Loading...
PC 10-15-03 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia October 15, 2003 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) August 20, 2003 Minutes ................................................. (A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments ................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Rezoning #11-03 of For My Kids, LLC - Shenandoah Honda, submitted by John Ross, to rezone 2.020 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located on Route 7, approximately 185 feet southeast of the intersection of Greenwood Road and Route 7, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 55-A-80 and 55-A-81 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. (Mrs. Kennedy)........................................................ (B) 5) Proposed Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) Amendment to Relocate a Planned Major Collector Road and to Propose Business Land Use in the Vicinity of the Intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road. This request has been submitted by G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., on behalf of property owner George Sempeles, to facilitate preparation of a business and industrial development proposal for approximately 104 acres. The properties are identified by Property Identification Numbers 34-A-2 and 34-A-4 and are located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Mrs. Kennedy)....................................................... (C) PUBLIC MEETING 6) Subdivision Waiver Request of Walter Gallahan for an exception to the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, § 165-54A, § 165-56A, and § 165-56B, regarding minimum lot size, state road frontage, and an exception to lot -width ratios. The properties are identified with Property Identification Numbers 45-A-52 and 45-10-4 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Mr. Davenport)...................................................... (D) DISCUSSIONS 7) Discussion of I-81 Improvements (Mr. Camp) ........................................................... (E) 8) Discussion of Pipestem Lots Ordinance Amendment (Mr. Camp) ........................................................... (F) 9) Discussion regarding an update of certain References in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances (Mr. Camp) .......................................................... (G) 10) Other. • C7 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 August 20, 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; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard Shickle, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 08/11/03 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS has begun the groundwork for discussion of the rural areas studies. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 08/19/03 Mtg. Commissioner Gochenour reported that the Planning Staffhad applied for and received a grant Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1124 -2 - from the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation (SVBF) in the amount of $8,000.00. She said the purpose of the grant is to fund a project to provide training to the HRAB and will be used to hire a consultant to provide assistance to the HRAB in the form of training to improve mediation skills, to improve communication skills, and to improve the HRAB's ability to effectively review land use proposals and make recommendations. She said that in addition to the training program, the SVBF has suggested the development of operational and review guidelines for the HRAB as part of the project. Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) - 08/19/03 Mtg. Mr. Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison, reported that the primary issue discussed by the Winchester City Planning Commission involved a conditional rezoning of the rear area of the Virginia Apple Storage facility which has an entrance on Valley Avenue. Mr. DiBenedetto stated that the proposed parcel to be rezoned, which conforms with the City's Comprehensive Policy Plan, is behind some residential areas; therefore, the Commission must consider issues regarding road placement, etc. He said the best place for the road, unfortunately, is through land that was set aside for open space and the Parks and Recreation Department will have deal with that. He said that although this was likely to be a fairly good plan, it was tabled until some additional problems can be worked out. Mr. DiBenedetto said that other issues discussed involved water run-off. Chairman DeHaven said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on all matters dealing with Rezoning Application #06-03 of Stephenson Village due to a possible conflict of interest. Chairman DeHaven turned the conduction of the meeting over to Vice Chairman Thomas. CITIZEN COMMENTS Vice Chairman Thomas called for citizen comments at this time. Vice Chairman Thomas announced that the Commission will be considering the Stephenson Village rezoning as a public meeting this evening, due to the fact that the public hearing was already held on July 16, 2003; therefore, citizen comments on this rezoning will be taken during the Citizen Comments portion of the meeting. Vice Chairman Thomas added that citizen comments will be limited to three minutes in order to allow adequate time to hear all the comments and to allow the Commission adequate time to discuss issues. The following persons came forward to speak regarding the Stephenson Village rezoning: Mr. William (Bill) Shepherd, a resident of Gainesboro District and a candidate for the Board of Supervisors, believed insufficient information has been given to the Board of Supervisors and the public regarding the proposed rezoning. Mr. Shepherd disagreed with the applicant's conclusions that the project will provide the County with $38.1 million over its 23 -year life and that the project will not cost the Frederick County taxpayer. Mr. Shepherd said that Mr. Samuel (Sam) Lehman, Michael (Mike) McMillan, and himself Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1125 -3 - have performed a fiscal analysis using readily -available County data and the applicant's data which details their findings. Mr. Shepherd handed out the information to the Commission and to the news media. Mr. Shepherd suggested that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors defer further consideration of this project until the County's revised Impact Model is available to more accurately evaluate the proposal. Mr. Timothy (Tim) Laport, a resident of the Opequon District, asked that the Commission carefully consider any rezoning requests from Rural Areas to R4 District; he believed the consequences of acting now and setting a precedent will affect Frederick County for generations. Mr. Laport preferred to see any major revision delayed until the air study, the water study, and the revised impact model was complete in order to determine the true impact to the taxpayers. Mr. Kevin Kennedy, a resident of Gainesboro District, referred to a quotation made by author Thomas (Tom) Hilton, regarding planned community developments, in which Mr. Hilton stated that the wrong place to build big developments is on virgin land and the best place to build planned communities was on dead areas, such as big cities. Mr. Kennedy believed Mr. Shockey was looking at the wrong land for his development. Mr. Kennedy hoped that the Planning Commission would do a better job of representing the citizens on this issue than the Board of Supervisors has done. He referred to the results of the informal surveys that had been conducted in which 90-95% of those polled opposed the proposed development. He believed the proposal had many unanswered questions, in particular, that Mr. Shockey would like the county to give up control of the direction of the project once it has been approved. In addition, Mr. Kennedy was concerned about the reduction in the amount of commercial development proposed and he questioned how 33 acres of commercial could support 2,800 homes. In conclusion, Mr. Kennedy described the proposal as a massive commuter village and he believed the traffic was also a significant matter that needed to be considered. Mr. Douglas (Doug) Cochran, a resident of the Stonewall District, expressed his concern that if Stephenson Associates does not initially provide a complete plan, the County will have no legal recourse if issues arise later. He believed Mr. Shockey was submitting only half of a plan and was asking the County to take the remainder on faith. He remarked that the very real potential for adverse environmental and economic results calls for a thorough plan, not an exercise in faith. Mr. Cochran was concerned about the financial impact to the community, as he could see no sound basis for estimating the number of single residences versus the families with children, empty nesters, and retirees. He pointed out the wide-ranging projections for the proposed commercial and industrial portions of the project, some of which are lower than required by the R4 Zoning District. Mr. Cochran stated that in spite of the lack of a complete master plan and very unclear projections about the final mix of residential types, commercial space, and industrial use, Stephenson Associates has continued to claim their development will not cost the citizens of Frederick County a dime_ Mrs. Pamela (Pam) Kennedy, a resident of the Gainesboro District, was concerned that all of the information and statements provided by Stephenson Associates were untrue, especially their statement that the citizens of Frederick County would not bear any impact costs generated by the proposed development. She disputed the claim that Stephenson residents had sufficient input into the process of the proposal; she was concerned about the volume of traffic that would impact Routes 7, 11, and 1-81; she was concerned that some of the proffered land was to be used for athletic playing fields and the taxpayers would have to bear the cost of the construction these fields. Mrs. Kennedy believed the rezoning should be postponed until all of the pending studies, water, economic, and air-quality, had been completed. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1126 -4 - Mr. Samuel (Sam) Lehman, a resident of Back Creek District, was concerned that the land proffered in the application was valued at $30,000 per acre while it was purchased at $3,000 per acre only eight years ago. Mr. Lehman stated that without the R4 District zoning, the land proffered was not worth $30,000 per acre. Mr. Lehman stated that the County's new impact model doubles the estimated impact costs per dwelling for projects similar to Stephenson Village; he explained how the calculations for the new model were derived. Mr. Lehman also commented about the Braemar development that was shown as an example of how Stephenson Village is envisioned; he stated that the tax rate in Prince William County is three times more than the tax rate in Frederick County. Ms. Vicki Weston, a resident of the Back Creek District, was concerned about water availability. She disputed the projected "gallons per day" estimated to be produced from the various water treatment plants described in the Sanitation Authority's capability study. She presented a list of 23 individuals in the Back Creek District who have lost either their wells or springs. Ms. Weston was concerned about the depletion of wells and springs used by existing residents in order to take care of Stephenson Village's water needs. Mr. William Lowts, a resident of Stonewall District, raised the issue of the traffic impacts, not only to the Route 11 Interchange with I-81, but also to the Route 7 interchange. Mr. Lowts said that he travels Route 7 to Ashburn daily for work and was concerned about the possible traffic congestion he may encounter at the Rt. 7 and 1-81 intersection. In addition, he said his property adjoins the proposed Stephenson Village project and he was concerned about construction noise and dust over the course of its development. He said that despite the offer to existing residents to connect to the Sanitation's water and sewer system, he believed the majority of his neighbors probably couldn't afford the hook-up fee because they are elderly or are of retirement age. He was also concerned about the affect of construction on his and his neighbors septic fields. There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice Chairman Thomas closed the citizen comment portion of the meeting. PUBLIC MEETING Rezoning 906-03 of Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 821.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. This property is located east of Milburn Road (Route 662), south of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761), and southwest of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664), approximately 2,000 feet east of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North). The properties included with this application are identified with Property Identification Numbers 44-A-31 [portion], 44-A- 3 IA, 44-A-292, and 44-A-293 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. COMMUNITY DESIGN MODIFICATION DOCUMENT (Rezoning Exhibit F) MODIFICATION #1 - §165-71 Mixture of Housing Types Required Allow larger percentage of total residential units to consist of types included under townhouse, multi- family, and active adult categories. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1127 Isle Modify ordinance limitation of 40% to permit such types to comprise up to 60% of overall residential program. Action - Recommended Approval Commissioner Morris inquired if the percentages affect allowable maximum density for any project or if the percentages change according to housing types. Deputy Director Mohn replied that the percentages affect only the housing type and have no impact on overall density. Mr. Wyatt explained that the requested modification does not increase the percentage of the number of units that can be multi -family, but it allows for a greater area of the total land that is proposed for residential to have a particular housing type. Commissioner Unger asked for the percentage used for density of houses per acre. Mr. Wyatt replied that the overall density for the proposed development with the reduced acreage is 3.5 units per acre and the R4 District ordinance allows 4.0 units per acre. Commissioner Ours inquired if it was still the intent to use innovative housing types in the development of the project. He referenced a home design characterized as a duplex, but had no common walls, except for a common garage wall. Mr. Wyatt confirmed that the use of innovative housing types was indeed planned and the particular design described was actually proffered in the modifications document, as well as the proffer. Mr. Wyatt said that this design would be considered a duplex and would be part of the 40% restrictive area. Commissioner Rosenberry was concerned that the result of this modification would be townhouse and multi -family units as an exception to the ordinance instead of the senior citizen housing described. Mr. Wyatt replied that the exception to the ordinance is for the use of land area, not for dwelling unit totals. Mr. Wyatt said that the assurance is in the mixed residential matrix that is part of the GDP and part of the proffer; he said it guarantees a certain percentage of single-family dwellings, a certain percentage of townhouses, a certain percentage of multi -family, and a certain percentage of active adult. Mr. Wyatt stated there will be a wide range of housing types and choices, but not a predominant housing type. Upon made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of MODIFICATION # 1-§ 165-71 Mixture of Housing Types Required to allow the Mixed Residential Matrix to govern the categorization of housing types and the residential mix for Stephenson Village. The majority vote on Modification #I was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Thomas NO: Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN: DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1128 M MODIFICATION #2 - §165-69 Permitted Uses §165-72B(2) Alternative Dimensional Requirement Plan • Allow specific housing types not currently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. • New types identified as carriage house, non -alley carriage house, cottage house, and courtyard cluster. • Establishes dimensional standards for new unit types. • Proposes alternative dimensional standards for townhouse and small lot units. Action - Recommended Approval Commissioner Rosenberry made the point that if the requested housing types and dimensional standards were acceptable, then the zoning ordinance should be changed to allow them, instead of treating them as an exception. Other commissioners agreed and Vice Chairman Thomas advised that this was an item already on the Planning Staff s work program for the Commission. No other issues or concerns were raised with this modification request. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification 42 - § 165-69 Permitted Uses and § 165-72B(2) Alternative Dimensional Requirement Plan to allow new housing types in Stephenson Village as identified in Section 21 of the proffer statement and pursuant to the dimensional standards delineated in Rezoning Exhibit F. In addition, alternative dimensional standards will be accepted for single-family small lot and townhouse housing types in lieu of the current RP District requirements. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Straub, Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Rosenberry, Thomas NO: Gochenour ABSTAIN: DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1129 -7 - MODIFICATION 93 - §165-72D Commercial and Industrial Areas §165-72M Non-residential Land Use Phasing Allow land area dedicated for commercial uses to be limited to 4% of gross project area. Allow commercial uses to be developed in centralized manner. Ordinance requires minimum of 10% and maximum of 50% of gross land area for commercial and employment uses. Such uses are to be phased throughout project. Action - Recommended Denial Commissioner Straub recalled comments made by the applicant at a previous meeting noting that this will be a development where the residents can live and work. Commissioner Straub said she could not envision 5,000 people working on four percent of the developed area. She believed the ordinance standards were established for a specific reason and the Commission should not lower this particular standard. Commissioner Light agreed the minimum standard of 10% commercial should be achieved under the mixed use. He said the purpose of the mixed use was to maintain a certain percentage of commercial/industrial and to provide a certain level of service to the County. Commissioner Light then moved to deny Modification #3. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Straub. Commissioner Rosenberry called a point of order. He said that with the previous modifications, the applicant was given an opportunity to discuss the modification. Commissioner Rosenberry asked if it was possible to hear the applicant's comments. Commissioner Light and Commissioner Straub had no problems with allowing the applicant to speak. Vice Chairman Thomas invited the applicant, Mr. Wyatt, to the podium to speak. Mr. Wyatt said that the ordinance, as currently written, states, "a minimum of 10%ofthe land area associated with an R4 development should be used for both commercial and industrial." Mr. Wyatt said that it has been shown that industrial is not a desirable land use in this area. Mr. Wyatt calculated that under the existing ordinance, the proposed development would be required to sustain 80 acres of commercial. By comparison, he said the Apple Blossom Mall is on a 60 -acre tract, the Martins Plaza on South Pleasant Valley Road is on less than a 28 -acre tract. Mr. Wyatt explained that they were anticipating a realistic, sustainable area for Stephenson Village, as well as the outlying community. He commented that this area was not going to be a major traffic draw like the South Pleasant Valley Road corridor or the Apple Blossom Mall. Mr. Wyatt believed that 3 3 acres, the amount they suggested, would be approximately the size of Creekside Village mixed in with the Sunnyside Plaza. In addition, Mr. Wyatt noted that it was unrealistic to expect commercial use in all phases of development throughout the project. Commissioner Morris inquired if the "Flex -Tech" concept would fit within the commercial area of this development. Mr. Wyatt replied no. He said that because they've eliminated land uses allowed in the B3 and the M 1 Zoning District and the concept of "Flex -Tech" marries those uses with typical commercial, the flex tech would not be possible. He said they are proposing support retail and office use. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1130 -8 - Commissioner Light referenced the proffer on Page 17 under Commercial Rezoning Applications, Part 2, stating, "...if a food chain store establishes within athree-mile radius ... [the applicant] has the ability not to use that as a potential commercial site in the [plan]..." He asked Mr. Wyatt if he was reading that correctly; Mr. Wyatt replied no. Mr. Wyatt said that this rezoning is committed to providing commercial, which is unprecedented. He said the applicant is committing a minimum of 60,000 square feet of commercial, which the economic model showed as the minimum amount of commercial needed to insure this project had a positive impact. He explained that if an anchor store lands within the three-mile radius, the applicant is permitted a two-year delay before committing to the 60,000 square feet. The 60,000 square -foot commitment remains regardless; whether it happens at a specific time, or whether there is a two-year delay because there's an anchor store immediately outside of the development. Commissioner Light inquired if this would be shown in the MDP process along the way and Mr. Wyatt replied that it would. Commissioner Light said he had envisioned an office/business park complex situation developing in this area, along the I-81 corridor. Commissioner Ours suggested that use would be precluded under this application because it was an M1 use. Vice Chairman Thomas commented that the applicant has responded to what they believed was the direction from the community and the Board of Supervisors by erring to the existing 10% requirement and the removal of removing industrial use from their request. Ref industrial, Vice Chairman Thomas questioned whether an un -achievable requirement was being placed on the applicant. Mr. Wyatt stated that the modification request is for a minimum of 4% ; he said that an office park would certainly be desired, and if the market is strong, they could increase the percentage amount. Commissioner Kriz requested that Mr. Light repeat his motion. Commissioner Light repeated his motion to recommend denial of Modification #3. Commissioner Straub repeated her second to the motion. By a majority vote, the Commission recommended that Modification #3 be denied. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Modification #3-§ 165-72D Commercial and Industrial Areas and § 165-72M Non-residential Land Use Phasing to allow the applicant to limit commercial development to 4% of the gross land area of the planned residential community, which equates to approximately 33 acres devoted to commercial land uses. Additionally, this modification would have relieved the applicant of the requirement that each phase of development include non- residential land uses, thereby enabling commercial development to occur entirely with a centralized node. The vote was as follows: YES (TO DENY): Straub, Gochenour, Watt, Morris, Light, Rosenberry NO: Unger, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Thomas ABSTAIN: DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1131 Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 MODIFICATION 94 - §165-72F Recreational Facilities Allow monetary value of "tot lot" facility to represent equivalent of one recreational unit. Proposed modification would clarify the measure to be used in determining the number of recreational units represented by the applicant's recreational amenities. Action - Recommended Approval Commissioner Straub inquired of staff ifthis modification would allow the applicant to proffer money instead of building tot lots. Deputy Director Mohn replied no. He said that a tot lot is used to measure conformance with the recreational unit requirement in the ordinance; for example, for every 30 dwelling units, one recreational unit is required. He explained that a tot lot is identified as the equivalent of a recreational unit, but there are many other types of recreational units that can be implemented by an applicant in a residential community. He said that the tot lot provides a unit of measure for the applicant's proposed facility. In addition, Deputy Director Mohn stated that the Department of Parks and Recreation is comfortable with this modification and, in fact, they've approached the Planning Department about amending the ordinance to reflect this concept. He said the Parks and Recreation Department would evaluate the number of recreational units a particular facility represents, utilizing the tot lot as the measure for the monetary perspective. Deputy Director Mohn continued, explaining that the applicant is seeking clarification that the tot lot will be the unit of value that will be used to evaluate their conformance because this clarification does not currently exist in the ordinance. He said the applicant has proposed the minimum value of a tot lot facility in the modification document, which will be used consistently in evaluating their facilities. No other issues or concerns were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification #4 - § 165-72F Recreational Facilities, which will allow the monetary value of a tot lot facility to be the equivalent of one recreational unit for the purposes of determining the number of recreational units represented by the applicant's planned recreational facilities. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub, Thomas NO: Gochenour ABSTAIN: DeHaven (Note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1132 -10 - MODIFICATION 45 - §165-72.1 Road Access §165-29.A(14) Motor Vehicle Access §144-24.0 .C2(a).C2(b) Lot Access Allow active adult/age-restricted community to be served exclusively by private streets. Enable active adult community to be gated. Allow other housing types to be located on private access roads elsewhere in the project. Action - Recommended Approval Commissioner Light presented a scenario in which the development went defunct and the desire was to remove the gates and for the development to become a state -street system. He asked the Planning Staff if that would be possible, if this modification were approved. Deputy Director Mohn replied that the applicant is proposing to construct the streets to public road standards, which would enable VDOT to take the roads into the state system, if desired. Commissioner Rosenberry inquired why the applicant was seeking to use a system of private streets when the option for VDOT to maintain them was available. Mr. Wyatt replied that the private streets are designed for the gated community concept, which entitles a resident to live within a gated community consisting of a complete system of private streets, whether or not the residence is within 200' or 2,500' of a state road, and this was the purpose of the amendment. Mr. Wyatt said the ordinance is currently written mandating that every street in Stephenson Village must be a public street. Mr. Wyatt said they have met with both VDOT and the Fire Marshal's office to make sure those agencies were comfortable with the applicant's road design from an emergency access standpoint; he said their proffer statement is very specific regarding turning radius, etc. Commissioner Rosenberry questioned why anyone would want to have their homeowners association pay for road maintenance when the state is willing to do it. He asked what would be the incentive. Mr. Wyatt replied that with state maintenance also comes the other component, which is public access ability. He explained that with private street systems, streets are gated and are not open to the general public to drive on, unless as an invited guest of the community. He noted that when a consumer buys into that particular community, the consumer is aware that as part of the association dues, he is going to maintain the streets as a luxury of having a private street system. Commissioner Rosenberry asked if the VDOT representative, who was available for questions, could confirm what the applicant had said. Mr. Ben Lineberry, a VDOT representative, stated that public access to a Commonwealth of Virginia road can not be denied. Mr. Wyatt added that Braemar was a good example of a gated community with a private street system; he said the streets were built to either meet or exceed VDOT's standards, but they also were able to use niceties, such as decorative capping for crosswalks, etc. He said the bottom line is that itis a market niche that is desired and working in other communities. Commissioner Morris inquired if each age -restricted pod would be able to decide for itself whether or not it would be gated and, secondly, would the dues be paid to a general homeowners association or would each pod have its own homeowners association. Mr. Wyatt replied that this is basically a market Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1133 Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 -11 - decision; you believe the market is available and you will be successful designing and developing "X" acres and that people will buy homes within it. Mr. Wyatt stated that this decision is made by the developer; then, as a consumer, if you choose to buy a product within that community, you know what you are buying into. Commissioner Ours asked if the applicant anticipated using private streets in the non -age - restricted pads ?!fir. Wyatt replied that they are not entitled to do so; he said the other communities would have state -maintained street systems. Commissioner Straub inquired if the pipe -stem roads would also be constructed to VDOT standards. Mr. Wyatt stated that all streets will be constructed to a dimensional standard that either exceeds or meets VDOT standards. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification #5 - § 165-72.1 Road Access, § 165-29.A(14) Motor Vehicle Access, and § 144-24.0 .C2(a). C2(b) Lot Access, to allow the active adult portion of Stephenson Village to develop with a complete system of private roads, regardless of the mix of housing types provided. Moreover, in the mixed residential portion of the community, private access roads will be permitted to serve no more than five (5) single-family dwelling units, or a maximum of ten (10) units, if the private access road connects two public streets. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub, Thomas NO: Gochenour ABSTAIN: DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) MODIFICATION 46 - §165-72M Phasing Allow applicant to be exempted from requirement to provide precise annualized phasing details. Applicant proffers to phase construction of non -age -restricted units at maximum rate of 8% per year. Action - Recommended Approval Commissioner Light was concerned about the Planning Staff's ability to police the proposed phasing modification and he asked for input from the staff. Deputy Director Mohn stated that the standards within the applicant's proffer statement will govern the overall parameters of the development and should, theoretically, be easy enough to apply in subsequent MDP approvals. Deputy Director Mohn pointed out that Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1134 -12 - what it does lack, obviously, is a vision as to how the overall development will proceed throughout the site; although, through the GDP, the applicant has provided the generalized areas for each housing type and use envisioned. He commented that, basically, for this size of development, it's a preference for the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as to whether or not having knowledge of how, over time, the development will proceed, is critical to the perception of how the impacts will be mitigated by the program. Vice Chairman Thomas commented that the applicant has stated there will be no more than 8% construction per year of the non -age -restricted housing; he calculated a maximum number of units, minus the age -restricted. It was Commissioner Straub's understanding that if the 8% is not constructed in a given year, the remainder is forwarded and added on to the next year. Deputy Director Mohn replied that was correct. Mr. Wyatt elaborated, pointing out that the existing ordinance states the schedule shall specify the year in which each phase will be completely developed and this is where the concern lies, being able to predict that situation. For example, he stated that they may be in a neo -traditional phase of development with 60 lots; 54 have sold and developed and then, for the next three to four years, the market goes flat, with six vacant lots. He said that what they are simply stating is that it may be a bit erroneous to specify the year in which they believe each phase will be completely developed. He noted that as an alternative, they've provided a phasing proffer that caps permits in general, regardless of what phase they're constructed in. Commissioner Morris said that typically, he would be concerned about this simply because of trigger mechanisms for transportation improvements; he believed it was easy for a developer to stop at 80% of development in order to avoid a proffer that may not kick in until the development is completed. He recognized, however, that since such a complete group of proffers associated with this development has been submitted and much of the infrastructure gets added up front, whether the build -out occurs or not, he was entirely comfortable with Modification #6 in that regard. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification 46 - § 165-72M Phasing, exempting land bay development within Stephenson Village to follow a schedule of plan delineating the overall sequence of development or the concluding year of a given land bay's development. Phasing will be governed exclusively by the proffered limitation on permits for non -age restricted dwelling units specified in Section 2 of the Proffer Statement. Said provision stipulates that non -age restricted dwelling units will be developed at a rate not to exceed 8% annually. There is no phasing proposed for the active adult/age restricted housing component of the project. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Rosenberry, Thomas NO: Straub, Gochenour ABSTAIN: DeHaven Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Page 1135 -13 - MODIFICATION #7 - §165-72.G.(I) Buffers and Screening Allow distance reduction for inactive component of required road efficiency buffer. Inactive buffer reduced from required width of 40 feet to 25 feet. Action - Recommended Approval Commissioner Light asked for clarification on the purpose of requesting 25' versus 40' and, in addition, the applicant's intent on utilizing the modification some of the time, but not always. Deputy Director Mohn stated that from an ordinance perspective, the idea is to create a sufficient buffer distance to mitigate the impacts of traffic on adjoining residential uses. He deferred to the applicant in terms of why they believed reducing the buffer distance from 40' to 25' was appropriate in this case. Commissioner Straub assumed the footage allowed for widening of roads, should it be needed for road improvements. Deputy Director Mohn replied yes. He explained that the buffer, in addition to mitigating the impacts of the road and traffic, certainly provides assurance that the additional area is available, if necessary, for future road expansion with minimal impact to adjoining uses. Mr. Wyatt explained that the major collector road is, by proffer, a dedicated 80' right-of-way and takes into account the ultimate build -out of lane sections for the road system; he said there would not be a need to go into the berm area to achieve additional right-of-way. Mr. Wyatt explained that the existing ordinance standard allows a reduction in the 40' requirement down to 25' in some instances, but the exhibit clearly states that the six -foot -high screening unit requires a combination that includes shrub, hedge, fence, wall, mound, or berm. Mr. Wyatt noted that the modification allows for flexibility in design throughout the community; for example, there may be a situation where, because of sight distance, it would be advantageous to have a smaller berm height. Additionally, he said that in some instances, the road will traverse an area that's heavily wooded, where preservation of the tree line is preferred, and this would accommodate that. In other instances, the traditional 40' buffer with earth berm and plantings would be used. Commissioner Light inquired why a cross section had not been provided to the staff. Mr. Wyatt replied that it was included in the modifications document. He said the cross section specifies the provision of a minimum landscaped area 25' in width; the provision of 100 plant units per 100 linear feet, with no more than 50% of those plant materials being deciduous; and the provision of the six -foot -high screen/ opaque element as a combination of earth/wall/benn. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification #7 - §165-72.G.(1) Buffers and Screening, allowing for the inclusion of an inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer, which is required adjacent to the planned major collector road, varying in width from a maximum of forty (40) feet to a minimum of twenty five (25) feet. Although the distance buffer would be reduced in size, the screening comprising the inactive buffer area would exceed standard ordinance requirements. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Pagel 136 -14 - The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Thomas NO: Straub, Gochenour ABSTAIN: DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) MODIFICATION #8 - §165-68. Rezoning Procedure Allow use of proffered GDP instead of detailed MDP with rezoning. GDP would serve as conceptual template for all subsequent development applications. MDP submission would occur following rezoning approval. Action - Recommended Approval Noting that GDPs are primarily used in the industrial areas, Commissioner Morris asked the Planning Staff if they found the GDPs to be an effective tool for the staff and the county for site-specific approval. Deputy Director Mohn affirmed that it was consistent with what is being effectively utilized in rezoning actions for other zoning districts. Commissioner Morns raised the issue of ordinance changes occurring after GDP submission and whether or not ordinance amendments would be applicable to subsequent site plans and master development plans, as opposed to being grand -fathered. Deputy Mohn replied that as the applicant progresses through the more specific phases of development review and approval, such as the subdivision and site plan stages, the requirements of the ordinance become far more of an issue for the applicant and the county. Under this approach, he believed the opportunity would be certainly provided, as ordinances change, for those amendments to be applied throughout the course of development. Commissioner Morris believed the GDP provided a great deal of flexibility to implement ordinances in a more effective and efficient manner than the county might otherwise have the opportunity for. Commissioner Light expressed his concern for the absence of MDPs in the long term. He presented a scenario where, as years progress and purchasers go through the process of development, a situation may occur where complaints arise and the Planning Staff does not have the MDP to fall back on for enforcement. Commissioner Light was concerned that a complaint would not be able to be handled because there is no insurance or guarantee regarding the style of development. Vice Chairman Thomas advised that the MDP will still be submitted; he pointed out that screens and buffers are set in the ordinance by land use, whether a MDP is submitted or not. He added that the GDP will provide the locations for residential and commercial areas. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1137 Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 -15 - Mr. Wyatt interjected that the purpose of the modification is for the ability to use a GDP in lieu of the MDP at the rezoning level. He explained that they were asking for consideration of MDP review ii. the R4 Zoning District at the same time it is considered in all other zoning districts. Mr. Wyatt stated that primarily, they were asking for the use of a GDP because if a full MDP showing specific housing types is initially submitted and over time, the specific housing type changes, for instance, a pocket of townhouses changes to court -yard cluster, they would be required to go back through a rezoning process to modify their master plan under the current ordinance. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification 48 - § 165-68 Rezoning Procedure, allowing a proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) to be processed with the rezoning application instead of a detailed Master Development Plan (MDP). MDP submission would follow rezoning approval pursuant to the application sequence typical for development in other zoning districts as outlined by the Zoning Ordinance. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Watt, Unger, Morris, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Rosenberry, Thomas NO: Straub, Gochenour, Light ABSTAIN: DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) MODIFICATION #9 - §165-133.B Master Development Plan, Contiguous Land §165-141.A.(8) Master Development Plan, Contents §165-141.B.(2); (4); (8) Master Development Plan, R4 Contents Allow MDP requirement to be fulfilled through a series of plans to accommodate incremental development of project. Ordinance requires MDP to address a given project in its entirety. Action - Recommended Approval Vice Chairman Thomas surmised there would be an overall MDP, but it wouldn't be submitted initially; it would be submitted incrementally, in the form of GDPs. Deputy Director Mohn agreed; he said the difference would be that the full MDP would be the final MDP, once all components have developed. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1138 -16 - Commissioner Straub inquired if the GDPs would be reviewed as a public hearing or a public meeting. Deputy Director Mohn replied that each of GDPs would be brought forward in the traditional way that a MDP is brought through the County process, as a public meeting which involves Planning Commission review and comment, as well as Board of Supervisors review and comment, particularly in an oversight capacity to assist in the administraiive review. Deputy Director Mohn continued, stating that Modification #8 simply alleviates the requirement for a full MDP at the time of rezoning, effectively eliminating the need for a proffered MDP; whereas, Modification 49 effectively breaks up the MDP review process. He explained that rather than getting the MDP up front, involving the entire acreage as customarily done, this would be a series of MDPs as various components come on line and it would be updated by cumulative totals to evaluate conformance with proffers. Commissioner Ours inquired ifthe revised process would provide the staff and the Commission with more control of the overall development. Deputy Director Mohn believed control would be maintained either way; for example, if one MDP was submitted up front and then the applicant had to come through with isions would still follow the traditional process and come before the a series of revisions over time, those rev Commission, the Board, and have staff review. Although, he said from the applicant's perspective, it provides a way of not having to look into a crystal ball and lay out something to the level of detail that a MDP requires up front. Commissioner Ours commented that it wouldn't be the intend of any succeeding MDP to radically change preceding MDPs; it would gradually become one whole plan. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification 49 - §165-133.13 Master Development Plan, Contiguous Land; §165-141.A.(8) Master Development Plan, Contents; and § 165-141.B.(2); (4); (8) Master Development Plan, R4 Contents, allowing the applicant to submit a series of MDP applications to address the incremental development of the project. This process would occur in lieu of a singular MDP accommodating the "total development" of the planned community. Each MDP would provide aggregate development data thereby ensuring effective monitoring of project status and conformity with proffered conditions. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVEI: Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub, Thomas NO: Gochenour ABSTAIN: DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1139 Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 -17 - SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS: Vice Chairman Thomas summarized that all modifications, except for requested Modification #3, will be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a positive recommendation. He said that the recommendation for Modification 43 is for denial, which was the reduction in the industrial/commercial percentage for the development. CONTINUATION OF REZONING REQUEST DISCUSSION Vice Chairman Thomas announced that the rezoning request discussion would continue at this point of the meeting. Deputy Director Mohn stated there were no substantial changes to the development program that was presented on July 16, 2003. Commissioner Gochenour asked the applicant what the water source would be for the project. Mr. Wyatt replied that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority would determine the appropriate source to serve the proposed development. Commissioner Gochenour replied that the applicant's response was too vague and was unacceptable. She believed this particular issue needed to be brought before the public and the surrounding area residents needed assurance that their quality of life will be maintained. In response to Commissioner Gochenour's statement, Mr. Wyatt said that the Sanitation Authority is charged with providing water and sewer service to land within Frederick County; in addition, the Sanitation Authority provides reports, long-range studies, and the Authority has held work sessions with the Planning Commission on this subject. Mr. Wyatt remarked that they are doing what is being asked of them by the County, which is providing their projections for water usage to the appropriate experts for them to determine whether they can adequately service this development, either with current or future sources. Mr Wyatt stated that it was his understanding that the Sanitation Authority believed they could serve this project and the Authority's expectation is for the applicant to provide the regional infrastructure consistent with the Board's adopted plan, which his proffer statement commits to doing. Vice Chairman Thomas interjected that the Planning Commission, as a governmental body, has sources of experts for the type of information Commissioner Gochenour was seeking; the Sanitation Authority provides information on water sources, availability, capacity, and makes comments on applications as to whether they are comfortable providing potable water to the proposed developments. Vice Chairman Thomas also commented on VDOT's role, which provides experts to analyze transportation plans, regional networks, and to insure that developments either meet, exceed, or do not meet standards. He noted that reports have been submitted from both these governmental bodies, who have reviewed the applicant's proposal, and have commented that: 1) the Sanitation Authority states that potable water is available and will be available for the proposed development; and 2) VDOT has stated that they concur with the planned developments and have no problems with the traffic generation numbers and the capacity of the system with the improvements proposed. Vice ChairmanThomas believed it was inappropriate to ask the applicant to make comments on the quality of the governmental experts, the validity of their reports, or the decisions they make. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1140 -18- Commissioner Gochenour believed there were too many unanswered questions regarding the proposal; she did not believe there were adequate resources to sustain a community of this size. Commissioner Gochenour next moved to deny the rezoning application. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Straub. Commissioner Light next addressed the Commission by reading a prepared statement as follows: "In addressing the Board's actions on August 13, to establish the planned unit of development as the desired land use of the Shockey properties, the issue of the Comprehensive Plan conformance is no longer debatable. However, the plan-making process was notably flawed and the content of the amended plan was never fully examined or discussed. Throughout the process, from the CPPS meetings to the Planning Commission and then to the Board, it was never discussed in any manner. Most notably is the transportation issue. The Board of Supervisors approved a plan with no revision to the Primary/ Secondary Road Improvement Plan and, most notably, without addressing a major collector road moving traffic outside the Stephenson Village development, north and south. How can this area be expected to accommodate the increased traffic without the Comprehensive Plan reflecting the necessary improvements?" "Second, not addressed is the impact of emergency services to a project the size and scope of Stephenson Village. If asked if this County actually planned for this land use, the answer would be no. It only tried to accommodate a development entity. Without question, the land use plan is flawed; absolutely no road improvement proffers for Route 11, except for the interchange area with the Rutherford rezoning. The Route 11 corridor is being loaded and not even VDOT has looked at the cumulative effect of the traffic impact. Also, the fact that Woods Mill, Milburn Road to Redbud, may become shortcuts to avoid traffic lights has not been identified. It is hard to define the impact the traffic will have in this area. However, it is very clear that the roads cannot handle this load and support these projects. The County needs to clearly define how the impacts of residential development can become manageable in the Route 11 corridor." "The impact of emergency services with this rezoning becomes a very important issue. Fire and rescue services are currently struggling, as evident with the reports in the papers recently. Inevitably, a cash proffer to Clearbrook Fire Department is today's way of doing business. Clearbrook Fire and Rescue is being impacted 100% by this development. It is hard to determine the long term effect and the immeasurable impact to the fire company even with the proffers that are in place. One suggestion is to have HOA's have a yearly payment to fire and rescue services." "With the R4 designation, Stephenson Village chooses to reflect 4% of the project towards commercial business while the ordinance reflects a 10% to 50%. In order for this to be a planned community, business must take place inside the entity so there are employment opportunities close to the residents and limit the need for traffic impact outside the development. It is also important to provide a mixed use for the project to help pay its way for the tax base for all residents of Frederick County. To limit the commercial business of this proposal makes this project nothing more than a glorified RP rezoning, offering more variety of homes with alleys and private streets. The bottom line is, more residential homes and very little business is RP zoning any way you look at it." "To address the rezoning request of Stephenson Village, we must also address the land use plan. As Planning Commissioners, we are in a unique position to understand the importance of having a land use plan that addresses all phases of the impact and must recognize the responsibility to the public to address the issues that impact the quality of life. To ignore this issue is to ignore the trust put in us by the community. This land use plan is incomplete and does not address the impact of this development or any development with Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1141 Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 -19 - RP zoning." "The density of this development creates impacts that make it undesirable. Thousands of housing units are an undesirable feature in this area of rural character of the County. It is impossible for us to see the tremendous impact to the Stonewall District and the entire County. Every development has been required in current standards to have a MDP. As each developed entity gets sold to other developers and years pass, there will be no one to accept responsibility for the problems associated with this development.'' "With regard to the rezoning of Stephenson Village, the ability to rezone a property is a government -given right, policed through the ordinance written with intentions of providing safeguards to its surrounding community. And ask the question, have the impacts been mitigated to ensure the community that the governing body has acted in the best management and planning practices to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the community as required by State law. It is my opinion that the Northeast Land Use Plan, with its R4 designation and the rezoning of Stephenson Village, does not address the impacts of development. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors has failed to provide an acceptable management practice to control the traffic impacts outside this development." "For these reasons, the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Stonewall District and Frederick County have been jeopardized. I, too, agree that this development should be turned down. The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors has failed to do their job to make a complete Northeast Land Use Plan that addresses the impacts of this facility." Vice Chairman Thomas summarized at this point by stating that the Rezoning Application #06-03 of Stephenson Village had been presented as 821.7 acres, which was revised to 794.6 acres because of core battlefield area being removed. Vice Chairman Thomas asked the staff if all agency comments had been incorporated and a positive response received from all governmental agencies. Deputy Director Mohn replied that positive responses had been received from all agencies with the application. Commissioner Rosenberry said he had a prepared statement that he wanted to read for the record, as follows: "Personally, I find the Stephenson Village proposal attractive. But, I find it to be bad for Frederick County. Let me explain. First, I note that those people who would live as neighbors object to this rezoning, by a large majority. On the whole, my issue is not so much with the Shockey Stephenson Village project specifically, as with any project of large residential development. Because there is so much land already eligible for by -right residential development in the County, rezoning additional large tracts raises a concern in me about the infrastructure required. By infrastructure, I'm referring, for example, to the availability of water. A study is undergoing in this area and I think delay is appropriate, pending its outcome. As it is, the County already has to buy a large amount of water from Winchester. There's another study going on around air pollution and I think we ought to wait until that study's concluded before we decide a project as big as this. Another example of infrastructure is my common sense concern about this additional residential development's impact on traffic congestion, particularly in northeast Frederick County. So there's a number of people who have a different point of view on this. Therefore, I'm going to vote to deny this rezoning application, too." Commissioner Straub believed the proffer for land for one school was inadequate; along with her other concerns dealing with roads, air, water, and schools, she was concerned about the road going through the battlefield as an entranceway into the development. Commissioner Straub also expressed her concerns about the impacts of expanding the UDA by an additional 794.6 acres. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1142 -20 - Commissioner Ours pointed out that the 2,800 proposed homes will be developed over a 25- year period which averages out to approximately 112 homes per year. He said that within the previous six to seven years, Frederick County has been issuing about 600 building permits per year. He believed the construction of homes will be precipitated by need. Commissioner Ours expressed his concern about a prevailing attitude about not letting anyone else come to Frederick County to live. He stated that he has lived in Frederick County for 13 years and considers himself to be a Frederick County resident. He believed that anyone who wanted to live in Frederick County should have the right to do so. Since all the Commissioners had been given an opportunity for discussion, Vice Chairman Thomas called for the vote. YES (TO DENY): Rosenberry, Light, Gochenour, Straub NO: Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Morris, Unger, Watt, Thomas ABSTAIN: DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Because this motion failed, Vice Chairman Thomas called for a new motion. Commissioner Morris made a motion to approve Rezoning Application 406-03 of Stephenson Village with the revision reducing the requested rezoning from 821.7 acres to 794.6 acres, in order to preserve the core battlefield area; and, in addition, incorporating all of the requested modifications, except one, MODIFICATION 43 - § 165-72D Commercial and Industrial Areas and § 165-72M Non-residential Land Use Phasing, which was recommended to be denied. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning #06-03 of Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 794.6 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, which includes property identification numbers 44-A-31 [portion], 44-A-3 IA, 44-A-292, and 44-A-293 of the Stonewall Magisterial District, and incorporates eight of the applicant's nine requested modifications, as follows: MODIFICATION # 1 - § 165-71 Mixture of Housing Types Required MODIFICATION #2 - § 165-69 Permitted Uses and § 165-72B(2) Alternative Dimensional Requirement Plan MODIFICATION #4 - § 165-72F Recreational Facilities MODIFICATION 45- § 165-72.I Road Access; § 165-29.A(14) Motor Vehicle Access; and § 144-24.C2(a). C2(b) Lot Access MODIFICATION 46 - § 165-72M Phasing MODIFICATION #7 - §165-72.G.(1) Buffers and Screening MODIFICATION #8 - § 165-68. Rezoning Procedure MODIFICATION #9 - §165-133.B Master Development Plan, Contiguous Land; §165-141.A.(8) Master Development Plan, Contents; § 165-141.B.(2); (4); (8) Master Development Plan, R4 Contents Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1143 -21 - The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Morns, Unger, Watt, Thomas NO: Rosenberry, Light, Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN: DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Vice Chairman Thomas recognized one letter and one press release that were submitted to the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the Planning Commission unanimously accepted the letter and the press release into the official file for the Stephenson rezoning application. Vice Chairman Thomas next relinquished the Chair back to Chairman DeHaven for conduction of the remainder of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. by a Respectfully submitted, Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1144 REZONING APPLICATION #11- 03 FOR MY KIDS, LLC.- SHENANDOAH HONDA Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: September 29, 2003 Staff Contact: Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. As this application proceeds through the legislative review process, the methods) of resolution for each issue proposed by the applicants) andlor recommended by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors will be stated in the text of this report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 10/15/03 Pending Board of Supervisors: 11/12/03 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 2.020 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business, Genera) District. LOCATION: The property is on Route 7, approximately 185 feet southeast of the intersection of Greenwood Road and Route 7. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55-A-80 and 55-A-81 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Rural Areas District, Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) PROPOSED USE: Retail/Business Uses Use: Red Bud Run Elementary and Millbrook High School Use: Grace Brethren Church Use: Residential Use: Grace Brethren Church REZ 911-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 2 September 29, 2003 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept of Transportation: Please see attached letter dated 08/27/03 from Lloyd Ingram, Transportation Engineer. Fire Marshal: Frederick County Code section 90-4 requires afire hydrant be located within 300 feet of all portions of buildings in commercial development. The measurements are to be taken by the centerline ofthe roadway surfaces on the property. Additionally, buildings exceeding 12,000 square feet may be required to be fire sprinklered or provided with fire separation assemblies. An automatic fire sprinkler system will require an additional fire hydrant dedicated to the support of the sprinkler system, and shall be located within 50 feet of the Fire Department Connection. Proffering of buildings for fire department training must be addressed through comments with the Greenwood Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company and no guarantee is given or implied as to permitting for demolition by burning. State and local laws and ordinances require additional steps and precautions for open air burning. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. County Engineer: Please see attached letter dated 08/05/03 from Harvey Strawsnyder, Jr., Director of Public Works. Sanitation Authority: The sewer line will be a private lateral. The owner will need to obtain the required easements and/or VDOT permits/ The Authority has an existing 10' water line along the east side of Greenwood Road. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please see attached letter from Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner I, dated 06/20/02. County Attorney: Proffers appear to be in proper form. Winchester Regional Airport: Please see attached letterfrom S. R. Manuel, Executive Director, dated 06/10/03. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S. G. S. Stephenson, VA W. VA Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) district by the adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County zoning code on May 10, 1989. This amendment resulted in all properties zoned A-1 and A-2 land to the RA (Rural Areas) zoning district. REZ #11-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 3 September 29, 2003 2) Location The property is located on eastbound Berryville Pike (Route 7), approximately 185 feet southeast of the intersection of Greenwood Road and Virginia Route 7. Access to the property is via a small bridge over Ash Hollow Run. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan Land Use Plan The subject parcels are located within the area of the Route 7 East Land Use Plan. The Route 7 East Land Use Plan does not indicate a particular land use for this property. Some business land uses may be appropriate in this vicinity of the corridor, and some business uses on the subject site within this area of the corridor may not be appropriate. The land use plan does specifically show business land uses west of the school site along the corridor to the city limits. The parcels lie within the Frederick County Urban Development Area (UDA). The Route 7 Corridor has the most limited study of the three corridors studied in terms of the potential for further commercial development. This does not mean that the corridor is not expected to change dramatically in the coming years, rather, the intensity of change is not expected to be as great as the Route 50 or Route 11 corridors. (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 29) For the business corridors that do have area plans, one of the primary objectives is to insure that the commercial development that does take place within the corridor is of a standard that reflects favorably on the area. (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 13) Transportation Route 7 is classified as a major arterial road according to the VDOT functional classification of roads, and is a major east -west route connecting Frederick County with the Washington Metropolitan Area. Enhancement to the visual quality of the corridor as a business corridor is encouraged. The appearance of entrance gateways into the Winchester/Frederick County area is of concern to both the City of Winchester and Frederick County, as depicted in the report of the Chamber of Commerce's Corridor Appearance Task Force. Controls on signs along our primary highways play an important role in establishing the character of business corridors. Additionally, appropriate measures for buffers and screening are critical. (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 10). The Route 7 Corridor in this vicinity is known as the Berryville Canyon, in the core area of the Third Battle of Winchester, as identified by the National Park Service (NPS) in its study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Nations Historic District Management Plan. The landscaping, architecture, and saving of mature trees whenever possible and providing buffers in the form of plants, walls or berms can effectively mitigate the visual impact of the proposed use on the Route 7 right of way and on the adjoining uses. (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 15) REZ # 11-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 4 September 29, 2003 4) Site Suitability Impact Analysis Statement: The applicant's Impact Analysis states that overall, this site is well suited to the development proposed. The site is currently overgrown and in poor condition. The applicant states that the redevelopment of this rundown property provides a benefit to the county by renewing the property's role in the community. FEMA reports do not show a detailed flood study in this area. There are no wetlands on the site. Approximately 5 acres of the site consists of slopes greater than 15%. There are no mature woodlands, however there are mature trees on the adjacent Route 7 right of way east of the existing bridge. Specific soil types are Berks Channery silt loam and Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam, neither of which is considered prime agricultural soil. Planning Staff Comment: Ash Hollow Run borders the northeast end of the property, and through the VDOT right of way north of the remainder of the site. Currently, the site drains north via a natural swale along the center of the property directly to Ash Hollow Run. The existing 50"corrugated metal pipe/bridge that conveys the entrance to the property will be replaced with a new crossing. The applicant states that the existing general drainage pattern will be maintained, and onsite measures for stormwater management will be provided to reduce impacts to Ash Hollow Run. The applicant will be required to provide a riparian buffer 35' in distance from the scar line of Ash Hollow Run, during the site planning of this proposed rezoning. The existing topographic conditions, coupled with the remaining build -able area of this site may make onsite stormwater management extremely challenging. 5) Intended Use Impact Analysis Statement: The applicant's Impact Analysis states that Shenandoah Honda is proposing to relocate their operations to a new facility that will be constructed on this subject site, which is 2.02 acres comprised of two parcels. The proposed facility will consist of a building that has approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of floor space. The application breaks down the square footage to 2,000 sq. ft. of office area, 4,000 sq. ft. of retail, and 10,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. of warehouse space. Service area is proposed at approximately 2,000 sq. ft. Planning Staff Comment: There is no guarantee from the applicant that a relocation of Shenandoah Honda will be the use on the site should this rezoning request be approved. The applicant has however, prohibited the following B2 uses from the site: Drive in motion picture theaters; golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses; commercial batting cages; adult care and assisted living; and adult retail uses. Staff would note that the approval of a B2 zoning district for this property could result in any other allowed use within the B2 district, other than those prohibited by proffer. Some of these allowable uses would be: automotive dealers and gasoline service stations; restaurants; REZ #11-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 5 September 29, 2003 miscellaneous retail; car washes; general merchandise stores; and food stores. The impacts of other permitted uses in the B2 zoning district would far exceed the impacts identified by the applicant's traffic analysis. 6) Potential Impacts. a) Transportation Impact Analysis Statement: The applicant states that there is not a land use description in the ITE Trip Generation Manual that closely matches the intended use. The closest match to the intended use of Shenandoah Honda would be new car sales and automobile repair facility. The applicant bases his trip generation by the existing Shenandoah Honda facility, which would result in an additional 20 peak hour trips and 240 trips on average per weekday to Route 7. The hours of operation will not include morning rush hour time when traffic is heaviest on eastbound Route 7. It is anticipated that one tractor -trailer will access the site every other day. Therefore, a new entrance is required to access the site which will be able to accommodate these trucks, and a pavement taper leading up to the entrance will be required. Based on VDOT data, the Average Annual Weekday Traffic Volume Estimate for this section of Berryville Pike (Route 7) is 24,000 vehicles per day. Agency Comment VDOT has stated in a letter dated August 27, 2003, that VDOT has determined that the applicant's "Alternative V entrance is allowable. VDOT notes that entrance design modifications may be required once the site plan has been submitted for review. Planning Staff Comment: It appears that VDOT's initial comments to the applicant were discussed and concerns addressed. VDOT was not satisfied that the transportation proffers in the rezoning application dated May 2003 addressed the transportation concerns associated with this request. In a letter dated August 5, 2003 from Mr. Tim Stowe of Anderson & Associates to Mr. Lloyd Ingram, of VDOT, Mr. Stowe addresses topics of concern by VDOT. In a letter dated August 18, 2003, VDOT determined that the applicant's "Alternative 1" entrance is allowable. As noted in the Business Corridor Conclusion section of the Comprehensive Plan, adequate traffic modeling studies and traffic patterns need to be analyzed to insure that new intersections and entrances are adequately designed and constructed. Adequate distances need to be provided when new entrances are established, and standards to insure that turn lanes allow for sufficient stacking of vehicles exists as well as adequate signage and pavement marking provided. (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 43-44) Staff reiterates that the transportation comments are based on the applicant's Impact Analysis using the trip generations of the existing Shenandoah Honda facility, and that the impacts of other permitted uses in the 132 zoning district would far exceed the impacts identified by the applicant's traffic analysis. The traffic impact is not based upon a worse -case scenario for other potential B2 land uses. REZ #11-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 6 September 29, 2003 b) Historic Resources Impact Analysis Statement: The applicant states in the final Impact Analysis Statement, that there are no historic sites that will be impacted by the rezoning of this property. Agency Comment The Historic Resources Advisory board recognizes the Route 7 corridor, Berryville Canyon as an important historic route into the City of Winchester. The HRAB is interested in preserving and aesthetically improving the corridor, with an emphasis on increased landscaping. The HRAB had concerns regarding the loss of core battlefield area, and the views of the Berryville Canyon, and the potential impact of lighting, chain link fencing, parking and inappropriate architecture on the historic Berryville Canyon. The HRAB was not in favor of the proposed rezoning. Planning Staff Comment: The final submission of the Impact Analysis Statement should have reflected the fact that the subject site lies within core battlefield area of the battle of Third Winchester. The applicant has addressed improvements to the site in terms of renewing a run-down site. The applicant has proffered to create a three foot high berm to act as a visual buffer from traffic proceeding along Route 7 East. Also in the proffer, the applicant proffers to maintain ornamental trees or shrubs along the berm. The applicant has proffered that no chain link fence will be visible from outside the premises. Staff would note that these efforts attempt to mitigate the concerns of the HRAB on the visual impact to the Route 7, "Berryville Canyon" corridor. However, existing site plan regulations will require the berm or plantings to screen parking areas, and opaque fencing to screen outdoor storage of materials or equipment. C) Water & Sewer Impact Analysis Statement: The water usage is estimated at approximately 700 gpd, and it is anticipated that a tap will be made along the 10" water main that runs along the northern property line in the shoulder of Route 7. It is estimated that the Shenandoah Honda facility will generate approximately 700 gpd of wastewater. It is projected that the wastewater will be pumped to the south along Greenwood Road and connect to the FCSA's system. Agency Comment._ FCSA- The Frederick County Sanitation Authority notes that the sewer line will need to be a private lateral, and that there is an existing 10" water line along the east side of Greenwood Road. Frederick Winchester Health Department - The health department has no objection to this rezoning proposal as long as public water and sewer is provided. Public Works - The proposed design will incorporate a pump station to lift the sewage to a manhole located to the south off of Greenwood Road. The discussion should indicate if REZ #11-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 7 September 29, 2003 sufficient easements are available to construct the force main, especially within the Route 7 right of way. Planning Staff Comment: Business and industrial areas need to be served by public sewer and water. (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 11-12) The applicant's revised impact analysis submitted for the subject rezoning does not include a proposed design for sewer plan, as was initially shown on a map in the Impact Analysis submitted for comment. The applicant does not proffer to use public water and sewer. Staff believes the applicant should be prepared to discuss the plan for the sewage conveyance. d) Drainage Impact Analysis Statement: Stormwater from the site drains north via a natural swale along the center of the property directly to Ash Hollow Run. On site stormwater management will be provided for development to reduce impacts to Ash Hollow Run, and existing drainage patterns will be maintained. .Agency Comment: During the site plan stage it will be necessary to evaluate both the 10 yr and 100 year storms on the proposed development. It maybe that the existing conditions could preclude the construction of onsite stormwater management, and offsite improvements may be required to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development. Planning Staff Comment: A stormwater management plan will be required for the development of the site plan. Best management practices should be considered in an effort to control the quality of the runoff to Ash Hollow Run. 7) Proffer Statement Planning Staff Comment: The applicant's proffer statement attempts to address corridor enhancement through the use of a monument style sign; a berm to act as visual buffer along Route 7, and decorative board -on board fencing on portions of the property, excluding any chain link fencing from visibility outside the premises. Staff would note that no generalized development plan showing the location of these structures has been submitted with this rezoning request. No specific sign height, size or materials for construction, nor fence height ,size, or location has been addressed. Staff would note that although a berm is proffered along Route 7, no additional landscaping measures are offered by the applicant. Many of the landscaping, entrance, and sign issues are requirements of the ordinance that can be addressed at the site planning stage. Some of the allowed B2 zoning district uses are prohibited on any portion of the site by proffer. The applicant also proffers only one commercial entrance for the site, to be designed in conjunction with the approved site plan. The applicant proffers a monetary contribution for REZ #11-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 8 September 29, 2003 Frederick CountyFire and Rescue of $500.00 to be used to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services. This contribution is to be paid within ninety days following approval of the subject rezoning by the Board of Supervisors. Staff would note that although a berm is proffered along Route 7, no additional landscaping measures are offered by the applicant. Many of the landscaping, entrance, and sign issues are requirements of the ordinance that can be addressed at the site planning stage. The County Attorney comments note that the proffer statement is in proper form. Staff reiterates that should this rezoning be approved, any use within the B2 zoning district, other than those excluded in the proffer document would be an allowable use. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 10/15/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposed rezoning is a request to rezone 2.02 acres comprised of two parcels, from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (Business General) District to accommodate a retail/business use intended by the applicant as a Shenandoah Honda facility. Planning staff believes that issues regarding the commercial entrance, sewage conveyance, stormwater management, and specificity of use should be further clarified by the applicant. The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area, and lies within the study area of the Route 7 East land use study. The applicant has attempted to address corridor enhancement through the proposed proffer statement. Staff would also note that the approval for the B2 zoning district would permit any B2 use other than those excluded in the proffer statement, and that the impact on the transportation system could be more significant than identified in the traffic impact analysis. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF OCTOBER 15,2003: O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\REZONING\Staff Report\2003\For My Rids LLC Shenandoah Ftonda.wpd OUTPUT MODULE Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per (Unadjusted) APPLICANT: Shenandoah Honda Net Fiscal Impact Dwelling Unit $0 $0 LAND USE TYPE B2 Costs of Impact Credit• $0 $0 Credits to be Take REAL EST VAL $1,627,210 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ FIRE & RESCUE 4 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Ooer Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes Other Fire and Rescue Department $16,400 $78 $0 ERR $0 Elementary Schools $0 $0 ERR $393 $393 Middle Schools $0 ERR $0 $0 $15,929 High Schools $0 $948,154 $948,154 948154 ERR Parks and Recreation $0 $01 ERR $0 Public Library $0 $0 Sheriffs Offices $0 $78 $0 $0 Administration Building $0 $0 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $0 $187 $206 SUBTOTAL $16,400 $265 $206 $0 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $948,154 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Total Potential Adjustment For Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per (Unadjusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit $0 $0 $16,400 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $0 $0 _ $0 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $78 $78 $0 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $393 $393 $0 ERR $471 $471 $15,929 ERR $948,154 $948,154 948154 ERR $01 ERR Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 Ratio to Co Avg = 1.342 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative): included are the one -ti me taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments upfront. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 05121/03 ASK Project Description: Assumes 25,000 sq.ft. retail use on 2.02 acres zoned B2 District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 2002MODEL F`Iv VUOT Rezomn Comments MAY 2 7 Virginia Depantrartation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984-5600 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 Applicant's Name: John Ross Telephone: 540-678-8500 Mailing Address: For My Kids LLC 122 Walls Circle Winchester Virginia 22603 Location of property: LA roxiinatel ..185; feet southeast ofahe: intersection of Greenwood Road andVir rota Route Route 7. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B-2 Acreage; 2.020 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attai-harl rr VDOT Signature 8& D rtation Engineer_ 06/18/03. Notice. to VDOT - please Return'Foxm to- Applicant 20 Sep 29 03 04:48p Philip A Shucet COMMISSIONER August 27, 2003 ESOP (540) 869-2625 p.4 a v lYITt,GTti�n*kTS'TAA Yrrj-A —.f ITTIDO-TkUA �iJLVrL1VJ.i'V r A..'-XA-0jc i. i Vj r i,L%%-Jix4xc I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE JERRY A. COPP EDINBURG, VA 22824 RESWENT ENGINEER TEL(W)9845600 FAX(540)9&4- 6 Ms. Amy Feathers C/0 Anderson & Associatcs 7722 Main Street Middletown, VA 22645 Ref: For My Kids, LLC / Shenandoah Honda Route 7 Frederick County Dear Mt.. Feathers: After review of your letter dated August 5, 2003 for the referenced rezoning, it has been determined that Alternative "1" entrance is allowable. • If a right-of-way dedication (Item 41 of your 08/05/03 letter) is required, it will be determined when the detailed site plan is submitted. • Entrance design modifications may be required once the site plan has been submitted for review. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, i Lloyd A. In am Transportation Engineer LAI/rf VirgirtiaDOLorg WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Public Works Mail to Frederick County Dept. of Public Works Attn: Director of Engineering 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5643 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Dept. of Public Works Attn: Director of Engineering County Administration Bldg., 4th Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of PublicWorks with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: John Ross Telephone: 540-678-8500 Mailing Address: For My Kids LLC 122 Walls Circle Winchester, Virginia, 22603 Location of property: Approximately 185 feet southeast of the intersection of Greenwood Road and Virginia Route 7, on Route 7. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B-2 Acreage: 2.020 Department of Public Work's Comments: is Works Signature & Date: Notice to Dept. of Public Works - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 21 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 5401678-0682 August 5, 2003 r Mr. Tim Stowe, P.E. Anderson & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers 7722 Main Street Middletown, Virginia 22645 RE: Rezoning - Proposed Shenandoah Honda Site Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr Stowe: We have completed our review of the rezoning request for the proposed site of the Shenandoah Honda. The approximate two (2) acre site currently exists as two (2) separate RA parcels and is owned by James and Ardeyth Butcher. Based on our review of the rezoning application including the impact analysis statement, we offer the following comments 1) Revise the vicinity map to encompass the entire site shown on the survey plat. 2) Refer to paragraph C. Traffic. The discussion indicates a proposed taper leading up to the entrance off of Route 7. It will be necessary to evaluate the impact of this taper on the existing stream channel. It may be necessary to relocate Ash Hollow Run which will require a permit from the Department of Environmental Quality (D.E.Q.) A new bridge crossing will also require a permit from the D.E.Q. 3) Refer to paragraph D. Sewage Conveyance. The proposed design will incorporate a pump station to lift the sewage to a manhole located to the south off of Greenwood Road. The discussion should. indicate if sufficient easements are available to construct the force main especially within the Route 7 right-of-way. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Proposed Shenandoah Honda Site Comments Page 2 August 5, 2003 •• " Water 1 T"` tate if proposers roan taper will 4 i refer to Paragraph E. W� Supp�y. i1lV1V r- �k, - road p impact the existing water main. 5) Refer to paragraph F. Drainage. During the site plan design phase, it will be necessary to evaluate the impact of the ten (10) and 100 year storms on the proposed development. The existing topographic conditions coupled with the remaining buildable area may preclude the construction of onsite stormwater management. Offsite improvements may be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed development. I can be reached at 665-5643 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, tey trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Frederick County Planning and Development file COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 June 20, 2003 Mr. Timothy S. Stowe. P.E., L.S. Anderson & Associates, Inc 7722 Main Street Middletown, VA 22645 RE: Shenandoah Honda Rezoning Proposal Dear Mr. Stowe: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of June 17, 2003. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey, the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, and information provided by the John D. Hutchinson V, of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. The HRAB also considered details you and the applicant, Mr. John'Ross, provided about the proposed rezoning. Historic Resources Advisory Board Comment: The parcels proposed to be rezoned from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) are located within the limits of the Third Winchester (Opequon) Battlefield core area , as identified by the National Park Service, and along Route 7/Berryville Pike. The HRAB recognizes the Route 7 corridor, Berryville Canyon, as an important historic route into the City of Winchester. The HRAB is interested in preserving and aesthetically improving the corridor, with an emphasis on increased landscaping. The HRAB expresses their concern for loss of core historic battlefield and loss of views of the Berryville Canyon. Specifically, the HRAB had concerns regarding the impact of lighting, chain-link fencing, parking, and inappropriate architecture on the historic Berryville Canyon. Based on the above concerns, the HRAB was not in favor of the proposed rezoning. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely, (V� Rebecca Ragsdale Planner I RAR/bad cc: Bessie Solenberger, HRAB Chairperson John Ross, 122 Walls Circle, Winchester, VA 22603 U:\CONSHTfEESUIRAB\Can mcnts\2003\ShmHondaRZ.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Figure 3 Land Use Idealized Interchange Development Pattern Intetstale Indu al Residential Rer Heavy Retail & C_ i servk Medal Resin s< Services Heavy C__d.l B. Industrial Residential The appearance of entrance ways into the Winchester/Frederick County area has begun to receive considerable attention from both jurisdictions. The improvements to Berryville Avenue, recently completed in the City of Winchester, have served as an example of the significant impact that utilities and signs can have on a road section. In August of 1993, a joint meeting of officials from the City of Winchester and Frederick County met to discuss corridor appearance. Part of the discussion centered around the Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of Commerce's Corridor Appearance Task Force report which was issued in January of 1994. The report contains observations and recommendations concerning corridor appearance. The report begins by recognizing the connection between attractive entrances to the community and economic development goals. The most obvious being increased tourism. Both jurisdictions agreed that the report should be reviewed and the recommendations implemented to the extent possible. Frederick County 6-10 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Business and Industrial Areas Conclusion Interchange areas will continue to be centers of business and industrial activities. Uses in these areas should be carefully planned to avoid conflicts and to insure that adequate roads and facilities are provided. Well-planned shopping centers and business parks are the preferred manner of providing new retail and business areas. Plans are being developed for interchange areas and business corridors which address land use, roads, and facilities. New industrial uses should be located near interchanges and in the vicinity of the existing industrial areas and parks where appropriate access and facilities are available. These areas should be in the form of carefully planned industrial parks. In general, industrial development will follow the Interstate 81 and rail corridors. Issues: There is a need to provide a sufficient quantity and diversity of business and industrial sites to maintain a competitive market. Planning efforts need to focus on the possible location of new business and industrial areas. Area plans should be developed for areas around interchanges and along arterial highways. • Business and industrial uses need to be separated from residential uses, and in some cases, from each other, to avoid problems that can arise. Necessaryfacil ities and infrastructure improvements need to be provided for planned business and industrial uses. There is a need to insure appropriate quality of development through the use of performance and design standards. Particular attention should be paid to designated business corridors in terms of landscaping, architectural design and site layout. Policies are needed concerning how to deal with new requests for large mining operations. • Business and industrial areas need to be served by public sewer and water. It is important to provide sufficient sewer and water capacity to satisfy industrial and business demands. Frederick County 6-11 Comprehensive Plan Land Use • Entrances to the community should be evaluated for needed improvements. Measures aimed at increasing the appeal of the areas to both tourists and businesses need to be developed and implemented. • Regulations governing the size, number and spacing of advertising and business signs should be reviewed and improved • Retail and service areas need to be located with easy access to sufficient markets and to have good visibility from major thoroughfares • Care should be taken in the placement of new business areas, and appropriate roads and access improvements should be provided to serve such areas. • Uses on arterial highways should have larger front setbacks than uses on collector roads. Large land areas are needed for well-planned shopping centers and industrial parks. Shopping centers should be designed as architectural units and should not be assemblages of miscellaneous styles. • Industrial parks should be planned to provide good access and sufficient maintenance and management. • Different types of business and industrial uses need to be properly separated from each other and from residential uses. 10. Business and industrial areas need to be served by public sewer and water. Frederick County 6-12 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Business Corridors A project begun in 1993 and continuing into 1994 was the development of land use plans for the County's commercial and business corridors. The task of developing these plans was assigned to the County's Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee. The subcommittee met monthly throughout the first part of 1993 to review and evaluate existing information and formulate an approach for the study. Public meetings were held in the summer of 1993 to gain citizen input. The three corridors studied were Route 7 from the interchange with Interstate 81, east to Woods Mill Road (Route 660); Route 50, from the 81 interchange, east to the eastern edge of Westview Business Park; and Route 11 South, from the Route 37 interchange, south to Stephens City. The subcommittee recognized that other corridors within the County warranted study; however, these three were felt to be in the most immediate need for attention. In the case of Route 7 and Route 50, new development in addition to the commercial development which has been in existence for some time made the corridors a high priority. In the case of Route 11, a request from the town of Stephens City to participate in the planning of the Route 11 corridor made this a logical choice for study at that time. Corridor Plans were developed as a result of a focused evaluation of the three corridors listed, including careful consideration of the characteristics of the particular areas and the stated desires of their residents. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee has applied the same efforts and principles to other corridors that are being considered for business and industrial use. In 1995, the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan was adopted, which focuses on planning for the Route 50 corridor, and the Round Hill Community Center. In 1996, the Route 11 North Land Use Plan was adopted, which focuses on planning for the Route 11 corridor between Interstate 81 Exits 317 and 321, and areas to the east, which will be impacted by the construction of the Route 37 Eastern By-pass. The subcommittee recently completed work on the Route 37 West Land Use Plan which was adopted in October, 1997. This plan focuses on planning for land immediately north of Phase I of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan and immediately west of the Winchester Medical Center. The construction of a new interchange along Route 37 at the Winchester Medical Center and the expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area are the catalyst for the development of this plan. The development of future business corridor land use plans will be undertaken by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee as directed by the Board of Supervisors. Potential areas for study include the extension of the Route 11 North Land Use Plan, as well as those corridors which are impacted by the construction of the Route 37 Eastern By-pass. Frederick County 6-13 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Stormwater Management There are four major drainage basins in the immediate vicinity of the study areas. They include: Redbud Run, a portion of which parallels Route 7 to the north; Abrams Creek, located in the southern portion of the Route 7 study area; Sulphur Spring, which is located within the Route 50 study area; and Opequon Creek, located within the Route 11 study area. According to a report titled, Stormwater Management Evaluation, prepared by Donohue and Associates, Redbud Run will be most affected by increased development. Peak discharge is predicted to increase 85% under ultimate buildout conditions within the Redbud Run drainage basin. Increases ranging between 40 and 70 percent are also predicted to occur within the Sulphur and Opequon drainage basins. In order to protect these basins, it is recommended that future developments along these corridors implement stormwater management plans. Presently, a stormwater management plan is required for the development of individual site plans. Through the site plan review process, the focus of stormwater management has been to control the quantity of runoff rather than quality. The need for BMP facilities should be evaluated on a case by case basis within the corridor areas by the County Engineer. In addition to requirements placed on individual sites, the study, Stormwater Management Evaluation, identifies several sites as possible locations for regional facilities. The sites that fall within the corridor study areas include Redbud Run just west of Woods Mill Road or Greenwood Road (Route 656), along Abrams Creek, just west of Greenwood Road, and within the Shenandoah Hills area, also along Abrams Creek. Economics will govern the implementation of regional stormwater facilities. Economic analysis should include long term maintenance costs as well as the initial capital investment. Transportation The corridor plans show road connections between areas of existing development as well as areas proposed for future development. Managing traffic in such a way as to minimize backups and congestion is one of the primary goals of the corridor plans. These connector roads are seen as an essential element to the overall success of the plans. Planned collectors are intended to provide alternate travel routes between major traffic generators so as to relieve pressure on existing major collector and arterial roads. The plans indicate traffic controls at key existing, and proposed future intersections. These intersections and corresponding traffic controls, turn lanes, etc., would be funded through means such as proffers or pro -rated assessments to the development(s) which generate the need for such improvements. Frederick County 6-14 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Figure 4 Idealized Intersection Design Features of Note Tum Lanes with adequate stacking capacity Bicycle lanes in both directions Clear lane marking (travel, bike, turning, pedestrian) Raised medians with landscaping Landscaping alone edge of right-of-way Sidewalks Curb and Gutter ,`' ` •to v.' �es�y��p:� tea$ Landscapin>? Development within the business corridors should be accomplished with an understanding of the aesthetics associated with landscaping. Establishing landscape buffers between the road and parking facilities is important to promote a more pleasant environment. Additionally, the proper landscape design surrounding parking facilities reduces radiant heat reflection from the parking surface and lessens the facilities impact on its surroundings. The county should develop landscape guidelines that achieve more aesthetically pleasing developments. Conflicts occur when incompatible uses or zoning districts are adjacent to one another. These conflicts can be addressed by requiring sufficient buffer distances between the incompatible uses. Screening, in the form of plants, walls, or berms can also be used to block the vision of adjoining uses or to reduce noise or other impacts. A strip of mature woodland of sufficient depth is a particularly effective screen which can be relied on to remain with minimal maintenance. Frederick County 6-15 Comprehensive Plan Figure .5i Typical Preferred Sijznasze Land Use I r S� N L7'� In recent years, the County has worked to minimize the visual impacts that signs have on our community. Signs should be informational in content and not visually distracting. Business corridors are typically associated with commerce activities and its related signs. In addressing this different nature of the business corridors, the County should develop guidelines that contain specific provisions for business corridors. Signs can affect the character of an area and the value of properties. Excessive numbers of signs in business areas can make the signs difficult to notice or read and can make highway frontages appear cluttered and confusing, causing potential traffic hazards. Frederick County 6-16 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Business Corridors Conclusion Perhaps the most fundamental concept depicted in each of the Corridor Plans are theproposed fi-iture, land uses. For the most part, the future land use delineations consist of additional areas of business, office, and industrial use. An important element of the corridor plans is the creation, or enhancement, of areas of economic development potential. All aspects of the corridor plans and policies established in this report, play a role in improving the atmosphere for quality economic development. At the same time the plans attempt to direct future growth to designated areas, they also set limits on the expansion of commercial growth along the corridors through the designation of the corridor boundaries. This too serves to focus the development community on key areas for future commercial growth. As parcels within the study areas are proposed for rezoning, it will be incumbent upon the Planning staff, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to ensure that the development proposed is in keeping with the concepts discussed in this Plan. One of the primary objectives of the corridor plans is to insure that the commercial development that does take place within the corridor is of a standard that reflects favorably on the area. Efforts will need to be taken to follow up on these examples with the creation of actual development regulations aimed at achieving the desired results. Some steps have already taken place. The County's Development Review and Regulations Committee has begun working on implementing the recommendations of the Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of Commerce's Report of the Corridor Appearance Task Force which was completed in January of 1993. As development takes place along these corridors, it is very important that the County considers the potential impact on stormwater runoff. Provisions must be considered to protect the County's watersheds. All of the proposed development along these corridors fall within the Opequon watershed. Issues: ► Frederick County needs to work with VDOT to insure that adequate traffic modeling studies are conducted and patterns are analyzed to insure that new intersections and entrances are adequately designed and constructed. ► Intersections and commercial entrances need to meet spacing requirements as specified in the County Subdivision Ordinance. Current requirements need to be examined to insure that adequate distances are provided when new entrances are established. Shared entrances should be encouraged or in certain instances, required. Frederick County needs to work with VDOT and developers to insure that when signalization is needed, cost sharing mechanisms and agreements are in place to Frederick County 6-43 Comprehensive Plan Land Use accommodate timely installation. ► Standards need to be revised to insure that turn lanes allow for sufficient stacking of vehicles and that adequate signage and pavement marking is provided. P. Raised medians should be required at all intersections along business corridors. ► Streetlights should be required at all intersections and entrances to enhance visibility and promote safety. Lighting types should be designed to enhance the overall appearance of the corridor. ► Utility lines should be placed underground wherever possible or at the rear of lots to minimize their visibility. ► Wherever possible, intersections should align at right angles, without offsets, on opposite sides of the corridor and should conform to the corridor plans, the Eastern Road Plan and the Winchester Area Transportation Plan. ► Provisions should be made for bike lanes within the right-of-way at intersections. Appropriate signalization, signage, andpavement marking should be included in the design to minimize potential conflicts. Locations of bike lanes should conform to the recommendations of the Bicycle Plan for the City of Winchester and Frederick Coun . Rural Community Centers Rural community centers are relatively small centers of population and activity in the rural areas of Frederick County. Following the adoption ofthe 1982 Plan, the Rural Community Center Committee of the Frederick County Planning Commission was formed which proceeded to define rural community centers and to study their characteristics. The Committee held public meetings in 1984 and 1985 to solicit opinions on development policies and developed some recommendations on policies for the rural community centers. The following criteria were used to designate rural community centers: 1. Proximity to and access to collector or arterial routes. 2. Existing concentration of commercial services within the center. 3. Existing concentration of public services within the center. 4. Access from concentrations of existing population. 5. Actual population growth in the area. Frederick County 6-44 Comprehensive Plan d f 1 •IC ( a ® � r r r ' r tt �3 / � .d _ / SCR '�Nt„t _ �' • � :. �1 .. Vlj I ._ w 0$ 4 s v,r�.� A FOR MY KIDS, LLC REZONING Tax Parcel No. 55-A-80, 55-A-81 Stonewall l0-agisterial District Prell"nary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296, et seq., of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application No. //- 03 for the rezoning of 2.020 acres from RA, Rural Agriculture, to B2, Business General District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and its legal successors and assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the land owned by For My Kids, LLC being Tax Map Parcel No. 55-A-8-; 55-A-81, and further described by boundary and topographic survey of the land of For My Kids, LLC, drawn by Anderson and Associates, Inc., dated the 10th day of March, 2003, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full. A. Land Use Restriction The applicant hereby proffers that the following land uses shall be prohibited on any portion of the subject site that is zoned B2, Business General District: SIC 78 Drive-in motion picture theaters SIC 7999 Golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses SIC 7999 Commercial batting cages (No SIC) Adult Care Residences and Assisted Living (No SIC) Adult retail uses B. Transportation 1. Access The applicant hereby proffers that access to Berryville Pike (U.S. Route 7) shall be limited to one commercial entrance. The applicant further proffers that the location of the entrance shall be with the approval of Virginia Department of Transportation. The design and construction of the new commercial entrance shall be provided in conjunction with the approved site plan for the 2.020 acre site. C. Site Development Berm / Knoll The applicant hereby proffers to construct a berm or knoll parallel to Route 7 so that except for the entrance way, there will be the berm or knoll of at least 3 feet in height to act as a visual buffer from traffic proceeding along Route 7 in an easterly direction. In addition, a decorative board -on -board fence shall be constructed on the other portions of the property and no chain link fence will be used which will be visible from outside the premises. 2. Signage The applicant hereby proffers to erect one monument sign of appropriate design to indicate the businesses located in the subject property and which sign shall be as set forth on the site plan to be submitted to Frederick County. A sign plan will be submitted to the Frederick County Building official for review and approval prior to any use of the existing freestanding business sign. D. Buffer and Screening The applicant hereby proffers to maintain ornamental trees or bushes along the berm or knoll which parallels Route 7. The design and planning of the ornamental trees or bushes shall be provided in conjunction with the approved site plan for the 2.020 acre site. E. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owner of the above described property hereby voluntarily proffers that in the event Rezoning Application No. j%- 03 is approved, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, the following amount: $500.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue to be redistributed to Greenwood Fire Company for capital facilities costs. This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid within ninety (90) days following approval of the rezoning by the Board of Supervisors. .i EP2" ` 2003 W F. Signature Submitted by: John A. Ross For My Kids, LLC STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 Sth day of September, 2003, by John A. Ross. My commission expires: October 31, 2006. Notary Public Commissioned as Amy Elizabeth Anderson. 3 REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PROPOSED SHENANDOAH HONDA SITE ROUTE 7 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA May 20, 2003 Prepared for For My Kids, LLC. 122 Walls Circle Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared by Anderson & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers Middletown, Virginia JN 21328.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE 2 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES 2 C. TRAFFIC 3 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT 3 E. WATER SUPPLY 4 F. DRAINAGE 4 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES 4 H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES 4 I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES 4 J. OTHER IMPACTS 5 APPENDIX A Maps A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Shenandoah Honda is proposing to relocate their operations to a new facility that will be constructed east of Greenwood Road and adjacent to Route 7 in Frederick County, VA. The subject site is a 2.02 acres comprised of two tax parcels, tax # 55-A-80 and 81, and is currently zoned Rural Agricultural (RA). It is requested that the property be rezoned to Business General District (B-2). The proposed facility will consist of a building that has approximately 20,000 sq. ft. floor space with associated parking and green space, thereby meeting the requirements of the proposed B-2 zoning. The site currently has two houses and a mobile home on it. Access to the property is from the eastbound lanes of Route 7, via a small bridge over Ash Hollow Run. The site is currently overgrown and in poor condition. Approximately 0.05 acres in the northeast corner of the site lies in the uppermost extents of the FEMA designated floodplain (zone A) for Ash Hollow Run. A records review revealed that FEMA has not performed a detailed flood study in this area. Approximately 0.5 acres of the site consists of slopes greater than 15%. There are no known wetlands on the site. There are also no mature woodlands on the site outside of the mature trees on the adjacent Route 7 right-of-way east of the existing bridge to the site. These trees will be preserved. The soils on this site are Berks channery silt loam and Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, neither of which is considered prime agricultural soil. Depth to bedrock and slope are the main factors that may create construction difficulties or hazards. See Figure 1 in Appendix A for a map showing features on the subject site. Overall this site is well suited to the proposed activity. The redevelopment of this rundown property provides a "brown fields" type of benefit to the county by renewing the property's role in the community. This redevelopment also dovetails nicely with the County's vision for the Route 7 corridor. With water and sewer service nearby for this project, there will be little additional demand on the County's resources to serve this project. Direct access to Route 7 provides a strong transportation link to the site, and with the low number of site trips will be more than adequate. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES There are three properties adjacent to the subject site. • West and south — the property is owned by Grace Brethren Church and is zoned rural agriculture - RA. • East — The property is owned by Ronald E. and Alice M. Dehaven and is zoned rural agriculture - RA. • North - VDOT right-of-way for Route 7. Route 7 in this area is bifurcated, and the property on the north side of Route 7 is approximately 30 feet higher than the subject site and is owned by the Frederick County School Board. Figure 2 provides adjacent property information and distances to existing structures on adjacent properties. Rezoning and development of the property in question should not Shenandoah Honda Rezoning Impact Statement Page 2 have an adverse impact on adjacent properties in the way of noise, glare, fumes, pollution, odors or other nuisances. C. TRAFFIC It is projected that the rezoning of the property in question should have a minimai impact on surrounding roads and the County's adopted road improvement plan. The eastbound lane of Virginia Route 7 runs parallel to the north side of the subject site with existing access via a small bridge over Ash Hollow Run. The three homes on the site use this bridge for access. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual was reviewed to determine the number of vehicular trips that this site will generate. However, there is not a land use description that closely matches the intended use. The land use in the Trip Generation Manual that comes closest to matching the intended use is that of "new car sales" and "automobile repair facility." However there are not nearly the number of four -wheelers and motorcycles in the market places as there are automobiles, so it is believed that these ITE estimates grossly overstate the number of trips that will be generated by this site. Therefore, based on actual trips generated by the existing Shenandoah Honda facility, it is estimated that the rezoning and development of the subject property will result in an additional 20 peak hour trips and 240 trips on average per weekday to Route 7 traffic. Shenandoah Honda currently operates from 9:OOam to 6:OOpm on weekdays, with additional hours on weekends. By operating during these times, the facility will not be open during the morning rush hour when traffic is heaviest on eastbound Route 7. The developer anticipates that there will be one tractor -trailer accessing the property about every other day. This will require that a new entrance be constructed to access the site, which will be able to accommodate these trucks. Additionally, using VDOT design guidelines, a pavement taper will be leading up to the entrance. A field visit with VDOT officials has been previously conducted and basic entrance requirements discussed including the aforementioned taper and a new crossing over Ash Hollow Run that will be required. The existing bridge will be removed. Based on VDOT data, the Average Annual Weekday Traffic Volume Estimate for this section of Route 7 is 24,000 vehicles per day. Since any additional traffic resulting from the rezoning of this property will occur during an off-peak time, the anticipated impacts on traffic operations are expected to be minimal. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT Based on Virginia Department of Health design values, it has been estimated that the proposed Shenandoah Honda facility will generate approximately 700 gpd of wastewater. This estimate is based on 15-35 gpd/person/8-hour shift. Currently, it is projected that the wastewater from this site will be pumped to the south along Greenwood Road connecting into the Frederick County Sanitation Authority's system. Shenandoah Honda Rezoning Impact Statement rayu o E. WATER SUPPLY Based on values provided by the Virginia Department of Health, it is estimated that water usage for the developed property will be approximately 700 gpd. Currently, there is a 90" water main that runs along the northern property line in the shoulder of Route 7. it is anticipated that a tap will be made on this line. F. DRAINAGE Storm water from the subject site drains north via a natural swale along the center of the property directly to Ash Hollow Run, which borders the northeast end of the property. The existing 50" corrugated metal pipe/bridge that conveys Ash Hollow Run under the entrance to the property will be replaced with a new crossing, and onsite storm water management will be provided for development to reduce impacts to Ash Hollow Run. Generally, existing drainage patterns will be maintained. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES It is anticipated that the rezoning and development of the property will generate approximately 550 cubic yards of solid waste a year. The solid waste will be disposed of in a dumpster housed in a fenced area on the site, and will be picked up twice a week by a private solid waste contractor as hired by the owner. H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES There are no historic sites or structures that will be impacted by the rezoning of this property. Additionally, a review of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Management Plan does not show any battlefields on this site. I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES Local revenues that will be generated from rezoning and development of this site include both local sales taxes and real estate tax. The real estate taxes will increase significantly since the owner plans to make significant improvements to the property. It appears that solid waste is the only County service that may be affected by this rezoning. Education and Parks and Recreation will not be required services for the developed property. Police and Fire Protection will not need to be increased since the three existing homes on the property will be razed. Solid waste disposal may increase slightly from what is generated on the site currently, but not so significantly that it will affect County operations. Shenandoah Honda Rezoning Impact Statement Page 4 J. OTHER IMPACTS It is not anticipated that there will be any other impacts associated with the rezoning of the property in question. Shenandoah Honda Rezoning Impact Statement Page 5 APPENDIX A Maps �� *�+ �`• '1 I. �_ - r I � t ,yam � , 4 Ir. d FF R�» '+•} y "� �'d-�"- t 1 f.r' " w" 11F. ,�'f el . f.- ��e ,�j' ,t i r � r #,A t ,�## ff M�, • ;y _ pj r + r' �' ! si s� � i � " + � �" 4 •'"'� '""" - -fir, § �, E .✓' f* C a r� _ } Ae G � 1 77, ,�i# � � j � r:. -* � � 'btu'. _FF .r_. �^ � J`f3F .✓° A y IS �" ��v9,^+a^^."'Vz. x E _" ,r 'I,•_ _ r ' t a t , :.•'�` •,, 7t' ..RRJ ` _ r t h "'` r1} K`'..._ t `N, - f '4 i I I ! * t `'+.. 1 x P � .y �rY s i�� 1; e ,.{ it i �*- t 4 r. t .• � -;d°- 1 '.yn.�w"°t`! r. i f �'{ a 47r �.f 6 s"'�.i { �,-• 1 +, y� N `- + w •i._ Ai . * Mkt, . ^,- F � k ,�4f� tik , !'' j r c° `}' . ¢ `' k r� �1�"�"""y ' � is ✓�' -�e �,r^".'Fdr A� _ �s xi �` , i �, � 11 = �4 f t 6."\,.--y�"`-,�,i,�k`Kn`�{r y4C 11'k..,�,-/' fidjS�'9�� ? � � ' "t 5.�.�.�,. �k �a y�.e'."'i. f ` .J' Ya;f .t � -v. _ y� � `�: •,`;'- .+ ! `'�.�i.,� }f} ,°" �; k� - k..a}-^' ��'�' rr ,4 � ,tr�� r"'`�' � i � � $F t ! a '"- a"�..""�,.•�.�a��®fes yiRV �f i��,.i_„"�``"'yr� �� � �y"A'j��� t � �•` 45,r'ew w M` -'- 0 1000 2000 VICINITY MAP SCALE IN FEET SHENANDOAH HONDA FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA QANDERSON d AND Q ASSOCIATES, Inc. FLOODNOTE: A Portion of the Caption Property is LEGEND Located In a Special Flood Hazard Area so designated by the Secretary of Housing & Urban • IRON PIN FOUND Development The Caption Property is located in Flood Zones A and C and is referenced by FIRM O IRON PIN SET IS Map # 510063 0120 B, Dated: July 17, 1978. kp o CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND Q O 1 James E. & Ardeyth 0. Butcher D.B. 748 Pg. 1132 Tax # 55-A-80 Area: 1.005 Acres Curve - C1 Centrai Angle: 14'06" Radius: 3844.72' Tangent: 108.57' + Arc: 217.07' Chord: S61'39'46"E 217.04' o A % }oX ,+ SS -A- 8o a.A #55 -R -8I, �J G Nay 6�+51 v James E. & Ardeyth 0. Butcher G D.B. 748 Pg. 1132 °-. y Tax 55-A-81 6, J OS Area: 1.015 Acres Zone C Grace Brethren Church �. oo+ D.B. 310 Pg. 10 �:A Tax# 55-A-79 + 1 Zone A Ng5 5g 5 � FEMA Designated 10o Year Flood Limit Ronald E. & Alice M. Dehaven Line Table W.B. 84 Pg. 118 Line Bearin Distance Tax # 55-A-82 L1 S64'17'59"E 48.58' L2 S67.33'31 "E 69.55' L3 S64 -32'52"E 105.87' L4 S6432'52"E 6.93' Survey Plat for Shenandoah Honda Showing Property of �.�ALTH 0� James E. & Ardeyth 0. Butcher 1 311133 j0 Deed Book 748, Page 1132 ,�YLE D. AU TIN Shawnee Magisterial District CIC NSE No. Frederick County, Virginia 1483 Scale: 1 "= 80' Date: Mar. 10, 2003 4 t�ND SU VS p 80' 160' ANDERSON &ASSOCIATES, Inc. �( )��7722 MIddl atnstreet SCALE 1 "=80' Y Middletown, Vlrglnla 22465 540 869-2501 JN 21328.00 c C Q C O O Z W W C� C.9 US—ROIJTF 7 FASTRnUNn 0 100 200 FIGURE 2. ADJACENT PROPERTY MAPPING SCALE IN FEET SHENANDOAH HONDA FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ce M. Dehaven IM ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE REVISIONS: DOCUMENT I, LEProfessional Design Services DESIGNED: TS SHENANDOAN HONDA 21328 www.andassoc.com 7722 Mein Sheet DRAWN RSH SHEET Middletown Va 22645-95(k CHECIMD: FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINA of Virginia - North Carolina - Tennessee 544666.2501 QA/QC nC : ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. : °' - "� 50 21328-001 ��o�PmfessionaiDasignSemem OE°NEDi. SHENANDOAH HONDA EXISTING PROPERTY - www.aMassoccom �+ cir<ci�n: iss FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA ac Yrainia-North Caroline-Tennessee aroc REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA be completed by Planning Staff.• honing Amendment Number PC Hearing Date 0 S p om Fee Amount Paid $ Date Received BOS Hearing Date d The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Mr. John Ross Address: For My Kids LLC 122 Walls Circle Winchester, Virginia 22603 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone: 540-678-8500 Telephone: Name: Telephone: 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X .. Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 11 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: John Ross For My Kids LLC 122 Walls Circle Winchester, Virginia 22603 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Zone RA residential B) Proposed Use of the Property: Zone B-2 Commercial Motorcycle / ATV Sales 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER 55-A-79 55-A-82 USE Church Residential ZONING RA RA 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): Approximately 185 feet southeast of the intersection of Greenwood Road and Virginia Route 7 on Route 7. 12 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide inforriatIan concerning the sped of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 55-A-80 & 55-A-81 Magisterial: Red Bud Run Fire Service: Greenwood Rescue Service: Greenwood 1.015 Districts High School: Millbrook Middle School: James Wood Elementary School: Red Bud Run 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 1.005 RA B-2 1.015 RA B-2 2.020 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 0 Townhome: 0 Multi -Family: 0 Non -Residential Lots: 0 Mobile Home: 0 Hotel Rooms: 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: 2,000 Service Station: Retail: 4,000 Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: 10,000 — 12,000 Other: (service) 2,000 13 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Date: 7 Date: Owner(s): Date: 9/n D� Date: C� SEP 1 y 200:3 14 Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number F Address Name Winchester Grace Brethren Church 143 Greenwood Road Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 55-A-79 Name Ronald E. & Alice M. Dehaven 2142 Berryville Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 55-A-82 Name Frederick County School Board 1415 Amherst Street Winchester, VA 22604-2546 Property # 55-A-22 Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # J-Z)8M PoSS — C) WA) 5/z + jq PPL I cAk)T /a --� WaL-LS (l l- d- Z-£ 15 W/N o-A�S TUU VA 0-'26c3 5 --fl ` �° 4 5s- 4 -g l N O O N N N U m L U N C a, -o Q 00 Q o Lo o Lo o 0 0 0 Lo N Q th L L0 c 11- 0 0 ,o — � a •N � C O cxp U F- c 0 EY m m C m a .n v a, DEED THIS DEED, made and dated this 15th day of April, 2003, by and between JAMES E. BUTCHER and ARDEYTH O. BUTCHER, husband and wife, parties of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and FORMYKIDS, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title, unto the Grantee in fee simple, the following described real estate, together with all rights, rights of way, privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, the following described property: PARCEL ONE: That certain lot or parcel of land, lying and being situate in Red Bud Magisterial District (formerly in Shawnee Magisterial District), Frederick County, Virginia, fronting on U.S. Highway No. 7 a distance of 224 feet, more or less, and extending back Southward between parallel lines a distance of 200 feet, more or less, to the rear of the property; PARCEL TWO: That certain lot or parcel of land, lying and being situate in Red Bud Magisterial District (formerly in Shawnee Magisterial District), Frederick County, Virginia, fronting on U.S. Highway No. 7, a distance of 224 feet, more or less, and extending back Southward between parallel lines to the land of Barham, formerly Wells and Stump, in the rear; and being more recently and particularly described by Survey Plat drawn by Kyle D. Austin, Land Surveyor, dated. March 10, 2003, which said survey is attached hereto and by this reference hereby made a part hereof as if set forth in full; and being the same real property which the Grantors herein acquired by Deed dated July 26, 1990 from Ronald E. DeHaven and Alice M. DeHaven, husband and wife, which said Deed is of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 748, at Page 1132. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid plat and survey and Deed, and to the references therein contained, for a further and more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to all legally enforceable restrictive covenants and easements of record affecting the aforesaid realty. WITNESS the followin signa nd seals: �— (SEAL) J ES E. BUTCHER STATE OF VIRGINIA, (SEAL) ARDEYTH 0/- BUTCHER CITY OF WINCHESTER, to -wit: I, Susan R. Woodill, a Notary Public in and for the State and Jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that jAMES E. BUTCHER HER and ARDEYTH n_ RUTCHER, husband and wife, whose names are signed to the foregoing DEED bearing date the 15th day of April, 2003, have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in the City of Winchester, Virginia. Given under my hand this 15th day of April, 2003. My Commission expires: September 30, 2004. ' Notary Public HARRMDEEDS\Deed from MP m SMUTCHER TO ROSS.DEED. pd LEGEND 0 IRON PIN FOUND Q IRON PIN SET O I o CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND �l`0 �G1 N A o e � c:D FLOODNOTE: A Portion of the Caption Property is Located in a Special Flood Hazard Area so designated by the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development. The Caption Property is located in Flood Zones A and C and is referenced by FIRM Map # 510063 0120 B, Dated: July 17, 1978. Curve - C1 Central Angle: 3'14'06" 41 Radius: 3844.72' Tangent: 108.57' Arc: 217.07' Chord: S61'39'46"E 217.04' ' N'+ James E. & Ardeyth 0. Butcher D.B. 748 Pg. 1132 oG Tax # 55-A-80 F1 Area: 1.005 Acres James E. & � N Ardeyth 0. Butcher `y G D.B. 748 Pg. 1132 0 y Tax # 55-A-81 a; J z Area: 1.015 Acres Grace Brethren Church ate, Zone c D.B. 310 Pg. 10 Tax # 55—A-79 "E` 2 Zone A N35 � FEMA Designated 100 Year Flood Limit Ronald E. & Alice M. Deh-aven Line Table W.B. 84 Pg. 118 Line Bearing Distance Tax # 55-A-82 L1 S64' 17'59"E 48.58' L2 S67'33'31 "E 69.55' L3 S64'32'52"E 105.87' L4 S64'32'52"E 6.93' Survey Plat for Shenandoah Honda , �,ALTH 0Showing Property of j�� James E. & Ardeyth 0. Butcher /a3 MED. AU Deed Book 748, Page 1132 Shawnee Magisterial District IC(& No. Frederick County, Virginia 1483 Scale: 1"= 80' Date: Mar. 10, 2003 4 t9� sII1gE,� 0 80' 160' /�/� ANDERSON &ASSOCIATES, Inc. � /( )/\ \ 7( 22; ain Street SCALE 1 "=80' L/\1\Y/L/�\\�\1Middleto -250Virginia 22465 540 869-2501 JN 21328.00 Sep 29 03 01:59p ESOP ANDERSON A e AND ASSOCIATES, INC. August 5, 2003 Mr. Lloyd Ingram Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Dear Mr. Ingram: (540) 869-2625 p.2 Professional Design Servides RE: Rezoning for Shenandoah Honda Route 7, Fredrick County, VA JN 21328 Thank you for taking time to meet with me last week to discuss your comments concerning the rezoning application for the proposed Shenandoah Honda facility on Route 7 in Frederick County. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with additional information pertaining to the preferred location of the entrance for the proposed site, and to request that the entrance location not be aligned with the existing crossover on Route 7. As we discussed, there are a number of factors that were considered when the location for the proposed entrance for this commercial development was sited. Among those considerations was safety of the traveling public, environmental impacts and flood plain impacts. The following sections provide additional information pertaining to these topics and those mentioned in your letter dated June 18, 2003. 1 am including the text from your letter in italics for reference. To provide safe ingress/egress, additional right-of-way will be needed to allow the developer to move the existing guardrail farther off the edge of existing pavement to allow for a full width shoulder The impacts on the environments associated with aligning the proposed entrance with the existing cross-over ramp and widening the shoulder east of the proposed entrance will be severe and it is believed will have long term negative impacts on the environment without reciprocal improvements in safety for the traveling public. These impacts include the loss of numerous mature trees, impacts on aquatic and plant life in Ash Hollow Run that will result from relocating about 200 linear feet of the stream, and impacts on the FEMA designated flood plain. The following paragraphs provide more details about these important considerations: 1. Our preliminary plans call for relocating the guardrail and constructing a 200' taper on the approach side of the proposed entrance. While it appears that this can be accomplished within the existing right-of-way, the developer is prepared to dedicate additional right-of-way as"required. To the east of the proposed entrance location, we propose to leave the existing shoulder and guardrail in place due to the significant An Employee -Owned Company 7722 Main Street, Middletown, VA 22645 (540) 869-2501 (540) 869-2625 fax www.andassoc.com Blacksburg, Fredericksburg, Middletown & Richmond, Virginia 9 Greensboro, North Carolina • Tri -Cities, Tennessee Sep 29 03 01:59p ESOP (540) 869-2625 p.3 Mr. Ingram August 5, 2003 Page 2 environmental consequences that will result from widening �g the shoulder in this area. 2. We too desire safe ingresslegress for the patrons of the proposed facility and have reviewed the sight distance available at the proposed entrance location. As measured from the project map, there will be approximately 425' from the center of Greenwood Road to the center of the exiting lane of traffic at the proposed site. Since there are no visual obstructions between these two points, all of this is considered to be stopping sight distance. There is approximately 200 additional feet of sight distance east of the Greenwood Road signal, providing a total approximate sight distance at the exit from the site of 625'. For a 60 mph design speed, the VDOT Design Standards call for a minimum 525' sight distance and the AASHTO Green Book calls for 570'. The posted speed limit is 45mph east of the proposed entrance that requires about 400 feet of sight distance_ 3. It is my understanding that the Department does not want ownership of the stream crossing that will be constructed to access the site. Specific right-of-way location information will need to be coordinated during the design and platting phase of the project to establish the line in the desired location. 4. Providing a full width shoulder to the east of the proposed entrance location will necessitate relocating approximately 200 feet of Ash Hollow Run. The relocation of this section of natural stream will disrupt the natural habitat of the animal and plant life in and around the stream and will require years to reestablish it due to the additional loss of the mature trees in the path of the entrance at this location. 5. Providing a full width shoulder will necessitate revisions to the FEMA designated flood plain that exists along Ash Hollow Run east of the existing entrance. Affecting the flood plain at this location will have significant and detrimental effects on the adjoining property owner east of the proposed site. 6. The location of the eastern property line for the subject tract, and the live stream discharging from the culvert under Route 7, place limits on how far east the proposed entrance and the full width shoulder can be shifted. The entrance cannot be shifted to the point where it will align with the crossover, and shoulder width improvements will be limited by property ownership as well as environmental impacts_ 7. Aligning the proposed entrance with the Morgan Mill crossover will necessitate removal of a large portion, if not all, of the mature trees on the site. Ms. Abbe Kennedy of the Frederick County Planning Department has asked us to preserve the mature trees on the site in order to mitigate the Sep 29 03 02:00p ESOP Mr. Ingram August 5, 2003 Page 3 (540) 869-2625 p.4 visual impacts of the development. Since the mature trees along the front of the project east of the proposed entrance location are behind the existing guardrail, it is believed that they are not currently a safety problem. The commercial entrance to the property should be aligned across from the Morgan Mill crossover deceleration ramp. This would reduce a dangerous weave situation by customers trying to utilize the Morgan Mill crossover. It should be noted there is a proffer in the Red Bud Run Subdivision for closing this crossover if deemed prudent by either VDOT or Frederick County. Prior to submitting the request for rezoning comments I met on site with Mr. Ben Lineberry and Mr. Dave Heironimous of VDOT to discuss the location of the proposed entrance for the development. Primary in our discussion was the safety of the traveling public and the patrons of the proposed facility. I left that meeting with an understanding that it will be acceptable to offset the proposed entrance from the crossover since aligning the two will create a more potentially unsafe condition. I would like to highlight the following factors for your consideration: 1. The entrance will connect to the eastbound lanes of Route 7 and will have no impact on the westbound traffic or roadway. Therefore drivers exiting the site will only need to look for traffic to their left (drive's side). 2. The existing Morgan Mill crossover is a V shaped crossover, with a steep grade between the eastbound lanes and the westbound lanes. There is a very short taper provided at the lower end of the ramps, and the ramp movements from and to the eastbound lanes are for one-way traffic. 3. While aligning the entrances will eliminate a brief merge movement for exiting drivers, the more than adequate sight distance will enable exiting motorists to clearly see oncoming traffic and thus avoid pulling into the path of approaching vehicles. Aligning the entrance with the crossover will encourage exiting motorist to dart across the roadway ahead of approaching vehicles rather than wait for a clear opening. 4. Alignment of the proposed entrance with the crossover will create an attractive nuisance, and will tempt some drivers to take a shortcut by traveling down the one-way ramp in the wrong direction to enter the proposed site. Since motorists on eastbound Route 7 will not be expecting a vehicle to be approaching them almost head-on from the left hand side of the road, the shock factor as well as the potential for collisions is very real. It is reported that some accidents of this type have already occurred at this location. Sep 29 03 02:00p ESOP (540) 869-2625 Mr. Ingram August 5, 2003 Page 4 5. While the ramps in the subject crossover are signed for one-way traffic, drivers attempting to take the aforementioned shortcut will cause a vehicular conflict on the ramp itself where the pavement width is inadequate for two vehicles to pass. 6. The upstream traffic signal at the intersection of Route 7 and Greenwood Road creates platooning of vehicles on Route 7 each time the traffic light cycles through a red -green cycle. This platooning action will provide gaps in the traffic flow on Route 7 which will give motorist exiting the proposed development a clear window of opportunity to merge into traffic on Route 7 and continue eastward or use the crossover ramp. 7. As stated in your correspondence, VDOT and Frederick County are considering closing this cross-over as part of a proffer associated with a development project. This raises significant questions about the benefits associated with aligning the proposed entrance with the subject crossover. Should this crossover be closed, significant environmental impacts will have occurred without the purported safety benefits being realized. In closing, based on the information presented herein it is believed that the negative impacts associated with relocating Ash Hollow Run, affecting the flood plain and cutting the mature trees are far greater than the benefits that will be gained by aligning the entrance with the crossover and widening the shoulder east of the proposed entrance. I respectfully request that you review this information and allow this project to move forward with a new commercial entrance constructed as shown in the attached diagram. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Timothy S. Stowe, PE, LS Executive Vice President CC: Mr. John Ross p.5 Q�QQAND ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. JnCIVf'HINUVHri riVNUA F'KVF LKIY GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 7 100 200 SCALE IN FEET r � L� COUNTY of FREDERICIK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner W~ RE: Public Hearing - Request to Amend the NELUP to Relocate a Planned Collector Road and to Include Business Land Use Designation DATE: October 1, 2003 Staff has received a request from G. W. Clifford & Associates on behalf of George Sempeles to consider a request for an amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan. The request is to relocate a planned collector road planned in the vicinity of the intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road, and to allow for business land use designation in a portion of the subject location. The amendment is requested in order to facilitate a business and industrial development proposal for approximately 104 acres located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Materials have been circulated outlining a proposal to rezone the parcel from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial) and B2 (Business General), respectively. A preliminary rezoning proposal was submitted to staff in April of 2003, at which time VDOT was not satisfied with the planned transportation improvements. The principal issue involves the short distance between the Interstate 81 northbound on/off ramps and the Route 11 intersection, which would result in a deficiency for truck stacking. VDOT has recommended that truck traffic entering the Sempeles site turn right on Route 11, left on Woodbine, and enter the site from Woodbine Road, effectively transforming Woodbine Road into a collector road. In an effort to address these concerns, the applicant request suggests that Woodbine Road be identified as the planned collector road, and that the collector road currently shown bisecting the Sempeles property would be deleted from the plan. (Please see attached letter of May 20, 2003 and maps from G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc) At the June CPPS meeting, committee members requested discussion and direct input from a VDOT representative regarding this issue, prior to forwarding any recommendation to the Planning Commission. On July 14, 2003, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, Traffic Engineer with the VDOT Edinburg Residency, attended the CPPS meeting. Mr. Ingram commented that the proposed relocation utilizing Woodbine Road was the best solution available at this time to accommodate truck stacking length. The CPPS committee members in attendance voted to recommend the request for relocation 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Public Hearing - Frederick County Planning Commission Re: Request to Amend NELUP to Relocate a Planned Collector Road September 30, 2003 of the major collector road. On September 3, 2003 the Planning Commission discussed this item. During discussion of the proposed relocation of the planned major collector road, the Planning Commission raised concerns regarding the truck stacking on Route 11 that would occur as a result of this proposal. The Planning Commission felt that business land use along the portion of the subject site fronting Route 11 may be appropriate in this area. The discussion concluded that the re-routing truck traffic to turn right on Route 11, and left on Woodbine Road, as suggested by VDOT, was an acceptable alternative to the existing planned major collector road location. The Board of Supervisors discussed this request at their meeting on September 10, 2003. The Board directed that this item be scheduled for a public hearing. Attached please find policy text from the Frederick County Comprehensive Land Use Plan relevant to this request. This is a public hearing, and the Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. ASK/bad Attachments U:\COMMITTEES\CPPS\Projects\2003 Projects\SengxIse AmendmentNELMphSempeles_nxm .wpd PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE NELUP TO RELOCATE A PLANNED COLLECTOR ROAD and to include BUSINESS LAND USE Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Hearing Prepared: September 25, 2003 Staff Contact: Abbe Kennedy This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this comprehensive planning matter. CPPS: CPPS: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: PROPOSAL: Reviewed Action 06/09/03 Input from VDOT requested 07/14/03 Recommended for discussion 09/03/03 (Discussion) 09/10/03 (Discussion) 10/15/03 (Public Hearing) 11/12/03 (Public Hearing) Comments to Board Schedule for Public Hearing Pending Pending To amend the NELUP to facilitate relocation of a planned collector road in the vicinity of the intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road, and to allow for a change in the NELUP to allow for commercial land use in a portion of the site area east of Route 11. PLANNED USE: Industrial and Business LOCATION: The site is located in the northern extreme of Frederick County, east of the Interstate 81 Rest Church Road interchange (Exit 323), adjacent to Route 11, and crosses the West Virginia state line. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION: Existing Conditions The principle use of this site has been agriculture. Additional lands to the east of the railroad include a home and surrounding agricultural lands. There has been significant expansion to the interstate bridge at Rest Church Road. With the probability of water and sewer facilities to serve this area, the applicant proposes that the use for this site should be shifted to industrial and commercial use. The Flying J travel plaza lies across the Interstate -81 interchange. Additionally, there is potential for future development along the southernmost West Virginia Route 11 corridor which would access Interstate 81 at Exit 323. Comprehensive Policy Plan As adopted, the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) shows industrial land use in the location of the proposed collector road change. In addition the NELUP encourages interstate business development opportunities at strategic locations along the Route 11 North corridor. The plan states that proposed industrial development will necessitate changes in existing roads, as well as require construction of new roads. The NELUP further states that general locations of new collector roads are located throughout the study area for efficient movement to occur, to enhance safety by limiting individual commercial entrances, and to preserve capacities on existing road systems to ensure adequate levels of service. The plan specifically states the following in respect to land use and transportation: Policies Germane to this Request: Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan "Industrial land uses are proposed adjacent to the railroads in the southern and northern portion 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. Proposed industrial land uses are to be developed with public water and sewer service. 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 determines that public private partnerships are appropriate". (see excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan) Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan - Infrastructure Components - Transportation "Proposed industrial and commercial development within 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." "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 VDOT 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 width and geometrics of Rest Church Road (Route 669); Woodbine Road (Route 669); Branson Spring Road (Route 668); Woodbine Road (Route 671); Burketown Road (Route 672); Stephenson Road (Route 554); and Old Charles Town Road (Route 761)." (see excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan) Transportation The area of the proposed request is in the Northeast Land Use Plan study area of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The NELUP illustrates a collector road bisecting the site from Route 11 to another planned collector road east of the Winchester and Western Railroad. This proposal, as presented, would eliminate the existing planned collector road from the NEI,i , and establish Route 669 (Woodbine Road) to be identified as the collector road in the subject area of the comprehensive plan. Community Facilities and Service The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has prepared a concept plan for the extension of water and sewer utilities to the Rest Church interchange area in accordance with the water and sewer service area plan contained within the Comprehensive plan. The FCSA plan provides for the extension ofwater service along the U.S. Route 11 corridor. Sewer service will be limited by the capacity of the Rest Church extension to a maximum for Rest Church of approximately 100,000 g.p.d. of wastewater generation. The possibility of jurisdictional connection with the Berekely County Service Authority could provide the possibility of regional cooperation in serving the Route 11 corridor between West Virginia and Virginia Authorities. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE (CPPS) SUMMARY & ACTION OF 07/14/03 MEETING: (summary of applicable discussions) The CPPS was generally supportive to the proposal of the relocation of the planned major collector road request. The intended industrial land use in this vicinity is consistent with the existing policy of the NELUP. The committee was also supportive of business use for a portion of the area along the Route 11 corridor. Concerns regarding transportation, including both truck traffic and passenger cars, in the vicinity of the Rest Church Road interchange and Route 11 North corridor remain. Staff would note that Charles DeHaven, Robert Morris, Roger Thomas and Sue Ann Teal were absent from the July 14 CPPS meeting at which time this request was considered. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY OF 09/03/03 MEETING: (summary of applicable discussions) During discussion of the proposed relocation of the planned major collector road, the Planning Commission raised concerns regarding the truck stacking on Route I 1 that would occur as a result of this proposal. Concerns regarding the traffic counts noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) information provided by PHR&A were expressed by one commissioner. The applicant stated that actual average daily trips for the pending Sempeles industrial rezoning request would be less than that shown, and that the TIA would be updated for the rezoning request if this amendment to the NELUP was approved. A citizen asked the Planning Commission if they were aware of a large housing development occurring in close proximity to the Virginia line, which would be utilizing I-81 exit 323. Another citizen spoke in support of the planned major collector road relocation, stating that he opposed the existing location of the planned road which runs through his property. The discussion concluded that the re-routing truck traffic to turn right on Route 11, and left on Woodbine Road, as suggested by VDOT, was an acceptable alternative to the existing planned major collector road location, and that business land use along that portion of the Sempeles site fronting Route 11 would be appropriate land use. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISCUSSION SUMMARY OF 09/10/03 MEETING: (summary of applicable discussions) During the discussion at the Board of Supervisors meeting of September 10, 2003, concerns were raised about the maneuverability of trucks turning right off of Rest Church Road on to Route III. `v'DOT noted that the geometrics of the newly constructed right turn lane on Rest Church Road was designed to handle turning trucks. VDOT assured the Board that before any development proposal review, new traffic data would be needed, and that any future submittal for comments will be studied in detail. It was clarified that this planned major collector road relocation was suggesting that all trucks would be routed right on Route 11, and left on Woodbine Road to enter the Sempeles site. Car traffic may enter the site directly from Rest Church Road, and that both cars and trucks could exit the Sempeles site at the proposed intersection. At the end of discussion, the Board of Supervisors recommended to schedule the proposed amendment to the NELUP for relocation of a planned major collector road and to include business land use for Public Hearing. ACTION AND SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION 10/01/03 PUBLIC HEARING Pending U:\COMMITTEES\CPPS\Projects\2003 Projects\Sempelse AmendmentNELUP\phSempelesPCreport.wpd Sempeles Property a � � *k _Subject Property M2 nr_ •; b t - W�oab;�e•Ra S M1' N OA 0 OA 0.8 Miles 9:38 AM, Thu 21 August 2003 FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NELUP ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003 ADOPTED AUGUST 13 2003 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan The northeastern portion of Frederick County has been studied on three occasions io 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 this portion 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 planned unit development (PUD) land use designation was introduced. 1995 Land Use Study 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. 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 excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan ADOPTED AUGUST I3, .2003 plans in this area led the Board of Supervisors to direct the CPPS to revisit the previously adopted k 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. excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan ADOPTED AUGUST 1.3, 2003 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 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. excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan ADOPTED A UGUST I3, 2003 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 2002 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan is intended to expand upon and supercede elements of the 1995 and 1999 Land 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 planned unit development (PUD) 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 PUD uses in a well-planned, coordinated manner. Industrial land uses are proposed adjacent to the railroads 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 planned unit development (PUD) land use designation in the southeastern portion of the S WSA. 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. excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan ADOPTED AUGUST 13,200 Additionally, business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impacts_ The planned Unit Development (PUD) land use is proposed in the southeastern portion of the study area, immediately south of the Stephenson Rural Community Center. The PUD is envisioned to include residential, commercial, and office components, of which a maximum of 50% of the land area would be non-residential. The PUD is proposed as an alternative land use from the typical suburban residential development patterns that have occurred in the past. The PUD concept is intended to promote land use patterns that allow for internal service, employment, and intermodal transportation opportunities with public open space linkages between various developments. Public uses such as school, parks, and fire and rescue facilities should be provided for within the PUD. As with all development, it is vital that the PUD 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 planned unit development (PUD) land use concept would enable a large scale community. The associated residential aspect of a PUD would necessitate its inclusion within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA). Therefore, the UDA has been expanded to incorporate the land areas designated for the PUD. 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 (2nd Battle of Winchester), Kenilworth (34-113), the Branson House (34-137), Milbum (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 excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan ADOPTED A UGUST 13, 2003 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 planned unit development (PUD) land uses identified in this land use plan are recommended to be developed with public water and sewer service. 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, commercial, and planned unit 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 planned unit 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, commercial, and planned unit development 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 excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan 1 ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003 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 either side byproposed industrial, commercial, and planned unit development 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 planned unit 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 may 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 necessitate 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 adjoining localities to utilize existing infrastructure, the development of new treatment facilities forwater extraction and sewertreatment, orpublic/private partnerships to develop necessary infrastructure. excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan CORRESPONDENCE FROM G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers - Land Planners - Water Quality 20 May 2003 Board of Directors: Mr. Eric Lawrence President: Frederick County Planning Thomas I O'Toole, P.E.Vice 107 N. Kent Street Presidents: Charles E. Ntaddoy, Jr., P.E. Winchester, Virginia 22601 Earl R Sutherland, P.E. Rouald A Mislowsky, P.E. RE: Northeast Land Use Plan David I Saunders, P.E. Directors: Rest Church Road Intersection WilliamL'Wri& Michael A. Hammer Dear Eric, Thomas W. Pnce In the process of preparing a land use plan for the Sempeles property, we have been advised by VDOT of an implementation issue which may require the adjustment of the comprehensive plan. Attached is a plan showing the area under study. The issue involves the short distance between the Interstate 81 northbound lane off ramp/on ramp intersection and the U.S. Route 11 intersection on Rest Church Road (Point A). The combination of the through and left turn movement of eastbound truck traffic on Rest Church Road may cause a conflict at the Interstate ramp due to the limited stacking length available at the U.S. Route 11/Rest Church stoplight. DOT has recommended that truck through movement be directed by a right turn south on Route 11 to a left turn on Woodbine Road (Rt. 669) at Point B. This will require Woodbine Road to be established as the major collector road in the comprehensive plan and the current major collector deleted from the plan. Truck traffic would enter the Sempeles industrial site via an entrance at location C which may be adjusted from the location shown due to master plan or end user requirements. Car traffic would continue to be allowed through movement eastbound at Point A. Westbound car and truck traffic at Point A would be allowed normally. Attached is the VDOT comment, an update TIA describing this change and graphics which show how the northeast land use plan could be revised to address this concern. We request consideration of this change be included as a part of the update to the comprehensive plan. Sincerely yours, gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. a'dolo^ � ^C.� Jr., P_E.,EVice sident CEM/ld' Enclosure cc: Mr. Lloyd Ingram, VDOT, Edinburg Residency Mr. George Sempeles 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcaram@earthlin1net MemberAmerican Consulting Engineers Council G PROPOSED ZONING AREA 9-2 ZONING M 1 ZONING 94.75 Ac T»T,q 1 e race rn z �5 A,. !� i M I r VJ. I J AV \r I lM. f � 1 _ 1 _ , r � J LJ 1/ 2bmd Y-1 Adbr tdrd Y -I SEMPELES PROPERTY gilbert w, clifford do associates, inc. a GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN EhOmm. Lwd M, • Y Ww May 117 E Fbo* St tom; � 22601 fREGL�I?YLW CaiM17Y, MR�^M4i4 ' i� W-2119 FAIE (5!0) 665-0493 FHIO.: pmm4eortfit.eom EXISTING MAJOR COLLECTOR LOCAT WN 16 T J ti 4 PROPOSED TTA TION R PLAAEVISION NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN N3 C EXISTING ROAD PLAN cN FREDERCK CoLlvrY WG/N14 SEMPELES PROPERTY gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. =,d,W8 LAnd Pbnners Wedw MAY 117 f. Picadily St. *A=W. *460 22601 E 15401667-2139 ROL (50) W -W DAML gwmwdwWmLc COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG "RESIDENCY Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE JERRYA COPP COMMISSfONER EDINBURG, VA 22824 RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 April 28, 2003 VDOT Comments to Sempeles Rezoning The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have considerable measurable impact on Routes 11, 669 and I-81 interchange. Routes 11 and 669 are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the rezoning application dated February, 2003 address transportation concerns associated with this request. The proposal dose not address the short vehicle stacking distance available -between Route 11 and the north bound on and off ramps of I-81. It appears that if more than three (3) trucks are waiting to cross Route 11 to the Sempeles site, the intersection of Route 669 and the on and off ramps of NB I-81, will -be closed until this traffic clears. VDOT finds this scenario unacceptable. This concern has been brought to the attention of Mr. Sempeles during an informal meeting held on March 20th, 2003, and he is looking into the possibility of using Woodbine Road for inbound truck traffic. This may mean some improvements at the intersection of Route 11 and Woodbine Road. VDOT -also finds that three (3) full commercial entrances along north bound'Route 11 are too many due to the amount of traffic and would like to work with Mr. Sempeles to produce a safer as well as efficient access to his site. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip. Generation Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, -and off- site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work preformed on the State's right-of- way.must be covered. under -a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Lloyd A. IngsaA Transportation Engineer Nrrminin nnT Rezoning Comments 4Prnpeles Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to- Virginia�Dept. of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Hand deliver to: Virginia Dept. of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer . 14031 Old Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: c/o C. E_ Maddox,Jr PE VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Location of.Property. East and adjacent to intersection of U.S. Route 11 and Route 669 (Woodbine Road) Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: B-2 Acreage: 9.00 RA M-1 94.75 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments See attarhPd MOT rlator7 3C`::Iri, .21g, VDOT Signature tion 04/28/0 Ut 4anoc3ptran naas 208 Church Street, S.E. Phone: 703.777.3616 Leesburg, Virginia Fax: 703.777,37?5 20175 To: Sempeles Property File From: John Callow, PHR+A Date: May 9, 2003 Re: An Addendum to: A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Sempeles Prober Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document as an addendum to: A_Traffic Impact Analysis of the Sempeles Property, by PHR+A, dated December 16, 2002. Subsequent to -the December .16, 2002 report, the Sempeles Property development plan has been modified to include truck access along Woodbine Road via Route 11. In -an effort to address the corresponding traffic impacts, PHR+A has provided the following documents: 1) revised development -generated tri assignments, .gnments, 2) revised 2012 build -out ADT (Average Daily Traffic) and AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes and 3) revised 2012 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The trip distribution percentages for the revised Sempeles Property remain consistent with that of the December 16, 2002 traffic impact study. PHR+A has provided Figure 1 to show the revised development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments along the study area roadway network. 2012 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS PHR+A has provided Figure 2 to show the revised 2012 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 3 shows the respective build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are attached to the back of this memorandum. Traffic volumes along Woodbine Road were interpolated from 2001 VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) traffic count data. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the revised Sempeles Property development are acceptable and manageable. All stud_ y area intersections maintain levels of service `C' or better for 2012 build -out conditions. An Addendum to: A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Sempeles Property PH May 2 f 4 R+ 1Page 2 of 4 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) TripsA'verage Daily An Addendum to: A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Sempeles Property May 9, 2003 Page 3 of 4 No Scale o w 4 1143 g est Church Ro ��45p 4 �� (325) ad (223)267 / Rest Ch Bch Road L IS 7(4 (423) 7 �� �� 48 (6 3) ' P H O 11 669 Rest Ch O arch Road N ° (6 33(80 (34p )18 I 7(8p641� (88)"99 °ti SITE j� t� O 1" 4Z(CD2) oodb. Road h : , Av era Dai!} Trips Figure 2 . 2012 Build -out Traffic Conditions An Addendum to: A Traffic Impact Analysis ofthe Sempeles Property May 9, 2003 Page 4 of 4 rj \ No Scale U 0 (C)C� Rest Church C(C) Road (C)C Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) as 669 Rest Church Road -I- PHI2A /Signalized � \ Intersection Rest LOS = C(C) chwch (C)C� V 11 Signalized C) Intersection LOS = C(C) (C)C Z► SITE 4 r� .x. �Q Unsignalized Intersection oodb e Road AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement Figure 3 2012 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service Ron Mislows From: 'Ingram, Lloyd" <Lloyd.ingram@VirginiaDOT.org> T <gwcaram@earthlink.net> Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:12 AM iect: Sempeles Rezoning Addendum ,ntion: Mr. Charles E. Maddox, P.E., V.P The addendum you have submitted for review provides a significant improved Row of traffic and a reduction of congestion (projected LOS of "C" at all Intersections) at the intersection of Route 669 and the north bound ramps of Interstate 81. This change, along with a partial signalization agreement at the Route 11 and Woodbine Road intersection will provide a plan that VDOT -an support. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on this addendum. loyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer JDOT -- Edinburg Residency 'ermit & Subdivision Section 14031 Old Valley Pike dinburg, VA 22824 '540) 984-5611 - ;540) 984-5607 (fax) Page 1 of l COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission r FROM: Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator RE: Request of Exception - Walter L. Gallahan DATE: September 15, 2003 Mr. Walter Gallahan is requesting a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance requirements to enable approval for a boundary line adjustment on his property and an adjoining property owned by Ms. Mary K. Heironimus. The properties are located at 2375 and 2417 Brucetown Road (Route 672) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This proposed boundary line adjustment is illustrated on Exhibit "A." Mr. Gallahan currently owns approximately 10.03 acres and Ms. Heironimus owns 1.77 acres. Both properties contain an existing dwelling. The boundary line adjustment would add approximately 0.59 acres to Mr. Gallahan's parcel, while Ms. Heirommus' parcel is reduced by that amount. Mr. Gallahan has stated the reason for the boundary line adjustment is to provide a fee simple ownership access to Brucetown Road. Currently, Mr. Gallahan accesses his property via an ingress/egress easement over Ms. Heironimus's property. Only Ms. Heironimus's parcel contains a minimum of 250 feet of road frontage, while Mr. Gallahan has no road frontage. If Mr. Gallahan has the intent of further subdividing his property, a fifty -foot width of road frontage would be satisfactory to enable a future subdivision instead of the proposed 130 feet requested. Approval of the waiver request would enable the Gallahan property to be further subdivided Included in the agenda is a letter dated July 31, 2003, received from Mr. Mike Artz, the surveyor of record and waiver applicant, which requests multiple waivers to the subdivision ordinance to enable the proposed boundary line adjustment. In accordance with Chapter §144-5 of the Subdivision Ordinance, Mr. Gallahan is requesting an exception to § 165-54A and § 165-56B of the zoning ordinance to: Enable a boundary line adjustment of a parcel of land which is less than five acres in area to become smaller in area. (§ 165-54A) Allow an exception for both parcels to have less than the 250 feet of State road frontage. (§ 165-56A) Allow an exception to the 4:1 depth -to -width ratio on Mr. Gallahan's parcel. (§ 165-56B) A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors is requested. PTD/bad Attachments O:\Wgendas\COMMENTS\Waivers\Gallahan waiver reporr.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street ! Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 WAIVER/EXCEPTIONS REQUEST APPLICATION 1. Applicant: r''nn '/ Name: /Vt I ke- Telephone Address: 1 b C k-/ —, OGGq- F71 k_�. W t ns G esTce'L 'JA- 2. Property owner (if different than above): Name: VV Prt.Tt4E L' - CA L�-AAO, Telephone: 6- & 2 ' 6 1 g(S Address: _,7 %S O(Z-J�CT6 L-J►J 26AU C_Le. A 2>;�,,26a v__ 3. Contact person (if other than above): Name: Telephone: 4. Waiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): ;GS -S --.It? 1611:ri__5(1 165'-155; ;- 5. Property Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): �� 7 S .2 K t -7 pit JGt Taw N Md — IV of Fo217 F_[7 �JZX 6&7) L/ -.r. &,;,. 6. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number Magisterial District: S y 7. Property Property zoning and current use: Zoned: Current Use: rZZ1z, , :::,2� T 1 19L_— 8. Attachments: Adjoining Property Owners List District V/ Existing/recorded and Proposed Plats V OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $500 enclosed: 7z� /1- 6 3 Receipt #: 0 0 3(3 0 9. List of Adjoining Properties: The following names and addresses are all ofthe individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the waiver or exception is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application. FE y ft - 6,¢1s,Vonl Address Z-) 1-2- G . 11uc44 -17- 1 rHO Et -SIX A Z- 850 Z& Property ID # '3 4- - A - C I Ll -t Ann Address z4-7? 13racctoura led. VA ZIL Property ID #SSA- �L�Gtf�2� G. Pu►�Ew Address 2cx>I Tarcce'r0W J 04 CLeturIc7r ek- VeSZG Property ID # 5 -ft -S 7 20 f'3 �ri-T i3 eR G G rzE�l Address Z q 5°l —Oroc e-fo w 4 C Lew.rb a Je- VA' Property ID # 4 -5 - j,-Me,s N p ur+skte w Address -,7 r*r-1 ca7-0 W J JZd- Ck4C-e6 ,dk- VA- 2 Property ID # 4 95, —A— 5 3 DAv-r-erI•t_ Mac 4-6Z Address 2--3r73 1✓rvc¢-{e�rn (T -d CLe�. -bc�(G VA - Property ID # 4 '�i - t O - Z (j�( 2y fl. (LINEe Address f24. CkrgraaP-'- VA - Property ID # '34A - 41 - Z H UN T E r- aEAC Address 2gog ltd- Cleat -k wV-- VA- fA-Property PropertyID # 34,4 - 4 �3 OAZOAVA W E*2y Address Fp 53 o x rz- 5 Property ID # '-,774,k - LI - ,JAIne S V,4-rTEIL5.0N Address ZLf3`i- fSrJc4'OWtJ R -d- Clea, -teak_ IJA Z Property ID # - - `'k -5 Address Property ID # JUL 1 8 2003 - Page 2- 5- .V ;27 a Z� Artz A55001AC5, P.L.C. 16 East Piccadilly Street Wmche5ter, VA 22601 540-667-3233 540-GG7-91 88 (Fax) Toll free 800-755-7320 mikeartz@5heritel. net July 31, 2003 Patrick Davenport Subdivision & Zoning Administrator Frederick County RE: Waiver Request Patrick, My client, Walter Gallahan is requesting approval of a boundary line adjustment between his property (TM #45-10-4) and the property of Mary Heironimus (TM 445-A-52). The subject properties are located at 2375 and 2417 Brucetown Road. It is Mr. Gallahan's intention to acquire a portion of the Heironimus property for the purposes of providing a new means of access to his property which has no frontage on Brucetown Road and currently utilizes an existing right-of-way for access. Please consider this letter a formal request for a Waiver of the following Sections of the Frederick County Zoning Code 1. Section 165-53. Minimum lot size. An exception is requested for the remaining Heironimus parcel which is proposed to be 0.985 Acres. 2. Section 165-56. Minimum width. An exception is requested for the Heironimus parcel (proposed width of 217.98 feet). 3. Section 165-56. Minimum width. An exception is requested for the Gallahan parcel (proposed width of 130.83 feet) 4. Section 165-56. Maximum depth. An exception is requested for the maximum depth of the Gallahan parcel (approximate proposed depth of 740 feet exceeds maximum four to one ratio of 523.32 feet. Sincerel 7�� Michael M. Artz, L. S. 4s io 4 672 CANNON 34 A 93C o As MILLER 1 45 10 2 GALLAHAN 45 10 4 HOUNSHELL, MONTE JAY 45 A 50 HEIROHMUS 45 " 32 45 A 55A CAMPBELL ��•v�°y P WAIVER REQUEST w BERGGREN WALTER L. GALLAHAN 45 10 3 PIN: f 45 A 57 PURCELL 45 — A — 52 45 - 10 - 4 b eP Q. •�pp W�E •Y 9 Q P 0 50100 Feet EXHIBIT "A" BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT of TWO PARCELS Walter L. & Monica D. Gallahan Deed Book 878, Page 1201 TM #45-104 Mary K. Heironimus Deed Book 781, Page 387 & Deed Book 308, Page 634 TM #45-A-52 June 18, 2003 Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia 661 � CETOWN VICINITY SKETCH W r•encn crtovt CJ INN rARMS lcelowlfi A tow, 668 � �,� qp •s JaUhers 0� 667 67 �' 661 � CETOWN \ W r•encn crtovt CJ INN rARMS tow, 668 � �,� qp JaUhers 0� 667 67 �' NUKVEYUK•N ULKID'IUAIIE: I, Michael M. Artz, a duly authorized land surveyor, do hereby certify that the lands hereby adjusted is in the names of Walter L. & Monica D. Gallahan and Mary K. Heironimus and was acquired by them as stated in the Owner's Certificate. I further certify that these tracts are properly and accurately described and are within the boundaries of the original tracts. Certified Land Surveyor OWNER'S CERTIFICATE: The undersigned fee simple owners hereby certify that the land herein adjusted is all of the land acquired by Mary K. Heironimus as follows: by deed dated July 18, 1992 and recorded in Deed Book 781, Page 387, and by deed dated March 22, 1965 and recorded in Deed Book 308, Page 634, and all of the land acquired by Walter L. & Monica D. Gallahan by deed dated April 22, 1997 and recorded in Deed Book 878, Page 1201. Said deeds being of record in the Clerk's Office of Frederick County, Virginia. This Boundary Line Adjustment as it appears on the accompanying plats is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners of said land and the same is hereby confirmed and submitted for record in the Clerk's Office of Frederick County, Virginia. Mary K. Heironimus Walter L. Gallahan Monica D. Gallahan r ' NOTARY CERTIFICATE: J,I // / STATE OF VIRGINIA; CITY/� OF A/ ?4A�r le1� to -wit: The foregoing owners consent and dedication was acknowledged before me this day of Q� nQi //, 2000 n / My commission expires�o�d&0* .5�1, li Notary Public CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL This Boundary Line Adjustment is approved by the undersigned in accordance with existing subdivision regulations and may be admitted to record. date Frederick County Subdivision Administrator _Z�4d:_3 ---- JUL 2003 --- ` -r, _______ � Virginia D nt of ransportation date Frederic County Heal h epartment NOTES: 1. BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON WAS DETERMINED BY A FIELD RUN SURVEY PERFORMED BY ARTZ & ASSOCIATES ON JUNE 10. 2003. 2. THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 3. ALL ADJOINING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED RA (RURAL AREAS). USES ARE RESIDENTIAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4. DRAINFIETDS AND WELLS FOR BOTH PROPOSED PARCELS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED BOUNDARIES AS SHOWN HEREON. AREA TABULATION PRE ADJUSTMENT 0 - POINT TM 45-A-52 1.772 ACRES TM 45-10-4 10.028 ACRES POST ADJUSTMENT TM 45-A-52 0.985 ACRES TM 45-10-4 10.614 ACRES DEDICATION 0.201 ACRES LINE BEARING 11ss DISTANCE L1 N 31-29-7-2- W 150.16 L2 N 3753 36 W 166.06 L3 N 37-32'22" W 50.90 , L4 S 56-22'55' W 197.56 L5 N 33'1 O' 12" W 131.34' L6 N 5-r32'21' E 198.97 L7 N 55-28-52' E 122.50 LS IS 55-59-15' W 198.30 L9 N 33' 10 12 W 129.58 It, N 33"10'12 W 129.96' L10 N 33'1012 W 130.83 L11 S 5559 01 W 25.03 L12 N 5-r32'06' E 1 25.00 CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH I CHORD BEARING DELTA ANGLE C1 4625.24' 88.94' 88.94- 1 N 31'48'35" W 01'06'06" CCW C2 4650.24- 1 88.40- 88.40• 1 N 31'49'06- W 1 01'05'21' CCW N/ 34 -A -93C SHELLEY G. CANNON 973/138 USE: VACANT IRF SS 4�6_ E 8-- 10.30 45-10-2 - 11ss DARRELL L. A Ino ACRES KELLEY L. 4n TM #45-10-4 DB 878, PG 1201Ct67Q`"" MILLER X 540-- ° FA7( SI<) -667-9188 THIS DEED #010018250 UNE Is HEREBY V) fo VACATED 2 THIS NEW J C UNE IS HERCREATE POST L3 0.3 M.+ - TO ROCKY FORD ROAD (VA RTF- 672) TE672) IRF �I0 J 80.4 L 10 IRS N IRS , 45-10-4 10.614 EDwIg.g ACRES wg N 33'55'06" W 45-A-52 3 Artz and Associates, PLC 0.985 0 Ino ACRES OD sumlym U"° P`" ew °'` 16 Fmt P.crn61y Shat `"°7TEL540-W-32.33 TM #45-10-4 DB 878, PG 1201Ct67Q`"" X 540-- ° FA7( SI<) -667-9188 F to � IPF LI V) U POST FOUND Existing Dwig. DDJ L9 IRS C2 L5 v L9---'—c-j-'� BRUCETOWN ROAD (VA RTE. 672) EXIST. 30' PRESCRIPTNE R/W SHEET 2 OF 2 45 -A -55A WILLIAM E. h NAIL IN DIANE J. WHITE OAK CAMPBELL 950/1257 N O .c3 T,; 453.78' 45-10-3 ROBERT A. h MARY L. BERGGREN 849/1462 45-A-53 JAMES O. JR. A ESTHER E. !C HOUN5HELL 298/270 0.201 ACRES HEREBY DEDICATED TO COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 25• STRIP FINAL PLAT BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN ' GALLAHAN & HEIRONIMUS STONEWALL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" : 200' DATE: JUNE 18, 2003 PRESENT OWNER: 45-A-57 RICHARD C PURCELL 462/593 i MICHAEL M. ARTZ y No. 1951 7 11/D� .A D SUR`I��O MARY K HEIRONIMUS Artz and Associates, PLC TM #45-A-52 DB 781 PG 387, DB 308, PG 634 . SubddEmT of v.vy Enxine—bM. PLC WALTER L. cit MONICA b. GALLAHAN sumlym U"° P`" ew °'` 16 Fmt P.crn61y Shat `"°7TEL540-W-32.33 TM #45-10-4 DB 878, PG 1201Ct67Q`"" X 540-- ° FA7( SI<) -667-9188 PROJECT 120617 1 FREE 1-800-756-7320 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM :f Frederick County Planning Commission Jeremy Camp, Planner II YL`, Discussion - Interstate 81 Improvement Projects September 30, 2003 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is currently deliberating with two separate business consortiums about their proposals to improve Interstate 81. These companies are Star Solutions and Fluor Virginia, Inc. Both companies submitted their proposals to VDOT under the authority of the Public Private Transportation Act of 1995 (PPTA), which allows agencies of the Commonwealth of Virginia to procure services of private companies. As required by the PPTA, all local jurisdictions that are affectedby such proposals have the opportunity to review and comment on these proposals within a 60 -day period starting when the proposals are received by VDOT. These proposals were received by VDOT on September 5, 2003. Therefore, Frederick County has until November 4, 2003 to provide VDOT with comments. The Star Solutions proposal is a long term solution to the transportation problems of I-81. Star Solutions proposes to build 10 lanes from Kernstown to Stephenson, and eight lanes in the remainder of Frederick County. This would consist of at least four lanes in each direction. Two of these lanes would be truck -only lanes and two would be car -only lanes; thus, separating car traffic from trucks. However, trucks would be required to use the same exits as cars, except at I-66, where there would be a separate truck exit. To fund the project and to make a profit, Star Solutions would be establishing a toll system for trucks only. No cars would be tolled so long as the 1.6 billion dollars in public funds is contributed to the project. The Fluor Virginia's proposal is less road, but a practical solution to the I-81 transportation problems. Fluor proposes four lanes from Papermill Road to Stephenson, as well as, in the vicinity of I-66. Three lanes in each direction would be built elsewhere in the area. At least one of these lanes in each direction would be a car -only lane. Truck tolls are less with the Fluor proposal, but a toll is required on cars. No public funds are required for the Fluor proposal. 107 North Kent Street a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 The Planning Staff has evaluated both detailed proposals, and is ready to facilitate discussion with the Transportation Committee, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors so official comments can be submitted to VDOT for their consideration. To assist you in reviewing these proposals, staff has prepared a bulleted information sheet which compares the two projects. This information sheet can be found on the following page. On the page after the information sheet, please find comment sheets. These are the comment sheets which VDOT provided to Frederick County for comments. You may either provide staff with your comments on this sheet or in conversation during the upcoming Planning Commission Meeting on October 15, 2003. Information relevant to Frederick County for both projects is also attached for your information. The full detailed proposals for each project can be found at the VDOT website (littp: //vi.rginiadot. oi p/infosen,i ceiis-I-R 1protiosal s. asp). All comments received will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Ultimately, the County will be forwarding comments to VDOT for their consideration. Staff is not necessarily seeking to learn a proposal preference, but is seeking to learn the pros and cons of each proposal. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. General_ Comparison of Fluor and Star Solutions Proposals Fluor Virginia, Inc. 24 relocations of homes and businesses locally at least 3 lanes each direction 8 total lanes through City & UDA 1 car only lane, 2 multipurpose lanes 12' shoulders rail improvements in Northern Virginia (NS) electronic tolling tolls on cars and trucks completion in 2014 Frederick County constructed in 2009 VDOT to maintain, 20 year maintenance (optional) security bonding fully accommodates 2020 LOS at least 3.3 billion dollar cost no public funds Both Proposals Star Solutions 56 relocations of homes and businesses locally at least 4 lanes in each direction 10 total lanes through City & UDA 2 truck only lanes, 2 car only lanes 10' shoulders rail improvements in Northern Virginia (CSX) electronic tolling tolls on trucks only completion in 2019 Frederick County constructed in 2019 VDOT to maintain security bonding & 20 year pavement warranty fully accommodates 2025 LOS at least 5.7 billion dollar cost (7.75 billion high) at least 1.6 billion dollars in public funds No relocations or significant upgrades to existing interchanges Not consistent with Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan ( ie. Eastern Road Plan and Bicycle Plan) Not consistent with WATS plan No CD lanes through Winchester or Frederick County U:\COMMITTEES\TRANSPORTATION\Projects\I-81\PC MEMO.wpd Il`,1TERSTATE 81 PPTA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT' DETAILED PROPOSAL REVIEW COMMENTS FOR PROPOSAL BY FLUOR VIRGINIA, INC. Please evaluate this proposal independently of all other proposals. Are the proposed improvements comparable -with any local comprehensive plans that exist for your locality? YES; NO; Please explain: • Does this proposal, on its own merits, warrant consideration by VDOT's Commissioner for negotiation of a comprehensive agreement? YES; NO; Please explain: Are there portions of this proposal that create specific advantages and/or benefits for your locality? YES; ,_._NO; Please explain: Are there portions of this proposal that create specific disadvantages and/or drawbacks for your locality? YES; NO; Please explain: • Are there any other comments you wish VDOT to consider?, Please provide all comments by November 4, 2003, to the following address: Malcolm T. Kerley, P.E. Chief Engineer for Program Development Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, Virgina 23219 FLUOR VIRGINIA, Inc. TYPICAL SECTIONS rL SBL fL NBL .� 4PRv® 10u0fi1 ppgy® R �lr—lOn l..m—i�).sm�--i.�)am--i.�]am M0. ��)am��)am��)am On (In Oein—y O (oT Ua/ On ttn Un Un Un (u'1 Iln I>n On (I.1 n On U7 rOAmSuuaA ( IWmnuVAIN6 OV TBITNM Irim i I..emrM�81N6 imspuaa �( On Os1 DtN as7 iin tLSBL INSIDE WIDENING fLNBL Mm61 WYlD ' ' YIWI.Axa h— a.sm —H F— Asm I rsm T Asm �(--(in (In On (In O((» an (vKRy (In (in (In (01 L an nn arNrx) (In C—INm m (M6�� r...m TMI8W.3 INSIDE & OUTSIDE WIDENING (i SBL (i NBL aTsllallRIME& AV& rc]rR)LNvn, mm Imm gam (in n Or IF In (01 tD7 (>n lD) Ilri 1¢Nmcl DrNnA) (In 1 1 1 7 tIn /In ,- Iae mTM.alAB I.Jm1M181N16 In (rs7 Ds7 NOTE: OUTSIDE WIDENING 1. TRUCK CLIMBING LANES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE OUTSIDE IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN, 2. G).@,& . ANDOD ARE TYPICAL SECTION DESIGNATIONS. SEE PLANS FOR AREAS WHERE THESE APPLY. 3. TYPICAL SECTIONS DEPICT 3 LANE ROADWAY IN EACH DIRECTION. SEE PLAN SHEET FOR 4 LANE LOCATIONS ANO TYPICAL SECTION DESIGNATION. mm - 0 O �jjftYfr*ftWwttwtof TrD(xWtotl(n I]t f ersf aie 81 AIMM Sheet No. 111111:" FLUOR ImpirovemenE S¢udy • T-1 PROJECT NUMBER: ROUTE 0081 YDOr METRIC FROM MP 8.3 TO 324.2 PJOT TO SCALE ... mPSEc-gep.agn 00.959109:�6.OB h— ram--}r.1••—aom—i—r.sn rsm —--r.em--(--rfm (ui R1'n U.1 (Irl On Un On M7 (In r) o (r/ On (In Un 0.1 On r.. ra msnouae( -1 IOa mT.Avnvro h r1FT0]r m emR ` — amafAaHl -4 ��tlrl Un (rr/ On INSIDE WIDENING PROP.gSBL (PAVED MEDIAN W( MEDIAN BARRIER) PROP. (LNBL i EX. fL SBL NIw� i EX. fL NBL'; -aR]aTnl 1'Tao�Le(--'�•Aralxe naeo� nAIs(�we"ac��v°®�(n'�t—nulslnn� emr. Tu(vanuve(aIu_mou�¢erI Pussn(n h— a.sm —H F— Asm I rsm T Asm �(--(in (In On (In O((» an (vKRy (In (in (In (01 L an nn arNrx) (In C—INm m (M6�� r...m TMI8W.3 INSIDE & OUTSIDE WIDENING (i SBL (i NBL aTsllallRIME& AV& rc]rR)LNvn, mm Imm gam (in n Or IF In (01 tD7 (>n lD) Ilri 1¢Nmcl DrNnA) (In 1 1 1 7 tIn /In ,- Iae mTM.alAB I.Jm1M181N16 In (rs7 Ds7 NOTE: OUTSIDE WIDENING 1. TRUCK CLIMBING LANES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE OUTSIDE IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN, 2. G).@,& . ANDOD ARE TYPICAL SECTION DESIGNATIONS. SEE PLANS FOR AREAS WHERE THESE APPLY. 3. TYPICAL SECTIONS DEPICT 3 LANE ROADWAY IN EACH DIRECTION. SEE PLAN SHEET FOR 4 LANE LOCATIONS ANO TYPICAL SECTION DESIGNATION. mm - 0 O �jjftYfr*ftWwttwtof TrD(xWtotl(n I]t f ersf aie 81 AIMM Sheet No. 111111:" FLUOR ImpirovemenE S¢udy • T-1 PROJECT NUMBER: ROUTE 0081 YDOr METRIC FROM MP 8.3 TO 324.2 PJOT TO SCALE ... mPSEc-gep.agn 00.959109:�6.OB I nCeu°siate 81 Improvement Study User Note: Click a colored box below to see engineering plan details for that segment. MP 229 TO 253 I MP 2 3 O 266 I MP 266 TO 286 I MP 286 O 306 I MP 306 O 323 CDUN13ES AUGUSTA DISTRICTS Aluk YrgWo Deportment of TronWtoNen 111111:' FLUOR SHENANDOAH FREDERICK STAUNTON WARREN SHEET INDEX I NOT TO SCALE eet No.l I-3 I nters6alte 81 Affif MOM Improvement Slfudy PROJECT NUMBER: 0081-968-113 SHENANDOAH, WARREN & FREDERICK COUNTIES, STAUNTON DISTRICT VAI SHENANDOAH COUNTY t+ ! 'li�ihS N WA�•,�-+�x' "`_��� ..- S RREN CpUNTY � B r Ia n M M N SB ®® NB @® SB ©® NB ©® SB ©O NB ©® Yrgtdo Daportnant of Tronapartotlon Proposed Pavement SWProposed sBasin _ Widening 111111 FLUOR—=— ___ Proposed Structure Work Proposed -- Existing RAN & L/A Line Retaining Wall Proposed RM & L!A Line Typical Section Designation OA © © OD Number of Lanes 3 4 SB F NB Sheet No. SCALE 1 10000 F__ w 14-7 0 200 m 400 m vooT ME Ric I nEers6afe 81 I>r provemeIInf `; uay PROJECT NUMBER: 0081-968-113 • FREDERICK COUNTY STAUNTON DISTRICT y _ �j t i nmert io m ON :I .s.. "" + /r fill uta m o coCq co 0) SB ©® SB ©® SB ©O SB O® NB ©® NB ©® NB QB Q3 NB A& 3 0 2 r z m to 2 :m ;m -I A 10 LEGEND: ;Proposed WgtnieI)sWhwt of TrwisWtotlon Proposed Pavement SWM Basin Sheet No. _ Widening 1I�1�1 j UOR Proposed Structure SCALE 1 :10000Wo _ L ----- -- Exisr Ing R/W & L/A Line Proposed F Retaining Wail — 1 A_Q Proposed R/W & L/A Line 1`F O Typical Section Designation OA OB © OD 0 200 m 400 m voor Heroic Number of Lanes 3 1 4 D 0 A 2 r z m x m m -4 A m >rnie>r°sifafe 81 Impr®veme>rnf SEu dy PROJECT NUMBER: 0081-968-113W ,.,Ol/ FREDERICK COUNTY STAUNTON DISTRICT SBAO® NB ®Q3 YkplNoOeportnent of iran�portatian Proposed Pavement ' Proposed AlIft Widening hSWM Basin 111111_ FLUOR -9 Proposed Structure Work Proposed -- Existing R!W 8c LIA Line Retaining Wall Proposed R/W $ L/A Line Typical Section Designation ® © © OD Number of Lanes n . n Sheet No. SCALE 1 10000_ 14-9 0 200 m 400 m Our MErr+ic Interstate K PROJECT NUMBER: 0081-968-113 • ` FREDERICK COUNTY 1 STAUNTON DISTRICT Ok�Q I c` � � ➢ 1 iui o W u or _ y 6 • Lu r Z lel o 0 m In N N O p p Nl c') W CL a a 2 2 2 SB®3 SB©® _ SB®® NBAO 3 NB ©G3 NB AOQ3 Proposed Pavement f'• " Proposed I Sheet NO. +YtrgiHoOeporiment of Transyortotfon Widening SWM Basin / / /O� - -_-- Proposed Structure Work Proposed SCALE 1 10000 FLUOR -�� Existing R1W & L/A Line Retaining Wall - �-1 Proposed R/W & L/A Line 0 200 m 400 m vcor METRIC Section Designation OA © © O Number of Lanes 3 1 4 jCG]PSEaCG �. ICIlprove>r>rnearnc / I>runScud '✓" ��� j j PROJECT NUMBER: 0081-968-113 • ii FREDERICK COUNTY i Fi,r e= STAUNTON DISTRICT Ll i t E 8 jai U I _ t�T I1�TII17.Z [Yq e ra 17 m m 0 0 a a � g SBA003 SB Q® SB O® NB ®O3 NB OB O3 NB AQO3 AjokVirptnk Owtowt of ir"wtotkn �� U� Q LEGEND: Proposed Pavement SWM Proposed Widening Proposed Structure - Work Proposed ------- Existing R/W & L/A Line Retaining Wall �� SCALE 1 :10000 Sheet No. 15-2 Proposed RM & L/A Line Typical Section Designation ® © © OD 0 200 m 400 m VDDT MERtIc Number of Lanes 3 , 4 ' ' *91do Dwrtwt of Trwwrtotim l t� nenucr�dfir:. a: i - vmH„flit u SB ®® NB (A) 63) FLUOR InEers6afe 81 PROJECT NUMBER: 0081-968-113 s FREDERICK COUNTY STAUNTON DISTRICT � j /_ . fl LU ttil —_'--- �rrp�amvyrf.� } tr( -� .� ..�•—� _ I�F �",t;� � .� 5 F, - SB ©® NB ©0 LEGEND: Proposed Pavement Proposed Widening SWM Basin Proposed Structure -- - Work ProRetaining ------- Existing R/W & L/A Line 9 Wall Proposed RNV & L/A Line Typical Section Designation OA © © OD Number of Lanes Q , Sheet No. SCALE 1 10000_ 15-3 0 200 m 400 m vDOT METRIC / -- t fir-' �IrV ArAM Iai prove>r>rne>rnf S Cudy PROJECT NUMBER: - 68-1 1 yf. FREDERICK COUNTY 9 i 3 • ;}�� d1 STAUNTON DISTRICT ✓ D / LLI Lu Lu `3 o aY t '�„^ Int.7_�� tI1 .\•� r \_"-, r.rtarestbA�S y 8� w o `77 L I NT -P" - a. a GRADED MEDIAN .7 SB ©OO SB NEI NB © ® LEGEND: Proposed Pavement " Proposed YFgldoOepWtnentofTrpaportation Widening SWM Basin Sheet No. FLUOR �/ ( /O /� ----- Proposed Structure - )J�LU K Work Proposed SCALE 1 10000 -- Existing RM & L/A Line Retaining Wall15-4 Proposed & L/A Line 0 200 M 400 M 7557 WERE Typical Section Designation OA © © Op Number of Lanes 3 1 4 InEerst&Ce 81 a9i_- PROJECT NUMBER: 0081-968-113 s t � - F3dr FREDERICK COUNTY -,�--11Jj11'w STAUNTON DISTRICT ter , r_. E� � 6 _ pip�' I� E.F. .:C Cr—•1 . � .1�4 �r I F ,}_, — LLU�_4I!_t'J =i � `�41r.,�" �_-- • ��� f � ^� �.� ,� :, jf v .. sS"•. -yam ��... ;� � _ ��(� �a .. r �h lit r I CO —�_ J01 -- Se ©® NB ©® LEGEND: Pro�Yirgirie wtnntofTriinwtotion Proposed Pavement SWM sed Sheet No. Widening FLUOR _____ Proposed Structure SCALE 1 10000 _ Work Retaining Wall -- Existing RNV & L/A Line �.� 5 - 15 Proposed RNV & L/A Line J J Typical Section Designation OA QB © QD 0 200 m 400 m war METRIC Number of Lanes 3 1 0 ,I it N .,`t t 11l , RVyt�m�,j tttl,.r.3 r T_ 8 NB GRADED MEDIAN ntersEaCe 81 Improvement Sfudy PROJECT NUMBER: 0081-968-113 V FREDERICK COUNTY STAUNTON DISTRICT 4' w o c ri m IL 2 se AO® NB D � Yirgido Dw rtnent of Tramwtotion I Proposed Pavement SWProposed sBasin Sheet NO. Widening Proposed Structure Proposed SCALE 1 10000 FLUOR UO( }/'�� \ -------Existing R/W & LIA Line Retaining Wall 15-6 Proposed L/A Line 0 200 m 400 m vocr_METRIC Typical Section Designation n ® © © Op Number of Lanes 3 1 4 / y � f - w 2 coLu W 2 `\ DOa 2 / j LZ M se AO® NB D � Yirgido Dw rtnent of Tramwtotion I Proposed Pavement SWProposed sBasin Sheet NO. Widening Proposed Structure Proposed SCALE 1 10000 FLUOR UO( }/'�� \ -------Existing R/W & LIA Line Retaining Wall 15-6 Proposed L/A Line 0 200 m 400 m vocr_METRIC Typical Section Designation n ® © © Op Number of Lanes 3 1 4 Lti ti` a9_ < w ``CC AlIi y ���iIJI �` ///jrr /r yy/^ ` •� "C� 1 `LLtti 1�T1�1A11111„ii>i • ! J If --1 1 11 1 1'--1 =-- .---p M --- 1V -4-1-t iarc -me 3B o® SB ©® NB OA O3 NB OB O3 LEGEND: AMk Yrginiaowrtmmt of Trariwatbn Proposed Pavement Proposed Sheet No. F Widening SWM Basin FLUOR UOR _____ Proposed Structure SCALE 1 10000 _ Work Retaining Wall -- Existing R/W 8� L(A Line 1 C�•7 Proposed R/W & L(A Line 0 200 m 400 m OF METafc 1 J / Typical Section Designation OA © ® Qp Number of Lanes 0 1 4 Interstate 81 Improvement PROJECT NUMBER: Study 0081-968-113 • FREDERICK COUNTY STAUNTON DISTRICT Lti ti` a9_ < w ``CC AlIi y ���iIJI �` ///jrr /r yy/^ ` •� "C� 1 `LLtti 1�T1�1A11111„ii>i • ! J If --1 1 11 1 1'--1 =-- .---p M --- 1V -4-1-t iarc -me 3B o® SB ©® NB OA O3 NB OB O3 LEGEND: AMk Yrginiaowrtmmt of Trariwatbn Proposed Pavement Proposed Sheet No. F Widening SWM Basin FLUOR UOR _____ Proposed Structure SCALE 1 10000 _ Work Retaining Wall -- Existing R/W 8� L(A Line 1 C�•7 Proposed R/W & L(A Line 0 200 m 400 m OF METafc 1 J / Typical Section Designation OA © ® Qp Number of Lanes 0 1 4 I; Interstate 81 r L-- PROJECT NUMBER: 0081-968-113 0 -I -- .----I':. FREDERICK COUNTY t STAUNTON DISTRICT Lu J F- LU - -- CP r r _ _ a a. SB t�BO3 NB ©O3 Ajok�--"—Proposed Pavement Proposed Y(rglnto0eportna�tofTransportotton Widening SWM Basin FLUOR/ (O /1 --_-- Proposed Structure L jLJ/ K Work Proposed -- Existing RNV & L/A Line Retaining Wall Proposed R/W & L/A Line Typical Section Designation ® © © OD Number of Lanes 3 , 4 SCALE 1 10000 0 200 m 400 m SB (D(D NB OA® Sheet No. 15-8 ��_ IR'RIlplL°®vG1Cff Sf><Ajy --- ani PROJECT NUMBER: 0081-968-113 1W ` FREDERICK COUNTY STAUNTON DISTRICT � 669 NOW r uj ui N � a W N f a 0- SB pOO SB ©�3 NB ®O NB ©V Adft Yt¢oto0eporinent of Tronspartotbn "%V®1 FLUOR-0—__ LEGEND: Proposed Pavement Proposed Widening � � � SWM Basin Proposed Structure Work Proposed SCALE 1 10000 Sh@@t NO. -- Existing R/W & L/A Line Retaining Wail Proposed R/W & L/A Line 15-9 Typical Section Designation 0 , ©, ©, O Number of Lanes 3 4 0 200 m 400 in vwT ME= Star Solutions Area of Detail Key to Features 121 Flyover IR Interchange to be Improved 0 Dual Interchange (Separate Ramps for Cars and Trucks) ® New or Replacement Interchange Fq Interchange to be Combined or Replaced ❑ Interchange - No Work Anticipated * Denotes Half -Flyover at Beginning and End of Project SBL CID Lanes General Truck Lanes Purpose Lanes o o,a o VRumble Strips Typical With Collector/Distr Staunto S s Map Not to Scale Median Truck Rest Area I Design Concept Staunton District I� /AB T R II ..... Safer Transport And Roadways I; Figure A - 2 gc�1�r� CO(,uf'i� �N 6kE - Virginia Department of Transportation Interstate 81 Improvements Figure A-7: Proposed Number of Lanes and Location of Widening REA BEGIN n�P < >b R� I' r�+ xrj. PROi�CJE1�.,. F�F�pPq�Et�; u�+li o � I �p , , 00 SIDelk aurSWE ra . 8 236.5 237.5 1 8lanes X 8 237.5 240.6 3.1 8lanes X 8 240.6 242.1 1.5 10 lanes X 8 242.1 243.5 1.4 10 lanes X 8 242.1 242.8 0.7 10 lanes X 8 242.8 247.8 5 10 lanes X 8 243.5 247.8 4.3 10 lanes X 8 247.8 250.8 3 10 lanes X 8 250.8 251.7 0.9 10 lanes X 8 251.7 261.6 9.9 8lanes X 8 261.6 262.6 1 8lanes X 8 262.6 TflTA1 iil iv 26_4 1.4 a , 8lanes X 9 263.9 268.1 4.2 8lanes X 9 268.1 282.2 14.1 8lanes X 9 282.2 286.1 3.9 8lanes X 9 286.1 290 3.9 8lanes X 9 290 292.4 2.4 8lanes X 9 292.4 292.7 0.3 8lanes X 9 292.7 293 0.3 8lanes X 9 293 298.8 5.8 8lanes X 9 298.8 299.7 0.9 8lanes X 9 299.7 300 0.3 8lanes X 9 300 300.1 0.1 8lanes X 9 301.1 302 0.9 8lanes X 9 302 303 1 8lanes X 9 303 304.5 1.5 8lanes X 9 304.5 Ttj9j L LOA 305 0.5 Ftit� EJB �4#! 1.... 8lanes X 10 305 306.8 1.8 8lanes X 10 306.8 308 1.2 8lanes X 10 308 309.3 1.3 8lanes X 10 309.3 310.9 1.6 8lanes X 10 310.9 311.8 0.9 10 lanes X 10 311.8 316 4.2 10 lanes X 10 316 317 1 10 lanes X 10 317 319.6 2.6 10 lanes X 10 319.6 320.5 0.9 8lanes X 10 320.5 324 3.5 8lanes X 10 324 324.2 0.2 8lanes X Detailed Proposal September 5, 2003 A-37 �'k�DE'Rr+"1C t✓aarT}� Virginia Department of Transportation Interstate 81 Improvements Figure A-5: Existing and Proposed Bridge Structures � Y 10.VYti� { Y � ..�:_•C Y � �. n x h Wt��i'i �� } '• �� �=i ���td4,�,i � i }.. - � t �. ` . A w,yy- }iii �L��rrl. lye? 81 2025 SBL ROUTE 0081 NARROW PASSAGE CREEK 282.4 1966 343 35.0 337.3 85.3 Replace 605 6330 ROUTE 0605 RTE 181 282.5 1966 287 29.0 337.3 47.2 Replace 816 6329 ROUTE 0816 RT 81 284.1 1966 289 32.7 352.7 33.5 Replace 604 6328 ROUTE 0604 RTE 181 284.9 1966 269 33.0 313.3 42.7 Replace 81 2018 NBL ROUTE 0081 PUGHS RUN 287.2 1966 135 44.0 164.0 85.3 Replace 81 2016 NBL ROUTE 0081 RTE 642 & DRY RUN 287.4 1966 148 44.0 180.4 85.3 Re lace 81 2019 SBL ROUTE 0081 PUGHS RUN 287.5 1966 135 44.0 164.0 85.3 Re lace 81 2017 SBL ROUTE 0081 RTE 642 & DRY RUN 287.6 1966 148 44.0 168.0 85.3 Replace 81 2002 NBL ROUTE 0081 RTE 600 288.4 1965 112 44.0 128.3 85.3 Re lace 81 2003 SBL ROUTE 0081 RTE 600 288.7 19651 112 44.0 128.6 85.3 Replace 81 2004 NBL ROUTE 0081 RTE 625 288.9 1965 110 44.0 124.3 85.3 Replace 657 6316 ROUTE 0657 RTE 181 289.0 1965 274 29.0 288.7 33.5 Replace 81 2005 SBL ROUTE 0081 RTE 625 289.1 1965 110 44.0 138.8 85.3 Replace 655 6317 ROUTE 0655 RTE 181 289.9 1965 260 29.0 275.6 33.5 Replace 653 6318 ROUTE 0653 RTE 181 290.2 1965 259 29.0 280.8 30.8 Replace 651 6319 ROUTE 0651 RTE 181 291.3 1965 242 35.0 285.4 95.8 Replace 646 6320 ROUTE 0646 RTE 181 292.0 1965 289 29.0 304.8 33.5 Replace 81 2006 NBL ROUTE 0081 RTE 601 294.2 19651 106 44.01 135.5 85.3 Replace 81 2007 SBL ROUTE 0081 RTE 601 294.5 19651 106 44.0 131.91 85.3 Replace 638 6321 ROUTE 0638 RTE 181 295.5 1965 238 29.0 299.5 33.5 Replace 55 1067 ROUTE 0055 RTE 181 296.6 1965 393 35.0 453.4 106.6 Replace 81 2008 NBL ROUTE 0081 B&O RAILROAD 298.2 1965 216 44.0 221.1 85.3 Replace 81 2009 SBL ROUTE 0081 B&O RAILROAD 298.5 1965 216 44.0 219.2 85.3 Replace 81 2900 NBL ROUTE 0081 CEDAR CREEK 299.7 1965 385 36.2 386.8 85.3 Replace 81 2901 SBL ROUTE 0081 CEDAR CREEK 300.0 1965 385 36.2 386.8 85.3 Replace 66 2028 WBL ROUTE 0066 RM 3 0 EB RM 2 & NBL 81 300.5 19641 315 36.01 558.7 50.5 Replace 81 2800 NBL ROUTE 0081 ROUTE 840 300.6 1965 128 44.0 141.1 85.3 Replace 66 2029 EBL ROUTE 0066 RMP 2 0 NBL RTE 181 MA 1964 170 42.0 413.4 50.5 Replace 627 6167 ROUTE 0627 RTE 181 302.4 1965 257 35.0 260.8 56.4 Replace 735 6168 ROUTE 0735 RTE 181 305.1 1965 257 29.0 No Impact 277 1075 ROUTE 0277 RTE 181 307.0 1963 220 48.2 269.01 98.4 Replace new ROUTE 0642 RTE 181 308.0 393.7 42.7 New 81 1 2000 NBL ROUTE 0081 OPEQUON CREEK 309.8 19631 139 5.0 138.8 46.3 Widen 37 1115 SBL ROUTE 0037 RTE 181 310.0 1977 250 42.0 354.3 42.7 Replace new SBL CD LANES RTE 181 310.0 354.3 42.7 New 37 1040 NBL ROUTE 0037 RTE 181 310.0 1964 249 35.0 354.3 42.7 Replace new NBL CD LANES RTE 181 310.0 354.3 42.7 New 81 2001 SBL ROUTE 0081 OPEQUON CREEK 310.0 1963 139 5.01 138.81 46.3 Widen new RTE 0037 RTE 11 310.0 1 180.4 3.7 New new RTE 0037 RTE 11 310.0 180.41--3.7 New 644 61601 ROUTE 0644 RTE 181 312.0 19641 33.01 315.01 42.71 Replace 11 10641 SBL ROUTE 0011 RTE 181 1 313.5 1 19651 292 35.0 No Impact lNot included in stud Detailed Proposal September 5, 2003 ' Width of bridge demolition for widening or replacement. A-17 1 14 W. Y. rr-wc ) Virginia Department of Transportation Interstate 89 Improvements Figure A•5: Existing and Proposed Bridge Structures Detailed Proposal September 5, 2003 ' Width of bridge demolition for widening or replacement. A-18 A �y k tll __... ,fir 660 xF•' k, Y ;.�' 11 1065 NBL ROUTE 0011 RTE 181 313.5 1965 292 35.0 No Im act Not included in stud new AIRPORT ROAD RTE 181 313.5 246.1 42.7 New 17 1078 ROUTE 0017 RTE 181 313.7 1964 279 107.7 210.0 200.1 Replace 81 2004 NBL ROUTE 0081 ABRAMS CREEK 314.0 1964 265 10.0 264.8 58.1 Widen 81 2005 SBL ROUTE 0081 ABRAMS CREEK 314.0 19641 265 10.0 264.8 58.1 Widen 657 6163 ROUTE 0657 RTE 181 314.8 1964 249 33.0 275.6 39.4 Replace 744 61621 ROUTE 0744 RTE 181 315.0 1964 327 29.0 354.3 39.4 Replace 7 1080 ROUTE 0007 RTE 181 315.5 1964 307 94.2 213.3 170.6 Re lace 81 2006 NBL ROUTE 0081 RTE 11 317.8 1964 213 37.01 212.6 85.3 Replace new NBL CD LANES RTE 0081 RTE 11 317.8 212.6 29.5 New 81 2007 SBL ROUTE 0081 RTE 11 317.8 1964 213 37.0 212.6 85.3 Replace new SBL CD LANES RTE 0081 RTE 11 317.8 1 212.6 29.5 New 81 1 2008 NBL ROUTE 0081 CONRAIL 318.0 1964 191 5.0 191.0 38.3 Widen new I NBL CD LANES RTE 0081 CONRAIL 318.0 191.0 46.6 New 81 2009 SBL ROUTE 0081 CONRAIL 318.0 1964 1911 5.0 191.0 38.3 Widen new SBL CD LANES RTE 0081 CONRAIL 318.0 191.0 32.8 New 81 2002 NBL ROUTE 0081 680 RAILROAD 318.1 1964 133 5.0 132.9 46.3 Widen 81 2003 SBL ROUTE 0081 BRO RAILROAD 318.2 1964 133 5.0 132.9 46.3 Widen 672 6164 ROUTE 0672 RTE 181 321.5 1964 239 33.0 269.0 54.1 Replace 671 6166 ROUTE 0671 RTE 181 322.0 1964 258 29.0 298.6 42.7 Replace 669 1 61651 ROUTE 0669 RTE 181 323.8 19641 263 29.0 285.4 66.3 Replace Detailed Proposal September 5, 2003 ' Width of bridge demolition for widening or replacement. A-18 Cali y� Virginia Department of Transportation Interstate 81 Improvements LOS CSD ]Y 4,R 242 !ry#or hdn aT. p6,1 Figure A-6: Existing and Proposed Interchanges Detailed Proposal September 5, 2003 A-31 ars r I F-0 E `Ongif-ropgaed 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 291 Rte. 651 2 2 4 A A Reconstruct Interchange, Rte. 651 Bridge Replacement 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 296 Rte. 55 2 2 4 A A Reconstruct Interchange, Rte. 55 Bridge Replacement 2 2 4 298 Rte. 11 2 2 4 A A Reconstruct Interchange, Rte. 11 Bridge Replacement 2 2 4 300 1-66E 2 2 4 F F New Dual Truck Only/Car Only Interchange 2 2 4 302 Rte. 627 2 2 4 A A Reconstruct Interchange, Rte. 627 Bridge Replacement 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 Northbound Flyover (Milepost 305) 2 2 4 307 Rte. 277 2 2 4 A G SPUI (Proposed as per VDOT design), Rte. 277 Bridge Replacement 2 2 4 2 2 4 310 Rte. 37S 2 3 5A D Replace Diamond w/ New Cloverleaf Interchange, New Rte. 37 Bridge over 1-81, E I Rte. 37 Bridge over CSX, Rte. 37 Bridge over Rte. 11 Detailed Proposal September 5, 2003 A-31 W.Y. Livo Virginia Department of Transportation Interstate 81 Imnrovamank Figure A-6: Existing and Proposed Interchanges Notation Legend. A - Diamond Detailed Proposal September 5, 2003 B - Diamond, One Loop C - Diamond, Three Loops D - Cloverleaf E - Truck, Three Leg F - Dual Truck Only/Car Only G - Single Point Urban H - Trumpet I - Diamond, 2 Loops A-32 init et"g8 S.QC?C1.r�;tte,� 2 3 5 2 3 5 313 Rte. 50/37 2 3 5 A G SPUI (Proposed as per VDOT design), Rte. 50 Bridge Replacement Winchester 2 3 5 315 Rte. 7 2 3 5 D G _ Replace partial cloverleaf w/ SPUI (Proposed as per VDOT design), 2 3 5 Rte. 7 Bridge Replacement 317 Rte. 11/37N 2 3 5 A A Reconstruct Interchange,/ -81 Bridge Widening 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 321 Rte. 672 2 2 4 A A Reconstruct Interchange, Rte. 672 Bridge Replacement 2 2 4 _ 323 Rte. 669 2 2 4 A A Reconstruct Interchange, Rte. 669 Bridge Replacement 2 2 4 _ WV 2 2 4 Notation Legend. A - Diamond Detailed Proposal September 5, 2003 B - Diamond, One Loop C - Diamond, Three Loops D - Cloverleaf E - Truck, Three Leg F - Dual Truck Only/Car Only G - Single Point Urban H - Trumpet I - Diamond, 2 Loops A-32 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 1V1 l V K A lr L U 1Vl TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II DATE: September 30, 2003 RE: Discussion - Pipestem Lots Ordinance Amendment 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 During the months of June, July and August of 2003 the DRRS (Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee) evaluated a request from Greenway Engineering to allow pipestem lots as an alternative lot design in Frederick County. Pipestem lots are desired by the development community because they would allow greater design flexibility during subdivision design. The term pipestem lot, often referred to as a flag lot, is a residential lot with a disproportionately narrow strip of land used for access. Early in the analysis of this request, the DRRS ruled out the majority of different types of pipestem lots as viable options. Members believed that there would be too many problems associated with pipestem lots which utilize shared driveways. In addition, the DRRS believed that allowing too many pipestem lots would jeopardize subdivision design quality. However, the DRRS felt that a limited number of single -lot pipestem lots per development would not pose any significant problems, if appropriate design standards were established. The DRRS recommended the attached pipestem lot ordinance during their meeting in August. The ordinance incorporates several design standards for pipestem lots. The key design standards for the DRRS were limiting the total number of pipestem lots in a development to no more than 5% of all lots, and restricting all pipestem lots except those with single -lot driveways. A hypothetical illustration of the proposed type of pipestem is attached for information purposes. Staff has concerns regarding the proposed draft ordinance. These concerns were discussed with the DRRS during the review meetings; however, the majority of the subcommittee believed that the proposed design standards would be sufficient to control negative impacts. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed draft ordinance for pipestem lots could be improved upon with a couple of additional design standards to address setback and design issues. Staff's suggestions can be found immediately below the proposed draft ordinance on the following page. Please review the attached amendment for discussion during the October 15, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The comments voiced during the Planning Commission's discussion of the proposed amendment will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their direction. 107 North rent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE: § 165-65. Dimensional requirements. T T'__ T d_ mL_ tP' + 1 +,. ' '++ort r__ ,a +n 1, A +r A. *;r,,,.,1 l+r",c+. I'. rIpestenl LUL,. IIIU UbV of LpesLelll 1G La is pGrmiLwu ivt ueLa%lieu LLauiuviiaa iivu�iiis, $iisgle- family detached urban housing and single-family detached cluster housing, if all of the following design requirements are met: (1) The total number of pipestem lots in a residential development may not exceed five percent (5%) of the total number of lots. (2) Pipestem lots shall have a minimum road frontage of eighteen (18) feet. (3) Pipestem lot driveways shall access only one (1) lot. (4) Minimum yards shall be as follows: (a) Front, side and rear yards: twenty (20) feet. (b) Accessory buildings: twenty (20) feet (c) Side yard of lots adjoining pipestem driveway yard: fifteen (15) feet (5) Unless specified differently above, pipestem lots shall comply with all other regulations of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. 165-156. Definitions and word usage. Lot, Pipestem - A residential lot fronting on a public or a private street in which access is provided by a narrow strip of land, referred to as the pipestem driveway yard, which is less than the minimum required front yard width, and located between adjoining residential lots fronting on the same street. ------------------------------------- Staff s Suggestions: A 20 foot setback from other residential lots may be inadequate, because the house on the pipestem lot will be facing the side and/or rear of the house on the adjoining lot. This will limit the potential use of other people's yard space. Staff recommends a 35 foot front setback against all propgM lines which adjoin a residential lot. There is some concern that the current ordinance will allow two pipestem lots to adjoin each other. This would allow two driveways paralleling each other and a housing layout which is inconsistent with traditional subdivision design. Sta, ffrecommends restrictingninestem lots that adjoin other pipestem lots. U. ICOMUIITEESIDRRSIProjects12003TiputemsTC_Disco sionMemo.wpd TO: FROM: DATE: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM Frederick County Planning Commission Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II �}- September 30, 2003 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Discussion - Update of References in Zoning & Subdivision Ordinances The DRRS (Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee) has recommended updating state code and other code references found in the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances which are out of date. The state code references are out of date since Chapter 15.1 was updated to 15.2 a few years ago. A complete list of the references in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances which need updating are listed below and on the following page: Zoning Ordinance Updates: Section Current Page Change From Change To 165-1 16509 15.1-489 15.2-2200 165-2 B 16510 Article XIX Article XX 165-10 16515 15.1431 15.2-2204 165-11 16515 15.1-431 15.2-2204 165-48.6 B 16572.2 165-24 B (7) 165-24 B (8) 165-68 16599 Article XVII Article XVIII 165-129 A (3) 16661 15.1-491 (g) 15.2-2286 165-144 A (10) 16676 15.1-456 15.2-2232 107 North Rent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Subdivision Ordinance Updates: Section Current Page Change From Change To 144-2, Code of Virginia 14405 Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 7 Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Article 6 144-2, Vacation of Plat 14412.1 15.1-481 & 15.1- 482 15.2-2270, 15.2 - 2271 and 15.2- 2272 144-7 14415 15.1-431 15.2-2204 144-15 14418 15.1-466 A (12) 15.2-2244 144-21 B (6)(a) 14429 15.1-466 A10 15.2-2245.1 144-37 14442.1 15.1-477 15.2-2264 144-37 14444 15.1-477 15.2-2264 Please review these changes for discussion during the October 15, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The comments voiced during the Planning Commission's discussion of the proposed amendment will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their direction. JFC/bad U. ICOMM17TEESIDRRSIProjects110031Reference Updates PC_DisemsionMemo_ReferenceUpdates.wpd MW SKTUACI