or office land uses. Although planning staff has offered comment concerning pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well as signage, no significant issues have been identified concerning the requested rezoning. Moreover, no issues of significance were raised by any other review agency. The subject properties are located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and the request generally conforms with the applicable policies of the South Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP). OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Shepard LAND USE TYPE B2 REAL EST VAL $1,626,689 FIRE & RESCUE = 6 Fire and Rescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation Public Library Sheriff's Offices Administration Building Other Miscellaneous Facilities SUBTOTAL LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Net Fiscal Impact Costs of Impact Credit: Required (entered in Capital Faciltiies col sum only) $11,886 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,886 $1,147,385 Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits _ Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes. Other (Unadjusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit $0 $0 $11,886 #DIV/0! $0 $0 $0 -$0 - $0 #DIV/0! $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/01 $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! $973 $0 $0 $973 $973 $0 #DIV/0! $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! $2,334 $2,577 $4,911 $4,911 $0 #DIV/0! $3,307 $2,577 $0 $5,884 $5,884 $6,001 #DIV/0! $1,147,385 $1,147,385 (11,147,385 #DIV/0! 0 INDEX: 1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Be[, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg 1.342 -------- —p q ---------- – --- ---- — – ---- – --- – —__— — – - - -- — - – -- --------------- --------------------- METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. _– -- -- - - --- - -- - ----- - – -- — ------------ – ---- - --- – -- -- -- - -- - ----- ----------------- ------------------ NOTES: Model Run Date 11/25/03 CMM Project Description: Assumes 24,992 square feet of retail on 1.17 acres zoned B2 District, which reflects the maximum possible commercial density (21,361 square feet of retail per acre). Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 22V "-t RP RP 64 A 18 ' 1 KOKORSKY li RA SHARP \ 1 I 64C A 16 RP RP / RP 522522 �- RP N W+ s 0 70 Feet a i o� r RP n � is 64C A 11 64 A12 Z LUCAS I� NESSELRODT RA V 64C A 13 GIBSON RP 64 A 14 SHEPARD 64C A 13A RA GIBSON SHEPARD 64 A 15 RP /J RP 64 A 18 ' 1 KOKORSKY li RA SHARP \ 1 I 64C A 16 RP RP / RP 522522 �- RP N W+ s 0 70 Feet a 64 A 18 KOKORSKY SHARP 64C A 16 N W+ s 0 80 Feet �y��GYY OP _ 7 \ \x 64 A 14 O' A 1 1 LUCAS \ 6 �� 4 ' Q 3 I 64C A 11_ r 64 A 12 Z NESSELRODT 02 O 64C A 13� V GIBSON ' 64 A 14 ' \ \ J b-- SHEPARD '1 d I *C A 13A GIBSON SHEPARD i 64 A 15 O ' I/ 64 A 18 KOKORSKY SHARP 64C A 16 N W+ s 0 80 Feet Greenway Engineering December 8, 2003 Shepard Rezoning SHEPARD REZONING Tax Parcels 64-((A))-14 & 64-((A))-15 Shawnee Magisterial District 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 zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application for the rezoning of 1.17 acres from the RA, Rural Areas District to establish 1.17 acres of B2, Business General District, 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 the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Michael Shepard and Cheryl Shepard being all of Tax Map Parcels 64-((A))-14 and 64-((A))-15, and further described by Deed Instruments 030000500 and 030000501 recorded in the Frederick County Clerk of the Court Office on January 10, 2003. The applicant hereby proffers the following: A.) Site Access 1. The applicants hereby proffer to utilize a shared entrance to provide access to tax map parcels 64-((A))-14 and 64-((A))-15. An ingress/egress easement will be established with the Site Development Plan for the two parcels to provide for access to each parcel and to provide for the maintenance of the shared entrance. Furthermore, the applicants hereby proffer to provide for a right turn/taper lane on Front Royal Pike (Route 522) to the shared entrance to provide for safe access to the two parcels. 2. The applicants hereby proffer to provide for ten -foot (10) pedestrian access easements that will provide linkages to the parcels immediately north of tax map parcel 64-((A))-14 and immediately south of tax map parcel 64-((A))-15. The ten -foot (10) pedestrian access easements will be established with the Site Development Plan for the two parcels to provide for potential connectivity to the on-site sidewalk system by others to promote inter -parcel pedestrian systems. File #3577/EAW Greenway Engineering December 8, 2003 Shepard Rezoning B.) Corridor Appearance I. The applicants hereby proffer to enhance the Front Royal Pike (Route 522) corridor through the implementation of a conceptual landscape schematic plan prepared by Greenway Engineering, dated December 2003 and attached as a proffered exhibit. The conceptual landscape schematic provides deciduous flowering trees, shade trees, massing of shrubs and flowers to add interest and seasonal color along this portion of the Front Royal Pike corridor. All plant materials will be maintained by an automated sprinkler system that is installed by the applicant. 2. The applicants hereby proffer to limit the number of freestanding business signs to one for tax map parcel 64-((A))-14 and one for tax map parcel 64-((A))-15. Furthermore, the applicants hereby proffer to limit the height of each freestanding business sign to twenty (20) feet. C.) Land Use Restrictions The applicants hereby proffer to restrict the following B-2 District land uses from tax map parcels 64-((A))-14 and 64-((A))-15: SIC 483 Radio and Television Broadcasting Stations SIC 49 Electric, Gas and Sanitary Sewer Facilities, excluding offices SIC 551 Motor Vehicle Dealers (New and Used) SIC 552 Motor Vehicle Dealers (Used Only) SIC 555 Boat Dealers SIC 556 Recreational Vehicle Dealers SIC 557 Motorcycle Dealers SIC 559 Automotive Dealers, Not Elsewhere Classified SIC 701 Hotels and Motels SIC 704 Organization hotels and lodging SIC 7542 Car Washes SIC 7832 Motion Picture Theaters SIC 7999 Golf Driving Ranges and Miniature Golf Courses -------- Adult Retail Uses File #3577/EAW 2 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2003 Shepard Rezoning D.) Monetary Contribution for Fire and Rescue Services The applicants hereby proffer to provide a cash payment of $200.00 to be directed to Millwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue to mitigate impacts to Fire and Rescue Services. The applicants will provide the cash payment to Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia at the time of building permit issuance for the first structure developed on either tax map parcel 64-((A))-14 or tax map parcel 64-((A))-15. E.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: Michael Shepard Date BY: Cheryl Shepard Date Commonwealth of Virginia, 'ounty To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 22 of �Gt�lu�c 2y _ Notary Public My Commission Expires rebs :_rt 2-1-1 2a;4— 1 cti; GS CaGc"�iG111 �1C+�`iC . 0 i�U�[ l Z� r.!5 7)&, L File #3577/EAW 51DNVMU4 ` \ � MoMA ZLIt ASONtL LJIULZAF LIJ19EAl ` — -- -- — F UFJTJEtI ti ftp! FT 522 _ I�GKtT �OY<FL Ft KE- _ a v• F a ti DATE: PEr—, 20, 74a3 c I :AL6: pD' PLAN VIEWi DESIGNED BY. SBW .L FILE NO. 3574 s 9 SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEPARD PROPERTY REZONING rROMT L. DS(:' m � N SHAWNEE MAGESTERIAL DISRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VA GREENWAY ENGINEERING 161 11 y Hill Lane W,n bL ster. vagmin zzeoz rm.,wa a ian 2eAlecy Telephone 526-662-HBS Svmean FAX fi,16-723-6528 IMPACT STATEMENT MICHAEL SHEPARD REZONING Shawnee District Frederick County, Virginia TM 64-((A))-14 & 64-((A))-15 .60 & .57 Acres January 16, 2004 Current Owners: Michael Shepard Cheryl Shepard Contact Person: Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2003 Shepard Rezoning Revised January 16, 2004 SHEPARD REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of two parcels owned by Michael and Cheryl Shepard totaling 1.17 acres. The subject parcels are located on the western side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), approximately 1,500 feet from Airport Road (Route 645). The current zoning is RA, Rural Areas District. The Shepard's propose to rezone the 1.17 acres to B2, Business General District. Please see the attached Shepard Property Location Map. Basic information Location: Magisterial District: Property ID Numbers: Current "Zoning: Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning: Total rezoning area: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN West side of Route 522 Shawnee 64-((A))-14 & 64-((A))-15 RA District Unimproved Parcels Office/Commercial B2 District 1.17 acres The proposed site is being developed in conformance with the South Frederick Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The South Frederick Land Use Plan recommends a mixture of residential and commercial land use for this area. The Comprehensive Plan states that business/commercial development will occur within the Urban Development Area near interchange areas and along major corridors. Front Royal Pike (Route 522) is designated as a major arterial road and is a developing residential and commercial corridor in this portion of the County. 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2003 Shepard Rezoning Revised January 16, 2004 A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject site, tax parcels 64-((A))-14 and 64-((A))-15, has approximately 200 feet of frontage along Front Royal Pike (Route 522). Front Royal Pike is a five -lane major arterial road containing dual north -south travel lanes and a center turn lane. The subject parcels were improved with curb cut entrances during the Front Royal Pike widening project. The subject properties have very good site distance, exceeding 550 feet in both directions. Flood Plains The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map 4510063-0115-B. The site is located as "Zone C", area outside the 100 -year flood plain. Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory Map indicates that there are no wetlands on the subject site. Mature Woodlands The majority of the property is wooded and consists of mature pine trees and an under - story of deciduous vegetation. Steep Slopes There are no steep slopes (over 50%) on this site. Soil Types The following soil types contained in this tract have been obtained from the Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. The subject site is located on map sheet number 42, and contains two soil types: 913 -Clearbrook Channery Silt Loam 2-7 %, covers 95% of this site 41 D-Weikert Berks Channery Silt Loam 15-25% covers 5% of this site Neither soil type is identified as prime agricultural soils according to Table 5 — Prime Farmland, located on page 123 of the Soil Survey of Fredrick County. 3 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2003 Shepard Rezoning Revised January 16, 2004 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining prope11y zoning and present use: North: Zoned RA District Use: Agricultural South: Zoned RA District Use: Unimproved East: Zoned RP District Use: Residential West: Zoned RA District Use: Unimproved C. TRANSPORTATION The Frederick County Rezoning Application identifies the potential for 21,361 square feet of retail land use per acre for B-2 District parcels. Therefore, the potential exits for 24,992 square feet of retail land use on the 1.17 -acre parcels. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6t' Edition, provides traffic generation data for retail land use. Page 1334 of this document identifies Shopping Centers (820) to generate an average of 42.92 VPD per 1,000 square feet during weekdays and 49.97 VPD per 1,000 square feet on Saturdays. Therefore, the traffic generation range for the 1.17 -acre rezoning is anticipated to range between 1,072 VPD and 1,248 VPD. The 2002 VDOT Daily Volume Jurisdiction Report 34 identifies Front Royal Pike (Route 522) between Paper Mill Road (Route 644) and Millwood Pike (Route 50/17) with 14,000 VPD. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is projected to increase the current traffic counts on this segment of Front Royal Pike by 7.6% on weekdays and 8.9% on Saturdays. The subject parcels have approximately 200' of road frontage along Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) with excellent site distance in both directions. Front Royal Pike is a five -lane major arterial road containing dual north -south travel lanes and a center turn lane. The properties have very good site distance with at least 550 feet in both directions. Access improvements proposed for the 1.17 -acre site include a shared commercial entrance for the two parcels meeting VDOT design standards and a right turn/taper lane off of Front Royal Pike. The provision of the shared entrance and the right turn/taper lane, coupled with the existing center left turn lane will allow for safe ingress/egress for the project site. Front Royal Pike has adequate capacity to accommodate the projected traffic generation increase of 7.6% on weekdays and 8.9% on Saturdays. 9 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2003 Shepard Rezoning . Revised January 16, 2004 D. & E. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The impact of this proposed rezoning of the 1.17 -acre site on sewage conveyance and water supply is based on the worst-case development scenario of 24,992 square feet of retail land use. Design figures show an estimated 200 GPD, for both the sewer and water systems, per 1,000 square feet of ultimate floor space (These numbers are in reference to the Land Development Handbook, Dewberry & Davis, 1996, page 461). The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the 24,992 square feet of retail land use structural area has on the sewage conveyance and water supply systems. Q = 200 GPD per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Q = 200 GPD x 24.99 (1,000 sq. ft.) Q = 4,998 GPD projected at total build out The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is authorized to provide public water and sewer to the 1.17 -acre site. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has a 20" public water line and a fire hydrant located immediately adjacent to the subject site. There is adequate capacity in the water line and there is adequate source capacity at the James Diehl Water Treatment Facility to serve the project site under the worst-case development scenario of 24,992 square feet of retail land use. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority owns and operates the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility, which has a hydraulic capacity of 2.0 MGD. The flows for sewage conveyance at this facility average 1.0-1.2 MGD; therefore, the projected increase of 4,998 GPD at total build out for the worst-case development scenario of 24,992 square feet of retail land use will have a minor impact on the sewage conveyance system. An 8" sewer line is located on the east side of Front Royal Pike that will be extended to serve the 1.17 -acre site. Additionally, an 8" sewer line is located on the west side of Front Royal Pike to the north of the Russell Farm that could be utilized if the line was extended due to development of that tract. It should be noted that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority is implementing a study to determine future expansion needs of the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility. It is anticipated that an expansion of this facility will begin in about five years. F. SITE DRAINAGE The terrain of this property consists of a steep grade at the entrance off of Front Royal Pike and becomes gently rolling for the remainder of the site. Half of the combined properties existing runoff flows to Front Royal Pike (Route 522), the other half flows to the existing drainage to the southwest. The site naturally drains through an on-site swale in the southwest area of the site, which drains to a pond on the adjoining property immediately to the south. These properties do not contain water features and are located in Flood Zone C as identified by the FEMA Flood Insurance Map Community Panel Number 510063 0115 B, effective July 17, 1978. Wi Greenway Engineering December 8, 2003 Shepard Rezoning Revised January 16, 2004 Both properties, whether developed individually or together, will drain to one combined stormwater management pond that will be located in the southwestern portion of the southern parcel. The design of the stormwater management pond will occur during the site development plan process, which will require approval by the Frederick County Engineer. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual business consumption of landfill volume of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 sq ft. of structural area (This number can be found in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4'' edition). AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per 1,000 sq. ft. AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 24.99 (1,000 sq. ft.) AV = 134.95 Cu. Yd. The Municipal Solid Waste portion of the Regional Landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate the annual solid waster projections associated with the development of the 1.17 -acre site. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify potentially significant structures or sites on the 1.17 -acre site or within proximity of the subject site. The Comprehensive Policy Plan does not identify significant historic features along this segment of Front Royal Pike. I. OTHER IMPACTS The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been applied to the worst-case development scenario of 24,992 square feet of retail land use. The results of this model run indicate that the development of the subject site will provide a $1,147,385 positive revenue source to Frederick County. The model run indicates an impact to Fire and Rescue Services that is approximately 1% of the positive revenue amount. Therefore, the applicants have proffered a monetary contribution exceeding 1% of the positive revenue amount to adequately address the impact to Fire and Rescue Services for capital facilities costs. No other impacts are anticipated as a result of this rezoning proposal. 0 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff Fee Amount Paid �° 5 Zoning Amendment Number �- Date Receive PC Hearing Date BOS_Hearing Date 16,0 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, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. 2. 3 Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Property Owner (if different from above) Name: Michael & Cheryl Shepard Telephone: (540) 662-6854 Address: 179 George Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments Plat X Fees Deed to Property X Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X X X X 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Michael Shepard Cheryl Shepard 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: Unimproved Office/Commercial PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 64-((A))-12 Minnie Nesselrodt, Et Als Agricultural RA District 64-((A))-18 Manfred G. Kokorsky Unimproved RA District 64C -((A))-12 Commonwealth of Virginia Right-of-way RA District 64C -((A))-13 & 13A Residential & Unimproved RP District 64C -((A))-16 Residential RP District &61 A--/'/cy- 5- VV'qI e-Iti (�-//U//UC- S. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): The 1 17 -acre site is located on the west side of Front Royal Pike, approximatley 1,500 feet from Ai art Road Route 645. Access to the subject site will occur off of Front Royal Pike. Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 8. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 64-((A))-14 64-((A))-15 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service 10 11. Shawnee Millwood Millwood n;s1r ts High School: Middle School: Elementary School Millbrook James Wood Armel Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 1.17 RA District B2 District 1.17 Total Acreage to be rezoned The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Single Family homes Non -Residential Lots Number of Units Proposed Townhome: Mobile Home: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other Multi -Family Hotel Rooms: 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (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 must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge. 1 Applicant(s): L"j' Date: 20 C f` -ZZ `7 0 Owner (s): Date: � Date: Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) C JCjc,I 11e;D 7v?,6 -t- Cl"it L U I A .'54.4NA (Phone) 540.- L-62--&(6 (Address) (-M G}CC v-ne- _D 6 Ve the owner(s) of all those tract` 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 (t.i,f 14-) Instrument No. �3c. `� QA-TD� Page , and is described as C-4 14- A Parcel: G7:4- Lot: _ 1 S Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Loco ocC (Phone) ` 46" - 66 2- -Z{ l,?,. J (Address) 15 1 W , Ody Oi ; I LCyie. 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: El 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 In witness thereof, I (we Signaaire(s) hand and seal this Z3 day of J(A-i l o i .2004- 1, 2004— State of Virginia, Ci ry i off, f !-��Fc�t'-€�e:�.. , i a- :vit: I, ( X -) (-, L: %'Je,kO , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personlly appeared before me an as acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this?.3" Iay of.,�C�, 200 . dlP L%.-i� .:%"( My Commission Expires: C f Get-�C<�2. 2-ci 22,64 Notary Public �cz G C�uib`b[I 5iuiiE C•_ t:(G I�✓c° t.5d�'ir4 J Sfi Wo 5 i1 J W Do=As C. AxrwuR ATMRN" AT LAW STRAS9VR0. VMalK1A C:) 00 0-500 0 w 1 THIS DEED is made and entered into this 31 st day of December, 2002, by between ARTHUR T. POLING, herein called Grantor; and MICHAEL S. AND CHERYL SHEPARD, husband and wife, herein called whose address is VP1 GC05 a fe t7P. YIINGNC-s1' VA Zz6oZ WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in paid to the Grantors and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt which is hereby acknowledged, the said Grantors do hereby grant, bargain, sell convey with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title unto the said as Tenants by the Entireties, with Right of Survivorship, all of the described real estate, to -wit: TAX MAP NUMBER: 1 q -,4 -/'/ All of that certain lot or parcel of land, together with all rights, rights of way and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate on the West side of the Front Royal Road - Rt. 522, in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, more particularly described by that certain plat and survey dated October 29, 1968, prepared by Lee A. Ebert C.L.S., of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 348, Page 293. The aforesaid real estate is the identical real estate conveyed to Arthur A. Jr. and Nora Genevieve Poling, his wife, as tenants by the entireties, with 'ght of survivorship, by Deed dated November 6, 1968, the said Nora Genevieve 4M N t having departed this life on ~bn� 3ffry, thereby leaving her by Arthur A. Poling, Jr., by survivorship, and the said Arthur A. Poling, having departed this life on I&A ZZ Z000 thereby leaving his interest in real estate to his son, Arthur T. Poling, by Last Will and Testament dated 2, 1999, of record in Deed Book 118, Page 0437. This conveyance is made together with and subject to all easements, rights ways, reservations and restrictions of record affecting the aforesaid real estate. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid plats, deed and records for a more complete description and further derivation of title. WITNESS the following signature and seal: ARZTP0_*L__ STATE OF MC CITY/COUNTY OF MT8k to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this q14 day of December, 2002, by Arthur T. Poling. � TAPSI "' SEAL 19 NAB CO uNRBAY K VATH dT4ARY�P�IC�' VIRGINIA FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT: My commission expires: 1a130�0."� Thrs ttntntmeQt Of";'dOs "ft Pmdumd to me as / at 'y3 )oumAs C. AnrnuR and with certifltare of adknowledgt:ment thereto annext"d ATMRWT AT ww was admitted to record. T imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 ofpf srxAsacma,vuewu S /p `O Q 'J , and 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable. '4' } 000 p1 0 Ul 11 THIS DEED is made and entered into this 31st day of December, 2002, by 9ovous C. ARTHUR ArrORNEY AT uw srnA35MG. nR011" described real estate, to -wit: TAX MAP NUMBER: Uq-,4—I-f All of that certain lot or parcel of land, together with all rights, rights of way and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate on the West side of the Front Royal Road — Rt. 522, in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, more particularly described as Parcel B, containing 0.574 acres, by that certain plat and survey dated October 29, 1968, prepared by Lee A. Ebert C.L.S., of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 348, Page 293. The aforesaid real estate is the identical real estate conveyed to Hazel Alma ;tevers and Paul J. Stevers, her husband, as tenants by the entireties, with right of d between DORINDA R. CUSTER AND DOROTHEA S. MERCER, erein called Grantors; and MICHAEL S. SHEPARD AND CHERYL HEPARD husband and wife, herein called Grantees, whose address is 44 179 Grno�6 VV-, v1lwct��eV VA z?ZOL 0 n „ WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in L V and paid to the Grantors and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt Of which is hereby acknowledged, the said Grantors do hereby grant, bargain, sell u � "r nd convey with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title unto the said L S Grantees, as Tenants by the Entireties, with Right of Survivorship, all of the 9ovous C. ARTHUR ArrORNEY AT uw srnA35MG. nR011" described real estate, to -wit: TAX MAP NUMBER: Uq-,4—I-f All of that certain lot or parcel of land, together with all rights, rights of way and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate on the West side of the Front Royal Road — Rt. 522, in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, more particularly described as Parcel B, containing 0.574 acres, by that certain plat and survey dated October 29, 1968, prepared by Lee A. Ebert C.L.S., of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 348, Page 293. The aforesaid real estate is the identical real estate conveyed to Hazel Alma ;tevers and Paul J. Stevers, her husband, as tenants by the entireties, with right of 3ouous C. ARTHUR II ArTORNHT AT LAV S AS.LMO. VUOWu rvivorship, by Deed of Gift dated October 12, 1983, the said Paul J. Stevers vmg departed this life on 5_J1 �� / , thereby leaving his interest by rvivorship, to Hazel Alma Stevers. The said Hazel Alma Stevers having parted this life on *_ece.,_L,_z ? A000 thereby leaving his interest in the real ate to her daughters, Dorinda R. Custer and Dorothea S. Mercer, by Last Will d Testament dated August 24, 1992, of record in Will Book 675, Page 87. This conveyance is made together with and subject to all easements, rights ways, reservations and restrictions of record affecting the aforesaid real estate. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid plats, deed and records for a )re complete description and further derivation of title. WITNESS the following signature and seal: '7C- DORINDA R. CUSTER ATE OF t.Jcv*- r Urn7h'12i­ rY/COUNTY OF +4,n na-4_; to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisas 1'3f day of cember, 2002, by Dorinda R. Custer. r , OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA commission expires: `7- a 0200 JOYCE L. CO IDSA WESTMINISTER I ER DRIYE CULLODEN, WEST VIRGINIA 25510 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 07-29-2008 0 N Cn 0 t=D N VeL DOROTHEA S. MERCER 'TATE OF 6\� :ITY/COUNTY OF ; to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 7�\ day of e=mber, 2002, by Dorothea S. Mercer. MiCHAELRCPA� PUBLIC J` , Noisy fWfto, w. of 0mo y commission expires:00R°''D'"'"°"'�' -` :� ��,• AL VIRGINIA FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. This instrument of writing wn produced to me on /0 �,Pj l- and and with certificate of acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. T imposed by Sec 58.1-802 of $ /4' S� and 58.1-801 have been paid, if usemable 4e4 4� ,CWk .a Douous C. ARTHun ATMRWY AT l.AM 37RASBURO. VJ%QMA 3`f;C3 #3423 # HAZEL ALMA STEVERS, ET VIR # TO' .. DEED OF GIFT ALMA STEVERS, ET VIR # #t#ttt#t#t#tt#t#tt##t##tt######t##t## BO6GPG885 885 THIS DEED OF GIFT made this 12th day of October, 1983, between HAZEL ALMA STEVERS and PAUL J. STEVERS, her husband, of the one part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and HAZEL ALMA STEVERS and PAUL J. STEVERS, her husband, of the other part, hereinafter called the Grantees. WITNESSETHt That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey, with general warranty and English covenants of title, unto the Grantees, jointly, as tenants by the entirety, with right of survivorship, as at common law,. all of that certaa lot or parcel of land, together with all rights, rights of way and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate on the West side of the Front Royal Road - Route 522, in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, more particu- larly described as "Parcel 8", containing 0.574 Acres, by that certain plat and survey dated October 29, 1968, prepared by Lee A. Ebert, C. L. S., recorded with that certain Deed dated November 6, 1968, from Austin C. Poling, et als, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 348, Page 296, to which reference is made for a metes and bounds description and derivation of title. This conveyance is made, however, subject to all rights o way, easements and/or conditions of record, if any, affecting the aforesaid realty. • WITNESS the following signatures and zealot HAZEL ALMA STEVERS (SEAM PAUL J. STEVERS 886 aK566Pc8$6 , STATE OF VIRGINIA, W -104 9e OF bow"D to -Vitt The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1983, by HAZEL ALMA STEVERS and PAUL J. STEVERS, her husband. My commission expirest__ Ar; .t.A NOTARY PUBLIC ,►„.=. ©�1g83 t`Ma Muvvamm K wd*w was orodu<'ad b m. on V* A?K.lw�. 6" ,t_L� ' S C A . rn _ and WM a,Wkata a KkW*wd9MGM #meta am+aud was adm"% bee a. ................. • (2) ................. BUUII J'!o rn',t 12"J PARCEL "C" - 56.336 Ac"1111 Beginning at a concrete highway monument in restern Boundary Line of Rte 522r a oarnor to•thc Swab Lots running with coo following linea :�f the maid -Lot N 88° 421 50" W - 383.70 ft. Ito a poet; x> 3 03a 171 l8° S9 - 50.38 rte to It po®t aornar to the Stroonider Wit; so with the Northern Lino of the said Lot and continuing with the Northern of the Good Land 3 Boo 111 33" W - 1,002-89 ft. to an iron pin corner to fohlibrd Tract; thane- with the Eastern Lino of the maid Land N 090 3,149 d - 1,949.14 ft- to a post in the Southern Lino of the Ruaaell Land; thence tho said Line 3 860 541 14" B - 1,476,51 ft- to an iron pin corner to al AS thence with the western Lines of Parools A & B -.3 010 251 15" W - 31 ft. to an iron pin; thonce with the Scuthorn Lino of Parcel B - 3 680 �51 8 - 250.00 ft- to an iron pin in the Womtern Boundary Line of Rte 5228 co with tho said Line 3 010 251 19 W - 355090 ft- to an iron pin corner Is !10 Price Tract; thonce with the five following Linea of the said Land N 87 26" w - 83.56 ft- to a post; thence 3 760 041 40" K - 333.78 ft- to a t• `ze o Oak Tree; thence 3 650 511 41" W - 276.34 h• to a Hickory Tree; thence e 141 lo" E - 272.22 ft- to a post; thonoo N 730 191 24" E - 597.17 ft- to at in the western Boundary Line of Rte 522; thence,with the said Lino 3 010 15" N - 395.12 ft. to an iron pin corner to the said 337 - 466 Convo7aneo; ce with the three following Linea of the said Land N 880 341 45" W - 250000 thence 3 010 251 19 w - 100.00 ft.; thence 3 880 341 45" S - 250.00 ft* n iron pin in the Western Boundary Line of Rt- 522; thence with the three 0 owing Boundary Linos 3 010 251 15" w - 29.54 ft-; thence 3 88 34, 45" $ - 0 ft.; thonoo 3 010 251 19 w - 257-46 ft. to the boginningo/fI eyed - - October 29, 1968. y. 19E A. BBMT, Cortified Land Surveyor, comm. of Virginia # 484. V' 3,11A FRZDSRICR COUNTY, SCT, j 9"u"o`2 ; ofwf Ifln)q was Produced to me an the � d-1 � and with o.r1111enN of acknj.r.ed� ;nt thereto an,axed was admits d to record. And additton-1 tax pard. Clerk i BOOK 348' eel 301 The Aoeompaning Plat is a Division Surrey of the Remaining Portion of the Land oonveyed to Austin C. Poling, et Sage by Deed dated 24 January 1967 in Deed Book 329 Page 326 (The Remaining Portion being the Entire Tract - LESS the 25,000 Sq. Ft. Portion conveyed 1Sy Deed dated 4 December 1967 in Deed Boot 337 Page 466). The said Land front& the Western Boundary Lines of The Front Royal Road - Rt, 522, and lies in Shawnee District, Frederick County, v rginia= PARCEL "A" - 0.595 Across Beginning at an iron pin in the Western Bound- ary Line of Rt. 522, a corner to the Ford Land, running with the Southern Line If the said Land and continuing with the Douthern Line of the Russell Land 0 1 86 541 14* w - 250.11 fto to an iron pin corner to Parcel a; thence with :he Eastern Line of the said Parcel S Ole 250 15" W - 107.31 ft. to an iron iia corner to Parcel B; thence with the Northern Line of the said Parcel S 8810 4 ' S - 250.00 ft9 to an iron pin in,tho Western Boundary Line of Rt. 522; hence with the said Line N Ole 251 15* 8 - 100.00 ft* to the beginning. PARCEL "Be - 0.574 Across Beginning at an iron pin in the Western Bound- ry Line of Rt. 522, a corner to Parcel A. Hanning with the Southern Line of he said Parcel N 680 341 45" W - 250.00 ft9 to an iron pin in the Eastern Lne of Parool C; thence with the two following lines of the Bald Parcel S 010 i� a5" W - 100.00 ft. to an iron pinj thenoo S 880 341 45" E - 250.00 ft. to iron pia in the Western Boundary Lino of Rt. 522; thence with the said Line ole 25' 15" 8 - 100.00 ft. to the bggj;%Wa, ��,� u 4 r 3411-13%cx' 8003 398 we 300 / a IIOr AUS21LLlAgO C-J.L All, 0 �a 54 14 E 1,476.31- Pon G 2fa0.11 r PArCCL..A.. a . . � 4. U.d ".141 PA9CCL '(i'• C ul 2'a 4.0'J' 2 T sea 34 45 :y Nmeg, Q a [� PARCEL "C '��� I = C 0 56.336 ACRES r7 to S 11 to 200 m -N 3316. 56 p's w •3A j UP 400 f p. S ° f CS 99111 iv CC + cr- in a of a �- �vio Z "' e/'s4�s'ry LA- AvsTfr: A POLING r € LI^-�-a mm .54 w Wff42'S0"WV-30 e' 70' 53TA ` PT Cn.33 , �9TA P OSGdICBA I u� 1002.49 O 1#33 580 t• mp00 PARCEL '•A"- 0.595 AC• A• ' a PARCEL 0.574 AC. - i 3411-13%cx' R518 % AUSTIN C. POLING, ET ALS. TO: :: :: DEED ARTHUR A. POLING, JR., ET UX ** a cY 343 iXrE 289 THIS DEED made and dated this 6th day of November, 1968, by and between Austin C. Poling and Evelyn D. Poling, his wife, Arthur A. Poling, Jr., and Nora Genevieve Poling, his wife, and Hazel Alma Stevers and Paul J. Stevers, her husband, parties of the first part; and Arthur A. Poling, Jr., and Nora Genevieve Poling, his wife, parties of the second part. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars and other good and valuable consideration. receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the said parties of the first part do hereby grant and convey, with general.warranty of title, unto the said parties of the second part, jointly, as tenants by the entireties, in fee simple, with the common law right of survivorship, all of that certain lot or parcel of land, together with all rights, rights of way and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate on the West side of the Front Royal Road - Rt. 522, in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, more particularly described by that certain plat and survey dated October 29, 1968, prepared 5y Lee A. Ebert, C. L. S., hereto attached and by this reference rade a part of this Deed, as: PARCEL "A" - 0.595 Acres: Beginning at an iron pin in the Western Boundary Line of Rt. 522, a corner to the Ford land, running with the Southern Line of the said Land and continuing with the Southern Line of the Russell land N 86° 54' 14" W - 250.11 ft. to an iron pin corner LANOxNT. AND : -N 6 LA,. (04 «,4)1 14 I I 9ee� 345 PnE 290 to Parcel C; thence with the Eastern Line of the said Parcel S 01° 25' 15" W - 107.31 ft. to an iron pin corner to Parcel B; thence with the Northern Line j of the said Parcel S 88° 34' 45" E - 250.00 ft. to an iron pin in the Western Boundary Line of Rt. 522; thence with the said Line N 01° 25' 15" E - 100.00 ft. to the beginning; and being a part of the same property conveyed to Austin C. Poling, et als, by Deed of Arthur A. Poling, Widower, dated January 24, 1967, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 329, Page 326, to which deed and plat and the references therein, reference is here made for a more particular description of the said property. This conveyance is made subject to any and all restrictions, easements and rights of way of record, if any, affecting title to said property. The said parties of the first part covenant that they have the right to convey the said property to the said parties of the second part; that the said parties of the second part shall have quiet and peaceable possession to said property, free from all liens and encumbrances; and the said parties of the first part will execute such further assurances of title as may be requisite. WITNESS the following signatures and seals the date Eirst above written: rrwl�Pn R.. w. eU•o~ll - 2 & %ARRICIG W�xi.�nnr. n. Vlm�ixlw Lwxasxr. AxxexBox & LAnRI M� c�swnw. V.wo�wu Boo.+. 348 291 g _ _(SEAL) Austin C. Poling(/ (SEAL) Evelyn D. Poling (SEA ,Q,Z L��L �vfQJ (SEAL) I t� ze'l Alma Stevers PIA - a . _% ` (SEAL) Paul Stevers STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit: I, Patricia L. Jordan , a Notary Public of and for the County of Frederick, State of Virginia,'do hereby certify that Austin C. Poling and Evelyn D. Poling, his wife, whose names are signed to the foregoing writing, bearing date the 6th day of November, 1968, have personally appeared before me and acknowledged same. My commission expires August 1, 1971 Given under my hand this 6th day of November, 1968. i I O^JA CA / { Notary Public 3 - gror 348 o, E 292 STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF 3(I—. to -wit: a Notary Public of z. I and for the County off` ate of Virginia, do hereby certify that Arthur A. Poling, Jr., and Nora Genevieve s are signed to the foregoing writing,! Poling, his wife, whose name bearing date the Sj_tb_ day of November, 1968, have personally j appeared before me and acknowledged same. I My commission expires r ] 4 r P Given under my hand this ! S day of November, 1958.: j i �k�Notarlic j STATE OF WEST VI INIA, 1 OF �J . to -wit: I a Notary Public of and for the LEd/ of ZGt/, State of West i Virginia, do hereby certify that Hazel Alma Stevers and Paul J. i Stevers, her husband, whose names are signed to the foregoing i writing, bearing date the 6th day of November, 1968, have personally appeared before me and acknowledged same. My commission expires Given under my hand and notarial seal this a= day of November, 1968. LAIMENT. ANO Y.nnoN - hLARR�CIC (SeA1) u ` C' BAR ?90 ' OST A L LL LAND C. J. rgR9 <.�m 586'54 K E �A/.o c'g 1476.31 IRO PIP, 250. t 1 R1t7CPL'•A' p 250.00' Q n oii Pc+ in Ta �; PARCIEL yr — 50.00' a 588 34 45 N A p R 0 PARCEL for " 56.336 ACRE 5 "> S Y �g 11 r _ O 200' �EN 333.1 � N post N i V a10 A uj 400 POft it I..) J °st�1"13�19�?+4 s O n� c J — n P; NO Z P7fJJ 4'45"M+ LOLL To 25000 U - 250.00' i250.00 =O , 5'bV Cri k^3' '383.70 w .4.i'�1?'1ai !T N6JK F60" j O i �. 3ii' f_AJI f• ._ PL U-0. rc N � r ►O= "fTAOlNlD111 s t 002.89 5 80.11'33rr W 611160 *009 R• �' PARCEL "A"= 0.595 AC- PARCEL GPARCEL "8"= 0.574 AC. BOOK 348,. FAg 294 The Ac*ompani.ng Plat is a Di►islon Survey of the Remaining Portion of the Land conveyed to Austin Ce Poling, of tills, by Mod dated 24 January 1967 in Deed sock 329 Page 326 (The Remaining Portion being the Entire Tract - LESS - the 250000 Sq. Ft, Portion convo7od by Deed datod 4 December 1967 in Deed Book 337 Page 466). The said Land fronts the Western Boundary Lines of The Front R0721 Road - Rt. 522, and lies in Shntncs District, Frederick County, Virginias I PARCEL "A" - 0.595 Across Beginning at an iron pin in the Western Bound- ary Line of Rte 522, a corner to the Ford Land, running with the Southern Line of the said Land and continuing with the Southern Line of the Russell Land 1P 860 %, 340 V - 250.11 ft. to an iron pin corner to Parcel C; thence with the Eastern Line of the said Parcel S 01° 259 15" W - 10741 ft, to an iron pin corner to Parcel B; theme* with the Northern Line of the said Parcel S 88e 341 45" E - 250.00 ft. to an iron pin in the Western Boundary Line of Rte 522= thence with the said Lino N 010 251 15" S - 100.00 ft. to the beginning. PARCEL "B" - 0.574 Aoreat Beginning at an iron pin in the Western Bound - a" Line of Rte 522, a corner to Parcel A, running with the Southern Line of the eaid Parcel N 88° 34+ 45" W - 250.00 ft. to in iron pin in the Eastern Line of Parcel C; thence with.the two following lines of the said Parcel S 01e i 251 15" W - 100.00 rte to an iron pin; thence s 88° 34.t 45" S - 250.00 ft, to an iron pin in the Western Boundary Line of Rt. 522; theme* with the said Line R 01° 25, 15" B - 100.00 ft. to the beginning. 1 B0"4",'er,E ;0`iy PARCEL "C" - 56.336 Aorest Begt a concrete highway monument in the Western Boundary Line of Rte 522, a corner to the Barb Lot, running with the two following lines of the said Lot N 880 421 50" W - 383,70 ft. to a posts thence S 030 171 18" W - 50.38 ft- to a post corner to the 8troanider Let; thence with the Northern Line of the said Lot and continuing with the Northern Line of the Good Land 8 800 ur 33" W - 1,002.89 ft. to an iron pin corner to the Woblford Traot; thence with the Eastern Line of the said Land N 090 341 36" W - 1,949.14 ft. to a post in the Southern Line of the Russell Land; thence with the said Line 8 860 541 14" S - 1,476.51 ft. to an iron pin corner to Parcel A; thence with the Western Lines of Parcels A & B - 3 010 �5r 15" W - 207.31 ft. to an iron pin; then** with the Southern Line of Parcel B - 3 880 34' 45" E -.250.00 ft. to an iron pin in the Western Boundary Line of Rto 522; then** with the said Line 3 010 251 15" W - 355090 ft. to an iron pin corner to the Price Tract; thence with the five following Lines of the said Land N 870 27' 26" W - 83.56 ft. to a post; then** 3 760 04' 40" W - 333.78 ft. to a triple White Oak Tree; thence 8 650 514 41" W - 276.34 ft. to a Hickory Tree; thence 8 170 14' 10" E - 272.22 ft. to a post; thence N 730 191 24"'E - 597.17 ft. to a poet in the Western Boundary Line of Rte 522; thence with the said Lino 3 010 251 15" W - 395.12 ft. to an iron pin corner to the said 337 - 466 Conveyance; thence with the three following Lines of the said Land N 880 341 45" W - 250.00 ft.; then** S'010 251 15" W - 100.00 ft.; thence S 880 341. 45" E - 250.00 ft. to an iron pin in the Western Boundary Line of Rt. 522; thence with the three following Boundary Lines 3 010 251 15" W - 29.54 ft.; thence S 880 341 45" E - 15.00 ft.; then** a Ole 251 15M W - 257.46 ft. to the.baginning. Surveyed - Getober 29, 1968• LEE A. EBERT, Certified Land Surveyor, Comm. of Virginia # 464• I• ViRC,[SIA M-DERICR COUNTY, SCT. �2 day I Tniw in umunt of Itloq was produced to me on the ^_ of at �, and with certificate of i.ckn�ow'io`d7�m t thereto ameaed wu admitted record. And addinoeal iIas paid, f Cbrk i ter-- �•-----._.___---__..-...___...,.____...,......._..........__.._ ..__.___` .__ _ ... .__^...__ _ -- .- --_ - - .... _. _. • C7 C� COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 ty MEMORANDUM r TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: 2004 Planning Commission Retreat Retreat Summary Issues and Project Priorities DATE: February 19, 2004 Thank you for participating in the 2004 Planning Commission Retreat! During the 2004 Planning Commission Retreat, staff presented information pertaining to rural area trends and issues; as well as information pertaining to the Rural Area Study and Comprehensive Planning. Following these presentations, staff facilitated an issues identification session with the meeting participants to determine various visions, issues, and concerns associated with rural development patterns. This information is intended to be utilized by staff at the various subcommittee levels to complete a comprehensive review of current goals, objectives, and strategies associated with the County's rural area policies. Staff has developed a department work program for the 2004 calendar year, based on the project prioritizations we received following the retreat. The Long Range and Short Range projects list is attached. I have also attached: a summary of the issues that were identified by the retreat participants, and copies of the various powerpoint presentations that staff utilized during the retreat. Please contact the Planning Department with any questions about these materials. And again, thank you for participating in the Planning Commission Retreat and establishing a planning work program for the upcoming year. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Year 2004 Planning Project Rankings Department long-range planning projects and current planning projects have been identified in the following tables. The priority ranking of these projects was determined by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors during the 2004 Planning Commission Retreat. Department of Planning and Development Long -Range Projects Priority Project Title 1 Develop strategies; policies; and land use regulations which protect the rural character of the county and sustain agricultural land use. 2 Institute a study for the development of a land use plan for the Route 522 / Route 277 "triangle". 3 Conduct an analysis of the Urban Development Area and develop strategies and policies which guide boundary adjustments. 4 Comprehensive review of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. 5 Assist in improvements to the County's Geographic Information System database to allow for enhanced analytical capabilities. 6 Expand opportunities for citizens to access various departmental information through the county's webpage. 7 Develop a review and recommendation process for public projects to ensure compliance with section 15.2- 2232 of the Code of Virginia. 8 Develop an on-line process for the review and completion of various development applications. 9 Continue efforts to implement the Winchester -Frederick County Battlefield Network Plan through the development of grant applications and assistance in plan preparation. Department of Planning and Development I Cu i ent Mann,' Projects I Priority Project Title 1 Complete a comprehensive review and revision of Chapter 144 - Subdivision Ordinance of the Frederick County Code. 2 Complete a comprehensive review and revision of Chapter 165- Zoning Ordinance of the Frederick County Code. 3 Review Planning Department application packages and procedures to ensure that current standards and policies are adhered to. 4 Review development design standards for commercial corridors within the county, primarily those leading into the City of Winchester. 5 Develop an objective rating system for the prioritization of major secondary road improvement projects within Frederick County. 6 Create Growth Tracking Report 7 Develop a process and standards for the implementation of proportional site development improvements. 2004 Planning Commission Retreat Summary The 2004 Annual Planning Commission Retreat was held on February 7, 2004 at the Wayside Inn in Middletown, Virginia. The event began around 9:00 am with opening remarks from Chairman of the Planning Commission, Chuck DeHaven and Planning Director, Eric Lawrence. Supervisor Van Osten passed out information on an upcoming meeting named "A Citizen's Planning Workshop", being held on March 11, 2004. The first presentation was the 2003 Annual Report by Candice Mills, Planner I. The Annual Report is a document that is compiled each year to evaluate past and present planning activities and aid in comprehensive planning and development for the upcoming year. The Annual Report was broken up into three sections; demographics, application review and committees. There were no questions or comments regarding this presentation. The rural area trends was the second presentation, moderated by Patrick Davenport, Subdivision and Zoning Administrator. This presentation gave a glimpse of the path that our rural areas is taking in terms of development. Mr. Davenport went over some agricultural statistics, preserved and protected land, rural land consumption including rural subdivisions for the past five years, the number of lots created and the number of building permits that were issued during the 2003 calendar year. There was much discussion about the rural area trends and some ideas about what might be done, some of the issues that arose included: + Rural subdivisions are a by -right use in Frederick County, therefore there are no proffers associated with these developments. Some thought might be given to changing this process. • With rural subdivisions come onsite sewage treatment systems, large numbers of these systems could ultimately lead to ground water contamination. The possibility of looking into allowing package plants to serve large rural communities was raised. • A study of what is an acceptable rural area and urban development area split should be completed. Presently the split is 35 rural 65 urban. The third presentation was about the rural areas policy review effort by Chris Mohn, Deputy Planning Director. A guest presentation by Jesse Richardson, Assistant Professor in the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Tech, consisted of the second part of this segment of the Annual Retreat. Mr. Mohn updated everyone on the progress that the Rural Areas Study has made over the past months during the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee meetings. The future stakeholder and committee meetings for possible future policy change in the rural areas was discussed to give everyone an idea of what the future holds for the study as well as to get directive on the study or possible changes. Some of the issues that came up from Mr. Mohn's presentation were: • A website should be created for the community meetings, it should be interactive for people who are unable to attend the meetings. The meetings should also be advertised on the radio and in the newspaper. • Road requirements for rural subdivisions should be examined, look at the posibility of constructing roads to state standards but keeping them private. • The Frederick County School System should be made a stakeholder for the meetings. Mr. Richardson's presentation was an overview of the success and failure of different rural area management strategies as well as the types of developments that are appropriate in the rural areas. He discussed rural economies and whether counties want to save agricultural land for its economic benefit or to preserve beautiful vistas. Agricultural land in Frederick County is declining and the future is niche farming. Many farmers have turned to alternative methods like hay rides and farm markets to supplement their income. Development that occurs in the rural areas should be encouraged in the Rural Community Centers, not in the areas that could be used for agricultural purposes. These communities should be served by their own package sewage treatment plants and should have a higher density rate than the rest of the rural area. There are tools that are available to Virginia counties to protect rural land, some of these are used by Frederick County. Some of the issues that were brought up at the end of Mr. Mohn's and Mr. Richardson's presentations were: • Development in the rural areas should be concentrated around the community centers. • Look at giving developers density credits to develop in the community centers instead of viable agricultural areas. • Cluster developments are not a good way to preserve farm land because the preservation parcel is hard to farm due to neighbors complaining about farming practices. • Buffers between farm land and new housing developments should be looked at, significant buffers should be installed by the developer to protect the farm land. • Warnings are needed when houses are built next to an agricultural operation to let potential buyers understand what is going to happen beside them, this could be done through covenants. • Rural Community Centers need to be promoted in a way that maintains their character. • The county needs to shape the type of development that occurs in the rural area, if the county changes its policy the developer will follow. • Urban areas should be very dense, if you fit more people into the urban areas than less people might migrate into the rural areas. • Mandatory clustering with package plants for rural developments should be considered. • Rural corridors should be maintained as well as a trail system established. • Improved road requirements and entrance requirements for rural subdivisions and lots is needed. • Conservation easements should be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. • Does Frederick County want to preserve open space at the expense of affordable housing? • Stakeholder meetings should include the Ruritan Clubs, School Board and the RCC's, stakeholder meetings should also come first. Mr. Mohn concluded this segment of the annual retreat with a quick update of the Rural Area Study. This presentation was intended to get input from the Planning Commission and Board Members about their thoughts on the study. It was noted that the Board of Supervisors would like to be included in all of the process, not just hear everything at the end. There also needs to be more publicity so that more people in the community can become involved. Some of the other issues included: 0 Determine the net effect on the UDA that would occur with a RA policy change. • Use the school newsletters as a means of advertising the meeting dates. • Respond to citizens and give them reasons why their ideas and comments are not a possibility. • Hold meetings at rural community centers, possibly use fire halls. • The towns should be a part of the stakeholder group. • Work on individual communtiy center plans. • Move up the stakeholder meetings. • Let the Board know about stakeholder meeting dates, also make these dates available on the Internet. • Look at the possibility of using package plants. • Don't make it easier and cheaper for developers to build in the RA with cluster developments. • Look at the possibility of rezonings in Rural Community Centers to bring in proffers. The fourth presentation was by the Frederick County School System. They spoke about current student enrollment in their schools and the future need for new schools. The fifth presentation was about the Comprehensive Planning Program and Process, by Eric Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence spoke about the methods used during the comprehensive planning process and what the Board and Planning Commission would like to see changed in this process. The issues brought up by this presentation were: • Make a time limit that people have to meet for a comp plan update, then all the applications will be processed at the same time. • There should be an application fee for comp plan amendments. • Applications should have an annual review, at this point take all the applications to the Board and see if they are okay with these applications. • Get Board directive for individual studies. • Amendments should not be land owner driven. • Establish a policy on what the UDA should be. • There should be more meetings about problems and issues, look at holding half day events quarterly to go over amendments and issues. The open discussion of issues and work program priorities was the sixth and final presentation, moderated by Eric Lawrence, Planning Director. Each year the Planning Department has brought priorities to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors concerning the departmental work schedule. It is asked each year that these priorities be ranked in terms of importance. The discussion regarding the work program and priorities was: • The "Triangle Study" should be a top priority. • Inquire about contracts for zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments. • There was concern about the clustering option in the Rural Areas, if you increase the profits for developers doing clustering then the demand for land to subdivide will increase. The sixth and final presentation was about the Comprehensive Planning Program and Process, by Eric Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence spoke about the methods used during the comprehensive planning process and what the Board and Planning Commission would like to see changed in this process. The issues brought up by this presentation were: • Make a time limit that people have to meet for a comp plan update, then all the applications will be processed at the same time. • There should be an application fee for comp plan amendments. • Applications should have an annual review, at this point take all the applications to the Board and see if they are okay with these applications. • Get Board directive for individual studies. • Amendments should not be land owner driven. • Establish a policy on what the UDA should be. • There should be more meetings about problems and issues, look at holding half day events quarterly to go over amendments and issues. Annual Report 2003 Frederick County Virginia Demographics Population ❑ 1990 - 45,723 ❑ 2000 - 59,209 ❑ 2001 - 61,200* ❑ 2002 - 62,600* 2003 - 64,200* ❑ ❑ Projections * 2010 - 72,300 2020 - 84,300 2030 - 96,100 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1990-2030 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 N Frederick County 0 Winchester Source: US Census 2000, Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service * 2003 Provisional Population Estimates from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service Employment ❑ Total - 18,511 ❑ Private Sector - 15,310 ➢ Manufacturing - 23.0% ➢ Government - 17.3% ➢ Construction - 10.8% Trade Retail Agriculture Food/Acconanodazions Tracsportazion �. Management of Cos �— Finance/Insurance Other services Govemment source: Virginia Employment Commission E5 202 Report for the 1st quarter data for 2002 ManutachaingJ aai 7 q./ Arts/Entertainment i� Trade-Whdesale AaminfWasb services Health Care ProflTech Services Family and Household Income ❑ 16.718 Families ❑ Median Family Income- $52,281 ❑ Median Household Income - $46r941 Source: US Census 2000, EDC Households ❑ Average number of persons in a household has been declining Average Household Size (1960-2007) 4 1960-3.63 4 1970 -.2.81 4 1980 - 2.98 4 1990-2.78 + 2000 - 2.64 4 Projected 2003 - 2.64 4 Projected 2008 - 2.57 Source: US Census 2000, EDC Residential Building Permits � 891 Total Residential Permits 'm �- * 905 - Residential Units • Single Family - 731 • Multi -Family - 107 • Mobile Homes - 67 905 Source: Frederick County Department of Inspections 1000 ■ Mobile Homes 800 ■ Multi -family Singe Family 800 400 200 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Violations ❑ 2003- 127 Violations Identified Majority of Complaints: 1. Inoperable Vehicles 2. Dumping/Trash 3. Illegal Businesses 4. Illegal Campers 5. Tall Grass 6. Tractor Trailer Parking Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Application Review Development Applications Summary of Development Applications reviewed in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. Application Rezonings 1997 5 98 19 1999 15 2000 4 2001 11 2002I 12 14 Master Development Plans 8 6 4 8 6 5 10 Site Plans 48 73 68 65 1 57 52 53 Conditional Use Permits Variances/Appeals 24 16 9 27 30 10 20 18 22 21 16 17 13 16 Subdivision Waivers 3 9 7 10 10 11 2 Subdivisions 19 20 29 14 26 23 21 Rural Preservation Subdivisions 2 2 0 0 5 14 12 Major Rural Subdivision 1 0 2 2 4 9 2 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Rezonings ❑ Total Applications: ■ 14 Rezonings Reviewed by Year ❑ Total Approved: 1990-2003 ■ 9 ❑ Total Acres Rezoned: ■ 991.86 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Source; Frederick County Department of Planning and Development RP - 4.017 R4 - 794.6 B2 - 132.18 B3 - 2.01 MS - 51.97 MH1- 7.08 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Source; Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Master Development Plans ❑ Total Applications: ❑ Total Approved: 0 6 ❑ Total Acres Master Planned: ■ 440.37 Total RP - 6 Applications RP Area - 440.37 RP Units - 896 Master Development Plans Reviewed by Year 1990-2003 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Site Plans ❑ Total Submitted: ■ 53 El Total Approved: ■ 38 ❑ Pending/Withdrawn Site Plans Reviewed by Year 1990-2003 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Conditional Use Permits ❑ Total Submitted: r 13 ❑ Total Approved: ■ 10 ❑ Withdrawn/Pending ■ 2 1 CUP's Reviewed by Year 1990-2003 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Variances ❑ Total Submitted: ■ 16 ❑ Total Approved: ■ 5 ❑ Denied: ■ 9 ❑ Total Withdrawn/Pending: 0 zo Variances Reviewed by Year 1990-2003 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Zoning and Subdivision Waivers ❑ Total Submitted: M 2 ❑ Total Approved ❑ Denied/Withdrawn: 0 �o Waivers Reviewed by Year 199 7-200 3 1998 2000 2002 1997 1999 2001 2003 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Subdivisions ❑ Total Submitted: ■ 21 ❑ Total Approved: ■ 14 ❑ Acres Approved: ■ 331.846 Total Lots - 387 Total RP Approved -202 Total RP Lots Approved - 363 Subdivisions Reviewed by Year 1990-2003 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Rural Preservation Subdivisions ❑ Total Submitted: ■ 12 ❑ Total Approved: ■ 6 ❑ Acres Approved: 0 348.4269 * Total Lots - 68 * 6 Subdivisions Pending Subdivisions Reviewed by Year 1995-2003 1996 1998 2000 2002 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Major Rural Subdivisions ❑ Total Submitted: ■ 2 ❑ Total Approved ❑ Acres Approved: ■ 41.37 * Tota I Lots - 5 Rural Subdivisions Reviewed by :Year 1995-2003 1996 1998 2000 2002 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Committees Committees in 2003 ❑ Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee ❑ Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee ❑ Transportation Committee ❑ Historic Resource Advisory Board ❑ Agricultural Advisory Committee The End RURAL AREAS TRENDS 2004 Planning Commission Retreat RURAL AREA TRENDS Agricultural and Forestal Districts • 1980 • 1985 • 1990 • 1995 • 2000 11, 564 acres 14,646 acres 13,560 acres 16,788 acres 13,530 acres • 2003: 13,437 acres • In 2005, A/F Districts are up for renewal RURAL AREA TRENDS Special Status Properties • 7 Conservation easements: 1,712 acres • Battlefield lands: 713 of 11,600 acres preserved • GW National Forest: 4,297 acres 9 County Parkland: 396 acres RURAL AREA TRENDS RURAL LAND CONSUMPTION • 1987 UDA Area: 22,678 acres • Feb. '04 UDA Area: 27,987 acres • Feb. `04 SWSA area outside UDA area: 4,067 acres RURAL AREA TRENDS SEPTIC SYSTEMS SUMMARY • Frederick County allows any systems which are approved by the Commonwealth • Generally 8 systems types including " conventional" • Allows for increased development of on- site septic disposal on marginal soil type s 0 0 +/ w S ¢ V cc a) r r ✓ J O i i Famp FT m W Cil N r 9� NO t Lot Sizes in the RA District 128! 298" Total 3705 5751 fM <2 acres M 2.1-5.0 ■ 5.1-10.0 010.1-20.0 020.1-40.0 40.1-80.0 ■ 80.1-100 .,,a 100.1 + Lot Sizes in the RA with improvement values DN 726 13E less than $50,000 (unimproved) IfTeye7 1724 M <2 acres 02.1-5.0 3307 ■ 5.1-10.0 010.1-20.0 o20.1-40.0 040.1-80.0 080.1-100 U. 100.1+ 500 400 300 200 100 C RURAL AREAS TRENDS Residential Growth Patterns 0 0 0 0 0 rn rn 0 0 0 0 0 Year 0 RA Lots 0 RP Lots RA Permits ■ RP Permits 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 RURAL AREAS TRENDS RA Lots vs RA Permits 1` 00 0) O r- N M On C) CD O O O O 07 07 C7 O O O O T— � r N N N N E] RA Lots E3 RA Permits 300 elm 4111A 150 100 RURAL AREAS TRENDS RA Lots vs RA Permits I` 00 M O T� N M O O O O N N N N — m RA Lots -- RA Permits RURAL AREAS TRENDS RA Lots vs RA Permits Year RA Lots RA Permits Trend 1997 172 156 +16 lots 1998 145 220 +75 permits 1999 137 186 +49 permits 2000 235 185 +50 lots 2001 206 247 +41 permits 2002 226 277 +51 permits 2003 226 220 +6 lots Balance over 7 years +144 permits ME ON 9!r 111 RURAL AREA TRENDS RA Lots VS RP Lots 0) � o 0 o CD c N N N N r r r N cl RA Lots o RP Lots RURAL AREAS TRENDS 348 456 400 300 FTITI1 235 206 226 �■ 137 1` 00 m O r N M G7 C7 C) O O O O d7 d7 O O O O O r r r N N N N RURAL AREAS TRENDS RA Lots vs RP Lots Year RA Lots RP Lots % RA Lots % RP Lots 1997 172 227 43% 570/6 1998 145 348 29% 71 O/o 1999 137 310 31% 690/6 2000 235 311 43% 570/6 2001 206 571 27% 730/6 2002 226 536 30% 70% 2003 226 456 33% 67%► Summary- 7 year Average % 34% 66% RURAL AREA TRENDS RA Permits vs RP Permits 700 - 611 600- �=.-J 481 500 -- ---J 400 - —.326 .-- ---� _-5 ,—.�_---- 316 ---- - _ 277 220 247 220 1 6 18. 200 - - 156 100 0 �. _ 1` 00 C) O N M O O O O O O O C7 O� G7 O O O O r r N N N N RA Permits M RP Permits 700 ATIO 300 200 100 E RURAL AREA TRENDS RA Permits vs RP Premits 1` 00 O !R` r"'K7',1'Y•.J;�e]�Jri YF"ITYaR� N'i�x''{e^PJf�A�„?'ii""°1�T"�FJi��A�J�ii4•i�',�., i��.� �. r— N _., � O O O f �l O } 2 i 31 n,h e} / �/� eex�p ar � 2260458 1$ 188 1` 00 O O r— N M � O O O O O O RA Permits f RP Permits RURAL AREAS TRENDS RA Permits vs RP Permits Year RA Permits !?P Permits % RA Permits % RP Permits 1997 156 326 32% 68% 1998 220 355 38% 62% 1999 186 316 37% 63% 2000 185 332 36% 64% 2001 247 481 34% 66% 2002 277 611 31% 69% 2003 220 430 34% 66% Summary- 7 year Average % 35% 65% New Residential Constuction Distribution Map 1997 Created by Planning and Development utilizing pen -nit data for new construction permits DRAFT. 013102 New Residential Constuction Created by Planning and Development obUzmg permit data for new construction permits New Residential Constuction Distribution Map 1997-1999 Created by Planning and Development utilizing permit data for neve construction permits. DRAFT, 03/02 Created by Planning and Development utilizing permit data for new construction permits DRAFT, 03/02 Created by Planning and Development utilizing permit data for new construction permits DRAFT, 03/02 Frederick County, Virginia Single Family Dwellings Single Family Dwellings Built ` t • 1 Built 1998 - 2003 O 1998(619) \_�\ O 1999 (548) 2000(605) v� O 2001 (744) - `A • " �j 2002(708) ss `} 0 2003 (43) f Major Roadway Classes Interstates Primary Secondary i City / Town Name Winchester e �. �, • t Stephen, City J� 4 Middletown County Boundary y Y j 1 1 75 10 Miles .. ` •{f�"FrederickCounty Structure Map r g^ f 2004 NOTES: Created by Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development Source data derived from address points January 2004 DRAFT •�"+y.�e,r,_ ADDRESSES ASSIGNED FOR LAST OYEARS i�: Z -j' o HAMLETS 6 1 • STRUCTURES R—I -•../ Primary Roads "SecmdarY Roads r a / 'Teedary Roads J. .- CITY BOUNDARY r. /J COUNTY BOUNDARY '• r UMn Do "..rt Ares s. W 11V 1. 7 4 t y u Mlles {aJ- NOTES: Created by Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development Source data derived from address points January 2004 DRAFT i�: 6 r a / S J. 0 05 1 2 11V 1. 7 4 Mlles NOTES: Created by Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development Source data derived from address points January 2004 DRAFT VIABLE SOIL FOR FARMING OVER 10 ACRES Ir Hamlets l\' County Boundary i i i a Urban Development Area j 4 j- �• SWSA " . <' Roads ` 0, i Vis. Primary Roads / f Secondary Roads 4 Tertiary Roads j+ Parcels Lines VIABLE FARMING SOILS j BIRDSBORO 1�' k •:', ; 'ter.{ ��� CARBO DEKALB FRANKSTOWN47",r" FREDERICK f sup+nk LaRaH fMa� f� p •' 61 4' HAYTERLEHEW 1..:._ s City I Town Boundary ." ,� I* 1 1 t v w 1 i x ye4t L p, lv 3lrawtie9%�rft�p r.�" $vmt:tory Fsifs y�( I 5 r �'>d"`�`V" >. ' r • j ...fix +'c,�. 'r .).. t N S 4l C bak .� DovOfe: ikgaty. r' drd r Mea �� � RI°v"� 0 2 4 6 ... ......... ......._8 10...................12 14.....................16 18 .. _............ 20 Miles' RURAL AREA TRENDS 1995 to present Rural Preservation Subdivisions • 44 total subdivisions submitted/approved • Comprises approx. 3,500 acres • Approx. 1,575 acres preserved • 733 lots RURAL AREA TRENDS 1995 to present Other Major Rural Subdivisions (5 -acre lots) • 20 subdivisions • Comprises approx. 1,500 acres • 224 lots Frederick County, VA ,t Recent Major Rural Subdivisions i� GtNI w"1Mr' rr r� f Major Rural Subdivisions -, YEAR, SUBDIVISION TYPE If• 1995, Maj Rural Subdivision 3 1995, Rur Pres Subdivision 1998. Maj Rural Subdivision _ E3 1996, Rur Pres Subdivision Ati A 1997, Maj Rural Subdivision 1997, Rur Pres Subdivision (• `� 0 1998, Rur Pres Subdivision '� `�, A 1999, Maj Rural Subdivision '...�@..- `•.& - �'�._ A 2000. Mej Rural Subdivision A 2001, Maj Rural Subdivision pit - At A 9 2001, Rur Pres Subdivision A 2002, Maj Rural Subdivision" $ 2002, Rur Pres Subdivision A 2003, Maj Rum[ SubdMsion ■ 2003, Rur Pres Subdivision o Hamlets \: r /'•:' Urban Development Area`^ _ &[] ,r. `'! ;^✓ County Boundary �� /...� Primary Roads ^� C .j,.:`r^ -A,' ✓' Secondary Roads - Tertiary Roads c -- City / Town Boundary .St„'_' CountyPoly FJ T 1 ?. 3 . ' t 13 �. r ,w F f x� 0 05 1 2 3 4� f NOTES: Created by Frederick County Dept of Planning 8 Development January 2004 DRAFT ................ ...... _... ...... ..... __ _.._.. _..._ _... ............ _.... _...... _ ........... .............-.. _.........�., �.. __.. Frederick County Rural Subdivisions 1995 -Present Major Rural Subdivisions Preservation Subdivisions DRAFT RURAL AREA TRENDS Questions.? Frederick County Planning Commission Retreat February 7, 2Q04 Study Framework * Rural Economy * Rural Community Centers * Transportation * Community Services and Facilities Natural and Heritage Resources 0 Land Development and Design � The Rural Areas — UDA Relationship Issues and Opportunities: Agriculture and Rural Economy Agriculture in Frederick county is Transitioning. Contrary to National Trend, Scale of Local Farming Operations Gradually Reducing. The Future is "fiche" Farming.. Opportunity for County to Directly Support Transition and Maintain Local Viability of Agriculture. Opportunity to Identify and Promote Rural Areas as Incubator for New Business Development, Not Limited to Agriculture. Issues and Opportunities: Rural Community Centers • Rural Community Centers Should be Revitalized as Focal Points of Rural Areas. • Satellite Sewer Service Areas with Package Treatment Plants. Issues and Opportunities: Natural Resources, Development Design • Natural and Heritage Resources Define character of Rural Areas and Frederick County. Conservation Should be Principal objective of New Development, Starting Point for Design. Clustered Development Pattern Most Conducive to Conservation and Contiguous Open Space Network. • Rural Residential Rezoning option may be Appropriate ro riate to Address Costs of New Development. • Present Policy Proposals to Public and Stake Holders, July 2004 — August 200:4. • Policy. Proposals Forwarded to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, Fall 2004.. Frederick County Planning Commission Retreat February 7,, 2004 -ee market is not enough. We need Cost of Community Services.' (COCS),. COCS studies imply that agricultural and open space land reaps more tax revenue for the county 00 than. the cost of providing services to that land Economists auestion the mP-fhnrJnInnv Dillon's Rule * First, What cap � ���al governments do? The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that, "The powers not delegated to the United by the Constitution,, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." • Rolice. Power: Power of a state to legislate for the health, safety, morals and general welfare of its citizens .� Source of Power for local governments: Charter or enabling statute Dillon 's Rule: A municipal corporation possesses and may exercise the following powers, and no others: First, those granted in express +3 implied in second, those necessarily or fairly or a a = r incident to thepowersY ex ressl ranteds andp 1 Third, those essential to the declared objects t.Rpurposes y : G )`Yand of the cor orationr not mere convenient but indispensable. x -fair reasonable doubt concerning t ,.Any ! � existence of the over is resolved by the courtsp against the corporation, and the -Owers,r;y �i� i , 1CK ,�,, ��':-. ';>,• ., _ - i. '.i' _,.. :yrf., t�„+�, w '� ..r ' i�' }. r'^��c r`� +N � � , 5'� � t ° _ denied,, � � � � �tr `�' � � ' tG►Y�"J .moi �.�. > ` . ,., � � Y i " , •'� " .'��n r� � {'� � r�` ��'S 2 i�"�.� 6 io 13 -Ig c land' 9l ii �S1cjc E E SITOR• [i c A�h L i IA1 i I. i • y G rIi` A �F y t `` �, ,#" ,sr a �t' k,4 � ��,��-• yL n •N i g VA l Jtl�"r S l � E E SITOR• [i c A�h L i IA1 i I. i • y G rIi` A �F y t Some Land Protection Tools Presently Used in Virginia 1. Special -Use taxation 2. Agricultural and Forestal Districts 3. Agricultural Zoning 4. Right to Farre a. Nuisance protection - constitutional? b. Special Use permits not allowed 5. Purchase of Development Rights (a few counties) a. one "stick from the bundle"- the right to develop - is sold to government, land trust,, or individual b. it is forever c. voluntary d. allowed by statute 6,. Income tax and Estate tax incentives for conservation easements ` �Ek a¢ Y 019 1. Circuit breakers 2. Transferable Development Rights (TDR's) I ML. , sending area`,.._ receiving area - difficult to. a.d.min ister mandator — not allowed in Virginia >�e yrs- - � }ry ,._ �;�, R.. � ��� f . •�.��iV IRF. ����%�' r r,rf�'"-'R S"�:5,;1y.,x •� re`�.. � .. _ ... , yrnr . r as '. d" rs, SSE �� � � � a �ii �T '� r. • cr + _y� • IRRQ a. rvY � •'e �{ • � �f� .�� C� may,. •ri u k. r- .sr�� ea '.Y :;.4 ♦y'*yr A''`�. Rffi�, ne r. :.�' y�r`,4 r• •.1::4 � r -} �4.. r`•S,` r '�, _x _"�i� r,�r l�v. y'I.. r+}� �,,�._ sok <yq��:fr �= ,� �� ,'�. +r94 d`�. "�:. -i .i �r •.txQ'..:"-�"'. s:.r� �.:f :#i` _ �. .+x"t.a--�"w. i��.': -n,- ;�T .. �`, .S- '' � .e � ; �., -�' `y �s11 ."o.J�7i.F - .> _ - G".'+� � ia: `,�w•j y�.. '���' : €` • - :.•n• Y �" ¥i w�°" � - ,•t i . _.:� ., T. &�a. r�# ^�, �y�M + 4,e e., �` . . ' .. IM`,h.� a'' f) r +• •.s� . ,cjR?�Sd y... .,. a i, N ;.. c E ,ar •�•� - •...# ... +� .•fes; r - +G• Y; *� i '#.c � i, K. � ' •4i �: r �-� I Conclusion There is no "one size fits all" a� Each community must examine the different pools and come up with the combination that works for them * Good comprehensive planning is the best Establishing A Process Comprehensive Planning Program — Amendment Process- Amending Process -the Comprehensive Policy Plan - Source of Amendments: • Projects based on County's Long Range work program • Property Owner generated requests Amending Process -the Comprehensive Policy Plan- Currently, property owner's request for amendments are considered as the CPPS' schedule allows • If the CPPS is undertaking a significant study (ex. RA Policy Study, NELUP), there is minimal, if any, time available to consider property owner requests. ISSUE: Property Owner requests for amendments places pressure on process. Property Owner has no clear schedule for when request might be considered. Amending Process -the Comprehensive Policy Plan - Fundamental Concerns • The Comprehensive Policy Plan is a County policy document. - County initiated; - County controlled; - County driven Is it appropriate for the property owner to advise the County about long term land use policy? Most often, a property owner lives in terms of today, not tomorrow. • Growth Management: Long range policy (County) directs where growth should occur. Rezoning petitions property owners) implement the long range plan through development proposals Should the County or property owner direct the County's future? Amending Process -the Comprehensive Policy Plan - ISSUE (again): Citizen requests for amendments places pressure on process. No clear schedule for when a citizen request might be considered. Potential Solutions • Annual review period • Board resolution directing study • As time allows Amending Process -the Comprehensive Policy Plan - Potential Solutions • Annual review period — Once a year, the CPPS could consider property owner requests for amendments — Might impact current long range effort — Property owners know when the amendments will be considered Amending Process -the Comprehensive Policy Plan - Potential Solutions • Board resolution directing study — Maintains the integrity of the policy making process — Property Owner seeks sponsorship from their Board member — Sponsor request full Board consideration — Board directs staff to consider request — Places the responsibility for initiating policy amendments in the legislative realm — Property owner gains majority of Board support — The Board, thru Resolution, directs staff to undertake study — Keeps Board in control of ,process, enables Board to reprioritize Amending Process -the Comprehensive Policy Plan - Potential Solutions • As time allows — Current process — May impact work program — Uncertain time frames to process Amending Process -the Comprehensive Policy Plan - Potential Solutions • Annual review period • Board resolution directing study_ • As time allows Establishing Priorities for 2004 The Department of Planning and Development's Work Program s Long Range Projects • Develop strategies; policies; and land use regulations which protect the rural character of the county and sustain agricultural land use. • Institute a study for the development of a land use plan for the Route 522 / Route 277 "triangle." • Comprehensive review of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. • Conduct an analysis of the Urban Development Area and develop strategies and policies which guide boundary adjustments. • Develop a review and recommendation process for public projects to ensure compliance with section 15.2- 2232 of the Code of Virginia. Long Range Projects cont • Assist in improvements to the county's Geographic Information System database to allow for enhanced analytical capabilities. • Expand opportunities for citizens to access various departmental information through the county's webpage. • Continue efforts to implement the Winchester -Frederick County Battlefield Network Plan through the development of grant applications and assistance in plan preparation. • Develop an on-line process for the review and completion of various development applications. Current Planning Projects • Complete a comprehensive review and revision of Chapter 165 - Zoning Ordinance of the Frederick County Code. • Complete a comprehensive review and revision of Chapter 144 - Subdivision Ordinance of the Frederick County Code. • Develop an objective rating system for the prioritization of major secondary road improvement projects within Frederick County • Review Planning Department application packages and procedures to ensure that current standards and policies are adhered to. Current Planning Projects co n't • Review development design standards for commercial corridors within the county, primarily those leading into the City of Winchester. • Develop a process and standards for the implementation of proportional site development improvements. • Create Growth Tracking Report. Questions to Ponder • What are the top Long Range priorities for the coming year that the Planning Department should undertake? • What are the top Short Range priorities for the coming year that the Planning Department should undertake? • What aspects of the Rural Areas policy should receive the greatest emphasis? • How should Plan? staff process amendments to the Comprehensive Policy