Loading...
PC 05-21-03 Meeting Agendaar FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia MAY 21, 2003 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER fMCI 1) April 2, 2003 Minutes ........................ . . ....................... (A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no jab) 3) Citizen Comments .................................................. (�,jo tab) PUBLI" 4-5 4) UPDATE OFTHE NORTHEAS 3 LAND USE PLAN (NE L'1I� �'hc Northeas� Land Us Plan, a component of Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Flan, contains general land us, concepts for future development in the northeastern portion of Frederick County. (Mr. Lawrence) ........................................................ (B) 5) 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 April 2, 2003. PRESENT: Charles S_ DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/ Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas,Vice Chairman/Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Richard Schickle, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Cordell Watt, Back Creek District. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner I; 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. MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 5, 2003 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of February 5, 2003 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 03/27/03 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported considerable discussion at the DRRS meeting concerning the family division provisions in the ordinance; in particular, refining the requirements and the definition of"family Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1016 -2 - members." He said the DRRS will be continuing work on this topic. PUBLIC _HEARING 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. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner Rebecca Ragsdale stated that the applicant's proposed cottage occupation would involve the sale of outdoor wood -burning furnaces and the use of an existing barn to store several furnace units. Planner Ragsdale stated that only one employee would be associated with the proposed business, the applicant's business partner. She said sales would be conducted on an appointment -only basis. Planner Ragsdale reported no disapproving agency review continents. The applicant, Mr. Martin Monk, said that one furnace unit is in operation to heat his home and this would be his demonstration model. Mr. Monk said he plans to have only three units in stock, unless of a special order. He added that he was comfortable with all of the conditions recommended by the staff. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak_ Based on the limited scale of the applicant's proposed cottage occupation, the Commission believed the use would not detract from the rural character of the area. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Gouchenour, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #05-03 of Martin L. Monk for a Cottage Occupation for Sales of Outdoor Furnace Units at 1599 Hites Road with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and should not exceed four (4) square feet in size. 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. (Please Note: Commissioner Morris abstained from voting, due to his late arrival, and Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1017 -3 - 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. Action - Recommended Approval Senior Planner Abbe S. Kennedy reported that the Planning Staff has received a request from Mr. Kent Barley of Kent Barley Orchards, Inc. for the removal of one 149.06 -acre parcel, identified as P.I.N. 74-A-13, from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. Planner Kennedy stated that the Barleys have identified a need to have the flexibility to pursue other options for this acreage, however, they do not intend to entirely leave the apple industry. Planner Kennedy said that on March 6, 2003, the Agricultural District Advisory Board (ADAB) recognized the hardships in the current agriculture economy and the ADAB unanimously recommended that the parcel be removed from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District per Mr. Barley's request. The applicant, Mr. Kent Barley of Kent Barley Orchards, Inc, stated that this section of his apple orchard is old and would be too expensive to replace. Mr. Barley explained that the apple industry is suffering and he would not be able to profit on the investment it would take to replace the old section of his orchard. He said that he will continue to operate the younger sections of his orchard. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Paul Anderson, an adjoining farm owner, stated that he was one of five people to help form the Agricultural District and he was in favor of Mr. Barley's request. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Barley is only trying to maximize his opportunities by taking advantage of leaving the Agricultural District now instead of waiting for his term to come up for renewal. Members of the Planning Commission recognized the hardships with the current agriculture economy and supported the recommendation of the Agricultural District Advisory Committee. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the request from Kent Barley Orchards, Inc. to remove one parcel totaling 149.06 acres from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. This parcel is identified as Property Identification Number 74-A-13 and is located along Marlboro Road (Route 63 1) in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1018 -4 - 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. Action - Recommended Denial Deputy Planning Director, Christopher M. Mohn, reported that this application is a request to rezone six parcels, comprising 281.5 acres of RA -zoned property, to RP District for the development of 400 single-family detached residences with 72 acres of land dedicated for public uses. Deputy Director Mohn read the background information and the Planning Staff's review and issues. He said that all of the reviewing agencies offered positive comments except for the Airport Authority, which has expressed objection to residential land uses on the subject site and passed a resolution in November of 2002 formalizing their position. Deputy Director Mohn continued, stating that proffers include the commitment to three phases of development over the course of five years with 80 homes projected per year; a transportation improvement program with an internal collector road, bicycle lanes, and trail system; a projected Level of Service (LOS) "C" for both internal and external roads; the dedication of a 50 -acre site for public school uses; and approximately 20 acres for miscellaneous public services uses. In conclusion, Deputy Director Mohn stated that the Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically addresses the planned land uses for the subject parcels through the policies adopted with the Rt. 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan and the Airport Support Area. He noted that these policies uniformly recommend the establishment of non-residential land uses on the parcels. Deputy Director Mohn stated that the requested rezoning is, therefore, inconsistent with the adopted land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Benjamin Butler, the attorney representing the applicant, Taylor -Grace, the contract purchaser from the Richard G. and Donna C. Dick family, the Gregory L. Coverstone family, and the Carpers Valley Golf Club, L.P., came forward to speak. Mr. Butler said that Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, Mr. Tom Dick, an airport consultant, and he were available to present the rezoning application to the Commission. First, Mr. Butler gave a brief history of the events, including meetings and work sessions, that brought this project to the Commission at this point in time. Mr. Butler proceeded to address the three issues that have been raised with this rezoning request: whether the use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the suitability of the land for the use requested; and compatibility of the plan with the airport. Mr. Butler's interpretation ofthe Comprehensive Policy Plan was that residential development should be "limited," not "prohibited," around the airport and this could be achieved through aviation easements, height restrictions, and noise attenuation. He believed the design of the proposed development allowed it to be compatible with airport. Mr. Butler believed the airport's primary concern was noise and the airport's fear that noise complaints would cause the FAA to curtail funding. Mr. Butler argued that commercial property in this area of the County is not marketable and he gave various reasons why he believed this was so. He stated that 57% of the commercially -zoned acreage in the Rt. 50 East study area has not been developed and 75% of the 132 -zoned land east of Delco Plaza has not been developed commercially. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1019 -5 - Mr. Evan A. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering, the design engineering firm for the project, presented the project scope and he reviewed all of the proffers, in particular, the redesigned elements that occurred since the Planning Commission's joint work session. Mr. Wyatt said the issues expressed by airport representatives concerning future airport development were taken into consideration with their redesigned plan and he explained how this plan was compatible with FAA guidelines. He pointed out that only the section of property donated to the county as public service land will be slightly encroached by the airport's safety line. Mr. Wyatt said that during their research regarding airport protection, they referenced Loudoun County's Ordinance, which the FAA considers to be a "model ordinance" with regards to airport protection, and not only do they meet the criteria suggested, but it is exceeded. He next mentioned their intent to place a disclosure in the Deeds of Dedication and sales literature, and he described their intent to provide aviation easements over the entire acreage in residential land use. Mr. Wyatt next reviewed the proposed transportation improvements, noting that the proposed improvements will raise the Level of Service above current conditions; he pointed out the site's northern access, which will be a cross intersection point with Sulphur Springs Road and Rt. 50; and, he also pointed out the area they wish to donate to the County for a potential school site. Mr. Thomas Dick, the applicants' consultant for airport -related issues, commented on recent airport accidents that occurred in the vicinity of the Leesburg airport and he compared where those same type of accidents might occur in the vicinity of the Winchester Regional Airport. He stated that when accidents occur, they are usually in a direct line approach towards the runway. Mr. Dick believed this helped to substantiate the fact that when accidents occur, the residents of the proposed Custer Estates would be no more at risk than any other nearby existing development. Mr. Mark Flynn, Counsel to the Airport Authority, came forward to express the Airport Authority's position that a residential and school project adjacent to the airport will create problems for the airport regarding noise, safety, and future growth. He believed it -would be safer to have commercial development around the airport, rather than residential, because commercial development would not be as high density as residential development on a regular basis. Mr. Flynn brought the Commission's attention to a letter of opposition to the proposed rezoning from the State Department of Aviation, dated April 2, 2003. He argued that if the property is rezoned to high-density residential, the FAA will not fund the purchase of additional property for the airport; he explained that any future growth by the airport will take place on the proposed project's side of the runway. Mr. Flynn believed the rezoning request was inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and he read excerpts from the Plan which, he believed, discouraged residential development in an Airport Support Area. Mr. John Longacre with Delta Airport Consultants, an engineering consultant for the airport, came forward to talk about the increased impact of airport noise on the surrounding community as demands on the airport increase over the years. He said that the impact of noise, vibrations, fumes, dust, and fuel particles may create a quality of life issue for the surrounding residential community. Mr. Franklyn Suliveres, a conwlunity resident and representative for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), read a letter to the Commission from the AOPA, dated April 1, 2003, which detailed the reasons for AOPA's opposition to the Custer Estates rezoning application. Those reasons included noise, safety, compatibility, and inconsistency with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Suliveres said that residential encroachment of airports is the first step in a slow strangulation and ultimate closure of Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1020 WIE affected airports. He believed the County had an obligation to the airport to prevent future problems from developing. Mr. Duke Stanton, the Commander of the Winchester Composite Squadron of the Civil Air Patrol, believed the Airport Authority had valid issues concerning the compatibility of residential development around the airport and he was opposed to the rezoning. He knew of situations where airports were closed because of encroaching residential development. Mr. Rick Miller, the PGA Golf Professional at Carpers Valley Golf Club, came forward to speak in favor ofthe proposed rezoning. Mr. Miller brought the Commission's attention to the three and four- story apartments on Bufflick Road, built within the last few years, the Ravens and Pioneer Heights residential developments, the Sleep Inn, the Travel Lodge, and the Marriott, currently under construction, and all in close proximity to the landing and take -off zone of the airport runway. He saw no reason why this subdivision could not be compatible with the airport as well - Mr. Paul Anderson, a veteran pilot, said he has been involved with the airport in various roles since he was a teenager. Mr. Anderson said he served as Frederick County's representative on the Airport Commission; he also served with the Airport Authority and, for a number of years, he was the chairman for both boards. Mr. Anderson told the Commission he was involved with the development of the Airport Protection Zone and he described the zone's boundaries. He said the Airport Protection Zone was created to protect the airport from encroachment of non -compatible development, which is primarily residential. He explained that the FAA recognizes that Frederick County has a five -acre lot or two -acre rule ordinance subdivision and this density would not affect funding to the airport. However, he explained that the FAA expects the Airport Authority and the local jurisdiction to protect the investment of the airport and if the local jurisdiction does not protect that investment, the FAA will not contribute funding. Mr. Anderson stated that from 1987 to 2002, over 18 million dollars has been invested in the airport, which is a considerable amount of money invested towards future economic development in Winchester and Frederick County. Mr. Whitney Wagner, 251 Tyler Drive in Clearbrook, a partner and manager of Prince Frederick Group, L.C., the lessor to the Core of Engineers, came forward to speak in favor of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Wagner said the Core of Engineers' building adjoins the subject property on the west and north and they were in favor of the rezoning primarily for security reasons. He said they are in the process of installing a high -security fence and the applicants have proffered a 100 -foot setback on the east side, where a clear area is needed for their surveillance cameras. He said the proposed public safety building would be a great asset to them because it would provide regular security oversight of their property. In addition, Mr. Wagner said they have also been diligently working with the applicant on the location of an entrance road for the Core's building. Mr. Walt Cunningham, a resident on Greenwood Road, stated that he has been a responder at Greenwood Fire Company for 30 years and during that time, has responded to a number of severe accidents at Sulphur Springs Road and Rt. 50; he was encouraged to know that a traffic signal was planned for this intersection. In addition, he believed the connector road from Senseny Road across to the Ravens subdivision would greatly improve safety. Mr. Cunningham believed the Winchester Regional Airport was one ofthe safest and best -managed airports on the east coast. For these reasons, Mr. Cunningham was in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Ervin Shendow, a Winchester City resident and 6,000 -hour pilot, said he has flown at the Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1021 -7 - Winchester Airport since 1958 and owns a twin -engine aircraft that he uses for business and pleasure. Mr. Shendow said he did not want to speak in favor or opposition to the rezoning petition, however, he did describe the increasing amount of air traffic at the airport and the amount of caution required by pilots during take -off and landing. Mr. Shendow said that if a mid-air collision occurs, he believed it would more than likely happen in the area directly over the proposed residential project. Mr. Al Orndorff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent of Frederick County Schools, focused his comments entirely on the proffer for the public school site. Mr. Orndorff said that geographically, this site is located between two schools, one exceeding 100% capacity and the other exceeding 90% capacity. From that respect, he believed the proposed school site was in a favorable location. He also agreed with previous comments that the signalization at Sulphur Springs Road and re -alignment of the intersection would improve transportation safety, whether the school went there or not. Mr. Manuel Sempeles, resident of Stonewall District, spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning because of the proffers offered by the applicant. Ms. Ann Coverstone, wife of one of the property owners ofthe project, stated that the Airport Authority continues to talk about expansion, however, no documented future plan for airport expansion exists. Ms. Coverstone stated that she didn't think the runways could be made longer at the airport to accept bigger aircraft. With regard to safety, she commented that airplanes fly low over the Apple Blossom Mall and with regard to noise, she said they are bothered more by the noise from the Winchester Speedway and trucks on I-81 than they are from airport noise. Commissioner Thomas asked the representatives ofthe Airport Authority ifthey had a master plan for the airport's future development. Mr. Mark Flynn, Counsel for the Airport Authority, replied that they have a very preliminary plan with possible location footprints for large hangars on the north side. Mr. Flynn said that development of an Airport Master Plan has been incorporated into their July 1, 2003 budget, however, the process requires involvement by the FAA and the Department of Aviation. The Executive Director of the Winchester Airport, Ms. Renny Manuel, said the airport's existing master plan was updated in 1993 for 20 -year development, and basically, concentrated on the south side of the runway. She said that beginning with the July 1, 2003 Budget Year, money has been appropriated to begin the master plan for development on the north side ofthe runway, because they have outgrown the south side. Ms. Manuel stated that the airport was not asking the County to protect any additional areas outside of those areas already outlined in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. She said the Airport Support Area boundaries were agreed upon jointly by the airport, the Planning Department, and Frederick County in the early 1990's, after the development of Preston Place, in order to avoid safety issues or noise complaints. There next ensued some discussion between the Commissioners and Ms. Manuel on specific funding requirements of the FAA and the consequences of high-density residential development adjacent to the airport. Ms. Manuel explained that the FAA has stated that if the Airport Authority doesn't try to protect the airport, by working through the local jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, the FAA will not participate in acquiring property for the airport in the future. She said the key was "new" residential zoning which would increase the density. The Airport Authority's Counsel, Mr. Mark Flynn, added that the airport cannot provide for big aircraft on the south side of the runway; he said the only place it can be done is on the north side. Mr. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1022 -8 - Flynn said that comments from the FAA and the Department of Aviation have alluded to the fact that this development will likely have an impact on funding for those future projects. All the citizens present had an opportunity to speak and, therefore, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment section of the meeting. Mr. Tom Dick, the applicants' airport consultant, returned to the podium for rebuttal. He said that their research indicated that both the Newport News Airport and the Leesburg Airport had no funding curtailments by the FAA because of residential development around those airports. Commissioner Thomas suggested the placement of a berm between the houses and the apron area and orienting homes so that windows don't face the airport area to help mitigate sound. Mr. Wyatt said their discussions with the airport have included berms, low-level vegetative planting, and sound attenuation for residential structures. Commissioner Thomas said he expected to see greater detail within the proffers towards sound attenuation, especially for homes located within a couple thousand feet of the apron or runway, specifically, triple -pane glass, six-inch studding, additional insulation in the roof, all of which would go a long way to reduce the dissatisfaction of the homeowners. Commissioners Straub and Gochenour were opposed to the rezoning for safety issues. Commissioner Rosenberry expressed his opposition to the rezoning because of the position held by the Winchester Airport, the Virginia Department ofAviation, the Federal Aviation Authority, individual pilots, and the Civil Air Patrol. In addition he believed it would require an exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan. All in all, Cornnussioner Morris believed the proposal was very good and he agreed that B2 was probably not the best use of land in this area. However, Commissioner Morns noted that he has vigorously defended the Comprehensive Plan in the past and would continue to do so. Commissioner Thomas believed the proposal presented was an excellent one and the applicant had covered many important issues. He said that he was disappointed in the presentation from the Airport Authority, however, because of no master plan or facts for the Commission examine. Commissioner Thomas believed there needed to be valid reasons not to support what a developer is proposing. Commissioner Ours was disappointed that more guidance didn't come out ofthe work session that was held with the Board of Supervisors last August. Commissioner Fisher expressed two issues which influenced his opposition to the proposed rezoning: The first was the economic development status of the community and the airport's integral role in economic development, and, second, was the fact that the proposal was not in keeping with the Comprehensive Policy Plan in the protection of the airport area. Commissioner Fisher commented about the considerable investment already made by Frederick County and the City of Winchester into the airport facility to draw economic interests to our area. He said that during budget preparations, the County Administrator raised issues of business stagnation and sales taxes, which he believed was the result of the lack of industrial and business growth in our region. Conunissioner Fisher believed that if the airport is lost as an economic development asset, especially with the tremendous investment that has already been made, it would be a detriment to the community. He also stressed that the Comprehensive Plan has always been the guiding tool Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1023 KIM of the Planning Commission, especially in light of adversarial comments and pressure. Chairman DeHaven believed the applicants had done an outstanding job and had made tremendous effort to cooperate and address issues with airport. Chairman DeHaven advised, however, that the Commission separate its consideration of Comprehensive Plan issues from specific development application issues. Commissioner Thomas next moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger, but was defeated by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Thomas, Unger NO: Rosenberry, Triplett, Fisher, Kriz, Ours, Straub, Gochenour, Morris, Light, DeHaven A motion was next made by Commissioner Morris to recommend denial ofthe rezoning. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Fisher and passed by the following majority vote: YES (TO DENY): Straub, Gochenour, Morris, Light, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry, DeHaven NO: Unger, Thomas (Please Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Commission unanimously agreed to make the letter from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Aviation a part of the official record. 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. Action - Recommended Approval Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that 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. He said 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. Planner Camp stated that both the staff and the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) believe that the structure of the ordinance was mistakenly changed in the Year 2000 when the County revised the regulations in the R5 District. He explained that the present ordinance was never intended to apply to just these residential types; therefore, the proposed text amendment is an attempt to correct Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1024 MUM this error within the ordinance. In addition, Planner Camp said the proposed amendment clarifies when it is appropriate to allow reduced yard setbacks and how much of a reduction can be granted. There were no citizen continents regarding this proposed amendment. The Planning Commission believed the amendment was appropriate and no issues were raised. Upon motion made by Conunissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of a 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. (Please Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) 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. Action - Recommended Approval Planner Jeremy F. Camp reported that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered a request by a local resident to add Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 83 -Social Services to the list of allowed uses in the B2 (Business General) District and the MS (Medical Support) District. Planner Camp stated that after review and discussion, the DRRS believed 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 reported that the DRRS did not support adding these uses to the MS (Medical Support) Zoning District. There were no citizen continents. The Planning Commission believed the amendment was appropriate and no issues were raised. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 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. (Please Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1025 -11 - 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. Action - Recommended Approval Planner Jeremy F. Camp reported that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) has prepared proposed revisions to Section 165-27.E, 165-31, 165-36, and 165-156 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance which will replace the current woodland regulations with new landscaping standards. Planner Camp explained that the primary goals 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. He noted that the amendments were prepared by the DRRS over a period of several months with input from local citizens, businesses, and organizations. Planner Camp advised the Commission that only minor changes have been made to the proposed amendments since staff presented them to the Planning Commission on December 18, 2002. Commissioners Rosenberry and Gouchenour were concerned about the possibility that the proposed amendment would disturb a greater amount of existing trees than what the ordinance currently allows. Planner Camp explained that the current ordinance allows disturbance of 25% of existing woodlands, which is then followed by road construction, and sewer and sidewalk installation, to satisfy the existing woodlands requirements. He said that afterward, individual builders purchase the lots and remove most of the remaining trees; so ultimately, the result is closer to 70% disturbance of woodlands. Planner Camp explained that under the proposed amendment, 25 % of the lot is required to be preserved in woodlands and the key is that it be located within open space. He said the woodlands will be preserved, they will be kept out of individual lots so builders do not remove woodlands during construction, and, there will be additional useable open space required. It was also pointed out that trees will be required to be added on parcels where there are no existing woodlands. Chairman DeHaven inquired about the reason for requesting the 2 1/2 -inch caliper on street tree landscaping as opposed to the two-inch required in other areas of the ordinance. Planner Camp replied that it was a measure to balance out the cost factor between the two options of either replanting street trees or doing ornamental landscaping. He said the DRRS didn't want everyone to choose only one specific type of replanting because of the cost factor. There were no public cormnents. The Commission believed the DRRS had done an outstanding job developing this ordinance. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 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. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1026 ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. -12 - No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. by a Respectfully submitted, Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Convnission Minutes of April 2, 2003 Page 1027 • C • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM t� winweww�.3..w.nw,.�agc+wnRv TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director RE: Public Hearing - Northeast Land Use Plan revisions DATE: Ma 6, 2003 The Board of Supervisors, at their April 23, 2003 meeting, directed staff to schedule a public hearing to consider proposed revisions to the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). The Board motioned a preference for Alternative 4, but directed that all alternative land use plans be provided for comment (See attached Board of Supervisors April 23, 2003 draft meeting minutes). Based on the Board's motion, staff has drafted text to accompany the Alternative 4 Land Use Plan, and scheduled a public hearing for the Planning Commission's May 21, 2003 meeting. Northeast .Land Use Plan - Alternative 4 The primary change that Alternative 4 proposes to the Northeast Land Use Plan is the introduction of a Residential Planned Community land use, and an expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA). The Residential Planned Community would occupy an area previously designated for Industrial land use (equates to approximately 970 acres in land use changes). Similarly, the Urban Development Area would be expanded by approximately 1,200 acres to accommodate the Residential. Planned Community land use. The proposed text and land use plan to accommodate Alternative 4 are attached. (See attached 'Proposed - to Accommodate the Alternative 4 Land Use Plan') Staff has attached the following for your review: 1) The existing Northeast Land Use Plan and narrative as included in the 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan 2) The proposed text and land use plan to accommodate Alterative 4, the identified preference of the Board of Supervisors. 3) Alternative 1, 2, and 3 land use plans and their respective descriptions. 4) Draft Motion Minutes from the Board of Supervisors' April 23, 2003 meeting. 5) NELUP Revisions - Background Information Following the public hearing, a recommendation to forward for the Board's consideration would be appropriate. Staff will be available to address the Commissions' questions. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • C t 14313 " yrs rh _ W E Aw., 0.5 0 0.5 M ri '. ivy . � Y j,✓r'�,' x" ,f d LEGEND VIM rea u— a,=.s1v—SA 1�� oxva Boal C ,,—Wy Cmtx Wren F. . ' Pwrdr sb—. H.t011c FEm... Roads �jrtrr.b el NPnmwtaatrom I3 s7 ExiMrtm ,?4;�1Mw Cell.da Rntl. jj N�sNPWUW- Z" [w (fin ®(kWU.t it7taAMW IMW" wGd bccGC b stl [ ��rL 1RIbWuW1d.Gw lUYWctl 18/1 IMAM -!—Ca Abh RP (Rer kM.d Pmror—.0r q Frederick County Planning Department September 27, 2000 Northeast Land Us e l�, 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan Route 11 North Corridor Plan In 1995, the Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development Commission identified a shortage of available industrial sites with rail access, a vital element in recruiting potential industries. As a result, the county initiated a search for potential locations for such uses. Numerous areas were identified within the northeastern portion of the County along the Route 11 North corridor that could be attractive sites for industrial development with rail access. As a result, the Board of Supervisors directed the County's Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) to develop a land use plan for the Route 11 North corridor from Interstate 81 Exit 317 to Exit 321. In 1996, a land use plan for the Route 11 North corridor from Interstate 81 Exit 317 to Exit 321 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Approximately 3,200 acres of land was included within the adopted study area boundary of the Route 11 North corridor which extended from Interstate 81 to the west and the Hot Run, Hiatt Run, and Redbud Run drainage basins to the east. Portions of the Stephenson Rural Community Center and the Clearbrook Rural Community Center were included within the study area boundary. The Route 11 North Land Use Plan recommended industrial and commercial development as the predominant land use within the study area boundary. New large- scale residential development was not proposed as a component of the land use plan. Finally, a Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation was established to preserve and protect existing residential land uses, historic features, and significant open space areas. The DSA was recommended along the Route 11 North corridor, the Milburn Road corridor, and along the western segment of the Old Charles Town Road corridor. 6-33 an excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan Recent Issues Development activity and land use speculation has occurred along the Route I 1 corridor between Interstate 81, Exit 321 and Exit 323 since the adoption of the north of the Route 11 North Land Use Plan. Concerns expressed by county officials and citizens regarding various land use activities and plans in this area led the Board of Supervisors to direct the CPPS to revisit the previously adopted land use plan. The Board of Supervisors directed the CPPS to develop a land use plan which expanded upon the Route 1 I North plan to incorporate all land east of Interstate 81 between Interstate 81 mile marker 316 and Interstate 81 Exit 323 to the Opequon Creek, as well as land on the west side of Interstate 81 at Exit 321 and Exit 323. Land Use Plan Obiectives The CPPS conducted two visioning meetings in January 2000 at the Stonewall Elementary School. These meetings provided an opportunity for the CPPS to determine issues of importance to the community and to familiarize participants with the process necessary to undertake a large -area land use study and develop a land use plan for the designated area. Participants were encouraged to vote on identified issues and to submit comments associated with a prepared questionnaire. The CPPS utilized this information to establish objectives for the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan Objectives Policies ► Develop policies which provide for a balance of growth and preservation. ► Develop policies which prohibit higher density growth within defined portions of the study area. ► Ensure that public water and sewer service with adequate capacity accompanies future development proposals. ► Ensure that adequate Levels of Service for all road systems are maintained or are achieved as a result of future development proposals. ► Apply appropriate quality design standards for future development within the study area. 6-34 an excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan Land Use ► Concentrate industrial uses near major road and railroad transportation systems. ► Encourage industrial uses to locate within master planned areas. ► Provide for interstate business development opportunities on the eastern and western sides of Interstate 81 interchanges. ► Concentrate business uses at strategic locations along the Route 11 North corridor. ► Discourage random business and industrial land uses along Route 11 that are incompatible with adjacent existing land uses. Transportation ► Identify appropriate locations for signalized intersections to maintain or improve Levels of Service. ► Encourage central access points to industrial areas, minimizing new driveways and intersections with Route 11 North, Route 761, Route 664, Route 669, and Route 671. ► Encourage the expansion of Route 11 to a four -lane roadway. ► Determine appropriate locations for new connector roads within industrial and commercial areas to minimize traffic impacts on Route 11 North and existing secondary roads. ► Discourage new access points along the historic Milburn Road corridor (Route 662). Infrastructure ► Identify appropriate locations within the study area for inclusion in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). ► Determine impacts of proposed future land uses on the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant. ► Determine appropriate types of water and sewer systems to serve existing and proposed land uses. Historical ► Ensure that recommendations of Third Winchester Battlefield Preservation Plan are implemented to the extent possible. ► Determine appropriate methods to protect significant historic areas and corridors that are identified by the Battlefield Network Plan. 6-35 an excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan 2000 Comprehensive Policy Adan ► Identify appropriate locations to implement Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) land use designations to protect potentially significant historic resources as identil:ed by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. Ensure that the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviews all development proposals which impact identified DSA. Environmental ► Identify environmentally sensitive areas such as flood plains and steep slopes to ensure that future land use impacts to these areas are minimized or avoided. ► Identify areas for agricultural and open space preservation. ► Encourage land preservation programs such as conservation easements, agricultural and forestal districts, and public purchase of permanent easements. Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan is intended to expand upon, and supersede the Route 11 North Land Use Plan which was adopted in 1996. The study area boundaries have been significantly expanded to incorporate approximately 14,500 acres of land between Interstate 81, the West Virginia state line, the Opequon Creek, and the northern study area boundary limits of the Route 7 East Corridor Plan. The revised study area boundary accounts for the entire acreage which comprised the Route 11 North Land Use Plan. The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan has been designed to provide for a balance of land uses which includes industrial and commercial growth along the major road and railroad corridors, and the preservation of rural areas and significant historic features within the study area boundaries. Future land uses within the study area boundary should be sensitive to existing and planned land uses. The land use plan has been designed to provide the opportunity to develop industrial and business uses in a well-planned, coordinated manner. Industrial land uses are proposed adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad in the southern and northern portions of the study area, and adjacent to the CSX Railroad in the southern portion of the study area and within the Stephenson Rural Community Center between Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) and the Global Chemstone Quarry. Proposed industrial land uses should be developed within master planned areas which discourage individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike (Route I 1 North) corridor. Industrial land uses should be adequately screened from adjoining land uses to mitigate visual and noise impacts. Furthermore, industrial land uses should be planned to provide greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike to enhance the appearance of the corridor. 6-36 an excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan Business and commercial land uses are proposed along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, on the east and west side of Interstate 81 Exits 317, 321, and 323, and within the southeastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) near Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) and Milburn Road (Route 662). It is envisioned that commercial land uses which cater to the interstate traveler will be developed along the three Interstate 81 interchange areas, while retail, service, and office land uses will occur along the Martinsburg Pike corridor and the southeastern portion of the SWSA. The development of business and commercial land uses is encouraged at designated signalized road intersections. All business and commercial uses are encouraged to provide inter -parcel connectors to enhance accessibility between uses and reduce disruptions to primary and secondaryroad systems. Additionally, business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impacts. The preservation and protection of significant historic resources, environmentally sensitive areas, and open space areas is encouraged by this land use plan. The majority of the acreage within the study area which comprises these features has been protected from industrial and commercial development through its exclusion from the SWSA expansion. This acreage includes the core area of the Opequon Battlefield (3d Battle of Winchester); significant historic properties including Sulfer Spring Spa (34-110), Cleridge (34-111), and Hackwood (34-134); the majority of the steep slope and mature woodland areas; and all of the flood plain and wetland areas associated with Opequon Creek. Significant historic resources including the core area of Stephensons Depot (2" battle of Winchester), Kenilworth (34-113), the Branson House (34-137), Milburn (34-729), the Byers House (34-1124), and the Milburn Road corridor (Route 662), and minor areas of steep slope and mature woodlands fall within the expanded SWSA boundary. The land use plan incorporates a Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation to ensure that these features, as well as existing residential clusters and public land uses are protected from future industrial and commercial development proposals. The DSA is a community and historical preservation area; therefore, adjacent uses which are incompatible should provide adequate buffers and screening. The DSA is intended to discourage any development along the Milburn Road corridor and to promote a higher standard of development along the Martinsburg Pike corridor where residential clusters and public land uses dominate. Development regulations should be reviewed to ensure that they protect and promote a cohesive community environment within the study area with special attention to the DSA, while providing flexibility to encourage high quality development. The expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) is not proposed within the land use study boundary; therefore, higher density residential land use is not proposed. The land use plan recommends the allowance of residential land uses within the three Rural Community Centers (RCC). Residential land use should only occur in conjunction with public water and sewer service, and should be compatible with existing residential densities and lot sizes within each community center. 6-36.1 an excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan Infrastructure Components The proposed industrial and commercial land uses identified in this land use plan are recommended to be developed with public water and sewer service unless they are of a scale that can be served by a conventional well and drain field system. Therefore, it is the recommendation of this land use plan to prohibit package treatment plants unless they are of a scale and design that is feasible for them to be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for operation and maintenance. Furthermore, proposed industrial and commercial land use development should only occur if impacted road systems function at a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. The installation of public water and sewer infrastructure, the development of new road systems and new signalization, and improvements to existing road systems will be the responsibility of private property owners and developers, unless the Board of Supervisors determine that public private partnerships are appropriate. Transportation: Proposed industrial and commercial development within the land use plan boundary will necessitate improvements to existing road systems and the construction of new road systems. The land use plan provides for the general location of new collector roads and signalized intersections to channel vehicular traffic between key intersections throughout the study area. These collector roads are intended to promote efficient traffic movement between land uses, enhance safety by limiting individual commercial entrances and turning movements at random points, and preserve capacities on existing road systems to ensure adequate levels of service. The general location of new collector roads and new signalized intersections is depicted on the land use plan map. The development of these transportation improvements will be required as proposed industrial and commercial projects are realized. Improvements to existing primary and secondary road systems will be required throughout the study area. To ensure that these road improvements occur, proposed developments should be expected to provide dedicated right- of-ways and construct all improvements deemed necessary by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Board of Supervisors. Improvements to the existing primary and secondary road systems include improving Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) to a four -lane facility, and improving the width and geometries of Rest Church Road (Route 669); Woodbine Road (Route 669); Branson Spring Road (Route 668); Woodside Road (Route 671); Brucetown Road (Route 672); Stephenson Road (Route 664); and Old Charles Town Road (Route 761). 6-36.2 an excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan 2000 Comprehensive .Polly Plan A corridor has been reserved along the proposed alignment of Route 37 - Alternative C; Phase N. This corridor is flanked on either side by proposed industrial and commercial land uses. The proposed industrial and commercial land uses may provide an opportunity for the development of a future interchange along the phase of the Route 37 corridor. Water and Sewer: Proposed industrial and commercial development within the land use plan boundary will be developed in conjunction with public water and sewer infrastructure. Public water infrastructure exists within the study area along Martinsburg Pike from the southern study area boundary to the intersection with Interstate 81 Exit 321. This infrastructure extends to the east, following portions of Stephensons Road (Route 664); Old Charles Town Road (Route 664); and Gun Club Road (Route 666). Currently, no public sewer infrastructure exists within the study area boundary. Currently, the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant (OWWTP) is the closest treatment facility to the study area boundary. Utilization of the OWWTP would require the development of pump stations and lift stations throughout the study area. The proposed industrial and commercial land use acreages have been compiled to determine the potential impacts to the OWWTP capacities. The estimated development of these acreages demonstrates that capacities at the OWWTP will be exceeded prior to the buildout of these areas. The Board of Supervisors will need to work with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) to determine appropriate methods for establishing public water and sewer infrastructure with adequate capacities. Appropriate methods may include partnerships and agreements with adjoining localities to utilize existing infrastructure, the development of new treatment facilities for water extraction and sewer treatment, or public/private partnerships to develop necessary infrastructure. 6-36.3 an excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan :7 a 0 1 Miles Northeast Land Use Plan Alternative 4 LEGEND Map Features WStudy Area Boundary &4%0�-,WSA 000 UDA Rural Community Centers Mill Wafer Fedures /VPemnnd Streams Histone Fealties Planned Land Use Residential r` Business ndustnal \\ Rural Area Developmentdly Sensdbe /Yeas !Residential Planned Community Roads Irllerstate 81 N Pnmery Highways N Secondary Roads Railroads Proposed Route H Extension �+eT New Cdledor Roods +, Now Signal -tion E^dsfing Zoning B2 (Rumness, General Distrid) -( (Industnal Transition DisMd) EM (Ex actwe Man aclunng Dishid) Mi (Industrial, Light Dishld) M2 (Induslnsl. General Distract) MH, (Mobile Home Comm-dy) RA (Rural Area) RP (Residential Performance Eoshod) DRAFT 05/05/03 PROPOSED - To Accommodate the Alternative 4 Land Use Plan - PROPOSED Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan The northeastern portion of Frederick County has been studied on three occasions to ascertain the most appropriate land uses for its future. First in 1995, then in 1999. In 2002, the area was studied once again in an effort to discern if thisportion of the County contained an excess of industrial land use designations. Through the adoption of the 2002 land use planning efforts, the amount of land designated industrial was significantly reduce, and the residential planned community land use designation was introduced. In 1995, the Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development Commission identified a shortage of available industrial sites with rail access, a vital element in recruiting potential industries. As a result, the County initiated a search for potential locations for such uses. Numerous areas were identified within the northeastern portion of the County along the Route 11 North corridor that could be attractive sites for industrial development with rail access. As a result, the Board of Supervisors directed the 11111 County's Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) to develop a land use plan for the Route 11 North corridor from Interstate 81 Exit 317 to Exit 321. In 1996, a land use plan for the Route 11 North corridor from Interstate 81 Exit 317 to Exit 321 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Approximately 3,200 acres of land was included within the adopted study area boundary of the Route 11 North corridor which extended from Interstate 81 to the west and the Hot Run, Hiatt Run, and Redbud Run drainage basins to the east. Portions of the Stephenson Rural Community Center and the Clearbrook Rural Community Center were included within the study area boundary. The Route 11 North Land Use Plan recommended industrial and commercial development as the predominant land use within the study area boundary. New large- scale residential development was not proposed as a component of the land use plan. Finally, a Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation was established to preserve and protect existing residential land uses, historic features, and significant open space areas. The DSA was recommended along the Route 11 North corridor, the Milburn Road corridor, and along the western segment of the Old Charles Town Road corridor. 1999 Land Use Study Development activity and land use speculation has occurred along the Route 11 corridor between Interstate 81, Exit 321 and Exit 323 since the adoption of the north of the Route 11 North Land Use Plan. Concerns expressed by county officials and citizens regarding various land use activities and plans in this area led the Board of Supervisors to direct the CPPS to revisit the previously adopted excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; revised to reflect Alternative 4 Land Use Plan PROPOSED - To Accommodate the Alternative 4 Land Use Plan - PROPOSED land use plan. The Board of Supervisors directed the CPPS to develop a land use plan which expanded upon the Route 11 North Plan to incorporate all land east of Interstate 81 between Interstate 81 mile marker 316 and Interstate 81 Exit 323 to the Opequon Creek, as well as land on the west side of Interstate 81 at Exit 321 and Exit 323. Northeast Land Use Plan Objectives Policies ► Develop policies which provide for a balance of growth and preservation. ► Develop policies which prohibit higher density growth within defined portions of the study area. ► Ensure that public water and sewer service with adequate capacity accompanies future development proposals. ► Ensure that adequate Levels of Service for all road systems are maintained or are achieved as a result of future development proposals. ► Apply appropriate quality design standards for future development within the study area. Land Use ► Concentrate industrial uses near major road and railroad transportation systems. ► Encourage industrial uses to locate within master planned areas. ► Provide for interstate business development opportunities on the eastern and western sides of Interstate 81 interchanges. ► Concentrate business uses at strategic locations along the Route 11 North corridor. ► Discourage random business and industrial land uses along Route 11 that are incompatible with adjacent existing land uses. Transportation excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; revised to reflect Alternative 4 Land Use Plan .2. PROPOSED - To Accommodate the Alternative 4 ,Land Use Pian - PROPOSED ► Identify appropriate locations for signalized intersections to maintain or improve Levels of Service. ► Encourage central access points to industrial areas, minimizing new driveways and intersections with Route I 1 North, Route 761, Route 664, Route 669, and Route 671. ► Encourage the expansion of Route 11 to a four -lane roadway. ► Determine appropriate locations for new connector roads within industrial and commercial areas to minimize traffic impacts on Route 11 North and existing secondary roads. ► Discourage new access points along the historic Milburn Road corridor (Route 662). Infrastructure ► Identify appropriate locations within the study area for inclusion in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). ► Determine impacts of proposed future land uses on the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant. D Determine appropriate types of water and sewer systems to serve existing and proposed land uses. Historical ► Ensure that recommendations of the Third Winchester Battlefield Preservation Plan are implemented to the extent possible. ► Determine appropriate methods to protect significant historic areas and corridors that are identified by the Battlefield Network Plan. ► Identify appropriate locations to implement Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) land use designations to protect potentially significant historic resources as identified by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. Ensure that the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviews all development proposals which impact identified DSA. Environmental ► Identify environmentally sensitive areas such as flood plains and steep slopes, to ensure that future land use impacts to these areas are minimized or avoided. ► Identify areas for agricultural and open space preservation. excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; revised to reflect Alternative 4 Land Use Plan -3- PROPOSED - To Accommodate the Alternative 4 .hand Use Plan - PROPOSED ► Encourage land preservation programs such as conservation easements, agricultural and forestal districts, and public purchase of permanent easements. Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan The 2002 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan is intended to expand upon and supercede elements of the 1995 and 1999 Plan Use Plans which were adopted in 1996 and 2000, respectively. The 2002 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan has been designed to provide for a balance of land uses which includes industrial and commercial growth along the major road and railroad corridors, the introduction of a residential planned community land use, and the preservation of rural areas and significant historic features within the study area boundaries. Future land uses within the study area boundary should be sensitive to existing and planned land uses. The land use plan has been designed to provide the opportunity to develop industrial, business, and planned residential uses in a well- planned, coordinated manner. Industrial land uses are proposed adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad in the southern and northern portions of the study area. Proposed industrial land uses should be developed within master planned areas which discourage individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) corridor. Industrial land uses should be adequately screened from adjoining land uses to mitigate visual and noise impacts. Furthermore, industrial land uses should be planned to provide greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike to enhance the appearance of the corridor. Business and commercial land uses are proposed along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, on the east and west side of Interstate 81 Exits 317, 321, and 323 within the southeastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). It is envisioned that commercial land uses which cater to the interstate traveler will be developed along the three Interstate 81 interchange areas, while retail, service, and office land uses will occur along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, and complement the residential planned community in the southeastern portion of the SWSA. The development of business and commercial land uses is encouraged at designated signalized road intersections. All business and commercial uses are encouraged to provide inter -parcel connectors to enhance accessibility between uses and reduce disruptions to primary and secondary road systems. Additionally, business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impacts. Residential Planned Community land uses are proposed in the southeastern portion of the study area, immediately south ofthe Stephenson Rural Community Center. The residential planned community should complement the adjoining rural community center and provide for a planned, mixed-use excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; revised to reflect Alternative 4 Land Use Plan KIM PROPOSED - To Accommodate the Alternative 4 Laud Use Plan - PROPOSED development which provides services for its residents. Public uses such as school, parks; and _fire and rescue facilities should be provided for within the planned community. As with all development, it is vital that the planned community be provided with adequate transportation improvements that assure the transportation network serving the community function at a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. The preservation and protection of significant historic resources, environmentally -sensitive areas, and open space areas is encouraged by this land use plan. The majority of the acreage within the study area which comprises these features has been protected from industrial, commercial, and residential development through its exclusion from the SWSA and UDA expansion. This acreage includes the core area of the Opequon Battlefield (3`d Battle of Winchester); significant historic properties including Sulphur Spring Spa (34-110), Cleridge (34-111), and Hackwood (34-134); the majority of the steep slope and mature woodland areas; and all of the flood plain and wetland areas associated with Opequon Creek. Significant historic resources including the core area of Stephensons Depot (2❑d Battle of Winchester), Kenilworth (34-113), the Branson House (34-137), Milburn (34-729), the Byers House (34-1124), and the Milburn Road corridor (Route 662), and minor areas of steep slope and mature woodlands fall within the expanded SWSA and UDA boundaries. The land use plan incorporates a Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation to ensure that these features, as well as existing residential clusters and public land uses are protected from future development proposals. The DSA is a community and historical preservation area; therefore, adjacent uses which may be incompatible should provide adequate buffers and screening. The DSA is intended to discourage any development along the Milburn Road corridor and to promote a higher standard of development along the Martinsburg Pike corridor where residential clusters and public land uses dominate. Development regulations should be reviewed to ensure that they protect and promote a cohesive community environment within the study area with special attention to the DSA, while providing flexibility to encourage high quality development. The land use plan recommends the allowance of residential land uses within the three Rural Community Centers (RCC). New residential land use should only occur in conjunction with public water and sewer service and should be compatible with existing residential densities and lot sizes within each community center. Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan •Infrastructure Components The proposed industrial, commercial, and residential planned community land uses identified in this land use plan are recommended to be developed with public water and sewer service. Therefore, it excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; revised to reflect Alternative 4 Land Use Plan _5R PROPOSED - To Accommodate tate Alternative 4 Land Use Plan - PROPOSED is the recommendation of this land use plan to prohibit package treatment plants unless they are of a scale and design that is feasible for them to be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for operation and maintenance. Furthermore, proposed industrial, commercial, and residential planned community development should only occur if impacted road systems function at a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. The installation of public water and sewer infrastructure, the development of new road systems and new signalization, and improvements to existing road systems will be the responsibility of private property owners and developers, unless the Board of Supervisors determines that public-private partnerships are appropriate. Transportation: Proposed industrial, commercial, and residential planned community developments within the land use plan boundary will necessitate improvements to existing road systems and the construction of new road systems. The land use plan provides for the general location of new collector roads and signalized intersections to channel vehicular traffic between key intersections throughout the study area. These collector roads are intended to promote efficient traffic movement between land uses, enhance safety by limiting individual commercial entrances and turning movements at random points, and preserve capacities on existing road systems to ensure adequate levels of service. The general location of new collector roads and new signalized intersections is depicted on the land use plan map. The development of these transportation improvements will be required as proposed industrial, commercial, and residential planned community projects are realized. Improvements to existing primary and secondary road systems will be required throughout the study area. To ensure that these road improvements occur, proposed developments should be expected to provide dedicated right- of-ways and construct all improvements deemed necessary by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Board of Supervisors. Improvements to the existing primary and secondary road systems include improving Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) to a four -lane facility, and improving the width and geometrics of Rest Church Road (Route 669), Woodbine Road (Route 669), Branson Spring Road (Route 668), Woodside Road (Route 671), Brucetown Road (Route 672), Stephenson Road (Route 664), and Old Charles Town Road (Route 761). A corridor has been reserved along the proposed alignment of Route 37 - Alternative C; Phase IV, to reflect the proposed route included on the Commonwealth of Virginia's road program. This corridor is flanked on excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; revised to reflect Alternative 4 Land Use Plan -6- PROPOSED - To Accommodate the Alternative 4 Land Use Plan - PROPOSED either side by proposed industrial, commercial, and residential planned community land uses. The proposed land uses may provide an opportunity for the development of a future interchange along the phase of the Route 37 corridor. Water and Sewer: Proposed industrial, commercial, and residential planned community development within the land use plan boundary will be developed in conjunction with public water and sewer infrastructure. Public water infrastructure exists within the study area along Martinsburg Pike from the southern study area boundary to the intersection with Interstate 81 Exit 321. This infrastructure extends to the east, following portions of Stephensons Road (Route 664); Old Charles Town Road (Route 664); and Gun Club Road (Route 666). Public sewer infrastructure will be extended to serve properties within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Currently, the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant (OWWTP) is the closest treatment facility to the study area boundary. Utilization of the OWWTP would require the development of pump stations and lift stations throughout the study area. The proposed land use acreages have been compiled to determine the potential impacts to the OWWTP capacities. The estimated development of these acreages demonstrates that capacities at the OWWTP will be exceeded prior to the buildout of these areas. The Board of Supervisors will need to work with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) to determine appropriate methods for establishing public water and sewer infrastructure with adequate capacities. Appropriate methods may include partnerships and agreements with ad j oining localities to utilize existing infrastructure, the development of new treatment facilities for water extraction and sewer treatment, or public/private partnerships to develop necessary infrastructure. excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; revised to reflect Alternative 4 Land Use Plan -7- PROPOSED - To Accommodate the Alternative 4 Land Use Plan - PROPOSED excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; revised to reflect Alternative 4 Land Use Plan _8_ Alternative 4 The planned land uses envisioned by Alternative 4 are as follows: Acreage (approximations) consistent with the County's traditional rural areas. Agricultural land uses supplemented by large lot single family uses would be promoted. Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA): The protection of significant historic resources and preservation of the rural characteristics of identified viewsheds is promoted through the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation. While not prohibiting development, the DSA overlay would encourage future development to protect and preserve the identified resources. Residential: New residential areas are not proposed in this alternative. Rather, continued infill within the existing Rural Community Centers of Stephenson, Clearbrook, and Brucetown would be promoted. Business: This alternative recognizes the value of Interstate 81 to commercial enterprise and provides opportunities for landowners and the County to maximize the benefits of this resource. Specifically, this alternative designates the areas adjacent to the three Interstate 81 interchanges for future commercial uses. Such uses would be directed towards the traveling public, but could be supplemented with neighborhood -type commercial ventures. Industrial: This alternative recognizes the importance of existing industries and their contributions to the local tax base, but does not proposed a significant increase in additional industrial land uses beyond that which is currently zoned industrial. Types of industrial uses that would be enabled include light manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution.. Residential Planned Community: This alternative provides for the establishment of a new community center in Frederick County through the residential planned community land use designation_ A residential planned community is a large-scale development consisting of a mix of housing types at suburban densities, as well as supportive commercial and employment uses. A residential planned community is generally envisioned to be no less than 100 acres in size; this alternative designates an area of apprpximately 930 acres as residential planned community. Planned Laad Use Existing Long -Range Zoning/Use Build -Out Total Rural Areas 6,800 4,400 11,000 Developmentally Sensitive Area 1,200 N/A 1,200 Residential (Rural Community Centers) N/A 930 930 Business 402 118 520 Industrial 200 1341 1 541 (EM=879) ' Residential Planned Community 970 0 970 Urban Development Area (UDA) 1,200 0 1,200 Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) 3,500 3,220 3,500 Rural Areas: It is envisioned that a maiority of the land within the .ctnrly area can„ d retain charartPrictl_rc consistent with the County's traditional rural areas. Agricultural land uses supplemented by large lot single family uses would be promoted. Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA): The protection of significant historic resources and preservation of the rural characteristics of identified viewsheds is promoted through the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation. While not prohibiting development, the DSA overlay would encourage future development to protect and preserve the identified resources. Residential: New residential areas are not proposed in this alternative. Rather, continued infill within the existing Rural Community Centers of Stephenson, Clearbrook, and Brucetown would be promoted. Business: This alternative recognizes the value of Interstate 81 to commercial enterprise and provides opportunities for landowners and the County to maximize the benefits of this resource. Specifically, this alternative designates the areas adjacent to the three Interstate 81 interchanges for future commercial uses. Such uses would be directed towards the traveling public, but could be supplemented with neighborhood -type commercial ventures. Industrial: This alternative recognizes the importance of existing industries and their contributions to the local tax base, but does not proposed a significant increase in additional industrial land uses beyond that which is currently zoned industrial. Types of industrial uses that would be enabled include light manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution.. Residential Planned Community: This alternative provides for the establishment of a new community center in Frederick County through the residential planned community land use designation_ A residential planned community is a large-scale development consisting of a mix of housing types at suburban densities, as well as supportive commercial and employment uses. A residential planned community is generally envisioned to be no less than 100 acres in size; this alternative designates an area of apprpximately 930 acres as residential planned community. I Miles Northeast Land Use Plan Alternative 1 DRAFT 05/05/03 Alternative I The planned land uses envisioned by Alternative 1 are as follows: Acreage (approximations) Existing Long -Range Planned Land Use Zoning/Use Build -Out Total Rural Area 6,500 5,500 12,000 Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) 1,400 N/A 1,400 Residential (Rural Community N/A 930 930 Centers ) Business 412 118 530 Industrial 200 1341 1,541 (EM=879) ' Residential Planned Community 0 0 0 Sewer and Water Service Area 2,220 3,220 2,220 (SWSA) Rural Area : It is envisioned that a majority of the land within the study area would retain characteristics consistent with the County's traditional rural areas. Agricultural land uses supplemented by large lot single family uses would be promoted. Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA): The protection of significant historic resources and preservation of the rural characteristics of identified viewsheds is promoted through the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation. While not prohibiting development, the DSA overlay would encourage future development to protect and preserve the identified resources. Residential: New residential areas are not proposed in this alternative. Rather, continued infill within the existing the Rural Community Centers of Stephenson, Clearbrook, and Brucetown would be promoted. Business: This alternative recognizes the value of Interstate 81 to commercial enterprise and provides opportunities for landowners and the County to maximize the benefits of this resource. Specifically, this alternative designates the areas adjacent to the three Interstate 81 interchanges for future commercial uses. Such uses would be directed towards the traveling public, but could be supplemented with neighborhood -type commercial ventures. Industrial: This alternative recognizes the importance of existing industries and their contributions to the local tax base, but does not propose a significant increase in additional industrial land uses beyond that which is currently zoned industrial. Types of industrial uses that would be enabled include light manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Residential Planned Community: This alternative does not envision development of a residential planned community. New residential development would be promoted as infill within the existing rural community centers of Stephenson Clearbrook, and Brucetown. " Northeast Land Use Plan W1 Alternative 2 DRAFT 05/05/03 Allter.>;ative 2 The planned land uses envisioned by Alternative 2 are as follows: Acreage (approximations) Planned Land Use Existing Long -Range Zoning/Use Build -Out Total Rural Areas 5,700 6,800 12,500 Developmentally Sensitive Area 2,000 NIA 2,000 Residential (Rural Community N/A 930 600 Centers) Business 432 118 550 Industrial 0 1341 (EM=879) 1341 ' Residential Planned Community 0 0 0 Sewer and Water Service Area 3,500 3,220 3,500 (SWSA) Rural Area: It is envisioned that a majority of the land within the study area would retain characteristics consistent with the County's traditional rural areas. Agricultural land uses supplemented by large lot single family uses would be promoted. Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA): The protection of significant historic resources and preservation of the rural characteristics of identified viewsheds is promoted through the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation. While not prohibiting development, the DSA overlay would encourage future development to protect and preserve the identified resources. Residential: New residential areas are not proposed in this alternative. Rather, continued infill within the existing Rural Community Centers of Stephenson, Clearbrook, and Brucetown would be promoted. This alternative envisions the extension of water and sewer service to the existing community centers thereby enabling enhanced densities within these residential nodes and a consequent reduction in their overall size. Business: This alternative recognizes the value of Interstate 81 to commercial enterprise and provides opportunities for landowners and the County to maximize the benefits of this resource. Specifically, this alternative designates the areas adjacent to the three Interstate 81 interchanges for future commercial uses. Such uses would be directed towards the traveling public, but could be supplemented with neighborhood -type commercial ventures. Industrial: This alternative recognizes the importance of existing industries and their contributions to the local tax base, but does not plan for future industrial land uses beyond that which is currently zoned industrial. Residential Planned Community: This alternative does not envision development ofa residential planned community. New residential development would be promoted as infill within the existing rural community centers of Stephenson, Clearbrook,,and.Brucetown. 0 1 Miles N Northeast Land Use Plan " E Alternative 3 S DRAFT 05/05/03 Alternative 3 The planned land uses envisioned by Alternative 3 are as follows: Acreage (approximations) Rural Area : It is envisioned that a majority of the land within the study area would retain characteristics consistent with the County's traditional rural areas. Agricultural land uses supplemented by large lot single family uses would be promoted. Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA): The protection of significant historic resources and preservation of the rural characteristics of identified viewsheds is promoted through the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation. While not prohibiting development, the DSA overlay would encourage future development to protect and preserve the identified resources. Residential: New residential areas are not proposed in this alternative. Rather, continued infill within the existing Rural Community Centers of Stephenson, Clearbrook, and Brucetown would be promoted. Business: This alternative recognizes the value of Interstate 81 to commercial enterprise and provides opportunities for landowners and the County to maximize the benefits of this resource. Specifically, this alternative designates the areas adjacent to the three Interstate 81 interchanges for future commercial uses. Such uses would be directed towards the traveling public, but could be supplemented with neighborhood -type commercial ventures. Industrial: This alternative recognizes the importance of existing industries and their contributions to the local tax base, and does plan for future industrial land uses beyond that which is currently zoned .industrial. Residential Planned Community: This alternative does not envision development of a residential planned community. New residential development would be promoted as infill within the existing rural community centers of Stephenson, Clearbrook, and Brucetown. Planned Land Use Existing Long -Range Zoning/Use Build -Out Total Rural Areas 7,000 4,400 11,400 Developmentally Sensitive Area 1,450 N/A 1,450 Residential (Rural Community Centers) N/A 930 930 Business 412 118 530 Industrial 800 1341 2 141 (EM=879) ' Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) 3,220 3,220 3,220 Rural Area : It is envisioned that a majority of the land within the study area would retain characteristics consistent with the County's traditional rural areas. Agricultural land uses supplemented by large lot single family uses would be promoted. Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA): The protection of significant historic resources and preservation of the rural characteristics of identified viewsheds is promoted through the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation. While not prohibiting development, the DSA overlay would encourage future development to protect and preserve the identified resources. Residential: New residential areas are not proposed in this alternative. Rather, continued infill within the existing Rural Community Centers of Stephenson, Clearbrook, and Brucetown would be promoted. Business: This alternative recognizes the value of Interstate 81 to commercial enterprise and provides opportunities for landowners and the County to maximize the benefits of this resource. Specifically, this alternative designates the areas adjacent to the three Interstate 81 interchanges for future commercial uses. Such uses would be directed towards the traveling public, but could be supplemented with neighborhood -type commercial ventures. Industrial: This alternative recognizes the importance of existing industries and their contributions to the local tax base, and does plan for future industrial land uses beyond that which is currently zoned .industrial. Residential Planned Community: This alternative does not envision development of a residential planned community. New residential development would be promoted as infill within the existing rural community centers of Stephenson, Clearbrook, and Brucetown. L: • !-?OS tJ W " s gl2n/ 63 DIsSCUSSION OF NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN Director Lawrence advised as Administrator Riley pointed out this is an effort that the Planning Department and the Comprehensive Plans Program Sub Committee and the Planning Commission has been reviewing for the better part of the last year. At the March 12 Board meeting staff was directed to proceed with holding community meetings to provide the alternatives to the community, and also seek comments. He advised staff was present tonight to present those comments to the Board. He advised some hand written comments received were not legible, when copied, and he has staff retype those in order that the information would be legible, which was delivered to the Board on April 22"d. This is a comment sheet; therefore, it was not reviewed from a statistical perspective. He further advised there were approximately sixty comment sheets, which he would touch on some common ideas submitted through these forms. He did advise that there is no one particular alternative that seems to stand out over another one. A lot of the comments that you will see, address the four issues that are before us. Majority of the people spoke to the preservation of the rural landscape of their community in the northeastern part of the County. A number of comments recognized the importance of having a commercial/industrial growth adjacent to your interstate interchanges. This is referenced a number of times throughout the comment sheets. There are some strong statements supporting a residential planned community concept and he would wager to say there are just as many opposing such a project. It is a tough call to give the Board direction on the comment sheets, but they did receive sixty comment sheets from the approximately 117 citizens that did attend the two community meetings held. Both meetings were held at the Stonewall Elementary School during the evening. The meetings were held on a Monday night of one week and Tuesday night of another week. He explained about the four displays that were directly behind the Board as these were the same ones used at the two community meetings. He further explained that there was a descriptive sheet that accompanied each display. -1- g The Plan to the far left of the Board, from where Director Lawrence was standing, is the current County Comprehensive Policy Plan adopted in September 2000. He advised that when you look at A lternatil,e 1 the s.gn.ficant difference lc the - moval f +1� •1,.1„si, 1 1-1, L� J V 1 1 V ll a 11111 UJll l(Al VV 111V11 1J approximately one thousand acres of planned industrial use. The sewer and water service area was also removed. Those are the significant changes in Alternative I when you compare it to the existing land use plan. Alternative 2 has much more significant changes, if you will. Alternative 2 reduces the amount of planned industrial, it is actually zero. Alternative 1 has two hundred acres of planned industrial, this is above and beyond what is currently zoned. Alternative 2 has no planned industrial beyond what is currently zoned. It does increase what they refer to as the developmentally sensitive areas, which is DSA, and it can be seen in the green hatching(on the display). It is about two thousand acres approximately as shown on this proposal. It is about fourteen hundred acres on Alternative 1, and the other three alternatives have about fourteen hundred. You can see Alternative 2 gives you more DSA, less industrial. It does preserve Stephenson's Depot significantly, and it does introduce more rural uses, and less industrial uses up and down the Route 11 corridor. Alternative 3 - Behind Supervisor Smith, note that Alternative 3 is extremely consistent with the current land use plan that is in the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. The significant difference is strictly at Stephenson's Depot. It is an enlargement of the DSA to recognize Stephenson's Depot as the Shenandoah Battlefield Foundation identified it as maintaining it's integrity in the core battlefield area. Alternative 3 is very consistent with what you have on the books. Alternative 4 - This Alternative introduces about 970 acres of residential planned community. That is a concept that the County had in the zoning ordinance but had never been applied any where in the County, and similarly the County has never applied the planned residential -2- community concept into any of the land use plan maps. This is the first time the Board is seeing this on a land use map. The residential planned community that it envisions is a mix of residential, commercial and industrial use. He would suggest, the text can be modified if the Board is inclined to go with Alternative 4, the supporting text that would go into a Comp Plan would certainly address the Board's concerns, whether you want to see any percentage of industrial use or commercial use, things of that nature. This alternative provides for flexibility in a residential development. The Urban Development Area is also expanded on Alternative 4 to incorporate about one thousand acres, UDA expansion which would accompany this alternative land use plan. A couple of things have been presented to staff over the past few weeks that he wanted to bring to the Board's attention. There is an Urban Development Area. There is currently UDA within their study area. Alternative 3 is the best place to show it. It shows up as a black line. He wants to make sure that is out in public, because that is a UDA boundary established in the late 80's when the County adopted the original UDA, that is out there. He has mentioned to a couple Board members that had some concerns with it, if your concern is that you do not want to see this then this is certainly the opportunity as we go through the land use process, that can be a recommendation to remove it. He would note that within this UDA boundary you have existing zoning with M2 zoning, M1 and the Rutherford Farm area and you have some areas immediately east of Route 11, Omps Trucking property sets on it. It is planned for future industrial on this map, but it is certainly industrial use by - rights. This concludes what staff wanted to present. Staff is looking for direction as pointed out by Administrator Riley. Supervisor Smith asked about the battlefield area on Alternative 4? Director Lawrence area is essentially here (shown on the map). Supervisor Smith asked what is the light blue? Director Lawrence advised that is still industrial. That could be DSA if that is what you are -3- FTNINONAW. inclined to do. What they took with Alternative 4 back at the March Board meeting when the directive was given to go to public meetings, Alternative 4 did not exist at the time, but was a proposal that some landowners had presented to the Board. Staff took the landowner's proposal and essentially super imposed it onto the County's existing land use plan. It did not show the DSA enlarged there for Stephenson's Depot, but staff can do that if that is the Board's directive. Essentially make the DSA consistent on all four Alternatives. Supervisor Reyes asked Director Lawrence to go over the difference between our current Land Use Plan and Alternative 3. Director Lawrence explained that the map to the far left is the current Northeast Land Use Plan. That is what is in the Comprehensive Policy Plan adopted in September 2000. Alternative 3, essentially the significant change is the DSA, it is an enlarged DSA to reflect what the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation, the core battlefield area and maintains its integrity. Supervisor Tyler the body here is having a discussion on perhaps to send something or not to send something forward. How do we work with you, tonight is difficult to determine to improve or extend the DSA component on land use Alternative 4. If there is to be any further trimming of the industrial areas up and down. How do we go through this process? Director Lawrence advised that from the staff perspective they are looking for guidance. If the majority of the Board members feel there is an Alternative up here that you support and you want to tweak it through a motion to take something through a public hearing process you could tell us if you want to increase the DSA or you want to cut back some of the industrial. Through a motion you could tell us how you want to tweak it and they will proceed with that. Supervisor Tyler advised she would like to call to the attention of the Board of Supervisors something that she has passed out to them, which she told them they did not have to decipher, it is something of a spread sheet. She did her best to take the survey sheets and break those comments -4- s down, either choices of Alternates 1,2,3, or 4, no preference. People were very mindful when they were filling out the survey forms, and Eric thank you and your staff for sending those back to the Board electronically so they could read them, for a lot of them were not legible. The paper said there was no real clear choice, but she thinks there was a real clear choice to reduce the industrial component, particularly on the bubble area which has been the bone of contention. But she would go further than that to keep the industrial component between Route 11 and 81. She feels that was very clear through the public process up there what the wishes were of Stonewall District, is to eliminate a substantial amount of the industrial properties. When you further look at it there were an awful lot of folks concerned with sewer and water, they want it. Stephenson may not be in as bad shape as Brucetown is, but it has its challenges and issues. We have outhouses up and down the roads and failing systems. The one thing that we do have over Brucetown is that we do have water for some residents up there, but we do not have the sewer component. You will notice that the historical component is there, that people are very in tune with the historical components and the DSA's, they know the treasurers that we have up there, and they want to keep those. She just wanted to call attention to that. As far as the whole process goes, here we are sitting ready to make a decision, the way that she looks at this decision and she would like the Board Members to chime and give her some opinions of their own as well. We have Alternative 1,2,3, and 4. Alternative 3 is not wanted by the community as evident over the last years, that this is not the way the community would like to go and the survey sheets reflect that. She would hope the Board would not consider that Alternative there. Alternative 4 is supported by nineteen or so of the people who responded. Those were direct answers to those questions. Alternative 1 did not have any support. Alternative 2 does; however, we have the infrastructure being currently laid for the sewer and water. She feels we need to be very careful about by right development hooked to sewer and water, although she knows in that shale land, environmentally it is better to have them on sewer and water, but that is -5- somewhere the Board has not gone as a County, and she is not real comfortable going there. Her preference is to let the public process go forward and shoot Alternative 4 out there and let the public hearing process take care of it, and go from there. She would like to hear from other Board Members. Supervisor Sager asked how many people participated in the survey? Director Lawrence replied 117 people attended the meetings in total, and sixty-one surveys were received. Supervisor Sager asked of the sixty-one surveys do Alternative 1 through 4, is this an expression of what they wanted to see in Alternatives to the Northeast Land Use Corridor, or is this strictly from the Planning Commission? Director Lawrence explained looking at the surveys there is a lot of reference to - half the surveys talk about what their preference is, they actually give an Alternative number, and half just talk about goals of preserving agriculture, recognizing the need for industrial in certain areas. It wasn't clear for staff to say which Alternative was best. Supervisor Sager so all the Alternatives are the conceptual ideas of our Planning staff and the input you received from the Board etc., is that correct? Director Lawrence advised as far as all the Alternatives behind you, Alternative 2 was actually submitted by some residents. The staff working with the Comp Plan Committee and the Planning Commission have certainly come up with some alternatives, but not all of them. Supervisor Forrester asked Director Lawrence to point out where the sewer and water service area is presently on the existing plan. Director Lawrence advised the SWSA is actually on this map, it is the line that runs along the outside of your industrial, the blue, and then basically follows 81. Supervisor Forrester asked if this include most of the area Supervisor Tyler was talking about -6- that are in need of public - -? Director Lawrence advised no it is not. The areas the County is recognized in need of sewer and waters are the raral community centers, basically they are showing up in yellow ori the original map, all the maps really. Supervisor Smith stated that the water right now goes down Stephenson Road to Morrison Road? is that correct? Director Lawrence advised he was not sure where it ran out. Supervisor Smith referred to the battlefield and stated that Alternative 4 probably shows less then any of them, doesn't it. Director Lawrence advised the staff suggestion is if the intention is to increase the DSA that can certainly do that on the map. Supervisor Smith advised he could support Supervisor Tyler's recommendation provided the battlefield had more space there. Supervisor Reyes advised when he met with Director Lawrence recently he explained to him that on Alternative 2, the irregular shape of SWSA. He asked him to explain that for the benefit of others present at this time. Director Lawrence advised that on Alternative 2 it suggests that SWSA would jump out around Clearbrook, Brucetown communities and also Stephenson communities. None of the other Alternatives actually proposed taking the SWSA out around the communities. As it has been suggested previously if funds are available, basically community development block grants. If the County can locate grants and funds to extend sewer into the rural community centers, and provide assistance for the homeowners to actually tap into the system. Once we locate funding, and staff is currently going through the exercise to figure out what grant programs do exist. Once we can locate funding it could be an exercise for the Board versus modifying a land use plan, you just do a policy -7- acception to allow sewer and water service to extend outside of the SWSA area to a designated portion of the community. If you identify which lots have rights to it and in stead of moving the SWSA they would just do an exception outside of the boundary. Staff does not like to mislead the community, and when you expand the SWSA it's a planning document, it's a policy document. There is no guarantees that sewer and water is going to be extended. I would suggest that if you do not want to extend sewer and water service areas in places where the County does not have funds to extend the service itself. Along that train of thought, if they can locate grants, if they can locate funding sources that will provide assistance to construct the trunks and help the individual residents to construct laterals to their houses, at that point staff can come back to the Board and ask for permission to extend sewer to those properties. There are a number of locations throughout the County, and he is sure Supervisor Sager is aware of it where the County has extended policies, but there are no funds to extend the sewer. The homeowners thought they were going to get sewer, and ten years later they don't have it because funding is not there. Staff is saying secure the grants, the funding and then they will come back through and determine who can get it and they will a policy amendment to get the sewer to the people. area? Supervisor Forrester asked if were easier to get the grants once the Board has established the Director Lawrence advised staff was looking into right now. The grants they are finding talks about density, population and failing systems. They have to get estimates, see how much it would cost, how much they can get through the grants, and as they are getting ready to make application if it is a case of getting a resolution supporting the grant, and recognizing we will extend sewer there. He feels they can do that all at once. He does not think the Board wants to extend SWSA if there are no funds there to implement it. Supervisor Smith stated that on these grants you are talking about the main trunk line, right? It runs about $4500 to run water in and $9110 to run water and sewer. These are the figures. He just wanted to make that clear so everyone understands what is happening. Director Lawrence advised that when you tap into the sewer in the County, the property owner is responsible for running it across his property to his house and pay the tap fees. There are two bills one to run the trunk line down the main road, and a bill to run it to each house. Supervisor Smith stated that the grants are for the main trunk line. Director Lawrence explained there goal is to get funding for the main trunk line, if they can find them, they are doing the research. Also find grants, or low interest loans to help people get it to their house. Supervisor Sager advised that he wanted to make sure he understood what was being said here, because he has not heard the word funding previously in our conversations regarding an expansion of the sewer and water service area in the Opequon District. He was not aware it was based on some type of available funding. He thought the arguments were that it was outside of the water and sewer service area and therefore could not be expanded because it was the intent to take it out there, especially in housing developments, as you said, that were built many years ago. His concern would be, if we say this, can we support this in the future as far as an expansion, when there is money, and does it contradict to what we have said is previous policy when we have told people regardless of where it is that we are not going beyond the sewer and water service area boundaries that we now have, so therefore, work it out. He is having some problem with what he is hearing now that it is now connected to funding. He realizes we are talking about trunk lines. Is it in fact expansion based on the availability of funds, grants and the willingness of people to expand the lines based on the dollars that are available or are we going to set a policy saying this is the line and it doesn't go beyond it. Director Lawrence advised, again, staff is looking for direction. His suggestion, based on -9- the experiences they have had, there is a misunderstanding as to what the sewer and water service area is. If he has a failing system and you modify the policy of the sewer and water service area, ' t" ""x'SA ;- the v and service area there are no guarantees he is going to get sewer. i10 vJ lie is iu l I.- " . r .� .n , se v er He would have to pay for it once it is within range. There is certainly benefit to planning and expanding the sewer and water service area to accommodate properties that you think you can serve, but if there is no funding to get it there, it's like an empty Easter basket. Assistant Administrator Tierney advised it is a policy decision, as so many things the Board does are. If the Board feels those two rural communities centers should have sewer and or water and you are more concerned making that intent or policy clear, that is your desire then you could incorporate them in you sewer and water service area, extend the line out there. He feels all Director Lawrence is trying to point out is that if you do that, if you extend your line, but you don't have the capability to in fact to get the sewer to those people you made raise some expectations and set some folks up for disappointment, that yes you put them in the SWSA area, but they are very little closer to get sewer and water then they were before you did that. Supervisor Tyler asked if the opportunities for grants and some of the new initiatives the Governor has recently announced. Director Lawrence advised, at this point, he does not have all the details. Staff is doing the research and have indicated there is funding. Supervisor Tyler asked if he was familiar with how Boyce in Clarke County did this? Director Lawrence advised that he knew it was a Community Development Block Grant. Supervisor Tyler stated that as far as disappointing folks, they have been disappointed for about thirty years. She feels we are as close as we can be, ever in history, for the infrastructure is up there now. She feels we have made great strides and feels this Board can get some relief for those folks up there. -10- kk I Supervisor Forrester referred to some papers she passed out prior to the meeting and referred to the highlighted areas. One of these is some verbiage from .the 1999 Comprehensive Plan and it was in reference to the NELU area which at the time they were calling it the Route 11 corridor. -- Comprehensive Plan in September of 2000. Previous to that adoption under the UDA it just says that, the present UDA boundary incorporates a small portion of the southwestern quadrant of the study area. Expansion of the UDA beyond it's existing boundary is not appropriate for this area. So then we move forward to September of 2000, which is the next hand out she passed out, and this has the map of the NELUP that was adopted September 27, 2000, and on the back of that there is a copy of the verbiage from the actual Comprehensive Policy Plan, and referred to paragraph 2. It says the preservation and protection of significant historic resources, (skips down at this point) is encouraged by this land use plan. The majority of the acreage within the study area which comprises these features has been protected from industrial and commercial development through its exclusion from the SWSA expansion. Skip down to the third paragraph. Significant historic resources including the core area of Stephenson's Depot, Kennelworth, The Branson House, Milburn, The Biars House, Milburn Road corridor and minor areas of steep slope, fall within the expanded SWSA boundary. The land use plan incorporates a developmentally sensitive area designation to insure that these features as well as existing residential clusters and public land uses are protected from future industrial and commercial development proposals, but the map does not indicate this. The DSA does not reflect what is in this verbiage. She has spoke with Director Lawrence earlier today and this was discussed. It is clear from the verbiage in the 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan that was the intent. Looking at that Alternative 2 is the one that most closely resembles what the intent of the Comprehensive Policy Plan was in September, but for whatever reason the DSA never encompassed that entire historic area, but they outlined in the verbiage the actual historic sites that were of significance. She feels this is pretty important and that the Board recognizes that Alternative 2 -11- preserves all those areas, and is consistent with that. DRAFT Director Lawrence advised that the remedy to that is, if the Board chooses an Alternative to take to a public hearing between now and when the public hearing process starts, obviously staff will draft up text to reflect what the new Alternative is. We can make sure we capture the essence of what the intent is of the DSA and SWSA. If the Board intent is not to move forward on one of the Alternatives staff can go through the exercise and revise the text on the existing land use plan, so that it reads more clearly if that is your directive. Supervisor Forrester advised there is obviously conflict between what the map reflects versus what the verbiage states. She is not sure if Attorney Ambrogi could advise us, as to which would carry the most weight. Attorney Ambrogi advised that he would have to look at the verbiage, the plan, and study it the verbiage, but basically verbiage controls. The plan, the map, is reflection of the verbiage. You would need to reconcile there conflict. Supervisor Forrester advised so what we are looking at in the map up here does not reflect what our Comprehensive Plan states, and which was adopted on September 2000. The verbiage reflects what the apparent intent was at the time, which was to protect those areas. Chairman Shickle stated, if that were to be true, all the times he has set before the Planning Commission they generally look at a map, and use it to pictorially decide what they want. There is some care that needs to be adopted to make sure verbiage matches maps, because usually maps are what is put before us. We don't have verbiage on four Alternatives to speak of tonight. If verbiage rules over map, I think maybe we are going to have to do things a little different. Attorney Ambrogi advised that you may have to refer to minutes to see if there anything that would help you. Supervisor Forrester advised that when she spoke with Director Lawrence earlier today they -12- DRAFT discussed that it would be helpful for them to have - - - whenever they look at large changes to the Comprehensive Plan, if they had a copy of what the present verbiage is in the Plan and what is being proposed to be changed to, as well as what a proposed map was in reference to what it was previously. Tonight what they are looking at in their agendas are four Alternatives, but there is not even a reference as to what it presently is, to compare, to this is what we are now, here is what we are proposing to change to. If you, as an individual, did not go back to the Comprehensive Plan of September 2000, pull your maps and try and correlate it, you would not have any thing to compare it to. There is absolutely nothing in there, as far as the verbiage of the Comprehensive Plan, and what the Board is intending to change it to, if they select any of the Alternatives presently before them tonight. The verbiage is very important. She feels if she were a landowner, it would very important to know how it was designated. Assistant Tierney advised that in looking at the verbiage that is being referred to, he does not really think there is a discrepancy. If you read the text, what it talks about is the majority of the area, in the study area, is excluded from the sewer and water service area. Which means that, the bubble that primarily looped is in the sewer and water service area, the rest of the majority of the study area was excluded. How those specific properties that are mentioned were protected through the environmentally sensitive designation, the green areas, that incorporate the Milburn Road corridor what was then felt to be the core area, Second Winchester, etc. When he reads this, having been involved in the process at the time, he really does not think there is the discrepancy that we are talking about. The text does not say that those areas were excluded from the sewer and water service area, it says they are protected, and they are protected because they were designated by the green environmentally sensitive area. Supervisor Douglas asked about the pale green on the original plan. Director Lawrence advised it was consistent with all the pale greens, it is rural areas. It is -13- E to remain RA 5 acre density, agriculture land. Supervisor Douglas on Alternative 4? Director Lawrence on Alternative 4 the pale area is the same thing. With looking at Alternative 4 has about 11,000 acres of RA left, Alternative 2 has about 13,000acres. The reason being Alternative 2 does not have as much future growth outside the rural areas. Supervisor Reyes advised that he supports what Supervisor Forrester said and backed up by Attorney Ambrogi in that verbiage is so important, and takes precedence over maps. When he attended the presentation at the school, and talked to staff about the different Alternatives. Very often he got the comment, this was conceptual. To him this does not hold as much water as verbiage, he does support the verbiage. Maps should reflect the verbiage. Director Lawrence advised that staff does recognize that. The reason verbiage is not available for every map is that essentially they would be writing four land use plans. They are available and through discussion they can talk about what key information the Board would like to see on the Alternative plan that is chosen by the Board. Then staff can write the verbiage to get there. Time was not there to write the narrative for each plan. Chairman Shickle suggested unless there is a lot of questions or additional discussion that perhaps listen to Supervisor Tyler as to what she might propose as the Supervisor of that district and see if it has enough support to go forward and if not then the Board will regroup unless there are other questions. Supervisor Tyler advised she would like to ask a couple of questions. The by right issue on sewer and water should that be of any concern or not. This has always been a beef with her. She fought the water wars, she wanted sewer and water lines to stay off of that property, that was defeated. It was changed and now we have the pipes being run. What will happen if the Board lets the sewer and water run around that area and then it is developed by right, they book up with sewer -14- lu AFT and water on a by right issue or we actually try and move those lines back away? The infrastructure is being laid, it's going down Red Bud Run. Attorney Lawrence, it is currently being done. You have to look at the issue of vesting to. How many people, how many businesses, how many entities have vested. Have money and other things vested in reliance on what the Board did. If it were just proposed or on paper he wouldn't see any problem, legal problem. Where you run into legal problems is if there is vesting and you try to change something that persons have relied upon then there probably would be a problem. It is definitely something he would be concerned with. Supervisor Forrester advised that she is kind of concerned on the by right water. She knew when the issue first came up that the sewer and water expansion to the northeast area that the Board was kind of told, it was inferred that in order to get the water to the VDOT Rest Stop and Stonewall Elementary the County had to do this. But when the situation with the middle school site came up they were told that they could just dedicate one line and not have to change the sewer and water service area. She is confused as to where the consistency is on how we are doing our planning for our water. She asked if this could be cleared up? Director Lawrence advised it was his understanding that VDOT was pursuing water and sewer to their Rest Area and they were going to pursue getting the rights to get it there. What happened is they ended up saying we are going to spend this much money to get it there. We will contribute that to the County to help you get sewer and water to the northern part of your extension. Supervisor Forrester advised that perhaps she didn't state her question correctly. Why wasn't it offered up to this Board at the time. You can just dedicate a line running to VDOT's Rest Stop and to the elementary school to resolve their situation. She didn't think the Board has the option of doing that. Director Lawrence advised that he believed the original proposal that VDOT came to the -15- Db, , Rv�,, �,",F T table with was to run water and sewer up the interstate right of way. Supervisor Forrester advised that Director Lawrence was missing her point. Administrator Riley advised there was an established water and sewer service area. The original proposal by VDOT was to run a 2 -inch forced main sewer outside of the water and.sewer service area on the west side of interstate 81 to accommodate their request. Once that request was evaluated they felt it should be run within the water and sewer service area, as designated on the Comprehensive Plan, that would benefit a number of different zoned uses within that area and have a greater degree of economy scale as far as contributing to the overall effort to run water and sewer in that area of the County. There was some confusion originally because VDOT wanted to run it outside of the water and sewer service area, west of interstate 81. I guess we could revisit that whole issue again, but I hope that helps. Supervisor Tyler stated that in light of the fact that Alternative 1 and 2. We have the water issue that we have to deal with. Alternative 3 has been very clearly said by our community that we do not want to have industrial development. She would like to see Alternative 4 go through the public process. If it can prove itself with the criteria that is acceptable to this Board. That is what she would like to have Alternative 4 taken through the public process for public hearings. Supervisor Sager seconded the motion, and as a point of clarification asked if this will go back to the Planning Commission and through the public hearing process? Supervisor Forrester so what we send forward there will not be public hearing on the other Alternatives? There will only be a public hearing on the one Alternative that we send forward? Chairman Shickle stated that he thinks if this model went through public hearing and there was significant sentiment by the time that it got back to the Board that it was not the right thing then you would send something back to go through the whole process again with those changes, but minor things would probably be accommodated along the way. -16- DIS, RNII-L J--'1,11 F T Administrator Riley advised that the focal point would be the recommendation of the Board, but obviously the public comment canfocus on any and everything that is up here behind us, as far as public sentiment is concerned. He wanted to be sure that the people understand is that it does not restrict the scope of the public comment. The public comment can come from any direction as to what people feel is appropriate. Supervisor Forrester asked if there is any reason why we couldn't have some of that public comment tonight on this issue, prior to us making our decision. Normally we have citizen comment, you know, prior to our making decisions like this. She can look out into the audience tonight and she can see a significant portion of people that she knows the whole reason they are in attendance tonight is about this and she is wondering if we should hear what they have to say. Administrator Riley advised the Board is going to have a public process when they will have the opportunity to speak, unfortunately what has happened is that we have come up with a number of different subject matters on evening that we are trying to get through. We have a public hearing scheduled for 6 P.M. on the vacation of a plat in an existing subdivision. What we are trying to do is provide a process and set it out separately so people will have ample opportunity to speak to this issue. If he understood the direction of the Board, we were to have some public meetings, try and get some feed back, provide that to the Board and then go into a public process. He thinks that is what staff is attempting to do by getting the Board to this public process so they can have the opportunity to comment. Supervisor Forrester understand that, but she has some concerns. A) the map that is being used as what the current developmentally sensitive areas, does not encompass those historical sites and that was not reviewed by the public. B) She knows some of the public tried to make appointments earlier in the week to be heard tonight, and she does not feel it is much to ask to give them five - ten minutes. This is going to affect their homes, their community. She feels they need -17- D R A'i�- T to have the opportunity now. What you are saying to me is if we go forward with one of the other Alternatives, but they are only going to weigh in on that Alternative, anything they want to tweak. Administrator Riley advised no, they would have the opportunity to speak on anything. Supervisor Forrester so they can go up there and say, I want Alternative 1, and we would be able to vote on it that night, even though that Alternative was not in front of us. Administrator Riley replied sure. They have the opportunity to comment on anything that is up there. You cannot restrict that. Supervisor Forrester advised what she is saying, is will the Board then have the opportunity to vote on the other Alternatives if that Alternative is not before us that evening of the public hearing? Administrator Riley replied yes, he would think you would. Supervisor Reyes asked Administrator Riley if we were to select an Alternative and it goes for public hearing than the other maps would be up there equally? Administrator Riley replied yes. He did not think you could limit the scope of what the public wants to comment on. What staff is trying to do is say, here is everything on the landscape that we have talked about since 1996 on the northeastern area of the County. Board please, send it somewhere, give it a public process and lets figure out what we are going to do in this area of the County, so the staff can move onto other areas of the County that have been neglected over the last several years. We are trying to bring this process to closure. You are going to send it out and say, Alternative 4 appears to be the consensus, but public give us your feedback through the Planning Commission and then back to the Board Supervisor Reyes I want to make sure at the public hearing, if we were to say, that we wanted Alternative whatever, that is what the Board on April 23 recommended that we go forth with Alternative X; however, there are other Alternatives up here at that point and time. Administrator Riley that is correct. Supervisor Tyler advised we have been through this exercise before and looking through the text of the minutes back in 1999 and 2000 and 1996, it is the Board's prerogative to take from what they hear, and incorporate into that Plan. Administrator Riley advised you could end up with an Alternative 6. Supervisor Tyler, exactly. It could be something that everyone comes together and works on. It does not have to be 1,2,3, or 4. Get it out of here so we can get to the public process. Supervisor advised that he does like Alternative 4, but he wants to go on record that with that Alternative 4, if it is adopted, I want to see it adopted with the larger battlefield area there. He feels this is lacking in number 4. Supervisor Forrester stated that she would like to, regardless of how this plays out on these Alternatives, she would like to have some sort of correction made to the existing map, that reflects with the verbiage in our Comprehensive Plan states. She would like to see in the developmentally sensitive areas, those historic sites that were identified in that Comprehensive Plan. She thinks that should be done regardless of how we move forward with this. That way everybody can see on all the Alternatives where that developmentally sensitive area is at present, and what the changes could do to that. Supervisor Forrester made an amendment to the motion that would say regardless of the outcome of the Alternative that goes forward, that there is a correction made to the map that is reflected in our current Comprehensive Plan which identifies our developmentally sensitive areas, as the verbiage outlines in the September 2000 Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Shickle asked Supervisor Forrester if there was a map, behind the Board members, that she thinks depicts that verbiage? Supervisor Forrester replied the closes one to it is Alternative 2, has the closes with the -19- developmentally sensitive area, but once again, we are working with that conceptual thing, but it appears as if that includes these areas that were identified as significant historic resources. Supervisor Tyler seconded the motion. Administrator Riley advised not to confuse the issue, Supervisor Forrester would like to see the corrections as indicated in the text to be reflected on the map, and he feels we need to make it that simple correct. Supervisor Forrester the developmentally sensitive areas to include all the historic sites that were identified in this text. Administrator Riley to try and get the text consistent with the map. Supervisor Forrester correct. Supervisor Reyes asked if this could be done tonight? Administrator Riley advised as he understood the motion of the Board to move forward, staff will try and get back to the Board an illustrated map and text amendment so that we are on the same page. He feels we can move on that immediately, so there is no confusion. Chairman Shickle advised that Supervisor Reyes brings up a good point. One motion says something about for public hearing, and we are amending it, with a do something right now in another arena. That may not be a proper amendment. Administrator Riley why don't you take them separately, and then the staff can deal with them separately. One we can deal with now, and the other is out there. Chairman Shickle asked Supervisor Forrester how she felt about that? Supervisor Forrester advised she was fine with that, and withdrew her motion. Supervisor Tyler withdrew her second. Chairman Shickle stated we were back to the original motion, and ready to vote. We are sending all the maps back for public hearing with a preference shown for 4 by the Board. -20- Richard C. Shickle -Nay W. Hamngton Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Nay Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Nay -21- • C� • Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) Project - Background Information Brief Summary On June 12, 2002, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to reexamine the recommended land uses and policies included in the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). This plan was most recently included in the 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan update. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) has been reviewing and discussing the NELUP over the past six months and at their December 9, 2002 meeting, forwarded a recommendation (revised NELUP - Alternative 3) that they felt addressed the concerns identified by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission discussed the plan revisions during their February 5, 2003 meeting. The Planning Commission concurred with the CPPS recommendation, and moved that the CPPS recommendation, Alternatives 1 and 2, and the landowners' (Shockey/Slaughter) request be forwarded to the Board for consideration and direction. This revised plan and alternatives were presented to the Board of Supervisors as a discussion item on February 12, 2003. The Board subsequently directed staff to seek comments during community meetings on the four draft land use plan alternatives. Following the community meetings, the Board directed staff to proceed with the public hearing process. Board of Supervisors' Directive - Initiating Land Use Study The Board of Supervisors requested that the following issues be addressed (see attached memorandum dated June 7, 2002 from Supervisor Tyler to the Board of Supervisors): 1) The location and amount of land designated by the current Plan as future industrial; Recognition and identification of the Milburn Rural Historic District, the core battlefield areas of2❑d and 3`d Winchester, Jordan Springs Historic Area Overlay, and Stephenson's Depot; 2) An examination of the policies related to the provision of sewer and water service to undeveloped RA -zoned land located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and the communities of Stephenson, Clearbrook, and Brucetown for existing homes with failing septic systems; 3) Incorporate changes made by the County since the adoption of the Plan on September 27, 2000; and, 4) This is to include public meetings, the CPPS with citizen liaisons' input, prior to submission to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation The Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation (SVBF) has undertaken an effort of analyzing Winchester's historical areas which included the historic areas within the Northeast Land Use Plan study area. The SVBF exercise looked at various documents regarding civil war battles and other historical features, including the National Parks Services' 1992 Study of Civil War Battlefields. It was the SVBF's intent to identify land parcels which have retained their historical integrity, as well as those properties which are viable for preservation. During the CPPS' December meeting, representatives from the SVBF presented the preliminary results from their initiative as it pertained to the study area. This preliminary information indicated an area surrounding Stephenson's Depot as viable for preservation. This historical area has been identified on the CPPS' revised land use plan recommendations. Land Owners' Request During the CPPS' review of the NELUP, staff received three land use alternatives from property owners who own land located south of Old Charlestown Road (Route 761) and east of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), land within the NELUP. In a letter from Mr. Shockey and Ms. Slaughter dated October 31, 2002, they requested that the County consider a future residential planned -community land use on their properties, which would require changes to the land use plan from an industrial to a planned residential land use classification, as well as expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA). Two additional requests were submitted by property owner groups residing south of the Shockey and Slaughter properties. These property owner groups [Red Bud Road area residents and the Woods Mill Estates POA] requested land uses consistent with the Shockey/Slaughter requests. The CPPS felt that planned residential land uses, as requested, were inappropriate. Therefore, such uses have not been included in the CPPS' revised land use plan recommendation. As noted previously, the Planning Commission did request that the Shockey/Slaughter request be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for information and consideration. CPPS Membership The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) currently consists of 13 individuals which includes Planning Commission members, a Town of Stephens City liaison, and various County citizens. Four citizens from the Stephenson community were appointed to the CPPS to assist in the NELUP review. CPPS Discussion Summary The committee concentrated much discussion on the planned land uses for the southeast portion of the study area. It was this area of the study that raised significant discussions amongst the committee. As a result, during the CPPS's meeting on August 12, 2002, the CPPS Chairman requested that each committee member provide staff with a potential land use scheme for the land located south of Walters Mill Lane (Route 836), and east of Martinsburg Pike (a.k.a. "concentrated study area"). These alternatives were distributed to the CPPS for consideration. A number of land use schemes were drafted by the CPPS membership and analyzed during their monthly meetings this past fall. Land use proposals discussed involved: expansion of sewer and water services to incorporate the Brucetown, Clearbrook, and Stephenson communities; reduction of future industrial land uses; reduction of business land uses throughout the study area, with concentrations of business -emphasized interstate interchanges; and an increase in the size of Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA). Revisions to the SWSA boundary were also discussed. CPPS' Recommendation During the CPPS' December meeting, the committee discussed the various planned land use elements of the NELUP, as well as the land owner requests for a planned residential land use designation and inclusion in the Urban Development Area. It was during this meeting that the CPPS moved to recommend that the Northeast Land Use Plan be revised to include and reflect the findings of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundations' viable land preservation study. This land use plan is attached and titled, "CPPS Recommended Alternative." This CPPS preferred land use plan is labeled Alternative 3. Two of the other land use plan alternatives that were discussed by the CPPS have also been attached as information. These two reviewed, but not CPPS-endorsed, land use proposals have been titled "Alternative 1 " and "Alternative 2," respectively. The significant revision of the NELUP identified in Alternative 1 is the removal of the Planned Industrial Land Use designation and associated SWSA boundary as it pertains to property located south of Old Charlestown Road (Route 76 1) and cast of the CSX railroad. Alternative 2 suggested more significant changes to the NELUP, including: reductions in Planned Industrial and Business Land Uses; increases in Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) designations; and expansion of the SWSA to incorporate the rural community centers of Stephenson, Clearbrook, and Brucetown. Planning Commission Discussion and Action on February 5,200 The Planning Commission was presented a synopsis of the efforts the CPPS has undertaken to date, and advised of the CPPS' recommendation. The Commission raised a number of concerns during the discussion, including: whether public meetings had been adequately accommodated by the CPPS; the consideration of extension of sewer and water to aid properties with failing health systems; and clarification regarding the industrial land use directive. The Commission provided an opportunity to the three property owners responsible for the submitted requests to address the Commission. A representative ofthe Shockey/Slaughter properties presented a brief overview of their request for a mixed residential land use and inclusion in the Urban Development Area (UDA). The representative offered comments regarding the benefits of such a land use and the possible resulting smart growth land use program. Representatives of the Red Bud Road and Woods Mills Estates property owners stated that they made their respective requests to ensure that if the county granted an extension of the UDA and mixed residential land uses, that they, too, would have an opportunity to utilize public utilities for future development. The Commission ultimately moved to forward the three land use plan alternatives, as well as the Shockey/ Slaughter request, to the Board of Supervisors for consideration and direction. This motion was approved. YES (TO APPROVE MOTION TO SEND FORWARD TO THE BOARD: Watt, Unger, Morris, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, Light NO: Straub, Gochenour, Rosenberry ABSTAIN: DeHaven Board of Supervisors Discussion and Action on February 12, 2003 The revised plan endorsed by the Commission and alternatives were presented to the Board of Supervisors as a discussion item on February 12, 2003. The Board subsequently directed staff to seek public comment through community meetings on the four draft land use plan alternatives, the fourth plan accommodating a residential planned community designation. Community Meetings Two community meetings were held to provide the community an opportunity to learn about the four draft land use plan alternatives and offer comments. These meetings were held at the Stonewall Elementary School on April 1 and 7, 2003. The attendance at the meetings totaled 117 people, based on sign -in records; ten of the participants attended both meetings. The meetings were arranged to enable an opportunity for the participants to learn about each of the land use plan alternatives, and then provide comments regarding their land use preferences and desired community qualities. Staff has received 58 comment sheet submittals; verbatim transcripts of the comment sheets are attached (see attached community meeting comment sheets). Board of Supervisors Discussion and Action on April 23, 2003 Following a discussion on the merits of the various alternatives, the Board directed staff to schedule a public hearing. While the Board expressed a preference for Alternative 4, all of the land use plans would be available to receive public comment during the public hearings. 114 requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation add to the Secondary System of Highways the portions identified in Red on sketch 2 of 2 of the aforementioned sketches, and further identified as Sections 6 and 7, pursuant to 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ADOPTED this 12t" day of June 2002. RECESS The Board took a five minute recess. REQUEST BY SUPERVISOR TYLER TO SEND THE NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN BACK FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVISION - APPROVED Supervisor Tyler moved to have the Northeast Land Use Plan be sent back to the Planning Staff in order that they may reexamine the recommended land use policies in light of recent events in particular she would like the following issues addressed: i. The location and the amount of land designated by our current plan as future industrial. 2. The recognition and identification of the Milburn Rural Historic District, the core battlefield areas of the 2nd and 3 Winchester, and the Jordan Springs Historic Area Overlay. 3. The examination of policies related to the provision of sewer and water service to R_A zoned land located within the SWSA. 4. Some provision of sewer and water looked at for the community of Stephenson. Sewer particularly for Clearbrook, Burketown for existing homes with failing systems that includes water and sewer. 5. Incorporate changes made by the County since the adoption of the Plan on September 27, 2000. She would expect that this effort is to include public meetings, as appropriate, and ultimately the revised plan be brought back before the Frederick County Planning Conunission and the Board of Supervisors for public hearings and adoption. This should also include the public meetings and subcommittee prior to submission to Planning Commission, Supervisor Smith seconded the motion. Supervisor Smith asked if this will change anything that is in process? Supervisor Tyler asked Supervisor Smith to be a little more specific. Supervisor Smith - There are going to be new rules and regulations on the new one. Supervisor Tyler -We are going to have to look at a whole bunch of different issues here. Supervisor Smith - if something is in progress it is not going to pertain to that individual. Supervisor Tyler asked Supervisor Smith if he was talking about Rutherford Farm, VDOT, Minute "Book Number28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 i or was he talking about something in particular. She advised that she had no intent, when the Board was presented with the Northeast Land Use Plan SWSA to ever deny Rutherford Farms or to look at bringing VDOT, and their request of a visitor's center. She would like to see Stonewall School be taken off of pump and haul as she does have a problem with taxpayers paying for this, that is a whole other issue. I feel we need to look at the whole gamut. If you run just a quick fiscal impact model, which they have just discussed the by-right portion of this 4400 acres of RA land hooked to sewer and water, is a $7 million tax bill to Frederick County, not to mention the four schools that will need to be built. These are things this Board needs to address, and she hopes to do that through recooking at the Northeast Land Use Plan. With the Northeast Land Use Plan there are portions of that plan that she agrees with_ The corridor between Route 81, Route I I and the rail spur is absolutely perfect for industrial and commercial development. The topography is there, the rail is there, the infrastructure is there. She feels the Board needs to look at this in light of what has happened to this community and the decisiveness that has happened, what is going to happen to the rest of this plan. Several components of the Plan she has objections to and would like to have it revisited. Supervisor Smith asked how soon. Supervisor Tyler advised that she would hope within six months. The Planning Department will start with public vision meetings, which Stonewall was an active role in, they weren't listened to particularly well, go through that process again, and then it will go to the Planning Commission for public hearing and then come to the Board for public hearing. Supervisor Forrester asked if a particulartime could be set for this to come back to the Board, so that it does not get lost in committee. Administrator Riley asked if the Board set a time, staff would do their best in order to get it back to them. If the Board says six months that will be staff s goal, and they will do their best to get it done. Supervisor Tyler amended her motion to include this time limit. Chairman Shickle asked Administrator Riley if it has been the practice of Frederick County to review the Comprehensive Plan annually? Administrator Riley replied that was correct. Chairman Shickle asked when this would have started. I , I I Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 06/12/02 Director Lawrence replied the review would start any time now as the Plan would be presented to the Board in the Fall of the year_ He further advised that at present they have a "plate full" of things going on and he is not sure they are going to get to the review this year. It could be done and some other things would have to be pushed aside, if that is the directive of the Board. Supervisor Douglas stated that she could not support sending this Plan back as it is the one that has been worked on for years, it does not go on the shelf to gather dust, but is looked at each year; therefore, she sees no reason why it should be sent back. Supervisor Sager stated that he felt somewhat the same way; however, there are so many issues now that he has no objections to the Board reviewing this again. Chairman Shickle asked if we identify what projects will not be done, as this is revisited? Director Lawrence advised if staff is to revisit the Northeast Land Use Plan, that the corridor study be shelved for the time being, as the public meetings have not started on this portion. Supervisor Forrester asked Director Lawrence how close were they to scheduling the public hearings on the corridors? Director Lawrence advised that a worksession was being looked at with the Board for some time in August. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Nay Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye SUPERVISOR REYES REQUESTS TO HAVE HOURS OF OPERATION AT DUMPSTER SITES REMAIN AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE -APPROVED Supervisor Reyes advised the Board that he would like to propose leaving the current hours of operation at the County Dumpster sites. The hours at these sites were scheduled to be reduced on July 8, as a result of the budget approval in April, and taking effect on July 1. He further advised that he knew what would happen if the hours were reduced. The Board member's phones would be I ringing off the hook from County residents complaining. Administrator Filey advised that this amount, $160,000 had been cut from the budget and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Meeting of OW12/02 COUNTY Y of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development Northeast Land Use Plan Community Meetings April 1st and 7th, 2003 Comment Sheet 540/665-5651. FAX: 5401665-6395 In an effort to receive your comments regarding the various alternative land use plans, staff would encourage the community to utilize this comment sheet. Some questions are provided to initiate your thoughts. The back side of this comment sheet might also be utilized for your comments. Please return this comment sheet, with your comments, to the Department of Planning and Development staff before you leave the community meeting tonight. You can also mail this comment sheet to: 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601. All comments should be received by Monday, April 14, 2003. Thank you for your comments! 1) What aspects or elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use pians do you least prefer? 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? 'V1,7 1V_;,4 G'a..; ;¢ . UW' .—._1L_..e__ R/___—: .CR 1 Z'44IT4) I . What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? • Keeping business and commercial properties close to 81 and the interchanges. ® Providing water and sewer for the existing housing. Keeping open spaces and preserving historical land. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? • Any M 1 or M2 rezoning. • Huge housing developments; i.e., 2,800 housing units, etc. • Adding land to the UDA. 3. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? • Traffic moving freely with no back-ups. • Open spaces where water soaks in the ground, air quality is good, etc. • Small and close community. 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? lk7iat changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? (Improve:) • To help remove standing water in yards, etc. • Not to pump laundry and sink water into our front yards so we don't add to the possibility of West Nile Virus. p Decrease tractor -trailers on our roads. (Reduce:) • Large development whether it's commercial, industrial, housing, etc. • Poor air quality, not enough water, not respecting `Mother Nature's' needs. • Decreased safety issues such as traffic, crime, etc. • Not preserving historical sites. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? Alternatives 1 & 2 - keeps our land rural. In these, it doesn't look like the Stonewall District is a dumping ground for the county. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? • Alternatives 1 & 2 keeps industry and UDA-type communities out of rural areas and keeps it along the I-81/Rt. 11 corridor. #3 & 4 shoves that junk right down our throats. 3. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? The Stephenson area is quiet with a close-knit community. It is close to Winchester yet still is able to maintain its rural atmosphere. 4. That changes in the community would improve your quality of life? Tomcat changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Industry and large housing developments would greatly affect my quality of life negatively What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use playas do you most prefer? • SMART PLANNED Develooment ® Alt. 2 is nice but unrealistic for future planning • Alt. 4 is most realistic for long-term growth. 2. That aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? • Alt. 3 - Too much industry. 3. in general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? • The historical areas. 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? • Improved roads, sewer, water, and land value, open space. • Reduced - Industry. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? I think Alternative #2 is the best for the residents of Frederick County. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? I do not like the proposal of a large residential community; increases needs for schools and other services; limit industrial and business growth. 2. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Rural aspect including streams, natural setting; historical areas. 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Minimize houses, increase open space, add bike and hike trails. 1. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? • Developmental sensitive area expansion for historic sites. • Rural community center designations expanded. • Business/commercial clusters along 11/81 corridor. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? • Large plan development (R4). a Adequate environment controls - ordinances. 3. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? • At present, we have an opportunity to learn lessons from the failures of Loudoun county. 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? • Improved ordinances for environmental control of natural resources. • Improve air quality through more tree plantings. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? Land use 4; I like the idea of the village. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Ones that change potential uses that can affect landowner rights and values. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Its ability to grow and adapt and meet chanllenges with positive results for a majori ! 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? ", at changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Better roads to accommodate growth. In general - the decision on NELUP needs to be county -wide decision with careful attention given to the concerns of the Stephenson populace_ Comments .from these two sessions need to be taken county -wide, or at least aired publicly. I see no need to rush this. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? • The attempt to cluster development around transportation systems. • Attention to DSA and historical resources. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? • A disproportional percentage of one type zoning (III - Industrial; IV - Residential Planned • Alternative I & II might have some legal concerns with change of SWSA. • Alternative IV - No DSA west of railroad. 3. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? • A good mixture of uses. Adequate business/commerciat/industrial with a rural flavor. 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Improve: • An improved sense of community - A general concensus of what the future vision is. Reduce: a Uses detrimental to environment. I . What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? e.. A ]t 2 _ ,rens 1 - , , ci ess clustered 1 interchanges; +lo ,. , lett e an usb , u., n ste around I-8 .�t rchanges, IM, business east of railroad tracks; DSA designation around Stephenson's Depot and schools. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Alt. 1, 3, 4 - too much industry & business in addition to current zoning. ® Alt. 3 - Industry build -out of Stephenson's Depot battlefield. ® Alt. 4 - 2,800 homes! 3. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? ® Balance of residential, industry, business and agriculture is good but slowly being upset by too much residential, and industry in wrong places. Good people. 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Improve: • historic preservation to drive tourism. « concentrate growth in current UDA. « economic incentives to protect agricultural land (buy development rights) Reduce: • Build Route 37. • Residential planned community built outside UDA. « Continued expansion of SWSA (promotes growth in wrong areas) Loss of agricultural land. 1. What aspects or elements of the various alternative laud use plans do you most prefer? • Alternative 2 - least amount of industry. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? • Alternative 3 & 4 - too much development (residential and industry) concentrated in northeast area. 3. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? • Rural characteristic with many historic battlefields and great views. 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Improve: • Restrict growth while improving air quality and water quality. Reduce: • Continued uncontrolled residential and industrial growth. More roads congestion and taxes along with poor air quality. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you roost prefer? Alternative 2 - No planned community; no more industrial. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Alternative 3 - with 800 more acres to industrial development. 3. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Low congestion, low density, clean water and air, fewer stop lights and traffic congestion. 4. YI'lsat changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Limited growth and preserve an open rural flavor. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? Alternative 2 - Has the least industrial and manufacturing, the most "developmentally sensitive" area. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Planned rural community and more heavy industry. 3. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Open space, agricultural land, Red Bud run watershed, battlefield area. 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Improve: limit sprawl and congestion More congestion/people equals decrease in quality of life. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? nite�native 4. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? There is too much industrial land designed for this area. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Its rural flavor without a lot of traffic and industry. 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? "at changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Leave it alone would be best. Industry would destroy this community. I . What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? industi iai zoning along Route 81 - (more effective) • Retaining the Historical Areas (DSA) 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use. plans do you least prefer? • Industrial zoning away from 1-81 (ineffective) • Huge housing developments - (air pollution) • M 1 & M2 Zoning - (air pollution) 3. In general, what do you consider to he the best qualities or features of the community today? • Rural acreage. A Low traffic. • Low noise levels. 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to he reduced or diminished? Improve: • "Clean" industry along I-81. • It's pretty good the way it is. P-4--q- Increased ar4ii —q Increased traffic = Air pollution • M1 & M2 Industrial zoning= Air pollution What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? • Alternative #2 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Alternative #3 In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? More rural areas. 4. "at changes in the community would improve your quality of life? R%at changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Slow down growth. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? Those that encourage development in areas well-designed so that sprawl, i.e. dotting housing out on 5-10-15-25 or larger plots is avoided. Keep housing affordable and limit lot size so it will be manageable by the owner, resident. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Those that totally preserve or deny the best industrial sites for that use. 3. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? a Easy to get around from one part of area to another. • Diversified occupational opportunity. 4. What changes in the community would improveyour quality of life? What changes would cause your quality o, f'life to be reduced or diminished? Improve: • Update road and transportation systems, i.e. Rt. 37 East, so that ability to get around is not impaired as traffic becomes heavier. More opportunities to work in the locality causing local people to have more time to participate in volunteer "jobs" (fireman, T - Ball Dads, etc.) in our community. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? Alternative 2 provides for least amount of industry. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Alternative 4 - provides for high density R-4 development. 3. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? • Rural nature. 4_ That changes in the community would improve your quality aflife? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Improve: Slow growth. Reduce: © Fast, uncontrolled growth. What aspects or elements o� f the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? • #2 -Less industry. • #1 & #2 - Developmentally sensitive areas - protects Stephenson's Depot o #1 & #2 - Rural area • #1 & #2 - SWSA is smaller 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? #3 - industrial area. #3 & 4 - SWSA too large. 3. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? 0 Our rural landscape. 4. What changes in the community would imvroveyour quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Im_ Irl ove: • Clean up the air! Reduce: ® More industry, more population. 1) (What aspect or elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer?) No response 2) ( What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) No response 3) ( In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) The area from Red Bud Run to the West Virginia line, from Opequon Creek to Rt. ? should remain RA Agriculture forever. 4) (What change in the community would improve our quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) The Stephenson Village as so stated in the Shockey hand-out would only be the first of such. The area should remain RA forever. 1) (What aspect or elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer?) Rural - 5 acre minimum lots. 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) High Density Development & Housing or Industrial. 3) ( In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) Rural way of life. 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) Reduce High Density Housing. No to Stephenson Village. Only one person benefits from this plan. D. Shockey 1) ( What aspect or elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer?) Alternative 2 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) Alternative 3 3) ( In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) The rural character - wide open spaces 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) 1. Slow down the growth rate. Reduce the industrial acreage in the NE. 2. Bring in heavy industry or build 2800 homes. One will pollute and the other will drive up taxes and pollute. Board Preference - #2 best 91 2"" #4 3"' #3 (throw this out!) 1) (What aspect or elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most refer?) Alt #1 The positioning of industrial & business nearby Rt. 81 makes sense. Alt #2 The lack of future industrial sites. We already have half the county's industry in Stonewall District. Alt #3 Shockey Industrial Park was killed. Leave it dead. Nothing to like here. 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) Alt #4 Residential Shockey is better than #3 but not much. Urban Development Area & Industry are huge negatives for our rural district. 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) Ours is a district with large amounts of Rural - open space land. It is designated by RA zoning. To preserve this feature. Keep it that way. UDA and Industry destroy not enhance this feature. Take the sewer water service area away from Shockey and Jordan Spring. It is going to lead to disaster for us. 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) My community is perfect right now. Any intensive development whether industry or residential will hurt all aspects of life out here [traffic, pollution, loss of open space, groundwater rotation.] Please maximize RA zoning. I want to be in Stephenson not Stephens City!!! 1) (What aspect or elements of the various alterative land use plans do you mo.S•t prefer?) Preserving battlefield lands. Preserving rural character of the area as much as possible. 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) Shockey's development Any thing which increase traffic 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) Rural, livable 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) Improve - lower taxes, soccer fields in this part of the county. Develop and interpret the battlefield. Reduce - more traffic, more pollution. Further destruction of rural character. 1) (What aspect or elements ofthe various allerative land use plans do you mast prefer?) Maintaining rural atmosphere 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) VW, density development/manufacturing 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or_ features of the community today?) Rural atmosphere 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) A. Better air quality (manufacturing & traffic) B. Better housing, traffic, congestion, pollution l) (What aspect or elements of 'the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer?) Slow growth with as much preservation of agricutural land as possible. 2) (What aspects or elements of'lhe various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) The entire idea that these plans are being submitted without a peoples referendum. Errors on the maps that greatly affect some people i.e. ,Just where did the idea of a 656 extension come from as pictured on the map depicting improved vs unimproved properties? 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) The overall community conscience to limit industrial development within rurgricultural areas. t We don't want anouther Loudoun County and we're heading there. ff 4) (What change in the community would improveyour quality of life? What changes would cause your quality oflife to be reduced or diminished?) Better air quality controls - Better water quality with regards to pollution especially agricultural/fertilizer wastes etc. Increased urbanization and dense housing would greatly reduce our quality of life. l) (What a.V)ect or elements of'the various alterative land use plans do you masa pre�fi�r?) Alt 3 would provide a location for new business & industry. All plans need to recognize the necessity for building the Rt 37 bypass as a condition for changing the land use plan. 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) Alternative 4 does not address congestion problems that would be created on US 11 to 181 and further south to state Rt. 7, Rt. 7 is already severely congested. Ri 660 & 659 need to be improve prior to or as part of any rezoning. 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) Its openness to public comment. The civic mindedness of the community. Its easy access to all areas on the east coast. Valued and historical attractions, rail, air and road access. 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) Provide sufficient incentives per business and industry to locate here. Provide the infrastructure to encourage good industry as well as good education & housing. I ) ( What aspect or elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer?) Alternative 4 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) 3 East Development less than 5 acres 3) ( In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) Space open land between people. 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) Less traffic Cutting more trees down What aspects or elements of the various alternative laud use plans do you most prefer? 0 Alternative Plan 2. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Alternative Plan 4 3. In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Rural beauty 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of Zile? What changes would cause your quality of life to he reduced or diminished? Improve: Protecting our natural resources - water, air, land Reduce: s Out of control growth - (poor planning) 1) (What aspect or elements of the various alterative land use plans do you nzas't prefer?) We would like to see the land on east side of Rt. l l from Woodbine Road north that adjoins GJeorge Semples land to be zoned commercial. 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) No Mr. Fuel or any other truck stop. 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) Peace and quiet and none congested. 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) Water and sewer. Another truck stop, because of fumes. noise and congestion - Flying J does enough of that. l) (What aspect or elements of the various alleralive land use plans do you mast prefcr ?) Smaller SWSA No Residential Planned Community Larger Rural Areas Larger DSA 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) Residential Planned Communities Larger SWSA which encourage small lot subdivisions 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) Rural & Agricultural & Historical 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) 1. Serious effort to preserve Rural, Agricultural & Historical sites 2. Continued Development of Rural, Agricultural & Historical sites 1) (What aspect or elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer?) More rural, more preservation of history/heritage 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) More water/sewer More light pollution - (I enjoy seeing the stars & milky way) More population More strip malls More industry spread throughout the county 3) (In general, what do you consider to he the best qualities or features of the community today?) Open space, wildlife, clean air, quiet (no trucks or industry noise/smells). I love the farms and orchards (No farms, No Food - think about that!!) 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) A. Less traffic (No additions to Rt 37 bypass) More help to the farmers to keep their land productive B. More people/traffic/smells/`noise/taxes 1) (What aspect or eletnews of the various alteralive land use plans do you most prefer?) None 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) Alternative 3 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) Keep as is!! l) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) Keep as aaricultural land. 1) (What aspect or elements of 'the various alterative land use plans do you mast prefer?) Alt #2 It has more rural land use. It allows for slower growth. Best use of Industry. 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) Alt #4 I am against a large "Planned Community." We as a county cannot support it. It brings in crime and cost us more. I lived in Sterling. I have been though this before 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) The Rural aspects. 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? .What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) My life would be improved if something was done about the truck traffic at the Flying J. My quality of life would be greatly diminished if the rural lifestyle we enjoyed is destroyed. 1) (What aspect or elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most refer?) The most fiscally responsible plan 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) Overdeveloping and placing and undue burden on the existing population. 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) No response 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) 1) Eliminate Flying J Travel Plaza 2) Building Mr. Fuel I) (What aspect or elements of the various allerative land use plans do you roast prefer?) Alt. Plan 2 Best use of Industrial and Rural properties 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) Packing the I-81 Corridor with Industrial property - it's starting to look like the New Jersey turnpike - this will eventually become an industrial blight zone. 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) The Rural/Agricultural atmosphere. 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) Reduce - Too much industrial area - you lose sense of community and start to feel that you're living in a factory zone - Also too many homes/schools. Businesses will negatively impact the environment and deplete natural resources - such as water! 1) (What aspect or elements gf'the various alterative land use plans do you mast prefer?) 2 - retains the rural nature of the area 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) 4 - sprawl, sprawl, sprawl - not needed at all * Very poor idea not to have overall public presentations on the plans with the public comment 3) (In general, tivhat do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) It rural nature 4) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) Improve - Downsizing development Diminish- not legible Downzoning BOS members vote their interest, not Heavy Devolpment pay its full cost the people Assessing water availability 1st on all issue 130i�responsive to citizens 1) (Whal aspect or elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most pr(fer?) Alt 4 -t~ makes the most sense - it pays its way and helps solve the problem of failing septic systems in Stephenson. Shockey tried industrial and got turned down to leave that land in industrial is senseless. 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) The Shockey & McAnn land has very poor soils - it is not good for agriculture put R4 there and save 14, 000 better agricultural acres in another part of the county. 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) Re: Stephenson area - Jordan Springs is nice and I am glad Toni & Greg are saving it. 4) (What change in the community would im rove your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) I live in Stonewall District but not in Stephenson, R4 would benefit the entire county since it is a cash cow. I might move to age restricted in Stephenson Village when I turn 55 because of the planned amenities. That would improve my quality of life! 1) (What aspect or elements of'lhe various alterative land use plans do you 2as't prefer?) Those that do not add anymore industry to this district. Those that do not propose Rt 37. It's a shame it's on #4 along w/the planned community and it's generous proffers. 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) Increased industry. Rt. 37 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) Rural character, historic treasures, tourism potential. Sense of community l) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) Improve - Secondary Roads Reduce - Increased industry Rt 37 1) (What aspect or elements of 'the various alterative land use plans do you ma. "Ire No response 2) (What aspects or elements• of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) No response 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) No response 1) (What change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) Construction of Rt. 37 would make a big improvement Lynda Tyler should excuse herself from voting on this issue as there is the appearance of conflict of interest because her husband is a builder and I voted for her not that has anything to do with this 1) (What aspect or elements of 'lhe various alterative land use plans do you most or(-,eY?) I prefer NE Land Use Plan Alternative 92 2) (What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer?) Stephenson Village or heavy industry 3) (In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today?) Rural, not congested 4) (W°hat change in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished?) #1 reduced air pollution 92 more traffic, noise, pollution, taxes to continue increasing to support schools,fire and police, protection roads, etc. 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? As is! 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Least prefered more housing units approved. Too many approved & waiting to be built. 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Open space, business industry near rail service 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Improve. Make 5 acre lot size larger as the are more distant form city - 10 - 15ete. Keep residential near city 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? Any aspect which minimizes zoning and contains business and indstrial zoning within the proximity of Route 11 and 181 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Industrial zoning possibility on the "Bubble" land Shocky property 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? It's quiet slow paced rural/residential nature 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Reduce pollution. Assurance of water aquifer preservation development which was insured to pay for itself in services ( school, safety, sewer, water, transportation) or at least the first 15 years of its'existance - pay as you go development. No tas impact development 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? n 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? No response 4) What changes in the community would imDrove your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Sewer & water 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? Alterative N (4) 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Alterative one (1) 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Jordan Springs Hotel 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Sewer services lack of planning I) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? F11 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? No response 4) What changes in the community would imDrove your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Water and sewer Wine -Stillwell Corporation 720 N. Loudoun Street, P.O. Box 2035. Winchester, Virginia 22604 OFFICE: 540-662-4441 FAX 540-722-3643 December 10, 2002 (Rev. March 31, 2003) Memo To: Eric Lawrence cc: John Light, Charles DeHaven From: J.D. Stillwell Re: N.E. Land Use Plan I had hoped that we were going to review in detail 3 alternate Plans last night but due to the segmented approach of breaking up the palns into 6 separate areas it was impossible to offer a coordinated approach. For the record I planned to offer the following for consideration: 1. Limit industrial to 800 acres, all ml and located west of CSX RR and east of 81. 2. Eliminate Rt. 37 (if a connection is needed show contiguous with an expanded Rt. 7). 3. Convert "Shockey" to residential, limited density above RA, possibly 600 to 800 unit type plan. Still awaiting county's results for final decision on this. 4. Save +/- 130 acres for Stephenson Depot and 31 Winchester Core battlefields - Mernorial parks. 5. Add park land between Global Chemstone and Rt. 11 (+/- 100 acres) and convert Global Chemstone to a recreation use in long term when mining is complete. 6. Develop a small scale Stephenson Town Center size and acale similar to Creekside in scale, size and appearance within "Shockey" property. 7. Concentrate Business Use a I-81 interchanges. S. Show all historic sites with a development sensitive designation (Plantation Houses, Core Battlefield sites, Historical sites). 9. Show school sites on plan. 10. Develop a "Greenway" from Stephenson Depot though Milburn Road to Hackwood and on to Opequon Creek along Red Bud Road. 11. Remainder of land East of Rt. 1 I to remain RA as now planned except a combination of RA and light industrial/business on west side of Milburn Road. Please include these in your planning considerations. cc: Ms. Lynda Tyler 438 Devils Backbone Overlook Stephenson, VA 22656 I am a resident of the Stonewall District. I would like to add my comments concerning the various plans. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you most prefer? I most prefer the plans which show the area staying predominantly rural. I can understand some commercial along Rt. 11 and I81 . These are corridors through the county. The development should stay in this narrow corridor. 2. What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? I least prefer the plans which propose the large dense development/industrial area on the east side of routel 1. I don't understand the push for ether as industrial park or a high density residential development. The county is not prepared to entertain the idea of high density development. Our environmental regulations are not strong enough to make sure that the environment is protected. Our planning regulations do not tie the developers down enough for us to be sure that we get what is truly important. A big question I have is, have we done a comprehensive evaluation of all the battlefields in the county? Why are we trying to destroy something unique? Are we going to say in 10 years "why didn't someone think to preserve this area?" In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? One of the best qualities is the rural feel of the area. I like the smell of manurel! I can hear the quiet, and see the stars in the total darkness at night. And yet I am relatively close (but not too close) to the conveniences of town. 4. What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? One change i would be for is the designation of the Milburn Historic District. I feel that due to where we live and what happened here, we will not be looked upon well years from now if we allow the historic places in this county to be degraded or destroyed. Shouldn't comprehensive planning take this into account? Thousands of additional homes, or hundreds of acres of commercial/industrial development would destroy the ambiance of the area. To many cars. (Many people already think that Old Charlestown Road is a speedway) Additional removal of trees, too many lights, degradation of our water are all negatives. Nadine Vurdelja Piontka 262 Oak Hill Lane Stephenson, VA 22656 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? If the land cannot support agriculture, I would prefer the Shockey alternative. 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Industrial 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Quiet area with good neighborhoods 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Improve sewer Reduce industry 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? Plan 94 - Stephenson Village - offers the best opportunity for growth. If the housing is affordable to the current residents of the area as well as new residents from other areas than I believe that the Stephenson Village would be the best option 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Industrial 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? If this new community offers the area new schools, and recreational facilities. Than this would build good sense of community. 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? To improve: Stop sewage from running on top of the ground To reduce: Industrial 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? Plan #2 and #3: I prefer to keep agricultural land "as is"; however, if the land will not support any kind of growth due to shale or other hindrances, Plan #, if kept to its promises, could be a benefit to our Community. I believe this area needs attractive, affordable housing and Plan #4 has great potential. 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? With Plan #4, I am afraid we may become another Washington, D.C. - with no rural areas remaining. 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? The sense of this still being a "small town" and a pride in our All American Community. 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? I would like to see more community events, especially those involving children. I think changes that would diminish the quality of life would be insufficient schools, traffic congestion and overcrowded subdivisions that don't offer any activities for its residents. 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? Prefer cluster type housing with aminities such as the Stephenson Village proposal. Will disturb less land and provide a quality life style. Will cure problems associated with sewage too. 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Agricultural is not feasible as the ground is predominately shale - will not support growth. 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? School, community recreation facilities provided as a part of the developers proffers makes a great deal of sense for the tax payers. 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Stephenson Village will promote a ture sense of community - will enhance quality. 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? Alternative 4, if growth is not supported due to the shale. 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Alternative 1 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Good sense of community. 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Improve the sewer 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? Alternative 4 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Agricultural 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? sense of community 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? a) sewer b) lack of direction 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? Alternative 4 has less land appreciation potential, sewer 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Alternative 1 - no industrial! 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Good neighbors - quiet 4) What changes in the community would imDrove your quality of life? TFhat changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Improve - sewer Reduce - industrial 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? Shockey's Stephenson Village - cluster type housing 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Farmettes - ground all shale, wan't supporting kind of growth. 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Good neighbors, good sense of community 4) What changes in the community would imDrove your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Sewer needs fixing Sewage running on top of ground 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? If the land cannot be used for agricultural, and if Shockey's only other alternative is to see it for residential use, I would defiantly prefer a planned community like Stephenson Village. 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Industrial 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Probably a sense of rural community 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? 97hat changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Changes to improve - would be: fix the sewer problem Changes to reduce - Would be: added industrial 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? I most prefer keeping and preserving as is the Civil War Battlefield, in it's entirety, and the Milburn Historic District. Once these are gone, they' re gone forever. I believe they will become more valuable as time goes by and will bring tourists and preserve green space which is quickly disappearing. 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? -Anything that developes over or destroys historical property, and increases traffic problems. -Anything that lines the pockets of certain people at the cost of the taxpayers of Fred. Co. ie: housing developments with rod infrastructures & cost of educating new students 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? The rural aspect, pristine historical scenes, much like they were over a century ago. These are all too fast disappearing all over the county. We don't want to look like Fairfax Co., do we? Keep the industry along, the 81 corridor where there is already rail service! 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? One of my biggest concerns now is the very poor air quality. We need to clean it up. There are too many sick people with cancer, etc. And we could help! Also, we need to always be aware of the need for water that is increasing constantly! It may not always be as plentiful! Please preserve our natural resources! Thanks B. Solenberger 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? The rural aspects of Alternative 1 & 2. Business and industrial areas along I-81 and Rt. 11 make sense. 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? The large amount of RP areas of Alternative 4. Stonewall is an industrial and business oriented district. Large pockets of RP does not fit the area. 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? The farms and industry. 4) What changes in the community would imarove your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Improve - Build Et. 37. We need better transportation. Reduce - Large amounts of traffic produced by residential development. 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? Ability to expand public sewer to Stephenson and Clearbrook. Ability to have public facilities and services near existing residential. Balance or commercial, industrial and residential. 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Eliminating a portion of the SWSA boundary after the board of supervisors approved the FCSA Route 11 North SWSA plan that is currently being developed. Identifying areas for future agricultural land use that are not viable due to poor soils. 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? Clearbrook park Stonewall Elementary Fairgrounds Some public water proximity of Rt. 11 and I-81 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Improve quality of life Public sewer Additional public facilities and services Improved transportation network Community shopping and employment 1) What aspects of elements of the various alterative land use plans do you most prefer? 0 or minimal industry Minimal high density housing Water & sewer that serves existing needs not future ones 2) What aspects or elements of the various alternative land use plans do you least prefer? Adding new industry Incorporating 1/4 housing or higher density housing (apartments) Ignoring sewer & water needs today 3) In general, what do you consider to be the best qualities or features of the community today? NOT crowded NOT busy NOT dense 4) What changes in the community would improve your quality of life? What changes would cause your quality of life to be reduced or diminished? Improve - proceeding with #1 concepts Avoiding #2 concepts