PC 04-16-03 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
APRIL 16, 2003
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) February 19, 2003 and March 5, 2003 Minutes ................................ (A)
2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments .................................................. (no tab)
PUBLIC MEETING
4) Review of Site Plan #14-03, Bank of Clarke County at Millbrook Drive, and request for
a waiver to the entrance requirements of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning. The
property is located at the northeast corner of Route 7 and Millbrook Drive and is identified
with Property Identification Number 55-A-25 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
(Mr. Camp)........................................................... (B)
5) Master Development Plan #03-03 for Harvest Ridge, submitted by G. W. Clifford &
Associates, Inc., for 85 single-family detached small lots for an age -restricted community. The
property is located south and adjacent to Route 622 (Cedar Creek Grade) bordering the
City/County line, and is identified as Property Identification Number 63-A-2 and 63-A-3, in the
Shawnee Magisterial District.
(Mr. Camp).......................................................... (C)
WORK SESSION/DISCUSSION ITEM
6) Discussion on Transportation - Level of Service (LOS)
(Mr- Lawrence) ....................................................... (D)
7) Other
•
•
C�
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on February 19, 2003,
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/ Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District;
Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District;
William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee
District; and George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District. Lynda Tyler, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Vincent
DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District;
Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II; and Renee' S.
Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 02/10/03 Mtg.
Coirunissioner Morris reported that the CPPS had considerable discussions on the proposed
SWSA expansions to the additional acreage of the Winchester Medical Center (WMC) and WWW, L.C.
properties.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 19, 2003 Page 1005
-2 -
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning 404-03 of Ronald and Velma Simkhovitch, submitted by Artz & Associates, PLC, to rezone
6.37 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) to B2 (Business General). This property is located at the
intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Park Center Drive (Route 1323) and is identified with
Property Identification Number 54A -1-A in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers
Planner Jeremy F. Camp reported that the proposal to rezone this property is consistent with
the fundamental principles of land use found in the Comprehensive Policy Plan; the property is located within
the Urban Development Area (UDA), the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and is located within a
business corridor of Frederick County with access to a major collector road. Planner Camp said the applicant's
proffer statement includes an additional 12 trees along the existing detention facility, located at the intersection
of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) and Park Center Drive (Rt. 1323); a limitation on the number of entrances on
Martinsburg Pike to one; and a limitation on the total square footage of buildings to 100,000 square feet.
Planner Camp described four areas of concern identified by the Planning Staff which included
improved landscaping along Martinsburg Pike, signage, the zoning buffer, and an existing violation on the
property. Regarding the improved landscaping, Planner Camp said that additional landscaping along the entire
frontage of the parcel would ensure that the proposed development is consistent with other recent developments
along the Rt. 11 North corridor. Regarding the signage, Planner Camp recommended that any future signs on
the property be limited in number, size, height, and style; again, to be consistent with other recent developments
along the corridor. Planner Camp said that the staff is recommending that a Category C Buffer be maintained
on the parcel, instead of a Category B Buffer, to minimize the potential impacts that the proposed development
may have on the neighboring residential properties. In addition, Planner Camp stated that the current storage
of trucks and trailers on this property is a violation of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the staff
believed the owner should commit to the removal of the existing violation immediately.
Commissioner Morris inquired if there have been any attempts so far to resolve the violation.
Planner Camp replied that nothing has been done so far to abate the violation.
Chairman DeHaven commented that the original -approved site plan for Quarles showed a
buffer planting along the southwest side, toward Packard and Moore's, and he pointed out that it was never
installed. Planner Camp replied that it was shown on the site plan as, "future buffer area.
Mr. Michael M. Artz of Artz and Associates, PLC was representing the applicant, Ronald L.
Simkhovitch, Sr. in this application. Mr. Artz said that Mr. Simkhovitch intends to remove the trucks and
trailers within the next six weeks, and he would be willing to include this within the proffer. Regarding the
buffer, Mr. Artz said that because of his entrance location according to VDOT regulations, he needs to have
the buffer reduced from a Category C to a Category B Buffer; although, he does intend to do some additional
landscaping along the side. Mr. Artz added that Mr. Simkhovitch is willing to take care of the signage
recommended by the staff, as well as additional landscaping along Martinsburg Pike.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 19, 2003 Page 1006
-3 -
The Commission was generally in favor ofthe down -zoning request, however, they commented
that they would prefer to see the amended proffers, as described by the applicant's representative, presented
to the Board of Supervisors with the rezoning.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, That, by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
recommend approval of Rezoning #04-03 of Ronald and Velma Simkhovitch, submitted by Artz & Associates,
PLC, to rezone 6.37 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) to B2 (Business General) contingent upon four
revisions to the proffers, prior to the Board of Supervisors' meeting, as stated by the applicant's representative,
as follows: additional landscaping along Martinsburg Pike; limiting the potential negative impact of future
signage; improvements to the required landscaped screen along the southwest property line; and, removal of
the existing zoning violation within six weeks.
The vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE): Fisher, Kriz, Morris, Unger, Watt, Gochenour, Straub, DeHaven
NO: Rosenberry
(Please note: Commissioners Thomas, Ours, Light, and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the Planning Staff would review and approve the
additional landscaping along Martinsburg Pike.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 165-77 B (2)(d),
Existing Lots, which addresses the ability to reduce yard setbacks in the R5 District.
No Action Required
Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that the Development Review and Review and Regulations
Subcommittee (DRRS) recommended the revision of Section 165-77B(2)(d) of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance at their January 2003 meeting. Planner Camp explained that this ordinance presently allows the
Zoning Administrator the ability to waive setbacks on existing lots in the R5 (Residential Recreational
Community) Zoning District; however, because the text of the ordinance is located as a subsection of Section
165-77 (2), it only applies to existing lots of age -restricted communities, garden apartments and townhouses.
He said that prior to the August 2000 zoning ordinance revision to the R5 District, this ordinance applied to
all existing lots. Plamler Camp stated that neither staff nor the DRRS believes that it was the intent at that time
to change the basic function of this ordinance.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 19, 2003 Page 1007
-4 -
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
It was noted that this amendment was basically being presented to correct an oversight that
had previously occurred. Commission members believed that along with offering guidelines, the amendment
removed the potential for arbitrary decisions on the part of the Zoning Administrator, as well as offering the
opportunity for a waiver in extreme cases.
Chairman DeHaven commented that it was not the Commission's intention to remove the
discretion of the Zoning Administrator; he believed the opportunity to inject common sense in the application
of the ordinance was needed.
Commission members commented that a comprehensive rewrite of the zoning and subdivision
ordinances may be needed in the near future to clear up other discrepancies that may have occurred over time.
The consensus of the Commission was for the staff to forward the discussion to the Board of Supervisors.
Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County 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.
No Action Required
Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that upon a 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. Planner Camp reported that 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. He said the DRRS did not fully 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.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
The Planning Commission had some minor reservations about whether or not it was necessary
to add the land use group to the B2 District. However, the Commission advised staff to proceed forward and
discuss the amendment with the Board of Supervisors.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 19, 2003 Page 1008
-5 -
OTHER
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence reminded Conunissioners to submit their long-term and
short-term future project priorities, as discussed at the retreat, to the staff for tabulation.
In addition, Director Lawrence asked Commissioners who were interested in getting business
cards to please contact the staff.
Director Lawrence also announced that the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Historic
Resources Advisory Board meetings scheduled for February 18, 2003 were canceled and rescheduled for next
Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at the same time and place.
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. by a
Respectfully submitted,
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 19, 2003 Page 1009
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 March 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; Richard C. Ours, Opequon
District; Lynda Tyler, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. and Jay
Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District;
Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; and George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; Christopher
M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) _ 02/25/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB reviewed the Sempeles rezoning proposal,
continents were made, and provided for the applicant.
rr itu_uit-_
ICUGI IckI.UUttty rttg C viiutu��ivit
Minutes of March >, 2003 Page 1010
-2 -
Winchester City Planning Commission - 02/03 Mtg.
Mr. Vincent DiBenedetto reported that the City Planning Commission had no items of
outstanding significance at their February meeting; however, the Commission did have a retreat on February
22, 2003, in which they discussed and worked on a number of items. He said the Commission established a
set of bylaws and a set of policies that will be used in conjunction with the bylaws. Mr. DiBenedetto said that
since staff is concentrating on some economic development issues at this time, the Commission will not be
working on the Comprehensive Plan this year, however, it will be a priority in 2004. He said that the
Commission is interested in adding an environmental chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. He added that the
Commission reviewed some of the State Laws regarding the role of the Planning Commission in correcting and
condemning blighted properties and began discussion on procedures. He further added that the Commission
will be taking another look at corridor overlays for routes leading into the Historic Overlay District and looking
into what other jurisdictions are doing.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Priorities for the 2003 Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plan. The Primary
and Interstate Road Improvement Plan establishes priorities for improvements to the Interstate and
Arterial Road Network within Frederick County. These priorities are presented to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board for funding considerations.
Action - Recommended Approval of Amended Plan
Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner, stated that this year's Primary Road Plan has been
separated into two categories to reflect associated funding sources: the first category's the primary roads and
the second category is the interstate roads. She noted, therefore, that this year's plan and future plans will be
entitled, "The Frederick County Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plan." Planner Kennedy explained
that each Spring the draft update is reviewed by the Transportation Committee, the Planning Commission, and
the Board of Supervisors through the public hearing process. She noted that the projects presented are in order
of priority and will continue to appear on future plans until funding is complete.
Planner Kennedy continued, stating that this year, the Route 37 Eastern Bypass, Alternative
C, was removed from the Primary Road Improvement Plan as requested by the Board of Supervisors. Planner
Kennedy said the first priority on the Primary Road Plan is Route 277 (East of Stephens City), which is divided
into two phases; the second priority is Route 11 (North and South of Winchester); the third priority includes
spot improvements for Route 50/17, Sulfur Springs Road and Route 50, and White Oak Road and Route 277;
and, the fourth priority is to establish a new park and ride facility along Berryville Pike (Route 7).
Planner Kennedy next presented the Draft Interstate Improvement Funding Request, which
included I-81 Improvements to four areas: A) Widen Abrams Creek Bridge and Extension of Northbound
Acceleration and Southbound Deceleration Lanes, Exit 313, B) Extend the Southbound Acceleration Lane, Exit
310; C) Widen I-81 from Fairfax Pike north to Route 37, Exit 317; and D) Widen remainder of 1-81 in
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 5, 2003 Page 1011
-3 -
Frederick County.
Planner Kennedy stated that no written comments have been received by the Planning
Department regarding the Draft 2003 Plan. She stated that the Transportation Committee, at their February
4, 2003 meeting, recommended denial of the draft plan by majority vote and believed the construction of the
Route 37 Eastern Bypass Project should be the highest priority for Primary Road Improvements in the County.
Planner Kennedy added that the Transportation Committee also unanimously supported the concept of a rail
component as part of the I-81 Improvement Plan. She said the Board of Supervisors signed a resolution to the
General Assembly endorsing rail study in the I-81 Corridor at their meeting on February 12, 2003.
Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT's Resident Engineer, came forward to address questions from the
Commission.
Commissioner Straub inquired about how the Commission's designations in the Primary and
Interstate Road Improvement Plan would be affected by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); she
questioned the rational of Frederick County even having a Transportation Committee at this point.
Mr. Copp replied that the MPO is just beginning its work. He said the Planning Commission
will recommend the Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plan to the Board of Supervisors, the Board will
make a presentation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, and then, Frederick County will be in
competition with the remainder of the eleven counties in the Staunton District for funding. Mr. Copp explained
that after that process is worked through, the MPO will begin with the plan that's been approved and they will
have the opportunity to change and modify what they believe is appropriate. It was Mr. Copp's opinion that
the Transportation Committee will continue to have a role, although it is entirely a Board of Supervisors'
decision, because all of Frederick County will, more than likely, not be included in the MPO area.
Commissioner Light commented that the interchanges on Route 50 West, in the area of the
Winchester Medical Center, are not able to function at a Level of Service C with any new development and yet,
the Winchester Medical Center installed an interchange area that's limited access. Commissioner Light
believed Frederick County should send a message to VDOT stating the need for the public to use the Medical
Center's interchange with a collector road to the west; he questioned whether this request should be included
in the Road Improvement Plan.
Mr. Copp replied that Frederick County has previously made their viewpoint known on this
issue. Mr. Copp believed it would take considerable demonstration of need to get that limited access right-of-
way break; however, he didn't think there was any reason why Frederick County shouldn't raise their concerns
again, at this point in time.
Commissioner Straub inquired about the status of Route 37 East. Mr. Copp replied that it
was still included in VDOT's current Six -Year Plan with limited funding. Mr. Copp recalled there were
numerous studies completed that had demonstrated the need for a Route 37 or other corridor in that location;
Mr. Copp believed that all of that infomiation needed to be worked through before it is arbitrarily taken off the
plan.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 5, 2003 Page 1012
-4-
Conunissioner Light made a motion to add Route 37 East back into the Road Improvement
Plan based on the recommendation from the Transportation Committee. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Unger.
BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Route 37 Eastern Bypass Project be included in the 2003
Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County as recommended by the Transportation
Committee.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION TO AMEND): Triplett, Ours, Light, Unger, Watt, DeHaven
NO: Gochenour, Straub
(Please Note: Commissioners Rosenberry, Fisher, Kriz, Morris, and Thomas were absent from the meeting.)
Commissioner Light questioned the appropriate time for dialogue on the subject of the
Winchester Medical Center's limited access road to the west. Commission members recognized its future need
and agreed that it should be discussed initially by the Transportation Committee.
Commissioner Light next made a motion to reconunend approval of the 2003 Primary and
Interstate Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County, as amended. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Ours.
BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
recommend the adoption of the 2003 Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County, as
amended, to the Board of Supervisors.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION TO ADOPT): Triplett, Ours, Light, Unger, Watt, DeHaven
NO: Gochenour, Straub
(Please Note: Commissioners Rosenberry, Fisher, Kriz, Morris, and Thomas were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 5, 2003 Page 1013
-5-
2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested
by various county agencies, to be reviewed for potential allocation in the ensuing five-year period. The
plan is created as an information document to assist in the development of the county's annual budget.
The CIP is an advisory document; projects are not necessarily funded because of their inclusion in the
CIP.
Action - Recommended Approval
Deputy Planning Director, Christopher M. Mohn, presented the proposed 2003-2004 Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP) to the Planning Commission. Deputy Director Molm began by explaining the C.I.P.
process. He said the committee process resulted in a county -wide prioritization which identified the County's
top five priorities as: 1) the James Wood Middle School renovations; 2) the relocation of Airport Road; 3) the
Public Safety Center; 4) airfield lighting upgrade for the Regional Airport; and 5) the extension of the parking
lot and sidewalk at the Bowman Library. He noted that overall, the 2003-2004 CIP consists of 30 project
requests, all of which are carried over from the previous year's program with the exception of three new
projects: 1) the development of an access road, parking, and trails at Sherando Park; 2) the development of a
lake, trails, and parking, with irrigated multi-purpose fields at Sherando Park; and, 3) land acquisition on
Bufflick Road to support the airport's noise attenuation program. Deputy Director Mohn advised that the final
public hearing of the CIP will be scheduled on the Board of Supervisors' April 9, 2003 agenda.
Commissioner Watt inquired if anything has been initiated for park land in western Frederick
County; he commented about the need for a park facility in this part of the County, but it never seems to move
higher on the list of priorities. Deputy Director Mohn said he understood it was a high priority for the Parks
& Recreation Department, but was not aware of any progress made on the project.
Commissioner Straub asked if the money designated under the Local Expenditure Requests
for 2002 and 2003 had already been spent; and secondly, was the 2003 figure inclusive of the 2002. Deputy
Director Mohn replied that the amounts shown were estimated costs. He pointed out that this is an advisory
document; therefore, from a budgetary perspective, the money is not spent. He said the 2003 figures are not
inclusive of the 2002 figures.
Cominissioner Gochenour questioned the feasibility of the School Board's request for a new
Gainesboro Elementary School when the County cannot meet the expense of its current needs and is
considering a tax increase. Deputy Director Molm replied that the projects in the plan may be viewed as a
strategic plan by the various agencies in reviewing their facilities needs over the next five years and beyond.
He said that in the School Board's case, in particular, replacing the existing older facility in Gainesboro is a
project the School Board would seek to accomplish at some point. He noted that of the six projects the School
Board has on the CIP, the Gainesboro Elementary School is rated sixth.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
No other issues were raised and the Commission believed the document was appropriate as
submitted.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 5, 2003 Page 1014
row
Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
the adoption by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County's 2003-2004 Capital hnprovements Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. by a
Respectfully submitted,
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 5, 2003 Page 1015
:�
L:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM I
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
RE: Public Meeting - Site Plan #14-03, Bank of Clarke County at Millbrook Drive
FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II��'
DATE: March 31, 2003
Staff has received a request from G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. seeking an entrance spacing waiver for
a proposed Bank of Clarke County on Berryville Pike (Route 7). The site plan proposes the construction
of a 2,757- square -foot bank with four drive-through lanes at the northeast corner of the Millbrook Drive
and Berryville Pike intersection. As you are probably aware, Millbrook Drive is presently under
construction and will be used to access Frederick County's newest high school, Millbrook High.
The Planning Commission is presented an opportunity to review this site plan because the applicant has
requested an entrance spacing waiver for the proposed entrance off of Berryville Pike. The applicant would
like to construct this entrance only 111 feet from Millbrook Drive; however, the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance requires a minimum of 200 feet'. The Zoning Ordinance also gives the Planning Commission
the ability to waive this requiremene.
Staff is also interested in ascertaining direction regarding the two proposed entrances off of Millbrook
Drive. Staff suggests the removal of the entrance closest to Berryville Pike, and the sole utilization of the
shared entrance along the north property line. A 60 -foot ingress/egress easement already exists along the
north property line for this purpose. Limited access to collector roads is supported by the Frederick County
Comprehensive Policy Plan'. Furthermore, the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that "shared
access easements that follow lot lines are preferred" means of access when spacing exemptions exist.
Please review the attached site plan for review during the April 16, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting.
A decision regarding the applicant's waiver request, and any recommendations regarding the site plan and
the Millbrook Drive entrances, would be appropriate.
JFC/ERL/cih
Attachments
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-29 A (4).
2 Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-29 B (1).
3 Frederick County 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 7-4.
4 Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-29 A (7).
V dere riSite P1 1?,,,i,,,,i2003lBaukofClnrk,Co+n+rvIPCAf1ePublirMcetirtg. u,td
107 North Rent Street o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
A
N/F
YYDRED COLE I ET t
TM CAD 55-A-27
ri
USc: TRUSTEE I + f
ZONED: RP
hrrr
r A ? 1-51161 ASST
PC
4
i
f J
X45' EL-
{ LATE VALVE2-6" SDR21 FV^ CONDUITS FOR FUNURE GR06SINGS."OR21 FORCE N 6" SOR21 PVC CONDUIT.� PAt7AC1Il FOR; FM. - CENTER PROVIDE MM. 10'
k�\SEPARADOIA. T.
�- l
SAII
EXJST1NC
3"3" TEE
t `�.. ' 2 G. V. & BOXES
J 3" PVC 51121
�.<1-3" PLUS (PH 1)
E 3SOR21 PVC CONDUIT FOR FUTURE
f
t - _ TAPER CURB CAO PAVEMENT
ELEV. OVER 2 FT,
N/E " ...
WI DRED GO_LE PUMP STATIC
7.57 Ac.2loge PID'0 ,*LrK WWON 0
804-752-1'
(Ex Zone: B-2)
TM 7D 55-A-26 5/e' WATERY
J E' RETAIL/RESIDENTL4ZAP 91 IC-SAIIIER ,
RIM
TNM.
�r
/ 1
1 �
CONNECT TO EX `
2' F1 MAIN
Q
0
IF REMOVE EX. $• PLUG
0
N
iPROPOSFD SO LOCA77AY
2?2 SEE MOTE 1 AND 7. -
POLE MOUNTID
SIGNS INSTALLED PER'-V7RGiNA" ' T r
STATE CODE SECTION 36-99.11 r
r r it t r,�g,,
--a,•nT't
2-2'x45' EL
LATERAL .
C�
0
G -1z3 r
4
OWE 48'-20' CASAG
PIPE EOR FUTURE WATER-
AMIN LA7ENSA7N. PROVIDE
36' MIN. COVIIL
FORCEAIN V
� -
PRO. STR. 2
' '
;i
r
.. , =.
EXISTING UNPAVED 0MVEMAYS TO
---I ?/-
.._,....
BE OBSCURED AND SEEDED.
.
GGRADE --------
PROPOSED USE
w---'...-'GONC.DIiCF1
!�650.55
INV. Or1F=656.35Cfr•7
EX. I -SLOW OFF ASSEMBLY
_
CHALNO MO AM
A'
# r
ER B` V ', • >,t..,
-JO1M 10" PIPE
7. 72 Ac.
(Ex -2 o ne : B -2J
BU DNG HELM ID' NMAX)
TAI CAD 55-A-24
FLODR AREA
USE., VACANT
IDT MFA DISTURBED
.98 AM
FAR ALLOWED
,
FUTURE
2-8'-45' W/M BENDS
MiL`DRED COLE
!
155 7.318 SF.
f
BEL7� �{
.. l d f !D 55-A-25
PAVEMENT AREA
3✓91LDIN� �I
Jr,
USE VACANT
TOPTALPARKNG SPACES REQUIRED
/
TOTAL PANX PROVIDED
ZONED- B-2
/
TElEFIK1NE1 -Lb'.
i
T '
EXISTWG
r _
'4
D1 --3C
!�
plw-862 to
1-3" TEE _
IAPDN;APPED SPACES PRODDED
• , .T o WV. OUT=550. r0
2" PL
` T
SE732'r
2-2" GV & BOXES
--.2,3'X2' REDUCERS
2 -10 LF Z" PPC SOR21
_l
/
r• i A�. �
.
-2-10 PLUGS j...
Gf
PERIMETER TREES REQUIRED
i5R (01/40 FF.)
500' '- - , .
CONNECTION T9 EYISTING
N 87' T SA
/
: r
0
N
iPROPOSFD SO LOCA77AY
2?2 SEE MOTE 1 AND 7. -
POLE MOUNTID
SIGNS INSTALLED PER'-V7RGiNA" ' T r
STATE CODE SECTION 36-99.11 r
r r it t r,�g,,
--a,•nT't
2-2'x45' EL
LATERAL .
C�
0
G -1z3 r
4
OWE 48'-20' CASAG
PIPE EOR FUTURE WATER-
AMIN LA7ENSA7N. PROVIDE
36' MIN. COVIIL
FORCEAIN V
� -
PRO. STR. 2
' '
;i
r
.. , =.
EXISTING UNPAVED 0MVEMAYS TO
---I ?/-
.._,....
BE OBSCURED AND SEEDED.
.
GGRADE --------
PROPOSED USE
w---'...-'GONC.DIiCF1
!�650.55
INV. Or1F=656.35Cfr•7
EX. I -SLOW OFF ASSEMBLY
_
CHALNO MO AM
A'
# r
ER B` V ', • >,t..,
-JO1M 10" PIPE
7. 72 Ac.
(Ex -2 o ne : B -2J
BU DNG HELM ID' NMAX)
TAI CAD 55-A-24
FLODR AREA
USE., VACANT
IDT MFA DISTURBED
.98 AM
FAR ALLOWED
,
FM PROVIDED
0.06
!
155 7.318 SF.
f
BEL7� �{
2475` 5¢. Fr.
PAVEMENT AREA
3✓91LDIN� �I
Jr,
;4671
TOPTALPARKNG SPACES REQUIRED
A x !
TOTAL PANX PROVIDED
f Y -
•�
TElEFIK1NE1 -Lb'.
HANDICAP SPACES
,� /
! PRO. STA. 4TYPE
r _
'4
D1 --3C
!�
plw-862 to
I
IAPDN;APPED SPACES PRODDED
• , .T o WV. OUT=550. r0
A J
gAOPo�
y �h
'\ ,/
• f r
r• i A�. �
r}i f,r
it
PERIMETER TREES REQUIRED
i5R (01/40 FF.)
r
15
INIFRDF TREES REWIRED
: r
INTERIOR TREES PRIBADED
t
t I
TOTAL TREES ROOM
PRO. STR.
TOTAL TREES PROODED
r
RPE DI -to
'
PARKING IDT LANOWNG REVD.
Ki IMM=600.3 r
PAWING LOT LANDSCAPING PROVIDED
IM! OUT=655.65 , ,
,
INV.. IN=655:85
1. AL SINS INSTALLED WI THE PROPBOY
' INV. OUT=565AD r
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FRECETU COUNTY' ZONING CRDNANCE
(' PROVIDE E5-1 & EC -i
.... (LENGIII40� WIDTH=8; CLI)...
..- . - . ..
gyp" R j'P Y ..
_
EX GONG
INV. ( 645.27)
EXTEND RIP RAP ,A
� 70 IX CONCRETE
PROJECT SUMMARY
TAX DENfNICATION NUMBER
55-A-25
PRO. STR. 2
' '
;i
_ END Cl; 7, OOILYI. MA ITCH EX .
X09
0'L
---I ?/-
.._,....
TYPE DI -3B
t L'..
.
GGRADE --------
PROPOSED USE
w---'...-'GONC.DIiCF1
!�650.55
INV. Or1F=656.35Cfr•7
EX. I -SLOW OFF ASSEMBLY
,v _
-__-_......._ _..� ! ..
t1I
O10'
A'
# r
ER B` V ', • >,t..,
-JO1M 10" PIPE
4� Q
.j MATCH IJOSi PAVEAIIN( _ °'
,u - 7'.a"' � `S
SLOPE AAT7 GRADE
PROJECT SUMMARY
TAX DENfNICATION NUMBER
55-A-25
TOFU PARCEL AREA,
1.12 AM
ZONING
0'L
ADW ISS
_ BERTNIL E PIKE
DUTEENT USE
VAGIA
PROPOSED USE
BAANC3 MMK
DEVELOPED LOT MFA
smum
1.12 ACRES
REQ{MfD
FRONT 50'
F'H01BEB
9/57'
SIDE 0
78.5/00'
REAR 0
N/A
BU DNG HELM ID' NMAX)
24'
FLODR AREA
2757 S0. Fr.
IDT MFA DISTURBED
.98 AM
FAR ALLOWED
1.0
FM PROVIDED
0.06
MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA
155 7.318 SF.
UNDSAPEO ARFA PROVIDED
2475` 5¢. Fr.
PAVEMENT AREA
2126' SQ. FT.
_ r,,..C. -
655 65 65500
TOPTALPARKNG SPACES REQUIRED
t1., (1/250)
TOTAL PANX PROVIDED
CPP
STANDARD SPACES
i2
HANDICAP SPACES
2
1DIAL SPACES PROM
'4
WMCAP SPACES REQUIRED
i
IAPDN;APPED SPACES PRODDED
2
LOADING SPACES REQUIRED
20 (5/DRIVE THRU)
LOADING SPACES PROVIDED
20
PPMI(�IANRSCARNG
PARKING LOT PRIM -
622 FT
PERIMETER TREES REQUIRED
i5R (01/40 FF.)
PERIMETER TREES PROVIDED
15
INIFRDF TREES REWIRED
1.4 (61/10 ISP.)
INTERIOR TREES PRIBADED
2
TOTAL TREES ROOM
17
TOTAL TREES PROODED
19
PARKING IDT LANOWNG REVD.
541 SO. Ff. 0 55 OF 10625 PARIQNG AREA
PAWING LOT LANDSCAPING PROVIDED
61: W. Ff.
NOTM.
1. AL SINS INSTALLED WI THE PROPBOY
WILL CDLIPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FRECETU COUNTY' ZONING CRDNANCE
2. All UGHDNG IS TO DE CONIRODID TO
PREVENT DFF-SNE CLARE.
3. NO DUMPSRR PWM. TRASH RUMINAL SHALL BE BY PRIVATE
CLEM" SEANCE
CPP
4.110 STEEP SLOPE, WMADS, WOODLAND
OR OTHER EIARONMENTAL
FFATL95 BOST.
FROVIDE ES -1 & EDI
5. ALL RNT LAO TO BE MARKED AND POSTED PER F&XCERICK COUNTY FOE
ENL UBUIES TO BE PLACED UNOERCR01010
7.SKNS- SHALL BE LOCATED 3 Fr. FROM FACE OF CUFB AND 10 Fr. FROM
NDP, LOSS MAX SIGN FIL7W8= 60'. MAX. SIGN AFUti 100 S.F.
&NEW BUILDING SHALL COMPLY WITH VPGNA UNIFORM SATE WIDE BUILDING
DW AND SECTIONS 306, USE B(BUSNNSS) ANO 311. USE S(STOIAGE)
OF THE NOG NATO AL BUOUNG CDDE/1996. OTIEP. CODE THAT APPLES
IS CMO A111.109Z ACCE'4BLE AND USABLE BNLDE FACILITES.
9. ALL REQUIRED EGRESS SLAM BE ACCMIE ACWRC?NG TD BOGY
AND A117.1-92
10. HANDICAPPED ACCESS SHV1 MEET AV 117.1 SE=1.1
I. IVNDKMPED SPACES AND ACCESSIBLE ROUES MAY NOT;HAVE CR0.6 SLOPES
OF MORE TRAIN 1:50. THE ACESSEIE ROUTE SLOPE CANNOT EXCEED IM
12 AL PAME 9001 DIMPLY WITH THE BOO, HAWK B!NONG WOE SECTION 11051
PLANTING SCREDNE
LEGEND
ALJ T
FX. ]o' PVC SON 21 WATER MAN :_..,��_
MAIN NAPE
SINM TME W PIMING
SPACM
QUANTITY
1 PIN ESV(
2' OL 0 B•:
AS SMA
8
IOD MAPLE
Y OL 0 5" HIM
AS 5.910
O
FLOWERNI DDGW))D
Y CV. 0 6' HIM
AS MN
3
8 HER HOLLY
3P HDOfT
5'-0' at,
18
JAPANESE YEW
24' HEIGHT
AS SM,'
9
o
LEGEND
ALJ T
FX. ]o' PVC SON 21 WATER MAN :_..,��_
J - - _-
PROVIDE CG -7
PRo1110E - _....._....
._. . -... .
PRLPM CONUZ1 AREA
Culvert
W.OPM GRAS AM
D
PROPOSED EOMENT IAEA
- -
ZOING 6COFRAff
- Z& -
RM PLDF94S
O N7
�
- _
TRIP G�NERA'RON
Culvert
In Inv, QOt--'-C(ft)
am% WATER ALAN
DNin.)
5(%)
Type
PROPOM GVE VALVE & KX
t
"TEE
111 FT. � 0lAREO
.. . .. -
IEE, s*ri®1'11oN EBTIAMTES Tr11s
- •
_ r,,..C. -
655 65 65500
27
15
2 41
CPP
W
_
TO DENM' IAN
EX. i0x
EX 1�GP�
t _ _.. _.-.. ...
-7 _
END CC GIN CG 6
METE, AT FlJll DEVELOPMENT,
V W DGENERATE= 732 TPD _
_
- 2
656 35 65585
36
15
119
..
PCP
250' .
_/
__.. -._...._.. __
PRO. STA. 5
- -
- - -
3
659.00 656.55
69
15
3.55
CFP
... _r0Q
M-�
..
-
4
65810 65fi 55
1
41
CPP
i
FROVIDE ES -1 & EDI
a �E
RIM=659.25
•Fy
5
656.D0 655.75
16
15
1.56
CPP
N
----
PIKE
WV. ADJUST STRUCTU-
STRUCTURE
- ✓..
'
--._.-•.-
VA. ROUTE 7 - BERRYt/ILLE
HEIGHF MAIN
HBCM OIM l6'S��iitAN
20 �.240
o-"
(646.82)
�
R/w)
MNUAA
,-
(VARIABLE WIDTH
___...,
__
/ Ay tgT �
Storm Inlet Summary
M.P.H.
45.
__,..__-- ---"--
�.--.....
r
T Timm = zo x.
Str. No.
Inv. In In, Out Top Elv.
Type
Throat
Ni F
DO41"J/l1J'G 1 655.235 655.65 660.10 DI -36 6
f ,4 TM /D 558-A-77 2 656.55 656.35 661.35 Di -3A 4
USE OPEN SPACE 3 659.00 661.65 DI -1
ZONED: RP JNV, (647.18) 4 65810- 662.10 DI -3C 8
5 - `-656.00 65925 DL -3A 4
oL LRHONA KAD 40DW MH 3-RXRK MOUNTING HEK;fR-22'
LRHONA KAD 400W 64i 2-F7XIURE MOVITIG HEIGHT -22'
All EXTERIOR LICFIT MORES SHALL BE SHELDED
SO THAT DIRECT OR REERACJED MIT W.M THE
FIXNRE IS NOT ViSUE FROM OFF-SITE
E17SRNG MOO AVO 1111MOOK HIGH SCtoa
ACCESS Aw LOCAPM BASED ON OESAw PMTS.
816E FACILITIES ARE CINI ENTLY UMER CONSTRUCTION.
z
z
0
m O 0
Q
NIA
g
rWO�
SCALE: 1 "=20'
DRAWN BY. ✓DS
PROJECT NO.
DATe 2-21.01
SHEET 2 OF 5
LEGEND
PROPM CURB A CURER
W,OP00 GUAR & REVEDU UIRER
PRBPG3➢ STA4R,R8 -- Ie 118/4' S "sM
PRLPM CONUZ1 AREA
W.OPM GRAS AM
D
PROPOSED EOMENT IAEA
- -
ZOING 6COFRAff
- Z& -
RM PLDF94S
O N7
ROW S1019 DRAW & STRUCTUE
�-
PRCPEGFD STOW WAA,E & STRUCTURE
PROPM WAR MAN
�� x•
am% WATER ALAN
PROPOSED FIFE h1DRMR
PROPOM GVE VALVE & KX
MSD)t SAN. sm Am MWOE
... :....., - .-.
POWSAN. RWER MO M MME
PR�LTOSM UNLRTGROUND LECINC SFRWE
PF.WW UROERGMUND HIMM SEMU
TEL-
PR IPM G5'EME
-iG6
a -;x HWIlJPRO Acass -
_Al_
z
z
0
m O 0
Q
NIA
g
rWO�
SCALE: 1 "=20'
DRAWN BY. ✓DS
PROJECT NO.
DATe 2-21.01
SHEET 2 OF 5
•
C
•
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN *03-03
HARVEST RIDGE
Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting
Prepared: March 28; 2003
Staff Contact: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist there in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 04/16/03 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 05/14/03 Pending
LOCATION: This property is located south and adjacent to Route 622 (Cedar Creek Grade) bordering
the City/County line.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 63-A-2 and 63-A-3
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Vacant
Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North:
Zoned
RA (Rural Areas) District
Use: Agriculture
South:
Zoned
RA (Rural Areas ) District
Use: Residential; Church
East:
Zoned
LR (City of Winchester)
Use: Residential
West: Zoned RA(Rural Areas) District Use: Residential; Veterinary Clinic
PROPOSED USE: 85 Single-family detached small lots; age -restricted community.
MDP #03-03, Harvest Ridge
Page 2
March 28, 2003
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of "Transportation: The preliminary master plan for this property appears to have
almost no measurable impact on Route 622, Cedar Creek Grade, the VDOT facility which would provide
access to the property. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site
plans, drainage calculations 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. Prior to construction
on the State's right-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate
permits to cover said work. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment.
Fire Marshal: Recommend residential sprinkler system. Additional comments: Extension of municipal
water supplies for firefighting should be pursued. Plan approval recommended.
County Engineer: See attached letter from K E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works,
dated February 24, 2003.
Frederick County/Winchester Health Department: No objections as long as the proposed 90 single-
family units are hooked to City sewer and water.
Sanitation Authority: We do not serve this area.
Frederick Con nty/Winchester Service Authority: No comments.
Winchester Regional Airport: See attached letter from .Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director of
Winchester Regional Airport, dated February 27, 2003.
Building Official: No comment required at this time, shall comment at the subdivision lot review.
City of Winchester: Confirm whether Cedar Creek Grade storm sewer in the City can handle runoff
from this tract without detention.
Parks & Recreation: Parks and Recreation recommends that the proposed hike/bike trail be made
available to serve as a link for future trails that may be developed in this area. Also, we would
recommend that the 8' trail be constructed to, at the minimum, meet the attached specifications.
Superintendent of Frederick Co. Public Schools: Since this is a age -restricted community, producing
no students, we have no comments.
Geographic Information Systems: Four road names are required prior to administrative approval
the master development plan. Please note that West View Lane cannot be used as a road name becaus.
there is already a road in Frederick County with that name.
MDP #03-03, Harvest Ridge
Page 3
March 28, 2003
Planning & Zoning:
Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (USES Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning
for the two parcels as R2 (Residential Limited) District. Prior to 1980, the two parcels were
changed from the R-2 (Residential Limited) District to the A-2 (Agricultural Limited) District.
During the comprehensive downzoning of October 8,1980, both parcels were changed to the RA
(Rural Areas) zoning classification. On September 10, 1997, Parcel 63-A-3 was rezoned to the
RP (Residential Performance) District as part of the Westridge Subdivision and was included
within the UDA (Urban Development Area). Parcel 63-A-2 was later included into the UDA by
action taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 10, 1999.
In 2002, the County approved Rezoning 410-02, a rezoning petition for both parcels to be
included within the RP District. Several proffered conditions were approved as part of the
rezoning application. These proffered conditions are summarized below:
• All housing types shall be single-family small lot.
• The two inter -parcel connector streets shall be used for access of the development.
The development shall be an age -restricted community.
• An emergency private road connection shall be made to Cedar Creek Grade.
• Existing trees and replanted trees shall serve as a vegetative screen around the perimeter
of the development.
• A 25 -foot buffer shall be provided adjacent to the City boundary line.
• Four -foot wide trails/sidewalks shall be provided throughout the development.
• A monetary payment of $1,539.00 per residential building lot.
Site Suitability:
The property which would comprise Harvest Ridge is appropriately zoned for single-family small
lots and is consistent with the land use objectives ofthe Frederick County Comprehensive Policy
Plan (CPP 6-1). The proposed development is located within the UDA (Urban Development
Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). Furthermore, the general design of the
preliminary master development plan is consistent with the approved proffers.
There is a significant amount of woodlands present on the site of Harvest Ridge, precisely 13.6
acres. 79.41% of the 13.60 acres of woodlands is proposed to be disturbed as part of this
development. A woodlands disturbance waiver is being requested by the applicant as part of the
review process. Frederick County Zoning Ordinance only allows for the disturbance of 25% of
woodlands unless a waiver is granted by the Board of Supervisors. No other environmental
features have been identified on the parcel by the applicant.
MDP #03-03, Harvest Ridge
Page 4
March 28, 2003
Harvest Ridge is proposed to be developed on an area that is located within the study area for the
First Battle of Kernstown and the core area for the Second Battle of Kernstown. Located directly
adjacent to the subject parcel is the historically significant structure referred to as "Homespun."
The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) recommended approval of
the proposed development of this land during their meeting on May 21, 2002. Their decision was
based on their determination that the integrity of the battlefields was already compromised.
Project Scone:
The preliminary master development plan of Harvest Ridge proposes 85 single-family small lots
on 26.746 acres. The minium lot size shall be 6,000 square feet. There is a gross density of 3.12
dwellings per acre; 10.11 acres (37%) of open space is provided.
Access to the development shall be provided by two inter -parcel connectors to the City of
Winchester and an emergency access road. The emergency access road shall cross through the
parcel located to the north, referred to as "Homespun", from an entrance off of Cedar Creek
Grade. Cedar Creek Grade is a major collector road.
Issues:
Staff does not have any significant issues with this proposed development; there are, however,
several technical issues which must be addressed. These issues are as follows:
1) Agency Comments.
The unresolved comments with the Department of Geographic Information Systems, the
Department of Public Works, and the City of Winchester need to be resolved prior to
final master development plan approval. Of particular concern are the issues regarding
the impact of stormwater runoff and locating any existing sinkholes.
2) Woodland Disturbance Waiver.
Consideration of the applicant's request to disturb 79.41%, or 10.80 acres, of existing
woodlands should be given. The areas of preserved woodlands are located around the
perimeter of the proposed development as discussed during the rezoning process.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04/16/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Harvest Ridge Master Development Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the
requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. All of the issues
identified by staff, as well as those issues brought forth by the Planning Commission, need to b,-
appropriately
Pappropriately addressed by the applicant. A recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, including
motion regarding the requested woodland disturbance waiver, would be appropriate.
0:IAgcndnsiCOMMENTSIMDP's170031Ht,—t Ridge pd
Harvest Ridge
PINS:
63-A-2&3
N -
W I
S - ]
0 100 200 Feet ]
FT—%®I
Ell
February 24, 2003
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E.
Vice President
Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc.
117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Harvest Ridge Master Development Plan Continents
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Chuck:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAX: 540/678-0682
We have completed our review of the proposed Harvest Ridge master development plan and offer
the following conunents:
1) The proposed plan does not indicate the method of stomiNvater management to be
implemented for the planned development. Based on my conversation with Ron
Mislowsky, it is anticipated that stormwater runoff will be channeled via open ditches
and/or pipes into the City of Winchester development located to the east. We will need
written confinnation from the City of Winchester that the downstream drainage structures
are adequate to handle the post -development storm flows from the Harvest Ridge
subdivision. This confinnation should be reflected on the approved master development
plan.
2) Any pertinent karst features such as sinkholes or outcrops should be delineated on the
master development plan. Include the sinkholes under environmental features.
3) Show the location of the open hand dug well which is located to the north of the existing
farm buildings. Describe measures to fill and/or cap this well.
4) Correct area discrepancies included under Housing Schedule.
If you should have any questions regarding the above comments, I can be reached at 665-5643,
Sincerely,
7& E . *W�wk
Harnr-.awsm,der. Jr., P.E.
Director of Public Works
107 North Dent Street • Winchester, Virginia 226111-5000
41
1� HOR%1�
WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT
February 27, 2003
491 AIRPORT ROAD
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602
(540) 662-2422
G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
% Charles E. Maddox
117 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Re: Master Plan Comments
Harvest Ridge
Back Creek Magisterial District
Dear Mr. Maddox:
The above referenced site plan has been reviewed and it appears the proposed
residential development is adjacent to or under a flight path used regularly by
aircraft as they arrive or depart the Winchester Regional Airport and is subject to
aircraft noise. While the site lies within the airport's airspace it does fall outside
of the airport's Part 77 surfaces.
Due to the proximity of this proposed subdivision located within the Winchester
Regional Airport airspace, property owners may experience aircraft noise and fly-
over from aircraft departing the flight pattern and as the airport continues to
expand services and operations, noise associated with such expansion will likely
increase.
Potential buyers may be aware of the airport's existence but they should be
forewarned about aircraft noise and fly -over nuisance from aircraft through a
disclosure statement, therefore we respectfully request the developer be required
to include this condition.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe
operations of the Winchester Regional Airport.
Sincerely,
Serena R. Manuel
Executive Director
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PIAN
1. Project Title: Harvest
2. Owner's Name: Greystone Properties, LLC
Jim Vickers
Richie Wilkins
(Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest)
3. Applicant: G.W_ Clifford & Associates, Inc.
Address c/o C.E. Maddox
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Winchester VA 22601
Phone (540) 667-2139
4. Design Company: G. W. Clifford & Associates. Inc.
Address 117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone Number (540) 667-2139
1
i
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Packaee
APPLICATION cont' d
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5. Location of Property: South and adjacent to Route 622 (Cedar Creek
Grade) bordering City/County line.
6. Total Acreage: 26.74 acres
7. Property Information:
a)
Property Identification Number (PIN):
63-A-2 & 63-A-3
b)
Current Zoning.
RP
c)
Present Use:
Vacant
d)
Proposed Use:
Single Family Small Lot
e)
Adjoining Property Information: See Attached
Property Identification
Property Uses
North
South
East
West
t)
9
Magisterial District: P, } VJ 1AR
S. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original X Amended
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick
County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan
shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be
complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application.
c
Signature: f
Date:;"
2
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
Adjoining Property Owners
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property
abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public
right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The
applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the
parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue.
The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administration
Building, 107 North Kent Street.
Name: Kenneth F. Marshall
964 Cedar Creek Grade, Winchester, VA 22601
Property # 63 -A -2A
Name: Turner Enterprises, LLC
949 Cedar Creek Grade, Winchester, VA 22601
Property # 63 -A -2H
Name: C&W properties
221 Millwood
Property # 63 -A -2K
Name: Kim B_ Walls & Marietta Cather
1207 Cedar Creek Grade, Winchester, VA 22602
Property # 63 -A -2J
Name: George W. Cather
3296 Apple Pie Ridge Road, Winchester, VA 22603
Property # 63 -A -3A
Name: Glaize Developments, Inc_
F.O. Box 888, Winchester, VA 22604
Property # 63-A-3
Name: Winc. Church of New Life
Christians Trustee
P.O. Box 1653, Winchester, VA 22604
Property # 63 -A -4D
Name: Willie McLauren, Jr.
139 Mountainview Lane, Winchester, VA 22602
Property # 63-5-1-8
Name: Blue Ridge Grace Brethern
1025 Cedar Creek Grade, Winchester, VA 22602
Property #63 -A -2E
City of Winchester
Adjoining Property Owners
Name: James Annable
2727 Windwood Drive, Winchester, VA 22601
Property # 289-4C-73
Name: Michael Lins
2723 Windwood Drive, Winchester, VA 22601
Fro ert # 289-4C-72
Name: David Mantone
2719 Windwood' Drive, Winchester, VA 22601
Pro e # 289-4C-71
Name: Richard Vossler
2711 Windwood Drive, Winchester, VA 22601
Pro ert# 289-4C-70
Name: AnthonyGavello
915 Westview Lane, Winchester, VA 22601
Property # 289-4C-65
Name: John Elliott 916 Westview Lane, Winchester, VA 22601
Property # 289-4C-64
60.9 6(24.
cm "� ASPHALT,"COATED
SLOPE AND LEN GATED O�I�L
LENGTH AS SPECIFIED
for) E
4,,
+,
0
�
LL
L
A
L
V
61m 1.52m
1.52m SIM
E
06
ac> r+cm
-�
V.
2.5'�m
t #'r '
—�-- X0.4&m
CU
O00
c
006o O b
o 0 10 o b o 0
ar°
e'
ps°D aBPpo0
•;
o°o
09000000
0 0 0
.`
RO°bQ0dop0ooQo0
°0000000a°0O
0. a
0o
00Oa0
o 0 00000
00Q°,6Q.0
<:,
1524cm (1) STONE
60.9 6(24.
cm "� ASPHALT,"COATED
SLOPE AND LEN GATED O�I�L
LENGTH AS SPECIFIED
for) E
r�
n
u
.�
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning. Commission
FROM: Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Transportation Issues Work Session
SUBJECT: Level of Service Conditions
DATE: April 7, 2003
FAX: 540/665-6395
A work session concerning emerging transportation issues will be held with representatives from the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) during the April 16, 2003, Planning Commission
meeting. In particular, this work session will focus on the increasingly challenging process of
evaluating the transportation impacts of land use proposals in terms of level of service conditions. As
you are aware, the transportation policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan state that roads within
and adjoining new development should maintain a Level of Service "C" or better. It is noted that
VDOT also considers Level of Service "C" to be the desired functional standard for state roads.
Several recent rezoning applications have included traffic impact analysis statements that project Level
of Service "D" conditions during PM peak hour traffic. Such diminished levels of service occur despite
the planned availability of proffered transportation improvements. Although not in conformance with
the Level of Service "C" objective, VDOT has accepted such impacts as appropriate in certain
scenarios. The result is an application whose transportation impacts are effectively approved by VDOT
but inconsistent with County policy. The purpose of this work session is to better understand the
issues underlying this phenomenon and enable discussion regarding how best to reconcile technical
realities with policy objectives.
Attached for your reference is a copy of the AASHTO matrix detailing level of service characteristics
by highway type. Moreover, a copy of the transportation polices of the Comprehensive Policy Plan
relevant to level of service conditions is also included for your review.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this agenda item.
CMM/cih
Attachment
U:\Chris\Common\Transportation\LOS Discussion PC.wpd
107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Transportation
The commonly used Highway Capacity Manual, which is produced by the Transportation Research
Board, contains methods for measuring the congestion and efficiency of existing and planned streets.
i ne Highway Capacity Manual describes congestion and the capacity of the road to carry traffic in
terms of levels of service, as shown in Table 13:
Fable 13: Level of Service- Categories and Description
Category Description of Traffic Conditions --
A
Free flow, operating speed at speed limit, turns easily made, excess green
time at signals.
B
Stable flow, operating speed at speed limit, some lines of vehicles at
intersections and turns, less than 10% of cycles loaded at signals.
C
Stable flow, operating below speed limit, some lines of vehicles at
intersections and turns, 10% to 30% of cycles loaded at signals.
D
Approaching unstable flow, fluctuating flow, little freedom to maneuver,
30% to 70% of cycles loaded at signal, some drivers must wait through one
cycle.
E
Unstable flow, low operating speed, 70% to 100% of cycles loaded at
signals, vehicles frequently wait through cycles
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1987
Most roads in Frederick County are currently operating at a "A" or 'B" level of service. Many
localities use a standard of "C" as the minimum acceptable level. Level of service "C" should be
maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments in the County. Traffic analysis should
be provided by applicants proposing new development to insure that needed road improvements are
identified in order to maintain or improve upon the level of service. In some cases, it will be
appropriate to expect the level of service of roads to be maintained at an "A" or "B" level. It will not
be acceptable for roads or intersections that are operating at a level of service "A" to deteriorate to
a "C" level over relatively short periods of time as a result of traffic generated from a single
development.
The type of land use adjoining any road and the resulting traffic generated is a major factor
influencing whether the use of a road exceeds its capacity. Land use, road improvements and
intersections should be carefully planned and controlled to provide maximum safety and efficiency
based on design capacity and level of service.
Frederick County 7 - 5 Comprehensive Plan
Level
Service
C
Level
Service
D
Controlled Access
Highways
Free flow. Average travel
speeds at or greater than 60
mph. Service flow rate of 700
passenger cars per hour per
lane.
Reasonably free flow
conditions. Average travel
speed at greater than 57 mph.
Service flow rate not greater
than 1,100 passenger cars per
hour per lane.
Operation stable, but becoming
more critical. Average travel
speed of 54 mph, service flow
at 77 percent of capacity or not
more than flow rate of 1,550
passengar cars per hour per
lane.
Multilane Rural
without Access Control
Average travel speed 57 mph or
greater. Under ideal conditions,
flow rate is limited to 700
passenger cars per lane per
hour or 36 percent of capacity.
Reasonably free flow. Volume
at which actions of preceding
vehicle will have some
influence on following vehicles.
Flow rates will not exceed 54
percent of capacity of 1,100
passenger vehicles per lane per
hour at a 53 mph average travel
speed under ideal conditions.
Stable flow to a flow rate not
exceeding 71 percent of
capacity of 1,400 passenger
cats per lane per hour, under
ideal conditions, maintaining
at least a 50 -mph average travel
speed.
IWo Lanes
Average travel speeds of 50
mph or higher. Most passing
maneuvers can be made with
little or no delay. Under ideal
conditions, a service flow rate
of 420 passenger car per hour,
total two-way, can be achieved.
Average travel speeds of 55
mph or higher. Flow rates may
reach 27 percent of capacity
with continuous passing sight
distance. Flow rates of 750
passenger cars per hour, total
two-way, can be carried under
ideal conditions.
Flow still stable- Average travel
speeds of 52 mph or above with
total flow rate under ideal
conditions equal to 43 percent
of capacity with continuous
passing sight distance or 1,200
passenger cars per hour total
two-way.
Table 11-5. Level -of -service characteristics by highway type.
Controlled Access
Highways
Lower speed range of stable
flow. Operation approaches
instability and is susceptible to
changing conditions. Average
travel speeds approx. 46 mph -
Service flow rates at 93 percent
of capacity. Flow rate cannot
exceed 1,850 passenger cars
per hour per lane.
Unstable flow. Average travel
speeds of 30-35 mph. Flow
rate at capacity or 2,000
passenger cars per hour per
lane under ideal conditions.
Traffic stream cannot dissipate
even minor disruptions. Any
incident may produce a serious
breakdown.
Forced flow. Freeway acts as a
storage for vehicles backed up
from downstream bottleneck.
Average travel speeds range
from near 30 mph to
stop -and -go operation.
Multilane Rural
without Access Control
Approaching unstable flow at
flow rates up to 87 percent of
capacity or 1,750 passenger
cars per hour at an average
travel speed of about 40 mph
under ideal conditions.
Flow at 100 percent of capacity
or 2,000 passenger cars per
lane per hour under ideal
conditions. Average travel
speeds of about 30 mph.
Forced flow, congested
condition with widely varying
volume characteristics.
Average travel speeds of less
than 30 mph_
Two Lanes
Approaching unstable flow_
Average travel speeds
approximately 50 mph. Flow
rates, two -direction, at 64
percent of capacity with
continuous passing
opportunity, or 1,800 passenger
cars per hour total two-way
under ideal conditions.
Average travel speeds in
neighborhood of 45 mph- Flow
rate under ideal conditions,
total two-way, equal to 2,800
passenger cars per hour. Level
E may never be attained.
Operation may go directly from
Level D to Level F
Forced, congested flow with
unpredictable characteristics.
Operating speeds less than 45
mph.
2 -
Urban and Suburban
Arterials
Average travel speed of about
90 percent of free flow speed_
Stopped delay at signalized
intersections is minimal_
Average travel speeds drop due
to intersection delay and
inter -vehicular conflicts, but
remain at 70 percent of free
flow speed. Delav is not
unreasonable.
Stable operations. Longer
queues at signals result in
average travel speeds of about
50 percent of free flow speeds.
Motorists will experience
appreciable tension.
Urban and Suburban
Arterials
Approaching unstable flow.
Average travel speeds down to
40 percent of free flow speed.
Delays at intersections may
become extensive.
Average travel speeds 33
percent of free flow speed.
Unstable flow_ Continuous
backup on approaches to
intersections.
Average travel speed between
25 and 33 percent of free flow
speed. Vehicular backups, and
high approach delays at
signalized intersections.
Table 11-5. Level -of -service characteristics by highway type. (Con't.)
a