PC 09-03-03 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
SEPTEMBER 3, 2003
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) July 16, 2003 and August 6, 2003 Minutes ................................... (A)
2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments .................................................. (no tab)
PUBLIC MEETING
4) Master Development Plan 406-03, of Dogwood Landing, submitted by G. W. Clifford &
Associates, Inc., for 25 single-family detached small lots. The property is located adjacent and
north of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), 1500 +/- feet west of the Intersection of Fairfax Pike (Route
277) and White Oak Road, adjacent and west of Sherando Park, and is identified with Property
Identification Numbers 86-A-141, 86-A-142, and 86 -A -142A, in the Opequon Magisterial
District.
(Mr. Camp)........................................................... (B)
DISCUSSION ITEMS
5) Request for Extension of Sewer and Water Services, submitted by M. Willis White and
others, to extend the Urban Development Area (UDA) by approximately 320 acres. This site
includes six parcels of land currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) District. The subject site is
located adjacent to and west of the City of Winchester, east of Route 37, and adjacent to and
south of Merriman's Lane (Route 621). The proposed expansion area is connected to Cedar
Creek Grade (Route 622) by one parcel. The subject properties are identified by Property
Identification Numbers 53-A-91, 63-2A, 53-A-92, 53 -A -92A, 53 -A -92B and 53-A-90 in the
Shawnee Magisterial District.
(Mrs. Kennedy)....................................................... (C)
6) 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 property is
identified by Property Identification Numbers 34-A-2 and 34-A-4 and are located in the
Stonewall Magisterial District.
(Mrs. Kennedy)....................................................... (D)
7) Proposed Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) Amendment to expand the Sewer and Water
Service Area to include approximately 98 acres of land currently zoned EM (Extractive
Manufacturing) District. The property is located on Brucetown Road (Route 672) in the
vicinity of Interstate 81, Exit 321, in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
(Mrs. Kennedy)........................................................ (E)
8) Discussion of Hog Farm Regulations
(Mr. Camp) ........................................................... (F)
9) Other
:7
•
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 July 16, 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; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles
E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Margaret Douglas, Board of Supervisors
Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director;
Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 4, 2003
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
minutes of June 4, 2003 were unanimously approved as presented.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1070
-2 -
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 06/26/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the DP D S discussed buffer zones for pig farms in the
Agricultural District. He said the DRRS is questioning why pig farms should be segregated from any other
farming activity in the rural area. Commissioner Thomas noted that the DRRS will continue their discussions
on this topic.
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 07/24/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed three agenda items: 1) a request to
amend the Northeast Land Use Plan to relocate a major collector road planned in the vicinity of the intersection
of Rt. 11 and Rest Church Road; 2) a request to expand the UDA to include six parcels along Merriman Is
Lane, comprising approximately 320 acres; and 3) preliminary discussions on rural areas study.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - No Meeting
Commissioner Gochenour stated that the HRAB did not meet during the month of July and
she repeated the HRAB's previously -stated concerns about why they wanted to meet on a regular monthly
basis. Commissioner Gochenour reported that during the HRAB's June meeting, it was announced that a grant
application was made to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation to be used to hire a consultant to
provide training to the HRAB. She said the grant has been approved and the staff would like to discuss
implementation of the grant at the August meeting.
Sanitation Authority (SA) - 07/15/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Fisher said the Engineer/Director of the SA, Mr. H. Wellington Jones, reported
that since July of 1998, our area has a 2.86 -inch surplus in rainfall. He said the SA is continuing with the
draw -down test on the South quarries. Commissioner Fisher reported that rainfall has actually hindered the
ability to gather data, therefore, they will continue with the draw -down test for an extended period of time.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1071
-3 -
Winchester Planning Commission - 07/15/03 Mtg.
Mr. Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Planning Commissioner, reported a short meeting
with nothing significant to report.
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, R4 -
Planned Residential Community District, Section 165-72.0, Other Regulations, to allow modifications
of ordinance requirements for greater design flexibility in the R4 District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Stipulations
Deputy Planning Director, Christopher M. Mohn, first explained the function and components
of the R4 District, a planned community concept, which enables the mixing of housing types and choices and
the integration of land uses. Deputy Director Mohn acknowledged that additional flexibility may be needed
by some R4 District applicants to facilitate attainment of their unique vision for a planned community. He
noted, however, that under the existing ordinance, an exemption or waiver cannot be proposed or considered
for a planned residential community, except where expressly permitted by Article 7, which limits exemptions
to proposals for alternative dimensional requirements and alternative landscaping and buffering plans. He said
that an alternative method is needed to provide an R4 applicant with additional flexibility to pursue design
innovations not contemplated by the current ordinance.
Deputy Director Mohn continued, stating that staff has proposed an amendment to Article 7
which would allow an applicant for R4 Zoning to seek modifications to any provision of the code impacted by
physical development. The applicant would be required to provide justification for the request and be expected
to identify the need or role of the alternative standard in the overall design concept; he noted that a blanket
waiver or exemption would not be permitted. Deputy Director Mobn added that the modification process would
occur as a component of an R4 rezoning application and following Planning Commission review, the Board
of Supervisors would consider and approve each modification request on its merits pursuant to the applicant's
justification. He further added that if accepted, the alternative or modified standards would be included with
the proffer statement as conditions of rezoning approval.
Deputy Director Mohn noted that the pending Stephenson Village Rezoning Application
incorporates a series of modifications as conceived by this proposed amendment. However, he encouraged the
Commission to consider the proposed amendment on its own merit as an independent measure intended to
improve the R4 Ordinance for future use. He commented that regardless of the applicability of this proposal
to the Stephenson Village application, an enhanced modification process was appropriate in the limited context
of planned residential community projects.
Commissioner Rosenberry asked if this proposed amendment would not typically come out
ofthe Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). Deputy Director Mohn replied that staff
at various levels considered this and determined that bringing this amendment too well in advance of a pending
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1072
-4 -
project's public hearing may be perceived to be pre -ordaining an action on the request. He said that overall,
it was intended that by bringing the two together, they could be considered without separation and confusion
as to their purpose.
Commissioner Rosenberry inquired if this type of amendment would not typically come to the
Planning Commission initially as a discussion item, rather than a public hearing, especially because of the
sensitivity of the subject, and before the Commission makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Deputy Director Mohn replied that the traditional process would be for the amendment to be initially discussed
by the DRRS, then discussed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors before the public
hearing.
Commissioner Rosenberry asked if this proposed amendment was deliberately tied in with the
pending rezoning application. Deputy Director Mohn replied that the proposed amendment was deliberately
scheduled as staff has scheduled it for this evening.
Commissioner Straub stated that, as a member ofthe DRRS, she was not in favor of deviating
from the usual process of discussion at the subcommittee level; she believed that deliberation of the subject
matter in an informal setting by the subcommittee was needed before consideration by the full Commission.
Commissioner Thomas stated that, as Chairman of the DRRS, the DRRS has been in favor
of giving developers more options to allow innovative development that will, in the end, be better for the
community. However, Commissioner Thomas said that he would not want to see this done as a regular
practice and hopefully, this would only be a very limited exception to the traditional process.
Commissioner Gochenour preferred to have the proposed amendment discussed in a work
session where the subject matter could be openly discussed.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Ms. Diane McMillan believed that because the planned urban development of Stephenson
Village encompassed 2,800 housing units, it should be meticulously planned to ensure that costs equaled
revenues generated. Ms. McMillan pointed out several waivers associated with the Stephenson Village project
that she opposed, as follows: 1) she was opposed to the request to waive the 10% commercial/ industrial land
use to 4% commercial only; she believed it should be 10% commercial only; 2) she was opposed to the waiver
to exclude certain streets in the active adult community from being dedicated to VDOT and for them to be the
responsibility ofthe homeowners association; she was suspect that homeowners associations could perpetually
fulfill the obligation of road maintenance; 3) she was opposed to reducing the road efficiency buffers from 40'
to 25' and maintained by the homeowners association; she was suspect that the homeowners associations would
perpetually maintain the landscaping; 4) she was opposed to the request to waive the phasing of housing types
in lieu of allowing the market to dictate need; 5) she was opposed to the request to waive the master
development plan requirement in lieu of one generalized development plan with numerous master development
plans; she preferred to see one master development plan at the onset which supplied figures on the costs, the
profits, the layout, etc.
Chairman DeHaven reminded all those present that the Commission was considering an
amendment to the zoning ordinance that would permit the various types of waivers requested by the Shockey
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1073
I&V
proposal.
Commissioner Thomas added to Chairman DeHaven's point, noting that the amendment to
the ordinance being considered by the Commission this evening would allow applicants to request a waiver;
it would not automatically grant any waivers. He said that the Board of Supervisors would continue to make
the final decision, after the waiver is analyzed by the Planning Commission and public hearings are presented;
he said that no automatic waivers are granted.
Mr. David Herd, a resident of Stonewall District, believed the Planning Commission needed
to formulate and establish a process with standards and procedures through which a waiver request could be
considered and then subsequently approved or denied. Mr. Herd believed the process should be established well
in advance of considering the pending rezoning request.
Mr. Sam Lehman, a resident of Back Creek District, believed that waivers will determine a
large portion of the R4 Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lehman foresaw a precedent -setting situation being created
by granting waivers for R4 District applicants.
Mr. Roger DeLaughter, a resident of Winchester, believed the Commission needed time to
discuss the code amendment with each other before voting.
There being no other citizen wishing to speak, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment
portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Rosenberry inquired how, procedurally, the Commission could vote on the
forthcoming rezoning application when the code amendment will not be finalized until after the Board of
Supervisors takes action. Deputy Director Mohn replied that the Commission can vote concurrently on both
items, although one will be influenced by the other. When the Commission's recommendation reaches the
Board, it would be the Board's ultimate prerogative to determine what the final action would be for the
amendment, and then, in turn, the rezoning application.
Commissioner Rosenberry inquired if the Commission could legally grant a waiver to one
application and then deny the same waiver to another application. Deputy Director Mohn replied that
modifications, or waivers, are intended to be unique to the concept of the project. He said this request would
not be the first situation where modification opportunities are available for planned development; he said that
most jurisdictions that employ some form of planned community zoning district have provisions for
modifications. In every case, the applicant would have to demonstrate and justify that each modification
requested meets the public purpose of the modified standard to an equivalent degree.
Commissioner Unger inquired if the Commission basically did this same exercise with the R4
District at Wheatlands; he said the Commission considered setbacks, zero lot lines, etc. Deputy Director Mohn
pointed out it was a different scenario because it was R5 Zoning, not R4, and it wasn't modifications, but it
was additional flexibility built into the regulations to allow the product type, which was active adult, and its
unique design requirements.
Chairman DeHaven said that Commissioner Unger's example and the R4 are two different
classifications, however, it was an excellent point because many of the same issues have been raised. He
believed the Commission's goal has always been to offer opportunities, with guidance, for flexibility within
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1074
�'m
the ordinances. He advised that if there is a better way or if there are issues not addressed by the ordinance,
basis _. _ L-..__ h the normal pr. cess.
then the Commission will be in a position to consider them on acase-by-case ua�is t���.,ug
Commissioner Straub again repeated her desire for this code amendment to go back to the
DRRS for deliberation and to be dealt with in the traditional fashion. Commissioner Straub next made a
motion that this code amendment be sent back to the DRRS for study and recommendation. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Gochenour.
This motion failed due to the following vote:
YES (RETURN TO DRRS): Straub, Gochenour, Triplett, Rosenberry
NO: Watt, Unger, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher
(Please note: Commissioner Morris was absent from the meeting.)
Commissioner Thomas reminded the Commission that requests for waiver provisions exist for
the R5 District and there is no reason why those abilities should not exist in the R4 District; he believed there
should be consistency throughout the ordinance. Commissioner Thomas believed the proposed code
amendment presented by the staff contained provisions for requested waivers to be closely controlled and
reviewed.
Commissioner Thomas moved to recommend approval ofthe proposed code amendment. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz.
Commissioner Straub proposed an amendment to Commissioner Thomas' motion.
Commissioner Straub requested that under Section 165-72.0(l ), the last sentence be clarified to state that the
request would go through the Planning Commission and then to the Board of Supervisors to approve or
disapprove such request. Commissioner Thomas amended his motion to include the suggested amendment and
Commissioner Kriz concurred with his second.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
the proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, R4 -
Planned Residential Community District, Section 165-72.0, Other Regulations, to allow modifications of
ordinance requirements for greater design flexibility in the R4 District with a revision to the last sentence of
Section 165-72.0 (1), as follows: The Board of Supervisors may approve or disapprove such request, in whole
or in part, upon recommendation from the Planning Commission.
YES (TO APPROVE): Watt, Unger, Light, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, DeHaven
NO: Straub, Gochenour, Rosenberry
(Please note: Commissioner Morris was absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1075
-7 -
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 -31A, 44-A-292, and 44-A-293 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action - Tabled for 30 Days
Chairman DeHaven stated that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item,
due to a possible conflict of interest. Chairman DeHaven turned the conduction of the meeting over to Vice
Chairman Thomas.
Vice Chairman Thomas stated that before the staff presentation is heard, he wanted to give
Commissioner Fisher an opportunity to make a statement.
Speaking on behalf of Commissioner Ours and himself, Commissioner Fisher stated for the
record that he sought a legal opinion from the County's Attorney, Lawrence R. Ambrogi, regarding whether
or not a conflict of interest could be raised regarding the applicant's proffered Item #5 which contained a
statement referring to Commissioner Ours' and Commissioner Fisher's employer, Shenandoah University.
Commissioner Fisher stated that Mr. Ambrogi determined that it was not a conflict of interest for
Commissioner Ours and Commissioner Fisher to be involved in the discussion and voting on the Stephenson
Village rezoning application. Commissioner Fisher asked for confirmation of that statement from the
Commission's legal counsel, Mr. Jay Cook. Mr. Cook replied that Mr. Fisher's statement was correct.
Commissioner Ours confirmed that Mr. Fisher had the right to speak for him in this matter.
Vice Chairman Thomas recognized and confirmed that the Commission had 11 voting
members present.
Deputy Planning Director, Christopher M. Mohn, stated that the Stephenson Village rezoning
application is a request to rezone approximately 821 acres of RA -zoned property to the R4 District to facilitate
development of a planned residential community consisting of 2,800 dwelling units and 250,000 square feet
of commercial uses with 44 acres dedicated for public uses. Deputy Director Mohn addressed the principal
elements ofthe applicant's proposal for the Commission and its relationship to the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
He stated that the subject parcels are all located within the boundaries of the Northeast Land Use Plan
(NELUP) and are located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Mr. Mohn pointed out
that an extensive review of the NELUP was recently concluded and several alternatives were considered by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, including a proposal to designate the subject parcels for
planned community development. This alternative was ultimately not adopted and the industrial land use
designation remained unchanged. He stated that the planned residential community proposed by the applicant
is, therefore, inconsistent with the adopted land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Deputy Director Mohn next gave an overview ofthe proffered development program proposed
by the applicant, which designates development to occur within five distinct land bays including: Land Bay 1,
land dedication for an elementary school; Land Bay 2, land dedication for a public park; Land Bay 3, mixed
residential use consisting of single-family detached, townhouse, and multi -family units; Land Bay 4, a mix of
unit types for active adult; and Land Bay 5, a commercial center. He reviewed each of the land bays in detail
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1076
-8 -
as proposed by the applicant and the acreage proposed for each. He next described the applicant's multi -modal
transportation system proposed to serve the property which will consist of a major collector road, as well as
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. He said the major collector road will extend from the project entrance on Old
Charlestown Road to its ultimate terminus at Martinsburg Pike, where it will be aligned with the entrance to
the Rutherford's Farm industrial park. He further noted that the applicant has proffered to construct the major
collector road in phases triggered by actual traffic counts collected near the project entrance. Mr. Mohn also
described the applicant's other off-site improvements and monetary contributions for road improvements. He
concluded the transportation discussion by stating that VDOT has approved the transportation improvements
proffered by the applicant, accepting them as a reasonable accommodation of the project's impacts.
Deputy Director Mohn continued by reviewing the nine modification requests to the
inances from the applicant. Generally, those modifications
requirements of the zoning and subdivision ord
included: 1) allowing a larger percentage of townhouse, multi -family, and active adult housing categories; 2)
allowing housing types not currently enabled and corresponding dimensional standards; 3) allowing the
limitation of commercial development to 4% of the project's gross land area; 4) allowing use of the monetary
value of the tot lot facility as a means to quantify conformance with the recreational unit requirements; 5)
allowing the age -restricted areas to develop with a system of private streets and private access roads; 6)
exemption from the requirement of a phasing plan specifying the concluding year of each phase of development;
7) allowing reduction in the width of the road efficiency buffer adjacent to the planned major collector road;
8) allowing submission of a proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) in lieu of a full Master
Development Plan (MDP); and, 9) allowing provision of a series of MDPs to accommodate incremental
development over time. Deputy Director Mohn said the applicant is pursuing these modifications to permit
enhanced regulatory flexibility to enable implementation of the proffered development program for Stephenson
Village. He noted that alteration or disapproval of a given modification would undoubtedly impact
corresponding sections of the proffer statement and the generalized development plan.
Deputy Director Mohn pointed out that Mr. Benjamin Lineberry, representing VDOT, was
available at this evening's meeting, if there were any questions concerning VDOT matters.
Commissioner Rosenberry followed-up on the staff's comment that the subject parcel was not
located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and he read the following statement from the
Comprehensive Policy Plan: "...new planned communities shall be established in the UDA." He also referred
to the R4 District section of the zoning ordinance and read, "...planned community developments shall only be
approved in conformance with the policy of the Comprehensive Plan." Commissioner Rosenberry said that
not only is the proposed rezoning not within the UDA as recommended by the Comprehensive Policy Plan, but
it is also not in conformance with the ordinance. Secondly, Commissioner Rosenberry pointed out that the
waiver requests included in the rezoning application are not in compliance with the adopted ordinance. Thirdly,
Commissioner Rosenberry commented that the Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a balance of various
types of development within a planned community, such as a balance of residential, commercial, and industrial
uses in order to lessen the overall impacts, particularly financial ones, of new communities on the County as
a whole. He suggested that a reduction in the minimum required commercial and industrial portions, with an
increase in residential, may change the economics to the County's disadvantage. Commissioner Rosenberry
inquired of staff if adhering to the ordinance requirements by allowing the land use percentages to remain
unchanged, would not be more to the County's advantage because it would result in more commercial income
through taxes and create less infrastructure burden from residential development.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1077
Deputy Director Mohn replied that when land uses are integrated and balanced, the benefits
obviously go beyond financial ones for the residents of the community, such as being able to internally access
places of employment, places for shopping, schools, recreation, etc. to create a self -sustained community. He
added that the results of the economic analysis conducted with the processing of the pending rezoning
application indicated a positive economic impact regardless ofthe mix proposed; and, in fact, the mix proposed
by the applicant seems to work economically. In regards to Commissioner Rosenberry's inquiry about whether
it would be more economically beneficial to the County if the land use percentages remained as required by the
ordinance, Deputy Director Mohn replied that may be an accurate statement, as additional commercial and
industrial uses would be required.
Commissioner Light inquired of the staff if there was any indication of any possible action,
change, or direction on the Comprehensive Policy Plan from the Board of Supervisors. Deputy Director Mohn
was not aware of any future change or action.
Commissioner Gochenour said it was her understanding that the Board of Supervisors had just
approved a study to be done of the County's fiscal impact model. She believed the true cost of the proposed
development to the tax payer remained unknown.
Vice Chairman Thomas asked the Commissioners if there were any questions for VDOT
representatives. There being none, Vice Chairman Thomas called for the applicants to make their presentation.
Mr. J. Donald Shockey, Jr., of Stephenson Associates, L.C., came forward to introduce his
project team and to present his team's vision for the residential planned community of Stephenson Village. He
introduced the following project team members: Project Designer, James Baish, with the firm The Land
Planning & Design Group, Inc.; Greenway Engineering's President, Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. and proffer
architect, Evan A. Wyatt, AICP, also with Greenway Engineering; Legal Counsel, Thomas (Ty) Lawson, with
the firm Lawson & Silek, PLC; Transportation Engineer, John Callow, with the firm of Patton, Harris, Rust
& Associates; and, Economist, Leonard Bogorad with the firm of Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC. Mr.
Shockey said that Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC was commissioned to conduct a conservative economic
study of the project's impact on County revenues and expenditures.
Mr. Shockey said that according to Robert Charles Lesser & Co.'s study, Stephenson Village
would generate approximately $38,000,000.00 net positive revenue for the County by the time of its build out;
after build -out, Stephenson Village should generate about $3.9 million every year in net positive revenue for
the County at today's tax rate. Mr. Shockey stated that in order to "check the checker," they asked the
County's Board of Supervisors to hire two independent firms of their choosing, at Stephenson Associates'
expense, to verify the results. The Board chose Robinson, Farmer, & Cox Associates of Richmond, Virginia,
the leading accounting firm for local governments in Virginia, and Springstead, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota,
one of the largest, independent financial advisory firms in the United States. He said that both of these firms
validated Robert Charles Lesser & Co.'s study.
Mr. Thomas (Ty) Lawson, attorney for the applicant, gave a brief history on this property,
from its initial industrial proposal to the current proposal of mixed use residential, with R4 District zoning.
Mr. Lawson said the Board of Supervisors recently voiced their preference for mixed use on this property and,
on May 21, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended that the Comprehensive Policy Plan be revised for
this property to reflect its suitability for mixed use. He said that no vote has yet been taken by the Board of
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1078
-10 -
Supervisors to either accept or reject the Planning Commission's May 21 recommendation. He mentioned that
the Board of Supervisors and the public, as a whole, have already determined that industrial is not desirable;
he said the soils for this property are not suitable for agriculture. Mr. Lawson also briefly described the
proposed age -restricted housing types, the active adult and the affordable housing for the elderly, both of which
come with restrictive covenants that conform with state and federal regulations.
Mr. James Baish, President of The Land Planning and Design Group, Inc., identified himself
as the designer of Braemar, a project in Prince William County which is very similar to what is proposed for
Stephenson Village. Mr. Baish stated that many of the design concepts proposed for Stephenson Village were
modeled after successful concepts used at Braemar. Mr. Baish showed a series of slides and he discussed in
detail the guidelines they've established for the Stephenson Village community, as follows: 1) preserve the core
battlefield and open space corridors within the project; 2) provide a diverse mix of housing opportunities for
all ages and economic backgrounds; 3) provide a school and a park site; 4) provide a community recreation
center; 5) provide commercial office and daycare facilities; 6) integrate all elements into a "walkable"
community utilizing a path and sidewalk system; and, 7) establish a community theme with colors, signage,
lighting, and site furnishings. Mr. Baish also discussed the time table for build -out, the density of development,
and design concepts. He remarked that the appeal of this community is that its residents could work, play,
shop, and attend school within walking distance of where they lived. Mr. Baish pointed out that two items
which generally cause concern during rezoning are the generation of school students and transportation impacts.
Mr. Baish assured the Commission, by way of their proffer statement, that if the maximum number of 60
students generated per year is exceeded, they will make an additional monetary contribution to Frederick
County Public Schools. In addition, he noted that trip counters to measure vehicle trips will be placed at key
locations within the community; improvements will be made when specific trip thresholds are reached, assuring
that transportation improvements are in place when they are needed.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP, with Greenway Engineering, came forward to review the
applicant's proffer statement for the Commission. Mr. Wyatt assured the Commission that the proposed
project will develop as described because of the comprehensive proffer statement provided. He explained that
the proffer statement appears in two sections: the first section outlines 23 areas of the project addressing such
features as transportation improvements, water and sewer improvements, community center development,
recreational facilities, and it also identifies certain design standards which will help make the community
unique. He described the second section of the proffer statement as the community design modifications
document, which consists of the nine modifications mentioned earlier in the staff report. He said that between
these two sections of the proffer, the applicant has demonstrated how Stephenson Village will be designed,
developed, and phased.
Mr. Wyatt continued, discussing the details of the phasing plan. Of particular note, he spoke
of the concept of the eight -percent cap on building permits annually, resulting in a 15-25 year project time line.
He next discussed the proffers for the transportation improvements; he explained that traffic counters will be
placed at various locations and after a certain percentage of a pre -determined threshold is reached, the needed
road improvement will be implemented within a designated time frame. Mr. Wyatt described all of the
transportation improvements anticipated for the project. He stated that VDOT has reviewed the proposed
improvements and has provided a favorable comment; therefore, it was Mr. Wyatt's opinion that they had
mitigated the impacts of their proposal to the regional transportation system. Mr. Wyatt next discussed the
economic and development impacts of the proposal to Frederick County, specifically detailing the monetary
contributions for capital facilities impacts. The following items were of particular note: 1) the provision of
rent-free office space to the county for satellite office facilities within the commercial center; 2) the provision
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1079
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003
-11 -
of a $75,000.00 contribution for heritage tourism; 3) the provision of a $200,000.00 contribution to Ciearnrook
Volunteer Fire & Rescue; 4) a monetary contribution per each student over and above the designated cap for
school students generated; 5) the provision of a 50% increase on proffer contributions to fire and rescue for
every unit in the active adult community and 100°o increase for every, unit in the affordable elderly housing
section; and 6) the monetary proffers will be adjusted over time to keep up with inflation. lastly, Mr. Wyatt
spoke about the proffers associated with the environmental aspects of the site, noting the specific expertise they
had commissioned to help with this aspect of development. He talked about the site's two major drainage
areas, the establishment of resource protection areas, rehabilitation through reforestation; their use of best
management practices for the installation of utilities in the commercial areas; and the use of low -impact
development design to promote water quality from storm water run-off.
Mr. Wyatt concluded his presentation by noting the considerable amount of community
involvement that has taken place, the many trips to Braemar with staff, decision -makers, and interested citizens,
and civic and community organization presentations. He said the proposed project defines a center for
Stephenson, brings public sewer to the area, provides for public recreation, a public school, community
shopping, and is a smart -growth community that is both walkable and bikeable, and also addresses the
economic and development impacts to Frederick County.
Mr. J. Donald Shockey, Jr. returned to the podium to make some closing remarks.
Vice Chairman Thomas next called for commissioners' questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Ours inquired if the amount of commercial development proposed for the
Stephenson community would, in actuality, be able to provide employment for the numbers of people residing
in the community. Mr. Baish replied that it would not support the entire community, but will offer an
opportunity for a range of residents who would seek employment at a shopping center, a bank site, a real estate
office, or restaurants, as an example. He said the Village Office Concept would also provide locations for
residents interested in utilizing the 500 square foot "home office" that would be available. Mr. Baish said that
it would certainly not address everyone's needs, however, it addresses the issue in a way most communities do
not.
Commissioner Ours also inquired about Modification 48 which requests the submission of a
proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) and allows for adjustments in the development to be made
based on the market. In light of permitting adjustments due to market changes, Commissioner Ours was
concerned about guarantees that mixed use development would occur, as he believed it is what made this
proposal viable.
Mr. Wyatt stated that the GDP will commit to a certain minimum acreage for various uses to occur.
Commissioner Rosenberry expressed concern about deviating from the percentages established
in the R4 District ordinance for housing types, Modification Request # 1, and for the industrial and commercial
uses, Modification Request 43. He asked if the percentages in the R4 District were derived from other
jurisdictions' experience with planned communities. He stated that when industrial use, for example, is taken
out ofthe equation, the question then becomes one of how much commercial was needed to balance out the land
uses. He was also of the opinion that the heart of the ordinance intended to establish a core business area
surrounded by residential development. Commissioner Rosenberry remarked that he would view this rezoning
application differently, if the UDA was in place, which it is not.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1080
-12 -
Mr. Wyatt stated that they were simply requesting more useable area within the residential
pods for duplexes, townhouses, and condominiums; they were not requesting to increase the number of
permitted units or additional density. He pointed out some existing constraints within the areas defined for the
residential land bays, such as the ravine channel and the Hiatt Run corridor. With regards to the industrial,
Mr. Wvatt stated that attempts to develop industrial in this area have failed miserably. He did not agree that
commerciai within each phase was viable or good design practice; he didn't think there would be substantial
investment from entrepreneurs who would go it alone in a small, isolated portion of a development. He believed
the "community center" concept could be realistically sustained. He added that neighborhood commercial, such
as the daycare center, would be more practical and could occur throughout the development.
Commissioner Light inquired about Modification Request #8 and he asked the applicant to
consider a future scenario where different phases have been sold and any number of problems arise, for
example, flooding or sedimentation. If there was no MDP, he asked who would pay to fix problems that arise.
Mr. Wyatt replied that the purpose for requesting Modification #8 was to take the MDP requirement out of
the rezoning process altogether because it didn't belong there. He said that the proffer statement for the design
requirements is the guide that makes things happen. He said that every time a section of the GDP is realized,
albeit active adult, mixed residential, etc., an MDP, meeting all the requirements of the County's ordinance,
will come before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Commissioner Straub commented that the path of the major collector road proposed for the
community traverses a portion of the battlefield. She inquired if the road could be reworked so it wouldn't
go through the battlefield area; she believed it may compromise the historical integrity of the battlefield. Mr.
Wyatt pointed out that the major collector road will connect to Old Charles Town Road, it will proceed through
the core battlefield area, providing public access onto that property, and then enter the project site. He added
that this road is depicted in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, requiring a connection between Old Charles Town
Road and Route 11 in this area. Mr. Wyatt stated that this major collector road will not only provide access
to the battlefield and the project site, but it will also be designed as a full boulevard entrance with landscaping;
it will not detract from the preserved area, which is the field leading up to the historic ridge line going west
towards the core area of the battlefield. Mr. Wyatt further added that the project team has been working
closely with the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation (SVBF) on this issue; he said the SVBF is aware
of the design proposal and they have not raised any concern.
Commissioner Gochenour expressed her concern that the costs of the proposed development
to Frederick County were not being brought forward. She stated that the County has just recently entered into
a contract to create a Community -wide Impact Model, which will project operating and capital costs and
impacts on the County created by new development. Commissioner Gochenour inquired whether or not the
applicant might be amenable to waiting for the results of the model before proceeding. Mr. Wyatt replied that
this information has already been made available with the economic study they had prepared, which is not a
requirement of the rezoning process. Mr. Wyatt stated that in order to make certain the report wasn't biased
by the group hired by Stephenson Associates to complete the study, the County Board of Supervisors had two
independent reviews ofthe results commissioned, all of which reached the same positive economic conclusions.
Mr. Wyatt added, regarding the impacts to schools and roads, etc., that assurances are within the proffer
statement, which address the results of the required impact analysis report; this impact analysis has been
provided to, and reviewed by, professional agencies. He said that all review agencies are comfortable with
what has been accomplished with the design and, more importantly, with the proffers, to mitigate the impacts.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1081
-13 -
Vice Chairman Thomas next opened the public comments portion of the meeting and invited
those individuals wishing to address this application to come forward to speak.
Ms. Kitty Hockman Nicholas, a resident of Back Creek District, spoke in favor of the
proposed project. Ms. Hockman Nicholas said that over the course of the previous 14 years, she has lived in
many states and she fondly remembered her best experiences living in a development similar to the proposed
Stephenson Village community located in Gilford, Connecticut, called, "Gilford Lakes." She said that Gilford
Lakes offered biking, hiking, boating, swimming, and tennis; the community also offered a neighborhood store,
schools, community organizations, tennis clubs, and many opportunities for friendships. Ms. Nicholas believed
the concept of Gilford Lakes was now here, in Frederick County, with the Stephenson Village proposal, which
offered a secure and recreational way of life. She believed it made good sense for Frederick County to move
with creativity and allow this proposal to proceed.
Mr. Chuck Raisen, a resident of Back Creek District and president of Raisen, Inc., an
environmental consulting company, spoke in support of Stephenson Village and other developments like it
because it promotes walkable communities, which by their very design will reduce the number of vehicle miles
traveled. Mr. Raisen said he was in favor of communities that promote cleaner modes of transportation, such
as walking, bicycling, and car pooling. He stated that this development proposal supports Frederick County's
efforts, through the Air Quality Task Force, to attain cleaner air quality. Mr. Raisen reported various facts
and figures concerning the correlation between the number of vehicle trips traveled and air pollution, wasted
fuel, and wasted time.
Ms. Rita Wilson, a resident ofthe Shawnee District and an area realtor, came forward to speak
in favor of Stephenson Village and asked that the Commission support the rezoning. Ms. Wilson stated that
Frederick County needed to plan for future growth, to design communities to curtail sprawl, to have sufficient
affordable housing, walkable communities, reduced traffic, and a variety of housing; she believed Stephenson
Village would bring these things to Frederick County. Ms. Wilson believed the mixed use development concept
was the wave of the future and ideal for the upcoming baby -boomers market; the large tract of land was in a
good location; the surrounding neighborhoods are in dire need of water and sewer lines; and, it will pay for
parks, schools, and other services.
Mr. David Hurd, a resident of Stonewall District, had several concerns with the proposal, as
follows: the project area is outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA); the Board of Supervisors has not
acted on the Planning Commission's recommendation for multi -use in this area ofthe Northeast Land Use Plan;
the rezoning should be postponed until after completion of the update of the County's Development Impact
Model; concern that a higher ratio of multi -family units was proposed as compared to single-family units;
concern for the lack of business\ industrial park -type uses other than just retail sales; concern for omitting the
MDP requirement from the rezoning process and replacing it with a Generalized Development Plan (GDP);
the need to require the developer to build all the roads to state standards so maintenance by VDOT will be
possible; concern for the outcome of the historic "Byers House;" and lastly, the desire to have the developer
run the entrance road along the property line to avoid most of the core battlefield and two artillery gun locations
at the peak of the ridge.
Mr. Jim Lawrence, a resident of the City of Winchester, the president of Opequon Watershed,
Inc., and member of the Winchester Chapter of Trout Unlimited, spoke in favor of the rezoning proposal and
commended Mr. Shockey, Mr. Goode, and Greenway Engineering for their approach to protecting natural
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1082
-14 -
resources in the Stephenson Village proposal. Mr. Lawrence pointed out that throughout this collaborative
process, all suggestions regarding protection and enhancement of natural resources were given favorable
consideration. He said that the concept of resource protection areas promotes the protection of intermittent and
perennial streams and wetlands and integrates these features into the design of the community while minimizing
the impacts to water quality and enhancing wildlife habitat. He noted that it supports safe, walkable
communities and resource protection areas; the storm water management facilities will minimize land
disturbance and may be utilized for recreational purposes, retaining their aesthetic value. Mr. Lawrence added
that this project represents what he believed was a first attempt at community-based planning and watershed
management for the area. He hoped the project would serve as a model to promote the concepts of low -impact
development and the protection of historic and natural resources.
Ms. Diane Collet, a resident of Stonewall District, spoke in opposition to the rezoning of this
property to anything other than RA (Rural Areas) District. Ms. Collet spoke about the quality of life issues
that drew her to this rural area and that she wished to preserve. She believed Mr. Shockey had been incredibly
fair and patient throughout this process and if the rezoning was approved, she suggested allowing 10% of the
land for commercial use; she pointed out that industry, such as technology and pharmaceutical, are low
polluters and provide high tax revenue. Ms. Collet questioned the ability of the existing community to integrate
with the new community of Stephenson Village. In addition, Ms. Collet spoke of the existing community's
desperate need for sewer and water facilities; she believed that if the existing residents had to put up with the
growth in the community, then the developer should be made to pay for the hook-ups through proffers.
Mr. Mack Rutherford, a preservationist, said he was not in favor of development, but he was
in favor of Stephenson Village, simply because Stephenson Associates, L.C. has agreed in writing to assist in
preserving the Stephenson Depot battle site with walking trails, markers, and artillery pieces. Mr. Rutherford
proceeded to give reasons why the Stephenson Depot battle site was so important to preserve. He said the
property contains both Revolutionary War sites, as well as French and Indian War sites. Mr. Rutherford
believed Frederick County could become a model for the rest of the country by showing how a municipality,
preservationists, and developers could work together to preserve a vital part of the country's heritage. Lastly,
Mr. Rutherford referred to Mr. Hurd's comments and said that no artillery pieces were located in the path of
the proposed entrance road.
Mr. Bill Shepherd, a resident of Gainesboro District, was concerned that the applicant for this
rezoning proposal was asking for unprecedented benefits not given to previous applicants. Mr. Shepherd
pointed out the following inconsistencies of the rezoning proposal with adopted County policies: the property
is not located within the UDA; the NELUP calls for industrial land use' this area; Article 7 of the County
Code limits exemptions to proposals for alternative dimensional and landscaping/buffering plans; the
Comprehensive Policy Plan states that maintaining a Level of Service C or better on roads is the responsibility
of the developer; the applicant has requested to waive the MDP requirement; the nine requested modifications
are essentially a relaxation of zoning rules and may cause a precedent for future applicants; and lastly, what
are the consequences if a homeowners association fails to do the required maintenance.
Mr. Howard Kittell, Executive Director of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation,
came forward to clarify a point regarding the proposed access road and the battlefield. Mr. Kittell stated that
in the Fall of last year, the Shockey Company approached the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation
(SVBF) with a proposal to donate a conservation easement on the core area, consisting of slightly greater than
108 acres it owns, of the Second and Third Winchester Battlefields. He stated that this easement was to
permanently preserve the land by removing the development rights and also, to provide public access to the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1083
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003
-15 -
property for interpretation of the battlefield; included with the package was the stipulation that if the rezoning
was approved, an access road would be included. Mr. Kittell stated that the easement would be held by the
SVBF and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, an agency ofthe Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. Kittell pointed
out that this easement donation will constitute the single largest preservation donation made in the Shenandoah
Valley to date and it will also be one of the largest conservation donations made to date in the Commonwealth
of Virginia. He commented that it was a very substantial issue to have a landowner donate an easement of this
amount of property. Regarding the road, he explained that most National, State, and private battlefield
preservation involves some type of access road onto the battlefield itself, if the road is included, the SVBF and
the Virginia Outdoors Foundation have committed to assure it will have a minimum impact, physically,
historically, and visually on the battlefield and that appropriate archeological surveys are conducted as a part
of the project. On the basis of his 18 years of experience in the field of historic preservation, Mr. Kittell
advised that successful preservation projects have always included some level of compromise and almost every
preservation failure has lacked involvement in compromise.
Mr. Samuel Lehman, a resident of Back Creek District, came forward to oppose the rezoning
of Stephenson Village. Some of the reasons Mr. Lehman gave for his opposition included: he did not agree
with the argument that concentrating large numbers of homes was more efficient, or less expensive, or less
polluting than spreading them over the rural countryside; he insisted that concentration promoted beltways,
congestion, pollution, and high costs; he referred to Stephenson Village as a large, unincorporated city and
argued that it would actually dispossess and impoverish a majority of the rural taxpayers; he believed that
many county citizens could probably not afford the "affordable" housing in Stephenson Village; he believed
the projected impact fees were inaccurate and the county's impact model was woefully inadequate; he
calculated a discrepancy in the dollar amount proffered by the applicant for each pupil in excess of the pre-
determined number of students generated and the cost the county had projected per student per year; and he
believed a high concentration of homes promoted higher crime rates.
Ms. Diane McMillan, a resident of Opequon District, came forward to speak in opposition to
the proposed rezoning. Ms. McMillan made the following comments: Stephenson Village is outside of the
UDA and does not conform with the NELUP; since 1990, Frederick County has received 1.2 million dollars
in proffers, while 11.7 million dollars in real estate taxes have been paid by Frederick County taxpayers during
the same time and she questioned the balance of these figures; she considered the proposed community to be
sprawl, which costs taxpayers; she questioned where the residents in the proposed community would work; she
questioned the impact on roads; she did not believe the proposed development would pay for itself.
Mr. Roger DeLaughter, a resident of the City of Winchester, said that he didn't want to see
what happened in Fairfax happen here in Frederick County; he said Fairfax doesn't have a single working farm
any longer. Mr. DeLaughter warned that Fairfax -like growth was coming across the mountain; he raised
concern for increased taxes and increased traffic.
Mr. David Darsey, a resident of Stonewall District, spoke in opposition to the proposed
rezoning. Mr. Darsey disagreed with the statement made earlier that soils in this area were not suited for
agriculture; he mentioned a timbering operation that was once conducted on the Shockey property. Mr. Darsey
also made the following comments: the proposed development was the beginning of the urbanization of
Frederick County; Frederick County decision -makers were turning the County over to developers; and the
proposed development would expand the UDA by almost 1,000 acres. Mr. Darsey also expressed his concern
about the effects of increased growth on the transportation system, particularly Route 7. He said he has
traveled Route 7 for the last 25 years; he obtained figures from the State Police indicating a 250% increase in
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1084
Orem
vehicular traffic accidents on Route 7 over the last five years. Mr. Darsey believed the proposed development
would increase those figures. Mr. Darsey said he provided these statistics to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. John Goode, Jr., a resident of Stonewall Listrict and Treasurer with the Shockey
Company, came forward to speak in favor of the proposed rezoning and the Stephenson Village community.
Mr. Goode gave reasons why he favored mixed-use development. He noted that over the last 50 years, the
philosophy behind land planning was to segregate uses which, he believed, has caused many of the traffic
problems referred to by the previous speakers because it necessitates someone driving an automobile to reach
services. Mr. Goode believed the mixed use concept was the direction to go for the future and would help to
reduce stress levels. He said that not everyone will find a project like Stephenson Village to their liking and
those who want to live in wide open spaces will continue to have that option available in Frederick County.
He noted that Stephenson Village will occupy just 3/10 of one percent of Frederick County's land area,
compared to the same number of homes at a five -acre density that could possibly use over 14,000 acres. Mr.
Goode believed that many of the reasons given by those in opposition to Stephenson Village for what they liked
about Frederick County can still be retained if people who are willing to live closer together, where services
can be concentrated and efficiently provided, are allowed to do so. Mr. Goode was interested in the fact that
the subject of employment was raised by some of the speakers. Reflecting back three years ago when the
Shockey Company brought the Mid -Atlantic Industrial and Tech Center rezoning forward for consideration,
he remarked that the concept was not supported by area residents. He said that now, there are questions about
why the 10% requirement in the R4 ordinance can not be met. Mr. Goode replied that because the paradigm
of segregation of uses still exists, and with the County's ordinances still reflecting the segregation of uses, it
will take time to obtain the 10%. He predicted that the speed of development of Stephenson Village will be
slow and will cover the next 25 years. In conclusion, Mr. Goode stated that the economic analysis projected
that the area of commercial and office development in Stephenson Village would generate in excess of 600 jobs.
In addition, the residents of Stephenson Village will benefit from the adjoining employment centers of Fort
Collier and Stonewall Industrial Park.
Mr. John Chapman, a teacher at the Civil War Center at Shepherd College in Berkeley County,
West Virginia, came forward to speak in opposition to growth. Mr. Chapman said he has given quite a few
battlefield tours in the Winchester area and many of the tourists do not want to return to this area where this
much growth has affected historical resources. Mr. Chapman believed a precedent had already been set in this
area for development.
Mr. William Lowch, a resident of Stonewall District, stated that he attended the Stephenson
Village neighborhood meetings and some changes are now proposed that were not addressed at the meetings.
Mr. Lowch believed that if any of the roads are intended to be private, they still should be constructed to State
standards, especially in the elderly community. He was also concerned about the number of school children
that would be generated and the possible need to construct an additional school.
Mr. Greg Aiken stated that he and his wife, Toni, were the owners of the historic 225 -acre
Jordan Springs, which is within a Board -approved Historic Overlay Zone. Mr. Aiken said that 61% of his
property directly adjoins Mr. Shockey's property and, therefore, he had a vested interest in what happens on
the Shockey property. Mr. Aiken said that he has a great team of people who love history and love being
involved in historic preservation; he expressed the need to maintain history and to maintain intelligent growth.
Mr. Aiken was of the opinion that everyone can win in this situation if everyone stays united. He believed the
Commission had a realistic point of view in their judgement of the Shockey Companies regarding the positive
impact they've had on the County over the previous 100 years; he believed that the quality of their past
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1085
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003
-17 -
accomplishments was a good example of the quality of development that could be expected on their property.
Mr. Glen Penton, a resident of Stonewall District, stated that if the Planning Commission finds
the Shockey proposal to be appropriate, then the 1,500 acres to the south and west, currently being processed
for this same type of use, would be even more appropriate because of the location, which is closer to the City,
to road networks, and to schools, etc. On the other hand; Mr. Penton stated that based on polis taken,
approximately 80%-90% of the Stonewall citizens do not want to change their rural way of life; they like the
farms, the agricultural area, and the five -acre lot sizes; they do not want high density residential development.
Mr. Penton raised the point that the NELUP has not been amended for residential use in this area and
residential development outside of the UDA is not in conformance with adopted policy and promotes sprawl.
He believed the proposal called for too many units and it would incur costs to the County. He urged the
Commissioners to consider these facts carefully.
Mr. Rutherford returned to the podium and suggested that perhaps the best way to stop urban
sprawl was to work with developers. Mr. Rutherford stated that developers have the means to buy the land
and the means to preserve portions of land. He said that if preservationists and developers work together,
perhaps more land can be preserved. Mr. Rutherford stated that Stephenson Depot is now preserved and the
National Park Service at Gettysburg declared Stephenson Depot the most pristine battle site in the Country.
He said the County should now promote tourism to create a beautiful Shenandoah Valley Civil War attraction.
Since everyone had an opportunity to speak, Vice Chairman Thomas closed the public
comments portion of the meeting.
Mr. Evan Wyatt returned to the podium to respond to some of the citizen comments as follows:
private roads within the active -adult community will be constructed to state standards for VDOT maintenance
and for emergency services accessibility; the access road will meet the geometric design requirements for state -
maintained roads and will be designed to be as unobtrusive as possible relative to the 108 -acre battlefield site;
their proffer guarantees a minimum of four percent commercial use; the Level of Service (LOS) D projected
for some intersections is created by background data alone, whether this project is constructed or not. Mr.
Wyatt added that VDOT believes the applicant has mitigated the impacts associated with the proposed
development and the applicant has contributed their fair share to the regional transportation system because
the improvements proffered do not degrade the system any further than background data would alone.
Regarding the comments on the comparison of money received by the county from proffers
and money paid by taxpayers, Mr. Wyatt stated that the County was not enabled to use conditional zoning until
1989, therefore, many of the homes being constructed in the UDA did not fall under the conditional zoning
provision. Furthermore, he said the County did not have a fiscal impact model until 1991, so many projects
were approved prior to that time. In addition, he said there was a significant amount of residential growth
occurring in the rural areas of the County and regardless of whether a current or new impact model is used,
those units will not pay proffers.
Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that the majority of the concerns raised by the evening's speakers
centered on the fact that R4 development needs to be located within the UDA and that the Comprehensive
Policy Plan calls for this land to be industrial. Mr. Wyatt said that Mr. Shockey would like to address this
issue for the Commission.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1086
-18 -
Mr. J. Donald Shockey, Jr. returned to the podium to address the issue of his project's
conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Shockey stated that, as everyone is aware, the land use
plan issue is still before the Board of Supervisors. In consideration of this matter, Mr. Shockey requested that
the Planning Commission table the rezoning for 30 days to allow the Board of Supervisors the opportunity to
act.
Vice Chairman Thomas announced that if a recommendation to table is made in accordance
with the applicant's request, commissioners can have no additional discussion as a Planning Commission after
that motion. Vice Chairman Thomas pointed out that 15 minutes remained for discussion, before the bylaws
require adjournment, if the Commission desires discussion.
Commissioner Straub expressed the following concerns: she was not in favor of egress/ingress
through the battlefield with a four -lane road; the project was not located in the UDA; the project does not
conform with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; the proposed community will not be economically viable and
residents of the community will be traveling outside Frederick County to work; the 23 to 26 acres proposed
for commercial development will not be sufficient to support the community; the proposed project will
negatively impact air quality, water, roads, schools, and it will increase taxes.
Commissioner Ours read the following prepared statement: "If nothing else, one valuable
lesson that we have learned from the laws that we make in this country, is that often times we don't like them,
but they're still the law. Case in point, I have always considered myself a first amendment, free -speech
advocate. But with that right, comes the heavy burden to allow all sides of a debate, even those who would
distort and pervert the original intentions of our founding fathers in granting this right.
It is in such a situation that I find myself tonight, perhaps the toughest I have faced in my tenure on the
Commission. On one side is a developer who has worked honestly and with integrity to bring about positive
development for Frederick County on this property, not once, but twice. The first time the developer brought
forth a proposal that was not only consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (i.e. industrial), but also one that,
in my opinion, would have brought fiscal benefits to Frederick County.
That plan was turned down after a special interest group whipped up a frenzy that brought about a lot of
passion on the issue, but little made little real sense. Again, the developer has brought a proposal that has the
potential to work for this property and provide for the inevitable growth that we are experiencing in our county,
but doing it in a controlled way. Now, mind you, I'm not saying that this plan is perfect and doesn't need some
adjustment, which is one reason why I'm inclined to not hurry the process. I still believe that the first, best use
of this land would be for light industrial.
So now the question becomes, what is the right thing to do. But, perhaps the even bigger question is, what does
the Board of Supervisors intend for this area of the county to be. Is it industrial? Well, Mr. Shockey proposed
that, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and was turned down. Now he proposes Residential Mixed
Use, but despite an attempt after numerous hearings, public meetings, and discussion to adopt a land use plan
to support this, the Board has not changed the land use designation and, in essence, has said, "leave it
industrial."
So, while I believe that the Shockey plan for this area is workable and could be acceptable, I have to recognize
that the Comprehensive Plan, our law, currently states that this is not the intended use for this area. In
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1087
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003
-19 -
deference to the many hours of hard work that has gone into this project, I would favor tabling this request until
such time as the Board addresses the land use plan and decides just what we do want in the northern end of the
county. The precedence this could set goes far beyond this one project."
Commissioner Light praised the Shockey Company for the excellent quality of their proposal
and their responses to all the concerns raised. Commissioner Light was concerned, however, that the rezoning
was being considered without the Comprehensive Plan question being answered. He remarked that every
potential impact from the proposed development has been addressed by the applicant; however, he questioned
whether it mitigated the impacts to the entire Stonewall District, or to Stephenson, or to Clearbrook. He
compared his rationale to Flying J; he said that Flying J is a great entity, however, the residents in that area pay
a price. Commissioner Light stated that there is a price that can't be mitigated with the proposed intensity of
the development. Commissioner Light said there are currently 2,600 single family homes in Stonewall District
and a development of 2,800 homes in 20 years far exceeds anyone's idea of what should go in the Stonewall
District. He remarked that the impact of that alone appears to be the problem that is causing the indecision
with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Light stated that this is the Shenandoah Valley; this is not
Northern Virginia, nor is it the Washington Metro area. He believed the Shockey proposal was a Northern
Virginia/ Washington Metro -style of development. He said the subject parcels back up to too many households
in a rural -character neighborhood. Commissioner Light advised that if the Board of Supervisors chooses to
change the rural character of the Stephenson neighborhood, they should make the change from Route 11 to the
Opequon.
Commissioner Light next moved to table Rezoning Application #06-03 of Stephenson Village
for 30 days, per the applicant's request. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours. The motion and
second were approved unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to table
Rezoning Application #06-03 of Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 821.7
acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for 30 days at the
applicant's request.
(Please note: Chairman DeHaven abstained from voting; Commissioner Morris was absent from the meeting.)
OTHER
Vice Chairman Thomas returned the chair back over to Chairman DeHaven for the remainder
of the meeting. Chairman DeHaven declared there were no further items to discuss.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1088
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
-20 -
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. by a
Respectfully submitted,
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1089
Draft Minutes of July 16, 2003
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 6, 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; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District;
George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District Richard Shickle, Board of
Supervisors Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Cordell Watt, Back Creek District;
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; Rebecca
Ragsdale, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chainnan DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA - AUGUST 6, 2003
Chairman DeHaven announced that Item 47 under Tab E, Master Development Plan #06-03
for Dogwood Landing, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., was not properly advertised and,
therefore, will not be discussed at this evening's meeting.
MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 18, 2003
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes
of June 18, 2003 were unanimously approved as presented.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 6, 2003 Page 1089
-2 -
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 07/24/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS continued their discussions on hog farm
regulations and pipe stem lots. He said that additional information on these two subjects will be brought to the
Planning Commission in the near future.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - No Meeting
Commissioner Gochenour stated that since the HRAB members have repeatedly made the
request for monthly meetings and a longer time frame to review applications, she requested that Chairman
DeHaven look into the matter.
Economic Development Commission (EDC) - 08/1/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the EDC discussed Annandale Millwork & Allied
Systems with Frederick County and, also, the third quarter project list for July through September, 2003.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. Robert (Bob) Stiff, a resident at 104 Stirrup Cup Circle in Saratoga Meadows, came
forward to talk about concerns he had with the pending development of an adjacent B2 -zoned lot, located at
the corner of Senseny and Greenwood Roads, owned by Hazel Lambert. (A proposed car wash for this
property had drawn significant concerns from the residents of the adjacent Saratoga Meadows subdivision and
a variance request for the elimination of the 50 -foot buffer along the entire west property line was subsequently
withdrawn by the applicant on August 4, 2003.) Mr. Stiff explained that at the onset of the rezoning process,
he believed he could live with the B2 Zoning, with the understanding that the use was going to be an office
building or another compatible use. He said the neighborhood residents did not want to have a car wash or a
filling station on this property; he said that a 24-hour, seven day -per -week operation was not acceptable in their
residential neighborhood. Mr. Stiff remarked that the 50 -foot buffer requirement agreed to at the time the
property was rezoning to B2, which would force the developer to construct an appropriate building for the size
of the lot, was asked to be waived. Although this waiver request has since been withdrawn, Mr. Stiff was
concerned the buffer issue would come up again with some other objectionable use. Mr. Stiff explained that
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 6, 2003 Page 1090
-3 -
the high-volume, high -velocity blowers on the new "spotless" car washes are extremely loud; he was offended
that the site plan showed the car wash directly next to his swimming pool, his home, and his backyard because
it would impair his quality of life. Along with that, he mentioned other issues, such as security, vandalism,
traffic, water pressure, air pollution, trash, and affect on property values. Mr. Stiff was concerned and
frustrated about who would stand up for him and the other residents concerning their views on compatible B2
uses and secondly, who would keep them informed about subsequent proposals. He mentioned that several
other neighborhood residents were present this evening.
Mr. Cliff Weller, also a resident of Saratoga Meadows, expressed concern that nothing could
be done about the construction of a car wash on the subject property; he said he believed everyone, including
the Planning Staff, had assumed this lot would be developed with an office building or small strip mall. Mr.
Weller also had comments about the amount of noise generated by the new "spotless" car washes; he said it's
much louder than the Petersons car washes on Valley Avenue or on Loudoun Street. Mr. Weller said there is
an identical car wash to the one proposed near Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. He said several of the
neighborhood residents visited the site, which is located in a commercial area and on a major highway. He
remarked that this type of use will destroy property values and ruin the character of their neighborhood. Mr.
Weller added that the neighborhood residents are willing to transport both the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors to Berkeley Springs to observe the car wash and then to Mr. Robert Stiff's home in
Saratoga Meadows.
Chairman DeHaven thanked Mr. Stiff and Mr. Weller for their comments and he
acknowledged that numerous letters were received from the residents, however, phone numbers were not
included to enable a response. Chairman DeHaven offered Mr. Stiff the opportunity to give him a call to
discuss the process.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning Application #07-03 of North Stephenson, Inc., submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc., to
rezone 6.10 acres of a 37.92 -acre parent tract from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition)
District. This property is located along Redbud Road (Rt. 661) and is identified with P.I.N. 43-A-152
in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Denial
Planner Abbe S. Kennedy stated that the intended use of the property is to accommodate a
Highway Motors facility, which is planned to be similar to the company's existing Roanoke, Virginia operation,
and would involve the sale and leasing of trucks, truck part sales, and truck repair. She said truck stops and
the sale of diesel fuel and gasoline have been excluded from this proposed development by proffer; however,
the use of highway motors is not proffered as the only possible B3 use for the property. She noted that the site
is within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
Planner Kennedy acknowledged that the B3 Zoning District proposed through this application
was fundamentally consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, however, she noted
that the Planning Staff had concerns with the transportation impact at the intersection of Redbud Road and
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 6, 2003 Page 1091
-4 -
Martinsburg Pike and the lack of specificity concerning the future connection to the planned collector road.
In particular, she pointed out that the proffer of access provisions to the 6.10 -acre portion of the site, to allow
for traffic to access Martinsburg Pike at the new collector road intersection, does not include any provisions
far : �ght-of way dedication or construction of the connecting road. In addition, she noted that, if approved, the
request will result in a split -zoned parcel. Planner Kennedy said it would be preferable to consider the rezoning
of the entire parcel in order to provide a more comprehensive development program for this critical site within
the rapidly evolving Route 11 corridor.
Planner Kennedy continued, detailing the following concerns raised by the Planning Staff as
follows: 1) Screening -the proposed configuration of the 6.10 -acre tract eliminates the requirement for a
Category C Buffer, which is typically required between B3 and RP residential properties; should this facility
operate as a 24-hour business, adjoining residential properties could be significantly impacted by lights,
signage, truck repair, noise, or air pollution; 2) Transportation - the intersection at Martinsburg Pike and
Redbud Road has already exceeded capacity with an existing Level of Service (LOS) F. The applicant has
proffered a signalization agreement with VDOT for the provision of traffic signalization at the intersection of
Rt. 11 and the new collector road near Rutherford's Farm or at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and
Redbud Road, whichever is warranted first by VDOT; VDOT has commented that the signalization agreement
is in the amount of $18,000.00; no additional County funding has been included in the Secondary Road
Improvement Plan to accommodate this signalization. Planner Kennedy pointed out that neither a provision
for right-of-way dedication, nor the construction of the internal connecting road that will connect this site to
the major collector road coming from proposed Stephenson Village has been addressed by the applicant. She
added that there is no assurance as to who will pay for construction of the internal connector road that would
be built once the Rt. 11/ Redbud Road intersection is severed. She further added that access to Rt. 11 from
this future major collector road will align with the entrance to Rutherford's Farm and this major collector will
be a necessity to the county -wide transportation system at the time the Redbud road connection to Martinsburg
Pike is severed.
Chairman DeHaven called for any questions from the Commission for the staff.
Commissioner Gochenour expressed her opinion that not enough research has been done on
the historic aspect ofthe Seven Oaks structure. She believed the Seven Oaks historic structure should be saved
and protected with buffering and screening. Planner Kennedy replied that when the future I-81 improvements
occur, widening and ramp construction will more than likely impact the Seven Oaks structure. Planning
Director Lawrence commented that the Seven Oaks structure is not physically located on the 6.10 -acre portion
under consideration for rezoning.
Commissioner Gochenour also expressed her concern for the impacts associated with water
and sewer. Commissioner Gochenour stated that it has not be shown, to her satisfaction, that Frederick County
has a sustainable water source to supply the development of this property.
Chairman DeHaven next called for the applicant to make their presentation.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, Inc., the design/engineering firm representing
the applicant, came forward to present the proposed rezoning to the Commission. Mr. Wyatt stated that the
applicant is aware of the need for right-of-way dedication along the front of the 6.10 -acre parcel. He
recognized that while there would be access via Redbud Road (Rt. 66 1) in the short term, that access point
would not be available long term. As a result, they wanted make sure they could accommodate access for the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 6, 2003 Page 1092
-5-
6.10 -acre parcel over to the County's major collector road at the appropriate time; he said their long-range plan
is for a major collector road to traverse their property and to align with the intersection at Rutherford's Farm
Industrial Park. To eliminate any question on who would pay for the construction of the road, Mr. Wyatt
proposed re -writing the proffer to specifically state, `...the applicants do hereby proffer to provide a 50' right-
of-way through their property and construct a road to provide access from the 6.10 acres to the future major
collector..." Mr. Wyatt noted that in working with DOT on the pro -rata share requirement for the regional
impact on this area, it was agreed that signalization for the intersection of I-81 and Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11)
would be appropriate.
Regarding buffering and screening issues, Mr. Wyatt explained that the properties in the front
will need adequate depth if they are eventually going to be developed into B2 commercial lots; since they will
be losing frontage for the road, they wanted to make sure they had adequate depth, about 275-300 feet, which
is why the B3 line for this property was drawn where it is. Mr. Wyatt stated that the Omps family owns five
of the seven residential tracts; these are rental properties. He said that in the interim, until these properties are
ultimately transitioned out of residential and into commercial, they have proffered evergreen plantings along
the rear property lines of all of the residential properties. He noted that since the 6.10 -acre piece is in relatively
close proximity to the first residential property, they have proposed a double row of evergreen plantings, not
only along the rear property line, but along the side property as well. He added that none of the Highway
Motors Facilities operate 24 -hours a day, however, the adjoining Omps trucking facility to the east operates
24 -hours per day.
Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that Mr. Omps, the property owner, commissioned Engineering
Consulting Services (ECS), the same group that worked at the Rutherford's site, to conduct a geo-technical
analysis to satisfy any concerns regarding karst topography; he said the results of the geo-technical analysis
would be dealt with at the site plan stage, which was satisfactory to the County Engineer. Mr. Wyatt pointed
out that additional proffers worth mentioning were the limitation on structural size; the requirement for the front
of the building to face I-81; landscaping screening along the property; and a monetary contribution for fire and
rescue services.
Chairman DeHaven next called for commissioners' questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Ours questioned the applicant's intent on submitting a request for a split -zoned
parcel when the Commission's preference has been to examine the "big picture" by considering plans for the
entire parcel and the uses that may develop. Commissioner Ours was concerned that the proposed use may not
be compatible with the future uses on the remainder of the property. Mr. Wyatt responded that an economic
development opportunity had arisen with the Highway Motors facility and secondly, revenues used from the
sale of the 6.10 -acre property could be used for consultant work on the remainder of the site.
Commissioner Light believed a Category C Buffer on the property behind the residential uses,
such as a double tree line and berm, would be best for this area. He also believed that a buffer of some type
on the easternmost side of this subject parcel would be appropriate because the future use to the east was
unknown. He further suggested, in order to create a safe intersection, that signalization be installed when the
change over occurs from using Redbud Road to I-81, not after the 81 improvements begin because no one
knows when that will be. Commissioner Light expressed concern that the applicant had made no mention of
any turn lane improvements on Redbud Road, especially with the proposed tractor -trailer traffic. In addition,
he questioned the applicant maximizing their contribution to the signalization at $18,000.00; he said the
improvements associated with the Rutherford rezoning are already in place. Commissioner Light stated that
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 6, 2003 Page 1093
a M,
if no one has accepted responsibility for the intersection of Redbud Road and this is the development that is
taking place, it would seem that North Stephenson, Inc. should accept full responsibility for the light per
VDOT's comments at Redbud Road. He added that North Stephenson should construct their connector road
when the Rutherford Farm property begins to develop.
Commissioner Unger asked for clarification on why the proposed rezoning line was drawn 50'
away from the property line on the northeast side and why it wasn't just extended to the property line. Mr.
Wyatt reiterated his contention that no buffer was required; he said that if the proposed rezoning line was
extended to the property line, the 6.10 acres would be adjoining an RA -zoned property with a truck stop use.
He said that there was no buffer requirement. Mr. Wyatt said that regarding the seven RP lots fronting on
Route 11, there would be only one southwestern corner point the would be touched. He said the rear property
lines of the residential lots and the rear lot of the proposed rezoning do not join.
Commissioner Light said that he wasn't confused on whether the Category C Buffer was
required or not. Commissioner Light said that at the point where the residential property lines are located, he
would prefer to see a Category C Buffer.
It was Commissioner Gochenour's opinion that the commercial and industrial uses outweighed
the historic preservation uses in this area; she said the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for a balance of these
uses in this corridor. Commissioner Gochenour believed the rural character of the area was being destroyed
and she questioned whether the proposed use was the best use of this property. She added that she would like
to see the results of the engineering consultant's tests for karst topography.
Commissioner Fisher also inquired about the applicant's reasoning for leaving the 50 -foot
space at the north side of the property out of the rezoning; he asked if there was any consideration for access
at that point. Mr. Wyatt replied that the client wanted to be in the six -acre range, facing I-81. Mr. Wyatt
added that in the long term, the Commission can expect to see B2 in the front and then a B3 transition into MI.
Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Wyatt for clarification on his proposal to amend the proffer
statement. The proposal was as follows: B.) Transportation, 1.) Access, b.) The applicants do hereby proffer
to provide a 50 -foot right-of-way and pay for the construction of the roadway to VDOT standards to make
the connection; and, C.) Site Development, 2.) Landscape Screening, ...to keep the single row of evergreens
along the residential property, but, in particular, with the closest residential property, a double row of
evergreens will be provided, not only along the rear line, but along the side property line closest to 1-81 as well.
Commissioner Unger inquired ifthe applicant had offered to construct areas for tractor trailers
to move off the main road when entering the project site. Mr. Wyatt said that if the rezoning is approved, the
site plan will need to show commercial entrances with turn lanes per VDOT requirements.
Chairman DeHaven next called for VDOT representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, to approach the
podium to answer questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Rosenberry noted that staff comments indicated the existing conditions at the
intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Redbud Road were at a LOS F and the applicant responded that if
signalization was installed, the situation would be relieved. Commissioner Rosenberry asked Mr. Ingram if
he agreed with that assessment. Mr. Ingram stated that once the signalization is installed at the Rutherford's
site and taking into account the traffic counts supplied by Highway Motors, it seemed reasonable to assume
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 6, 2003 Page 1094
-7 -
there would be an impressionable difference after the series of signals were installed.
Commissioner Fisher inquired about the impact of the heavy truck traffic on the durability of
Redbud Road. Mr. Ingram said that the bulk of the proposed use is new truck sales or trucks coming in for
repair, so they will not be fully loaded tractor trailers. He said the road structure should hold up to the
anticipated traffic.
Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments and the following person came forward
to speak:
Mr. John Hutchinson, representing the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF),
stated that the Second and Third Winchester Battlefields are located about 1/4 mile down Redbud Road from
land the SVBF currently owns, just east of the railroad tracks on Redbud Run. He said the property owned
by SVBF is in the core area of the Third Winchester Battlefield; the property proposed for rezoning is located
in the study area, which is in the secondary preservation area designated by Frederick County in its Third
Winchester Battlefield Preservation Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1999. Mr. Hutchinson read
a statement from the Preservation Plan concerning protection of viewshed. Mr. Hutchinson said the SV 3F
encourages the County to require that views from Redbud Road and from core areas of the battlefield to the
east, which are higher in elevation, be protected with screening and the careful siting of buildings, parking,
lighting, and signs on the property being rezoned. He said that the SVBF would also like to note that since the
application being considered is only a part of the larger 38 -acre property, it will set the tone for the large area
that will be developed and could have a substantial impact on the County's historic resources. Upon Chairman
DeHaven's request, Mr. Hutchinson pointed out on a map the location of the portions of the battlefields that
the SVBF has designated as worthy to preserve. Mr. Hutchinson said that SVBF is working with interested
landowners on areas south of Redbud Road, all the way down to Woodsmill Road, and the area north of the
property along Milburne Road.
Commissioner Light believed this property would eventually develop, however, he did have
concerns with the existing proffers, particularly those dealing with traffic and safety; he believed conditions
could be made safer for everyone, including the Omps property. He added that the LOS F interchanges and
the fact that improvements are coming needs to be considered.
Commissioner Light next moved for denial of the rezoning as it was presented. This motion
was seconded by Commissioner Straub. The motion of denial was passed by a majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of
Rezoning Application #07-03 of North Stephenson, Inc., submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc., to rezone
6.10 acres of a 37.92 -acre parent tract from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition) District by the
following majority vote:
YES (TO DENY): Fisher, Ours, Thomas, Light, Morris, Unger, Gochenour, Straub
NO: Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, DeHaven
(Please Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 6, 2003 Page 1095
-8 -
Conditional Use Permit #07-03 of Eugene Cooper for a Cottage Occupation/Counter Top Shop. This
property is located at 207 Herman Lewis Lane and is identified with P.I.N. 52 -A -35C in the Gainesboro
Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Planner Rebecca. Ragsdale stated that the applicant is proposing a custom countertop business
and has plans to construct an accessory structure to use as a workshop; no specialized equipment or chemicals
will be utilized. Planner Ragsdale reported that there will be no employees associated with the business and
the applicant does not intend to have customers to the property. She said there were no disapproving agency
review comments. Planner Ragsdale read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the
use to be appropriate.
Mr. Eugene D. Cooper, the applicant and property owner, was available to answer questions
from the Commission. Mr. Cooper explained that he will be fabricating the counter tops on site and then
transporting the product to his customers. Mr. Cooper said that his hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
Based on the limited scale of the applicant's proposed cottage occupation, the Planning
Commission believed the use would not have negative impacts on adjoining properties or detract from the rural
character of the neighborhood.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommended
approval of Conditional Use Permit #07-03 of Eugene W. Cooper for a Cottage Occupation/ Counter Top
Shop at 207 Herman Lewis Lane with the following conditions:
All review agency requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit.
3. No retail sales of merchandise shall be permitted.
4. No employees shall be permitted other than members of the household.
5. No business signs shall be permitted.
An inspection and approval by the Fire Marshall is required prior to the establishment of the counter
top business in the proposed building.
(Please note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 6, 2003 Page 1096
Conditional Use Permit #08-03 of Laine Sidell Everhart for a daycare facility. This property is located
at 104 Appomattox Drive and is identified with P.I.N. 75J-6-11-215 in the Opequon Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Planner Rebecca. Ragsdale stated that the proposed daycare facility will be conducted in the
principal structure, which is a residence served by public sewer and water. In addition to the background
information and review agency comments, Planner Ragsdale stated that the applicant will employ only one
assistant and does not wish to have a business sign. Planner Ragsdale read a list of conditions for approval,
should the Commission find the use to be appropriate.
Mr. John Sidell, the applicant's father, stated that the daycare will be in operation from 7:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. He said that licensing from the State Department
of Social Services has been approved and becomes effective August 1, 2003. In response to a question from
the Commission, Mr. Sidell said there are no planned changes to the structure or property to accommodate the
daycare; he noted that the rear portion of the property is fenced.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one carne forward to speak.
Given the conditions and the characteristics of the subject parcel, the Planning Commission
believed the proposed use would have minimal impact on the surrounding community.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommended
approval of Conditional Use Permit #08-03 of Laine Sidell Everhart for a daycare facility at 104 Appomattox
Drive with the following conditions:
All review agency requirements shall be complied with at all times.
Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit.
3. Only one employee shall be permitted other than members of the household.
4. No business sign(s) shall be permitted.
The number of non-resident children allowed at this day care facility shall total no more than eight (8).
The applicant shall satisfy the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services
and the County of Frederick.
(Please note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 6, 2003 Page 1097
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
-10 -
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. by a
Respectfully submitted,
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 6, 2003 Page 1098
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-03
DOGWOOD LANDING
Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting
Preparers: August 18, 2003
Staff Contact: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 08/06/03 Postponed
09/03/03 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 08/27/03 (Tentative) Pending
LOCATION: This property is located along the north side of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), and is
immediately to the east of the softball complex at Sherando Park. The address of the existing house
on the property is 136 Landgrant Lane.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 86-A-141,142, & 142A
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential & Vacant
RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District
South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District
East: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District
West: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District
PROPOSED USE: 25 Single Family Small Lots
Use: Public Park
Use: Public Park
Use: Public Park
Use: S.F. Residential
MDP #06-03, DOGWOOD LANDING
Page 2
July 23, 2003
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The preliminary master plan for this property appears to have
a minimal measurable impact on Route 277, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the
property. Due to the large volumes of traffic on Route 277, a detailed review of the proposed
entrance will be required. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set
of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Sixth
Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-
of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to
construction on the State's right-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance
of appropriate permits to cover said work.
Fire Marshal: Residential sprinkler system recommended. Fire lane Required. Fire hydrants shall
be located within 400 feet of all single family detached dwellings, per Frederick County Code. All
fire hydrants shall be set within three feet of the curb. No further comments at this time.
Sanitation Authority: 15` Review - Approved.
County Inspections: Demolition permit is required to remove the existing home. No other
comment required at this time.
Winchester Health Department: As long as all dwellings are hooked to the (FCSA) Sanitary Sewer
and Water and no existing wells and drainfields are impacted, the Health Dept. has no objections.
If the existing house being removed has an existing well and septic, they must properly be
abandoned. Call the Health Department for proper abandoning techniques per State Regulations.
Public Works: Upon review of the subject master plan, we offer the following comments: 1)
Provide an adequate outfall for the proposed subdivision. 2) Ensure a minimum 27 degree slope
within the subdivision for drainage. 3) All issues concerning stormwater drainage shall be addressed
at the time of subdivision plan approved.
Geographic Information Systems: April Avenue is approved. Road name is reserved. Structure
numbers will be assigned upon small lot subdivision recording or upon requests of building permits.
Parks & Recreation: See attached comments dated June 19, 2003.
Winchester Regional Airport: The above referenced proposal has been reviewed and it appears that
the proposed master development plan should not have an impact on operations at the Winchester
Regional Airport. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in continuing safe operations
of the Winchester Regional Airport.
MDP #06-03, DOGWOOD LANDING
Page 3
July 23, 2003
Frederick County Public Schools: No additional comments at this time.
Planning & Zoning:
Site History:
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) depicts the
zoning for the subject parcels which comprise the proposed master development plan as R-1
(Residential Limited) District. This acreage was reclassified to RP (Residential Performance)
District on September 28, 1983 when this zoning district removed the R1, R2, R3, and R6
zoning districts. Based on County real estate records, the house located on parcel 86-A-142
was built in 1971.
Site Suitability:
Land Use Compatibility
The site of the proposed project lies in a transition zone between the RA (Rural Areas) and
RP (Residential Performance) Zoning Districts. The outlying land uses consist of a public
park and single-family residences.
The proposed development proposes smaller lots and a slightly higher density than what is
found in the surrounding area. Lots in the area range from approximately 12,000 square feet
in size to lots over 2 acres in size. The proposed development would consist of lots 5,000
square feet or larger. The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan states that "care
should be taken to avoid densities which are excessive in comparison to the existing average
density in a given area" (CPP, 6-69).
Despite the smaller lot sizes the proposed housing density of the development is only
moderately higher than if the property was developed with single family detached urban lots
(12,000 s.f.) or single family detached traditional lots (15,000 s.f.). Statistically, there could
be two more lots with the proposed development than if the acreage was developed with
single family detached urban lots, and three more lots than if the acreage was developed with
single family detached traditional lots. This assumes that the applicant utilizes 5,000 s.f lot
sizes, versus the minimum small lot size of 3,730 s.f. One of the goals for residential
development, found in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, is to "provide
sufficient land and a diversity of locations for a wide range of suburban housing types."'
Comprehensive Policy Plan, page 6-69
MDP #06-03, DOGWOOD LANDING
Page 4
July 23, 2003
Historic resources
No significant historic resources have been identified on the site.
Environment
The three parcels which make up the proposed development contain no areas that are defined
as environmental features. The soils comprising the parcels are within the Martinsburg shale
geologic area, and are within the watershed of Wrights Run.
Transportation
The site has road frontage along Fairfax Pike (Route 277). Fairfax Pike is an arterial
roadway, which is designated for future road improvements by the Frederick County Primary
Road Improvement Plan and the Frederick County Eastern Road Plane. Landgrant Lane is
located along the western boundary of the proposed development. It is owned by Frederick
County and is utilized by the existing residence on the subject site and the adjoining
residential property to the west.
Comprehensive Policy Plan
The subject parcels are within the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer
and Water Service Area (SWSA). The acreage of the proposed development is not part of a
small -area land use plan found in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The
Comprehensive Policy Plan states that suburban residential development must occur within
the UDA.
Project Scope:
The master development plan for Dogwood Landing consists of 25 single family small lots
on 7.65 acres. The acreage is currently divided into three parcels. Two of the parcels are
zoned RP, and total 6.4 acres. The eastern parcel of land is 1.25 acres, and is zoned RA. The
RA parcel is not proposed to be developed. Instead, the applicant will be exchanging it with
Sherando Park for the land comprising Landgrant Lane. Following the land transfer, the
applicant proposes to relocate Landgrant Lane so it intersects with the proposed access road,
referred to as April Avenue. April Avenue will be built to VDOT standards, but will be
maintained as a private road.
A total of 2.75 acres (39%) of open space is proposed. 1.68 (22%) acres of the open space
will remain in the development after the 1.25 acre parcel is transferred to the park. The
Zoning Ordinance requires small lot developments to have at least 30% open space.
2 Comprehensive Policy Plan, page 7-15
MDP #06-03, DOGWOOD LANDING
Page 5
July 23, 2003
The applicant has stated that the developer intends to utilize either the street tree option or
the ornamental landscaping option of the recently adopted landscaping ordinance. Prior to
final administrative approval by staff, the applicant will need to select which of these two
options will be utilized and provide details on the final master development plan. In addition
to this landscaping, a road efficiency buffer along Fairfax Pike, and a residential separation
buffer along the west property line is required.
Issues:
Analysis of this master development plan application does not reveal any significant
problems. However, staff recognizes two concerns which require special consideration.
These concerns are as follows:
1) Cul-de-sac length waiver. Since the proposed cul-de-sac road will be privately
maintained, the zoning ordinance only allows it to be 500 feet in length. However,
the ordinance grants the Planning Commission the authority to grant a waiver to this
requirement up to 800 feet in length. The applicant for Dogwood Landing requests
a cul-de-sac length of 800 feet.
2) Entrance. The proposed entrance to the site meets all requirements of the zoning
ordinance. However, staff would like to point out that the location of the entrance
is contingent on the closure of Landgrant Lane. If Landgrant Lane cannot be closed
by the applicant, the entrance to the property would have to be relocated towards the
center of the parcel.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/06/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The overall concept of this Master Development Plan is consistent with the Frederick County
Comprehensive Policy Plan, and the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the
Zoning Ordinance. All of the issues identified by staff, as well as, any issues brought forth by the
Planning Commission, should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION FOR THE 08/06/03 MEETING:
On August 6`h the Planning Commission postponed the public meeting for this application until
September 3Td, because the meeting was not advertised in the newspaper.
Frederick 0untY, ViEdWa Master Develo ffient Pian Appucafion Packs
Reguest for Master Development Plan Comments
Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation
Mail to: Hand deliver to:
Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street
Department of Parks and Recreation 2nd Floor
107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA
Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678
Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their
review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with the sheet.
Applicant's Name: G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
Address: _117 E. Piccadilly Street-
Winchester,
treet
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone Number: (554fl)667-2139
Name of development and/or description of the request:
Dogwood Landing,
Location of Property:
A jacent and north of Route 277, 1500 f west of Iatx of Route 277 and White Oak Rgad,
adjacent and west of Sherando Park
Department of Parks and Recreation's Comments:
See Attached
16
The Parks and Recreation Commission, at its June meeting, made the following
recommendations regarding the proposed Dogwood Landing development:
Recommended, if the development is to be approved, the county accept the proposed
donation of 1.25 acres of land contiguous with Park property and adjacent to the eastern
bounrtary of the proposed development The Co�nmissi:,n also reconunends that the
developer be required to construct a 10' landscaped berm on this land, meeting the
approval of the Parks and Recreation Department.
2. Recommends, with the understanding that all right -of -ways convey, the developer be
required to acquire the 25' by 929' section of Landgrant Lane that is contiguous with their
property and to compensate the county according to the requirements as outlined by the
U. S. Department of the Interior, Land- and Water Conservation Fund guidelines.
The developer has proposed to donate $20,000 to the Parks and Recreation Department in
lieu of completing a required recreational unit within the proposed development. In light
of the proximity of Dogwood Landing to Sherando Park, the Commission recommended
the County accept this offer contingent on the funds being earmarked for capital
development within Sherando Park.
4. Recommends that the proposed eight foot path from the development, connecting to the
10' foot bike/pedestrianpath in the Park, be increased to a 10' path and be designed to go
around the required berm.
4 ti .e COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
5401665-5651
1738 FAX: 540/665-6395
May 7, 2003
Mr. Charles Maddox, P.E., VP
G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Preliminary Review Comments for Dogwood Landing Master Development Plan
Property Identification Numbers (PIN's) 86-A-141,142, and 142A
Dear Chuck:
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review the preliminary master development plan
for the proposed development referred to as Dogwood Landing. Staff s review comments are listed
below for your consideration. Most of our concerns weze discussed in our recent meeting regarding
the proposed; development.
Review Coni'ments
1) Number of Lots. No more than 25 lots can be located on a cul-de-sac. Please reduce the
proposed number of lots from 29 to 25, or change the layout of the proposed development.
2) Entrance Location. Staff encourages moving the proposed entrance to the west, so it lines
up with the existing entrance on the opposite side of Fairfax Pike.
3) State Road Access. The proposed private road is longer than 500' to a state road. The
Planning Commission may approve a private cul-de-sacs up to 800' in length. All or a
portion of the proposed private drive may need to be changed to a state road. Perhaps one
or two private cul-de-sacs branching off of an improved Landgrant Lane (converted to a state
road) would be the best solution to this problem, as well as, the comment shown above. An
illustration of this design alternative is attached with this letter. This alternative plan could
accommodate more lots than the current design plan.
4):: . _ Location of Landgrant Lane Intersection. The proposed intersection/entrance to
Landgrant,Lane is less than 150' from Fairfax Pike. In order to conform with the spacing
requirements of the Zonih Ordinance; please move this intersection to a distance of at -least
150' from Fairfax Pike.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
Mr. Charles Maddox, P.E., VP, G.W. CliffordA Associates
Preliminary Review Comments for Dogwood Landing Preliminary MDP
May 7, 2003
5) Remainder of Open Space After Gift Lot. Please state the amount of open space that is
proposed minus the gift lot. It appears that this amount would be 1.68 acres.
6) Future Use of Gift Lot. A future parking lot or other similar use may not be appropriate on
the gift lot, due to its proximity to the proposed housing. A buffer and/or restrictions on the
future use of this parcel would prevent any future incompatibility of uses.
7) Eight -Foot Walk Path and Emergency Access. Please provide language on the plan to the
effect that the proposed o'-vvalk path/enierig eacy access will riot be part ofiiidividual 'oui1ding
lots. Furthermore, a landscaping or other type of buffer would reduce potential impacts.
8) Landscaping Plan. Please provide information regarding the type of landscaping that will
be utilized with this residential development. A general landscaping plan should be provided
with this master development plan.
9) Existing House. When will the existing house be removed? The house's location is
nonconforming with the required front setback.
10) Underground Utilities. Please provide a statement on the site plan to the effect that all
utilities shall be located underground.
11) f Dimensional Requirements. There are several errors with the dimensional requirements
shown on the MDP. The minimum setbacks are not 35710725' for small lot developments.
The minimum front setback is 20' from private roads and 25' from state roads. The rear yard
setback is 15' from the property line. Side yard setbacks depend if you chose the zero lot line
option or not. Please make all necessary changes.
-
t
12) Recreational Units. Please SNOW 'tile I1LLrIlber OI recieaTi011al uitllJ i� Yuued. ai1_u CL -8 ;,u ICL'i
plan for the type of recreational facility that will be provided.
13) Community Center. If you are proposing lot sizes less than 5,000 square feet, as shown on
the provided plan, a community center is required. Please make all necessary changes.
14) Magisterial District. The proposed development is located within the Opequon Magisterial
District, not the Shawnee Magisterial District. Please change as necessary.
15) Street Sign. Please show the location of the proposed street sign(s) on the plan.
16) Agency Comments. Please ensure that the Planning Staff is provided with review
comments from all of the following review agencies: the Frederick County Department of
Public Works, Frederick County Department of Building Inspections, Frederick County
Page 2
Mr. Charles Maddox, P.E., VP, C.W. Clifford & Associates
Preliminary Review Comments for Dogwood Landing Preliminary MDp
May 7, 2003
Department of Parks & Recreation, Frederick County Fire Marshal, Frederick County
Sanitation Authority, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and the Frederick
County Department of Geographic Information Systems.
Please address the above comments and those provided to you from the review agencies. In order
to continue the review of this Master Development Plan, you will need to submit the complete MDP
application, which includes review agency comments and review fee, to this department. Once this
information is received, staff will schedule the application for review by the Planning Commission.
The review fee will be $1,882.50 [$1,500/base + $382.50 (7.65 acres @ $50 per acre)]. Please do
not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this application.
Sincerely,
Jermy F. Camp
Planner II
JFC/bah
Attachment: Alternative Road Design
U: UeremyWM ter Development P1a= Dogwood LandinglPrehminary Review Comments.wpd
Landgrantl
( state
maintainted
Alternative Road Design:
Dogwood Landing
U- UeremylM=Ier Development Plaw Dogwood LandinglPreliminary Review Commentf.wpd
Private Road
Private Road
Frederick County, VirLyinia Master Development Plan Application Packaee
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. Project Title:
2. Owner's Name:
3.
4.
Dogwood Landing
Martha M. Sandy c/o Martha Madigan
213 Fairfield Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
(Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest)
Applicant: G.W. Clifford & Associates Inc.
Address: c/o Charles E. Maddox Jr. P.E.
117 E. Piccadilly St Winchester VA 22601
Phone: (540) 667-2139
Design Company: G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester VA 22601
Phone Number: (540) 667-2139
Contact Name:
1
.1UL A 4 2003
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION cont'd
MASTER DEVELOPMENT ENT PLAN
5. Location of Property: Adjacent and north of Route 277, 1500 f west
of Intx of Route 277 and White Oak Road,
adjacent and west of Sherando Park
6. Total Acreage:
7. Property Information:
a) Property Identification Number (PIN):
86-A-141, 142 & 142A
b) Current Zoning:
RP
c) Present Use:
Residential
d) Proposed Use:
_
SF — Small Lot
e) Adjoining Property Information:
Property Identification
Property Uses
North 86-A-135
Local Government
South 86-A-143
Local Government
East 86-A-143 C
Local Government
West 86-A-139
Residential
f) Magisterial District:
8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original X Amended
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick
County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development
plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material
will be complete prior to the submission of my masterdevelopment plan application.
Signature: _
Date -
2
ns� is to eerily ulat the ^attached correspondence vias mailed to the following via
Q D ,i from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick
CAnty, V ginia:
86 - A- - 143 -
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
9 COURT SO # 601
WINCHESTER, VA.
86 - A- - 139 -
SANDY, RAYMOND C.
145 LANOGRANT LN
STEPHENS CITY,VA
85 - A- -141-
SANDY, MARTHA M
CIO MARTHA MADIGAN
213 FAIRFIELD DR
WINCHESTER, VA
22601-4736
22655.3246
C �; � C✓
22602-6838
/-) P PLIC.r1,"i-(
Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc.
Attn: Ron Mislowsky
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester- VA 22601
Jer y F. Camp, Planner II
Frederick Co. Planning Dept,
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COY OF FREDERI -K
a Notary Public in and for the State and County
aforesaid, do I#eby certify that Jer y F. Camp, Planner II for the Department of Planning and
Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated" �, '03 , has
personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in mjAiate;Uid County aforesaid.
Given under my hand thisdayof .
My commission expires on
�' �' �� , f✓ ���'f -f;:-lam t}iv
RY
N TAPU� IC s7
1
•
�7
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
Staff has received a request from the owners of Willow Grove LC, 740 LLC, 750 LLC, 227 Orchard
Lane and Kenneth F. Marshall, owner of Pembroke Cove Properties LLC, to consider a request to
expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) to include approximately 320 acres currently zoned RA
(Rural Areas). The six subject parcels are not under common ownership; however, all of the property
owners have consented to collective representation.
Please find included under this agenda item a letter from the property owners to Planning Director Eric
Lawrence, dated May 12, 2003, and a location map depicting the properties requesting to be
incorporated in the Urban Development Area.
The property owners contend that the subject parcels are better suited for the suburban development
enabled by inclusion within the UDA as opposed to remaining in agricultural land use. The proposed
expansion area is bounded by residential development to the east and north, respectively. The area
comprised by the parcels is located adjacent to and west of the City of Winchester, east of Route 37,
and adjacent to and south of Route 621 (Merriman's Lane). The proposed expansion area is connected
to Route 622 (Cedar Creek Grade) by the southernmost parcel included with the request.
The proposed expansion area is not subject to any of the small area land use plans included in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan and is located wholly outside of both the UDA and Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA). Three of the subject parcels adjoin a 183 -acre tract of the South Frederick
Agricultural and Forestal District. Moreover, a small portion of the site is identified as core battlefield
area of the First Battle of Winchester, and portions of the site are shown within the respective study
areas of the First and Second Battles of Winchester. (Study ofCivil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley
of Virginia U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service) t
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) met on July 14, 2003 to consider this
request. Committee members questioned why this area was not initially requested to be a part of the
UDA. One committee member suggested the committee consider a more comprehensive look at the
remaining adjoining properties east of the Route 37 corridor. After some discussion, the committee
decided to vote on the request as submitted by the property owners. The property owners commented,
that at the time the UDA location was designated, it was desirable for them to keep their land in
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
Frederick County Planning Commission
Re: Request for Expansion_ of the UDA
August 20, 2003
agricultural use. The owners stated that their properties are no longer viable for agricultural land use
and is presently surrounded by residential development, both in the City of Winchester and the County.
The UDA expansion request does not specify a land use designation for the expansion area. It may be
appropriate to incorporate a mixed use of residential and commercial. There is a need to provide a
diversity of types of locations for various types of development in order to accommodate a competitive
land market, and provide for consumer choice. Therefore, sufficient land needs to be included in the
Urban Development Area. (Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, Ch. 6, p. 6-1)
Staff would note that recent research associated with the Rural Areas study project that the current
Comprehensive Policy Plan plans for an estimated potential of 13,700 residential units within the
existing UDA. Recent Board of Supervisors' action on August 13, 2003, could add another
approximate 3,000 units potentially within the existing UDA. The Urban Development Area is intended
to contain enough land to accommodate the urban and suburban development that will occur throughout
the next decade. (Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, Ch. 6, p. 6-1) Staff would note that
the existing UDA contains an excess of potential land for residential development to accommodate
growth that will occur in the next decade.
Staff would note that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) does not serve this area. Mr.
Wellington H. Jones, Engineer/Director of the FCSA stated that any request for inclusion into the
service area should be contingent upon the Sanitation Authority being able to provide service, or
allowing the City of Winchester to provide service. The decision to relinquish that service to the City
is made by the Sanitation Authority Board.
Staff met with the City of Winchester's Engineer, Ms. Dale Lehnig, and Mr. Frank Saunders, Public
Utilities Director, to ask if the City had capacity to provide water and sewer service to the referenced
area. This inquiry was forwarded to the City Council's Utilities Committee. The City is very much
interested in working with the County concerning this request, however, they have stated concerns about
the potential development's design uncertainties.
Attached please find a letter dated August 6, 2003 to Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner, from Mr. Frank
Saunders, Jr., P.E., the Director of Public Utilities for the City of Winchester. Also attached is mapping
provided by staff. Staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission regarding this request that
could be forwarded to the Board during their discussion of the request.
Attachments
U:\COMMTTTEES\CPPS\Projects\2003 Projects\White-Marshall UDA\PC DiscussisonReport.wpd
UDA EXPANSION REQUEST
WILLIS WHITE & KENNETH MARSHALL
Staff Report for Planning Commission
Prepared: August 13, 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 the discussion of this request.
It may also be useful to others interested in this comprehensive planning matter.
Discussion
Planning Commission: 09/03/03
Board of Supervisors:
PROPOSAL:
• To expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) by approximately 320 acres
PLANNED USE: Mixed Use
LOCATION: The property is located adjacent to and west of the City of Winchester, east of Route
37, and adjacent to and south of Route 621 (Merriman's Lane). The proposed expansion area is
connected to Route 622 (Cedar Creek Grade) by the southernmost parcel.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 53-A-91, 63-2A, 53-A-92, 53 -A -92A, 53 -A -92B, 53-A-90
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION:
Existing Conditions
Suburban residential development (Meadow Branch, Morlyn Hills, Meadow Branch South, and Orchard
Hill) is located in the City of Winchester adjacent to the northern and eastern boundaries of the subject
properties. Merriman's Chase in Frederick County adjoins the subject properties in the northwestern
corner (zones RP), and The Village at Harvest Ridge (zoned RP) adjoins the southeastern tip of the
subject properties. Three of the subject parcels adjoin a 183 -acre tract of the South Frederick
Agricultural District. The subject site, as well as the properties adjoining to the east and south, are
presently zoned RA, and are in agricultural uses.
White/Marshall Discussion
Page 2
August 13, 2003
Comprehensive Policy Plan
Land Use Plan
The subject properties are not included in any of the small study area land use plans included
in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The properties were generally identified
for agricultural use. There is no plan for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) to
serve that area with public water and sewer.
There is a 183 tract of the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District adjoining a large
portion of the southern boundary of the site.
The Urban Development Area (UDA) boundary is presently located immediately northwest of
the subject site; none of the subject parcels are in the UDA or SWSA. The UDA boundary lies
immediately west of Merriman's Lane which adjoins the property line along the site's western
edge. Merriman's Chase subdivision, within the UDA, adjoins the subject site on west. No
portion of the 320 acre expansion area is presently in the UDA.
Transportation
The Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) Plan identifies a planned Major Collector
Road, Jubal Early Drive extending from Meadow Branch Drive to Route 37. The City of
Winchester supports this road, as it is consistent with the WATS Plan. The planned WATS
collector road would transverse the subject properties.
The area of the proposed request is not in a specific study area of the Frederick County
Comprehensive Policy Plan; however, staff would contend that a minor collector road extending
from Cedar Creek Grade through the site and connecting to a western portion of the Jubal Early
Drive would be appropriate. This connection would be necessary for serving the proposed
development of the property as well as for emergency service vehicles to access the site through
the county road system.
Community Facilities and Service
The FCSA does not serve this area. For the area to be served by the City, the FCSA must state
their willingness to allow City service. The City of Winchester believes that water and sewer
services would be available to this development, however the availability may depend upon
where the proposed facilities would ultimately connect to the City's facilities. The City of
Winchester notes that where connecting facilities (water , sewer, transportation or other) are
deemed to be inadequate due to the development's needs, it may be necessary for the developers
to make modifications and improvements to existing facilities to minimize the impact.
White/Marshall Discussion
Page 3
August 13, 2003
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE (CEPS) SUMMARY &
ACTION OF 07/14/03 MEETING: (summary of applicable discussions)
The CPPS was generally supportive in concept to the proposal of the UDA expansion request.
Infrastructure concerns regarding water and sewer service and transportation were expressed.
Consideration of a land use study for the area west of the city and east of Route 37 was addressed. 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 & ACTION OF 09/03/03 MEETING:
(pending)
U:\COMMITTEES\CPPS\Projects\2003 Projects\White-Marshall UDA\PC DiscmisonReport-pd
M. WILLIS WHITE
U A EXPANSION REQUEST s__
COMPREHENSIVE PGL AC FLA
Land Use
This plan contains general land use concepts for the future development of Frederick County. It
describes the general development patterns that are presently taking place and those that are
anticipated or planned. As planning efforts continue, more specific concepts will be developed for
interchange areas, rural community centers, and other areas. Such plans will combine planning for
land use with planning for roads and facilities.
The primary land use concept in this plan is the Urban Development Area (UDA), which in effect
divides the County into rural and urban areas. The Urban Development Area defines the general area
in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur.
In general, areas to be planned for urban development or for other forms of development can be
determined based on the location of existing facilities and uses and on the physical characteristics of
the land. By carefully evaluating these and other factors, a land use plan can be adopted which is
reasonable and sustainable against challenge.
Urban Development Area
In order to manage growth it is important to appropriately designate the general location of planned
urban development. The area designated would contain more intensive development and will
therefore need to be provided with utilities, improved roads, and other urban facilities. By
designating the Urban Development Area and confining urban development to that area, the County
is able to determine where to direct special, intensive efforts at providing facilities and services. The
Urban Development Area is intended to contain enough land to accommodate the urban and suburban
development that will occur throughout the next decade.
To determine the shape, location, and size of the Urban Development Area, the existing patterns of
land use, the suitability of land for development, and the existing and planned sewage facilities were
considered. The drainage areas in the eastern half of the County, including all that might reasonably
be provided with sewer and water service, have been evaluated according to existing development
and zoning, the location of existing sewer and water facilities, and the potential for future
development. These evaluations have been used to group drainage areas and portions of drainage
areas into a reasonable boundary for an Urban Development Area.
There is a need to provide a diversity of types of locations for various types of development in order
to accommodate a competitive land market, and provide for consumer choice. Therefore, sufficient
land needs to be included in the Urban Development Area In addition, providing sufficient land in
the Urban Development Area should also decrease development pressures in the rural areas. Though
there are other areas that could potentially be included in the Urban Development Area, important
agricultural areas such as the Agricultural and Forestal Districts should not be included.
Frederick County 6 - 1 Comprehensive Plan
'i
NAIL PARD SER
CML WAR SITES IN THE SHENANDOAH VALLEY OF VIRGINIA
SuNnMnxY
The decision to protect battlefield land and the
decision of how much of a battlefield to set aside, are
choices that hinge upon the community's goals as well as
the Nation's. Where the concern was simply to recall an
event to memory, then small parcels were typically set
aside for the erection of a monument or interpretive
markers. This approach was pursued often in the past,
even for national parks, based on the "implicit preserva-
tion" of open land. In other words, an interpretive stop or
trail was acquired and markers erected to describe the
historical importance of what was expected to be rural
landscape for the foreseeable future. Visitors to such sites
often assumed that the landscape was somehow protected,
when in actuality, the view was a free bonus. Returning
years later, they are liable to be surprised and disturbed to
see a housing subdivision or commercial strip where they
expected to see a battlefield In fact, residential developers
have reversed the "free bonus" and can now charge top
dollar for homes with a park in the back yard to serve the
recreational needs of a limited number of residents. The
assumptions underlying small parcel -commemoration
have been undermined on all sides, and this condition will
continue to generate crisis after crisis, as constituents
recognize and respond with outrage to the loss of historic
resources.
The most dramatic example of public outrage in
recent years was the crusade to prevent a shopping mall
from being built adjacent to Manassas National Battlefield
Park, resulting in a costly Federal acquisition. But this is
only one incident of many. The famous Cornfield at
Antietam was only recently protected from development
by a private foundation. A mile -long, "commemorative"
strip of the Wilderness was recently degraded to serve as
the median strip of a four -lane access road leading to a
resort community. A thousand homes and a shopping
center are planned for parcels adjacent to Gettysburg
National Military Park. With the increased pace of land
use change, the small parcel approach simply does not
protect the resources and land where historically impor-
tant events took place, nor does it allow adequate public
access to enable appreciation of nationally significant
events.
Whether the goals of battlefield preservation are to
enable interpretation of the battlefield, in terms of
understanding the terrain and military maneuvers, or, to
20
attract visitors who are interested in experiencing a past
event, or, to provide the opportunity for the general public
to view locations important to our national experience
and history, or, to set aside ground, as President Lincoln
stated, that was consecrated by the men who struggled
there to give life to the nation, it is clear that small parcel -
commemoration is inadequate and should be abandoned
except as a last resort, when it is necessary to prevent the
memory of an event and its participants from fading
entirely. The commitment to protect large tracts of
battlefield land, on the other hand, implies a larger desire
in the community to preserve open land for a variety of
reasons—not just for historical significance—but also to
maintain the rural character of an area, to encourage
agriculture, to set aside natural areas, to protect water-
sheds, to provide recreational space, or to provide a
historic attraction that is unique to the area.
Until now the preservation of battlefields in the
Shenandoah Valley has depended almost exclusively on
the small parcel -commemorative approach, in many
cases, consisting simply of interpretive highway pull -offs
along the right-of-way. Several private groups—primarily
the Virginia Military Institute, the Association for the
Preservation of Civil War Sites, the Cedar Creek Battlefield
Foundation, and the Lee -Jackson Foundation—have
acted to protect larger parcels through acquisition funded
by public donations. Mostly, preservation has relied upon
the free bonus of open farm and natural lands and the
coincidence of interests between landowners and preser-
vationists—as shown by the establishment of the Pied-
mont agricultural preservation district and the preserva-
tion intent of the Holy Cross Abbey at Cool Spring. The
pace of growth and development in the Valley and the
incremental loss of farmland are undermining these
assumptions of "implicit preservation." Individuals, who
have shouldered the burden of preservation with little help
or recognition from Local, State, or Federal governments,
cannot keep pace with the loss of resources.
It remains then to determine approaches to battlefield
protection that will preserve these historic resources and
landscapes. The regional coordination of preservation
and interpretation efforts, and a range of public and
public-private partnerships, will be needed to address the
unique needs and values of the individual sites. There is
no blanket solution. In the sections that follow, we try to
provide sufficient facts and analysis to inform the public
policy choices that need to be made.
FIRST WINCHESTER
Map 19, Integrity — 1991
Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley
NPS Study
. U 52'
IC ity of W inc
he te r
. ..........
U.S. 50
?
.'z Ex. 81
Rt. 7
4
IT
Rt. 37
J:
-4:
Frederick C
Pwt.h.d tt.arity
I.o" 10.00ty
S'..4v Ana Bo..doy
Cor. A.0 Boundary
Rood...0
Sirems ane Rl- Mi. min=
County or City Bomdvy
48ale'... miles
7 mie
0
+ Retained Integrity
Lost Integrity
Study Area Boundary
Care Area Bwndory
Roads
Streams and R'aers
County or City Boundary
SECOND WINCHESTER
Map 25, Integrity- 1991
Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley
NPS Study
r]
cz
CORREA SPONDENCE
Willow Grove Farm
740,750,760 Merriman's Lane
Winchester, VA 22601
May 12, 2003
Mr. Eric Lawrence
Frederick County Planning Director
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
The owners of Willow Grove LC, 740 LLC, 750 LLC, 227 Orchard Lane as well as Kenneth F. Marshall,
owner of Pembroke Cove Properties LLC, request that their properties become incorporated in the Urban
Development Area.
These properties, currently zoned as agriculture, are surrounded now with subdivisions and residences:
Merriman's Chase to the west, Morlyn Hills and Meadow Branch to the north, and Meadow Branch South
and Orchard Hill to the east. We understand that there is a hearing process and that we must comply with
presenting documents detailing our real estate holdings. Attached you will find the requested documents.
We look forward to hearing from you in regard to this process and if there are hearings or meetings which
we should attend.
Copies: Lucy M W Barksdale
Glenne White, Secretary
WG LC
Yours truly,
Stepp en D. White, Manager
Willow Grove LC & 750 LLC
M. Willis White, Manager
Willow Gro v LC
C. Ridgel , Jr., Man r
740 4C
Alexander N. White, Owner
227 Orchard Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
Kenneth F. Marshall
Pembroke Cove Properties LLC
964 Cedar Creek Grade
Winchester, VA 22601
s 2"-34- W
3IT�I'2J•W I/31.2o N�45•a5'E rit'O _ `� ,
Aedenm 9a4Ce Ceeex once
k.
.p• s` owners renbnxe ems Aepano a '
TaA Map s, 52-2A
h .^' s laos•u• w 1957.92'
Address: 964 Cedar Creek Grade i° :' s/a• -
Owner: Pembroke Cove Properties LLC. -
Tax Map A: 53-A-91
A'Js; as
-
z
� p
n
Request ofFTederlck County.
To Incorporate Following Parbels
y't s Into The Urban Area Development
3 r 53-A-91: Pembroke Cove Properties LLC
v 63-2A : Pembroke Cove Properties LLC
4oi 53.-A-92: Willow Grove LC
esj r 53 -A -92A: Alexatter & Michelle White
53 -A -92B:750 LLE'* _
y� a 53-A-90: 740 LLC
Contacb,WWIs White, Glenne White
_ y - Address, 720 S. Braddock St. Winchester
/ aae�.7do Me .l.ae "! •• $ Pnone:•540-007-1710
4
Owners Tao LLC
1 TU Mep 9, 52-A r
Add -227 ORhe lane
0—." Me2nnd" A Mkhe9e while SCALE
Address: 700 Merriman Lane T— Mep r. as-A-sm V-600'
/•C S„ p d Owner: Willow Grove LC
1 d ;a 'x Tax Map A: 53-A-92
` Add 70 M—lane
wner.m S,
O 7550
Tv M.p. 59-A.92B /
Merriman Chase
ay
Addn5e, 755 Meerlmene lane /I l..r�wos« '�
pSS.p eS«'p 3 WBkw Orme Lc
wee Map r, 82-A-92 / }
s":�a �•i /I Fr8 "�
RT. 37 N 11'1T
August 6, 2003
CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner
County of Frederick
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Request for Properties to be in Urban Development Area
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
Rouss City Hall
15 North Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
540-667-1815
TDD 540-722-0782
www.d.winchestenva.us
On Monday, July 21, 2003, you met with Dale Lehnig, the City Engineer and me to
discuss a request for properties located within the general boundaries of Winchester & Western
Railroad, City boundary, Cedar Creek Grade, Route 37 and Merrimans Lane to be incorporated
into the County's Urban Development Area. You asked if the City wouldbe able to provide
water and sewer service to the referenced area. As I stated in our meeting, I had an upcoming
meeting with the Council's Utilities Committee on Thursday and I would bring this up as a topic.
I did meet with them and they asked me to write this letter to you. The City is very much
interested in working with the County concerning this request. Due to the properties' location,
adjacent to the City and contained within Route 37, it seems logical that water, sewer and
transportation services and facilities would link with those of the City. At this time, we do feel
that water and sewer services would be available to this development but, due to the nature of
such a preliminary proposal, we must state this with some concern about the proposed
development's design uncertainties. They are:
1. It will be necessary for any future development in the referenced area to go through a
review process by both the County and City Departments. In the City, the availability
of water and sewer service may depend upon where the proposed facilities would
ultimately connect to the City's facilities.
2. For the area to be served by the City, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority must
state their willingness to allow City service.
3. New traffic generated and flowing through the existing City streets is a concern. It
will be necessary for any future development connecting to City streets to be
reviewed by the City's Planning Department.
4. Overall, where connecting facilities (water, sewer, transportation or other) are
deemed to be inadequate due to the development's needs, it may be necessary for the
PROVIDING QUALITY SERVICES TO OUR CITIZENS IN A COST-EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT AND COURTEOUS
MANNER, WHILE ANTICIPATING THE FUTURE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY
developers to make modifications and improvements to existing facilities to minimize
the impact.
The City looks forward to working with the County as this proposed development
progresses. In the meantime, should you have any questions or need additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
ancis A. Sanders, Jr., P.
Director — Public Utilities
Cc: Ed Daley, City Manager
Jeffrey Buettner, City Councilor
Tim Youmans, Director — Planning
Dale Lehnig — City Engineer
•
J
•
i tJUN T Y of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner �X�
RE: Discussion Item - Request to Amend the NELUP to Relocate a Planned Collector Road
and to Include Business Land Use Designation
DATE: August 21, 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.)
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) met first in June, and again on July 14,
2003 to consider this request. At the June 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 of
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
Frederick County Planning Commission
Re: Request to Amend NELUP to Relocate a Planned Collector Road
August 20, 2003
the major collector road.
Attached please find policy text from the Frederick County Comprehensive Land Use Plan relevant to
this request. This item is being presented to the Planning Commission for discussion. All comments
will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration during a discussion.
ASK/bad
Attachments
U:\COMMITTEES\CPPS\Projects\2003 Projects\Sempelse AmendmentNELUP\SempelesPCdiscussion repon.wpd
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE NELUP TO RELOCATE
A PLANNED COLLECTOR ROAD and to include
BUSINESS LAND USE
Staff Report for Planning Commission
Prepared: August 18, 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 discussion on this request.
It may also be useful to others interested in this comprehensive planning matter.
Discussion
Planning Commission: 09/03/03
Board of Supervisors:
PROPOSAL:
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 I I 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 refect 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 ref Zect 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
NELUP, 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 of water 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.
UACOMM=E&CPPMoject0003 Projects%Sempelse AmendmentNELUP\SempelesPCdiscussion report.wpd
Sempeles Properly
r
r•
T t� Jrir
0 0.4 0.8 Miles
9:38 AM, Thu 21 August 2003
FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
NELUP
ADOPTED AU', -."UN' -"T 13, 2003
ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003
Northeast Frederick band IJse Plan
The northeastern portion of Frederick County has been studied on three occasions to ascertain the
most appropriate land uses for its future. First in 1995, then in 1999. In 2002, the area was studied
once again in an effort to discern if thisportion of the County contained an excess of industrial land
use designations. Through the adoption of the 2002 land use planning efforts, the amount of land
designated industrial was significantly reduce, and the 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 A UGUST 13, 2003
plans in this area led the Board of Supervisors to direct the CPPS to revisit the previously adopted
land use plan. The Board of Supervisors directed the CPPS to develop a land use plan which
expanded upon the Route 11 North Pian 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.
excer pt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan
ADOPTED A UGUST 13, 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 (EI AB) 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 13, 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 secondary road systems.
excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan
ADOPTED A UGUST 13, 2003
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 (3rd 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), Milburn (34-729), the Byers House
(34-1124), and the Milburn Road corridor (Route 662), and minor areas of steep slope and mature
woodlands fall within the expanded SWSA and UDA boundaries. The land use plan incorporates
a Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation to ensure that these features, as well as
existing residential clusters and public land uses are protected from future development proposals.
The DSA is a community and historical preservation area; therefore, adjacent uses which may be
incompatible should provide adequate buffers and screening. The DSA is intended to discourage
any development along the Milburn Road corridor and to promote a higher standard of development
along the Martinsburg Pike corridor where residential clusters and public land uses dominate.
Development regulations should be reviewed to ensure that they protect and promote a cohesive
excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan
ADOPTED AUGUST 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 ofprivate 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 charnel 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
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 3 7 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 for water extraction and sewer treatment, or public/private
partnerships to develop necessary infrastructure.
excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan
CORRESPONDENCE FRO
G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIA
gilbert w. clifford & associates, inn
.INCORPORATED 1972
Engineers — Land Planners — Water Quality
20 May 2003
Board of Directors:
Mr. Eric Lawrence
President:
Frederick County Planning
Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E.
107 N. Kent Street
Vice Presidents:
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Charles E. Maddox, Jr„ P.E.
Earl R Sutherland, P.E.
Ronald A Mislowsky, P.E.
RE: Northeast Land Use Plan
David I Saunders, P.E.
Rest Church Road Intersection
Dire
William L. Wright
Michael A. hammer
Dear Eric,
Thomas W, Price
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 pian 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 1 I 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.
��ad ��i�C. Jr., P.E., Vice sident
CEM/1k'
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@earthlink.net
MemberAmerican Consulting Engineers Council
PROPOSED ZONING AREA
B-2 ZONING
M-1 ZONING 94.75 Ac
TOTAL AREA 10J.75 Ac
J
- >17 -�)-
r
i
J
AdmmW AW*wm
Imrd M -I
e/db Mmdw6r/p
zww M -t
SEMPELES PROPERLY gilW w, clifford do associates, inc.
11� v
o GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN Bran. o Lwd FUnm, 'Wdu a,f,
0 0
FREDE CK G WY,, MCC 117 E
! � . Wgrra 22801
- (510) 667-2131 FAIL (510) W -M ajA L: gwwm 0wff&ivam
F
EXISTING MAJOR
COLLECTOR LOCAT 3N �
r
t�
p
r
f
yR
jjFF S -
r « 7
j
T9.
P
f �
rs
�tG
I
PROPOSED TRIS PORTATION
NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN
0
o EXISTING ROAD PLAN
I�
FREDE7P/W COMM WR&M —
SEMPELES
PROPERTY
gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc.
&Q wm l"d Pkrmm ~ GLMI
117 E Pie* St MbdOW. W9W 2901
1e; (5101 667-2139 FAIL- (510) 60--W WL OWMMAM"
r
1
f
4,
� PROPOSED
TRA
TA TION
NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN
N3
o PROPOSED ROAD PLAN
fWD£RICK COUNTY; V7hOV11
SEMPELES C
PROPERTY
'%
PROPOSED
+ MAJOR
16 COLLECTOR
LOCATION
LAN gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc.
117 E Fkadil' y SL limhe er, Y qKo 22601
(540) 60-2139 FAV-- (540) 665-0493 D.WL• g. 9eard"'
41
LAN gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc.
117 E Fkadil' y SL limhe er, Y qKo 22601
(540) 60-2139 FAV-- (540) 665-0493 D.WL• g. 9eard"'
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EDINSURGRESIDENCY
Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE JERRY A. COPP
COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22$24 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
ail 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. Ingr �
Transportation Engineer
Virnini,gnOTnrn
Rezoning Comments SemgeIes
Ilirginia Department of Transportation
Ma
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. MaddoyJr P E 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 attached VD01 c Qmmentc ciatpd ;Y14ri l ?R ?II03
VDOT Signature ,�(,6V&,-�c r
on
04/28/0
PH- R+A
40 43►ir#noiINw
208 Church Street, S.E. Phone: 703.777.3616
Leesburg, Virginia Fax: 703.777.3725
20175
To: Sempeles Property File
From: John Callow, PHR+A
Date: May 9, 2003 _
Re: An Addendum to: A Tra c Impact Analvsis of the Sempeles ProertY
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document as an addendum
to: A Trafc Impact Analysis o the Sempeles Prouty, 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 trip assignments, 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 Trak Impact Analysis of the Sempeles Property
May 9, 2003
Page 2 of 4
No Scale
J
(24)39-"""
669 Rest Church
Road
0
5 (50)
�d (403)
Rest
Church Road
(19Z�3I2 �
r
11
j�l�
y ~ -133(64
(34046 "*I x(80 I�
(44)I6 ' SITE
o q
r�► (zI,
oodbzne Roa
� d
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
1
Figure 1 Development -Generated Trip Assignments
An Addendum to: A Trak Impact Anal
May ysis of the Sempeles Property PH 3 of 4 f 4 RA Page 3
No Scale
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
An Addendum to: A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Sempeles Property
May 9, 2003
Page 4 of 4
No Scale��
Rest Church
C(C)
Roa d
O'►
(C)C
Signalized
,x
Intersection
o
LOS = C(C)
q
669 Rest Church Road
P RA
Signalized \
Intersection
Rest LOS = C(C)
ch` eh Road I C(C)
W)C*W* *ftw
11
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
'` C(C)
*
Unsignalized
Intersection
°od
blue R2'
SITE
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 3 2012 Buildout Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
P
Ron Mislows age 1 of ]
From: "Ingram, Lloyd" <Lloyd.] ng ram@VirginiaDOT.org>
T <gwcaram@earthfink.net>
S, Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:12 AM
Subject: Sempeles Rezoning Addendum
Attention: Mr, Charles E. Maddox, P.E., V.P
The addendum you have submitted for review provides a significant improved
flow 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
can support.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on this addendum.
Lloyd A. Ingram
Transportation Engineer
VDOT — Edinburg Residency
Permit & Subdivision Section
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
(540) 984-5611 -
(540) 984-5607 (fax)
i
.�
•
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM
Frederick County Planning Commission
Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner 4
Discussion Item - Request to Amend the NELUP to Expand the SWSA
August 22, 2003
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
Staff has received a request from Triad Engineering, Inc. for an expansion to the Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA). The property is located on Brucetown Road (Route 672) in the vicinity of
the 1-81 interchange at exit 321 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
The applicants have requested to expand the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to include
approximately 98 acres of land currently zoned EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. A portion
of the site is presently located within the SWSA.
It has been brought to the attention of staff that this site is under consideration as an economic
development prospect. An application is pending to downzone the site from EM (Extractive
Manufacturing) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District for the development of a milk -balancing
facility.
Attached please find a letter and a location map to Planning Director Eric Lawrence from Stephen
M. Gyurisin of Triad Engineering, Inc. Staff is seeking your thoughts on this SWSA expansion
request, and will forward your thoughts to the Board for consideration. No action is required. If
deemed appropriate by the Board of Supervisors, public hearings will be scheduled for the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors.
ASK/bad
Attachments
U.\COMMITTEES\CPPS\Projects\2003 Projects\MD-VA_SWSA.wpd
107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
P.O. Box 2397 llllllllllll�
Winchester, VA 22604
Phone 540-667-9300 Ll
FAX 540-667-2260
August 22, 2003
Eric R. Lawrence, AICP
Director
Department of Planning and Development
County of Frederick
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) Request
Dear Eric,
We respectfully request that the SWSA incorporate the entire property of the
Frederick Land Company, LC described as approximately 98 acres located on
the north side of Brucetown Road (VA Sec. Route 672) and identified as Tax
Map Number: 34-A-11, Stonewall Magisterial District.
You will find attached a location map further identifying the property for your use.
Should you require additional information or have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
M. Gyu isin
Enclosures
s Y�
CC: Abby Kennedy, Frederick County Planning Department
Thomas Lawson, Lawson and Silek, PC
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Morgantown • St. Albans Greensburg Hagerstown Winchester • Harrisonburg + Purcellville
West Virginia Pennsylvania Maryland Virginia
FREDERICK LAND COMPANY, L.C.
FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
Da
TRMI ENGDg:ERDM, pjr_ I JL W LK 1S, W A ILK 3 -LK V IUL AKLA SMG Cadd file no.i
WDOUESUR, vmc I nrATTiIN Chec e y SWSA.DWG
Job No.,07-03-029 Rate
Hu,e..,
Scale, V = 1000 A-2
FREDERICK LAND COMPANY, L.C.
CLEARBROOK, VA.
I-81 INTERCHANGE -EXIT 317
STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Scale: 1" = 1000'
•
J
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
Frederick County Planning Commissioners
Jeremy F. Camp, Planner 11
Discussion Topic - Proposed Modification Of Hog Farm Regulations
August 18, 2003
During June and July of this year the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS),
with input from Paul Anderson of the Frederick County Farm Bureau, evaluated numerous potential
changes to the zoning ordinance aimed at modifying current hog farm regulations. Early in the
discussion, the subcommittee identified that their primary goal was to change the ordinance sq the sural l
family farmer could keep a limited number of hogs on his or her property without having to comply with
the 200 -foot setback requirement. The 200 -foot setback requirement currently applies to all hog
operations, regardless if there is only one, or 1,000, hogs on a tract of land. The majority of members
believed that the original intent of the 200 -foot setback requirement was to regulate very large hog farm
operations, not small family farms.
The proposed ordinance amendment would change the current 200 -foot setback requirement for hog
operations so it would only apply to operations with more than 30 hogs. This number was chosen by
the DRRS, because it would allow up to three litters of piglets at one time. Minor text changes and a
new definition is required for the proposed change. The modifications include a few ancillary changes,
such as: making the 200 -foot setback requirement apply to roads; and, replacing the wording "hog pen"
with "hog farm". The following page illustrates the current ordinance, proposed modifications (showing
changes), and proposed ordinance. Changes are proposed to Section 165-50 and 165-156 of the zoning
ordinance.
Please review the proposed ordinance for discussion purposes during the September 3`d Planning
Commission meeting. Following the Planning Commission meeting, the next stage would be to discuss
the proposed amendment with the Board of Supervisors. The proposed amendment would then proceed
to the public hearing process, if directed by the Board of Supervisors.
JFC/bad
Attachment
U- ICOMMITTEESIDRRSIProjects120031Hog FarmslPCMemo_Discu sion.wpd
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
LEGEND
• Language removed is shown in
strikeout.
I Language proposed is shaded. I
Current Ordinance:
Section 165-50. Permitted uses.
AA. Hog farming. It shall be unlawful for any person to have or maintain or to permit to
be erected, in the county, any hog pen that is located closer than two hundred (200)
feet to a residence or an adjoining property that is used for human habitation.
Section 165-156. Definitions.
Hog Farm - A farm where hogs are produced and kept.
Proposed Modifications:
Section 165-50. Permitted uses.
AA. Hog farmings.
(260) feet to a residence or wi adjoining property that is used f6r hurnan
habi-tatiHog farms, as defined in Section 165-156, shall be located no closer than
two hundred (200) feet from roads or adjoining parcels used primarily for residential
use.
Section 165-156. Definitions.
Hog Farm - . A place where more than thirty (30)
hogs are produced or kept.
Proposed Ordinance:
Section 165-50. Permitted uses.
AA. Hog farms. Hog farms, as defined in Section 165-156, shall be located no closer than
two hundred (200) feet from roads or adjoining parcels used primarily for residential
use.
Section 165-156. Definitions.
Hog Farm - A place where more than thirty (30) hogs are produced or kept.
U. ICOMMITTEESIDRRSIProjectsl2003Wog FarmAPCMemo_Discwsion.wpd