Loading...
PC 04-02-03 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia APRIL 2, 2003 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) February 5, 2003 Minutes ................................................ (A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments .................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Conditional Use Permit #05-03 of Martin L. Monk for a Cottage Occupation for Sales of Outdoor Furnace Units. The property is located at 1599 Hites Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 84-A-74 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (Ms. Ragsdale) ........................................................ (B) 5) Request of Kent Barley Orchards, Inc. to remove one parcel totaling 149.06 acres from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The parcel is identified as Property Identification Number 74-A-13, located along Marlboro Road (Route 631), in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (Mrs. Kennedy)....................................................... (C) 6) Rezoning #05-03 of Custer Estates, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 281.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and The Ravens development, and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 64-A-82; 64-A-83; 64 -A -83A; 64-A-86; 64-A- 87; 64 -A -87A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mr. Mohn).......................................................... (D) 7) Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 165-77 B (2)(d), Existing Lots, which addresses the ability to reduce yard setbacks in the R5 District. (Mr. Camp) ............................. ............................. (E) 8) Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, to add SIC 83 - Social Services, excluding SIC 836, Residential Care, to the list of allowed uses for the B2 (Business, General) Zoning District. (Mr. Camp) ........................................................... (F) 9) Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Section 165-27.E (11), Parking Lots, Landscaping; Section 165-31, Protection of Environmental Features; Section 165-36, Landscaping; and Article XXII, Section 165-156, Definitions. (Mr. Camp) .......................................................... (G) 10) Other • 0 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on February 5, 2003. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. ALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. TING MINUTES - DECEMBER 18. 2002 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of December 18, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 01/23/03 Mtg. Conunissioner Unger reported that the DRRS discussed the proposed new landscaping requirements and a proposal for revising a section of the R5 District. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 2003 Page 994 -2 - Transportation Committee - 02/04/03 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that by a majority vote, the Transportation Committee forwarded the 2002 Primary Road Plan, instead of the 2003 Plan, which included Route 37. He also reported that a letter was presented by a committee member encouraging rail transportation study, which was endorsed by the Committee. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 01/21/03 Mtg. Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB reviewed the Stephenson Village rezoning proposal submitted by Greenway Engineering. Commissioner Gochenour stated that despite the fact that the developers proposed to preserve the core of the adjacent Civil War battlefield, concerns were raised regarding the impacts of the construction of 2,800 homes on Samuel Bryer House, the McCann-Milburne Chapel Cemetery, and the Jordan Springs Hotel. She said that no action was taken by the HRAB. Sanitation Authority SA - 01/28/03 Mtg. Commissioner Fisher recalled that the SA received the Engineer's report highlighting the following items: 1) the County is currently at less than an eight -inch deficit of rainfall, since July of 1998; 2) work has begun on a draw -down test to determine capacities at the Stephens City quarries; and, 3) two contracts were awarded for the water transmission main and sewer main in the Northeast corridor. AMENDMENT TO AGENDA Chairman DeHaven suggested a rearrangement of the agenda in order for the Commission to discuss the two requests for extensions of sewer and water services first, in the interest of saving time for those citizens present for their requests. Upon motion made by Conunissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Gochenour, the Commission unanimously agreed to the rearrangement of the agenda items. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 2003 Page 995 -3 - DISCUSSION ITEMS Request for Extension of Sewer and Water Services, submitted by Tim B. Thomas and Denise L. Thomas; for the extension of water and sewer to approximately one acre of land. This is a request for extension of water and sewer outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The property is located on the east side of Double Church Road, immediately east of the Hartwood and Woodside subdivisions and is identified with Property Identification Number 86 -A - 71A in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Denial Connnissioner Unger stated that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this request, due to a possible conflict of interest. Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence reported that the staff has received a request from Mr. Tim B. Thomas and Ms. Denise L. Thomas to consider the extension of water and sewer services to a one -acre parcel of land outside of the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). He said the property is located on the east side of Double Church Road, immediately east of the Hartwood and Woodside subdivisions. Director Lawrence stated that the request was reviewed by the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcon-unittee (CPPS) on January 13, 2003; however, the CPPS did not support the request, primarily because it was an extension of the sewer service outside of any of the service areas in the UDA. He said in addition, the CPPS noted that the property is currently in use as a residence with a functioning health system; they believed there was not a health issue that required the extension of sewer and water service to the subject property. Director Lawrence added that in the Spring of 2002, a number of SWSA expansion scenarios were presented to the Board of Supervisors; the project was termed the "277 SWSA Expansion" and included the area east of Double Church Road, which included the subject site. He said the Board approved a SWSA expansion scenario which did not include the subject property. Mr. Tim B. Thomas and Ms. Denise L. Thomas were available to answer questions from the Commission. Commission members had concerns about the precedent that may be set to keep moving the SWSA boundary in this location. They commented that unless there were some other plans for the property besides residential, they saw no reason to extend sewer and water service, at this point in time, as long as the Thomas' had a functioning health system and were not having problems with their system. The Commissioners concurred with the CPPS's recommendation that the request was inappropriate. Upon motion made by Connnissioner Light and seconded by Carmnissioner Rosenberry, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend the denial of the request for extension of sewer and water services, submitted by Mr. Tim B. Thomas and Ms. Denise L. Thomas, for the extension of water and sewer outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 3, 2003 Page 996 -4 - (Please Note: Commissioner Unger abstained from voting.) Request for Extension of Sewer and Water Services, submitted by Robert Trenary, for the extension of water and sewer to approximately 80 acres of land. This is a request for extension of water and sewer outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The property is located on Forest Lakes Drive, south of Fairfax Pike and Hudson Hollow Road, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 86-A-211 and 86-A-212 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Denial Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence reported that the staff has received a request from Mr. Robert Trenary to consider the extension of water and sewer services to an approximate 80 -acre parcel of land outside of the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). He said the property is located just southeast of the County park and is accessed off of Forest Lake Drive. Director Lawrence stated that the request was reviewed by the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) on January 13, 2003; however, the CPPS did not support the request, primarily because it was an extension of the sewer service outside of any of the service areas in the UDA. Director Lawrence added that in the Spring of 2002, a number of SWSA expansion scenarios were presented to the Board of Supervisors; the project was termed the "277 SWSA Expansion" and included the Hudson Hollow Road area. He said the Board approved a SWSA expansion scenario which did not include the subject property. Again, as with the previous request, the Commissioners had concerns about the precedent that may be set to keep moving the SWSA boundary in this location. They concurred with the CPPS's recommendation that this request -vas inappropriate at this time. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner iKriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commmission does hereby unanimously recommend the denial of the request for extension of sewer and water services, submitted by Mr. Robert Trenary, for the extension of water and sewer outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). PUBLIC HEARfNGS Rezoning 902-03 of the Winchester Medical Center, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. to rezone 50.0540 acres from B2 (Business General) to B2 (Business General) with revised proffers, and 51.9676 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to MS (Medical Support). This property is located north and Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 2003 Page 997 -5 - adjacent to Route 50 and west and adjacent to Route 37, and is identified with Property Identification Number 53-A-68 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Tabled for 30 Days Deputy Planning Director Christopher M. Mohn presented the staff's review and analysis of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Mohn acknowledged that the zoning districts proposed through the application were fundamentally consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, specifically the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan (Phase 1) and the Route 37 West Land Use Plan; however, issues of concern remained, primarily regarding the project design and transportation, which he explained to the Commission in detail. In summary, Mr. Mohn reiterated that the application lacks substantive project design standards to facilitate conformance with the corridor design objectives of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan and concerns remain regarding the transportation impacts of the proposal. He noted again that the Comprehensive Policy Plan sought no less than a Level of Service "C" on roads adjoining new development. He said the transportation improvements proposed with this application do not attain fulfillment of this critical policy objective. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the representative for the Winchester Medical Center, stated that it was his pleasure to work with Mr. C. Douglas Rosen and the Winchester Medical Center Board in developing this proposal over the last two years. Mr. Maddox said the purpose of this plan is to integrate additional lands into the Winchester Medical Center Campus to ensure that capacity will exist for the facility well into the future. Mr. Maddox spoke about the Winchester Medical Center's commitment to good transportation, noting that their existing facility was an absolute testament to good transportation, and that the cohesive nature of the planning on the existing facility will be carried forward on this new campus. He also pointed out the importance of integrating this plan with the proposed WWW development proposal, located west of this site, and to coordinate facilities, both public and private, in order to provide the resources necessary to build the capacity into the system. Mr. Maddox proceeded with an in-depth discussion of the transportation proposal and proffered improvements for this site; he also described the proposed uses planned for the site. One of the biggest concerns voiced by numerous Commissioners was the issue of design standards for the Route 50 corridor. They pointed out that the applicant's proffer regarding landscape design for the business and commercial development and the protective covenants was vague. The Commissioners were interested in seeing an overall architectural/design plan for the commercial and business development that would meet the particularly high visual standard that the Winchester Medical Center and the Valley Health Systems have previously established in order to maintain an overall cohesive appearance along the Route 50 corridor. Mr. C. Douglas Rosen, Senior Vice -President with Valley Health Systems said he was responsible for construction throughout the entire Valley Health System and assured the Commission that the Board of Directors for Valley Health Systems insist on visually -appealing construction that would match the existing Winchester Medical Center campus. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Rosen said the Valley Health Systems Board would have direct oversight of the B2 area and would control how the properties are developed. Mr. Rosen stated that their primary interest initially is a hotel that could be used by patients' families from out of to,,v n. Conunission members suggested the establishment of an architectural review board. Frederick County Planning Conunission Minutes of February 5, 2003 Page 998 -6 - The other major concern of the Planning Commission was the transportation issues involved with the project and, specifically, that the Level of Service of the transportation system serving the site more than likely will diminish from the current "C" to "D" upon completion of the first phase of the proffered transportation plan. They pointed out that the applicant has committed to do a transportation study at 50% build -out, but regardless of the study results, there are no triggers in place to stop development or to implement some type of improvement in the situation. Mr. Maddox believed these issues could be worked out without a major problem and suggested a tabling of the rezoning for 30 days. Mr. Jerry Copp and Mr. Ben Lineberry from VDOT were available to answer questions from the Planning Commission. Questions from the Commission included whether or not a Level of Service "D" was acceptable; and, whether or not the hospital's interchange off Route 37 was built with the assumption there would not be a western end. In response to the first question, Mr. Copp said that the desired Level of Service is "C," however, the level of service ;ill fall to "D" at traffic lights during certain times of the day. Regarding the hospital's interchange on Route 37, Mr. Copp replied that because the Route 522 and Route 50 interchanges are so close and due to the weaving motions that exist, a configuration to the West will probably not work. He explained that the Commonwealth Transportation Board would first have to approve Frederick County's desire to have the break and then VDOT would have to approve the design. Other questions directed at VDOT representatives concerned who was responsible for road construction. Mr. Copp explained that VDOT will not fund the construction of roads; VDOT will maintain the road after construction. He said that construction of roads are paid for by the people who desire the road. It was pointed out that Frederick County does not pay for the construction of roads. Mr. Ben Lineberry added that in past occasions in Frederick County, phases of road construction have been paid for by the developers who desire the road. Mr. Copp agreed that this is how things get done. Chairman DeHaven called for public continents and the following persons came forward to speak Mr. Dennis Booker, a restaurant owner in the Round Hill Continunity, expressed concern about the fact that water and sewer for the Winchester Medical Center and the WWW would stay on the north side of Route 50 and would not serve any homeowners on the south side. Mr. Booker said the residents on the south side of Route 50 are going to be impacted by this development and will not be getting access to the water and sewer that they need. Likewise, he comnnented that there has been discussion on Route 50 traffic heading west, but no consideration of the traffic heading east. Ms. Nancy Johnson was concerned about losing portions of her property to provide additional travel lanes for Winchester Medical Center's proposal. Mr. Jolui Good, Jr. of Stonewall District and Vice President of the Farmers' Livestock Exchange, Inc., located just across Route 50 from the subject site, stated that the Farmers' Livestock Exchange, Inc. wishes to support the Winchester Medical Center and their efforts 100%. Mr. Good believed the Winchester Medical Center greatly contributes to the community and deserves the community's support. Mr. Good next recalled some earlier comments made concerning the appearance of the 7/11 structure, which sits on land owned by the Farmers' Livestock Exchange, Inc. Mr. Good stated that his Board is completely Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 2003 Page 999 -7 - satisfied with the Southland Corporation's development of the site; he noted that Southland's business is an integral part of the survival of the Farmers' Livestock Exchange, Inc. to serve the agricultural community; he said the Livestock Exchange's Board would not have suggested that Southland change their corporate colors. Conunission members recognized the applicant's willingness to work with the staff on some of the issues of concern. Therefore, a motion was made by Comm-ussioner Rosenberry and seconded by Commissioner Straub to table the application for 30 days. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Plannung Conunission does hereby unanimously agree to table Rezoning #02-03 of the Winchester Medical Center, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. to rezone 50.0540 acres from B2 (Business General) to B2 (Business General) with revised proffers, and 51.9676 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to MS (Medical Support), in order to allow time for the applicant to address issues raised by the Planning Staff and the Planning Conunission. DISCUSSION OF THE NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN Action - Recommended Approval Chairman DeHaven announced that any discussions of the specific Slaughter/ Shockey/ or McCann proposals may present him with a conflict of interest; therefore, he would abstain from participation in those discussions and he passed the Chair over to Commissioner Light. Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that on June 12, 2002, the Board of Supervisors directed the Planning Staff to re-examine the land use policies associated with the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). Director Lawrence reported that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) began reviewing and discussing the NELUP over the last six months and, at their December 9, 2002 meeting, forwarded a recominendation that they believed addressed the concerns identified by the Board of Supervisors; this plan was identified as Revised NELUP, Alternative # 1. He also noted that four citizens from the Stephenson area of the County were appointed to the CPPS and participated with the other 13 members. Director Lawrence presented the revised plan to the Commission as a discussion item for consideration and direction as appropriate. Director Lawrence reviewed the five points that the Board of Supervisors specifically requested to be addressed. He also pointed out that at the beginning of this project, the Planning Staff learned that the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF) was undertaking a study of various battlefield clusters in the Valley. He said that although the SVBF has not yet issued an official recommendation, they did specify that the Stephenson Depot area was viable for preservation. Accordingly, the CPPS recognized the area initially identified by the SVBF as a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA). He stated that the CPPS also received three requests from property owner groups within the study area, which included: 1) the Shockey/Slaughter property owners to consider 1,300 acres as a mixed residential land use and to consider expansion of the UDA; 2) the Redbud Road Property ONv ners Group, located adjacent to the Shockey/Slaughter property along Redbud Road, to consider this area for mixed residential land use and inclusion in the UDA; and, 3) Woodsmill Estates Property Oxvners Association, also adjacent to the Shockey/Slaughter property, and to consider their area for mixed residential land use and inclusion in the UDA. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 2003 Page 1000 -8- Director Lawrence advised that the CPPS did not endorse any ofthe proposals. He reported that the consensus of opinion throughout the CPPS's discussions was that the primary area which needed to be addressed within the NELUP was the area South of Old Charles Town Road and East of Route 11; and, to determine what was the appropriate use for that area of the County. Director Lawrence continued, stating that the CPPS concluded their discussions and by a majority decision, recommended that the existing Land Use Plan for the Northeast Study be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors with only one change; the one change was the SVBF's recomrnendation for an expanded DSA around Stephensons Depot. He said the CPPS also requested that staff bring two of the other alternatives to the Commission and Board for information and to show some of the other thoughts that were circulated at the table. The only significant change to Alternative 42 was to remove the Industrial land use designation and move back the SWSA, with the DSA enlarged; and, Alternative 43, which was strongly supported by the citizen liaisons, specified reduced amounts of industrial and commercial land use, increased DSA and rural areas, and provisions to extend water and sewer to various rural community centers. Procedural issues were neat discussed by the Commission. Some of the Commissioners were under the impression that public meetings throughout the community were supposed to be held prior to the submission of the NELUP to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Other Commissioners noted that representatives of the Stephenson connnunity were involved at the subcommittee level; they also noted that public meetings would definitely be a part of the adoption process for the land use plan, after some of the alternatives were narrowed down. Director Lawrence advised that the presentation to the Board of Supervisors is a progress report and to provide staff with direction. Another issue raised by the Commission concerned the Board of Supervisors' impending decision on Route 37 and the effects of that decision on land use in the northeast. It was noted that the isions will be greatly affected by whether or not Route 37 is in the transportation impacts of County dec Primary Road Plan or not. Comments on the industrial portion of the NELUP were also made and particularly, a report that indicated the County's industrial development to be woefully behind where it should be in order to assist with the County's tax base and tax rates. In addition, some members believed the Commission should entertain discussion on the homeowners associations' requests regarding the extension of the SWSA because of septic field problems. Connnissioners believed these relevant issues needed to be addressed for the citizens in this area and direction from the Board was needed on how the NELUP was to be viewed. Connnissioner Rosenberry made a motion to send the NELUP back to the CPPS for the purpose of planning public meetings for public input. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gochenour. The motion failed by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE MOTION TO SEND BACK TO CPPS): Straub, Gochenour, Rosenberry NO: Watt, Unger, Morris, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, Light ABSTAIN: DeHaven The majority of Corrunission members believed that public meetings would occur as a part of this process, however, their interest was to receive directive from the Board on what is needed to be looked at Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 2003 Page 1001 specifically. BLOM Upon a motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Plaiming Commission does hereby agree to forward the CPPS's original reconunendation, the current, adopted Northeast Land Use Plan within the Comprehensive Policy Plan, along with all four of the proposed alternative plans, as well as the recent Shockey/ McCann/ Slaughter proposals, to the Board for further review and guidance. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE MOTION TO SEND FORWARD TO THE BOARD): Triplett, Fisher, Kriz, Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt NO: Rosenberry, Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN: DeHaven Commissioner Light relinquished the Chair back to Chainnan DeHaven. Chairman DeHaven pointed out that there were three individual, forinal requests from citizen groups for consideration of an amendment to the Comprehensive Policy Plan and he asked the other commissioners if they would be willing to have these representatives publicly present their requests to verify what they are proposing and why. The consensus of the Commission was that they would be willing to hear from the citizens present. Chairman DeHaven called for any citizen member who wished to speak. Mr. Glen Penton, of Stonewall District, believed that the public in the Stephenson area has been systematically left out of the process. Mr. Penton said the citizens of Stephenson don't care what the County believes; they do not want certain things, even though it was zoned that way five or ten years ago. He said the citizens of Stephenson want to participate in the process and they want public meetings, in order for this plan to go forward with their support. Mr. Penton said the citizen members of the CPPS believed that by including Jordan Springs, Woodsmill, and Redbud, these areas would receive the same land use benefits as Mr. Shockey's portion and a more logical SWSA and UDA would be created. However, he said that when the formal requests for inclusion in the UDA were made to the CPPS, each of the requests were voted down and none of the properties were included in the UDA. Mr. Penton said the industrial area was then placed back into the plan. Mr. Penton believed the Board of Supervisors was not being presented with anything they could make a rational decision with. Mr. Penton concluded by imploring the Commission to let the citizens give their input as to what they want in their connnunity because they own the conununity and they pay the taxes. He said that if they want a certain lifestyle, that's what they want. Chairnlan DeHaven asked Mr. Penton if the consensus of the homeowners association was that their request to be nlcluded in the UDA should only be considered if there's going to be a change in the UDA line. Mr. Penton replied that all of the citizens he spoke with would rather not have the UDA anywhere; however, if the UDA is anticipated to be added in some locations, they would rather have it put in everywhere. Chairman DeHaven advised that if the citizens' desire was to have this property included in the UDA only if Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 2003 Page 1002 -10 - the Shockey tract is included, then the citizens should submit this in writing to the Planning Staff. Mr. Ron Combs, a resident of the Woodsmill subdivision in Stonewall District, agreed with Mr. Penton that if the UDA is going to be included at all, it should be included everywhere. Referring to the plan recommended by the CPPS, Mr. Combs said that if, after six months, all the CPPS did was put the battlefield in, then the CPPS got an "F" for effort. Mr. Combs said the citizens did not want industrial development along the Route 11 corridor. He commented about expanding industrial uses in his area and said they are getting trucks up and down their roads and don't need them. He also commented that with Mr. Shockey's development proposal, there's the possibility they would get additional ballfields to replace those that may be lost by the possibility of the quarry's expansion. Chainnan DeHaven next relinquished the Chair back to Commissioner Light. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering came forward to represent the Shockey property owners. Mr. Wyatt said the Shockey proposal is to amend the industrial area, which is somewhat suspect in this area of the community, to a Residential Planned Community project. In Mr. Wyatt's opinion, the community meetings and tours they've previously undertaken have been extremely important in this process because it provided the community and the decision -makers with educational opportunities for this new concept. Mr. Wyatt stated that the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which calls for the expansion of the UDA and the modification of the industrial land use to Residential Planned Community, is beneficial to the overall community and, primarily, to the surrounding Stephenson community for the following reasons: 1) it provides for control of suburban sprawl; 2) it provides an opportunity for community shopping; 3) it provides for ballfields and a school within walking distance; 4) it provides for affordable housing for the elderly; 5) water and sewer infrastructure is available to extend into the Stephenson community area; and, 6) the mix of housing types within Residential Planned Communities reduces impacts to schools compared to traditional -style subdivisions. In addition, Mr. Wyatt said their proposal does not call for rezoning of the core battlefield area; it provides open space preservation for a linear green corridor along Hyatt's Run; and it provides positive tax revenue for schools and other services. Mr. Wyatt next briefly explained the proposal using a display. The Board of Supervisors' representative for the Back Creek District, Lynda Tyler, provided the Connmission with a copy of her original motion and reconunendation by the Board of Supervisors to send the NELUP back to the CPPS; she believed the information was somewhat abbreviated in the Planning Commission's agenda. Supervisor Tyler believed the discussion before the Commission was out of order and she was glad the Commission was sending it forward to the Board for further direction. She said that Item Numbers 1, 3, and 5 were not completed as far as her intent when she made her motion to the Board. Supervisor Tyler next explained in detail to the Commission why she believed each one of these items had not been completed by the CPPS and how she wanted them to be addressed. Mr. Doug Cochran, Jr. of the Stonewall District said that he participated on the CPPS as a citizen liaison during the discussions on the NELUP and he pointed out what he believed were errors and over- simplification of facts contained in the Planning Staffs memorandum. He believed the over -simplified summarization provided false conclusions that a potentially beneficial exercise was properly carried out. He explained his views on what happened and what was discussed at the CPPS meetings. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman DeHaven closed the discussion of this item. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 2003 Page 1003 ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. EN! No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. by a Respectfully submitted, Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Coimnission Minutes of February 5, 2003 Page 1004 L-A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #05-03 Martin L. Monk Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: March 17, 2003 Staff Contact: Rebecca Ragsdale This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Reviewed Action 04/02/03 Pending 04/23/03 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 1599 Hites Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 84-A-74 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential, Agricultural, Wooded Area PROPOSED USE: Cottage Occupation -Sale of Outdoor Furnace Units REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 625, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum standards. CUP 405-03, Martin L. Monk Page 2 March 19, 2003 Fire Marshal: No factors which identify an adverse effect on firefighting or access. Plan approval is recommended. Inspections Department: Existing building being utilized shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 309, Use Group M (Mercantile), of The BOCA National Building Code/1996. Other code that applies is CABO A117.1-92, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Please submit a floor plan if any of the existing structures are to be utilized and apply for a change of use building permit. A new Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be issued prior to the use of any structure. Health Department: Health Department has no objection to use. No sales offices, restroom, etc. to be provided. Planning and Zoning: The applicant is proposing a Cottage Occupation from his two -acre property, which is located adjacent to agricultural uses and the nearby South Frederick Agricultural District. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for Cottage Occupations in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The applicant's proposed cottage occupation would involve the sale of outdoor wood -burning furnaces. The applicant is proposing to utilize an existing barn on his property to store several furnace units. There would only be one employee associated with the proposed business, the applicant's business partner. Sales would be conducted on an appointment -only basis. There were no disapproving agency review comments. The subject property is not in an area where a small area land use study has been adopted by the County. Nevertheless, the proposed Cottage Occupation is consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, land use goals for the rural areas of the county identify the importance of maintaining rural character in areas outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA). Based on the limited scale of the applicant's proposed cottage occupation, it appears it would not detract from the rural character of the area. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04-02-03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use to be appropriate, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. CUP 405-03, Martin L. Monk Page 3 March 19, 2003 2. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and should not exceed four (4) square feet in size. 3. Any change of use or expansion of this use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. 4. The number of customers shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) per week. 0:\Agendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2003\Manin Monk.wpd 84 A 73 MONK 84 A 74 84 A 23 MONK MONK CUP #05-03 Martin L. Monk 84 A 20 PINS: 84-A-74 GLAZE N _ p- s W L {� 0 40 80 Feet c� C0 4 w � w .r Conditional Use Permit #05-03 Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting Z_f'.-t BOS Meeting 2 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the V owner other) NAME: ADDRESS: �`�� 1-I) t S T_- TELEPHONE 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: /0 rf(c i its - ' 2,. /oofi c 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and inc u �ID-C7 1]? Cth rcute number . f �7/Qur road Justr/ee�} _n C �I � /►�, tc �-'� t (.t Jain n, i � . �'/� �l cL17. frontage of ��' feet and a and consists of acres. >f. � � /-zC f 4. Th property has a oad depth of feet (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned wk , -Ic as evidenced by deed from y '. C �� ( ,� recorded (previou wner) in deed book no.� on page �rr, as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identif.a,-�t/ation N �70��C)0A000C)'?VV Magisterial DistrictL Current Zoning f�fsJ 7. Adjoining Property: US North ;���/��i�� Y� East South „ v West FEB 2 5 2003 8. The type of use propose is (consu t with the Plann' g Dept_ before completing) VM It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: n7 NAME � rl L S4)0�iIif 6) (/'IZ ADDRESS �G�C 2O7 Z 2(0 09' PROPERTY I/D# gdab0,n QM0 7 VC)fJ,q NAME ��IN C- /YJC>.� . ADDRESS /S `��/ �� ��S 4 _ �s11?-;We)1e4A111 ID# q f aoyoAnooD PROPERTY n NAME ,Ti%rJ�° rah %�%G?� ADDRESS %-�i/ PROPERTY ID# 4 fOD" O 4 006 23C� 6A)/6 -/C wM Uf" (.z,.,�>� NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# il. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. All of that certain Tot or parcel. of land, together with the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate in Opequon Magisterial. District, Frederick County, Virginia, about one (1) mile north of Middletown, just West of U. S. Route 11, containing 2.00 acres, together with a 20 foot right of way for ingress and egress to and from the subject land, and more particularly described by survey drawn by Karry C. Himelright, P. C., dated August 19, 1988, of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 691 at Page 478 and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full; and being the same property con- veyed to Martin L. Monk and Kathy C. Monk, his wife, by Deed of Gift, dated August 24, 1988, from Martin L. Monk, et ux, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 691 at Page 476. Reference is made to the aforesaid survey and deed for a more nnrt i rill nr HAPPri ntion of the DroDerty herein conveyed. K69 I Pik It lw#,off-oo �oy jj CJe A.v V 4t A 44 tbd o Z 00 art IL A4. t.4 vv 'PIN OROM it I.*0z­04a;1_,*fxAC7 "To Ise q7Tqcpffo TO -ONO *M Z.VrSGAAL PART OF r)4 &,JILDltvo. sits oir rMS MARYIN L. I"ivm SuXvSy oir mapoitriom gmt, IN D. A. J+a pb. 93&-, DISTRICT cawwryp EPARZO SY LARRY C. wrAILAICPHT P. r.&ss)o#4,qL LA#vo Sumvgromp, L t Psi 1[Ta 3 sox rx vubux&, V) PNONS 4f s- 67&1 06 yes iUJr 1q, MMS 12. Additional �h� comments, if any: i I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner is y19 6'61 Owners' Mailing Address '�iJc�l� �.. u4 2 r Owners' Telephone No. V� TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: 0 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651. FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner RE: Request to remove Parcel 74-A-13, owned by Kent Barley Orchards, Inc., from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. DATE: March 20, 2003 Please find attached a letter from Mr. Kent Barley to Mr. Eric Lawrence, Planning Director, dated February 6, 2003. Kent Barley Orchards, Inc., has requested the removal of one parcel totaling 149.06 acres from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District was established in 1980 and has been renewed four times. The most recent renewal of this district occurred in March 2000 for a period of five years. Currently, 11,601 acres are contained in this district which is comprised of 169 parcels. Should Parcel 74-A-13 be removed, a total of 11,452 acres will remain in the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The Barleys have identified a need to have the flexibility to pursue other options for this acreage and they do not intend to leave the apple industry. Section 15.2-4314 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides property owners with the ability to request removal of land from an agricultural and forestal district through a public process via the local governing body. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) considered this request during their meeting of March 6, 2003. The ADAC recognizes the hardships in the current agriculture economy, and the ADAC unanimously recommended that the parcel be removed from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. Attached is a map which delineates the location of this acreage and its proximity to other land within the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. ASK/cih Enclosures IJ. Abbe\Ag & Forestal Dist\2000-2005 Agricultural & Forestal District\Additions & Withdrawal sUKcnt Barley Orchards, Inc. -Removal from So. FrederickAgDistrict-PCMemo wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Kent Barley Orchards, Inc. 967 Marlboro Road Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Phone 540-869-1222 February 6, 2003 Department of Planning & Development Eric Lawrence: Planning Director Dear Eric I am requesting you commence the procedure to remove my property ID # 74A13 from the South Frederick Agricultural District. It consists of 149.062 Acres. With the agricultural economy in the straits it is in I feel we must have the flexibility to better plan our future and estate matters. I don't intend to leave the apple industry, but I need more options with my only resource which is land. My grandfather bought this property in 1867. I have very strong ties to it. Thank �ou, Pres: Kent Barley Orchards, Inc. 2003 Agricultural Districts, Frederick Kent Barley Orchards, Inc. Withdrawal Request County, Virginia source: O1di N Agrxukuml Ombict Program PKeMEedeYnrchem.shp Redenck oum Cy Tex Maps Ag2OW-shp DAum: R ub*hip Church W P. NAD 27, Northern V girrta Slate Wane ' Date: July I.&& 2002 �: redertck S NO., CMAed by Planning and Development AGray, .lily 2002 • E 0 REZONING APPLICATION #05-03 CUSTER ESTATES Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: March 18, 2003 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 review process, the method(s) 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: 04/02/03 Pending Board of Supervisors: 04/23/03 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 281.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). LOCATION: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64-A-82; 64-A-83; 64 -A -83A; 64-A-86; 64-A-87; 64 -A -87A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING AND PRESENT USE: North: South: East: West: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) and RA (Rural Areas) Zoned RA (Rural Areas) Use: Golf Course & Residential Use: Single Family Residential & Vacant Use: Regional Airport Zoned M1 (Light Industrial) Use: Industrial, Single Family and MH1 (Mobile Home Community) Residential & Vacant Zoned RA (Rural Areas) Use: Regional Airport & Office and B2 (Business General) REZ #05-03, Custer Estates Page 2 March 20, 2003 PROPOSED USE: Residential development consisting of 400 single family detached units with approximately 70 acres dedicated for public school and public services facilities. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Please see the attached letters dated 02/03/03 from Ben Lineberry, Jr. P.E., Transportation Assistant Resident Engineer; and 03/13/03 from Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer. Fire Marshal: Fire lane markings and signage can be identified during the site plan process. Fire hydrants shall be located within three feet of the curb. Other recommendations: automatic sprinkler system; automatic fire alarm system; residential sprinkler system. Plan approval is recommended. Millwood Station Fire & Rescue Co.: Proper hydrant spacing per NFPA. Reflective indicators in the roadway to indicate location of hydrants. $5.00 per household annual dues to Homeowners Association goes to fire department. Inspections: No comment required at this time. Shall comment at the time of site plan review. County Engineer: Please see attached letter dated 12/26/02 from H.E. Strawsnyder, Jr_, P.E., Director of Public Works. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please see letter from Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner I, dated 01107103. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments based on revisions submitted. Parks & Recreation: Please see attached list (three items) dated 01/06/03 from James M. Doran, Director of Parks & Recreation. Frederick County Public Schools: Please see attached letter dated 02/03/03 from Al Orndorff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent. County AttorneX: Proffers appear to be in proper form. Winchester Regional Airport: Please see attached letter dated 01/30/03 from Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director, and the accompanying resolution dated 11/14/02. REZ #05-03, Custer Estates Page 3 March 20, 2003 Punning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject 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) Location The subject parcels are located on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50/17 East) across from the Ravens and Miller Heights subdivisions and adjacent to the Prince Frederick Office Park and the Winchester Regional Airport. The VDOT functional classification system identifies Millwood Pike as a major arterial roadway. The land uses abutting the subject site to the east and west are industrial and office, respectively, with the Winchester Regional Airport adjacent to the south and single family residential uses located across Millwood Pike to the north. 3) Comprehensive Polices The six properties included with this rezoning request are all located within the boundaries of the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. The properties are located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan envisions the area comprised by the subject parcels as developing with business/office land use. The Plan indicates that this planned land use designation is appropriate given the proximity of the area to the Winchester Regional Airport and the Interstate 81 interchange and the conduciveness of such locations to non-residential development. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-19, 6-21) The subject parcels are also located within the boundaries of the Airport Support Area that surrounds the Winchester Regional Airport. This area comprises a zone of influence for airport operations wherein new residential land use is discouraged due to the prevalence of aircraft noise and the consequent potential for use incompatibilities. The development of business and industrial land uses is promoted within the Airport Support Area to minimize such use conflicts and ensure the feasibility of future airport expansion. However, in cases where residential development is permitted within the Airport Support Area, aviation easements and other protective measures should be considered to safeguard airport operations. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-61, 6-63) Adopted economic policies stipulate that a business climate must be supported in Frederick County that is conducive to economic activity and orderly economic growth. Critical to the attainment of this goal is effective land use planning. Diverse locations for business and industry must be identified that are capable of accommodating the access and infrastructure needs of such uses while simultaneously ensuring their functional and aesthetic compatibility with surrounding REZ #05-03, Custer Estates Page 4 March 20, 2003 uses. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 4-1, 4-4, 4-5) Planning Staff Comment and Issues: A. ISSUE: The applicable land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan uniformly promote the establishment of non-residential land uses on the subject parcels. The proposed rezoning of the site to accommodate a 400 -unit residential development is, therefore, fundamentally inconsistent with adopted policy. The Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan designates the planned land use for the site as business/office, which is appropriate given its location adjacent to the Winchester Regional Airport and proximity to Interstate 81 and several regional thoroughfares. Indeed, much of the land comprising the Route 50 East Corridor area is ideal for business and industrial development due to the area's unique access capabilities and the availability of necessary infrastructure and services. The planned land use recommendations for the corridor reflect these characteristics and underscore the importance of the area to the County's long-term economic vitality. The conversion of the subject parcels to suburban residential land use will reduce the capacity of the corridor to accommodate future non-residential growth and consequently compromise attainment of inter -related land use and economic development objectives. It is noted that the applicants attempted to initiate an amendment to the Comprehensive Policy Plan that would have changed the planned land use designation for the subject parcels from business/office to residential or mixed-use. Such an amendment was intended to alleviate the issue of Plan inconsistency noted in the preceding paragraphs. The amendment effort proceeded to a joint work session of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in August 2002, during which concerns of the Airport Authority were reported. No further action occurred regarding the applicant's initiative, thereby leaving the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan and the subject parcels' planned land use unchanged. The applicants have proposed that approval of this rezoning application be considered a de facto amendment to the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan (see Impact Statement, p. 3). Staff suggests that such an approach to land use planning is fundamentally flawed, as it precludes the identification and evaluation of alternatives, as well as the public and organizational input essential to the validity of the planning process and resulting land use policy. Indeed, this rezoning petition offers merely one alternative for public review, and this alternative constitutes a complete departure from the existing long-range plan for the Route 50 East corridor. Any such departure outside of the formal amendment process risks undermining the integrity of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the established planning process in Frederick County. REZ #05-03, Custer Estates Page 5 March 20, 2003 Airport Authorig Comment: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority is opposed to residential development within the Airport Support Area identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. By resolution adopted November 14, 2002, the Airport Authority requested that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors maintain the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan currently applicable to parcels adjacent to airport property. The Airport Authority contends that previous land use planning initiatives for the Route 50 East Corridor have resulted in appropriate land use designations and policies. It is further suggested that any deviation from existing policy may compromise the capacity of the airport to accommodate evolving operational requirements and realities. (See attached letter dated 01/30/03 from Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director, and the accompanying resolution dated 11/14/02). 4) Site Suitability (Impact Analysis Statement, p. 3 - S) The subject parcels contain a variety of environmental features to include areas of flood plain, wetlands, steep slopes, and woodlands. In all cases, that applicant indicates that disturbance will be limited in accordance with applicable regulatory standards. A. Flood Plains: Flood plain data for the subject parcels is delineated on the Flood Insurance Study Map for Frederick County prepared by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Panel #510063-011513, effective date July 17, 1978. The majority of the site is located in Flood Zone C, which denotes areas of minimal flooding outside of the 100 -year flood plain. As reported by the applicants, 100 - year flood plain, Flood Zone A, exists coincident with Sulfur Spring Run, which traverses the frontage of the site, roughly parallel to Route 50. The applicant indicated that disturbance will be limited to entrance improvements. Any disturbance within the designated flood plain area will be subject to the requirements of the Floodplain District (FP) provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. B. Wetlands: The site includes four identified wetland features, all of which are manmade ponds associated with the existing golf course use. Pursuant to the environmental standards of the Zoning Ordinance, disturbance of wetland areas is not permitted. Exceptions to this prohibition may be granted by the zoning administrator to allow disturbance of small portions of wetland areas to facilitate conservation, recreation, and/or the placement of utilities and roads. It is noted that the identified wetland areas may be preserved through their use as project design features. Such issues may be adequately addressed during the Master Development Plan process. C. Soils and Steep Slopes: The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Vir inia 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. As reported by the applicant, map sheet #36 of the Soil Survey reveals that the site is comprised of nine distinct soil types. With the exception of a pit area containing fill materials, all of the soil types identified on the site are suitable for REZ #05-03, Custer Estates Page 6 March 20, 2003 development. 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. Steep slopes (areas of 25% slope or greater) exist along the frontage of the site and adjacent to two ravines that drain the site to Sulfur Spring Run. The applicants are proposing some disturbance of these areas to implement proffered transportation improvements, as well as to implement the planned stormwater management system. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, any such disturbance or regrading shall be limited to no more than 25% of the area comprised of steep slopes. The location and scope of the steep slopes identified on the site do not compromise the suitability of the site for development. The site engineering process associated with subsequent land development applications must address the steep slope conditions on the site and demonstrate that disturbance levels conform with applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. D. Woodlands: The ravine areas present on the site also contain the majority of identified woodland resources. As the location of the woodland areas generally corresponds with steep slope areas, it is reasonable to expect the preservation of substantial portions o, identified woodlands to maintain natural stabilization of the protected slopes. Indeed, the applicants propose such preservation, but also note that some disturbance will occur to create buildable lots and to implement proffered transportation improvements and the stormwater management system. The site engineering process associated with subsequent land development applications must address woodland resources on the site and demonstrate that disturbance levels conform with applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. 5) Intended Use The applicants propose the development of 400 single family detached dwelling units on the site, with approximately 70 acres dedicated for public services and public school uses. Specifically, the applicants have proffered a 50 -acre site for public school uses proximate to the development's proposed entrance across from Sulfur Spring Road, and 22 acres for general public service uses near the entrance on Prince Frederick Drive. Excluding the dedicated acreage, the project's proposed gross residential density is 1.89 dwelling units per acre. The applicants have proposed a five-year time frame for project build -out, with development occurring in three (3) general phases as shown on the proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP). Moreover, the applicants have proffered that the construction of units will be phased at a maximum rate of 80 dwellings per year. The applicants have proffered development of a minor collector road to serve the project. The construction of this roadway will be commence' during Phase One and will extend from a signalized median crossover on Millwood Pike at Sulfur Spring Road, ultimately connecting with Prince Frederick Drive by the conclusion of Phase Two. REZ #05-03, Custer Estates Page 7 March 20, 2003 6) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Impact Analysis Statement (p.5=7): As noted above, the proposed development plan for Custer Estates includes 400 single family dwelling units, a school site, and a public services site. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, the applicant projects that the development will generate an increase of 5,461 vehicle trips per day (VPD) on the adjoining road system. Specifically, the project will be served externally by Millwood Pike, a four -lane major arterial roadway, and Prince Frederick Drive, a two-lane major collector road. The applicant has proffered to construct an internal circulation system comprised of a minor collector road with sidewalks and bicycle facilities. This roadway will be constructed during the first two phases of development, extending from Millwood Pike at the Sulfur Spring Road median cross-over to its ultimate terminus at Prince Frederick Drive. (See Generalized Development Plan for Custer Estates, dated January 2003.) Access to the project will be achieved through multiple entrances, the availability of which will correspond with the three general phases of development. Phase One will involve establishment of an entrance aligned with median crossover on Millwood Pike at Sulfur Spring Road. The applicant has proffered signalization ofthis intersection. The proffered minor collector road will be constructed from this intersection to the boundary of Phase One depicted on the GDP, which will also provide access to the dedicated public school site. Phase Two will involve establishment of a second project entrance on Prince Frederick Drive at the western terminus of the minor collector road. The proposed location of the proffered public service land is adjacent to this entrance. Upon its completion at the conclusion of Phase Two, the minor collector road will extend through the project and provide a direct connection between Millwood Pike at the Sulfur Spring road intersection and Prince Frederick Drive. (See Generalized Development Plan for Custer Estates, dated January 2003.) The applicants have proffered to eliminate the existing median crossover on Millwood Pike at the Carpers Valley Golf Course entrance and construct a new entrance aligned with Inverlee Way, a major collector road that is planned to ultimately extend to Senseny Road. The proffered entrance realignment is planned during Phase Three, and is contingent upon attainment of necessary right-of-way on the adjoining Hockman property, which is located directly across from the Inverlee Way intersection with Millwood Pike. It is noted that the Hockman property is not included with this application. The applicants propose that if they are unable to acquire such right-of-way and Frederick County is either unable or unwilling to achieve acquisition via eminent domain, the existing Golf Course entrance will be closed and the project will be served by the two entrances established during preceding phases. It is noted that signalization is planned for the intersections of Prince Frederick Drive and REZ #05-03, Custer Estates Page 8 March 20, 2003 Inveriee Way with Millwood Pike pursuant io the master development plan approvals governing Prince Frederick Office Park and The Ravens, respectively. Access to Millwood Pike by Custer Estates traffic will eventually occur solely through signalized intersections. Regardless of whether the ultimate access scenario involves two or three entrances, the traffic impact analysis (TIA) submitted by the applicants demonstrates that proffered transportation improvements achieve Level of Service "C" conditions on roads serving the project during peak hour traffic. Notably, the proffered signalization of the Sulfur Spring Road intersection with Millwood Pike results in substantially improved conditions, raising its Level of Service from the current peak hour "F" to a projected "C." (See Impact Statement, A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates, p. 1 - 31) VDOT Comment: VDOT indicates that the proposed development will have "significant measurable impact" on Routes 50 (Millwood Pike) and 781 (Prince Frederick Drive), respectively. However, VDOT expresses satisfaction that the improvements proffered by the applicant are adequate to mitigate traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. (See attached letters dated 02/03/03 from Ben Lineberry, Jr. P.E., Transportation Assistant Resident Engineer; and 03/13/03 from Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer). Planning Staff Comment and Issues: Pursuant to adopted transportation policy, roads located adj acent to and within new development are expected to operate at no less than a Level of Service "C" (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-5). As noted above, the transportation improvements proffered by the applicants achieve this standard with each phase of development. B. Historic Resources Impact Analysis Statement (p. 9): As reported by the applicants, the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey includes one structure located on the site, which is identified as the Heishland House (# 34-1176). However, this structure is neither included on the list of potentially significant resources nor is it identified as eligible for eventual inclusion on the state or national register of historic places. Moreover, pursuant to the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, the subject site is not included in any battlefield study area and does not contain any core battlefield resources. C. Sewer and Water Impact Analysis Statement (p. 7-8): The applicants indicate that the existing golf course use i� served by an 8" sewer line that ties into the 12" sewer main located on the south side of REZ #05-03, Custer Estates Page 9 March 20, 2003 Millwnnd Pike along the frnntnaae of the cite Thic infragtni tre ;uill he eYpa':ded pursuant to Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) requirements to serve the entire site and enable gravity flow to the existing main. The ultimate sewage conveyance impact at project build -out is projected to be 114,000 gallons per day (GPD). The applicants note that the effluent from the project will be treated by the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility, which reportedly has the capacity to accommodate sewage projections. It is further noted that the Abrams Creek interceptor would be relied upon to move effluent to the treatment facility, despite acknowledged problems with its capacity during wet weather flows. However, the applicants report that FCSA and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) are engaged in developing solutions to the capacity problem, and the sewage conveyance system for Custer Estates would be designed to be compatible with changes to overall network configuration. The applicants note that a 12" water main currently extends through the central portion of the site. The proposed development would connect directly to this existing line pursuant to FCSA requirements. The applicants report that FCSA has indicated that sufficient water capacity exists to serve the project. 8) Pr9ffer Statement - Dated December 8, 2002 (revised through March 5 2003) A. Article L• Dousing Type & Phased Construction Plan (Proffer Statement, p. 1-2): 1. Housing Type: The applicants have proffered to limit residential development on the 281.5 -acre site to 400 single family detached dwelling units. No multi -family, townhouse, or apartment units would be permitted. 2. Building Permit Phasing Plan: The applicants have proffered to phase development of the residential units by limiting the number of residential building permits issued for the project in a given calendar year to eighty (80). At the proffered rate of construction, project build out would occur within five (5) years of commencement of development activities. The applicants further proffer to provide monthly development reports to the Department of Planning and Development to facilitate proffer tracking. 3. Trash Collection: The applicants proffer to ensure that commercial curbside trash pick-up will be utilized for refuse disposal. The applicants further proffer that such service will be required of all property owners through covenants enforced by the development's homeowner's association. PlanninStaffComment: The proffered residential land use is inconsistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which uniformly provide for the site to develop with non-residential uses. This section of the applicants' proffer statement would codify this fundamental inconsistency. However, should this application be approved, the proffered phasing of units would be desirable as a means of facilitating the REZ #05-03, Custer Estates Page 10 March 20, 2003 incremental introduction of impacts to the surrounding community. Moreover, the proffered limitation on the total number of units ensures that the residential density of the site would be restricted below the maximum allowable density of the RP District, which is 10 units per acre. Indeed, as proffered, the maximum residential density permitted on this site would be approximately 1.89 units per acre. B. Article II: Land Donation for Public Services (Proffer Statement, p. 2-3): Public School Land: The applicants have proffered to donate 50 acres of land to Frederick County Public Schools for future development of public school facilities. The general location of this land dedication is within the Phase One boundaries of the development as shown on the proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicants have proffered to dedicate the school site to Frederick County Public Schools prior to Master Development Plan approval for the project. As proffered, the dedicated acreage will be credited toward fulfillment of the open space requirement for the project. 2. Public Service Land: The applicants have proffered to donate 22 acres of land to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for future development of public servict uses. The general location of this land dedication is within the Phase Two boundaries of the development as shown on the proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicants have proffered to dedicate the public services site to Frederick County no later than January 31, 2004. As proffered, the dedicated acreage will be credited toward fulfillment of the open space requirement for the project. Planning Sta[f Comment: The ultimate use of the land donated by the applicant will be decided by Frederick County Public Schools and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, respectively. The Planning Commission may permit public school and public library sites to be counted toward the open space requirement of an RP development pursuant to the inclusion of such facilities on the project's Master Development Plan (see Section 165-63.A., Frederick County Zoning Ordinance). However, any other public use cannot be used to satisfy the applicable open space requirement. It is noted that the range of public uses permitted in the RP District is currently limited to schools, fire companies/rescue squads, group homes, public parks/recreational facilities, and libraries (see Section 165-59.B., Frederick County Zoning Ordinance). Thus, in the absence of subsequent Zoning Ordinance amendments, the land dedicated for public service uses would be restricted exclusively to the above - referenced uses. C. Article III: Transportation (Proffer Statement, p. 3-5): 1. Minor Collector Road: The applicants have proffered to construct an internal circulation system comprised of a minor collector road with sidewalks and bicycle REZ #05-03, Custer Estates Page 11 March 20, 2003 facilities. This roadway will be constructed during the first two phases of development, and will be comprised of a sixty (60) foot right-of-way extending from Millwood Pike at the Sulfur Spring Road median cross-over to its ultimate terminus at Prince Frederick Drive. 2. Traffic Signalization: The applicants have proffered to provide for signalization on Millwood Pike at the intersection with Sulfur Spring Road and the proffered minor collector road. Signalization will occur during Phase One of the development upon construction of that portion of the minor collector road that connects with Millwood Pike. Moreover, the applicant has proffered to modify the future traffic signal at the intersection of Millwood Pike and Inverlee Way should the re -alignment of the golf club entrance necessitate such modification. The ultimate signalization of this intersection is the responsibility of the developer of The Ravens project, in accordance with the applicable Master Development Plan approval. 3, Careers Valley Golf Club Entrance Relocation: The applicants have proffered to eliminate the existing median crossover on Millwood Pike at the Carpers Valley Golf Course entrance and construct a new entrance aligned with Inverlee Way, a major collector road that is planned to ultimately extend to Senseny Road. The proffered entrance re -alignment is planned during Phase Three, and is contingent upon attainment of necessary right-of-way on the adjoining Hockman property, which is located directly across from the Inverlee Way intersection with Millwood Pike. It is noted that the Hockman property is not included with this application. The applicants propose that if they are unable to acquire such right-of-way and Frederick County is either unable or unwilling to achieve acquisition via eminent domain, the existing Golf Course entrance will be closed and the project will be served by the two entrances established during preceding phases. 4. Right -of -Way Dedication and Turn Lanes: The applicants have proffered to dedicate right -or -way along the site's Millwood Pike frontage as deemed necessary by VDOT. The applicants also proffer to construct right and left turn lanes on Millwood Pike at all project entrances as required by VDOT. 5. Pedestrian Walkways: The applicants have proffered to construct a network of walkways and trails throughout the project. This network is intended to provide pedestrian linkages to public rights-of-way, dedicated public school land, dedicated public services land, and areas of usable common open space. Planning Staff Comment: The applicants have proffered a comprehensive multi -modal transportation system for the project that results in projected traffic conditions that conform with the transportation policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Indeed, the proffered transportation improvements yield Level of Service "C" conditions on both internal and external roads serving the development. Notably, the proffered signalization of the Sulfur Spring Road intersection with Millwood Pike and the minor collector road REZ #05-03, Custer Estates Page 12 March 20, 2003 is projected to result in an improvement in its Level of Service from the current peak hour "F" to a projected "C." With regard to the scenarios concerning the golf club entrance, it is important to note that Frederick County has heretofore not utilized eminent domain to facilitate a transportation improvement proffered by a private property owner or developer. The applicants ultimately carry the burden of obtaining the right-of-way necessary to achieve re -alignment of the entrance. Should the efforts of the applicant prove unsuccessful, it is highly probable that re -alignment will not occur and the entrance will simply be closed. As noted previously, such closure would not diminish the level of service conditions on roads serving the development. D. Article IV: Airport Protection (Proffer Statement, p. 5-6): Winchester Regional Airport Disclosure: The applicants have proffered to include a disclosure statement concerning the proximity of Winchester Regional Airport to the proposed development in all sales and promotional materials and deed covenants for all residential lots. This statement will identify the probability of noise generation due to various airport -related activities. 2. Avigation Easement: The applicants have proffered to provide Winchester Regional Airport with an avigation easement encompassing the entire acreage of the site. This easement will be donated directly to Winchester Regional Airport, with the applicants proffering to absorb all costs associated with easement establishment. 3. Residential Acoustical Treatment: The applicants have proffered that acoustical treatment standards shall be applied to the construction of all residential structures. Planning Staff Comment: As noted previously in this report, the Airport Authority is opposed to any action that would facilitate residential development within the Airport Support Area established by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Indeed, adopted land use policy discourages residential development within the support area, but recommends that measures be employed to mitigate impacts should new residential development ultimately be approved. The above -referenced measures are consistent with adopted policy. E. Article V: Monetary Contributions (Proffer Statement, p. 6): Monetary Contributions: The applicants have proffered to pay the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, the sum of $2,650.00 per residential lot prior to building permit issuance for said lot. This contribution is intended to offset the fiscal impac+ of the proposed development, less the value of the land donated for public uses. Foy the purposes of determining the per -lot contribution, the applicants assigned a value of $40,000.00 per acre to the 72 -acre donation. The per -lot monetary proffer allows REZ #05-03, Custer Estates Page 13 March 20, 2003 for the following allocations: a. $2,040.00 for Frederick County Public Schools b. $344.00 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation C. $160.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue d. $53.00 for Public Library e. $53.00 for Administration Building Planning Staff Comment: The net capital facilities impact for the proposed development generated by the County's fiscal impact model is $3,937,991, which translates into a net cost per dwelling unit of $9,845. As noted in the proffer statement, a value of $40,000 per acre has been assigned to the 72 -acre land donation for public uses. According to the applicants, this per -acre value reflects the prevailing cost of RP zoned land in the current real estate market. Utilizing this per - acre value, the total value of the donated acreage is $2,880,000, which the applicants have deducted from the net capital facilities impact figure stated above to achieve the proffered per -lot contribution of $2,650. It is noted that the Commissioner of the Revenue assesses the value of the subject parcels at $20,000.00 per acre, thereby resulting in a total value for the donated acreage of $1,440,000.00. Deducting the assessed value for the dedicated acreage from the net capital facilities impact results in a per -lot impact of $6,245, which represents an increase of $3,595 above the applicants' projected per -lot impact. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04/02/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This application is a request to rezone 281.5 acres of PZA-zoned property to the RP District to facilitate development of 400 single family detached residences with 72 acres of land dedicated for public uses. The Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically addresses the planned land use(s) of the subject parcels through the policies adopted with the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan and the Airport Support Area. These policies uniformly recommend the establishment of non-residential land use(s) on the parcels. The requested rezoning is, therefore, inconsistent with the adopted land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The applicant should be prepared to address the issue of Plan inconsistency and provide any additional information deemed necessary for evaluation of this request by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\REZONINGLStaff Report\2003\Custer Estates.wpd OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Carpers Valley Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Residential Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Take REAL EST VAL $52,440,000 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Total Potential Adjustment For FIRE & RESCUE = 6 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Op r an Eg tin Zxpnd/D bt Taxes. Other Tax Credits 'usted) Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Wria Cost Balance Facilities Irnpad Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $257,685 Elementary Schools $1,715,074 $0 $0 $257,685 $644 Middle Schools $1,008,882 $280,622 $1,362,245 High Schools $1,479,015 $1,642,867 $1,174,545 $3,028,426 $7,571 Parks and Recreation $614,000 $138,375 Public Library $106,743 $138,375 $98,930$1,288 $515,071 $29,853 Sheriffs Offices $63,175 $51,763 $0 $12,903 $29,853 $64,666 $21,343 $46,232 $85,400 $213 $16,943 $42 Administration Building $81,075 $0 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $103,433 $99,744 $110,124 $0 $0 $81,075 $203 $209,868 $150,043 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $5,429,083 $432,129 $1,472,369 $181,132 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $0 $2,085,630 $1,491,093 $3,937,991 $9,845 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $0 $0 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.533 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES = 1.0 1.0 -------------- ------------- - -------------- Ratio to Co Avg = 0.715 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 12/18/02 ERL - Project Description: Assumes 400 Single Family Dwellings 281.11 acres zoned RP District. 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. 2002MODEL WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA / �H ►ORS January 30, 2003 Evan Wyatt, Engineer Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Re: Custer Estates Rezoning Comment Shawnee Magisterial District Winchester, Virginia Dear Mr. W itt- The Winchester Regional Airport Authority's position on new residential construction on property adjacent to the airport and within the Airport Support Area had not changed. The Airport Authority adopted a resolution by majority vote on November 14, 2002 which is enclosed for your review. This matter has been given careful consideration and the Airport Authority strongly recommends the Frederick County Board of Supervisors not amend the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan to accommodate this rezoning request. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director Enclosure Cc: Mark K Flynn, Legal Counsel Joe Delia, FAFJWADO Charles McFarlane, VDOA Resolution opposing residential development adjacent to the Winchester Regional Airport Whereas, the Winchester Regional Aupor` Authority has been asked to comment on the request of the owners of the Carper Valley Golf Club properties to their request for amendments to the Frederick County comprehensive plan to provide for approximately 300 to 400 single family homes and a site for two public schools and related facilities, and, Whereas, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation have both advised the Authority that the development of the properties adjacent to and near the airport for small -lot subdivision purposes would have adverse impacts on their decisions for funding for future projects of the Airport Authority; and, Whereas, the Airport Authority is required to take all reasonable actions to insure that the development of the lands around the airport are developed in a way that is consistent with the pumoses of the Airport Authority and to object to incompatible uses in the airport protection area of the comprehensive plan; and, Whereas, the Airport Authority has been advised by the FAA and State that an intense residential development, in the nature of the project proposed for the Carper Valley properties would adversely affect the future of the airport, due to noise complaints by the future residents of the subdivision and limitations on the ability to expand the operations of the airport on the north side of the airport property; and, Whereas, following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, large corporate aircraft are seeping hangar facilities at reliever airports, including the Winchester Regional Airport, and such pressure is forcing the Authority to develop plans for facilities on the north side of theairport, due to the inabiilry of the airport to accommodate such aircraft on the south side; and, Whereas, if the properties adjacent to the airport on the north side are developed for residential uses, the FAA and Department of Aviation will not fund the acquisition of the properties, which would have the effect of making it impossible for the Airport Authority to expand the airport for such uses; and, Whereas, the Authority commends the Board of Supervisors for its leadership and foresight in developing the comprehensive plan in a manner that assists in the future development of the airport and the Authority finds that the changes being requested to the comprehensive plan would, to the best ability of the Authority to predict its future, based on the advice of the FAA and Department of Aviation and the guidance of the Airport Authority Board negatively impact the future of the airport. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Winchester Regional Airport Authority Board that it objects to the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan now being requested by the owners of the Carper Valley Golf Club properties and requests the Board of Supervisors to take no actions which would be inconsistent with the current ' comprehensive plan or which would negatively impact the f d= development of the Winchester Regional Airport, which is a major transportation facility for the region_ Done this 14th day Uf Noveu,be , 20x2. 0 Y- Chairman 3-13-03; 11 :*5AM; — --y.- C(DIMMO iTWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE JERRY A. COPP COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22824 RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 March 13, 2003 The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 50 and 781. Routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Custer Estates Rezoning Application dated December 8, 2002; revised January 31, 2003; revised March 5, 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. Lloyd.Ingram Transportation Engineer LAI/rf Attachment: County Comment Sheet VirginiaDOT.org WF KPPP VIP(' INIA KAOVINr. 2- S-03;12:t8PM; Greenway En9lneer;540 984 b60f x Zi Philip A- Shucet COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRCil-NIA Jv DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22624 February 3, 2003 VDOT Comments to Custer Estates Rezoning JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL(540)984-5800 FAX(540)984-5607 The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 50 and 781, Prince Frederick Drive. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied the transportation proffers offered in the December 8, 2002 and the revised January 31, 2003 rezoning application adequately addresses the transportation concerns associated with this request. Specifically under Article III, Section IV, Right -of -Way Dedication and Tum Lanes, the applicant shall be required to also construct and/or modify any existing left turn lanes on Millwood Pike (Route 50 West) for all entrances in Custer Estates as determined by the Virginia Department of Transportation. In addition, the applicant should be completely responsible for realigning the Carper's Valley Golf entrance that will serve the development with the Invedee Way crossover and then remove the existing crossover. It may be necessary for the applicant to also modify the traffic light which is currently being proposed for the Inverlee Way/Route 50 intersection. In the January 31, 2003 proffer statement, there received. In an informal meeting held with Evan to such phasing, but did not provide a final plan. reviewed, additional comments may be provided. is reference to a phasing plan that VDOT has not Wyatt on January 30, 2003, Evan made reference Once that phasing plan is submitted and can be The revised traffic impact analysis dated January 30, 2003 was received in our office on January 31, 2003 and has not been fully analyzed at this time. 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. Thank you for allowin us the -opportunity to comment. OL J1 Ilk Ben H. Lineberry, Jr., P.E. Transportation Assistant Resident Engineer BHL/rf VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING FEB C 7 2003 _ - Frederi._.k County;public , shoots :-c _'_! u c -?i! siucjE C :!e' -,C 'disc fir;,, Administrative Assistant Al Omdorff to the Superintendent orndorfa@frederickAl2 va.us February 3, 2003 Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Custer Estates Rezoning Dear Mr. Wyatt: D F E 3' 1 - This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning application for the proposed Custer Estates project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 400 single family homes will yield 156 high school students, 56 middle school students, and 68 elementary school students for a total of 280 new students. Significant residential growth in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding their practical capacity. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The proffered school site does offer the school board a favorable location for a new elementary school. Armel Elementary School currently exceeds 90% of its practical capacity in an area where growth is expected to continue by intent of the county's comprehensive policy plan. The proffered site is in a central location within the designated urban development area with the ability to serve students from both north and south of the airport. The proposed signalized intersections are desirable to assist in safely transporting students to and from the proposed school site. The school board administrative staff are recommending that the site be legally transferred within 180 days of approval of the master plan. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Respectfully Yours, Al Orndorff Administrative Assistant to the Superintee►fet 200 13 Copy: William C. Dean Ph. D., Superintendent of Schools Robert W. Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration 1415 Amherst Street www.frederick.02.va.us 540-662-3889 ext- 112 P O Box 3508 540-545-2439 Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 540-662-3890 fax Rezoning Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant..Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation Authority with theirreview. Attach a .copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement,. impact analysis,. and any -other pertinent -information. AppIicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windv Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: South side of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East); across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 65 5) and the Ravens Subdivision; approximately 1 mile east of Interstate 81. Current zoning: RA. Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 281.11 fSanitation Authority Comments: kN NO 611! t�9&S IST —' a Sanatation Authority Signature & Bate: 7 ,y If Notice to Sanitation Aut o —Please Return This Form to the Applicant FEB () 7 21003 Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant..Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation Authority with theirreview. Attach a .copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement,. impact analysis,. and any -other pertinent -information. AppIicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windv Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: South side of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East); across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 65 5) and the Ravens Subdivision; approximately 1 mile east of Interstate 81. Current zoning: RA. Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 281.11 fSanitation Authority Comments: kN NO 611! t�9&S IST —' a Sanatation Authority Signature & Bate: 7 ,y If Notice to Sanitation Aut o —Please Return This Form to the Applicant FEB () 7 21003 Rezoning Comments Frederick —Winchester Service Authority Mail tn- Hand deliver to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Fred-Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director Attn: Jesse W. Moffett P.O. Box 43 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22604 Winchester, Virginia (540) 722-3579 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windv Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: South side of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East); across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and the Ravens Subdivision; approximately 1 mile east of Interstate 81. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 281.11 Fred-Winc Service Authority's Comments: U_I��W co mco,S �i�����1t�Kt, Fred- Wine Service Authority's ! 1 _ Signature & Date: Notice to Fred -Wine Service Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant F -E=t, 0 7 2003 December 26, 2002 Mr. Evan Wvatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Custer Estates Rezoning Frederick County. Virginia Dear Evan: COUNT' of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665 - FAX: 540/678-Ob8- We have completed our review of the proposed Custer Estates rezoning and offer the following comments: I) Provide a location map which delineates the relative locations of the proposed 50 acres and 22 acres proffered for public school facilities and public services, respectively. 2) The discussion related to drainage issues indicates that existing water features will be used for stormwater management. If this reference is meant to include existing ponds and dams. it will be necessary to perform extensive structural and hydraulic analyses to verify the performance of these features for the purpose of stormwater management. 3) Under the discussion of solid waste disposal. clarify the reference to a proffered density of 70 dwellings when the rezoning emphasizes 400 dwellings. The referenced discussion emphasizes the impact on the landfill. However. it fails to address the impact on collection of solid waste. It is our intention to utilize a portion of the proffered public service acreage to site a citizen convenience area for the "isposal of household garbage. As an alternative to this approach- the applicant may Nvant to propose a method to insure the implementation of a curbside trash pickup program for this development. I can be reached at 665-56=13 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely - Harvey E. tra-,vsm-der, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works cc: Frederick County Planning and Zoning A file V'#rt C:\Corel\«'urdPerfrct jiln.,ula custerrezcum.wpJ 107 North Dent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Comments Frederick County Department of Inspections Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-5656 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections County Administration Bldg., 4`h Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: South side of Millwood Pike (Rt 50 East): across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and the Ravens Subdivision; approximately 1 mile east of Interstate 81 Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 281.11 Department of Inspection's Comments: NOCIVi /VI f= N' i Lir , o P EJQ 47— I s %Is %Nli' . Chli Cl (=-11141:-1VL% 1j %;�C J 1 , i �_... , vi� , , 1 I. ' Public Works Signature & Date: Notice to Department of Form to the Applicant J1 7 FEB U ?003 Rezoning Comments Frederick County Fire Marshal Mail to: Frederick County Fire Marshall Attn: County Planner 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia. 22601 (540) 665-6350 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Fire & Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal County Administration Bldg., IS` Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: ,Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Fire Marshall with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windv Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: South side of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East); across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and the Ravens Subdivision; approximately 1 mile east of Interstate 81. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 281.11 Fire Marshal's Comments: Zvi Fire Marshal's Signature & Dater i Notice to Fire Marshal — Please Return This Form to the Applicant' I FEB 0 7 ZOO -3 1� �� Control number RZ02-0016 Project Name Custer Estates Address 151 Windy Hill Lane Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System Yes Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Date received 12/20/2002 City Winchester Tax ID Number 64 -A -82,83,83A,8 Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Date reviewed 12/31/2002 Applicant Greenway Engineering State Zip VA 22602 Fire District 21 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System Yes Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway/Aisleway Width Not Identified Date Revised Applicant Phone 540-662-4185 Rescue District 21 Election District Shawnee Residential Sprinkler System Yes Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards No Additional Comments Fire hydrants shall be able to deliver 1000 gallons per minute at 20psi. And shall be located .,vithin 400 eet of all units in areas developed with single-family detached or cuplex dwelling units. r Plan Approval Recommended y gV� Reviewed B Signature Yes Timothy L. Welsh y \\ TitleSSi'�1_LL�' Rezoning Cemments Fire and Rescue Company Name of Fire & fescue Company: Millwood Station Fire & Rescue Co Address & Phone PO Box 3037 Winchester. VA 22604 Applicant: Please flout the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Fire: and Rescue Squad with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location snap; si proffer statemen.t,. impact analysts, .and any other pertinent information. _ Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: Mailing Address: 151 Windv Hill Lane Winchester. VA 22602 Location of Property: South side of Millwood Pike_ (Rt. 50 East): across from Sulphur Spri Road Rt. 655 and the Ravens Subdivision-, approximately 1 mile eas Interstate 81. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 281.11 Fire and Rescue Company's Comments: 1 �yPr2 /`e l�/'/�i✓�� ��'4G / Je=. f7r 2 /i•'i!'�i �t r4c c nya 144v+,e/ /.y 4.e4 /N �rc 2o.4At✓AY 1� %N7 c.ai� I �a� +:>v.v O.= �T�i1C�rGcn'��. S tic'; i�dyiCL}v�� Fire & Rescue Compa 's Signature & Date: r� Notice to Fire & Rescue Company - Please Return This Form to the Applicant �:.r-f, ! January 7, 2003 Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Custer Estates Rezoning Dear Evan: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. As you have indicated in your impact statement, according to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Rebecca Ragsdale Planner I RAR/rsa U: \CONIIvIITCEE S \HRAB\Co=ents\?003\CusterR7_. wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 FEB 0 7 2003 .<<. ,. /" Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-5678 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windv Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: South side of Millwood Pike (Rt. I0 East)• across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and the Ravens Subdivision; approximately 1 I mile east of Interstate 81 Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 281.11 Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: Notice to Department of Park s,& Recreation — Please Return This Form to the Applicant Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department South side of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East); across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and the Ravens Subdivision:. approximately I mile east of Interstate 81. With reference to Public School land counting towards the open space requirement: open space should be available to all county residents to enjoy at their leisure. It is unlikely that the school property will offer that availability. ?. Public Service Land - Not having seen a plat for this area and with the possibility of poor soil conditions. determining the potential use for this land is not possible at this time. 3. Because of the location of this development and the fact that sidewalks are being provided, a trail system may not be necessary. Furthermore, without the benefit of detailed information regarding this amenity, it is difficult to assess its recreational value. Given the information provided at this time. I would suggest that the proffer model be used to assess the impact this development will have on the Parks and Recreation services provided by the county. FREDERICK'xaM �+ GROUP, LO 578/57bo ate 84:'A 89: P 2Y 132-, t a 50 TRUSTEES OF THE JAMES PEYTON 64 ,A �89B �� RA 64 A 122 PRINCE FREDERICK: Potomac GROUP LG Q Q' Edison (non-taxable) Zi !/ RA V �R BC A 1N NC '9 C� CARPERS VALLEY sul�b�r GOLF CLUBQ -9 (CVGC) m 64 A 86RA \>k, DICK x , 64 A 83 NDUlITaIl� P,RRK)}t,R r• w, RF �+ 4" H TJOUMAS 64 A 82 o' WINCHESTER RA REGIONAL d'4C AIRPORT - 9 9 M1 64 A 79 M1 V, ' Q u aha M 1 } 9 s M1 r:�M1 M1 REZ#05-03 Custer. Estates PIN(s); 64 - A - 82, 83, 83A 64 - A - 86, 87, 87A N we S { 0 200400 Feet I�I. rM 64 A 86 64 A 83A 64 A 87 - 64 A 83 64 A 87A 64 A 82 1 t� REZ#05-03 Custer. Estates PIN(s); 64 - A - 82, 83, 83A 64 - A - 86, 87, 87A N we S { 0 200400 Feet I�I. rM Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 REZONING PROPERTYID NUMBERS 64 -((A)) -82,64 -((A)) -83,64 -((A)) -83A, 64-((A))-86, 64-((A))-87 & 64 -((A)) -87A 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 #05-03 for the rezoning of approximately 281.5± acres from the Rural Areas (RA) District to the Residential Performance (RP) 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 said code and zoning ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. ARTICLE I: HOUSING TYPE & PHASED CONSTRUCTION PLAN This article shall apply to the following parcels: Carpers Valley Golf Club: 64 -((A)) -83A, 86, 87, & 87A Richard G. & Donna C. Dick: 64-((A))-83 Constance L. T.joumas, Etals c/o Gregory Coverstone: 64-((A))-82 1. HOUSING TYPE The applicants hereby proffer to limit the development within the 281.5± -acre site to 400 single- family dwelling units. The applicants further proffer that no multifamily units, townhouse units or apartment units will be developed within the project. Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 2. BUILDING PERMIT PHASING PLAN The applicants hereby proffer to develop the 281.5±- acre site as a phased project for the purpose of annual building permit issuance. This building permit phasing schedule shall begin foiiowing approval of the rezoning. Any building permit authorized in a specific calendar year that is not issued shall carry forward to the subsequent calendar year. The total number of residential building permits that may be issued for any parcel within the subject property in combination with all other above -referenced parcels shall not exceed the following phasing schedule: Year Permits Issued to Date 2003 80 2004 160 2005 240 2006 320 2007 400 The applicants hereby proffer to submit a monthly report to the Department of Planning and Development that identifies the number of building permits acquired during the previous month, identifies the lot numbers/street addresses that received permits and provides a running total of building permits issued for each calendar year that the project is under construction through calendar year 2007. 3. TRASH COLLECTION The applicants hereby proffer that all residential properties within Custer Estates will be serviced by curbside commercial trash pickup and waster removal service. The curbside commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall not dispose of trash and waste at any Frederick County Citizen Convenience Center. The applicant shall include the requirement for curbside commercial trash pickup and waste removal service in the Homeowners Association covenants. ARTICLE II: LAND DONATION FOR PUBLIC SERVICES This article shall apply to the following parcels: Carpers Valley Golf Club: 64-((A))-86, 87A Richard G. & Donna C. Dick: 64-((A))-83 Constance L. Tjoumas, Etals c/o Gregory Coverstone: 64-((A))-82 0a Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March S, 2003 1. PUBLIC SCHOOL LAND The applicants hereby proffer to provide for a land donation of 50 acres to be utilized by the Frederick County Public Schools for the development of public school facilities as determined by the Frederick County School Board. This acreage is to be provided from parcel 64-((A))-82 and/or parcel 64-((A))-83 and shall count towards the open space requirements for the project. The location of the 50 -acre land donation will be achieved through a mutual agreement between the applicant and the Frederick County School Board prior to approval of the master development plan for Custer Estates. If a mutual agreement is not achieved, the applicant agrees to provide the 50 -acre land donation as identified on the Generalized Development Plan. The plat providing for the 50 -acre land donation shall be prepared and submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department for approval within 180 days following approval of the mutual agreement between the applicant and the Frederick County School Board or prior to approval of the master development if a mutual agreement is not achieved. 2. PUBLIC SERVICE LAND The applicants hereby proffer to provide for a land donation of 22 acres as identified on the Generalized Development Plan to be utilized for the development of public services or other uses as determined by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This acreage is to be provided from parcels 64-((A))-86 and 64 -((A)) -87A and shall count towards the open space requirements for the project. A plat providing for the 22 -acre land donation to Frederick County shall be prepared and submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department for approval by January 31, 2004. ARTICLE III: TRANSPOR TA TION This article shall apply to the following parcels: Carpers Valley Golf Club: 64 -((A)) -83A, 86, 87 & 87A Richard G. & Donna C. Dick: 64-((A))-83 Constance L. lioumas, Etals c/o Gregory Coverstone: 64-((A))-82 1. MINOR COLLECTOR ROAD The applicants hereby proffer to dedicate, bond and provide for the construction of a sixty -foot (60') right-of-way for the purpose of providing a minor collector road through the limits of the subdivision. The right-of-way dedication shall occur in conjunction with the approved 3 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 subdivision plats for each phase of the development. The minor collector road shall include sidewalks along both sides of the road and a bicycle lane within the right-of-way meeting Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards. The minor collector road shall be designed to connect Prince Frederick Drive (Rt. 781) to Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East) at the median crossing with Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655). The minor collector road shall connect to Millwood Pike at the median crossing with Sulphur Springs Road during the first phase of construction and shall connect to Prince Frederick Drive prior to the completion of the second phase of construction. 2. TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION a) The applicants hereby proffer to provide for traffic signalization on Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East) at the intersection with Sulphur Spring Road (Rt. 655) when the minor collector road is developed to connect with Millwood Pike. b) The applicants hereby proffer to modify the future traffic signalization on Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East) at the future median crossing intersection with Invelee Way if necessary. The need for modifications will be determined during the engineering design for the relocation of the existing entrance into Carpers Valley Golf Club to align with this future intersection area. 3. CARPERS VALLEY GOLF CLUB ENTRANCE RELOCATION The applicants hereby proffer to relocate the existing entrance into the Carpers Valley Golf Club site to provide for an alignment with Inverlee Drive serving the Ravens Subdivision on the north side of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East) at the future median crossing. This realignment will occur during the development of Phase III of Custer Estates as identified on the proffered Generalized Development Plan, provided that the applicants are able to acquire all necessary off site right-of- way. The applicants are responsible for all costs associated with the off site right-of-way acquisition, and for all costs associated with the construction of the realigned entrance. In the event that the applicants are unable to acquire the off site right-of-way needed for this entrance realignment and the County of Frederick is unwilling or unable to obtain said right-of- way through eminent domain, the applicants will design Phase III of Custer Estates to eliminate the existing entrance into the Carpers Valley Golf Club altogether. 4. RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AND TURN LANES a) The applicants hereby proffer to dedicate right-of-way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along the entire frontage of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East) on parcels 64-((A))-82, 64-((A))-83, 64 -((A)) -83A and 64-((A))-86 as determined necessary by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 4 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March S, 2003 b) The applicants hereby proffer to construct right turn lanes and left turn lanes on Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East) for all entrances in Custer Estates as determined by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 5, PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS The applicants hereby proffer to provide pedestrian walkways and trails as a component of the master development plan in addition to required sidewalks. The pedestrian walkways and trails shall be constructed by the applicants in open space areas and in dedicated easements for the purpose of providing linkages to public right-of-ways, to the public school land, to the public service land and to useable areas of common open space. ARTICLEIV: AIRPORT PROTECTION This article shall apply to the following parcels: Carpers Valley Golf Club: 64 -((A)) -83A, 86, 87 & 87A Richard G. & Donna C. Dick: 64-((A))-83 Constance L. 'T.joumas, Etals c/o Gregory Coverstone: 64-((A))-82 1. WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT DISCLOSURE The applicants hereby proffer to provide complete disclosure of the proximity of the Winchester Regional Airport to the Custer Estates subdivision in all sales literature, promotional material and deed covenants for all residential lots within the development. The disclosure language contained in all purchase and rental agreements will identify that aircraft noise associated with aircraft fly -over, aircraft take -off, aircraft landing and aircraft engine run-up is probable. The applicants will consult with the Winchester Regional Airport Executive Director to ensure that the deed covenants adequately address standards related to primary and accessory structural heights, outdoor lighting and communication frequencies. 2. AVIGATION EASEMENT The applicants hereby proffer to provide the Winchester Regional Airport with an avigation easement that will encompass all residential land uses and common open space areas that are platted from parcels 64-((A))-82, 64-((A))-83, 64 -((A)) -83A, 64-((A))-86, 64-((A))-87 and 64- ((A)) -87A. The avigation easement associated with the identified properties shall be donated to the Winchester Regional Airport to ensure that no federal, state or local funds are required for 5 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised Jamuny 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 the easement. All legal costs associated with the avigation easement documents shall be borne by the applicants. 3. RESIDENTIAL ACOUSTICAL TREATMENT The applicants hereby proffer to require construction standards for acoustical treatment of all residential structures in Custer Estates. The deed covenants shall provide for construction standards that at a minimum include exterior doors, windows, vents, insulation and HVAC for all habitable residential structures. The Frederick County Building Official shall be provided with a copy of the construction standards to ensure compliance during the building permit review process. ARTICLE V.• MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS This article shall apply to the following parcels: Carpers Valley Golf Club: 64 -((A)) -83A, 86, 87 & 87A Richard G. & Donna C. Dick: 64-((A))-83 Constance L. Tjoumas, Etals c/o Gregory Coverstone: 64-((A))-82 1. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION In the event rezoning application #05-03 is approved for rezoning, the owners of the subject property will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, $2,650.00 per residential lot prior to the issuance of the building permit for said lot. This per lot monetary proffer provides for: $2,040.00 for Frederick County Public Schools $344.00 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation $160.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue $53.00 for Public Library $53.00 for Administration Building These payments are intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County that are in addition to the value of the land donation for public services. The 72 -acre land donation value is based on the purchase price of $40,000.00 per acre. The additional monetary proffer for each public service agency is based on the percentage of the applicable agency's impact of the total cost identified in the Net Cost Per Dwelling Unit column of the County's Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model. 0 Green vav Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 3/, 2003 ARTICLE VI: SIGNATURES The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Constance L. Tjoumas State of Maryland, (Parcel 64-((A))-82) i City/County of Ca,, -69", To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this z f s f day of 7e— . , 2003 by My Commission Expires a A. Pappas State of Maryland, 9 SHU+m T$AI - ��— NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MARYLAM�otary P lic MY Commhdor. Rolres 10/15/2006 64-((A))-82) City ounty f7ffl To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this D-1tA day of eD1r q , 2003 by `M otary Public My Commission Expires / �00�o , 7 Greenway Engineering Gregory L. C December 8, 2002 ,?evised January 31, 2003 (Parcel 64-((A))-82) ''aster Estates Rezoning Commonwealth of Virginia, Ci tyCounty f I—o dEr fC� To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 4+" day of Fe�)v- e vj , 2003 by -�, Notary My Com_nission Expires 2-.CC4� lic John Garland Russell, III, Carpers Vallev Golf Club, LP (Parcels 64 -((A)) -83A; 64-((A))-86; 64-((A))-87 & 64 -((A)) -87A) Commonwealth of Virginia, Citv County f �- ��r lE'_v '�' k. To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � day of ��' Z`�� 2003 by xr5��2i�_�.C��ivlo; My Commission Expires _ } e byz,z v t l 2-9 2L�. 8 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 luster Estates Rezoning .ferised Januarr 31, 2003 Ri hard G. Dick, Careers Valley Golf lub, LP (P cels 64 ((A)) -83A, 64 -((A)) -86,64-((A))-87 & 64 -((A)) -87A) Commonwealth of Virginia City ACo7unty fj -�- v ` i C�— To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (o+"_ day of 2003 by ca oeos valle,aC�L Notary PujAic My Commission Expires F���t2vZt 1 ,hard G. Dick (Parcel 64-((A))-8 Commonwealth of Virginia, City/( ounty)of ecle.� !CTo Wit: The foregoinginstrument was acknowledged before me this %� day of 1—e 2003 by 12 oYInvi,4 r Dirk Notary My Cor- inission E:_pires Z9 g - M Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning devised January 31, 2003 Donna C. Dick (Parcel 64-((A))-83 Commonwealth of Virginia, City/ County f To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (54-) day of d ?003 by C D 1 Gk - Notary My i.ommission Expires Zcl 7�=� 10 IMPACT STATEMENT CUSTER ESTATES REZONING Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Tax Map # 64-((A))-82, 64-((A))-83, 64 -((A)) -83A, 64-((A))-86, 64-((A))-87 & 64 -((A)) -87A 281.5± Acres December 8, 2002 Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 Current Owners: Carpers Valley Golf Club Richard G. & Donna C. Dick Constance L. Tjoumas, Etals coo Gregory L. Coverstone Contact Person: Evan A. Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 510-662-4185 File "108'�Q/F AW Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 CUSTER ESTATES REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of six parcels that comprise approximately 281.5± acres and are owned by Carpers Valley Golf Club, L.P., Richard G. and Donna C. Dick, and Constance L. Tjoumas, c/o Gregory L. Coverstone. The subject parcels are located on the southern side of Millwood Pike (Route 50/17 East) across from the Ravens and Miller Heights Subdivisions and adjacent to the Prince Frederick Office Park and the Winchester Regional Airport. The current zoning of the six parcels is RA (Rural Areas) District. The applicants propose to rezone the 281.5f acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District to develop a single-family dwelling subdivision that will contain donated land for public school sites and other public services determined by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. (The six parcels are further described on the Boundary Composite Plat for Custer Estates prepared by Greenway Engineering and dated January 28, 2003.) Property Information Location: South side of Millwood Pike (Route 50/17 East) Magisterial District: Shawnee Property ID Numbers: 64-((A))-82; 64-((A))-83; 64 -((A)) -83A; 64 -((A))- 4 -((A))- 861 -64 -((A)) -87; 86;64 -((_A))-87; & 64 -((A)) -87A Current Zoning: RA, Rural Areas District Current Use: Carper's Valley Golf Club; Residential, Unimproved Proposed Use: Single Family Residential. 50 -acre Public School Site; 22 -acre Public Services Site Proposed Zoning: RP, Residential Performance District Total rezoning area: 281.5± COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. File 4l085QIEAW ? Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 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. 3. Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan The land use plan that was adopted for this area in July 1994 identifies this acreage as proposed business/office. A proposal to modify this land use plan was provided to Frederick County to reclassify this area as mixed-use development. The proposal recommends that the mixed-use development provide for a residential community containing public school sites, other public services and an airport support area. The proposal accounts for 91% of the total acreage on the north side of the Winchester Regional Airport and provides needed infrastructure and land for public services within this portion of the Urban Development Area (UDA). This proposal establishes a small area land use plan for this portion of the Route 50 East Corridor meeting the needs of the community; therefore, approval of the rezoning is appropriate. 4. Airport Support Area The Comprehensive Policy Plan provides for an Airport Support Area (ASA) that incorporates the land area between Millwood Pike (Route 50/17 East) to the north, the land area on the west side of a line between Carpers Valley Road (Route 723) and Airport Road (Route 645) to the east, Buffalo Lick Run to the south and Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South). The ASA is intended to insure the feasibility of continued airport use and future airport expansion by protecting fly -over areas and noise sensitive areas. The ASA states that business and industrial use should be the primary land use and states that if new residential areas are allowed, that aviation easements or other methods should be used to protect the operations at the airport. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access Access to the subject site is available along Millwood Pike (Route 50 East) and through a road extension to Prince Frederick Drive (Rt. 781) at the cul-de-sac terminus by the Winchester Regional Airport property. Median crossings exist on Millwood Pike at the entrance to Carpers Valley Golf Course and the intersection with Sulphur Spring Road (Rt. 655) that will serve as primary access points for the project. Additional access points are available along Millwood Pike; however, those will be limited to provide for minimal conflicts with mainline traffic. The road connection to Prince Frederick Drive will allow for traffic from the Front Royal Pike corridor to access the site without going through the Interstate 81 Exit 313 interchange area. File #I 0850/EAW 3 Greenway EngineeringDecember 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 Flood Plains The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map #510063-0115 -B. The majority of the site is located as "Zone C", area outside the 100 -year flood plain. A small portion of the site along Millwood Pike is located as "Zone A", which is an identified flood plain area of Sulphur Spring Run. This portion of the site is not proposed for land use development and will only be impacted by road improvements to serve the site. Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies four wetland areas on the subject site. These wetland areas are classified as PUBHh, which are man-made ponds. The disturbance or elimination of these man-made ponds will be in conformance with Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality permitting procedures, as well as any state and local requirements. 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 36, and contains the following soil types: 1 B -Berks Channery silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes 1 C -Berks Channery silt loam, 7-15 percent slopes 313-Blairton silt loam, 2-7 percent slopes 913 -Clearbrook Channery silt loam — 2-7 percent Mope 36 -Pits 41C-Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam, 7-15 percent slope 41 D-Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam, 15-25 percent slope 41E-Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam, 25-65 percent slope Of these soil types, only the Blairton silt loam is identified as prime farmland soils under Table 5 on page 123 of the Soil Survey of Frederick Countv, Virginia. This soil type is located in a small portion of the southeastern corner of the subject site adjacent to the Winchester Regional Airport property. Steep Slopes Areas of steep slope exist along the frontage of the project site and within the central and eastern portions of the site where two pronounced ravines drain the site towards Sulphur Spring Run. Some disturbance will occur within the steep slope areas for the purpose of File 91085Q/EAW 4 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 constructing the east to west minor collector road system, to establish appropriate storm water management facilities and to create buildable lot areas. The disturbance of the steep slope areas, as defined, will not exceed the ordinance requirements. Woodlands Areas of mature woodlands exist within the central and eastern portion of the project site, primarily in the areas of the existing ravines. Disturbance of these features will be minimized in order to protect the integrity of the steep slope areas. As stated above, some disturbance will occur within the woodland areas for the purpose of constructing the east to west minor collector road system, to establish appropriate storm water management facilities and to create buildable lot areas. The disturbance of woodland areas, as defined, will not exceed the ordinance requirements. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: Zoned RP, Residential Performance District Zoned RA, Rural Areas District South: Zoned RA, Rural Areas District East: Zoned MI, Light Industrial District Zoned MHA, Mobile Home Community District West: Zoned B2, Business General District C. TRANSPORTATION Traffic Generation Residential Residential Winchester Regional Airport Industrial; Undeveloped Residential Commercial The primary access serving the Custer Estates development will occur on Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East) and Prince Frederick Drive (Rt. 781). According to the Transportation Chapter of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, Millwood Pike is classified as a major arterial road, while Prince Frederick Drive is classified as a major collector road. The T.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 6`h Edition on page 263 states an average of 9.57 VPD per single-family dwelling. The proffered rezoning would allow for 400 single-family detached houses, which would create an increase in the traffic pattern along Millwood Pike, Prince Frederick Drive, Costello Drive, and Sulphur Spring Road (Rt. 655). The proceeding numbers provide a projection of the amount of volume increase that Far �t 108 Q/FAW 5 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 potentially will be generated at build out of Custer Estates based on the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition projections: Number of Dwelling Units = 400 Single Family Houses Average Vehicle Trips = 9.57 VPD Total Average Vehicle Trips = 3,828 VPD ,Lfiddle School = 850 student capacity Total Average Vehicle Trips = 1,106 VPD Elementary School = 550 student capacity Total Average Vehicle Trips = 527 VPD Projected Traffic Increase = 5,461 VPD The road systems adjoining Custer Estates include Millwood Pike (Route 50 East) and Prince Frederick Drive (Route 781). Millwood Pike is a four -lane major arterial road with two travel lanes in each direction and median crossing access at the current entrance to Carpers Valley Golf Club and at Prince Frederick Drive. The existing median crossings contain left turn lanes on Millwood Pike to facilitate safe turning movements. Prince Frederick Drive is a two-lane major collector road that provides for a connection to Millwood Pike at a median crossing and also connects to Costello Drive enabling vehicular traffic to access Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) at a signalized intersection, thus reducing total traffic volumes at the Interstate 81 Exit 313 interchange. The Prince Frederick Drive intersection with Millwood Pike will be signalized by the developers of the Prince Frederick Office Park as identified on the approved master development plan for that project. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared to determine the impacts that the Custer Estates development will have on the transportation system. This TIA, prepared by John Callow of Patton Harris Rust & Associates. p.c. dated March 5. 2003 includes a three phase analysis of development, current traffic count data, background traffic data, turning movement data at all critical access points and intersections, and projected levels of service (LOS) during morning and evening peak hour for the road system within the proximity of the proposed development. The TIA studies the connection of the proffered minor collector road at the Millwood Pike intersection with Sulphur Spring Road (Route 655) during the Phase I development, the connection of the proffered minor collector road at the intersection with Prince Frederick Drive during the Phase II development, and two scenarios during the Phase III development that include a proffered relocation of the existing entrance to Carpers Valley Golf Club to align at the Millwood Pike intersection with Inverlee Way and a proffered elimination of the Inverlee Way connection should off site right-of-way be unavailable. The TIA identifies that left turn movements at Sulphur Spring Road function at a LOS F during evening peak hour under current conditions, and that right turn movements at this File :i108iQ/EAW 6 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 intersection degrade to a LOS D during evening peak hour when the background traffic data is included. It should be noted that the background data does not reflect the development of the Custer Estates project. The TIA reflects that applicants' transportation proffers of providing a signalized intersection at Sulphur Spring Road, providing a connection to Prince Frederick Drive, and either relocating the existing entrance into Carpers Valley Golf Club to align at the signalized intersection with Inverlee Way or eliminating the entrance should off site right-of-way be unavailable. The results of the TIA indicate that the overall analysis of the Sulphur Spring Road, the Prince Frederick Drive and the Inverlee Way intersections function at an acceptable LOS C during morning and evening peak hours which includes the build out of Custer Estates, the development of a middle school and elementary school site and the inclusion of the background traffic data. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Custer Estates proffered signalization improvement at the Sulphur Spring Road intersection raises the overall function of the LOS to an acceptable LOS C, whereas the current conditions and future conditions for this intersection demonstrate failure without this signalization improvement. The applicants have addressed the impacts to the transportation system associated with the complete build out of Custer Estates and the development of a middle school and elementary school facilities. The applicants' proffer statement provides for several significant improvements to the transportation system including the construction of a minor collector road with sidewalks and a bicycle facility through the limits of the development, the provision of traffic signalization at the Millwood Pike intersection with Sulphur Spring Road, the provision of left and right turn lanes on Millwood Pike to facilitate safe traffic movements into the development, the commitment to fund and construct the relocation of the existing entrance into Carpers Valley Golf Club to align with the future signalized crossover at Inverlee Way provided that off site right-of-way can be acquired, the provision of modifying the future traffic signal at the Inverlee Way crossover if necessary, and the provision of pedestrian walkways to create a walkable community. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The subject site is located in the eastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area. A 121" sewer main is currently in place on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50/17 East) along the frontage of the subject site. An 8" sewer line is currently in place, which serves the Carpers Valley Golf Course. The extension of this system will occur throughout the project which will gravity flow to the existing sewer main. It will then be connected to the main in accordance with Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) regulations. A 12" water main is currently in place throughout the central portion of the subject site. This water main connects with the Prince Frederick Office Park to the west and the J.I.C_ t=ile.4108�O/UAW 7 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 Industrial Park to the east. This water main was constructed through the subject site through an agreement between the FCSA and the property owners in which the property owners prepaid for water connections to initiate the infrastructure improvements. These water connections are obtainable for the project provided that adequate capacity is available at the time connections are requested. According to the FCSA, connections could be made to the water system for this project at this time because adequate capacities in source and transmission exist. The impact of the proposed rezoning of the 281.5± acres from RA District to RP District. on sewage conveyance is based on the proffered land use of 400 single-family dwellings and accounts for the future development of public school facilities. The FCSA and Frederick Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) design figures estimate 275 GPD per single-family unit. The figures below represent the impact these dwellings would have to the sewage conveyance system at full build -out. Q = 275 GPD per dwelling Q = 275 GPD x 400 dwellings Q = 110,000 GPD Q = 4,000 GPD for public schools Q = 114,000 GPD total for Custer Estates The Opequon Water Reclamation Facility will treat the effluent from this development. The hydraulic capacity of this facility is 8.4 mgd, which is adequate to accommodate the Custer Estates project. The Custer Estates project would tie into the Abrams Creek interceptor, which has experienced capacity problems associated with wet weather flows. The FCSA and the FWSA are developing a plan that will eliminate the capacity problems, which may result in the development of a new sewer force main to divert flows from subdivisions on the south side of Senseny Road (Rt. 657) and east of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656). The Custer Estates development would be designed to connect to this new sewer force main system should the FCSA and FWSA determine it is needed. E. DRAINAGE The 281.5± acres proposed for rezoning has pronounced drainage divides which drain the site to the north to Sulphur Spring Run. The development of residential lots, road systems and public schools will increase the amount of impervious surface on the subject site, therefore, storm water management facilities will be designed to accommodate post development runoff. The project will be developed to make use of existing water features that exists on the Carpers Valley Golf Club for storm water management and will incorporate sediment forebays and all appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures to mitigate siltation impacts to Sulphur Springs Run. File # 10850/ FA W 8 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 F. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual per household consumption of landfill volume figure of 5.4 cubic yards (This number can be found in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4 1 edition). The following figures show the increase in daily volume based on the proffered density of 400 dwellings. AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per dwelling AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 400 dwellings AV = 2,160 Cu. Yd. The applicant has incorporated a requirement for curbside commercial trash and waste removal service for the residential lots within Custer Estates. This proffered condition will mitigate impacts to the Citizen Convenience Center sites in this area of the County and will provide for additional revenues at the Regional Landfill through tipping fees. G. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies one structure on the subject property as 34-1176 Heishland House. This structure is not included on the list of potentially significant structures and sites, nor is it determined to be eligible for inclusion on the state or national register of historic places. The National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia does not identify the subject property within any defined core battlefield area. Furthermore, the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan does not identify the subject property as a component of a possible Historic District. H. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been applied to the proposed Custer Estates development and identifies a fiscal impact of $9,845 per dwelling unit, which accounts for Fire & Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Public Library, Sheriff s Office and County Administration Building. The applicants' proffer statement provides Frederick County with a combination of land donation for public schools and public services and a monetary contribution per household to mitigate the impacts to community facilities. The land donation for public schools and public services is provided to afford the County an opportunity to locate public facilities and services in a geographic area of the Urban Development Area (UDA) that is deficient. The 281.5 acres proposed for rezoning adjoins the Winchester Regional Airport (WRA) along the south boundary of the site. The Custer Estates development has been designed File 4 I035Q/E.\w 9 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 to locate the public school sites to the northeastern limits of this acreage to mitigate impacts, which is acceptable to Frederick County Public Schools. The Custer Estates development provides Frederick County with a land donation that could be utilized to accommodate the WRA northern expansion and provides state road access to the donated land. Furthermore, Custer Estates has been designed to locate all residential lots outside of the WRA projected 65 DNL noise contours for the year 2012. The Federal Aviation Administration Regulations Part 150 provides for noise compatibility for the purpose of land use planning in and around airport facilities. This regulation clearly identifies the appropriateness of developing all residential land uses in areas located up to the 65 DNL noise contours. (Please refer to Land Use /Noise Sensitivity Matrix from the FAA Part 150 Reg lations) In addition to the design measures taken to mitigate impacts to WRA and to accommodate future expansion plans, the applicants have incorporated elements within the proffer statement to further protect the airport. These elements include the donation of avigation easements over the entire 281.5- acres, disclosure statements regarding the location and noise associated with WRA that will be in all deeds, covenants and sales and marketing documents, and the use of various construction standards to promote sound attenuation for all residential structures within Custer Estates. These proffers provide an additional level of protection to WRA and are appropriate measures for mitigating impacts associated with the Custer Estates development. I. OTHER IMPACTS The Custer Estates development will provide the following benefits to Frederick County: • Direct residential growth patterns within the Urban Development Area. • Donation of 50 acres of land for the development of public school facilities within a geographic area of the Urban Development Area that is deficient in facilities. • Donation of 22 acres of land for the development of public service facilities within a geographic area of the Urban Development Area that is deficient in facilities. • Safety enhancements for the traveling public through traffic signalization improvements at Millwood Pike (Route 50 East) and Sulphur Spring Road. • Relocation of the Carpers Valley Golf Club entrance to align with Inverlee Way provided that off site right -of --way is available to assist in the implementation of a significant transportation element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. • Protection of the Winchester Regional Airport through design that accommodates their long range planning. • Protection of the Winchester Regional Airport through the provision of avigation easements over the residential properties in Custer Estates and covenants addressing structural heights, outdoor lighting and communication frequencies. File 4 108iQ/1HAW 10 Greenway Engineering December 8, 2002 Custer Estates Rezoning Revised January 31, 2003 Revised March 5, 2003 • Protection of the future residents of Custer Estates through the disclosure of the proximity of the Winchester Regional Airport, notice of the potential for airport noise, and the use of acoustical construction treatment. • Curbside commercial trash service to mitigate impacts to the Citizen Convenience Center sites and generate additional revenues for the Regional Landfill through tipping fees. • Design of intermodal elements within Custer Estates through the use of bicycle travel and pedestrian walkway systems. • Provision of monetary proffers to for County Capital Facilities projects to offset fiscal impacts of the Custer Estates development. File -q1 0850/EA W I A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates Located in: Winchester, Virginia Prepared for: Greenway Engineering 1 5 1 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 208 Church Street. SE PHRA Leesburg, MIrginia 20175 T 703.'77 3616 F 703.777.3725 March >, 2003 (Revised) OVERVIEW Report Summary This study considers the traffic impacts associated with the build -out of the proposed Custer Estates development, located along the south side of Route 50, in Winchester, Virginia. The proposed project is to replace an existing 18 -hole golf course (Careers Valley Golf Club) and adjoining parcels to the east with 400 single-family detached residential units, a 550 student elementary school and an 850 student middle school. Full build -out is to occur over three (3) transportation phases by the year 2008. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Custer Estates development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Custer Estates development, • Distribution and assignment of the Custer Estates development -generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR-+-A) conducted automatic 24-hour "tube" traffic counts (in 15 -minute increments) along Route 50, west of the existing Carpers Valley Golf Club site -driveway, and conducted manual weekday AM (7AM-9AM) and PM (4PM-6PM) peak hour traffic counts at the intersection of Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive. These counts were used as the basis for all through traffic along Route 50, east of Prince Frederick Drive. PHR+A then superimposed the traffic volumes at the existing golf course site -driveway and the existing Ravens subdivision site -driveway (Inverlee Drive) using trip generation data provided in the 6th Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report. Existing traffic volumes along Sulphur Springs Road were determined using 2001 VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) traffic count data. Figure 1 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Traffic) and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 2 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data, HCS -2000 level of service worksheets and existing trip generation are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates March 5, 2003 (Revised) P"R+A Page I I f i No Scale e 4 50 18(63) r� '%.1 29(�1� y (707)629 640(1 t 77� � 342(1066 (120)99 -010 50 90(6 ) ( (29)80 ®',�► (69S)62j #"*ft39(26)187) n y wood � J A ,J (s, 191 �AJA�s 655 Su/phu Sprin, x c Roac N O OSrer, Ile (134)69SITE Or re 1 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Existing Traffic Conditions A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates PPAN/larch �, ?003 (Revised) I -Pale t No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) _____ Denotes Future Roadway Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 2 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates PH March �, X003 (Revised) Pale 3 PHASE 1 (2004) Phase 1 is to include 170 single-family detached residential units with access provided via a single site -driveway located opposite Sulphur Springs Road. The following describes the assumed Phase 1 roadway conditions_ 1) A new signalized site -driveway is to be implemented along Route 50 opposite 1-1 Sulphur Springs Road. This driveway will provide sole access for the Phase 1 development. 2) The intersection of Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive is to be signalized. No site -access will be provided via this intersection during Phase 1 conditions. 2004 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS The existing traffic volumes along Route 50 and Sulphur Springs Road were increased using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually). Additionally, PHR+A included all trips associated with the approved 2004 Ravens development (100 single-family detached residential units) located to the north of Route 50 along Inverlee Drive. Figure 3 shows the 2004 background ADT and A1MIPM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. yFigure 4 shows the respective 2004 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 level of service worksheets and 2004 Ravens trip generation are included in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 1 TRIP GENERATION The number of trips produced by and attracted to this site were established using the 6th Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report. Table 1 shows the trip generation results for the proposed Phase I Custer Estates development. Table 1 Custer Estates - Phase 1 Trip Generation Summary Land Use Amount Peak Hour PNI Peakour :ADT Code In Out Total In Out 'rota) 2004 Phase I - Custer Estates 210 Single -Family Detached 170 units 32 96 128 1 1 1 62 173 1.700 Phase 1 Total 32 96 128 ill 62 173 1.700 A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates PH R+A March 5, 2003 (Revised) Page T� No scale :J N^ �, 50�38 l � X9(71) 2 qlr (795)696 66 ( 30 1 � 2(114 ` 0,(12 r 90(6 1) (71 9)699 asyp4' 50 7 (28)80 j '765)666 66�63�261) OO Ai O H n s ? G Ike ^ `h (606�Ss Iry 655 Su] hursPrin, x Q` Roa Ogte!'O N ' `~ a Dnp q sip e SITIEJ i iff IN Figure 3 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 2004 Background Traffic Conditions A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates PH-'�A March 5, 2003 (Revised) Pale No Scale Signalized Intersection p LOS = QQ 5� V � `J C(C) _ 0 --ft O Unsignalized (c)C fftftft Intersection a� 50 * (right inlout only) .yam Vlfll�oodPrke L Unsignalized n Unsignalized ` Intersection Intersection �c Jk G 61 �65s Sulphur J eta Springs ` a c Road ft%�Ostello D n lid !u . J SIJjl■w�,' ' !, ANI Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) _____ Denotes Future Roadway * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement T A Figure 4 2004 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Phased raffic Impact ;Analysis of Custer Estates :March 5. 200� (Revised) PhRA Page 6 PHASE I TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. Figure S represents the Phase 1 trip distribution percentages into and out of the Custer Estates development. Figure 6 shows the respective Phase 1 development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments along the study area roadway network. 2004 PHASE I BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Custer Estates assigned trips (Figure 6) were added to the 2004 background traffic (Figure 3) to obtain 2004 Phase 1 build -out conditions. Figure 7 shows 2004 Phase 1 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 8 shows the respective 2004 Phase 1 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. 2004 PHASE I CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Custer Estates development are acceptable and manageable. All study area intersections will maintain levels of service "C" or better during 2004 Phase 1 build -out conditions. A Phased Traffic Impact analysis of Custer Estates �A, March 5. 2003 (Revised) P Page 7 1 i No Scale 1 fT N Figure 5 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Phase 1 Trip Distribution Percentages A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates R -A March �, ?003 (Revised) Pave 8 No Scaie AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 6 Phase I Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates PRAMarch j, 2003 (Revised) HPage l i� No Scale T TNS v 501.129 rq �� S (7l) G (8S6)7I4 ®21(7265� 9� s(17jS) ( Rp x)99 \fir 50 (6� *--w (2 )8o (826)683 66(43)296)V (12)7 7 a� n Llillk o O a, r� nd r (r6�S3S (655 Su1p17Ursprin� )28 tP. 'ad .Jy� (734)69SITE !.d► AM Peak Hour (PVI Peak Hour) Figure 7 2004 Phase 1 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates B�A March �, X003 (Revised) Page 10 1� No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) C(C) L 'mss ON so #0W.W, C C) �{ J N Unsignalized %�e_, i Intersection J* :J SYTE 4%ft►*%.. 40U signalized Intersection (right in/out only) Signalized Intersection GAG, LOS = QQ S / (or, 655 655 U hUr S JC � Pnn �s Road �N AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) _____ Denotes Future Roadway * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement ure 8 2004 Phase 1 wild -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service RAA Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates PHMarch 5, _2003 (Revised) Page I l PHASE 2 (2006) Phase 2 is to include a total of 328 single-family detached residential units with access provided along Route 50 via Prince Frederick Drive and Sulphur Springs Road. The following describes the assumed Phase 2 roadway conditions (in addition to those presented for Phase 1): 1) The existing Carpers Valley Golf Club site -driveway located along Route 50 is to be closed. 2) The intersection of Route 50/lnverlee Drive is to be signalized. 3) A new unsignalized site -driveway is to be implemented opposite Prince Frederick Drive south of Costello Drive. 2006 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS All trips relating to the Carpers Valley Golf Club were removed from the study area roadway network as necessitated by the initiation of the Phase 2 Custer Estates development. The existing traffic volumes along Route 50 and Sulphur Springs Road were then increased using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually). Additionally. PHR+A included all trips associated with the approved 2006 Ravens development (300 single-family detached residential units) located to the north of Route 50 along Inverlee Drive. Figure 9 shows the 2006 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 10 shows the respective 2006 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 level of service worksheets and 2006 Ravens trip generation are included in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION The number of trips produced by and attracted to this site were established using the 6th Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report. Table 2 shows the trip generation results for the proposed Phase 2 Custer Estates development. Table 2 Custer Estates - Phase 2 Trip Generation Summary 11 L Land Use Amount AM reap Hour rivt reaK "our .k DT Code 1n Out Total 1n Out Total 006 Phase 2 - Custer Estates 210 Single -Family Detached 328 units 60 179 239 200 113 313 3.230 Phase 2 Total 60 179 239 200 1,13 313 3,280 A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates PP'A March 5, 2003 (Revised) PPa -e 12 �T Ln No Scale OnVew�y� Pt,R-+ I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) _____ Denotes 'Future Roadway Figure 9 2006 Background Traffic Conditions A Phased Traffic i Impact analysis of Custer Estates H11 March 5, ?003 (Revised) Pa<,e I 1� No Scale Signalized Intersection V LOS = C(C) v Signalized ' C�C� Intersection LOS B(C) >� V = C � C(C) I til/k J(8) ood pike Unsignali zed Intersection rn� � Sul hur Spun sss s Cost%o t Road VJ rwo : a ' SITE �ewaY AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) _____ Denotes Future Roadwav D L A _ IL I A I Figure 10 2006 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Phased Traffic Impact ,Analysis of Custer Estates R+A March x,_003 (Revised) P,hPage 14 PHASE 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. Figure 11 represents the Phase 2 trip distribution percentages into and out of the Custer Estates development. Figure 12 shows the respective Phase 2 development -generated AMIPM peak hour trips and ADT assignments along the study area roadway network. 2006 PHASE 2 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Custer Estates assigned trips (Figure 12) were added to the 2006 background traffic (Figure 9) to obtain 2006 Phase 2 build -out conditions. Figure 13 shows 2006 Phase 2 build -out ADT and AIM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 14 shows the respective 2006 Phase 2 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. 2006 PHASE 2 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Custer Estates development are acceptable and manageable. All study area intersections will maintain levels of service "C" or better during 2006 Phase 2 build -out conditions. A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates PHP8' March 5. 2003 (Revised) Page 15 /I No Scale - waY Figure 11 Phase 2 Trip Distribution Percentages A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates ��„A March �, 200 (Revised) Pt- Page 16 I No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 12 Phase 2 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A A Phased Traffic [mpact ,analysis of Custer Estates P�1 a March 5. 2003 (Revised) 1 Page 17 No Jcaie d� 9(71)722 79)(12)�9g90(�8(49� (9,Y) 10,1-1 r^ae . ' 50 33 21i)(13640(339 )(7SS)61 85 ooh J (1 }2 (6j6) Z? 655 Sul hur SPnn.s 1 Road N d� COSIP/ (134)69 (30)9 SITE V _M A • AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 13 2006 Phase 2 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates �� March �, ?003 (Revised) HPale 18 J No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS = QQ V MOW JJ 10Dr�ye Unsignalized Intersection Signalized Intersection -e r `c,, LOS = QQ G sss Sulphur Springs Road AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 14 2006 Phase 2 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates PHMarch 5, 3003 (R+A Page 1 Signalized Intersection LOS = BIC) i (8)A Lli1(iy00d p Signalized Intersection -e r `c,, LOS = QQ G sss Sulphur Springs Road AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 14 2006 Phase 2 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates PHMarch 5, 3003 (R+A Page 1 PRASE 3 (2008) Phase 3 is to include a total of 400 single-family detached residential units, a 550 student elementary school and an 850 student middle school. Two (2) alternative site - access scenarios have been provided for this Phase 3 development: Scenario 1 assumes, in addition to the site -access described for Phase 2, the acquisition of sufficient right-of-way to provide a signalized site -driveway along Route 50 opposite Inverlee Drive; Scenario 2 assumes no right-of-way acquisitions and maintains site -access consistent with that of Phase 2. 2008 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS All trips relating to the Carpers Valley Golf Club were removed from the study area roadway network as described under 2006 background conditions. The existing traffic volumes along Route 50 and Sulphur Springs Road were then increased using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually). Additionally, PHR+A included all trips associated with the approved 2008 Ravens development (565 single-family detached residential units) located to the north of Route 50 along Inverlee Drive. Figure 15 shows the 2008 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 16 shows the respective 2008 background lane geometry and ATM/PN1 peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 level of service worksheets and 2008 Ravens trip generation are included in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 3 TRIP GENERATION The number of trips produced by and attracted to this site were established using the 6th Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report. Table 3 shows the trip generation results for the proposed Phase 3 Custer Estates development. Table 3 Custer Estates - Phase 3 Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount ANI In ea Out our Total 1n ea Out our Total all"t' 2008 Phase 3 - Custer Estates 210 Single-Familv Detached 400 units 72 217 289 240 135 374 4.000 320 Elementary School 330 students 94 63 160 2 4 6 527 322 Middle School 830 students 223 168 391 64 72 136 1.106 Phase 3 Total 389 451 840 305 211 516 5,634 A Phased Traffic impact :analysis of Custer Estates Ptj��� iVtarch ?, 2003 (Revised) Page 20 I )F1 No Scale 29(7 � 90( 4Z) 7'n (134)6 ®%+ r r r r r .S,te`Dn`•`` Lewa; ure 15 ti `y a J a `J 34(176) 77S (IgSB (8(2j5)66 20)752 `�; ��i. ) of• : IF; wood A; ; jr { M �7J0),I)3 655 Sul hur s Prim Roa" I l i � I- AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour) _____ Denotes Future Roadway 2008 Background Traffic Conditions ,� Phased d Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates RAMarch 5, 2003 (Revised) T Page 21 A M t No Scale r ryLey��Y Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) _____ Denotes Future Roadway li igure"l6 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Phased I raffic Impact :analysis Of Custer Estates RA March �, x'003 (Revised) u Page 22 PHASE 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. Figures 17-1 and 17-2 represent the Phase 3 trip distribution percentages into and out of the Custer Estates development for Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Figures 18-1 and 18-2 show the corresponding Phase 3 development - generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments along the study area roadway network. 2008 PHASE 3 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Custer Estates assigned trips (Figures 18-1 and 18-2) were added to the 2008 background traffic (Figure 15) to obtain 2008 Phase 3 build -out conditions. Figures 19-1 and 19-2 show the 2008 Phase 3 build -out ADT and ANI/'PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area for Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Figures 20-1 and 20-2 show the corresponding 2008 Phase 3 build -out lane geometry and ANI/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. 2008 PHASE 3 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Custer Estates development are acceptable and manageable. All study area intersections will maintain levels of service `'C" or better during both 2008 Phase 3 build -out scenarios. A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis or Custer Estates P+ A March . 2003 (Revised) HI Page 23 No Scale - Way Figure 17-1 Scenario l: Phase 3 Trip Distribution Percentages A Phased Traffic Impact Analvsis of Custer Estates March 5, -003 (Revised) PHR-A Page 24 1 T� No Scale Figure 17-2 Scenario 2: Phase 3 Trip Distribution Percentages PHRA A Phased Traffic Impact Analvsis of Custer Estates March ;, 3003 (Revised) Pale 25 I t No Scale '6g(78) �I1o)1s a� (12)4 50 .� 104 448) �^ (38)130 -C (72)22 i 7 j T sJ Sulphur ' Q7 655 Spnnes (1�)1301® %1 Road' Awl b� J (46)S8 ftft%ok SITE �o nL,ew �U T-) D - A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) \-�j I HL Figure 18-1 Scenario 1: Phase 3 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Phased Fraffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates PHP'A Ntarch 5. 1-003 (Revised) Page M No Scale 1 pq(3 7) C (38)]30 -400(84)25 lie50 r' 104(37) (38),,30 0 �� pike sss Sulbhvr s Pn s 1 Rc SITEDrjv � j p� .moo I b �n Averagp Daily 1 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 15-2 Scenario 2: Phase 3 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates PhIRA March 5. '_003 (Revised) Page 27 � l.. No via 071 �®®5) z ) �» {� 17 (215)661, , %749 k! 5 (8sq) -_.W.AwA ~/ �» ���a - » eeS/a»« ^ 30 » «034 t zzx SIT » « � � ANI Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) F u e 19-1 Scenario |: 2008 Phase 3 Build -out Traffic Conditions PRA H 4 Phased TameImpact %GK§; Cas rGmt March £-1003(Revised) P 28 ■ 11 No Scale o`er � Nn (71) S7047 0 37)9)99ii+ 90(6 �) 1 e D (712)1pS� so 76) (21- ` (21- 9(149 (859988300 (Iqg (.1 *)�q�?� �655 SulphurSprinps ) IIoNi � Road D J (134 (465698ft-1i SITE ' y I \ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) _ Figure 19-2 Scenario 2: 2008 Phase 3 Build -out Traffic Conditions RAA Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates March 5. 2003 (Revised) PH Pa,c 29 No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS = QQ U C(C) (CC "'4 � a Z �Ste�10DUnsignalized e Vol Intersection T r8)g Site_ b f7v � r) D, A Signalized Intersection LOS = QQ v W)c V* L" noodPk SITE AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) x Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 0-1 Scenario 1: 2008 Phase 3 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates RA March �, 2003 (Revised) Pale 30 Signalized Intersection LOS = QQ SUI 6C)C �rl'0 655 hursprjnas 41 Road dfl 5 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) x Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 0-1 Scenario 1: 2008 Phase 3 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates RA March �, 2003 (Revised) Pale 30 I t No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) V i C(C) (C)C t.O* c. 10 Dnp Unsignalized. e rn Intersection At At wa; -4- Signalized Intersection v O LOS = B(C) rJ �J C(C) (8)A SII/«o0(1 p �1 Signalized Intersection LOS = QC) (CSC 65 Sul hur Springs J4� Road AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) i Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure -20-2 Scenario 2. 2008 Prase 3 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Servi A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Custer Estates RAMarch S, `'003 (Revised) PH Page 3 I Appendix Table A Existing Trip Generation Land Use Amount � ea our � ea � our ADT Code In Out Total In Out Total 2002 Existing - Carpers Valley Golf Course 430 Golf Course 18 holes 32 8 40 22 28 49.32 6.13 2002 Existing - Ravens 210 Single -Family Detached 91 units 18 » 73 63 36 99 910 Table B Background Trip Generation il-1✓ Land Use Amount ANI Peak Hour PNI Peakour ADT Code In Out Total In Out Total 2004 Background - Ravens Subdivision 210 Single -Family Detached 100 units 20 60 79 69 39 107 1.000 2006 Background - Ravens Subdivision 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 35 16J 219 183 101 239 3.000 2008 Background - Ravens Subdivision 210 Single -Family Detached 363 units 101 304 405 327 184 5 11 3.630 REZONING APPLICATION FORINT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO be completed by i lanning Staff. - Fee Amount Paid $15.12 .00 Zoning Amendment Number 05-03 Date Received 02-07-03 PC Hearing Date p 4.-U2-03 BOS Hearing Date 04-23-03 The following information shall be provided by the applicant.- All pplicant: 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. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 662-4185 Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different from above) Name: Carpers Valley Golf Club Telephone: 662-1287 Address: 1400 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 2"-602 Name: Richard & Donna Dick Telephone: 722-6221 Address: 1600 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Greg Coverstone Telephone: 662-3149 Address: 1736 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt Telephone: 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X ,Deed to Property X impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement 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: Parcels 64 -((A)) -83A. 86: 87: 87A: Carpers Valley Golf Club L.P. John Garland Russell. III & Richard G. Dick Parcel 64-(A))-83: Richard G. Dick & Donna C. Dick Parcel 64-((A))-82: Constance L. Tioumas. Etals c/o Gregory L. Coverstone Gregory L. Coverstone, Constance L. Tjoumas & Cynthia A. Pappas 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property 7. Adjoining Property: Golf Course; Residential Residential: Public Schools; Public Services PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 64-((A))-79 Winchester Airport RA 64-((A))-88 Winchester Airport RA 64 -((A)) -89B army Corps of Engineers B2 I 64-((A))-89 Prince Frederick Office Park B2 64A -((A))-12 Unimproved RP 64A-7-1-1 Unimproved RP 64A-7-1-2 Unimproved RP 64A-7-1-3 Residential RP 64A-7-1-4 Unimproved RP 64A-7-1-5 Unimproved RP 64A-7-1-6 Unimproved RP 64A-7-1-7 Residential RP 64A-7-1-8 Unimproved RP 64A-7-1-9 Residential RP 64A -7-1-10A Residential RP 64A-7-1-11 A Unimproved RP 64A -7-1-12A Unimproved RP 64A-7-1-13 Residential R -P 64A-7-1-14 Unimproved RP 64A-7-1-15 Residential R -P 64G-2-1-1 A Open Space R -P 64-((A))-81 Residential MHl 64 -((A)) -81A Unimproved Ml 64 -((A)) -80L Unimproved Mi 64 -((A)) -80K Unimproved M1 64 -((A)) -80Q Industrial MI 644(A)) -80J Industrial Mi 64-((A))-116 Unimproved RA 64-((A))-122 Residential RA 64-((A))-123 Unimproved RA 64-((A))-124 Unimproved RA 64-((A))-132 Residential RA 64-((A))-133 Unimproved RA 64-((A))-134 Unimproved RA 64 -((A)) -l')5 4A // A 11 1 1 Residential r RA sueiaI 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection. using road names and route number): South side of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East); across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and the Ravens Subdivision; approximately 1 mile east of Interstate 81 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Imnact 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 Iden tification/lLocation: Parcel Identification Numbers: 64-((A))-82, 83, 83A, 86, 87 & 87A Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: 10. 11. Shawnee Millwood Millwood Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School Millbrook James Wood Middle Armel Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 281.5f RA District RP District ?81.5= T Total Acreage to be rezoned The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 400 Townhome: Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other 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. Applicant(s)- L/I t 11 n-y� Date Owner C./ I L. / . 0:S l 7-6,63 Date: �Zsem- I � p FEB 0 7 200 4 i E \S.SS Z Sa4''F 3 0 ca c o z t .7MITHS OrH£Q � LAND 6 ` .5577Z-- 13 9' %z E/39' /o SMITH ' To C OVE,lSTOwIE 6 7. 9 Ac2e.s W ti Z W (� Q n yl4( ` L) W b 14A G,v E Tics 1952 CO o 9 SCALE 1'300' �O J �O Located About 3 Niles East of Winchester, on the South Side of U. S. Highway 11c. 50, in 4i Shawnee District, Frederick 6 NSoiq w 7 — County, Va. Ai2POPT Surveyed Jan. 30, 1952 Richard 11. Goode Certified Surveyor SMITH to COVEHS'TONE 67.9 Acres On January 30, 1952, I surveyed the tract of land, shown on the attached drawing, located about 3 miles East of Winchester, Virginia, on the South side of U. S. Highway No. 50, and situate in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia. It is bounded as follows: Beginning at (1) a post in a fence corner on the South side of U. S. Highway No. 50 and at the Northeast corner of the land of Carpenter; thence with the South side of U. S. Highway No. 50 S 422 deg. E 555 feet to (2) a concrete Highway marker; thence S 44-1 deg. E 174 feet to (3) the point of intersection of the South prop- erty line of U. S. Highway No. 50 with the center of old Highway No. 50, said point.bein 13 feat Northwest of a concrete Highway marker; thence with old Highway No. 50 for the following 3 courses S 6; deg. W 758 feet to (4) a bend opposite a stake on the Southwest side of the road; thence S 22 deg. E 107 feet to (5) a band; thence S 412 deg. E 280 feet to (6) a point in the center of old Highway No. 50 and in the West property line of the land of Edmundson, said point being S 661 deg. W 20 feet from a post on the North side of the road and said post being the Northwest corner of the Edmundson land; thence with Edmundson S 66-, deg. W 2515 feet to (7) a post in fence corner, corner to Edmundson and in the North fence line of a lane running between this tract and the airport; thence with the North side of the lane N 501 deg. W 417 feet to (8) a post in a fence corner at the Southeast corner of the land of Carpenter; thence with Carpenter N 38 deg. E 1975 feet to (9) a post in a fence corner; thence S 572 deg. E 139 feet to (10) a post in a fence corner; thence N 37� deg. E 1050 feet to the point of beginning, containing 67.9 Acres more or less. Richard U. Goode 1`IRGI1414 Certified Surveyor FREDERICK COUNTY, (SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me oil the 4th day of February 1952 at 10:50 A. M. and with certificate of acknowledgment therato annexed was admitted to record. ,CLERK 'i ifiY.FiHHF?F?HHF'FiHFiFiHFiFiFiFiFiHF?FiiiF iF?FiHFiF it :: ifiFiiiF?v1F #161 iF RICHARD W. LICKLIDER, ET ALS ?F TO .. .. DEED OF TRUST +F I(ERBERT S. LARRICK, TR. m #iF#iFiEiiiFiFiF#iiiFifiFiFiFiHHF is ipiF?FiiiHHHFiFi}ifi}iHFiHF 410 This Deed of Trust made and dated this 4th day of February, 1952 G\ between Richard W. Licklider and Lthel C. Licklider, husband and wife, and Lewis W. Hans n 1 rand Olive M. Hansen, husband and wife, being parties of the first part; Herbert S. Larri k, \/Trustee, beinp party of the second .part, and The Commercial and Savings Hank (a corpora- jtion at 6iinchester, Virginia), being party of the third part. �1 Whereas, the said Richard Fd. Licklider and Lewis '.N. Hansen are s I i Y�' d � justly indebted to the said flank in the sum of right Thousand ($8,000.00) Dollars, which �, ?? indebtedness is evidenced by a certain note for Light Thousand ($8,000.00) Dollars, bear Up an even date with this instrument, drawn ,jointly by the said Richard W. .Licklider / nd Lewis W. Hansen, and payable to the said Tile Coirm:ercial and Savings Bank sixty (60) - 7 days -after the said date thereof, negotiable at, discounted by, due to and payable at th i� 9 said The Coruuercial and Savings Bank at Winchester, Virginia; said note contains a waive of the homestead exemption, and may be renewed from time to time with the approval of said Bank, it being expressly understood, however; that said note shall be curtailed at least One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars on account of principal at each renewal thereof, and I f j ( k<p 2t ct.i2iJy Y") �C %1382 * ST. HWY. COM'R. OF VA. # VS. OERTIFICATE r LAWRENCE P. COVERSTONE, EP UX % R/s-3S BOOK 366 PAGE j %9 No. C-18018 1 2�4 88,00 CERTIFICATE This is to certify that 1 2.488.00 is estimated by the State highway Commissioner of / Virginia to be the fair value of rhe land hereinafter described, or int crest therein, and damages to the remainder, if any, owned in whole or in part by LAWr-PnCe P. Coves stone_Ba$-ASpa i n _husband and wife, co -tenants ,which the sajd Stare i 1ligh way Commis si once of Virginia has directed to be taken in conjunction with the con struetian, recon suunion, !/ �r alteration or maintenance o[_$431 -U _17 && SO. StState_Primal E o L=--. identified as Project y J l / 0017-034-101*RW2Ql as shoran on Sheet _fi, AA_ of plans for said Project on file with the Virginia Dcpatt• 1 mmt of Ilighways. The amount above specified, or so much thereof as may be directed by the loon, will be paid by the State Treasurer of Virginia, pursuant to the order of the SeircuLt_—____ ( —c of Frederick County as provided by Title 33. Chapter 1, Article S of the 1950 (ode of Virginia, as amended. the land, or interest thcrcin, taken lies in -__Shawnee Magisterial District of Frederick _____• Count), and is dcsc ribrd as hollows: Being as shown on Sheet 6 of the plane for Route 17 & 50, State Highway Project 0017-034-101, RW -201, and lying on both aides of and adjacent to the eastbound lane centerline from the lands of Betty R. Carper Estate at approximate Station 108+45 to the lands of Theodore H. Sisk and Marguerite P. Sisk at approximate Station 116+05 and containing 2.474 acres, more or less, land. bou 366 PALE 1.80 For a more panicuW description of the land, or interest therein, taken, reference is made to photo copy of mid Shat 6. 6A , ,bowing outlined in RED the land taken in fee simple, which photo copy is hereto attached as a part of this Ctnificate and recorded simultaneously horawith in the State Highway Plat Book, 1 1 i Datcd at Richmond, Virginia: + July 7, 1970 ' cpury cage Ifighway Commissioner of Virginia Coulntte�rsigned: / cpury Trcesurcr of Virgin — Copy for: Sratc fiighway Commu.ioncr (2) Trca.urcr of Virginia Comptroller of Virginia 181 eou 366 WE 181 SPATE OF VIROINu City of Richmond, To wits / If , a Notary Public in and for the City aforesaid, in the S to of Virginia, do certify that �.., , Deputy State Highway Ca=iaaioner, and / M ,Deputy Treasurer of Virginia, whose n=ee are sign to the foregoing writing bearing date on the Z�y of 19.Z!Ll, have acknowledged the aame before tae in the City aforesaid. My term of office expires Olven under my hand this 13uy of tart c VIRGINIA FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. T!ion melt of Nwrlpn 8 waa produced to me on Ihe,� . to record, and -Ith canifkatO of acknowtad th of gment therreto a b n odmftlb BOOK 373 GALE 1.34 MA Y 3. 19 9 BOOK 48 NAA 1.74 VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT 0, FREDERICK COUNTY STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER OF VIRGINIA V. ORDER CONFIRMING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT LAWRENCE P. COVERSTONE, ET UX This day came the State Highway Commissioner, by his attorney, and it appearing to the Court that the report of the commissioners hereinbefore appointed and sworn according to law, was on the 7th day of April , 19 71, duly returned to and filed by the Court herein, and that no exceptions have been filed to said report, and no cause having been shown against said report, the same is accordingly confirmed. And it appearing to the Court that the said commissioners ascertained that the value of the land taken herein was $ 2,500.00 and that the damages to the residue, beyond the enhancement in value to the residue by reason of the taking, was $ 3,000.00 , and it appearing that the said report should be confirmed; therefore, the Court doth approve, ratify and confirm said report in all particulars, and doth confirm unto the Commonwealth of Virginia the fee simple title to the following property: Being as shown on Sheet 6 of the plans for Route 17 & 50, State Highway Project 0017-034-101, RW -201, and lying on both sides of and adjacent to the eastbound lane centerline from the lands of Betty E. Carper Estate at approximate Station 108+45 to the lands of Theodore H. Sisk and Marguerite P. Sisk at approximate Station 116+05 and containing 2.474 acres, more or less, land. 1JD • ii BOur, 375 i u 135 BOOK Q$ i,AGE 1.75 And it appearing to the Court that the State Highway Commissioner has heretofore caused to be recorded in the Clerk's Office of this Court Certificate No. C 18018 for $2,488,00, and that the title to the aforesaid I real estate thereby vested in the Commonwealth of Virginia, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 33.1-119 and 33.1-122 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Court doth ADJUDGE, ORDER AED DECREE that the State ! Highway Commissioner of Virginia pay to the Clerk of this Court on behalf of Lawrence p. Coverstone and Arpacia Coverstone, his wife, as their respective interests may appear, the sum of $5,500.00, with interest at the rate provided in Section 6.1-318 per annum on the sum of $3,012.00, this being the excess of the award over tho amount represented by the aforesaid Certificate of Deposit, from the 16th day of July, 1970, the date on which the above i• mentioned certificate was duly recorded in the Clerk's Office, to the date upon which the principal sum is paid into Court; and from which award the said State Highway Commissioner of Virginia is entitled to a credit in the sum of $2,188.00 which represents the amount. heretofore paid to I! the said Lawrence P. Coverctone and Aspacia Coverstone, his wife, by the I' State Highway Commissioner pursuant to order heretofore entered 'herein allowing the said Lawrence P. Coverstone and Aspacia Coverstone, his wife, to withdraw and be paid that sum by virtue of Certificate of Deposit No. C 18018; and the Court doth further order that the Commonwealth of, I , Virginia be released from any liability by virtue of the recordation of the Certificate aforesaid; and that the proceedings herein be recorded I' and indexed as provided by Section 33.1-114 of the Code of Virginia, of 1950, as amended, with reference to be made showing the book and page number of such recordation on the margin of the page where the said Certificate of Deposit iio. 18018 is spread. And the Court doth further order and direct that the cost herein, including At20.00 each to the commissioners appointed, nac.ely; M. M. Adorns, Walter T. Anderson, Ralph Bauserman, James F. Garrett and John T. Solenberger; I M � J ecor 37 i, eu 1.36 BOOK 48 PALE 1.76 and the sum of $ 5.00 to James L. Bowman, I. Fred Stine, Ray Rinker and William T. Bridgeforth, Jr., who were summoned and appeared but did not serve herein; and the sum of $5.00 each to Walter T. Anderton, H. W. Elbert, Jr. and John T. Solenberger who appeared on November 30, 1970 for this case; but not including tax attorney's fee which is hereby expressly waived; , shall be paid by the State Highway Commissioner of Virginia, and the same shall be charged and taxed by the Clerk of this Court as part of the coats herein, as provided by law. And nothing further remaining to be done in this cause, the same is hereby stricken from the docket of this Court. .LNTL;R: Ad Ju y SFF'!J P f RI I DICK COUN I Y 54, 110 _x♦ e' /' - �' a:[- ,13 ? 1111 4VN(JIF`.;IIF2 Y11 v�j •n ��% -/ .�! n ). 1 . ` '_`'� 7rr �\!�`-tet. (.''a 1 f . I� 41. `rP/(�' A R' 411 j x%729 _13 Rfl �U 4 . n99 m $ I - T _ . fig 84 12 1' F F"t Side MITI- 63 _�� • ; �,.o'. \ C47 / \Y. f F/Y7Mo- PIC ' C� � d�.l � \ 790 800 19E n0., BOD 45 (r \\b 4011 7 91 - 7 / 'BOM p (r) � / 159E •c \ ` Rnn swt 40.1 I59N �' 1IITT � ��%\✓ 159M 40f A 92 .+ r .19r 159E \ na �v_-) - ., T•^^Y.,y 159A _�- - ( _ -A�• ,t y i 000 �\ 19 n2 A 71 -- _ --_ 11 159 .41-% n ) ' �, )BI a 6 r s i / h i _ UZ j' •. �-i`CO 37AA \ 177n t=-Y;t �'� .)7l r �f J i°+� ' M1 nc n.6 36A / !� / 163 / .e ,)gyp. \ -/ 37 —� 179 p IN- J,, 79n24 " w DOIMm 51QNFWAI_I SEC1ION 64 [it MR V: 'I, 10-70nl 20387.005 Jo -Risk 6/4/91 THIS DEED OF ASSUMPTION made and dated this 4th -r.,..., logs _ by and between Richard G. �Y and Donna C. day A. ---1-. fig, his wife, John G. Russell, III, Trustee for the Honford D. Custer, Jr. Irrevocable Agreement of Trust dated July 1, 1981, and John G. RU2apllIII, Trustee for the Lucy L. Custer Irrevocable Agreement of Trust dated July 1, 1981, hersinafter referred to as Grantors; (=Mftr-La Valley Sim ' }a Virginia limited partnership, hereinafter referred to as (Grantee ;) Flournoy L. r a Q n , Jr., hereinafter referred to as Trustee; Fa..,.,nere Md a4g=hpa= National. DAnh, Winchester, Virginia, hereinafter referred to as Lander; Ellen C. Mc*'van, Susan C. dere. Linda C. Mussell and Monford D. Costar, III, Beneficiaries of the Monford D. Custer, Jr. and Lucy -L. Custer Irrevocable Agreements of Tryst dated July 1, 1981, hereinafter referred to as Beneficiaries; and Jamas 99raan, H- F. sander, Jr. and John G. F!=MU, III, respective spouses of the aforesaid Beneficiaries, hereinafter referred to as raspectivn spouses. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Tan Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuabls consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby ac.?nowladgsd, and pursuant to 8721 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and 558.1-811 of the Code Of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Grantors do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey with general warranty of title unto the Grantee, as specific partnership property, pursuant to Title 50, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, in fee simple, the following described property and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia: Parcel I: All of that certain tract [� / of land containing 97.8 acres, mors or lass. -7(L% 2%ems ) F�t�� J7i l:li CJS Parcel II: All of that certain tract of land containing ten (10) acres, more described by that certain particularly and survey dated January 2, 1962, II plat prepared by Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., Of the Clerk of the �I record in the office of Circuit of FrederickCounty, VirginiaCointDeedFBook 277 at 390. Parcel III: All of that certain 7A ✓ tract of land containing 24.815 acres. II Parcel IV_ All of that certain tract_ of land containing 14.242 acres.'` The above property is the same G. Dick and property acquired by Richard Russell, III, Trustee for the John G. Monford D. Custer, Jr- Irrevocable July 1, 981 and Agreement of Trust dated John G. Russell, III, Trustee for the Lucy L. Costar Irrevocable Agreement of Trust dated July 1, 1981, by deed from carper's -•-- _. Valley Golf club, Inc., dated December 28, 1988 and cornoration, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 702 at Page 100. is here made to the aforesaid instruments Reference and the references therein contained for a and the attachments description of the property hereby further and more particular conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to all duly recordad i restrictions, easements and rights of way, and enforceable but not limited to, those certain easements to the including, Sanitation Authority, each dated August 3, grads ick county h being recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in 198s, one 79 and the other being recorded in the Dead Book 689 at page aforesaid clerk's Office in Deed Book 689 at Page 92; and (b) that certain lease to the Frederick County Sanitation �I Authority dated August 17, 198 8 and recorded in the aforesaid C1®rk,s Office in Deed Book 690 at Page 507. ;..{ The Grantee herein assumes and agrees to pay the . �• tip, p.- obligations referred to in that certain deed of trust dated . 1991, of record in the aforesaid clerk's Office in march 25, ly I -2- -7(L% 2%ems ) 8K7C2it,-0B10 Deed Book 758 at Page 394, which obligations include those of Carper's Valley Golf Club,,..a corporation; a general partnership under the name of Carper's Valley Golf Club; and Carper's Valley Golf Club, L. P., a Virginia limited partnership. Flournoy L. Largent, Jr., Trustee under the aforesaid deed of trust, joins in the execution of this deed at the request and approval of the Beneficiary, the holder of the obligation secured by said deed of trust. Farmers and Merchants National Bank, holder of the note secured by the aforesaid deed of trust, joins in the execution of this deed to evidence and acknowledge its consent to the conveyance of the herein described property and to the assumption of the deed of trust as described herein. The Beneficiaries and their respective spouses join in the execution of this deed to evidence and acknowledge their consent to the conveyance of the herein described property, and to convey any and all right, title and interest they may have, if any, in and to the property. Except as noted above, the Grantors covenant that they have a right to convey said property to th3 Grantee; that they haves donee no other act to encumber said property; that they will execute such further assurances of title to said property as may be requisite; that they are seized in fee simple of the property conveyed; and that the Grantee shall have quiet possession of said property free from all encumbrances. WITNESS the fol wing signature als: c?A7.) Richard G. Dick -3- ACvC-lk ( =�A-8G 97 S7A F IZ E i76 E Gr>-ouP, 1_.c . P.B. r7oz, P6. IoSS '� < I.P.F. O.B. Soz., PG. Io S1 .� S Pw�•IGe FP -t; OEpIGK O.B.D B. Boz, Pry. 6 1 Ci \ � Nw•(. Z w� ' V Sroo'zz.'-hE s" J �1y.73 k� MoN. S7 " E 1p S Z6" -f--1 S 1 " o - , ,A 9 m �O 4� 137. zs Z Ae-- 12-- r- ti jJ0 \ v J-'P� \ 10 0" � o C i 57755'IEl P 111 Q \Oa �v 0�� !� Q PK Cl C, i t-bTES I. I.P. ISN Fli4 , Ir',::;N PiN SET-. I.PF. n IrzoN III t4 FouNc' GANG . A.ToN . =GONG-f�-cTE _ �OUN(�Af�� SUp�VEI� OF THE I—AN0 of rBRUCE O)lENS ;CALE DATE: FEBh-uAt-'( 4 GREENWAY, INC. 970 Bakar Lane, Winchester, Virginia 22603 540-662-4183 H, Bru--a Edens, L.S. - President SURVEYING -- DESIGNING - PLANNING RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL • COMMERCIAL - NDUS-IRIAL CONSTRUCTION No. 00016"? -B R� SUBS E�°4 SHEET I of �f5 The accompanying plat represents a survey of a portion of the land conveyed to Carper's Valley Golf Club, L.Y. by Deed of Assumption dated June 4, 1991 and recorded in the Frederick County Court Clerk's Office in Deed Book 762 at Page 808. The said land lies along the southern boundary line of Millwood Pike (U.S. Route 50) in Shawnee District, Frederick t County, Virginia and is bounded as follows: Beginning at an iron pin corner to the Fredericktowne Group, L.C. land and in the southern boundary line of Millwood Pike (U.S. Route 50); thence with the southern boundary line of said road for the 3 following courses S60922'45"E - 215.73' to a highway monument; thence N29"36'57"E - 7.00' to a highway monument; thence 560'22'45"E - 744.89' to an iron pin set in the southern boundary line of Millwood Pike (U.S. Route 50) and corner to Hockman; thence with Hockman for the 2 following courses S11°52'24"W - 2330.22' to a post; thence S77°55'18"E - 493.26' to an iron pin found corner to Hockman and in a line of Dick; thence with Dick S12°05'49"W - 846.58' to an iron pin found in a line of Dick and corner to the Winchester Regional Airport Authority Land; thence with said land for the 4 following courses N61'19'19"W - 2358.36' to an iron pin found; thence S28°42'51"W - 121.20' to an iron pin found; thence N43°39'41"W - 1578.90' to an iron pin found; thence N41'16'47"E - 581.79' to an iron pin found corner to the Winchester Regional Airport Authority Land and in a line of Prince Frederick Group, L.C. Land; thence with the Prince Frederick Group, L.C. Land for the 2 following courses S55029'17"E - 986.96' to a concrete monument; thence N28053159"E 1098.96' to a concrete monument corner to Prince Frederick Group, L.C. and Fredericktowne Group, L.C. Land; thence with Fredericktowne Group,'L.C. for the 2 SHtiET 2 of 3 following courses S55'121 17"E - 399.61' to an iron pin found; thence N28'54 '00"E - 1028.41' to the beginning. Containing. . . . . . . 137.252 Acres Surveyed. . . . . . . . February 19, 1996 vch de"s and the Yej3r=;emcee thermin contained refazanc3 13 a for a further doscripticn of the said propertY- .Tbis Comeyprxe is made subject to alt duiy rwmrd0d and eniosrmable x1strictione, saeoffitn" and sigh" of way, ig =70 a$f®Ctinq title to the said property. WSSNf93 the 4011owing signature and seal this date first above vrittsnI i n 2tz _r a OwN Z. KE era, isu,a�,..�._ . _._ of the Lstats of Battig 3. CUrper- Deceasod i M= C! 72.�Se'mn. h- 44.4f-- etr,-Witm She foragoiDg ip' 321t meas ae3m+"mcwlafl9cd before SO 49si3 11637 oS 3loe►%*are 1933e b; WI-Isd3 C. xasas, Ad�iai� 4ratrix of time Utats of Bettie a. Carper, deceased. ac mi,sian sapiraa - 2iOt3Y� f C /O I d ;L�• 1 $,I.:+�i.ilt; CJIJ:I i^!. 6CT. T_is ',ownunaut of Waiting arae ptcduced 10 use on the c--irowiadgm*ni thereto aan® Baa gi roe d o ?,iCc ,,sed o7 $aa. d8.3d. i of . mdsnttted to rte- Tar � 1� and $ ;,4 have Lee, rte. k r =tl r fwfwswfwfaasfsffwsfffwff2w i 14074 ' LINDA C. XZP.NS, ADMRX. • I TO; DEED ' RICHARD G. DICK, ET UX* w9fdwOfw2ffffwlwfwlffff92w I THIS DEED made and datad this day of 1983, by and between LINDA C. XEQNS, Administratrix of the Eat.ate of BQttis Z. Carper, pursuant to that Order of the Circuit Court of Trederick County, Virginia dated August 18, 1903, recorded is Chancery Order Sack 53. at Page 93, of the one part, hereinafter called the Grantor, and RICHMW 4. DICX and DONNA C. DICx, hit wife, of the other part, hereinafter called the Grantesa WITNEMTHs That for and in considoraition oR the sum of Ten (SIJ.00) Dollars, and other good and valuable considera- tion, raceipt of which is hereby acknowledged,.the Grantor dots hereby grant and convey with spacial warranty of title, unto the Crantaaa, jointly, as tananta by the cntirsty, with the right of survivorship, as at cw=n lav, all of those two (2) certain tracts or parcels oP land, with all improvements and appurtenances thereto beloPging, containing 71-1/2 3cras, more or leas, lying and being situate in 8hawnee Magisterial District, lrsderick County, Viaginia, on the Xillwood Pika about 2-1/2 ®ilea f=m winchastar, Virginis. This is the a&" property convoyed tc Bcttia 3. Carpar by deed dated Dectmber 4, 1917 frc= John C. C&a of zecosd im the Clark's Offids of this Circus. Court of 7rzisriC!t Qm=tj, Virginia, in Deed 3cok 141, at Page 233.. lass hcw"gz, tko fail ring conveyancest (1) all of that certain tract of land mors particularly described by that cartain dcad dated November 20, 1934 frac Bettie i. Carper to the Coaamonwealth of Virginia of rtcord in tha atareaaid Clerk's OYfi" is Decal Xoak 159, ct Paga 34. (2) That certain Order datad January 29, 1971, a canveyanca.to 'the C nvealtfs Of 9'irgiaia of record in the aloresa" Clerk's Cilice seed R 374, at Page 120. i i t i (/ so ' ., S 4s3�6 4;\•/�� S61. �0 09.3? F 3 o 64.587>'- A CRES M c O� Q� z O � U ry � D7 �Q �m v z ti o� Q ati O� O J O T. N Q I N � N r a: W � tio �$ ZUQ J M m O m M Q' a a o U O • 4� F' o GT '9 N41 >Poc /TY L ALUN RP (LICENSE) 9m �t 1498 GE�_;C? L -c -Y'1) t i La 3AL A A, MCILY U . G=k;1FICATE Np, 2v}2 c� N [.7Cal Y vcin r - a o� O1.✓tet/�O BY � a_ _SC�GB-'/"= ZOO' -�-- OGTOBE.•�/50977 s�,e �G yob, • .,x aAt J O1.✓tet/�O BY � a_ _SC�GB-'/"= ZOO' -�-- OGTOBE.•�/50977 s�,e �G yob, • J. R. ,NICELY ' CIPMFJ= LANG 6iuprox"11 ppy C {� 10! SOUTH KSIFT STACZT YT 5 8 O FG 2 3 9 wY1NCN1ESTiA.Y1A61H1A 22601 709 • 662-1076 04tcbar 151 1977 == An BOU= DESCRVTMV OF TUCT OF LAND OWM 8T J. P. 1'k'� f�ar67 11aa of �dauta 50 B==M at, an iron is the asuthOM at about 1.1 wiles asst of the intersection Of Rt. 50 with Rt. 522 Ht. I_l, asst of Vinchaster, and a =mw to the lanai =+ or formarl7 ouned b7 Cook; thence, with the said south 8% W line of $t. 5O, a Tariabls width BP, three courses, 3 5V42146* 31 174.19 Surat, to a lirXinis IaVartallt of Feta somr-tet i th—"I 8 59918°O7" 3, 297.29 feet' to a 7-" =,crets ;the°+ 3 55018'&6" 3, 78.34 tact, to an iron, a cormw to the Lud nett or for®er17 a paxt of the Carper Sstata; thetnae' with that lanai, 'saving Rt. 50, '•31 ==as? 3 6955'23% 3, 184.75 fact, to a1 35" diameter `hita vagi thmca, 3 27007°05" U, 1335.99 fact; thence' fore - 3 25.01,38'" W, 478.50 feet' to as iron; thence' with he ba -nail mentioned Cook land, N 9*CO'll" 3, 2147.33 f"t, to tisa begiaain3; 14.= 11r3s, 17in8 and being situated in 3h3ltaoa Dint= ict1 wick CraaxtY, YL"g'.ni3, and big tis saws land dea=dbed is MM Bak ,,77, Par8a 767' racardl d is tho 0=40 of the Clark Of 7rsd=Uk cp=;t7 rt, 5t4-nandater, Yin F "a {�C�P1IA rF=V- IC= CCU'=' SCT. ma on ih® ,jig iia3{ryympnt of vrsiiin8 V° 9 � � at / / •� -1 ---�7 ` lodgment tato •saano , 'eras Ina bnth Coriaicata by Soo 5&54.1 ci :Idmiitod t Cctd''T� 5 ha" been Fes+ � i� W1, t'S D'(0 b11 _,0c i,U0390 0`� i All of that certain lot or parcel of land, together with the rights, privileges, improvements, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate in Frederick County, Virginia, about three and one-half miles eastward from Winchester, containing 65.03 Acres, more fully described in the Plat and Survey by Richard U. Goode, C.S. dated .January 30, 1952, which is of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 222, Page 233, and being the same land conveyed to Lawrence P. Coverstone and Constance Lynn Tioumas as Trustees of the Aspacia S. Covarstone Trust Agreement by deed from Lawrence Payne Coverstone and Aspacia S. Coverstone, dated December 28, 1995, and recorded in Deed Book 851, Page 28 and being the same land conveyed to Lawrence P. Chuic. R. Alta. Coverstone and Constance Lynn Tioumas as Trustees of the Aspacia S. A=—y&LL w Coverstone Trust Agreement by deed from Lawrence Payne Coverstone, K `=b.4 ,. virxia, dated February 27, 1997, and recorded in Deed Book 874, Page 1605. Reference is herein made to the said records for a further and more particular DEED OF GIFT N � o C a E� a THIS DEED, made and dated this�K day of !t_r 2000, o by and between W m o o � CONSTLYNN TJOUMAS and GREGORY L. _OV R9T0NF as TRUSTEES OF 0 "r L. m C C THE ASPACIA S. COVERSTONE TRUST AGREEMENT dated December C 28, 1995, and U o m as amended January 30, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the Grantors, and VNI �°, o a COir1STANCE LYNN TJOt1iVlAsS, GREGORY L, r OVERSTONE, and CYNTHIA ANN LrJ U :3 PAS, as tenants in common, hereinafter referred to as the Grantees. WITNESSETH: That pursuant to the provisions of the Aspacia S. Coverstone a)II Trust Agreement, the Grantors do hereby quitclalm, release, and convey unto the said i + Constance Lynn Tioumas, Gregory L. Coverstone, and Cynthia Ann Pappas as tenants Q) In common, in equal undivided one-third shares, c any and all of their interest in, right Cl o and title to the following described property: i All of that certain lot or parcel of land, together with the rights, privileges, improvements, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate in Frederick County, Virginia, about three and one-half miles eastward from Winchester, containing 65.03 Acres, more fully described in the Plat and Survey by Richard U. Goode, C.S. dated .January 30, 1952, which is of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 222, Page 233, and being the same land conveyed to Lawrence P. Coverstone and Constance Lynn Tioumas as Trustees of the Aspacia S. Covarstone Trust Agreement by deed from Lawrence Payne Coverstone and Aspacia S. Coverstone, dated December 28, 1995, and recorded in Deed Book 851, Page 28 and being the same land conveyed to Lawrence P. Chuic. R. Alta. Coverstone and Constance Lynn Tioumas as Trustees of the Aspacia S. A=—y&LL w Coverstone Trust Agreement by deed from Lawrence Payne Coverstone, K `=b.4 ,. virxia, dated February 27, 1997, and recorded in Deed Book 874, Page 1605. Reference is herein made to the said records for a further and more particular :P Ch.A.x B. Alton Auo=y at I-- W—btotcr, Viryio" BK962�-'A39 ! description of said property, and which description is incorporated herein by reference thereto. This conveyance is made subject to all legally enforceable restrictions, easements, and rights of way of record affecting the subject property. WITNESS the following signatures and seals. 1 [SEAL] CONSTANCE LNNN TJ UMAS, TRUSTEE i -[SEAL] I GRPG MYVERSTONE, TRUSTEE COMMONWEALTH/$TATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF 1, �i ' � zx �C 61J a Notary Public of the aforesaid state and jurisdiction, do hereby certify thdConstance Lynn Tjoumas, whose name wos slgne 'day of In my presence to the foregoing Deed, bearing date on the �,�c� 2000, has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my tate and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of 2.e 2000. i TA f? i 01 jf otary Public 7 pirnission expires: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF WINCHESTER, it; wit: a Notary Public of the Commonwealth of Virginia, do hereby cartiry that Uregory L. Coverstone whose name was signed in my presence • J,: r •'C1p DK962f 60392 to the foregoing Deed, bearing date on the P-zn day of Mimic.''! , 2000, has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this I, day of MLC b , 2000. Notary Public ........ My commLsion expires- st a= ViROINM FREDERICK COUNTY, SCI' This lastrum nt of writ' g was produxd to me on at dnd wit i xitifi de of ackne-rilcdgement thereto annexed was udin! ed to rccurd. Tx Imposed by Sec 58.1-802 of and 58.1-801 havt been paid, if assessable^ 4,4t /6444., , C I6& Qwiu R. Alma Au --my u Law wiach.a.r, VirgW. / / f 4/ve �I G { / / f 4/ve �I Custer Estates Rezoning - Location Map G Custer Estates Rezoning - Location Map V. Airport and Local Land Use -Planning Processes =: €+r..ar I Land Use No* env, a � T4')" �V.ff trix I i I E F iJ' 'AFH= Lta Pok C Cc -E _ _T iSr_ — — PER 55-65 65-7,5 75 + COMPATIBLE DNL UNL DNL 1 -- 1-2 Family 2a •; 150 INCOMPATIBLE Multi -Family Mobile Homes Reside tial Dorms, etc. .- Churches ° Schools Hospitals Nursing Homes Institutional Libraries Sports/Play Arts/Instructional Recreational Camping Commercial All Uses indt.lstrial All uses Agricultural All Uses I i I E F iJ' 'AFH= Lta Pok C Cc -E _ _T iSr_ — — PER FAR COMPATIBLE PART 150 INCOMPATIBLE Page V-10 GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN LEGEND PUBLIC SCHOOL LAND=50 AC PUBLIC SERVICE 1 aND=22 AC C� PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III 7--I FUTURE PHASE MAIN ROAD SYSTEM II I TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION J FUTURE PHASE: The area designated as the future phase is included as part of the total acreage subject to this rezoning and may be developed either wholly or in part as the public school site or any of the three phases of development pursuant to the limitations on housing type and phasing specified by proffer. This area is intended to allow flexibility in the layout of the development so that the ultimate design of the public school site can be accommodated pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County School Board. SULPHER SPRING RD. n/ �Np'V _. PHASE i PHASE 111 1 \ OHASE 1 I I G 1 / I — — — I �=_ PHASE r'1 \ / >\ — 7 cm Z 02 to Q o W C12 °D W C v �w C12 5 O CO Z t o `1 rn W => 01 Q= _ NC\l o cr 0 W 3r n,N W vx 12 3 F 6� LL N O N T V C N 00 i c W� W a 0 W 124 O WD, 'DOO�•0000�'�O•❖ �•NORTHERN EXPANSION PROJECT2012 Cl) W Q W cc W D 65 L U & DATE: JANUARY 2003 IN, 2012 L®�_ — — — — — — — — — — — — _ SCALE: -1"= 800• _ — � � DESIGNED BY:EAW/JNT JOB NO. 1085Q SHEET i OF I COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II,��'� RE: Public Hearing - Proposed Amendment to Article VIII, Section 165-77 B (2)(d), Existing Lots, of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. DATE: March 20, 2003 The proposed revision would give the Zoning Administrator the ability to allow reduced yard setbacks on all existing lots within the R5 (Residential Recreational Community) Zoning District. Presently, the language in the Zoning Ordinance only allows the Zoning Administrator the ability to do this for existing lots of age -restricted communities, garden apartments and townhouses. Staff and the DRRS believe that the present ordinance was never intended to apply to just these residential types. Therefore, the proposed text amendment is an attempt to correct an error within the current Zoning Ordinance. In addition,, the proposed ordinance clarifies when it is appropriate to allow reduced yard setbacks and how much of a reduction can be granted. The current ordinance and proposed ordinance is shown below: Current Ordinance: 165-77 B (2)(d) Existing lots. The applicable dimensional requirements for the use shall apply to existing lots. However, the Zoning Administrator may allow reduced yard setback distances on existing lots of record currently zoned R5 District. The Zoning Administrator may also allow reduced yard setback distances on lots contained in previously approved master plans for R5I residential recreational communities. Proposed Ordinance: 165-77 B (3) Existing lots. The Zoning Administrator may allow reduced yard setbacks on existing lots of record, by a distance of up to 25% of the required setback, where topography or other environmental constraints create a hardship. To be considered a hardship, all conditions specified in Section 165-155 C (5), of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, must be met. A public hearing is scheduled for your consideration of the proposed ordinance amendment during the April 2, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting. A recommendation to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors world be appropriate. A copy of the entire R5 District section, and a copy of Section 165-155 C (5), of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, is attached with this memorandum for your reference. JFC/ERL/cih Attachments U:\COMMITTEES\DRRS\Projects\2003\R5 SetbacksWPublidicanngMemo. wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 § 165-73 ZONING § 165-75 ARTICLE VIII R5 Residential Recreational Community District § 165-73. Intent. [Amended 8-9-20001 The intention of the Residential Recreational Community District is to provide for a carefully planned recreational community which takes advantage of unique natural features and settings. Such communities shall be planned in a fashion that will protect and preserve natural and historic resources and features and that will protect and enhance the natural scenic value of the area to be developed and surrounding areas. The Residential Recreational Community District provides for a mixture of housing types and uses, including age -restricted communities, within a carefully planned setting. Special emphasis is placed on recreational and open space uses. Business and service uses are allowed to meet the needs of residential recreational communities. § 165-74. Master development plan. All land to be contained within the Residential Recreational Community District shall be included within an approved master development plan_ The layout, phasing, density and intensity of development is determined through the adoption of the master development plan by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Special care is taken in the approval of the master development plan to ensure that the uses on the land are arranged to provide for compatibility of uses, to provide environmental protection and to avoid adverse impacts on surrounding properties and facilities. Innovative design is encouraged. Special care is taken in the approval of R5 developments to ensure that necessary facilities, roads and improvements are available or provided to support the R5 development. Residential recreational community developments shall only be approved in conformance with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. § 165-75. Rezoning procedure. [Amended 8-9-20001 In order to have land rezoned to the R5 Residential Recreation Community District, a master development plan, meeting all requirements of Article XVIII of this chapter, shall be submitted with the rezoning application. The rezoning shall be reviewed and approved following the rezoning procedures described by this chapter, including procedures for impact analysis and conditional 16605 10-25-2001 § 165-75 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-76 zoning. In adopting the rezoning, the master development plan submitted may be accepted as a condition proffered for the rezoning. The master plan review procedures described by Article XVIII must also be completed concurrently with or following the consideration of the rezoning. A. Impact analysis. Impact analysis, as required by this chapter, shall be used to evaluate all potential impacts, including impacts on surrounding lands, the environment and on public facilities and services. B. Land dedication. Land shall be dedicated in residential recreational community developments for public roads and public facilities necessary to serve the development as described by the Comprehensive Plan, the Capital Improvements Program and adopted road improvement programs. C. Addition of land. The Board of Supervisors may approve the addition of land to an approved recreational residential community through the procedures set forth in this chapter for the original approval of a residential recreational community development. § 165-76. Permitted uses. [Amended 8-9-20001 The following uses are allowed in the R5 Residential Recreational Community District: A. All uses allowed in the RP Residential Performance District. B. Age -restricted communities. C. All uses allowed in the B-1 Neighborhood Business District except for the following: (1) Car washes. (2) Funeral homes and crematories. D. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. E. Preserves and conservation areas. F. Restaurants. G. Hotels and lodges. H. Boat clubs and service areas. 16606 10-25-2001 § 165-76 ZONING § 165-77 I. Service stations. J_ Private campgrounds. K. Heliports or air strips. L. Recreational vehicle storage. M_ General business offices. N. General merchandise store. O. Home furnishing store. P. Public sewer and water facilities and lines. O. Waste recovery and recycling facility. R. Movie theater. § 165-77. Design requirements. [Amended 8-9-20001 A. Minimum size. No residential recreational community master development plan nor rezoning to the Residential Recreational Community District shall be approved for less than 500 contiguous acres. B. Dimensional requirements. (1) Areas shall be specifically designated for each different use on the master development plan. Within those areas, the uses shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements set forth for those uses in the RP, B1 and B2. (2) In age -restricted communities, garden apartments and townhouses may be approved with alternative dimensional requirements as described in this subsection. (a) The alternative dimensional requirements for garden apartments shall be as follows: [11 Front setback: [a] Thirty-five feet from road right-of-way of public roads, greenways and neighborhood collectors. [b] Twenty feet from road right-of-way of local streets and from parking areas and driveways. 16607 9-1-2000 165-77 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-77 [2] Side: 50 feet from perimeter boundary. [3] Rear: 50 feet from perimeter boundary_ [4] Minimum on-site building spacing shall be as follows: [a] Two-story buildings: [i] Thirty feet front and side. [ii] Fifty feet rear. [b] Three- and four-story buildings: [i] Forty feet side. [ii] Fifty feet front and rear. [5] Maximum building height. [a] Maximum building height for principal structures shall be 65 feet. [b] Maximum building height for accessory structures shall be 20 feet. [6] One and one-half parking spaces shall be provided for each one -bedroom unit, and two parking spaces shall be provided for each two-bedroom unit. (b) The alternative dimensional requirements for townhouses shall be as follows: [1 ] Minimum lot area: 2,000 square feet. [2] Minimum lot width: 20 feet. [3] Front setback: [a] Thirty-five feet from road right-of-way of public roads and greenways. [b] Twenty feet from road right-of-way of neighborhood collectors, local streets and from parking areas and driveways. [4] Side: 30 feet from perimeter boundary. [5] Rear: 50 feet from perimeter boundary. [6] Minimum building spacing: 16608 9-1 -2000 165-77 ZONING § 165-77 (:'�"' f,Nr) [a] Thirty feet side. [b] Fifty feet front and rear. [71 Maximum building height. [a] Maximum building height for principal structures shall be 35 feet. [b] Maximum building height for accessory structures shall be 20 feet. [81 Two parking spaces shall be provided per unit. [9] Supplementary setbacks: [a] With the townhouse housing type, decks may extend five feet into rear yard setback areas. [b] Where the townhouse housing type abuts open space, decks may extend up to 12 feet into rear yard setback areas. [c] Front porches, stoops and steps may extend eight feet into front yard setback areas. (c) In age -restricted communities, the following landscaping alternative may be provided when utilizing the single-family small lot housing type that front on private streets: minimum landscape plantings, in addition to the required street trees, shall be three trees and 12 shrubs. Trees shall be a minimum of two inches in caliper at time of planting, and shrubs a minimum of 12 inches in height at time of planting. (d) Existing lots. The applicable dimensional requirements for the use shall apply to existing lots. However, the Zoning Administrator may allow reduced yard setback distances on existing lots of record currently zoned R5 District. The Zoning Administrator may also allow reduced yard setback distances on lots contained in previously approved master plans for R5 residential recreational communities. C. Residential density. The gross density for residences in the residential recreational community development shall not exceed 2.3 units per acre for the development as a whole_ 16608.1 s - 1 -2000 § 165-77 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-77 D_ Commercial areas. Not more than 6% of the gross area of a residential recreational community shall be used for commercial uses. Commercial uses shall be located in village centers designated on the approved master development plan. The Planning Commission may require the submission of a generalized development plan depicting the type and location of uses: access and circulation patterns within identified village centers. E. Vehicle storage areas shall not exceed eight acres in size, shall be screened from view of any public street or adjoining residential property by a category B buffer utilizing at a minimum a landscape screen and shall comply with the requirements of § 165-35A of this chapter. F. Open space. A minimum of 35% of the gross area of any proposed development shall be designated as common open space. This open space shall be for purposes of environmental protection and for the common use of residents of the development. No more than 50% of the required open space shall be within lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. The Planning Commission may allow a larger amount of steep slopes to be utilized where the developer can demonstrate a viable plan for the use of these areas. Where age -restricted communities are approved with private streets, a minimum of 45% of open space shall be required. G. Recreational facilities. One recreational unit or equivalent recreational facilities shall be provided for each 30 dwelling units. The facilities shall be in a configuration and location that is easily accessible to the dwelling units that they are designed to serve. The design and amount of facilities shall be approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the Director of Planning and the Department of Parks and Recreation. When the single-family small lot housing type is used, the requirements of § 165-64A, Recreational facilities, shall be met. H. Buffers and screening. Buffers and screening shall be provided between various uses and housing types as if the uses were located in the RP, B1 or B2 Zoning District according to the uses allowed in those districts. Buffers and screening shall be provided accordingly as specified in § 165-37 of this chapter. Road efficiency buffers shall be provided according to the requirements of that section. In addition, along the perimeter boundary of the Residential Recreational Community District, buffers and screens shall be provided in relation 16608.2 s - 1 -2000 § 165-77 ZONING § 165-77 to adjoining properties as if the uses in the planned community were located in the RP, B1 - and B2 Zoning Districts. The Planning Commission may allow alternative methods for achieving buffer and screening requirements and may waive the interior residential screening and road efficiency buffer requirements in age -restricted communities. 1. Sewer and water facilities. All residential recreational community developments shall be served by public sewer and water facilities owned by or dedicated to a public authority. J. Road access. All residential recreational community developments shall have direct access to an arterial or collector road or to roads improved to arterial or collector standards. K. Streets. The residential recreational community development shall be provided with a complete system of public streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road system shall conform with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan and with road improvement plans adopted by the county. (1) Within any portion of a residential recreational community which qualifies as an age -restricted community, the Planning Commission may allow for the installation of private streets, provided that all streets conform to the construction details and materials of the Virginia Department of Transportation Standards and that a program for the perpetual maintenance of all streets is provided which is acceptable to the Commission. (a) Three classes of private streets shall be permitted in age - restricted communities and shall be identified on a MDP as follows: Ill Greenways. All private streets with a projected ADT of over 3,000 shall have a minimum right-of-way of 50 feet and shall have no direct lot frontage. Greenways shall be lined on both sides with street trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at the time of planting, spaced not more than 50 feet apart. Along the portions of right-of- way which abut mature woodland, the Planning Director may waive the requirement for street trees_ The horizontal center line geometrics and vertical profile 16608.3 9-1 -2000 165-77 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE 5 165-77 design shall meet the VDOT criteria for subdivision streets with a design speed of 30 miles per hour (mph). [2] Neighborhood collectors. All private streets with a projected ADT of over 400 shall have a minimum right- of-way of 50 feet and may have lot frontage. Neighborhood collectors shall be lined on both sides with street trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at the time of planting, spaced not more than 50 feet apart. The horizontal center line geometrics and vertical profile design shall meet the VDOT criteria for subdivision streets with a design speed of 30 mph. [3] Local streets. All private streets with a projected ADT of 400 or less shall have a minimum right-of-way of 30 feet and may have lot frontage. Local streets shall be lined with street trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at the time of planting, spaced not more than 50 feet apart. The horizontal center line geometrics and vertical profile design shall meet the VDOT criteria for subdivision streets with a design speed of 20 mph. (b) The subdivision design plans and final subdivision plats for all lots contained within an age -restricted community that utilize private roads shall include the following language: The proposed private streets will not be maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the County of Frederick. The maintenance and improvement of said private streets shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of the lots within the age -restricted community which are provided access via the private streets. (2) Within R-5 residential recreation community developments approved prior to 1980, the Planning Commission may allow the extension of existing private roads if no other means of access is available. L. Curb and gutter. All public and private streets shall be provided with curb and gutter. M. Alternative access. A combined system of pedestrian and/or bicycle access, in the form of paved sidewalks, interior walkways or bike paths, shall be provided to allow walking or bicycling between every 16608.4 9 -1- 2000 § 165-77 ZONING § 165-77 use, structure or recreational facility. Such access shall be connected with existing travelways adjacent to the residential recreational community development. In age -restricted communities, at the time of master development plan approval, the Planning Commission may allow local streets without sidewalks to be used and incorporated into the system of pedestrian and bicycle access. The type and nature of trails to be used shall be identified, detailed and approved on the master development plan. N. Stormwater management. The requirements of § 165-32 of this chapter shall apply to the total residential recreational community development. O. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be in conformance with an overall landscaping plan or unifying concept for the development. P. Phasing. If a Residential Recreational Community District is proposed to be developed in phases, common open space shall be provided within each phase in proportion to the fraction of the total area of the development in each phase. Recreational facilities shall be provided with each phase in proportion to the fraction of the total dwelling units in each phase. Essential street entrances to the planned residential community shall be provided with the appropriate phases of the development as scheduled on the approved master development plan. Q. Property owners' association. A single property owners' association shall be provided for all phases of a recreational community development according to the requirements of § 165-34 of this chapter. R. Environmental protection. Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors may allow waivers of, or variations to, the environmental requirements of § 165-31 of this chapter in residential recreational communities. Such waivers shall be shown on the master development plan. In such cases, the environmental features and their function shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible. S. Other regulations. The residential recreational community development shall conform with all regulations of this chapter and the Frederick County Code unless specifically exempted by this article. 16608.5 9-1-2000 § 165-155 ZONING § 165-155 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. Variances shall be granted to alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation. Variances shall not be granted to provide a special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant. A variance shall not be granted when the condition being alleviated is of a recurring nature so that the condition could better be alleviated by a zoning amendment. (3) When the granting of the variance will maintain the intent of this chapter. (4) Variances shall be granted to alleviate the following types of conditions: (a) Narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of a specific piece of property. (b) Exceptional topographic conditions. (c) Extraordinary conditions concerning the use of adjacent properties. (d) Other extraordinary conditions of the specific parcel of land. 0-X -�(5) Variances shall only be authorized if the Board finds the following: (a) That the strict application of this chapter would produce undue hardship as described above. (b) That such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. (c) That the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by granting the variance. (6) No variance shall be granted for any proposed use, development or activity in the Floodway District that will cause any increase in flood levels during the one -hundred -year flood. (7) When considering a variance application located within the floodplain districts, additional factors contained in Article XV, § 1.65-121, must be followed. [Added 8-12-19921 D. Procedures. Applications for variances shall be made to the Zoning Administrator in accordance with rules adopted by the Zoning 16685 10-25-2001 • 0 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM Frederick County Planning Commission Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II P , Public Hearing - Proposal to add SIC 83 - Social Services, excluding SIC 836, Residential Care, to list of allowed uses for the B2 (Business, General) Zoning District March 20, 2003 Upon request by a local resident, the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) recently considered adding SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) 83 - Social Services to the list of allowed uses in the B2 (Business, General) District and the MS (Medical Support) District. After review and discussion, the DRRS felt that all of the uses within SIC 83 - Social Services, excluding those listed under SIC 836 - Residential Care, would be appropriate uses within the B2 Zoning District. The DRRS did not support adding these uses to the MS (Medical Support) Zoning District. Therefore, the DRRS recommended that SIC 83 - Social Services, excluding SIC 836 - Residential Care, be added to the list of allowed uses for the B2 (Business, General) Zoning District. If approved by the Board of Supervisors as recommended, the following would be added to the list of allowed uses within the B2 District: Allowed Uses SIC Social Services, except for the following: 83 Residential Care 836 SIC 83 - Social Services, excluding SIC 836 - Residential Care, includes the following types of businesses: • Individual and Family Social Services (i.e. youth centers & marriage counseling services) • Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services (i.e. job counseling & skill training centers) • Child Day Care Services (i.e. child care centers and preschool centers) • Social Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (i.e. advocacy groups & health systems agencies) A public hearing is scheduled for your consideration of the proposed ordinance amendment during the April 2, 2003 Planning Commission McPrina A rPrnmmPnraat;nn to he forwarded to the Rnard of a• Supervisors would be appropriate. A copy of SIC 83 and the current list of allowed uses within the 132 District is attached for your reference. JFC/ERL/cih Attachments U:\COMMITTEES\DRRS\Projects\2003\SIC 83\PCPublidicariny.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 § 165-82 ZONING § 165-82 1.1 Allowed Uses Funeral homes and crematories Car washes Videotape rental Medical offices Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 726 7542 784 801, 802, 803 and 804 Child day-care services 835 Civic, social and fraternal organizations 864 Public buildings — Public utility distribution facilities — Business signs — Directional signs — Residential uses which are accessory to allowed business uses — Parks — Churches — Restaurants [Added 12-9-19921 5812 Art dealers, art supplies and art framing — [Added 4-26-19951 Fire stations, companies and rescue squads — [Added 10-27-19991 Tobacco stores [Added 1-10-20011 5993 Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services [Added 1-10-2001 [Amended 8-8-1990; 6-11-1991; 6-8-1994; 7-10-1996; 2-26-1997; 8-13-19971 B2 Business General District. The intent of this district is to provide large areas for a varie y of business, office and scn,ice uses. 16613 7-20-2001 § 165-82 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-82 General business areas are located on arterial highways at major intersections and at interchange areas. Businesses allowed involve frequent and direct access by the general public but not heavy truck traffic on a constant basis other than that required for delivery of retail goods. General business areas should have direct access to major thoroughfares and should be properly separated from residential areas. Adequate frontage and depth should be provided, and access should be properly controlled to promote safety and orderly development. Nuisance factors are to be avoided. (1) Allowed uses shall be as follows: 16614 7-20-2001 Standard Industrial Classification Allowed Uses (SIC) Veterinary offices with all activities 074 and animals kept within the fully enclosed primary structure Animal speciality services, except veterinary, 0752 with all activities and animals kept within the fully enclosed primary structure (Added 1-10-20011 Communication facilities and offices, 48 including telephone, telegraph, radio, television and other communications Electric, gas and other utility 49 facilities and offices, excluding the following: Sanitary services 495 Paint, glass and wallpaper stores 523 Hardware stores 525 Retail nurseries and lawn and garden 526 supply stores General merchandise stores 53 Food stores 54 16614 7-20-2001 § 165-82 ZONING § 165-82 Standard Industrial Classification Allowed Uses (SIC) Automotive dealers and gasoline service 55 stations 704 Apparel and accessory stores 56 Home furniture, furnishings and 57 equipment stores 7218 Restaurants 58 Miscellaneous retail, except for 59 the following: 735 Fuel dealers 598 Finance, insurance and real estate offices Hotels and motels 701 Organization hotels and lodging 704 Personal services, including laundry and 72 funeral services, excluding the following: Industrial launderers 7218 Business services, excluding 73 the following: Miscellaneous equipment rental 735 Car washes 7542 Miscellaneous repair services 76 Motion picture theaters, except drive-in 7832 Videotape rental 784 Amusement and recreation services 79 operated indoors Golf driving ranges and miniature golf 7999 courses 16615 2-10-2001 § 165-82 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-82 16616 2-10-2001 Standard Industrial Classification Allowed Uses (SIC) Health services 80 Legal services 81 Child day-care facilities 8351 Membership organizations 86 Engineering, accounting, research, 87 management and related services General business offices - Model home sales offices - Self-service storage facilities - Public buildings - Public utility distribution facilities - Business signs - Directional signs - Building entrance signs - Residential uses which are accessory to - allowed business uses Parks - Churches - Libraries - Electrical supplies 506 Hardware and plumbing and heating 507 equipment Commercial batting cages operated outdoors - Adult care residences and assisted living - care facilities Fiex-1 Tech - 16616 2-10-2001 § 165-82 ZONING § 165-82 Standard Industrial Classification Allowed Uses (SIC) Fire stations, companies and rescue squads – [Added 10-27-19991 Advertising specialties – wholesale 5199 [Added 5-10-2000] Commercial sport and recreation clubs — [Added 10-25-20001 (2) Uses permitted with a conditional use permit shall be as follows: (a) Such uses shall be located at least 2,500 feet from the property line of existing adult retail uses, schools, churches, parks, day-care facilities and residential uses and districts. (b) Such uses shall not be permitted in shopping centers and/or multi -tenant buildings. (c) All merchandise display areas shall be limited to enclosed structures and shall not be visible from the outside. (d) Business signs shall not exceed a maximum of 25 square feet. No wall - mounted signs or window displays shall he permitted_ 16617 2-10-2001 Standard Industrial Classification Conditional Uses (SIC) Adult retail uses meeting the minimum requirements of this chapter, any conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors, and with the following minimum conditions: (a) Such uses shall be located at least 2,500 feet from the property line of existing adult retail uses, schools, churches, parks, day-care facilities and residential uses and districts. (b) Such uses shall not be permitted in shopping centers and/or multi -tenant buildings. (c) All merchandise display areas shall be limited to enclosed structures and shall not be visible from the outside. (d) Business signs shall not exceed a maximum of 25 square feet. No wall - mounted signs or window displays shall he permitted_ 16617 2-10-2001 § 165-82 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-82 Standard Industrial Classification Conditional Uses (SIC) (e) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. C. B3 Industrial Transition District_ The intent of this district is to provide for heavy commercial activities, involving larger scale marketing or wholesaling, in locations that are separate from but in the vicinity of business and industrial areas. In some cases, such areas may be transitional, located between business and industrial areas. In these areas, there will be a mixture of automobile and truck traffic. Some of the uses in this district will require large areas of land and may have outdoor storage and display. It is intended that the uses in this district shall not be sources of noise, dust, smoke or other nuisances. Such industrial transition areas shall be provided with safe and sufficient access. Standard Industrial Classification Allowed Uses (SIC) Veterinary services with all activities and 074 animals kept within the fully enclosed primary structure [Amended 1-10-20011 Animal speciality services, except 752 veterinary, with all activities and animals kept within the fully enclosed primary structure [Added 1-10-20011 Landscape and horticultural services 078 Offices and storage facilities for 15, 16 and building construction contractors, 17 heavy construction contractors and special trade contractors Commercial printing 275 16618 2-10-2001 394 Major Group 83.—SOCIAL SERVICES The Major Group as a Whole This major group includes establishments providing social services and rehabilitation services to those persons with social or personal problems requiring special services and to the handicapped and the disadvantaged. Also included are organizations soliciting funds to be used directly for these and related services. Establishments primarily engaged in provid- ing health services are classified in Major Group 80; those providing legal services are classi- fied in Industry 8111; and those providing educational services are classified in Major Group 82. Industry Group Industry No. No. 832 INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES 8322 Individual and Family Social Services Establishments primarily engaged in providing one or more of a wide varie- ty of individual and family social, counseling, welfare, or referral services, in- cluding refugee, disaster, and temporary relief services. This industry includes offices of specialists providing counseling, referral, and other social services. Government offices directly concerned with the delivery of social services to individuals and families, such as issuing of welfare aid, rent supplements, food stamps, and eligibility casework, are included here, but central office adminis- tration of these program is classified in Public Administration, Industry 9441. Social Security offices are also classified in Public Administration, Industry 9441. Establishments primarily engaged in providing vocational rehabilitation or counseling are classified in Industry 8331; and fraternal, civic, and social associations are classified in Industry 8641. Activity centers, elderly or handi- capped Adoption services Adult day care centers Aid to families with dependent children (AFDC) Alcoholism counseling, nonresidential: except medical treatment Centers for senior citizens Child guidance agencies Community centers Counseling centers Crisis centers Crisis intervention centers Day care centers. adult and handi- capped Disaster services Emergency shelters Family counseling services Family location services Family service agencies Helping hand services Homemaker's service, primarily non- medical Hotlines Marriage counseling services Meal delivery programs Multiservice centers, neighborhood Neighborhood centers Offender rehabilitation agencies Offender self-help agencies Old age assistance Outreach programs Parole offices Probation offices Public welfare centers, offices of Referral services for personal and social problems Refugee services Relief services, temporary Self-help organizations for alcoholics and gamblers Senior citizens associations Service leagues Settlement houses Social service centers Telephone counseling service Traveler's aid centers Youth centers Youth self-help organizations SERVICES 39.5 lodnatry Croup industry 333e No. JOB TRAINING AND VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES 8331 Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services Establishments primarily engaged in providing manpower training and vo- cational rehabilitation and habilitation services for the unemployed, the un- deremployed, the handicapped, and to persons who have a job market disad- vantage because of lack of education, job skill or experience. Included are up- grading and job -development services, skill training, world -of -work orientation, and vocational rehabilitation counseling. This industry includes offices of spe- cialists providing rehabilitation and job counseling. Also included are estab- lishments primarily engaged in providing work experience for rehabilitees. community service employment train- Sheltered workshops i Pratps Skill training centers Job counseling Vocational rehabilitation agencies Job training Vocational rehabilitation counseling Manpower training Vocational training agencies, except Rehabilitation counseling and training, schools vocational Work experience centers .835 CHILD DAY CARE SERVICES 8351 Child Day Care Services Establishments primarily engaged in the care of infants or children, or in providing prekindergarten education, where medical care or delinquency cor- rection is not a major element. These establishments may or may not have substantial educational programs. These establishments generally care for prekindergarten or preschool children, but may care for older children when they are not in school. Establishments providing babysitting services are clas- sified in Industry 7299. Head Start centers operating in conjunction with ele- mentary schools are classified in Industry 8211. Child care centers Nursery wools Day can centers, child Preschool centers Group day can centers, child Head Start centers, except in conjunc- tion with schools 836 RESIDENTIAL CARE 8361 Residential Care Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of residential social and personal care for children, the aged, and special categories of persons with some limits on ability for self-care, but where medical care is not a major ele- ment. Included are establishments providing 24-hour year-round care for chil- dren- Boarding schools providing elementary and secondary education are classified in Industry 8211. Establishments primarily engaged in providing nursing and health-related personal care are classified in Industry Group 805. Alcoholism rehabilitation centers, resi- dential: with health care incidental Boys' towns Children's boarding homes Children's homes Children's villages Drug rehabilitation centers, residential. with health cam incidental Group foster homes Halfway group homes for persons with social or personal problems Halfway homes for delinquents and of, ienders Homes for children, with health care incidental Homes for destitute men and women Homes for the aged, with health care incidental Homes for the dear or blind, with health rare incidental Homes for the emotionally disturbed, with health care incidental Homes for the mentally handicapped. with health care incidental Homes for the physically handicapped, with health care incidental P 396 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION Industry Group Industry No. No. 836 RESIDENTIAL CARE—Con. 8361 Residential Care—Con. Juvenile correctional homes Old soldiers' homes Orphanages Rehabilitation centers, residential: with health care incidental Rest homes, with health care incidental Self-help group homes for persons with social or personal problems Training schools for delinquents 839 SOCIAL SERVICES, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 8399 Social Services, Not Elsewhere Classified Establishments primarily engaged in providing social services, not ehe- where classified, including establishments primarily engaged in community improvement and social change. Organizations primarily engaged in soliciting contributions on their own account and administering appropriations and allo- eating funds among other agencies engaged in social welfare services are also included, but foundations and philanthropic trusts are classified in Finance, Industry 6732. Civic, social, and fraternal organizations are classified in Indus- try 8641; political organizations are classified in Industry 8651; and establish- ments which raise funds on a contract basis are classified in Industry 7389. Advocacy groups Antipoverty boards Community action agencies Community chests Community development groups Councils for social agencies, exceptional children, and poverty Fundraising organizations, except on a contract or fee basis Health and welfare councils Health systems agencies Regional planning organizations, for social services Social change associations Social service information exchange& e.g., alcoholism, drug addiction United fund councils • U COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner 1I x RE: Public Hearing - Proposed Amendments to Section 165-27 E, Parking Lots; 165-31, Protection of Environmental Features; 165-36, Landscaping; and 165-156, Definitions. DATE: March 19, 2003 On February 26, 2003, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission for consideration of the proposed amendments referenced above. These amendments were prepared by the Frederick County Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) over a period of several months with input from local citizens, businesses, and organizations. Only minor changes have been made to the proposed amendments since staff presented them to the Planning Commission on December 18, 2002. If approved, the proposed amendments will replace the current woodland regulations of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with new landscaping standards. The primary goals that the amendments are intended to achieve are: 1) to eliminate the need for future woodland disturbance waivers without jeopardizing environmental preservation; 2) to improve the landscaping standards of Frederick County; and 3) to create a concise ordinance that encourages creative development practices. A public hearing is scheduled for the consideration of these proposed amendments during the April 2, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting. Please find attached copies of the proposed ordinances; as well as copies of the current and modified (showing changes) ordinances. In addition, a letter of support from the Top of Virginia Builders Association is attached. Feel free to contact me before the public hearing if you have any questions. JFC/ERL/cih U:ICOMM/77'EESIDRRSIProjectsl20031Woodlands DislurbanceIPCPublicHearingA4emo_Project Woodlands. ivpd 107 North Kent Street s Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 r�. I. PROPOSED ORDINANCES a) 165-27 E. (11) b) 165-31 C) 165-36 d) 165-156 II. MODIFIED ORDINANCES (SHOWS CHANGES) a) 165-27 E. (11) b) 165-31 C) 165-36 d) 165-156 III. CURRENT ORDINANCES a) 165-27 E. (11) b) 165-31 C) 165-36 d) 165-156 IV. OTHER ATTACHMENTS a) Letter - Top of Virginia Building Association Rte.. �. PROPOSED ORDINANCE: § 165-27 E. (11) Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the B 1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the B3 Industrial Transition District, the M1 Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District shall be landscaped to reduce the visual impact of glare and headlights on adjoining properties and rights-of-way. Parking lots shall be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat. Landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the visual expansiveness of parking lots. Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots as follows: (a) Perimeter landscaping. The perimeter of all impervious areas shall be landscaped with shade trees and other landscaping. One (1) tree shall be provided for every 2,000 square feet of impervious area for the first 100,000 square feet of the entire site. One (1) tree shall be provided for every 5,000 square feet of impervious area over 100,000 square feet ofthe entire site. Self-service storage facilities shall provide one (1) tree per 10,000 square feet of impervious area of the entire site, in addition to the trees required in Section 165-44, Self- service storage facilities. The majority of these trees shall be located around parking lots. A three -foot -high evergreen hedge, fence, berm, or wall shall be provided to prevent headlights from shining on public rights-of-way and adjoining properties. All perimeter landscaping shall comply with the requirements of Section 165-36 C, Plant Selection, Planting Procedure, and Maintenance. (b) Interior landscaping. A minimum of 5% of the interior portions of parking lots shall be landscaped for the purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior landscaping shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous raised strips extending the length of a parking bay. Within the parking lot, raised islands and landscaped areas should be uses to delineate traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns. No less than one (1) shade tree shall be provided in the interior of the parking lot for each ten (10) parking spaces. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for interior landscaping for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and gutter is not proposed. The Zoning Administrator may approve alternative locations for interior landscaping for parking lots used for truck parking, as well as other parking lots, when it would improve the overall quality of the landscape plan. All interior landscaping shall comply with the requirements of Section 165-36 C, Plant Selection, Planting Procedure, and Maintenance. PROPOSED ORDINANCE: § 165-31. Protection of environmental features. In order to protect those areas of a parcel which have environmental characteristics that make them unsuitable for development, certain portions of a development shall remain undisturbed or be protected. It is the intention of this section that the large portions of the areas with such environmental characteristics be placed in open space, environmental easements, the portion of the parcel left undivided or other areas where they will remain undisturbed. It is intended that the environmental conditions on a property be reviewed as the first step in the planning process before lots or dwellings are located. A. The requirements of this section shall apply to land in the following districts: RP Residential Performance District R4 Residential Planned Community District R5 Residential Recreational Community District MH 1 Mobile Home Community District BI Neighborhood Business District B2 Business General District B3 Industrial Transition District M1 Light Industrial District M2 Industrial General District HE Higher Education District RA Rural Areas District MS Medical Support District B. All developments which require a master development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or preliminary sketch plan shall preserve the following environmental features as described: (1) Floodplains. Disturbance of floodplains is only permitted in accordance with the requirements of Article XV, FP Floodplain Districts. (2) Lakes, Ponds and Impoundments Lakes, ponds, and impoundments shall remain undisturbed. The Zoning Administrator may allow the removal of a lake, pond, or impoundment if it serves no useful retention, environmental, or recreational purposes. (3) Wetlands, Natural Waterways and Riparian Buffers Disturbance of wetlands is only permitted in accordance with the requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified state or federal agency. The disturbance of natural waterways and riparian buffers is prohibited, except when necessary for public utilities, public facilities, or roads. (4) Sinkholes. No disturbance of sinkholes is allowed other than filling with non- polluting natural materials that will not contribute to groundwater pollution. (5) Steep slopes. No more than 25% of steep slopes, as defined, shall be disturbed or regraded. The Zoning Administrator may allow the disturbance of addition small areas where the disturbance will alleviate potential health or safety problems and will not significantly denigrate the overall environmental quality of the site. The Planning Commission may allow the disturbance of larger areas of steep slopes. C. In residential developments, the areas of undisturbed environmental features described in Section 165-31 B, shall be located in areas of open space. However, the Planning Commission, may allow undisturbed areas to be included in the required setback and yard areas on residential lots when the extent, location, and disturbance of environmental areas make it impractical to place the undisturbed areas in common open space. In such circumstances, environmental easements, deeds of dedication, final subdivision plats, or other legal instruments approved by the Zoning Administrator shall be required to specify the restrictions to be placed on the environmental areas. D. In rural preservation subdivisions, the environmental features described in Section 165- 31B, along with agricultural or locally significant soils, shall be placed within the forty percent parcel, without undue detriment to other principles of quality subdivision design or significant loss of density, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. E. In commercial and industrial developments, the areas of undisturbed environmental features described in Section 165-31 B, shall be located in areas of open space environmental easements, deeds of dedication, final subdivision plats, or other lege instruments approved by the Zoning Administrator which specify the restrictions to be placed on the environmental areas. [This space intentionally left blank] PROPOSED ORDINANCE: § 165-36. Landscaping Requirements. The requirements of this section are intended to enhance the appearance, environment, and general welfare of the citizens ofFrederick County by providing minimum landscaping standards and encouraging tree preservation for residential developments. A. Residential Developments. Residential Developments which require a master development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or preliminary subdivision sketch plan shall provide at least one (1) of the three (3) types of landscaping identified below. (1) Street Tree Landscaping. Street Tree Landscaping shall require one (1) street tree for every forty (40) feet of street frontage in a residential development, with the exception of frontage on roads which require a road efficiency buffer. Street trees shall be planted no more than (20) feet from right-of-ways. Planting street trees on the property lines of building lots should be avoided. Two (2) or more street trees shall be planted on each building lot. The Zoning Administrator may allow fewer than two (2) street trees for individual building lot if topographical features, utilities, easements, or the width of the lot makes it impractical to do so. All street trees shall comply with the requirements of Section 165-36 B, with the exception that street trees must be at least 2 %" caliper at the time of planting. (2) Ornamental Landscaping. Ornamental landscaping shall be provided for residential developments based on the following index and matrix: Index of Lot Types: A: Major Rural Subdivision Lot B: Rural Preservation Subdivision Lot C: Single Family Detached Rural Traditional D: Single Family Detached Traditional E: Single Family Detached Urban F: Single Family Detached Cluster G: Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line H: Single Family Small Lot l: Duplex J: Multiplex K: Atrium House L: Weak -Link Townhouse M: Townhouse N: Garden Apartment Required Landscaping Per Dwelling Unit: Lot Type Ornamental Shrubs Ornamental Trees A none 10 per 1 unit B none 10 per 1 unit C none 10 per 1 unit D 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit E 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit F 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit G 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit H 15 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit I 15 per 1 unit* 5 per 1 unit* J 3 per 3 units* 1 per 3 units* K 3 per 4 units* 1 per 4 units* L 6 per 5 units* 2 per 5 units* M 6 per 5 units* 2 per 5 units* N 3 per 2 units* 1 per 2 units* Ornamental trees & shrubs shall comply with the requirements of Section 165-36 B. The Zoning Administrator may allow some of the required ornamental trees and ornamental shrubs to be planted in areas of common open space so long as the intent of this section is met. * required ornamental landscaping is in addition to landscaping required for parking lots (3) Tree Preservation Landscaping_ An area with a tree canopy coverage, of at least 25% of the entire site area, shall be preserved within dedicated open space. In no case shall individual building lots be located within the open space. Canopy coverage shall be calculated from the cumulative total of existing tree canopies. Preserved trees shall be clustered together to maintain a contiguous canopy; and shall be protected from construction activity. These areas of open space may be counted towards the total required open space, as specified in Section 165-63. Residential developments which are not required to have open space by Section 165-63 are not exempt from creating open space for the required canopy coverage. The calculation of tree canopy shall be based on either the individual tree standards of the "Manual of Woody Landscape Plants", written by Michael A. Dirr, or through a comprehensive analysis of existing tree drip lines, conducted by a Virginia certified engineer, land surveyor, or landscape architect. B. Plant Selection, Planting Procedure, and Maintenance. (1) Plant Selection. Based on the type of landscaping, required trees and shrubs shall be selected from the list of acceptable trees & shrubs shown below. Types of Landscaping Street Tree Landscaping (Street) Ornamental Landscaping (Ornamental) Tree Preservation Landscaping (Canopy) Interior & Perimeter Landscaping (Shade) [Screening (Screen) Acceptable Trees & Shrubs Common Name Scientific Name Types of Landscaping Permitted Dawn Redwood Metasequoia Street, Canopy glyptostroboides Bald Cypress Taxodium Street, Canopy distichum London Plane Tree Platanus acerifolia Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Red Oak Quercus borealis, Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Quercus rubra White Oak Quercus alba, Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Quercus bicolor Common Name Scientific Name Type of Landscaping Permitted I,acebark Elm Ulmus parvifolia Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Ginkgo (male) Ginkgo biloba Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Thornless Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Japanese Pagoda Tree Sophora japonica Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Red Maple Acer rubrum Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Freeman Maple Acer freemanii Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvania Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Silver Linden Tilia tomentosa Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Japanese Elm Zelkova serrata Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Yellowwood Cladrastis kentukea Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Katsura Tree Cercidiphyllum japonicum Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Dogwood Cornus florida, Cornus kousa, Cornus hybrid Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Sycamore Platanus occidentallis Ornamental, Canopy Willow Oak Quercus phellos Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Pin Oak Quercus palustris Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Sweet Gum Liquidambar styraciflua Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Japanese Maple Acer palmatum Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Amur Maple Acer ginnala Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Paperbark Maple Acer griseum Ornamental, Shade, Canopy White Birch Betula platyphylla Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Common Name Scientific Name Tvne of Landscaning Permitted River Birch Betula nigra Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Copper Beech Fagus atropuniciea Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Weeping Beech Fagus pendula Ornamental, Shade, Canopy European Beech Fagus sylvatica Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Golden -Rain Tree Koelreuteria paniculata Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Flowering Cherry Prunus (all varieties) Ornamental, Shade, Canopy European Hornbeam Carpinus betulus Ornamental, Shade, Canopy American Plum Prunus americana Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Flowering Pear Pyrus calleryana Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Flowering Crabapple Malus (all varieties) Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Washington Hawthorn Crataegus plaenopyrum Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Downy Serviceberry Amelanchier arborea Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Star Magnolia Magnolia stellata Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Saucer Magnolia Magnolia x soulangiana Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Ornamental, Screen, Canopy White Fir Abies concolor Ornamental, Screen, Canopy Spruce Picea (all varieties) Ornamental, Screen, Canopy Japanese Umbrella Pine Sciadopitys verticillata Ornamental, Screen, Canopy Canadian Hemlock Tsuga canadensis Ornamental, Screen, Canopy Cnmmnn Name Scientific Name Type of Landscaping Permitted Holly Ilex opaca Ornamental, Screen, Canopy Boxwood Ilex x `Nellie R. Ornamental, Screen Juniper Stevens' Ornamental, Screen Hinoki False Chamaecyparis Ornamental, Screen, Canopy Cypress obtusa Ornamental White Pine Pinus strobus Screen, Canopy Western Arborvitae Thuja plicata Screen, Canopy Dark American Thuja occidentalis Screen, Canopy Arborvitae nigra and emerald Ornamental Leyland Cypress Cupressocyparis x Screen, Canopy Forsythia leylandi Ornamental English Yew Japanese Yew Azalea Taxus baccata Taxus cuspidate (all varieties) Ornamental, Screen Ornamental, Screen Ornamental, Screen Chinese Holly Ilex cornuta Ornamental, Screen Boxwood Buxus (all varieties) Ornamental, Screen Juniper Juniperus (all varieties) Ornamental, Screen Rhododendron (all varieties) Ornamental, Screen Cotoneaster (all varieties) Ornamental Spirea (all varieties) Ornamental Weiglea (all varieties) Ornamental Itea (all varieties) Ornamental Aronia (all varieties) Ornamental Clethra (all varieties) Ornamental Forsythia (all varieties) Ornamental Viburnum (all varieties) Ornamental Winged Euonymus (all varieties) I Ornamental (2) Planting Procedure. All required trees and shrubs shall meet the specifications of the American Association ofNurserymen. All trees shall be planted no closer than (3) feet from the edge of sidewalks, curb, or other pavement. Deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two (2) inch caliper at the time of planting. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in height at the time ofplanting. Shrubs shall be a minimum three -gallon container at the time of planting. (3) Maintenance. The owner, developer, and/or builder whom is responsible for planting required landscaping shall be responsible for maintaining it in a state of good health for one year after planting. After one year, from the date occupancy is approved, the individual property owner and/or homeowner's association shall become responsible for maintenance. As long as the intent of this section is met, the Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for landscaping on individual building lots when a hazard or nuisance exists. C. Existing Tree Credits. If the intent of Section 165-36 is satisfied, including species type and location, existing trees that are preserved may be counted towards the total number of required trees for residential developments. Commercial & industrial developments may utilize existing tree credits when calculating the required number of parking lot trees, as required in Section 165-27 E. (11), if the preserved trees are shown on an approved site pian and serve the intent of interior and perimeter landscaping. The following table shows the credit given for each preserved tree, based on the tree's caliper: Caliner TrPP ('rPriit 491 - 611 1 7" - 12" 2 13" - 18" 3 19" - 29" 4 >30" 5 D. Enforcement Procedures. The Zoning Administrator may require a bond with surety or other acceptable guaranties to insure the completion of required improvements. Such guaranties shall be in the estimated amount of the required improvements. Such guaranties shall be for a period of completion set by the Zoning Administrator with consultation with the applicant. Such guaranties shall be released when the required improvements have been completed. PROPOSER ORDINANCE: § 165-156. Definitions. Agricultural (or Locally Significant) Soils - A group of soils identified as prime farmland by the Sol I Survey of Frederick County Virginia, prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture. Caliper - The diameter of a tree as defined by the American Association of Nurserymen. Channel Scarline - The sloping margin of, or the ground bordering, a stream and serving to confine the water to the natural channel during the normal course of flow. It is best marked where a distinct channel has been eroded to the valley floor or where there is a cessation of land vegetation. Impervious Area - Any area, generally paved or graveled, with a surface that prevents, or significantly reduces, absorption of stormwater into the ground. When calculating impervious area for landscaping purposes, retention and detention basins, dry wells, sidewalks, display areas, dumpster pads, and structures shall be excluded. Natural Waterway - Creeks, Streams, Runs, or other annual or perennial waterways identified on United States Geological Survey, Commonwealth of Virginia or Frederick County maps. Riparian Buffer - An area of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation that permits inundation by water and is at least thirty-five feet in width, measured outward from both sides of a natural waterway beginning along the slope of the ground from the channel scar line. A riparian buffer is managed to maintain the integrity of stream channels and reduce the effect of upland sources of pollution by trapping, filtering, and converting sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals. Steep Slopes - Land areas where the slope exceeds 50%. Wetlands - Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, and that is subject to a perpetual easement permitting inundation by water. LEGEND • Language removed is shown in strikeout. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: Language proposed is shaded. § 1.65-27 E. (11). Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the MH 1 Mobile Home Community District, the B 1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the B3 Industrial Transition District, the M1 Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District shall be landscaped to reduce the visual impact of glare and headlights on adjoining properties and rights-of-way. Parking lots shall be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat. Landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the visual expansiveness of parking lots. Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots as follows: (a) Perimeter landscaping. , shall b planted with shade trees and other landseaping. A t�ffee-fbot high evergreen hedge, Fence; berm or wall shall be provided as tteeessary to preveitt headlights fi�ofn shiftitig ott publie rights of -way and adjoitting properties. A fninimum of one shade tree f6f eieef:y 40 feet o par -king 4ot perimeter sha4l be provided. All shade trees s4tall have a minimum two ea4iper at the time ofplanting. A4ditiaital trees may be required to properly shade the let. Tho peritnefter of all ftnpenrfansarms shall be lawlscaped, with shy trees and other 1a� apin .. Onc (I) tree ,,.hall be prpAdcd R* y 2,0M squwo feet of im Tvioixs �a for the fu-st 100,000 ware: feet of the entire site. One (1) tree shall be proved for every 5,.0 ; feet ofim pervious area ovez 100,0W1arefedofthe,entire site. Self-service storage Wl'ities shat provide o (1) trey. per MOW square sof impervious area of the entike ske, in addition to the tri d, in Section 165 4, Self-service stere facile. i be ma oriiy ofthese trees shall -be incated around parking lasts. A ti•wee-foot-high evergreen hed*e, fence, bean, ar wall shall bePro", ideal to pre ent lYeadliglits� I shi g .od b1ic rim -of -w -Ay -and a(goinia2g, properties All rerfr Her landscapin# s1mH c€ mply with the requirenients of Simon 16.5-36 C, Plant Selection, Planting Procne, and Maint�enance.. (b) Interior landscaping. A minimum of 5% of the interior portions of parking lots shall be landscaped for the purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior landscaping shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous raised strips extending the length of a parking bay. Within the parking lot, raised islands and landscaped areas should be uses to delineate traffic and pedestrian, circulation patterns. The 4tade trees provided shall be o fan appropriale type to ensure ha4ittg at-matttrity. No less than one (1) shade tree shall be provided in the interior of the parking lot for each ten (10) parking spaces. All .hale tfee. shall have The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for interior landscaping for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and gutter is not proposed. Tbe Zoning AdwjnWrAormay approve altemative loc4ons for fataior landscaping for parking lots used for truce parking, as well as other parknig lots, when it wmM kuprove the overall quality of the landscape plan. All inter land .pit haU amply With &erequiris of Section 165-36 C, Plant Selection, Planting Procedure, and Maintenance. PROPOSED MODIFICATI®NS: § 165-31. Protection of environmental features. [Amended 12-11-1991] In order to protect those areas of a parcel which have environmental characteristics that make them unsuitable for development, certain portions of a development shall remain undisturbed or be protected. It is the intention of this section that the disturbance of such areas by the development process be limited. It is also the intention of this section that the large portions of the areas with such environmental characteristics be placed in open space, environmental easements, the portion of the parcel left undivided or other areas where they will remain undisturbed. It is intended that the environmental conditions on a property be reviewed as the first step in the planning process before lots or dwellings are located. A. The requirements of this section shall apply to land in the following zoning districts: RP Residential Performance District R4 Residential Planned Community District R5 Residential Recreational Community District MH1 Mobile Home Community District B I Neighborhood Business District B2 Business General District B3 Industrial Transition District Ml Light Industrial District M2 Industrial General District HE Higher Education District RA Rural Areas District IM Dft re.iq,�" e . t 4-.¢*. Floodplains. In genefal, no distttrbattee of fliiilains is allowed and no stfueture-s shall be eonstrdeted in floodplains. The Zoning Administfatof, w-ILl-I Hhe appfOVal Of the Platming Commission, may allow disturbanee of small afeas in the floodp-lain-ft)f puMoses of reereation, eonseffation, ufilities or ston-ftwater management. The Administrator may allow the eonstfuetion of reereational f�eilities or foads in the floodplain I (2) Lakes and ponds. Lakes, ponds and impoundments shall remain undisturbed. The Administrator may allow the removal of a lake, pond or impoundment if it ig4ft-wear state of repair, if it is tmsafe or if it serves no ttseful retenti nental o t reefeational puToses serve-, no usefulen *OhWW-jKU,- M) 7OW-P (3) Wetlands IMUffalWaW ays, and Riparian Buffers.. No aa-nee of wetlands is allowed, exeept thaf the Administrator may allow disttirbanee of small a-mas FO pttfposes of eonservation, reeirealion, utilities of roads. Disturbai.ice of wetlands is only perraittcd in accordance with the requireme ffffbf the United States Army Corps of Engineers or other nalfledstate or federal agency. The disturbance of natural waterways anl ripahan buffers is prohibited, except when necessary for -public utilifies, putlic facilities or roads, (4) Sinkholes. No disturbance of sinkholes is allowed other than filling with flatufal matefials. No sttbstanees of ohjeets, other than natufal fill materials, shall be plaeed sinkholes. Sinkholes shall ottly be filled with infloettotts tnatet:ials that will not eont bttte to grotmdwatet: pollution. hon-polluting.T5tural materials that will not cojitfibate t1-- , groundwater pollution. (5) Natural stormwater retention areas. No more than 10% of natural stormwater retention areas on a site shall be disturbed. Natural stormwater retention areas may be replaced with the approval of the Administrator by artificial stormwater facilities if the total storage capacity of the site, as well as within each drainageway, is maintained. Natural stormwater retention areas which are floodplains, wetlands, lakes or ponds shall not be disturbed or replaced. (6) Steep slopes. No more than 25% of steep slopes (25% ot: gTeater),Z shall be disturbed or regraded. The � Administrator may allow the disturbance of additional small areas where that disturbance will alleviate potential health or safety problems and will not significantly denigrate the overall environmental quality of the site. The Board of Sttpefvisors may allow the distur-baftee of lafgef afeas of steep slopes in shopping eentefs, offiee parks, indttstfi-81. parks and R5 residential reefeafion eommunities. in stteh eases, the ftmetions ofstfeam valleys sha4l be pfesetved tht-Otigh the use of open spaee, and stormwatte-t ftteiliti The Pimning Commission may allow the disturbance of larger areas of steep slopes. AIMPROPURROM - - ":- ::: a N no.: W, i a IIZS— 1FM 1 NNIFI- SIR ■ ■ p. � - -i i _.i ■_ - Vii. � -: - i1 : i i - i 1 : - : i : ■ : : ■ - - i - - U 9 -------------��»....+.. .....+ Asa v..aav u..avu va vaa • as viuuvaiui uivu.� .aau..�v . Tia residential developments, the areas oftuldisturbe(Yelavironmentalfeaturesdescrib�'1n.Section165-3.1B,shallbelocatedinareass of open space. HoN ever, the Plarwiag +b c�t��:rriissi.c�z�, may allow undisturbed areas to be included in the required setback and yard. areas on residential lets when the extent, location, and disturbance of envirvn.tricrital areas male it impractical to place; the undisturbed areas in co m-twn ✓Neal spacc. In such circumstances, environmental easements, deeds of dedication, final subeh i:sitonplat,ofotUrlegalinstrumemtsapprovedbytheZorin Administrator shall be required to specify the restrictions to be placed on ;he environmental areas. I, .�:S�S/Rf[S�lfl�lfMITA.. i . i " :. ' i i ' " ■ rNIPPM ■ : i i ■ i : t 1 1 : i " : : " : i " :'100 • • • • _ :PERPM • • : ------------------ 1i • • AIRi i • • "1 : ""1-" : - �� • ' • • • • : • • • • • • i -: - i - - - -• • : - • • : • :1 : : • • i - - - ■ • : i■ ------------- 1 • ••-- i -1-- - -:i f • � • �• •1 i •• � _ • is : ■ ----- - -• i i i - _ :. __ i . LIN i1Ri. Mi_ _• 1 - i J �- - i _ : • : t i - i : - � : I 1 ' : 1 i � � 1 � L. �Jll•_1 P1q�1•l�l��:l•\%•\iI••••\�1i1� ■�•\irn�•■�.���•��••.w.....�.�...�.w..�.wi..�..�...��..��...�.........�.. �_. -------------��»....+.. .....+ Asa v..aav u..avu va vaa • as viuuvaiui uivu.� .aau..�v . Tia residential developments, the areas oftuldisturbe(Yelavironmentalfeaturesdescrib�'1n.Section165-3.1B,shallbelocatedinareass of open space. HoN ever, the Plarwiag +b c�t��:rriissi.c�z�, may allow undisturbed areas to be included in the required setback and yard. areas on residential lets when the extent, location, and disturbance of envirvn.tricrital areas male it impractical to place; the undisturbed areas in co m-twn ✓Neal spacc. In such circumstances, environmental easements, deeds of dedication, final subeh i:sitonplat,ofotUrlegalinstrumemtsapprovedbytheZorin Administrator shall be required to specify the restrictions to be placed on ;he environmental areas. I, .�:S�S/Rf[S�lfl�lfMITA.. i . i " :. ' i i ' " ■ rNIPPM ■ : i i ■ i : t 1 1 : i " : : " : i " :'100 E. detriment to othef prineiples of qttality std- di o-de�* or signifieant loss of dettsit detennined by the Subdivision Administrator, they shall be itteitttled in the fijrty-pefeenf pareel. In rural preservation subdiVisions, the environmehlal featukes described in Section 165-31 B, l.ong with agricultural or locally significant soils, shall be placed within the forty percent pat- „I, without undue detriment to other principles of quality subdivision design or sig i-JFI C w! i less o f d e n s i !y as Itemi i n- ed by the Zoning ALi W I ni strato r. safi�� problems of will not signifieantly violate intent ofthis ehapter. In commercial and industrial al de velop-1-P e nts, the areas of itnd; s turbed en Vire IMP11tal features described in Section 165-31 R shall be 'located in areas of, aspen space envu-011mental easenients, deeds of dedicat.loit, final subdivision Plats, or other legal irtst-vutrient� approved by the Zoning Administrator which specify the restrictions to be placed on the environmental areas. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: § 165-36. I Roll. ---Ill iffill ftVAIAM PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: § 165-156. Definitions. Agricultural (or Locally Significant) Soils - A group of soils identified as prime farmland by the So it Survey of Frederick County Virginia, prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture. Caliper - The diameter of a tree ` FAt measured 12 ' ehes from the grV LLLLlevel VL d level as defined by the American Association of Nurserymen.. Charnel Scarline - The sloping margin of, or the ground bordering,, a stream and serving to confine the water to the natural channel during the normal course of flow. It is best marked where a distinct channel has been eroded to the valley floor or where there is a cessation of land vegetation. Impervious Area - Any area, generally paved or graveled, with a surface that prevents, or significantly reduces, absorption ofstormwater into the ground. When calculating impervious area for landscaping purposes, retention and detention basins, dry wells, sidewalks, display areas, dumpster pads, and structures shall be excluded. Natural Waterway - Creeks, Stmams, Runs, or other annual or perennial waterways identified on United States Geological Survey, Commonwealth of Virginia or Frederick County maps. Riparian Buffet - An area of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation that permits inundation by water and is at least thirty-five feet in width, measured outward from both sides of a natural waterway beginning along the slope off3te ground from the channel scar line. A riparian buffer is managed to maintain the inte-ity of stream channels and reduce the effect of upland sources of pollution by trapping, filtering, and converting sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals. Steep Slopes - Land areas where the slope exceeds -2-5 50%. Wetlands - " " " ineittding all areas greater 4tan one aere where standing water is retained for a sip�fieanf portion aft -he year and -vegetation ultique to swmV or wetland tffeas has adapted to the area. Areas that are in, of saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that tinder normal conditions does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, and that is subject to a perpetual easement permitting inundation by water. Wae4laft4s i4eas, groves or stands of mature or largely mature trees, .., 165-27 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-27 (1 1) Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the B1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the B3 Industrial Transition District, the M1 Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District shall be landscaped to reduce the visual impact of glare and headlights on adjoining properties and rights-of-way. Parking lots shall be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat. Landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the visual expansiveness of parking lots. Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots as follows: [Amended 9-12-20011 (a) Perimeter landscaping. Required parking lot setback areas, abutting the parking lot, shall be planted with shade trees and other landscaping. A three -foot -high evergreen hedge, fence, berm or wall shall be provided as necessary to prevent headlights from shining on public rights-of-way and adjoining properties. A minimum of one shade tree for every 40 feet of parking lot perimeter shall be provided. All shade trees shall have a minimum two-inch caliper at the time of planting. Additional trees may be required to properly shade the lot. (b) Interior landscaping. A minimum of 5% of the interior portions of parking lots shall be landscaped for the purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior landscaping shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous raised strips extending the length of a parking bay. Within the parking lot, raised islands and landscaped areas should be used to delineate traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns. The shade trees provided shall be of an appropriate type to ensure shading at maturity. No less than one shade tree shall be provided for each 10 parking spaces. All shade trees shall have a minimum two-inch caliper at the time of planting. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for interior landscaping for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and gutter is not proposed. 16538 8-20-2002 § 165-30 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-31 (1) Before a sign may be constructed, reconstructed or altered, a sign permit shall be obtained from the Frederick County Building Official. (2) Commemorative plaques and historical markers shall be exempt from obtaining sign permits. § 165-31, Protection of environmental features. [Amended 12-11-1991] In order to protect those areas of a parcel which have environmental characteristics that make them unsuitable for development, certain portions of a development shall remain undisturbed or be protected. It is the intention of this section that the disturbance of such areas by the development process be limited. It is also the intention of this section that the large portions of the areas with such environmental characteristics be placed in open space, environmental easements, the portion of the parcel left undivided or other areas where they will remain undisturbed. It is intended that the environmental conditions on a property be reviewed as the first step in the planning process before lots or dwellings are located. A_ The requirements of this section shall apply to land in the following zoning districts: RP Residential Performance District R4 Residential Planned Community District R5 Residential Recreational Community District MH1 Mobile Home Community District B1 Neighborhood Business District B2 Business General District B3 Industrial Transition District M1 Light Industrial District M2 Industrial General District HE Higher Education District RA Rural Areas District B. Portions of the following environmental features shall remain undisturbed as described: Type of Feature Amount of Disturbance Permitted Floodplains No disturbance allowed Lakes and ponds No disturbance allowed 16550 10-25-2001 § 165-31 ZONING § 165-31 Type of Feature Amount of Disturbance Permitted Wetlands No disturbance allowed Sinkholes No disturbance allowed Natural stormwater Disturbance of 10% allowed retention areas Steep slopes Disturbance of 25% allowed (slope of 15% or greater) Woodlands Disturbance of 25% allowed (1) Floodplains. In general, no disturbance of floodplains is allowed and no structures shall be constructed in floodplains. The Zoning Administrator, with the approval of the Planning Commission, may allow disturbance of small areas in the floodplain for purposes of (Cont"d on page 16551) 16550.1 10-25-2001 § 165-31 ZONING § 165-31 recreation, conservation, utilities or stormwater management_ The Administrator may allow the construction of recreational facilities or roads in the floodplain. (2) Lakes and ponds. Lakes, ponds and impoundments shall remain undisturbed. The Administrator may allow the removal of a lake, pond or impoundment if it is in a poor state of repair, if it is unsafe or if it serves no useful retention, environmental or recreational purposes. (3) Wetlands. No disturbance of wetlands is allowed, except that the Administrator may allow disturbance of small areas for purposes of conservation, recreation, utilities or roads. (4) Sinkholes. No disturbance of sinkholes is allowed other than filling with natural materials. No substances or objects, other than natural fill materials, shall be placed in sinkholes. Sinkholes shall only be filled with innocuous materials that will not contribute to groundwater pollution. (5) Natural stormwater retention areas. No more than 10% of natural stormwater retention areas on a site shall be disturbed. Natural stormwater retention areas may be replaced with the approval of the Administrator by artificial stormwater facilities if the total storage capacity of the site, as well as within each drainageway, is maintained.- Natural stormwater retention areas which are floodplains, wetlands, lakes or ponds shall not be disturbed or replaced. (6) Steep slopes. No more than 25% of steep slopes (25% or greater) shall be disturbed or regraded. The Administrator may allow the disturbance of additional small areas where that disturbance will alleviate potential health or safety problems and will not significantly denigrate the overall environmental quality of the site. The Board of Supervisors may allow the disturbance of larger areas of steep slopes in shopping centers, office parks, industrial parks and R5 residential recreation communities. In such cases, the functions of stream valleys shall be preserved through the use of open space, landscaping and stormwater management facilities. [Amended 8-9-20001 (7) No more than 25% of woodlands as defined shall be disturbed. The Administrator may allow additional disturbance of the small 16551 8-30-2001 § 165-31 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-31 F` areas where the disturbance will alleviate potential health or safety problems and will not significantly denigrate the overall environmental quality of the site. The Board of Supervisors may allow for a greater percentage of woodland areas to be disturbed in shopping centers, office parks or industrial parks. The Board of Supervisors may allow for a greater percentage of woodland areas to be disturbed within RP Residential Performance District parcels which contain woodland areas on 25% or more of the total site area. In such cases, mature trees shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible and the functions of the woodlands shall be preserved through the use of open space and landscaping. Woodlands shall not be disturbed until a master development plan has been approved. [Amended 7-11-20011 rai (8) Such areas shall remain undisturbed as described above in all developments requiring master development plan or site plan approval. (9) in residential developments, the undisturbed environmental areas described above shall be placed in areas of required open space. However, the Administrator, with the approval of the Planning Commission, may allow undisturbed areas to be included in the required setback and yard areas on residential lots. Undisturbed' areas may be included in lots when the extent, location and distribution of environmental areas make it impractical to place the undisturbed areas in common open space. `T` B. In the RA Rural Areas District, subdivisions utilizing rural preservation lots shall demonstrate that an attempt has been made to place these environmental areas within the 40% of the parcel set aside from residential subdivision. When the extent, location and distribution of environmental areas make it impractical to place them in the forty - percent the parcel, at the discretion of the Subdivision Administrator, the undisturbed areas may be included within the required setback areas of residential lots with the provision of appropriate restrictive covenants. C. Undisturbed environmental areas may be included on residential lots in environmental easements when the extent, location and distribution of environmental areas make it impractical to place the undisturbed areas in common open space. When the environmental areas are placed in 16552 8-30-2001 -- § 165-31 ZONING § 165-31 environmental easements, deeds of dedication, final subdivision plats or (Cont'd on page 16553) 16552.1 B-30-2001 § 165-31 ZONING § 165-32 other legal instruments which specify the restrictions to be placed on the environmental areas shall be approved by the Administrator. Such restrictions shall guarantee that environmental areas remain undis- turbed as required by this section. D. Agricultural soils. Where large concentrations of prime agricultural or locally significant soils can be included within the forty percent (40%) of the parcel that will remain undivided, without undue detriment to other principles of quality subdivision design or significant loss of density, as determined by the Subdivision Administrator, they shall be included in the forty -percent parcel. E. No land disturbance permit shall be issued for the above environmental areas on land for which a master development plan has not been approved. The Zoning Administrator may allow the disturbance of small areas where the disturbance will alleviate potential health or safety problems or will not significantly violate the intent of this chapter. § 165-32. Stormwater management. A. Basic requirements. All development in Frederick County shall meet the requirements of Chapter 79, Erosion and Sediment Control, of the Frederick County.Code. B. Runoff rates. In addition, all developments requiring site plan approval shall limit the rate of stormwater runoff so that no greater rate of runoff from the site is permitted than that occurring prior to development for storms with a two- , ten- and twenty -five-year frequency. C. Stormwater conveyance. Storm drainage conveyance systems for developments requiring site plan approval shall be designed to convey a storm with a ten-year frequency without surcharging inlets. Conveyance systems for such developments shall be designed to convey a storm with a one -hundred -year frequency within a controlled spillway. D. Stormwater storage. Where necessary, a stormwater storage system shall be provided to accommodate a postdevelopment storm with a twenty -five-year, twenty -four-hour frequency, to be released at a rate not to exceed the predevelopment discharge for a storm with a ten- year, twenty -four-hour frequency. 16553 § 165-35 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-37 the emissions of smoke, particulate matter, odors and other gaseous pollutants. G. Water pollution. No use shall be allowed which does not conform with the regulations of the Virginia State Water Control Board and the Virginia Department of Health concerning the discharge of liquid, toxic or other wastes into surface waters or the soil. H. Noise. In the M1 Light Industrial or M2 Industrial General Zoning District, sound levels at the perimeter boundary of a development shall not exceed seventy-five (75) dba (A scale). § 165-36. Landscaping. A. All portions of developments requiring site plan approval shall be appropriately landscaped to enhance the appearance, character and value of development in the county. Landscaping shall be provided to reduce the visibility of paved areas from surrounding properties, to minimize noise and glare, to provide shade and to improve the general appearance of the lot to be developed. B. In any development requiring site plan approval, any part of a lot not used for buildings, structures, parking, loading, driveways or walkways shall contain a ground cover including grass, trees, flowers, shrubs or other landscaping materials which shall be maintained in a healthy condition. § 165-37. Buffer and screening requirements. [Amended 6-13-1990] It is the intent of the regulations of this section to encourage proper design of a site in order to protect adjacent existing uses and to protect proposed uses within the site. Certain types of uses must be buffered from other types in order to ensure a desirable living environment. Additionally, appropriate distances must be maintained between commercial, industrial and residential uses and roads. A. Distance buffers. Distance buffers are based on the nature of an activity and its -proximity to an activity of a different nature. They are linear distances measured from property lines inward. Part of the buffer must 16558 T of Virg%vt.i-la gkLLdLK,9 Assor,LOtl ovl, 2002 board PresidenE Richie Wilkins Vice Presidents guilder Vaughn T. Foura Associate Steve Cluss ecreta Steve 51augnter,,Jr, Treasurer Greorgi A. Green Two-year Directors Mikc Adamy Ron Daniels Phil Lemieux Greg Bancroft Claus gadcr -_year Directors Chuck Maddox Steve Gyur;s;n David holl;day Dwight 5nenk Dave Heeler National Director Jim Vickers State Director gob Wells r—xecutiveVicc President Glancy Tilson 5in6ack P o P O c�744 - Wtwahester, VA 22004 ® 540/6405-0365 -540/665-3000 EYx November 14, 2002 Mr. Jeremy Camp, Planner II County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601-5000 Dear Mr. Camp: Thank you for requesting input from the Top of Virginia Building Association on the proposed woodlands disturbance ordinance. We want to commend the staff for taking on this project, as the old woodlands disturbance ordinance is unworkable and counter productive. Though we generally support the draft ordinance, we do have several concerns and suggestions: 1. Trees cannot be 'planted around homes until the construction of the home is complete. Tree planting is the final step of the construction process. In subdivisions with multiple builders, who are different from the developer, we believe the current ordinance will be difficult to implement. The developer could bond the trees and obligate the builders to plant them, but the bonding is very expensive and. more importantly to smaller builders and developers, the bond ties up a significant amount of the limited credit that banks are willing to commit. We believe that in an agreement with the building department the trees could be inspected before an occupancy permit is granted. We know this has been done in other jurisdictions. This section shouldn't be troublesome to the large national builders, but will be very burdensome to the smaller local builders. 2. In the ornamental landscaping option the density of the planting required is very significant and could be troublesome on smaller lots, particularly the' single family small lot, which requires 15 ornamental shrubs and 5 ornamental trees on every lot. It is unlikely that this density could be obtained in a proper manner on these lots or the trees would be planted so close together that they couldn't mature property. Page 2 Bowman Consulting is reviewing the ordinance with their landscape architect and will also be sending you comments. I want to thank you for requesting our input and that we feel this ordinance is a big improvement from the existing woodlands disturbance ordinance. We also believe that with the required changes this ordinance can have a very positive impact on the future look of Frederick County. JRW, III/cg Sincerely, TOP OF VA BUILDING ASSOC. 'chie Wilkins President RECEIVED NOV 1 5 2002 FRECERICK COUNT/ PLv L.rj!mc, 3 UEVELOPIMEN