The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 12-18-02 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia DECEMBER 18, 2002 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Committee Reports ................................. ............... (no tab) 2) Citizen Comments .................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 3) Rezoning #08-02 of Bowman/Shoemaker (tabled at the 9/4/02 and 11/20/02 meetings), submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 10.09 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located south on Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), approximately 800 feet east of the intersection of Rt. 277 and Double Church Road (Rt. 641), and is identified with Property Identification Number 86-A-81 in the Opequon Magisterial District. (Mr. Camp) ........................... ................, ........... (A) PUBLIC MEETING 4) Waiver Request of Michael and Linda Ferraro to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, §144-3 1 C(3) which would enable them to subdivide the property without the necessary fifty (50') right-of-way width for a private shared driveway. This waiver, if approved, would apply to this specific subdivision request. Any future subdivision requests for this property would be required to meet the requirements of § 144-31 C(3). This request has been returned to the Planning Commission by the Board of Supervisors for further consideration. (Mr. Davenport) ....................................................... (B) DISCUSSION ITEM 5) Discussion on Woodlands Ordinance Amendments (Mr. Camp).......................................................... (C) 6) Discussion on the 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan (Mr. Mohn). ...................................................... .. (D) 7) Other REZONING APPLICATION #08-02 BOWMAN/SHOEMAKER PROPERTIES Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: December 6, 2002 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: 09/04/02 Tabled 11/20/02 Tabled 12/18/02 Pending Board of Supervisors: 01/22/03 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 10.09 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). LOCATION: This property is located south of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), approximately 800 feet east of the intersection of Rt. 277 and Double Church Road (Rt. 641). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 86-A-81 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Present Use: Single Family Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned MI (Industrial, Light) District Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District East: Zoned B2 (Business, General) District West: Zoned M2 (Industrial, General) District Zoned B2 (Business, General) District Use: Trucking Use: Single Family Residential & Townhouses Use: Single Family Residential & Commercial Use: Undeveloped Use: Office & Commercial Use: Office & Commercial REZ 908-02, Bowman/Shoemaker Properties Page 2 December 6, 2002 PROPOSED USE: Office Uses REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: VDOT is satisfied that the revised transportation proffers in the Bowman/Shoemaker Rezoning application dated October 14, 2002, address transportation concerns associated with this request (see attached VDOT letter dated October 18, 2002). Update: (see attached revised VDOT comments dated November 26, 2002 in response to the revised proffer statement) Fire Marshal: Fire and rescue apparatus access must be maintained at all times. "Fire Lane No Parking" signs required at fire hydrants, and normal and emergency access points. Fire hydrants are required to be with 300 feet of all points of any commercial building. Hydrants shall be placed within three feet of the curb line. Plan approval recommended. Stephens City Fire & Rescue: Based on the changes made to the Impact on Development, specifically to Stephens City Fire and Rescue, we do not have any problems with the rezoning of the aforementioned property. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. County Engineer: We offer no comments at this time. Sanitation Authority: No Comment. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments; no concerns. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of this rezoning, it appears the proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and itis not necessary to schedule a formal review of the proposal by the HRAB. As you have indicated in your impact statement, according to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It can also be noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. County Attorney: Appear to be in proper form. Health Department: Health Department has no objection to the request if the following items are addressed: 1. In Phase 1, no more than six people (2 10 gpd water use) to occupy facility. 2. In Phase 2, all facilities must be serviced by municipal water and sewer. REZ #08-02, Bowman/Shoemaker Properties Page 3 December 6, 2002 Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the property which comprises the proposed rezoning as A-2 (Agricultural General). On February 14, 1990 the A-2 and A-1 (Agricultural Limited) Zoning Districts were consolidated to create the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. The current zoning of the property is RA. 2) Location The parcel which comprise the proposed rezoning is located on the south side of Fairfax Pike (Route 277). It is approximately 800 feet to the east of the road intersection of Fairfax Pike and Double Church Road. According to the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan, found in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, Fairfax Pike is classified as a minor arterial road. Double Church Road is classified as a major collector road. The property is surrounded by a mixture of land uses. Commercial and industrial properties are located to the east and west; residential and agricultural properties are located to the south; residential properties are located to the north; and industrial uses are located to the north and west. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The proposal to rezone the subject property to commercial is consistent with some of the objectives for commercial development found in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. For instance, the property is located along a minor arterial roadway; is adjacent to other properties zoned commercial; and is accessible to numerous citizens. No small area land use plans exist in the area of the subject property. The property is not located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) or the Sewer & Water Service Area (SWSA). The portion of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) from I-81 to White Oak Road (Route 636) is a road improvement project identified in the Eastern Road Plan, found in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. This road improvement project is also on the Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan. 4) Site Suitability No flood plains, lakes or ponds, wetlands, sinkholes, natural stormwater retention areas, steep slopes, or woodlands have been identified on the parcel of this rezoning application. The property is within the Stephens Run Area Watershed, as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Frederick County Soil Survey indicates that all of the soil on the subject parcel is 2-7% REZ 908-02, Bowman/Shoemaker Properties Page 4 December 6, 2002 Biairton silt loam (3B). This soil is identified as prime agricultural farmland in the Frederick County Soil Survey. Only minor construction concerns are generally associated with this type of soil. These concerns include a seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and potential frost action. The permeability of Blairton silt loam is generally moderately slow. The site exists within the Martinsburg shale geologic area of the County, which is similar to most area of urban development in the County. 5) Intended Use The applicant proposes the establishment of office uses. The submitted proffer statement offers to limit the total building structures to 100,000 square feet. The first Phase of development is proposed to have up to 5,000 square feet of building structures, and will only utilize the existing structure on the property. The second Phase of development would account for the remaining square footage; however, would only occur if the property is given the authority to have public sanitary services. 6.) Potential Impacts a) Transportation Impact Analysis Statement Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement advises that traffic generation from the 10.09 acres would produce 1,101 VPD on the existing road system, as calculated utilizing The Institute of Transportation of Engineers Trip Generation Report, 6`h Edition, based on office uses on a weekday at build -out. The Impact Analysis Statement breaks this projection down between the two proposed Phases of development. Phase I would generate 55 VPD. Phase II would generate 1,046 VPD. The Impact Analysis Statement indicates that the current traffic volume along Fairfax Pike (Route 277) is 11,000 VPD. Planing Staff Comment The 2000 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes Jurisdiction Report 34 indicates that the Annual Average Daily Traffic for Fairfax Pike (Route 277) is 11,000 vehicle trips. The Impact Analysis Statement indicates that the proposed development would increase the existing traffic along Fairfax Pike (Route 277) by 1,101 vehicles per day. This translates into a 10% increase in traffic along Fairfax Pike. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has reviewed and approved the applicant's rezoning application and proffer statement. VDOT's letter dated August 2, 2002 acknowledges that the proposed proffer statement addresses transportation concerns. This letter also recognizes the need for a future left turn lane and taper to access the site if build -out occurs before Fairfax Pike (Route 277). REZ #08-02, Bowman/Shoemaker Properties Page 5 December 6, 2002 The Traffic Impact Analysis dated June 24, 2002, provides an accurate depiction of the current traffic situation along Fairfax Pike (Route 277). It also provides information regarding the projected impacts to this existing roadway. The proffer statement proposed by the applicant details numerous transportation related conditions that would be binding if the property is rezoned. b) Historic Resources Impact Analysis Statement Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement identifies several historic structures within the proximity of the subject property. It further advises that none of these structures were deemed to be historically significant by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report. The Impact Analysis Statement also indicates that there are no possible historic districts located in or within the property, based on the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. C) Water and Sewer Impact Analysis Statement The Impact Analysis Statement provided by the applicant for this rezoning provides the projected impact which the proposed rezoning would have on sanitary sewer services and water supply systems. A total of 20,000 Gallons Per Day (GPD) is projected. The Impact Analysis Statement utilized the Land Development Handbook, Dewberry & Davis, 1996, page 461 in arriving at this calculation. Planning StaJLComment The property considered for rezoning is not located within the Sewer & Water Service Area (SWSA) or the Urban Development Area (UDA). The applicant has made an attempt to address this concern by proffering no development beyond the existing structure until the site is given the authority to use public sanitary services. The Health Department has indicated that a new health permit is necessary for the change of use of the existing structure into office uses. The Board recently heard a request to expand the SWSA to encompass the subject property. The Board decided that a comprehensive study of the entire area was warranted before making a decision on the request. Presently this study is one of the tasks schedule for the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPB). REZ #08-02, Bowman/Shoemaker Properties Page 6 December 6, 2002 7) Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed by the property owner, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's office. The following is a summary of the conditions voluntarily proffered by the applicant: Proffer A - The property would only be used for offices with no more than 100,000 square feet of building structures. The first phase of development will be to convert the existing structure into an office building with no more than 5,000 square feet. The remaining land will not be developed to office use until the property is authorized to have public sewer service. Proffer B - Right-of-way is offered to be granted to VDOT along Fairfax Pike (Route 277) to accommodate future road improvements and bicycle facilities; the number of entrances off of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) is restricted; and a signalization agreement will be entered into with VDOT for a traffic signal prior to approval of the first site plan for Phase II. The applicant also proffers to provide a 60 -foot right-of-way and road through the subject property to be potentially used as a state road in the future. Planning Staff Comment Staff suggests that the proposed development have no more than two entrances off of Fairfax Pike. The wording used by the applicant in the Impact Analysis Statement and Proffer B seems to be give conflicting information regarding the number of proposed entrances. Proffer C - A lighting plan would be provided for each site plan in Phase II. Planning Staff Comment Staffwould note that the proffer does not address a Phase ILightingPlan. Proffer D - All parking would be setback from Fairfax Pike (Route 277) by at least 20 feet. A three -foot -high berm would be provided in this setback area, which would be planted with evergreen shrubs. Proffer E - All future business signs would be limited to 100 square feet, be of monument sign style, and not exceed 15 feet in height. Proffer F - A monetary payment of $2,500 would be paid to the Frederick County Treasurer for Fire & Rescue services. REZ #08-02, Bowman/Shoemaker Properties Page 7 December 6, 2002 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 09/04/02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The 10.09 acres proposed to be rezoned to commercial property is not located within the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Other than this concern regarding the UDA and SWSA, the rezoning application appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan's goals for commercial development. The subject property is located along a major roadway; is within convenient access to residential uses; and is near other commercial properties. The applicant has submitted a proffer statement in an attempt to mitigate the impacts associated with this commercial rezoning request. The proffer statement includes the voluntary restriction of all development for Phase II until the property is given the authority to access public sanitary services. The proffer statement also addresses many other concerns regarding the proposed rezoning petition. Staff believes that the applicant should be prepared to address the following issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors: The property is not within the UDA or the SWSA. Existing septic system capacity for Phase I and the evaluation of the applicant's response to the property not being located within the UDA or SWSA should be evaluated. The number of proposed entrances off of Fairfax Pike should be clarified. To minimize the potential traffic impacts, staff supports that the property be limited to no more than two entrances. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 9/04/02 MEETING On September 9, 2002, the Frederick County Planning Commission tabled Rezoning Application #08-02 so the applicant might consider the traffic impacts that the proposed development would have on Fairfax Pike (Route 277). In particular, the Planning Commission was concerned about what would happen if Phase II were built prior to the anticipated improvements to Fairfax Pike. Some Planning Commissioners believed that Fairfax Pike could not support a 100,000 square foot office building until it is improved to a four lane road. There were no citizen comments. (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.) REZ 908-02, Bowman/Shoemaker Properties Page 8 December 6, 2002 UPDATE SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON 9/04/02 A revised application, impact analysis statement and proffer statement were submitted on October 25, 2002 by the applicant. In addition, revised agency review comments were provided from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Health Department, the Fire Marshal, and the County Attorney. A summary of the changes to the application, impact analysis statement, and proffer statement are noted below: Revised Application (Dated 10/25/02) Phase II is now proposed for office or commercial uses. The original application proposed only office uses. Revised Impact Analysis Statement (Dated 10/14/02) The impact analysis statement was revised to calculate the traffic impact if Phase II were developed as a shopping center. In this worst-case traffic scenario, traffic along Fairfax Pike (Route 277) would increase by 4,802 VPD. This calculates to a 40% overall increase in traffic to Fairfax Pike. Phase I accounts for only .05% of this increase. A 10% overall increase in traffic to Fairfax Pike was proposed in the original application when only office uses were proposed for Phase II. Revised Proffer Statement (Dated 10/14/02) The proffer statement has been revised to allow commercial and office uses in Phase II. As the previous proffer statement indicated, Phase I would only be used for office uses. A new proffer is provided which restricts certain land uses. These restricted land uses include electric, gas and other utilityfacilities and offices, retail nurseries and lawn and garden supply stores, automotive dealers (excluding gasoline service stations SIC - 5541), hotels and motels, organizational hotels and lodging, car washes, miscellaneous repair services, golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses, membership organizations, self-service storage facilities, commercial batting cages operated outdoors, adult care residences and assisted care facilities, and adult retail. All other uses permitted in the B2 Zoning District would still be allowed if the rezoning application is approved. As the applicant has stated in the impact analysis statement, this could include a shopping center. It could also enable a restaurant, office building, movie theater, or model home sales office. The transportation proffer (proffer B) has been revised to clarify that there will be no more than two commercial entrances to Fairfax Pike. One of these entrances will be the existing loop entrance on the property. REL #08-02, Bowman/Shoemaker Properties Page 9 December 6, 2002 The transportation proffer (Proffer B) was also revised to indicate that a detailed traffic study will be conducted in accordance with VDOT for each site plan proposed for Phase IL Furthermore, any improvements necessary to maintain a Level of Service of C or better will be incorporated into each site plan submission. The applicant has proffered to implement the improvements deemed necessary by VDOT. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR NOVEMBER 20, 2002 The applicant has made an attempt to address the concerns identified during the Planning Commission meeting on September 4, 2002. The applicant has proffered that any road improvements to Fairfax Pike, which are necessary to maintain or exceed a Level of Service C, will be paid for by the developer. The applicant has also clarified that there will only be two entrances onto Fairfax Pike. Staff does, however, identify a few concerns with the new application. These concerns are noted below: The applicant's change from strictly offices to offices and/or commercial uses in Phase II may potentially lead to a greater traffic impact. As with the original application, the fact that the property is not located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) or the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) should be evaluated. The Planning Commission expressed concern of this issue during the September 4`h meeting. The applicant should be prepared to address any concerns raised in this report, as well as the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 11/20/02 MEETING: The applicant argued that there is not necessarily a County requirement or policy stipulating that properties be within the UDA or SWSA to qualify for rezoning approval. However, he pointed out that the application did include a revised proffer that precluded development in Phase II until the property is entitled to have public sewer and water service. The applicant further noted that the proffers had been revised to address the Commission's transportation concerns. Specifically, it was explained that the revised proffer stated that a detailed traffic study would be conducted for each site plan of Phase II. Furthermore, the developer would pay for all road improvements required by VDOT. Despite this revision, Commissioners continued to have concerns regarding the impacts of Phase II traffic on Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), especially at peak traffic periods when trips generated by the high school, the proposed office building, and shopping centers would simultaneously converge on the roadway. It was noted that the transportation impacts of the proposed Phase II development may be difficult to mitigate until Fairfax Pike was improved to accommodate the projected traffic volume. It was acknowledged that the scope of improvements necessary to enable the additional trips may ultimately involve the expansion of Fairfax Pike to a four- REZ 908-02, Bowman/Shoemaker Properties Page 10 December 6, 2002 lane roadway extending from the I-81 interchange to Double Tollgate. Due to these outstanding concerns, the Commissioners did not believe they could forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors until the issue of Phase II traffic impacts was satisfactorily resolved. VDOT's resident engineer expressed concern that the established traffic impact analysis process would be undermined by agreements between the County and applicants that artificially establish the maximum vehicle trips permitted for a given development, regardless of their location on the road and the ultimate impact of the proposal on the system as a whole. Such an approach was identified as decidedly piecemeal in nature and, therefore, contrary to identifying and managing impacts comprehensively. It was noted that deviation from the traffic impact analysis process in this case would be especially risky given the general agreement that Fairfax Pike had already reached its saturation point as it could result in the introduction of "fatal flaws" into the transportation system. The applicant offered to produce written revisions to the transportation component of his proffers addressing the stated concerns of VDOT and the Commissioners so that a negative recommendation from the Commission could be avoided. The applicant agreed to waive the statutory time requirements for action on the application to enable its tabling so that sufficient time would be available for preparation and submission of the revised proffer language. The applicant offered a revision that would state the following: 1) Phase II, Step A, will not exceed 250 tpd, 2) Phase 1I, Step B, will not be developed until Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) is improved, and 3) a traffic study will be conducted for each site plan of Phase II to ensure that acceptable levels of service will be maintained. VDOT's resident engineer and the Commissioners believed these revisions represented an appropriate resolution of identified concerns and, therefore, the Commission unanimously agreed to table the rezoning until the Commission's second meeting in December. There were no public comments. (Please note: Commissioners Kriz, Rosenberry, and Unger were absent from the meeting.) UPDATE SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON 11/20/02: The applicant has submitted a revised proffer statement which has been signed by the property owner and reviewed by the County Attorney. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has also reviewed the revised proffer statement and believe it satisfies their concerns. The revised proffer statement includes the following changes to Proffer 137: • The development of Phase 11 will be limited to 250 vehicle trips per day (VPD) until Fairfax Pike (Route 277) is improved. • A detailed traffic study will be conducted for each site plan in Phase Il to ensure that an acceptable level of service is maintained on Fairfax Pike. No development of Phase 1I will occur unless an acceptable level of service is proven through the traffic study process. RLZ #08-02, Bowman/Shoemaker Properties Page 11 December 6, 2002 Staff notes that the revised proffer appears to be consistent with what was discussed between the applicant and the Planning Commission during the November 20`h meeting. During the December I8`h meeting, the applicant should be prepared to explain to the Planning Commission how the revised proffer statement addresses the transportation issues associated with this rezoning. In addition to this, staff is still concerned with the fact that the property requested to be rezoned is outside of the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). O: IAgendaslCOAIMENISIREZONINGIStaff Report120021Bowman_Shoemaker.wpd I NEFF, E. R., INC. 86 A 77 RA BOWMAN 86 A 81 RA ORNDORFF 86 A 78 RA RPRP ZZZLI ACr A � �'[RP � F Y . REZ # a8 - 02 FRUIr.CIMITED ' ` Location Map For: PARTNERSHIP 68.-A; 80 ;: ` Bp owman / Shoemaker z BZ Properties := PIN: :86-A-81 t}}SS A 0 70 140 Feet enumniiiiiiij Aug. Zo, Zoa2 keV15E0 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff s Fee Amount Paid Zoning Amendment Number,; Date Received — PC HearingDate y-¢-�� • j�� : BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. 2. 0 9 Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540)-662-4185 Address: 151 Windy Hill, Winchester, VA 22602 Property Owner (if different from above) Name: Beverley B. Shoemaker Telephone: 869-1800 Address: P.O. Box 480 Stephens City, VA 22655 Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt Telephone: _(540)-662-4185 Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map ® Agency Comments Plat ® Fees Deed to Property ® Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid M Proffer Statement ED RECEM Nov 0 6 2002 FRED & l PMENT PLAN 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Beverley B. Shoemaker 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: Single -Family Residential Office & Commercial PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 86-((A))-82 Commercial & Office M2 86-((A))-77 Single -Family Residential RA 86-((A))-78 Single -Family Residential RA 86-((A))-80 Undeveloped Commercial B2 86-((A))-86 & 87 Trucking M1 86-((A))-89 Single -Family Residential RP 86-5-A Single -Family Residential RP 86 -A -85E Single -Family Residential RP 86-((A))-90 Single -Family Residential RP 86C -2-83A Townhouse Residential RP 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): South on Route 277 (Fairfax Pike), approximately 800 feet east of the intersection of Route 277 and Route 641 (Double Church). Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Imnact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 86-((A))-81 Districts Magisterial: Opequon High School: Fire Service: Stephens City Middle School: Rescue Service: Stephens City Elementary School 10. 11. Sherando Aylor Bass Hoover Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 10.09 RA B2 10.09 Total Acreage to be rezoned The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office & 100,000 sq.ft. in two phases- Service Commercial: Phase I - 5,000 sq.ft office Station: Phase II - 95,000 sq.ft. office & commercial. Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. 1(we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Date: Date: Owner (s):L)-dj ilki __ Date: Date: A0 17's 107— /0- 25-62- 10-18-02; 9=46AM; Greenway Engineer;540 984 5607 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY Philip A Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22824 October 18, 2002 VDOT Comments to Bowman/Shoemaker Companies Rezoning App:ieation ## 2/ 2 JERRYA. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL(540)984-5600 FAX(540)984-5607 The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 277, Fairfax Pike. This is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation revised proffers offered in the Bowman/Shoemaker Rezoning application dated October 14, 2002 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right -of --way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of --way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Homer F. Coffman, TidoA. Asst. Resident Engineer VirginiaDOT.org 1A®p PfGIE.f?=D\.YP��01�14fl �RA�\.A@�1l� OUTPUT MC _E APPLICANT: Bowman/Shoemaker Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPECommercial Costs of REAL EST VAL $6,508,838 Required Impact Credit: Credits -Lo be Take Total Potential Adjustment For FIRE & RESCUE 11 Capital Faciltiies (entered in col sum only) Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debtt_S. Future CIP/ Taxes, Other Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per (Unadjusted) Cost BBalance Facilities lmpact willing Unit Fire and Rescue Department $55,706 Elementary Schools $p $0 $0 $55,706 ERR Middle Schools $p $0 $0 $0 High Schools $0 $0 ERR Parks and Recreation $p $0 $0 $0 Public Library $0 ERR Sheriffs Offices $3,895$0 $0 $0 $3,895 $0 $3,895 $0 $0 ERR Administration Building $p $0 $0 ERR Other Miscellaneous Facilities $0 $9,339 $10,311 $19,650 $0 $19,650 $0 ERR $0 ERR SUBTOTAL $55,706 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $4,577,622 $13,234 $10,311 $0 $23,545 $23,545 $32,161 ERR NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $4,577,622 $4,577,622 ($4.571.62 ERR 0 ERR INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Av g: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 1.342 --------------------------- —--------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input -- to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes /fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth colas calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: Model Run Date 11/06/02 J FC (Prepared for Revised Application Dated October 25, 2002) Project Description: Assumes 5,000 sq.ft. of office use and 95,000 square feet of retail use on 10.09 acres zoned B2 District Property Identification Number (PI N) 86-A-81 Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 day s from the model run date. 2001 MODEL I_MP A C T BOWMAN/SHOEMAKER xA S� i4NLS REZONING Opequon District Frederick County, Virginia TM 86-((A))-81 10.09 Acres October 14, 2002 Current Owner: Beverley Shoemaker Contact Person: Evan A. Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Dill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Greenway Engineering June 24, 2002 Shoemaker Hdqts Rezoning October 14, 2002 SHOEMAKER GLOBAL HEADQUARTERS REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of a 10.09 -acre parcel owned by Beverley Shoemaker. The subject site is located on the south side of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike), and Approx. 800 ft. east of the intersection of Route 277 and Route 641 (Double Church Road). The current zoning is RA, Rural Areas District. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from RA to B2 (Business General). Basic information Location: Magisterial District: Property ID Numbers: Current Zoning: Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning: Total rezoning area: Proposed build -out: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Policy South of Route 277 and east of the Intersection of Route 277 & Route 641 Opequon 86-((A))-81 RA Residential Business General B2 10.09 acre 100,000 square feet office and commercial The Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does not include a wide - area development plan for this geographic area of the County; however, the Fairfax Pike corridor has been a developing corridor over the past fifteen years. Land uses within the immediate area of the subject property include many residential subdivisions, several commercial sites including a shopping center, the Sherando High School and the Sherando Regional Park. The business area strategies within the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Policy Plan call for the provision of locations for substantial expansion of retail, service and office use in the County with safe and efficient access. The business area strategies call for the development of major business developments on arterial corridors that provide for design, layout, function and appearance of the corridors. 2 Greenway Engineering June 24, 2002 Shoemaker Hdqts Rezoning October 14, 2002 2. Sewer and Water Service Area The 10.09 -acre property is located adjacent to the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Currently, the SWSA boundary includes all properties on the north side of Fairfax Pike from Interstate 81 Exit 307 to White Oak Road (Route 636) and all properties on the south side of Fairfax Pike from Interstate 81 Exit 307 to Double Church Road (Route 641). Recently, the Board of Supervisors adopted an expansion of the SWSA to include additional properties on the south side of Fairfax Pike just to the east of the subject property, including the Sherando High School property, the Sherando Regional Park property and several residential parcels along Hudson Hollow Road (Route 636). A request to include the subject property into the SWSA is currently under consideration by the Board of Supervisors 3. Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, provides a statement of intent for each category of business and industrial zoning for Frederick County. The statement of intent for the B2, Business General District is to provide large areas for a variety of business, office and service land use located on arterial highways at major intersections and interchange areas. These areas are intended toprovide direct access to major thoroughfares for the general public and delivery truck traffic. The direct access to major thoroughfares is intended to be controlled to promote safe and orderly development for properties with adequate frontage and depth. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject site, tax parcel 86-((A))-81, has approximately 1,000 feet of frontage on Fairfax Pike (Route 277). The existing structure on the subject property has direct access to Fairfax Pike through a looped "horseshoe" driveway. This existing driveway is intended to serve the Phase I office development. The Phase II office and commercial development will be limited to access through one commercial entrance to the west of the existing loop driveway and through access off of a proposed 60 -foot road system which will intersect with Fairfax Pike and proceed in a southwestern direction through the limits of the subject property. Traffic signalization will be proposed at the intersection of Fairfax Pike and the 60 -foot road system to facilitate Phase II traffic movement Flnnd Plaine The subject property is located on the FEMA National Flood Insurance Plan Map #510063-0200-B. The entire site is located as "Zone C", area outside the 100 -year flood plain. 3 Greenway Engineering June 24, 2002 Shoemaker Ildgts Rezoning October 14, 2002 Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory Map indicates that no wetlands exist on the subject property. Steep Slope The subject property does not contain areas of steep slope. Mature Woodlands The subject property does not contain woodland areas. Soil Types The following soil types contained in this tract have been obtained from the Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. The subject site is located on map sheet number 47, and contains one soil type: 313- Blairton silt loam — 2-7 percent slope, covers 100% of site. This soil type is identified in Table 5 — Prime Farmland on page 123 of this document. This soil type will not create construction difficulties or hazards. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use (see existing zoning map): North. Zoned RP, Residential Performance District Zoned MI, Light Industrial District South: Zoned RA, Rural Areas District East: Zoned B2, Business General District West: Zoned M2, industrial General District Residential Industrial Residential Undeveloped Commercial Heavy Commercial & Office Greenway Engineering June 24, 2002 Shoemaker Hdqts Rezoning October 14, 2002 C. TRAFFIC IMPACT 1. According to the VDOT Functional Classification located in the Transportation Chapter of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, Route 277 is classified as a minor arterial road. The proposed change in zoning will provide the opportunity for the existing structure to change its form of operation to an accepted B2 Zoning classification style of business for the Phase I development limit of 5,000 square feet, and will provide for the future use of the subject property during the Phase II development which proffers a maximum of 95,000 square feet of additional office and retail use for a total site build out of 100,000 square feet. Page 7 of the 2000 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes Manuel identifies an average daily traffic volume of 11,000 vehicle trips on Fairfax Pike between Interstate 81 Exit 307 and White Oak Road (Route 636). The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual provides traffic generation information for shopping center use and office use as follows: Route 277 Traffic = 11,000 VPD (2000 Volumes) Route 277 Traffic = 12,128 VPD (2002 Estimated Volumes with 5% annual increase) Average Vehicle Trips = 11.01 VPD' Average Vehicle Trips = 49.97 VPD2 Square Footage of Business = 5,000 sq.ft. (Phase I) = 95,000 sq.ft. (Phase II) = 100,000 sq.ft. total build out Projected Trak = 55VPD (Phase 1) = 4,747 VPD (Phase II) = 4,802 VPD total build out Percentage of Traffic Increase for Route 277 Daily Traffic Volume = 0.05% (Phase I) = 39% (Phase II) = 40% build out 'This figure is in accordance to the I.T.E., Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, and is projected for a general business office, as per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area, on a weekday (page 1052 in the manual). 2This figure is in accordance to the I.T.E., Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, and is projected for a shopping center, as per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area, on a Saturday (page 1340 in the manual). The Phase I development limit of 5,000 square feet creates a negligible increase in the average daily traffic volume on Fairfax Pike. The Phase II development has proffered conditions, which offer a 60' access road connection to Fairfax Pike at a signalized intersection and traffic studies for Phase II site plans to maintain a LOS C. These improvements reasonably mitigate the increased average daily traffic volume increase on Fairfax Pike that will occur over time 5 Greenway Engineering June 24, 2002 Shoemaker Hdqts Rezoning October 14, 2002 D. SEWAGE AND CONVEYANCE TREATMENT & WATER SUPPLY The subject site is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the Sewer and Water Service Area (S WSA) located on Fairfax Pike (Route 277). An 8" sewer main is currently in place on the north side of Fairfax Pike directly across from the subject property. An 8" sewer main also exists on the south side of Fairfax Pike to the west of the subject property that serves the Rite Aid parcel. A 12" water main is currently in place on the south side of Fairfax Pike which provides water service to the subject property. The impact of this proposed rezoning of the 10.09 -acre parcel from RA to B-2 on sewage conveyance and water supply is based on the square footage of the proffered office and commercial use being 100,000 sq. ft. Design figures show an estimated 200 GPD, for both the sewer and water systems, per 1,000 square feet of ultimate floor space (These numbers are in reference to the Land Development Handbook, Dewberry & Davis, 1996, page 461). The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered square footage of office and commercial use has on the sewage conveyance and water supply systems. Q = 200 GPD per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Q = 200 GPD x 100 (1,000 sq. ft.) Q = 20,000 GPD The numbers clearly represent that the total development of the subject property will have a minor impact on the sewage conveyance system and water supply systems. The Phase I development will utilize the existing public water supply and the existing sewage septic system for the proffered office square footage, while the proffered 95,000 square feet of office and commercial use in Phase II will be developed in conjunction with public sewer. The Frederick -Winchester Health Department comment dated August 29, 2002 states that this is appropriate. E. DRAINAGE The subject property drains from south -to -north towards Fairfax Pike. The Phase I office development will not require the need for stormwater management facilities as the current acreage adequately handles the runoff from the existing structure. The Phase II office and commercial development will be designed in accordance with all applicable state and local stormwater management requirements for detention and erosion and sedimentation control. M Greenway Engineering F. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL June 24, 2002 Shoemaker Hdqts Rezoning October 14, 2002 The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual business consumption of landfill volume of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 sq ft. of business floor space (This number can be found in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4th edition). DV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per 1,000 sq. ft. DV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 100 (1,000 sq. ft.) DV = 540 Cu. Yd. The proposed business parcel will have a minimal impact landfill use. G. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia Phase I -III, 1988- 1992 identifies several structures within the proximity of the subject property that were inventoried. None of the inventoried structures were deemed to be historically significant; therefore, none of the structures were included on the list of Potentially Significant Properties found on page 248-249 or on the list of Sites Potentially Eligible for the State or National Register of Historic Places found on page 250 of this report. The subject property is not located in or within the proximity of Possible Historic Districts identified in Chapter 2 — History of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan found on page 2-10. H. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The County's Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been prepared for the proposed rezoning of the 10.09 -acre site based on a proffered maximum square footage of office and commercial use. The revenues received for capital facilities costs are significant and offset all impacts to county services. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution for fire and rescue services due to the net capital facilities impact demonstrated by the model. This monetary contribution exceeds the percentage of the net capital facilities impact to revenues which should adequately address any impact to fire and rescue services. 7 Greenway Engineering June 21 2002 Bowman/Shoemaker Companies October 14, 2002 Rezoning November 20, 2002 BOWMAN/SHOEMAKER COMPANIES REZONING Tax Parcel 86-((A))-81 Opequon Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # LOZ for the rezoning of 10.09 acres from the Rural Areas (RA) District to the Business General (132) District; development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the land owned by James L. Bowman being all of Tax Map Parcel 86-((A))-81 and further described in Deed Book 332 Page 340 recorded in the Frederick County Clerk of Courts Office. A.) Use and Structural Development of Property 1.) The applicant hereby proffers to develop the property for office and commercial use only and limit the total structural area to 100,000 square feet for the entire 10.09 -acre site. 2.) The applicant hereby proffers to develop the 10.09 -acre site in two phases. Phase I will be limited to 5,000 square feet of office space and Phase II will account for the balance of the proffered total structural square footage forthe 10.09 -acre site. 3.) The applicant hereby proffers to utilize the existing 3,596 -square -foot structure on the 10.09 -acre parcel for office use in Phase 1. 4.) The applicant hereby proffers to prohibit any development of office or commercial use in Phase 11 until the 10.09 -acre parcel is authorized to have public sewer service. File #3269/EAW Greenway Engineering June 21, 2002 Bowman/Shoemaker Companies October 14, 2002 Rezoning November 20, 2002 5.) The applicant hereby proffers to prohibit the development of the following land uses on the 10.09 -acre site: Use SIC Electric, gas and other utility facilities and offices 49 Retail nurseries and lawn and garden supply stores 526 Automotive dealers (excluding gasoline service stations SIC - 5541) 55 Hotels and motels 701 Organizational hotels and lodging 704 Car washes 7542 Miscellaneous repair services 76 Golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses 7999 Membership organizations 86 Self-service storage facilities ----- Commercial batting cages operated outdoors ----- Adult care residences and assisted care facilities ----- Adult retail ----- B.) Transportation 1.) The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate right-of-way along Fairfax Pike (Route 277) for future road improvements by Virginia Department of Transportation in accordance with the preliminary engineering documents identified as F.I. Plans, Plan and Profile of Proposed State Highway, Frederick County From: 0.168 km east of CL I-81 To: 0.276 km East of Rt. 636; Project 0277-034-103, PE -101, RW 201, C-501. 2.) The applicant hereby proffers to develop a 60' right-of—way from an intersection with Fairfax Pike to the southern limits of the 10.09 -acre parcel as a Phase II improvement in accordance with the attached Exhibit A, attached to and made part of these proffers. This right-of-way will be designed and constructed as a part of the first site plan in Phase II which accesses the 60' right-of-way. 3.) The applicant hereby proffers to enter into a signalization agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Fairfax Pike and the 60' right-of-way. This signalization agreement shall be executed with the Virginia Department of Transportation prior to the approval of the first site plan in Phase II, which accesses the 60' right-of-way. 4.) The applicant hereby proffers to limit the intersection points with Fairfax Pike to utilize the existing loop driveway only for the Phase I office development. 5.) The applicant hereby proffers to limit the 10.09 -acre site to a total of two intersection points. The existing loop driveway for the Phase I office development shall account for one of the intersection points until the connection is severed from Route 277. File #3269/EAW 2 Greenway Engineering June 21, 2002 Bowman/Shoemaker Companies October 14, 2002 Rezoning November 20, 2002 6.) The applicant hereby proffers to provide a ten -foot (10) non-exclusive easement along the Fairfax Pike (Route 277) property frontage for the purpose of allowing the development of a bicycle facility as identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan's Bicycle Plan. This easement will be dedicated to the appropriate entity prior to the construction of the bicycle facility. 7.) The applicant hereby proffers to limit the development within Phase II to a total of 250 vehicle trips per day (VPD) for that phase until the improvements to Fairfax Pike are provided in accordance with the preliminary engineering documents identified as F.I. Plans, Plan and Profile of Proposed State Highway, Frederick County From: 0.168 km east of CL I-81 To: 0.276 km East of Rt. 636; Project 0277-034-103, PE -101, RW 201, C-501. A detailed traffic study will be provided for each site plan proposed in Phase II to ensure that an acceptable level of service is maintained on Fairfax Pike resulting from the traffic generations from this site. All traffic studies prepared for site plans within the Phase II development will be in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's guidelines and procedures. Development within Phase II will only occur if an acceptable level of service for Fairfax Pike is proven through the traffic study process. C.) Lighting The applicant hereby proffers that all building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature and shielded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. Pole -mounted lights will not exceed 25 feet in height. Lighting plans will be submitted for each site plan in Phase II for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to installation. D.) Parking Lot Location and Design The applicant hereby proffers that all parking lots constructed in Phase II will be located a minimum of 20 feet from the dedicated Fairfax Pike right-of-way. An earth berm that is a minimum of three (3) feet in height will be installed within the 20 -foot parking lot setback distance and will be landscaped with evergreen shrubs that are a minimum of 24 inches in height at the time of planting to create a visual separation between Fairfax Pike and the parking lots for the office buildings. E.) Business Signs The applicant hereby proffers that all freestanding business signs will be monument type construction and that pole mounted signs will be prohibited. No monument sign will exceed 15 feet in height or 100 square feet in area for the message portion of the monument sign. File #3269/EAW Greenway Engineering June 21, 2002 Bowman/Shoemaker Companies October 14, 2002 Rezoning November 20, 2002 F.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owner of the above-described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # OV -()L is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within a B2 zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ 2,500 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue to be redistributed to Stephens City Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company for capital facilities costs This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid within ninety (90) days following approval of the rezoning by the Board of Supervisors. G.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: & Glc -,2 / " Beverley ._ hoemaker Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of i r To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thi&3 ay of _l GD=3- t by / Notary Public My Commission Expires File #3269/EAW �r aost. cc2e 1 o N 0 > x 21 H s ''X�i�"` tea G.� gN �. `2� k STING ? X,, '` C FIC LIC HT J Q ROP SEr FF C LI HT a s7THow / MARK D. SMITH I PHASE _ No.022e37 O {r, 'FS ti E STING S GNai PHASE RA IC_ 1-1614T aQ) } O z W a 0 'C /ryy� ca5 U LL CONCEPTUAL f- x j�z 60' R.O.W. m E" = A W X o co Y v o Q oa a w Waw DriFtvootl Drive O O ZONING LFGMD qty ..� S PA —AL AgfAs p511UCi �z+ ._.-. M RE9DFNTK P—N. qs—T L1-71 R! PESODInK PLvkip) co—Ii tt 0 ['':{,�?�y'] ns xEsmesmu- nEwAncwsl couuuxiii / I rr y�� AOii YOBIIE NOPE CONYU1Ntt q$ntlOT iii pt NpCNBg1N00D dISWEss qS—T -{�'„� BY9M55 CFNFRt.L gslxKl DATE: JULY 2, 2002 12,...x-,� BS WWsiPo�l --I- .—T vc ti Yt uwi I-- gnwcr SCALE: 1"=300' INW— OE .&.—T p. Exmic - Y .—ICI DESIGNED BY:EAW ;; -iii nE wwER EOtMAndl gs— JOB N232B9 SHEET 1 OF 1 DEC -U -0Z 16:08 FROM-GREENWAY ENGINEERING P.C. 54UZZZ95ZS T-565 P- M/904 F -39T Rezoning COMMen" Frederick County Attorney Mail to: Fr—e-d—en—& County Attomey Co. Administration Bldg_, Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, "601 (540) 665-6383 Hand deliver to: nca 6 my Attomey Co. Administracdon Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, Virginia (540) 665-5651 Applicant. Pease 'f 11 out the ormation as accurate y as possible in order to asssst The f=ount .Attorney's office with their rMew- Attach a copy .of your application form, location ffiap, proffer statement, impact =a.lysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicam's Name: GreezwaY Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address; 151 Windy Fill Lane inc ster, VA 2T602 Location of property: 500 Fairfax Pike; south side of Fait-% Pike, approximately 800 feet east of the intersection with ou e Current zoiung_ R� District zoning requested: B2 District .� Acreage: 10.09 County Attorney's Comments:1�j 1 (✓t L •� 7 • r� , Assistant County ,AttorneY's ' Signature & Date, Notice to County Attorneys Pledse Return This Foran to the Applicant COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22824 November 26, 2002 V®OT Comments to Bowman/Shoemaker Companies Rezoning Application In Response to Revised Proffer Statement Dated November 20, 2002 JERRYA. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 The revised proffer statement appears to satisfy the transportation issues associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Ben H. Lineberry, Jr E., Trans. Asst. Resident Engineer VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Rezoning Comments Virginia Department of 'Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984-5600 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 1550 Commerce Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible- in order to assist the Virginia Depa:-trnent of Tra.�,.sportatron ivi,h t%i: sr re y i -e ver'. rsttsic,tA- a ,_^6 r j : of your -applloat1on yr iiia location map, proffer statement,` impact anatyfsis, and any other.pertinent information: Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester. VA 22602 Location of property: 500 Fairfax Pike; south side of Fairfax Pike, approximately 800 feet east of the intersection with Double Church Road. Current zoning: RA District Zoning requested: B2 District Acreage: 10.09 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached VDOT comments dated October 18, 2002. *** Revised *** See attached revised VDOT comments dated November 26, 2002 in response to the revised proffer statement. VDOT Signature & Date: y!� 10/18/02 Transport on Assistant RO-sident Engineer Notice to VDOT — Please Return This Form to the Applicant COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission P/ �LJ FROM: Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator RE: Request for Waiver to 50' Right -of -Way Requirement DATE: December 6, 2002 On the November 13, 2002 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board voted to send the Ferraro Subdivision Ordinance waiver request back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration. The applicant's attorney, Mr. Robert Mitchell, included proposed restrictive covenants in the Board of Supervisor's agenda that would be placed upon the two new parcels if allowed to be subdivided. The covenants would restrict each parcel to use a separate right of way and would also restrict each parcel to constructing one single family dwelling. Frederick County does not enforce private restrictive covenants. A copy of the proposed covenants was not included in the agenda for consideration at the October 16, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. BACKGROUND Michael and Linda Ferraro are requesting a waiver of a subdivision ordinance requirement, § 144- 31C(3), which requires that a minimum width for a private shared drive way shall be fifty (50) feet in width. This width must be established along the existing right-of-way out to the nearest state road. The nearest state road in this case is Route 707 (Hollow Road). Exhibit "A" is the proposed minor rural subdivision plat prepared and submitted by Furstenau Surveying. The plat indicates that the Ferraros are proposing to subdivide the 108.98 -acre tract into two new parcels. One new parcel, Tract 1, would contain approximately 73.47 acres and Tract 2 would contain approximately 35.51 acres. The existing dwelling under construction is to remain on the 35.51 -acre tract. The subject property is served by two separate right-of-ways from the north and south. Exhibit "B" illustrates that the required fifty (50') right- of-way ight- ofway exists through the following parcels: PIN: 26-4-2-7 (Cather) PIN: 26-7-1-7 & 26-7-1-1 (Levering) PIN: 264-2-7A (Hamer) The existing right-of-way width for the following parcels is unknown, therefore, the Ferraros were required to request the additional right-of-way width from these property owners: ► PIN: 26-A-60 (Lafollette) PIN: 26-6-2-11 (Huntley) ► PIN: 26-A-44 (Marple) PIN: 26-6-2-10 (Wall) ► PIN: 26-A-53 (Whitlock) PIN: 26-A-64 (Watt) ► PIN: 26-5-7 (Schrock) PIN: 26-A-46 (Meade) 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5009 Ferraro Waiver Request Page 2 December 6, 2002 The Ferraros did not receive any written responses to their requests and were unsuccessful in their attempt to obtain the necessary right-of-way width. In accordance with § 144-5 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the Ferraros are requesting a waiver to § 144-31 C(3) which would enable them to subdivide the property without the necessary fifty (50') right-of-way width for a private shared driveway. This waiver, if approved, would apply to this specific subdivision request. Any future subdivision requests for this property would be required to meet the requirements of § 144-31 C(3). Previously, the Planning Commission voted to deny this request. Staff is interested in forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors after your consideration of the proposed covenants. Therefore, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the request is desired. PTD/cih Attachment O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\Waivers\Ferraro Waiver PC2.wpd EXHIBIT "A" FINAL PLAT MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION LAND OF MICHAEL F. AND LINDA D. FERRARO BACK CREEK DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNT(, VIRGINIA TAX MAP # 26-A-52 ZONE: RA USE: AG SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE U LTU RAL I, David M. Furstenau, a duty authorized Land Surveyor, do hereby certify that the land in this subdivision is in the names of Michael F_ and Linda D. Ferraro and is all of the land conveyed to them by deed dated October 19, 2000 and recorded among the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County as instrument number 000011221. r _ � David M. Furstenau LS. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Above and foregoing subdivision of the land of Michae! F. and Linda D. Ferraro as appears in the accompanying plat is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors sor truustrees, If any. Michael F. Ferraro Linda D Ferraro State of Virginia City/Geimfy of -'Ik in C a R I F�e4A E. I renQ r� , a notary public in and for the State of Virginia and the City/Germy of 11l; nLhes4�'r ' do hereby certify that this day personally appeared before me, Michael F_ Ferraro and Linda D. Ferraro whose names are signed to the above Owner's Certificate dated September 17, 2002 and actQhowledged to the same before me in my state and city/county as aforesaid. , 1-1 f ci . 0'tl�ttw_,Notary Public U Given under my hand this 1? � day of n , 2002 My commission expires—� 3 I 0 APPROVALS FREDERICK COUNTY SUBDIVISION ADM7NTSTRAT0R Date WINCHESTER-FP.EDER1C`K COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTh td`s. T Dau FURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 FDATE::Scpt=cr 17, i0C b2 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 .� �: TM 26-6-12 HUNTLEY RA RES. I� V r*� FINAL PLAT MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION LAND OF MICHAEL F_ & LINDA 0. FERRARO BACK CREEK DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA _ S 56°d0'O17 1739.15 WAM RA 6 �0 1 - RAS. b0- BRL 1,3- \ r 9? -9F I TRACT I _ ( 73.4701 ACRES Q 1711 CV � o F O p 1t\ J too • ry I � o � m U lT to / / \ V Q w 04 Jam!\ i lY - tD p N Lo cz �w z a • � 1 Q i DWaIJM lb do..d LWER �•fta S 4 '30'06" W J CONS rucTION ' 218.08' z - m o \o o J` oo. TRACT 2 ��\°� o 35.5099 ACRES \ moo' a' -rte r' . Ln l Pond\` N c:) 5 L!7 / I 100 o ! / 131$ ?3,335 9q m to w m Z) H J U E L7 Q Q Y U O J F-- N M to a c� N 'A -w CKORY Ln 95��A 42 1min z rl _ G Zv�A`yFtE 0 79.9' tD w SET STONE P 1G Q P CO,� \ propoi.d I- D R Zon o W,, I- Q � � 3v AREA TABULATION ��I� �f ccs o (D O {�' 106.9800 AC�I^l LJ�y v CDP BEFORE DIVISION I Q . J % Q AFTER DIVISION (� 1 / J, 1 G` Z I LnQ TRACT 1 - 73.4701 ACN . - TRACT 2 : ; " C.' - 355099 AC•K =i—,,_A L' , .. ,TO F40 '-!5 BLACK - /WRTF TOT NA57,'OF�i V 392. 88 FURSTl'=Nh' U SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 DATE. SEPT, 17, 2002 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET �•� tATT?4M— PRTP'P VM-t-MiTR 114()1 SCALE. I"= 300' Q X LLI Location Map Ferraro Waiver PIN: 26-A-52 N W C S 0 600 1200 Feet SEPT, 26,2002 26 A 52 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL COPPORATTON5 WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE 0. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL. JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR WILLIAM F. BURTON MICHELLE MORRIS JONES STEVEN F. JACKSON ATTORNEYS AT L A W S 7 EAST MARKET STREET LEESBURG. VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 703.777-1050 FAX 703 771 4113 9 EAST 90SCA'WEN STREET WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 540.662,3200 FAX 540-002-4304 E-MAIL lawyers ghall—nahan. tom October 15, 2002 Frederick County Planning Commission 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Ferraro -- Subdivision Waiver Request Dear Members of the Planning Commission: PLEASE REPLY TO. P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22E304-0848 I have been recently retained to represent Michael F. and Linda D. Ferraro with respect to their application for an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance regarding the minimum width for a private shared driveway, as it applies to their proposed Minor Rural Subdivision. Unfortunately, due to a prior commitment to meet with the Clarke County Conservation Easement Authority at a meeting on the evening of Wednesday, October 16, 1 will be unable to be present at the Planning Commission meeting when this matter is considered. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to present to you certain commitments which Mr. and Mrs. Ferraro offer to make as a condition of the approval of the requested exception. Section 144-3 l (C)(3) of the Subdivision Ordinance provides that the minimum right of way width for a shared private driveway for a minor rural subdivision shall be 50 feet. The obvious reason for such a requirement is that a subdivision of property, by creating one or more additional lots, will logically result in an increase use of a private right of way, and that the greater width is necessary to accommodate that increased volume of usage. I believe that the hereinafter described commitments that Mr. and Mrs. Ferraro are prepared to make directly address the underlying policy for the aforesaid ordinance requirement, and provide a reasonable basis to support the granting of the exception. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Frederick County Planning Commission October 15, 2002 Page 2 The Ferraros are fortunate in that they have two (2) recorded rights of way to serve the total tract of 108.998 acres. One right of way is at the north end of the property, and one right of way is at the south end of the property. As you can see from the proposed minor rural subdivision plat, the Ferraros are proposing to divide the property into TRACT 1, containing 73.4701 acres, and TRACT 2, containing 35.5099 acres. As a condition of the granting of the requested exception, the Ferraros are prepared to do the following: 1. Terminate the right of way at the north end of the property with respect to TRACT 1, and to terminate the right of way at the south end of the property with respect to TRACT 2. Accordingly, the right of way at the north end of the property (the right of way over the property of Marple, Huntley, and Schrock) would serve only TRACT 2, and the right of way at the south end of the property would serve only TRACT 1. Accordingly, this would address directly the underlying policy for the subdivision ordinance provision, in that each right of way would only be serving one tract of land. For example, the right of way at the north end of the property (over Marple, Huntley, and Schrock) now serves a single tract of 108.998 acres. After the property is subdivided, that right of way would serve a single tract of 35.5099 acres. 2. To further address any concern about increased use of either right of way, the Ferraros are prepared to place a restrictive covenant on TRACT 1 and TRACT 2 to provide that for so long as each right of way is used for access not more than one single-family residence would be constructed or erected on each tract. Therefore, for example, the right of way at the north end of the property (over Marple, Huntley, and Schrock) would be limited to providing access for one tract of 35.5099 acres, which tract will not contain more than one single-family residence. To clearly set forth how the foregoing restrictions would be implemented, you will find attached a draft of a Deed of Subdivision and Declaration of Restrictions which Mr. and Mrs. Ferraro do agree to sign and record in the land records upon HALL, PMONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Frederick County Planning Commission October 15, 2002 Page 3 approval of the requested exception and the Minor Rural Subdivision plat. Mr. and Mrs. Ferraro are willing to have the approval of the requested exception conditioned upon their execution and recordation of the attached document. Thank you for your kind attention to the foregoing. ctfully submitted, Robert T. Mitchell, RTM/ks Enclosure CC: Mr. and Mrs. Michael F. Ferraro It [M.A, 111!15/fl' I I' THIS DEED OF SUBDIVISION AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS is made this day of 2002, by MICHAEL FREDERICK FERRARO and LINDA DARLENE FERRARO, husband and wife, �! hereinafter referred to as "Owners". li WHEREAS, Owners are the owner of that certain tract or parcel of land, I� with improvements thereon, lying and being situate in Back Creek Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 108.98 acres, together with the following rights of way for access for the aforesaid 108.98 acre tract to State Route 707 (Hollow Road): (a) a right of way from the south comer of Owners' property and lying on the lands now or formerly owned by Watt (Tax Map No. 26-A-64), Whitlock (Tax Parcel 26-A-53), LaFollette (Tax Parcel 26-A-60), Hamer (Tax Parcel 26-4-2-7A), Cather (Tax Parcel 26-4-2-7), and Levering (Tax Parcels 26-7- 1-1 and 7), the location of said right of way being more particularly shown and described on the plat of Michael M. Artz, dated August 4, 1999, and recorded with the Agreement recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 955 at Page 39 (the aforesaid right of way is hereinafter referred to as "RIGHT OF WAY NO. 1 "); and (b) a right of way From the north comer of Owners' property which right of way lies on the lands now or formerly owned by Marple (Tax Parcel 26- A-44), Huntley (Tax Parcels 26-6-2-11 and 12), and Schrock (Tax Parcel 26-5-7), said right of way being shown the plat of David M. Furstenau dated February 11, 1990, attached to the Deed recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book I I' 979 at Page 466 (the aforesaid right of way is hereinafter referred to as "RIGHT OF WAY NO. 2"). I I i ii IiThe aforesaid property is the same property conveyed to Owners by deed dated i' ii October 19, 2000, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 979 II at Page 466. WHEREAS, Owners desire to subdivide the property into two (2) tracts, jI as more particularly shown on the attached plat of David M. Furstenau dated September 17, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance would require 1:, a minimum right of way width of 50 feet for a shared private driveway for the i subdivided tracts, unless a waiver of said requirement is granted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, neither of the aforesaid two (2) rights of way serving the Owners' 108.98 acres are 50 feet wide for the entire distance from the Owners' property to State Route 707; and WHEREAS, Owners have agreed, upon the granting of the aforesaid exception by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, to limit the use of each right of way to one of the subdivided parcels and to place no more than one single-family residence on each parcel; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors have granted the aforesaid exception to the subdivision ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH: Owners do hereby subdivide their above described property into two (2) tracts, described as Tract 1, containing 73.4701 acres (hereinafter referred to as "TRACT 1 "), and Tract 2, containing 35.5099 acres (hereinafter referred to as "TRACT 2"). This subdivision is made "with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the Owners. The Owners do further provide as follows: 1. Owners, as the owner of TRACT 1, do hereby permanently relinquish and terminate the right oftlhc use of RIGHT OF WAY NO.2 for access from TRACT I to Route 707. The Owners acknowledge and agree that the !': aforesaid relinquishment and termination shall limit the Owners' right to use i! RIGHT OF WAY NO. 2 as an access right of way for TRACT 2 only. 2. Owners, as the owner of TRACT 2, do hereby permanently relinquish and terminate the right of the use of RIGHT OF WAY NO. 1 for access from TRACT 2 to Route 707. The Owners acknowledge and agree that the aforesaid relinquishment and termination shall limit the Owners' right to use RIGHT OF WAY NO. I as an access right of way for TRACT I only. 3. The Owners covenant and agree that, so long as access to TRACT l is provided by RIGHT OF WAY NO. 1, not more than one single- family residence shall be constructed or erected on TRACT 1. This covenant i Ii shall run with the land, and shall be for the benefit of, and enforceable by, the ;I �I Owners of all property on which RIGHT OF WAY NO. 1 is located. I' I l4. The Owners covenant and agree that, so long as access to TRACT 2 is provided by RIGHT OF WAY NO. 2, not more than one single- family residence shall be constructed or erected on TRACT 2. This covenant i a shall run with the land, and shall be for the benefit of, and enforceable by, the ;i Owners of all property on which RIGHT OF WAY NO. 2 is located. I I �I II 3 �I jl The foregoing provisions of this instrument shall be binding upon the !I Ij Owners, their heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns. I, �i WITNESS the following signatures and seals: it �i (SEAL) MICHAEL FREDERICK FERRARO I� SEAL LINDA DARLENE FERRARO (SEAL) ) !i STATE OF VIRGINIA, At -Large CITY/COUNTY OF To -wit: i The foregoing document was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002, by MICHAEL FREDERICK FERRARO and LINDA DARLENE FERRARO. My Commission expires NOTARY PUBLIC 4 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM $,„„„:2rarF ....�,. ...,.....a::+::..::.:::.:..v.::;?•.::<.'W>:Lti::3:::':zi:�.::;?;;ii::'i.>i:x:;:i:3zt'sf::2;:,#.�:sx�: TO: Frederick County Planning Commission Members FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II i(2 cf--- DATE: December 6, 2002 RE: Discussion of Proposed Amendments - "Project Woodlands" The Frederick County Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) has proposed several amendments to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. These amendments were developed by the DRRS over the past several months as an alternative to the current woodland regulations. The primary goals that the amendments are intended to achieve are: 1) to eliminate the need for future woodland disturbance waivers without jeopardizing environmental preservation; 2) to improve the landscaping standards of Frederick County; and 3) to create a concise ordinance that encourages creative development practices. Staff will present the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission for discussion purposes during the scheduled meeting on December 18, 2002. The results of the discussion will be reported back to the DRRS for their consideration, and final revisions, prior to a Board of Supervisor's discussion. Amendments are proposed to Sections 165-27 E. (11), Parking Lots; 165-31, Protection of Environmental Features; 165-36, Landscaping Requirements; & 165-156, Definitions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The current ordinances and proposed amendments of these sections are enclosed with this memo for your review. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. JFC/ERL/cih Attachments U: iCOMMI7IEES DRRSIProjecfslWoodlands Dist+n'brrnre RmendmentslOffirial Drnf[ AmendmeatslPCDisctrssio+rMemo_ProjectWood/nnds.wpd 107 North hent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 CURRENT & PROPOSED ORDINANCE: § 165-27 E. (11). Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the B 1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the B3 Industrial Transition District, the M 1 Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District shall be landscaped to reduce the visual impact of glare and headlights on adjoining properties and rights-of-way. Parking lots shall be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat. Landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the visual expansiveness of parking lots. Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots as follows: (a) Perimeter landscaping. Requifed parking lot setbaek areas, abutting thev"I 11 1—b 1— L, planted with shade tfees and other lmdseaping. A three foot high evergeett hedge, , befm or wall shall be provided as neeessafy to prevent headlights ftom slitiftiffig Oft pi -lb -fie rights of -way and adjoi 'ies. A minitnum of one shade tree f�T every 40 feet of pafking lot peritnetef shall be provided. All shade trees shall have a minitntim two-itteft ealiper at the time ofplanting. Additional trees may be reqttired to propedly SAM& R lot. The perimeter of all impervious areas shall be landscaped with shade trees and other landscaping. One (1) tree shall be provided for every 2,000 square feet of impervious area for the first 100,000 square feet of the entire site. One (1) tree shall be provided for every 5,000 square feet of impervious area over 100,000 square feet of the entire site. Self-service storage facilities shall provide one (1) tree per 10,000 square feet of impervious area of the entire site, in addition to the trees required in Section 165-44, Self-service storage facilities. The majority of these trees shall be located around parking lots. A three -foot -high evergreen hedge, fence, berm, or wall shall be provided to prevent headlights from shining on public rights-of-way and adjoining properties. All perimeter landscaping shall comply with the requirements of Section 165-36 C, Plant Selection, Planting Procedure, and Maintenance. (b) Interior landscaping. A minimum of 5% of the interior portions of parking lots shall be landscaped for the purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior landscaping shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous raised strips extending the length of a parking bay. Within the parking lot, raised islands and landscaped areas should be uses to delineate traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns. The shade trees provided shall be ofan type to ettsttfe shading at maturity. No less than one (1) shade tree shall be provided in the interior of the parking lot for each ten (10) parking spaces. All shade trees shall have minimum two ineh ealipef at the time . The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for interior landscaping for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and gutter is not proposed. The Zoning Administrator may allow the planting of interior parking lot trees in locations other than the interior of the parking lot when it would improve the overall quality of the landscape plan. All interior landscaping shall comply with the requirements of Section 165-36 C, Plant Selection, Planting Procedure, and Maintenance. U. (COMM/TTEESIDRRSIProjectsIWoodlands DislurbanceUlmendntentslOf lcial Draft AmendmentsIFINALDRAF7AMENDMENTSI165-27E(ll)_OFFICIALDRAFT wpd CURRENT ORDINANCE: § 165-31. Protection of environmental features. [Amended 12-11-1991] In order to protect those areas of a parcel which have environmental characteristics that make them unsuitable for development, certain portions of a development shall remain undisturbed or be protected. It is the intention of this section that the disturbance of such areas by the development process be limited. It is also the intention of this section that the large portions of the areas with such environmental characteristics be placed in open space, environmental easements, the portion of the parcel left undivided or other areas where they will remain undisturbed. It is intended that the environmental conditions on a property be reviewed as the first step in the planning process before lots or dwellings are located. A. The requirements of this section shall apply to land in the following zoning districts: RP Residential Performance District R4 Residential Planned Community District R5 Residential Recreational Community District MH 1 Mobile Home Community District B 1 Neighborhood Business District B2 Business General District B3 Industrial Transition District M1 Light Industrial District M2 Industrial General District HE Higher Education District RA Rural Areas District B. Portions of the following environmental features shall remain undisturbed as described: Type of Feature Amount of Disturbance Permitted Floodplains No disturbance allowed Lakes and ponds No disturbance allowed Wetlands No disturbance allowed Sinkholes No disturbance allowed Natural stormwater Disturbance of 10% allowed retention areas Steep slopes Disturbance of 25% allowed (slope of 15% or greater) Woodlands Disturbance of 25% allowed (1) Floodplains. In general, no disturbance of floodplains is allowed and no structures shall be constructed in floodplains. The Zoning Administrator, with the approval of the Planning Commission, may allow disturbance of small areas in the floodplain for purposes of recreation, conservation, utilities or stormwater management. The Administrator may allow the construction of recreational facilities or roads in the floodplain. (2) Lakes and ponds. Lakes, ponds and impoundments shall remain undisturbed. The Administrator may allow the removal of a lake, pond or impoundment if it is in a poor state of repair, if it is unsafe or if it serves no useful retention, environmental or recreational purposes. (3) Wetlands. No disturbance of wetlands is allowed, except that the Administrator may allow disturbance of small areas for purposes of conservation, recreation, utilities or roads. (4) Sinkholes. No disturbance of sinkholes is allowed other than filling with natural materials. No substances or objects, other than natural fill materials, shall be placed in sinkholes. Sinkholes shall only be filled with innocuous materials that will not contribute to groundwater pollution. (5) Natural stormwater retention areas. No more than 10% of natural stormwater retention areas on a site shall be disturbed. Natural stormwater retention areas may be replaced with the approval of the Administrator by artificial stormwater facilities if the total storage capacity of the site, as well as within each drainageway, is maintained. Natural stormwater retention areas which are floodplains, wetlands, lakes or ponds shall not be disturbed or replaced. (6) Steep slopes. No more than 25% of steep slopes (25% or greater) shall be disturbed or regraded. The Administrator may allow the disturbance of additional small areas where that disturbance will alleviate potential health or safety problems and will not significantly denigrate the overall environmental quality of the site. The Board of Supervisors may allow the disturbance of larger areas of steep slopes in shopping centers, office parks, industrial parks and R5 residential recreation communities. In such cases, the functions of stream valleys shall be preserved through the use of open space, landscaping and stormwater management facilities. [Amended 8-9-2000] (7) No more than 25% of woodlands as defined shall be disturbed. The Administrator may allow additional disturbance of the small areas where the disturbance will alleviate potential health or safety problems and will not significantly denigrate the overall environmental quality of the site. The Board of Supervisors may allow for a greater percentage ofwoodland areas to be disturbed in shopping centers, office parks or industrial parks. The Board of Supervisors may allow for a greater percentage of woodland areas to be disturbed within RP Residential Performance District parcels which contain woodland areas on 25% or more of the total site area. In such cases, mature trees shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible and the f„nc.tions of the woodlands shall be preserved through the use of open space and landscaping. Woodlands shall not be disturbed until a master development plan has been approved. [Amended 7-11-2001] (8) Such areas shall remain undisturbed as described above in all developments requiring master development plan or site plan approval. (9) In residential developments, the undisturbed environmental areas described above shall be placed in areas of required open space. However, the Administrator, with the approval of the Planning Commission, may allow undisturbed areas to be included in the required setback and yard areas on residential lots. Undisturbed areas may be included in lots when the extent, location and distribution of environmental areas make it impractical to place the undisturbed areas in common open space. B. In the RA Rural Areas District, subdivisions utilizing rural preservation lots shall demonstrate that an attempt has been made to place these environmental areas within the 40% of the parcel set aside from residential subdivision. When the extent, location and distribution of environmental areas make it impractical to place them in the forty -percent the parcel, at the discretion of the Subdivision Administrator, the undisturbed areas may be included within the required setback areas or residential lots with the provision of appropriate restrictive covenants. C. Undisturbed environmental areas may be included on residential lots in environmental easements when the extent, location and distribution of environmental areas make it impractical to place the undisturbed areas in common open space. When the environmental areas are placed in environmental easements, deeds of dedication, final subdivision plats or other legal instruments which specify the restrictions to be placed on the environmental areas shall be approved by the Administrator. Such restrictions shall guarantee that environmental areas remain undisturbed as required by this section. D. Agricultural soils. Where large concentrations ofprime agricultural or locally significant soils can be included within the 40% of the parcel that will remain .undivided, without undue detriment to other principles of quality subdivision design or significant loss of density, as determined by the Subdivision Administrator, they shall be included in the forty -percent parcel. E. No land disturbance permit shall be issued for the above environmental areas on land for which a master development plan has not been approved. The Zoning Administrator may allow the disturbance of small areas where the disturbance will alleviate potential health or safety problems or will not significantly violate the intent of this chapter. U: ICOMMITTEESIDRRSWrojectslWoodlands DisturbanceUmendmentAOfficial Draft AmendnientsICURRENTORDINANCESICur!'ent Ordinance. wpd PROPOSED ORDINANCE: § 165-31. Protection of environmental features. In order to protect those areas of a parcel which have environmental characteristics that make them unsuitable for development, certain portions of a development shall remain undisturbed or be protected. It is the intention of this section that the large portions of the areas with such environmental characteristics be placed in open space, environmental easements, the portion of the parcel left undivided or other areas where they will remain undisturbed. It is intended that the environmental conditions on a property be reviewed as the first step in the planning process before lots or dwellings are located. A. The requirements of this section shall apply to land in the following districts: RP Residential Performance District R4 Residential Planned Community District R5 Residential Recreational Community District MHI Mobile Home Community District B 1 Neighborhood Business District B2 Business General District B3 Industrial Transition District MI Light Industrial District M2 Industrial General District HE Higher Education District RA Rural Areas District MS Medical Support District B. All developments which require a master development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or preliminary sketch plan shall preserve the following environmental features as described: (1) Floodplains. Disturbance of floodplains is only permitted in accordance with the requirements of Article XV, FP Floodplain Districts. (2) Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments. Lakes, ponds, and impoundments shall remain undisturbed. The Zoning Administrator may allow the removal of a lake, pond, or impoundment if it serves no useful retention, environmental, or recreational purposes. (3) Wetlands, Natural Waterways, and Riparian Buffers. Disturbance of wetlands is only permitted in accordance with the requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified state or federal agency. The disturbance of natural waterways and riparian buffers is prohibited, except when necessary for public utilities, public facilities, or roads. (4) Sinkholes. No disturbance of sinkholes is allowed other than filling with non- polluting natural materials that will not contribute to groundwater pollution. (5) Steep slopes. No more than 25% of steep slopes shall be disturbed or regraded. DP 0 tri.] Fif The Zoning Administrator may allow the disturbance of additional small areas where the disturbance will alleviate potential health or safety problems and will not significantly denigrate the overall environmental quality of the site. The Planning Commission may allow the disturbance of larger areas of steep slopes. C. In residential developments, the areas of undisturbed environmental features described in Section 165-31 B, shall be located in areas of open space. However, the Planning Commission, may allow undisturbed areas to. be included in the required setback and yard areas on residential lots when the extent, location, and disturbance of environmental areas make it impractical to place the undisturbed areas in common open space. In such circumstances, environmental easements, deeds of dedication, final subdivision plats, or other legal instruments approved by the Zoning Administrator shall be required to specify the restrictions to be.placed on the environmental areas. D. In rural preservation subdivisions, the environmental features described in Section 165- 31B, along with agricultural or locally significant soils, shall be placed within the forty percent parcel, without undue detriment to other principles of quality subdivision design or significant loss of density, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. E. In commercial and industrial developments, the areas of undisturbed environmental features described in Section 165-31 B, shall be located in areas of open space, environmental easements, deeds of dedication, final subdivision plats, or other legal instruments approved by the Zoning Administrator which specify the restrictions to be placed on the environmental areas. CURRENT ORDINANCE: § 165-36. Landscaping. A. All portions of developments requiring site plan approval shall be appropriately landscaped to enhance the appearance, character and value of development in the county. Landscaping shall be provided to reduce the visibility of paved areas from surrounding properties, to minimize noise and glare, to provide shade and to improve the general appearance of the lot to be developed. B. In any development requiring site plan approval, any part of a lot not used for buildings, structures, parking, loading, driveways or walkways shall contain a ground cover including grass, trees, flowers, shrubs or other landscaping materials which shall be maintained in a healthy condition. PROPOSED ORDINANCE: § 165-36. Landscaping Requirements. The requirements of this section are intended to enhance the appearance, environment, and general welfare ofthe citizens of Frederick County by providing minimum landscaping standards and encouraging tree preservation for residential developments. A. Residential Developments. Residential Developments which require a master development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or preliminary subdivision sketch plan shall provide at least one (1) of the three (3) types of landscaping identified below. For certain lot types, all three (3) landscaping options are not available. (1) Street Tree Landscaping, Street Tree Landscaping shall require one (1) street tree for every forty (40) feet of street frontage in a residential development, with the exception of frontage on roads which require a road efficiency buffer. Street trees shall be planted no more than (20) feet from right-of-ways. Planting street trees on the property lines of building lots should be avoided. Two (2) or more street trees shall be planted on each building lot. The Zoning Administrator may allow fewer than two (2) street trees per building lot if topographical features, utilities, easements, or the width of the lot makes it impractical to do so. All street trees shall comply with the requirements of Section 165-36 B, with the exception that street trees must be at least 2 %" caliper at the time of planting. Lots with a minimum front setback of less than thirty five (35) feet may not use street tree landscaping. (2) Ornamental Landscaping_ Ornamental landscaping shall be provided for residential developments based on the following index and matrix: Index of Lot Types: A: Major Rural Subdivision Lot B: Rural Preservation Subdivision Lot C: Single Family Detached Rural Traditional D: Single Family Detached Traditional E: Single Family Detached Urban F: Single Family Detached Cluster G: Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line H: Single Family Small Lot I: Duplex J: Multiplex K: Atrium House L: Weak -Link Townhouse M: Townhouse N: Garden Apartment Required Landscaping Per Dwelling Unit: Lot Type Ornamental Shrubs Ornamental Trees A none 10 per 1 unit B none 10 per 1 unit C none 10 per 1 unit D 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit E 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit F 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit G 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit H 15 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit I 15 per 1 unit* 5 per 1 unit* J 3 per 3 units* 1 per 3 units* K 3 per 4 units* 1 per 4 units* L 6 per 5 units* 2 per 5 units* M 6 per 5 units* 2 per 5 units* N 3 per 2 units* 1 per 2 units* Ornamental trees & shrubs shall comply with the requirements of Section 165-36 B. The Zoning Administrator may allow some of the required ornamental trees and ornamental shrubs to be planted in areas of common open space so long as the intent of this section is met. * required ornamental landscaping is in addition to landscaping required for parking lots (3) Tree Preservation Landscaping. An area with a tree canopy coverage of at least 25% of the entire site area, shall be preserved as dedicated open space. In no case shall individual building lots be located within the open space. Canopy coverage shall be calculated from the cumulative total of existing tree canopies. Where possible, preserved trees shall be clustered together to maintain a contiguous canopy. These areas of open space may be counted towards the total required open space, as specified in Section 165-63. Residential developments which are not required to have open space by Section 165-63 are not exempt from creating open space for the required canopy coverage. B. Plant Selection, Planting Procedure, and Maintenance. (1) Plant Selection. As determined by the intended function, required trees and shrubs shall be selected from the list of Acceptable Plants shown below: Acceptable Plants: Common Name Scientific Name Function Dawn Redwood Metasequoia glyptostroboides Street Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum Street London Plane Tree Platanus acerifolia Street, Ornamental, Parking Red Oak Quercus borealis, Quercus rubra Street, Ornamental, Parking White Oak Quercus alba, Quercus bicolor Street, Ornamental, Parking Lacebark Elm Ulmus parvifolia Street, Ornamental, Parking Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica Street, Ornamental, Parking Ginkgo (male) Ginkgo biloba Street, Ornamental, Parking Thornless Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Street, Ornamental, Parking Japanese Pagoda Tree Sophora japonica Street, Ornamental, Parking Red Maple Acer rubrum Street, Ornamental, Parking Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Street, Ornamental, Parking Freeman Maple Acer freemaniiStreet, Ornamental, Parking rnmmnn Name Scientific Name Function [Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvania Street, Ornamental, Parking Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata Street, Ornamental, Parking Silver Linden Tilia tomentosa Street, Ornamental, Parking Japanese Elm Zelkova serrata Street, Ornamental, Parking Yellowwood Cladrastis lutea Street, Ornamental, Parking Katsura Tree Cercidiphyllum japonicum Street, Ornamental, Parking Sycamore Platanus occidentallis Ornamental Willow Oak Quercus phellos Ornamental, Parking Pin Oak Quercus palustris Ornamental, Parking Sweet Gum Liquidambar styraciflua Ornamental, Parking Japanese Maple Acer palmatum Ornamental, Parking Amur Maple Acer ginnala Ornamental, Parking Paperbark Maple Acer griseum Ornamental, Parking White Birch Betula platyphylla Ornamental, Parking River Birch Betula nigra Ornamental, Parking Copper Beech Fagus atropuniciea Ornamental, Parking Weeping Beech Fagus pendula Ornamental, Parking European Beech Fagus sylvatica Ornamental, Parking Golden -Rain Tree Koelreuteria paniculata Ornamental, Parking Flowering Cherry Prunus (all varieties) Ornamental, Parking Dogwood Cornus florida, Cornus kousa, Cornus hybrid Ornamental, Parking European Hornbeam Carpinus betulus Ornamental, Parking American Plum Prunus americana Ornamental, Parking N�j 0 1 SII Common Name Scientific Name Function Flowering Pear Pyrus calleryana Ornamental, Parking Flowering Crabapple Malus (all varieties) Ornarnental, Parking Washington Hawthorn Crataegus plaenopyrum Ornamental, Parking Downy Serviceberry Amelanchier arborea Ornamental, Parking Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis Ornamental, Parking Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Ornamental, Parking Star Magnolia Magnolia stellata Ornamental, Parking Saucer Magnolia Magnolia x soulangiana Ornamental, Parking Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Ornamental, Screen White Fir Abies concolor Ornamental, Screen Spruce Picea (all varieties) Ornamental, Screen Japanese Umbrella Pine Sciadopitys verticillata Ornamental, Screen Canadian Hemlock Tsuga canadensis Ornamental, Screen American Holly Ilex opaca Ornamental, Screen Hinoki False Cypress Chamaecyparis obtuse Ornamental, Screen White Pine Pinus strobus Screen Western Arborvitae Thuja plicata Screen Dark American Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis nigra and emerald Screen Leyland Cypress Cupressocyparis x leylandi Screen English Yew Taxus baccata Ornamental (Evergreen Shrub) Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidate Ornamental (Evergreen Shrub) Azalea (all varieties) Ornamental (Evergreen Shrub) Chinese Holly Ilex cornuta Ornamental (Evergreen Shrub) Common Name Scientific Name Function Boxwood Buxus (all varieties) Ornamental (Evergreen Shrub) Juniper Juniperus (all varieties) Ornamental (Evergreen Shrub) Rhododendron (all varieties) Ornamental (Evergreen Shrub) Cotoneaster (all varieties) Ornamental (Deciduous Shrub) Spirea (all varieties) Ornamental (Deciduous Shrub) Weiglea (all varieties) Ornamental (Deciduous Shrub) Itea (all varieties) Ornamental (Deciduous Shrub) Aroma (all varieties) Ornamental (Deciduous Shrub) Clethra (all varieties) Ornamental (Deciduous Shrub) Forsythia (all varieties) Ornamental (Deciduous Shrub) Viburnum (all varieties) Ornamental (Deciduous Shrub) Winged Euonymus (all varieties) Ornamental (Deciduous Shrub) 41,6 Ira I Fr 17 (2) Planting Procedure. The planting of required trees and shrubs shall meet the specifications of the American Association of Nurserymen. All trees shall be planted no closer than (3) feet from the edge of sidewalks, curb, or other pavement. Deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two (2) inch caliper at the time of planting. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in height at the time of planting. Shrubs shall be a minimum three -gallon container at the time of planting. (3) Maintenance. The owner, developer, and/or builder whom is responsible for planting the required landscaping shall be responsible for maintaining the trees in a state of good health for one year after planting. After one year, the individual property owner and/or homeowner's association shall be responsible for maintaining the required landscaping. With a written request from the property owner, the Zoning Administrator may allow the removal of required landscaping from a lot when the landscaping is a hazard or nuisance, and so long as the intent of this section is met. D. Existing Tree Credits. If all other requirements of Section 165-36 are satisfied, existing trees that are preserved may be counted towards the total number of required trees for residential developments. Commercial & industrial developments may utilize existing tree credits when calculating the required number of parking lot trees, as required in Section 165-27 E. (11), if the preserved trees are shown on an approved site plan and serve the intent of interior and perimeter landscaping. The following table shows the credit given for each preserved 'tree, based on the tree's caliper: Caliper Credit <6" 1.00 6" - 12" 1.50 1311- 18" 2.00 19" - 29" 2.50 >30" 3.00 E. Enforcement Procedures. The Zoning Administrator may require a bond with surety or other acceptable guaranties to insure the completion of required improvements. Such guaranties shall be in the estimated amount of the required improvements. Such guaranties shall be for a period of completion set by the Zoning Administrator with consultation with the applicant. Such guaranties shall be released when the required improvements have been completed. U. ICOMMI77FFYDRRSWrojectslWoodlands DisturbanceUmendmentslOfficial Draft AmendmentslFINALDRAFTAMENDMENTSk]65-36 OFFICIALDRAFTivpd PROPOSED MODIFICA'T'IONS: § 165-156. Definitions. Agricultural (or Locally Significant) Soils - A grow of soils identified as prime farmland by the Soil Survey of Frederick County Virginia, prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture. Caliper - The diameter of a tree as defined by the American Association of Nurserymen. Channel Scariine - The sloping margin of, or the ground bordering, a stream and serving to confine the water to the natural channel during the normal course of flow. It is best marked where a distinct channel has been eroded to the valley floor or where there is a cessation of land vegetation. Impervious Area - Any area, generally paved or graveled, with a surface thatprevents, or significantly reduces, absorption ofstorrnwater into the ground. When calculating imperious area for landscaping purposes, retention and detention basins, dry wells, sidewalks, display areas, durnpster pads, and structuress shall be excluded. Natural Waterway - Creeks, Streams, Runs, or other annual or perennial waterways identified on United States Geological Survey, Commonwealth of Virginia or Frederick County maps. Riparian Suffer - An area of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation that permits inundation by water and is at least thirty-five feet in width, measured outward from both sides ofa natural water ray beginning along the slope of the ground from the channel sear hue. A riparian buffer is managed to maintain the integrity of stream channels and reduce the effect of upland sources of pollution by trapping, filtering, and converting sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals. Steep Slopes - Land areas where the slope exceeds 4-5 50%. Wetlands - ," " " swamp or wetiand areas has adapted to the areft.- Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that raider normal conditions does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, and that is subject to a perpetual easement permitting inundation by water.. ra M., P -M.- "L. 41 - --- - ---- C • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM f� TO: Frederick County Planni ng Commission FROM: Christopher M. MohCP, Deputy Director RE: Discussion Item: 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan DATE: December 6, 2002 The CPPS has been actively engaged in the development of the proposed 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) since its October meeting. To date, the CIP process has involved presentations by representatives of the various departments and agencies regarding their respective project requests as well as discussions amongst CPPS members concerning project prioritization. Following discussion, the CPPS evaluated all projects proposed for inclusion in the 2003-2004 CIP resulting in a proposed project prioritization table*, which was scheduled to be forwarded out of committee at the December 9, 2002 CPPS meeting. It is requested that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors consider the proposed 2003- 2004 CIP as a discussion item prior to the document's advertisement for public hearing. Such discussion will provide a valuable opportunity for collective review of proposed capital projects and their recommended ratings while also allowing members to determine if additional information or analysis is needed in advance of final CIP consideration. Please find attached with this agenda item a summary of the proposed 2003-2004 CIP; information pertaining to new or modified departmental project requests; and a draft copy of the proposed 2003- 2004 CIP. Please contact our department should you have any questions regarding this information. *Note: The scope of CPPS review of capital project requests was limited expressly to an evaluation ofproject conformance to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The recommended ratings are, therefore, not an endorsement of the proposed project expenditures. However, projected expenditures are included in the proposed CIP as required by the Code of Virginia. CMM/cih Attachments U \C0MMITTELS\CPPS\CIP\2003= 004 CIP\PC Discussion Memo. wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED 2003-2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN The proposed CIP consists of thirty (30) capital projects, an increase over the 28 projects included in the previous CIP. ► County contributions toward capital projects (excluding debt service) are estimated to be $56.9 million over the upcoming five-year period, a decrease from the $65.2 million in expenditures projected in the previous CIP. With debt service included, the proposed CIP estimates total County costs for capital projects to be $113.4 million. ► The proposed CIP includes three (3) new capital projects, which are as follows: land acquisition along Bufflick Road to facilitate the Regional Airport's noise attenuation program; development of a lake, trails and parking with two irrigated multi-purpose fields at Sherando Park; and development of an access road with parking and trails at Sherando Park. ► All of the capital projects included with the previous CIP will be carried over to the proposed 2003-2004 CIP with the exception of Millbrook High School. Funding for the County's third high school has been completed and construction is well underway, with the opening of the facility scheduled for Fall 2003. PROPOSED 2003-2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY OF NEW PROJECT REQUESTS AND PROJECT MODIFICATION REQUESTS Frederick County Department of Public Works Project Type of Request 2002 Local 2003 Local Expenditure Expenditure Request Request New Animal Shelter Modification 1 $1,095,000 1,254,000 Frederick County Parks and Recreation Project Type of Request 2002 Local 2003 Local Expenditure Expenditure Request Request Lake, Trails, and Parking New N/A $793,000 with Two Irrigated Multi - Purpose Fields - Sherando Park Access Road with Parking New N/A $797,000 and Trails - Sherando Park Parkland in Eastern Modification $2,132,100 $2,196,063 Frederick County Parkland in Western Modification $1,305,099 $1,344,252 Frederick County Softball Complex - Modification $477,307 $491,619 Sherando Park Baseball Complex Modification $978,433 $1,007,788 Renovations - Sherando Park Soccer Complex - Modification $1,112,941 $1,146,199 Sherando Park Open Play Areas - Modification $358,201 $368,699 Clearbrook Park Expenditure Skateboard/In-Line Modification $454,385 $468,017 Hockey Park James Wood Middle Modification $4,895,000 Tennis/Basketball Modification $372,486 $384,876 Complex - Clearbrook #4 Middle School Modification $15,550,000 Park Construction Tennis/Picnic Area - Modification $601,664 $619,390 Sherando Park Shelter/Stage - Clearbrook Modification $369,183 $380,245 Park Maintenance Modification $190,481 $196,195 Compound/Office - Sherando Park *Note: The modifications requested by the Department of Parks and Recreation are cost revisions based on an inflation factor of 3.5%. Frederick County Public Schools Project Type of Request 2002 Local 2003 Local Expenditure Expenditure Request` Request* James Wood Middle Modification $4,895,000 $1,820,000 School Renovation #4 Middle School Modification $15,550,000 $13,435,000 Construction Transportation Facility Modification $6,700,000 $6,850,000 * Note: Cost estimates for Public School projects do not reflect debt service. Winchester regional Airport i Project Type of Request 2002 Local 2003 Local Expenditure Expenditure Request Request Land Acquisition - New N/A $142,475 Preliminary Phase, Parcels 31,46,&53 U:\COMMITTEES\CPPS\CIP\2003-2004 CIP\New Project and Mods Summary PC.wpd FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Capital Improvements Plan VA. .11A Adopted by the Frederick County Board of Super -visors February XX, 2003 Recommended by the Frederick County Planning Commission February XX, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION kR?j I BC LA : ( TMENDATIONS ............................................... 2 .'4Schco BoArd ......... ......... I ................. 2 Parks and Recreation .....................................................2 County Administration ................................................... 3 Handley Regional Library ......................................... 4 Airport Authority ............... I ................. I I . ......... 4 2003-2004 CAPITAL fMPROVEMENTS PLAN .................................... 5 CIP TABLE EXPLANATIONS ............................ ..................... 6 PROJECTFUNDING .......................... .................... 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ............. .......... ........ ............ ...... 8 Frederick County Public Schools ............... .... . ..... ........ ... -8 James Wood Middle School Renovation ................................ 8 #4 Middle School Construction ................ . ..... ... ... .. .. 8 Transportation Facility ............................................ 1.9 #11 Elementary School Construction .................................. 9 Administration Building Renovations .................................. 9 New Gainesboro Elementary School ..... ............................10 Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department . . ........ ............ . 10 Field House/Indoor Pool Complex ................ ... . ............ to Parkland in Eastern Frederick County .................. .............. 11 Parkland in Western Frederick County ................................ 11 Softball Complex-Sherando Park .................................... 12 Baseball Complex Renovation-Sherando Park .......................... 12 Soccer Complex-Sherando Park ..................... 13 Open Play Areas - Clearbrook Park ...... ...... ...................... 13 Skateboard Park-Sherando Park ........ ............. .......... Tennis/Basketball Complex -Clearbrook Park ........................... 14 Tennis/Picnic Area - Sherando Park . . . . . . ............................ 14 Shelter/Stage Seating - Clearbrook Park ............................... 14 Maintenance Compound and Office - Sherando Park ..................... 15 Lake, Trail, and Parking with Irrigated Multi -Purpose Fields - Sherando Park . 15 Access Road with Parking and Trails - Sherando Park ................... 15 County Administration ....................... ... ........... . ......16 Public Safety Center ........... ... .... ......... .. ........... 16 New Frederick County Animal Shelter ................... _ ............ 16 Annex Facilities ................... .. ....................... ... 17 Relocation of Round Hill Fire/Rescue Station ........................... 18 Winchester Regional Airport .............................................. 18 Airport Road (Route 645) Relocation - Construction Phase ................ 18 Airfield Lighting Upgrade .......................................... 18 :-A* leld Maintenance Building ...................................... 19 _a;ard Acquisition - Bufflick Road .................................... 19 Handley Regional Library ................................................ 20 Bowman Library Improvements ..................................... 20 Northern Frederick County Library Branch - Land Acquisition ............. 20 DEPARTMENTAL SHARE OF EXPENDITURES ................................. 21 2003-2004 PROJECT EVALUATION FORM .................................. . ... 22 Description of Evaluation Criteria .......................................... 23 CAPITAL IM, MOVEMENTS PLAID FREDERICK COUNTY 2003-2004 INTRODUCTION Section 15.2-2239 of the Code of Vir ig'nia assigns the responsibility for preparation of plans for capital outlays to the local Planning Commissions. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) consists of a schedule for major capital expenditures for the county for the ensuing five years. The CIP is updated annually. Projects are removed from the plan as they are completed or as priorities change. The plan is intended to assist the Board of Supervisors in preparation of the county budget. In addition to determining priorities for capital expenditures, the county must also ensure that projects contained within the CIP conform to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, the projects are reviewed with considerations regarding health, safety, and the general welfare of the public. The annual review process begins with the submission of capital improvement requests from county departments and relevant agencies in the fall of the year. These requests are evaluated by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), a subcommittee of the Planning Commission, using a list of seven evaluation criteria. Each criterion is assigned a weight which reflects the relative importance when compared to the other criterion. The CPPS then meets with representatives of departments making expenditure requests and determines a recommended priority for the various requests. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning Commission which in turn makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as a capital facilities planning document, not for requesting funding allocations. Once adopted, project priorities may change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is projected. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital huprovements Plan Page 2 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS In an effort to maintain educational facilities that will handle the L School Board_:_ growing student population, the construction of a new middle school and two new elementary schools are recommended. Renovations to James Wood Middle School are underway and additional funding is requested to continue improvements to the 1,000 student facility. These renovations are intended to expand the life of the 50 -year-old facility. Funding is also being requested for the construction of a new central transportation maintenance facility which will house all of the school system's buses and provide service to county vehicles from other departments. 2. Parks and Recreation The majority of the recommended projects are planned for the county's two regional parks. Eight projects are planned for Sherando Park: a softball complex, a soccer complex, tennis courts and picnic areas, renovations to the existing baseball fields, a skate/in-line hockey park, maintenance compound, lake with associated trails and parking, and two irrigated multi-purpose fields with associated trails and parking. Three projects are planned for Clearbrook Park including a new open play area, a tennis and basketball complex, and a new shelter and stage. Also planned is an indoor pool/field house complex. The scope and location of this project have not been determined. Various options for the development of this project are being explored, including a public-private partnership. The Parks and Recreation Department has proposed to acquire land in both the eastern and western portions of the county for the development of future regional park systems. This proposal calls for the acquisition of 150-200 acres of land for each regional park system to accommodate the recreational needs of the growing population. Frederick County 2003-2001 Capital Improvements Plan Page 3 3. County Administration In an effort to improve service to the citizens throughout the county and meet current and future space needs, the Frederick County Sheriff's Office is exploring the feasibility of acquiring land in a strategic location for the development of a new Public Safety Center. The development of an 8,500 -square -foot animal shelter is proposed to replace the existing Esther Boyd Animal Shelter. The existing shelter is expected to be displaced in approximately 3 years due to continued development of the Municipal Solid Waste landfill. The animal shelter would serve Frederick County and accommodate growth of the animal population. This shelter could be located on the same site as the Public Safety Center, as space allows. Long-range service enhancements are recommended to provide annex satellite facilities in strategic locations throughout the county that will house representatives of the Frederick County Sheriff's Office, the Frederick County Treasurer's Office, and the Commissioner of Revenue's Office. The Department of Fire & Rescue has recommended a new fire/rescue station along Fairfax Pike (Route 277) that would potentially house such satellite offices. The fire/rescue facility would serve areas in southeast Frederick County between Route 522 and Route 277. Relocation of the existing Round Hill Fire Station is also requested. This would involve the relocation and building of a 22,000 square foot facility for fire and rescue activities along with the building of a 10,000 square foot community center for fund- raising and other activities. 5. Handley The Handley Regional Library has recommended two projects. Regional Library The library proposes to acquire 3 to 4 acres of land in the Gainesboro Magisterial District for a future branch library. A project request for improvements at the existing Bowman Library is also proposed. More parking at the Bowman Library is needed to accommodate the growing number of users of the library. A sidewalk extension is needed for safer access from adjoining neighborhoods to the library. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital improvements Plan 4. Airport Authority 4 Page 4 An updated master plan for the Winchester Regional Airport was adopted in December 1993. This plan contains recommendations regarding capital improvements at the airport that are designed to meet federal guidelines and provide better service to airport users. The Airport Authority has included a project request to construct and relocate a segment of Airport Road (Route 645) to meet Runway Protection Zone requirements mandated by the FAA; a request to upgrade the airfield lighting system to enhance safety for aircraft use of the facility; a request to construct a new airfield maintenance building; and a request for land acquisition along Bufflick road for noise abatement within the airport's DNL 65 noise contour. Funding for airport projects is derived through a complex formula where the Federal and State Governments contribute a majority of the funding, with Frederick County and the City of Winchester providing the remaining funding. Frederick Couniy 2003-2004 Capital liriprovements Plan DRAFT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2003-2004 Count} • Department . COUNTY CONTRIBUTION PFIR I ISCAL YEAR County Priority, Priority Projects 2003-04 2004 OS 2005 06 2006 07M�n2007 08 Contributit I I (PS) Games Wood Middle School Renovation 1,820,000 COSTS Costs E 2 1 (AP) !Airport Road Relocation (Construction) 420,000 f A ! 3 1 CA) !Public Safety Center N/A * �. N/A ** 0 4 t 2 (AP) Airfield Lighting Upgrade 15,000 0 f $75,000 5 1 (HL) 3Bownian- Parking Lot/Sidewalk Extension i 228,4_68_ z $228,468 t 6 2 (CA) :New Animal Shelter S ^y 129,000 1,125,000 E 12,962,08I 7 i 2 (PS) 1#4 Middle School Construction 13,435,000 0 2,196,063 s 8 2 (PR) Park Land East 2,196,063 15,563,125 $15,563,125 9 6 (PS) 'New Gainesboro Elementary School N/A ** 0 a $0 3,280,000 10 i 1 (PR) lFleld House/Indoor Pool i N/A *** $16,808,175 3 0 11 4 (PS) I# I 1 Elementary School Construction 1 $1,146,199 3,280,000 6,720,000 144,275 12 } 6 (PR) iSoccer Complex - SP 0 1,146,199 1 13 1 4 (AP) ]Land Acquisition - Bufflick Road 0 4,275 140,000 D 14 3 (PR) JPark Land West 48,000 1,344 252 3,727,294 15 3(AP) Airfield Maintenance Building .... ! _ _ _._.... _ ._.,. 210,000 ,_..._ _...__......, ._ ...,_...._..._....... 465,000 .,.._ a, 16 2 (HL) lNew Library - Land Acquisition 0 491,619 $491,619 17 3 (PS) #Transportation Facility 2,195,000 4,505,000 $196,195 18 3 (CA) !Annex Facilities 368,699 215,000 i 250,000 0 19 4 (PR) Softball Complex - SP $1,007,788; 491,619 619,390 20 ! 12 (PR) IMaintenance Compound 0 s $384,876 21 7 (PR) Open Play Areas -CB 0 ........_... 380,245 $380,245 368,699 22 5 (PR) !Baseball Complex Renovation - SP ,,..,<.w.,... 743,000w� $793,000 1,007,788 1,112,625 23 1 10 (PR) TennisfPicnic Areas - SP $3,I12,625 0 797,000 24 i 9 (PR) Tennis/Basketball Complex 0 468,017 384,876 a 25 11 (PR) ?Shelter/Stage CB ** S a $35,953,300 �:0: $II3,481,386 .,��s:�.:a ,._..$o $115,990,861 26 13 (PR) ILake/Traits/Parking/MP Fields SP t 27 ( 5 (PS) Administration Building Renovations (i { 2,000,000 28 14 (PR) ;Access Road with Parking & Trails 1 ( i 29 8 (PR) tSkateboard Park/In-Line Hockey j - ' j 468,017 q 30 t 4 (CA) lRelocation of Roundhill Fire/Rescue i N/A* .:, ,_,...,....rte.... ......_na.�.,..�.y,......, u.-. _....�..hh TOTALS .....�..,..::..�.� !�$l8,452,468 ..._...> ,$12,669,590 ..,:.�,. .� � $11,755 GUG ,...,.�,.,:�.w � $4,501,592 A = Partial funding from. Federal Airport Improvement Program (FAIP) and State Commonwealth Airport Fund (SCAF) grants C = Project costs not identified at time of printing E= Portion of project was funded in previous year 1,820,000 420,060 .0 15,000 000 228,468 _ ........... 1,254,000 13,435,000 2,196,663 6,720,000 10 000,000 0 48,000 196,195 619,390 38Oµ245 793,000 797,000 1,146,199 144;275 1,344;252 210,600 48,000 . 6,700,000. 465,000 491,619 .s6n;oyy 1,007,788 619,390 'tRd R7fi - . 2,000,00.0 797,000 468,017 n .. .,.... ___1 .. ..,_. ,.:._ .._. . Interest From Any TOTAL COUNTY Total Project Notes Debt Service COSTS Costs E 6,580,000 18,330,000 $18,330,000 A 0 420,000 $2,100,0001 C N/A ** 0 $0 A 0 15 ,000 $75,000 0 229,468 $228,468 0 1,254,000 $1,25.1,000 E 12,962,08I 36,262,081 $36,262,081 0 2,196,063 $2,196,063 s 5,563,125 15,563,125 $15,563,125 C N/A ** 0 a $0 E 6,008,175 16,808,175 $16,808,175 3 0 1,146,199 _ $1,146,199 A 0 144,275 1823,750 y 0 1,344,252 $1,344,252 A 0 210,000 D 0,.. _. 48,000 t $48,000 3,727,294 10,4 !7,294 $10,427,294 1 B , C N/A ** 465,000 $465,000 0 491,619 $491,619 0 196,195 $196,195 0 368,699 $368,699 0 1,007,788 $1,007,788; 0 619,390 $619,390 0 384,876 $384,876 0 ........_... 380,245 $380,245 ......, ...,._..„.o ,,..,<.w.,... 743,000w� $793,000 1,112,625 3,112,625 $3,I12,625 0 797,000 $797,0001 0 468,017 $468,017 { ** 1 $35,953,300 �:0: $II3,481,386 .,��s:�.:a ,._..$o $115,990,861 B =Project includes County Administration annex offices for the Commissioner of the Revenue, the Treasurer, the Sheriff, and the proposed Fairfax Pike Fire Station. U= Partial funding from private donations. N/ A* - Project Scope Not Determined At Time Of Printing Department Priority Abbreviations: AP - Winchester Regional Airport N/A`- - Funding Source Not Determined; Therefore, Debt Service Uncertain AI Time Of Printing CA Count\, Administration N/A- - Feasibility Stuciv ro Be Completed Prior To Project Scope Determination HL- Handley Library N A-* Project Tu Be Complete Bcyund FY 2007-2008. Thcreliire Nu Cost Estimate Projected DRAFT PR -Parks and Rei readon PS - PublicSrhools 11/22/02 Page 6 THE CIP TABLE: The Capital Improvements Plan table, on the previous page, CON'T'ENT contains a list of the capital improvement projects proposed for DESCRIPTIONS the e sung five years. A description of the im'Ormiiation in this table is explained below. f_ County Priority - The priority rating of all projects included in a. the CIP. County priority ratings are the result of the criterion and weight evaluation process as illustrated on the Evaluation Form. The Evaluation Form is located on page 22 of this booklet. Department Priority - The priority rating assigned by each department for their requested projects. Project Description - The name of the capital improvement proj ects. County Contribution - The estimated dollar value that will be contributed for each project. This value is listed by individual fiscal years and by total contributions over the five-year period. The total contribution column, located to the right of the fiscal year columns, does not include debt service projections. Notes - Indicates the footnotes that apply to additional funding sources for particular projects. Interest From Any Debt Service - The projected interest that will be incurred for a particular project. Debt service projections are provided by individual departments and are based on the most accurate interest rate information available at the time the CIP is assembled. Total County Costs - The total estimated expenditures that the county will incur for a particular project. This column includes both fiscal year allocations and debt service expenses associated with each project. Essentially, this column represents the total county contributions for each particular project_ Total Project Costs - The cost for each project, including county allocations and other funding sources. Frederick Counil7l 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 7 PROJECT FUNDING The projects included in the 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan have a total project cost of $115,990,861. If all projects are undertaken, the county will contribute $56,933,086 over the ensuing five years, excluding the interest from any debt service. By adding F the projected debt service of $35,953,300, the total county contribution of the approved projects comes to $113,481,386. Costs associated with the Public Safety Center, the Field House Complex, the new County Administration Annex facilities (Treasurer, Commission of Revenue, Sheriff, and the Fairfax Pike Fire Station), and the relocation of the Round Hill Fire Station are not included in these figures. School projects are funded through a combination of loans from the Virginia Public School Authority and the Virginia Literary Fund. Funding for Parks and Recreation Department projects will come from the unreserved fund balance of the county. The Parks and Recreation Commission will actively seek grants and private sources of funding for projects not funded by the county. Airport projects will be funded by contributions from the Federal, State, and Local Governments. The local portion may include contributions from Frederick, Clarke, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties, and the City of Winchester. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Frederick County.-. Public.Schools Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 James Wood Middle School Renovations Description: This project involves renovations to the HVAC system, electrical and lighting upgrades, removal of asbestos floor tiles, window repair and replacement, and painting. Capital Cost*: $1,820,000 Debt Service: $6,580,000 Justification: The renovations are necessary to extend the life of the 50 -year-old structure which serves 1,000 students in grades 6, 7, and 8, as well as a variety of community and civic organizations. Construction Schedule: Multi-year project that began in FY 01-02 and will be completed in FY 03-04. *$9, 930,000 borrowed prior to 6/30/03, resulting in total capital cost of $11, 750, 000 (not including debt service). PRIORITY 2 # 4 Middle School Construction Description: This project involves the construction of an 800 - member middle school in eastern Frederick County on 30-35 acres. Capital Cost*: $13,435,000 Debt Service: $ 12,962,081 Justification: The construction of a fourth middle school is necessary to provide space for the increase in middle school age population. Construction of the new school will decrease the over crowding at James Wood Middle School and accommodate future growth within the student population . Construction Schedule: Open in Fall 2004. *$9,865, 000 borrowed prior to 6/30103, resulting in total capital cost of $23,300, 000 (not including debt service). Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 9 PRIORITY 3 Transportation Facility Description: This project involves the site acquisition and development of a new transportation facility for the public school system. The facility would also provide support services to other county agencies such as Sheriff's Department, and Parks and Recreation. Capital Cost: $6,850,000 Debt Service: $3,836,000 Justification: The facility will be utilized for the repair, inspection, and service of approximately 155 schools buses, and 90 cars and trucks within the 10,706 student public school system. Construction Schedule: FY 04-05. PRIORITY 4 Elementary School # 11 Description: This project involves the construction of a new elementary school to accommodate a practical capacity of 550 students. Capital Cost*: $10,000,000 Debt Service: $ 6,008,175 Justification: This project is needed to accommodate growth patterns in the County's Urban Development Area. Construction Schedule: Open in Fall 2006. . *$800,000 borrowed prior to 6/30/03, resulting in total capital cost of $10,800,000 (not including debt service). PRIORI'T'Y 5 Administration Building Renovations Description: This project involves remodeling the existing administration building to address energy conservation, to provide adequate restroom and storage facilities; and to upgrade the fire protection, electrical, and security systems. The project would also include additional space for information technology needs and the space needs of other departments. Capital Cost: $2,000,000 2903-2004 Capital Imaprovemients Plan Frederick CountY Page 10 Debt Service: $1,112,625 Frederick Countsl 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Justification: The carrying capacity of the building for staff office space and records space has been exceeded. The building also lacks adequate facilities to meet the needs of the school _. division. °• f ` Construction Schedule: The project is estimated to take one year to complete and is proposed for FY 05-06. PRIORITY 6 New Gainesboro Elementary School Description: This project involves the construction of an elementary school (grades K-5) of approximately 65,000 square feet to serve 550 students. The school is located on a 20 -acre site. Capital Cost: $10,000,000. Debt Service: $ 5,563,125 Justification: This project will serve approximately 550 students in grades K-5. The Frederick County School Board purchased 20 acres of land in the Gainesboro District in 1990 in anticipation of the future need to provide space for increased student enrollment. Construction Schedule: FY06-07 through FY07-08.. Frederick County Parks and Recreation Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Field HouselIndoor Pool Complex Description: The scope of this project has not been determined. The Parks and Recreation Department is exploring various options for the development of the field house complex, including a public/private partnership. The Field House and Indoor Pool Complex would be approximately 118,000 square feet and include a 25 -yard x 50 -meter indoor swimming pool, a 200- meter indoor track, a fitness center, multipurpose rooms, locker rooms, offices, and four basketball courts that would be designed with in -floor sleeves and partitions to allow the courts to be utilized for indoor soccer, baseball, softball, wrestling, volleyball, tennis, badminton, and special events such as dances, music festivals, and garden, home, or craft shows. Frederick Countsl 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 11 II Capital Cost: To be determined. tLhC :nCe—PtIo ^f the parks and Recreation JnSilIl�'atl()n: Since uic ul�,�,��iv.. �- Department, the department has relied solely on the use of the county public schools to house programs. This arrangement ro was adequate when the department first started out; however, now that the department offers more than 750 programs annually, space within the schools is more difficult to secure and scheduling is more difficult. This has created a situation where the department can no longer meet the programming and facility needs of the county residents. Additionally, there are no indoor pools in Frederick County; therefore, the provision of this facility within the Field House Complex would enable the department to meet citizen programming and instructional demands and would provide the area with a facility that would attract new business to the community. This facility would be available to all area residents. Construction Schedule: The Parks and Recreation department requests that the project be funded and completed in FY 2003- 04. PRIORITY 2 Parkland in Eastern Frederick County Description: Parkland acquisition in the eastern portion of the county. Capital Cost: 52,196,063 Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be located within the Urban Development Area to provide recreational opportunities to this most actively growing part of the county. Acquisition of additional parkland would assist in meeting the minimum facility needs of future county residents as recommended by the 1996 Virginia Outdoor Plan. The location of a regional park in this portion of the county would also reduce traffic burdens in other areas by providing recreational facilities and services in closer proximity to the residents within this area. Construction Schedule: Acquisition in FY 04-05. PRIORITY 3 Parkland in Western Frederick County Description: Parkland acquisition in the western portion of the Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital improvements Plan Page 12 county. Capital Cost: $1,344,252 Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county population. Acquisition of additional parkland would assist in meeting the minimum # facility needs of county residents as recommended by the 1996 Virginia Outdoor Plan. Currently, this facility need is 558 acres based on 1998 population projections for Frederick County. The county owns 404 acres of parkland at this time. Construction Schedule: Acquisition in FY 04-05. PRIORITY 4 Softball Complex - Sherando Park Description: This project includes two softball fields; an access road; parking spaces; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $491,619 Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for the entire county population, as well as the Frederick County School System. Presently, there are ten softball and baseball fields within the county's regional park system. Eight of the existing fields must serve a dual purpose of facilitating youth baseball, as well as adult softball programs. With the increased usage of these fields, it has become increasingly difficult to facilitate these programs. This project is needed in order for the Parks and Recreation Department to accommodate the existing demand for youth baseball and adult softball programs. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 05-06 PRIORITY 5 Baseball Complex Renovations - Sherando Park Description: This project includes an upgrade to the lighting system; the renovation of four existing ball fields; and renovations of existing restrooms, access roads, and walkways. Capital Cost: $1,007,788 Justification: This facility, presently serving as both youth baseball and adult softball fields, would be used by the Little League Programs within the Sherando Park service area. In addition to its use as a recreational facility, the athletic complex will also be used by the Frederick County School System. This Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 13 Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan project cannot be completed until the Sherando Softball Complex is completed. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 05-06. PRIORITY 6_ Soccer Complex - Sherando Park Description: This project includes the development of two soccer fields; one picnic shelter; access paths; restrooms; concessions; landscaping; and lighting. Capital Cost: $1,146,199 Justification: This facility will serve the entire county population and will be utilized by the Frederick County School System. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 05-06. PRIORITY 7 Open Play Areas - Clearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of a picnic shelter; six horseshoe pits; a volleyball court; croquet turf; shuffleboard; parking; refurbishing the existing concession stand; and renovations to existing shelters, access paths, and parking areas on the south side of the lake. Capital Cost: $368,699 Justification: These facilities will provide recreational opportunities for the Clearbrook Park Service Area which will lessen the disparity between the number of passive recreational areas needed to meet the minimum standards for this service area. Clearbrook Park offers the best location for this development. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 06-07. PRIORITY 8 Skateboard/In-Line hockey Park Description: This project recommends the development of a skateboard bowl; a half pipe; an open skate area; two in-line hockey rinks; vehicle parking; an access road; fencing; and landscaping. Sherando park is the proposed location of this facility. . Capital Cost: $468,017 Justification: This facility will enable the county to provide a Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 14 recreational facility that has been requested for the community's youth. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 06-07. PR)lGWTY g ' Tennis/Basketball Complex - Clearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of four tennis courts; two basketball courts; a shelter; parking; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $384,876 Justification: These facilities will be available to all county residents. Currently, there are no tennis courts or basketball courts in the Clearbrook Park Service Area. Clearbrook Park is utilized by over 150,000 visitors annually; therefore, these facilities are needed. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 06-07. PRIORITY 10 Tennis/Picnic Area - Sherando Park Description: This project includes the development of three tennis courts, a playground area; four picnic shelters; restrooms; a concession area; access road; access paths; parking; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $619,390 Justification: These facilities would be used by the residents of southern Frederick County. Although tennis courts have been included at Sherando High School, the department feels that it is important to include three tennis courts on park property for general use while the school courts are being used for school activities. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 07-08. PRIORITY 11 Shelter/Stage Seating - Clearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of a shelter with a performance stage; refurbishing existing restrooms and access paths; and renovations to the lake. Capital Cost: $380,245 Justification: This facility would be used by the entire county Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 15 Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Presently, there are no facilities to accommodate IIpopulation. cultural programs within the county's park system. This project is needed to provide a facility for cultural activities. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 07-08. PRIORITY 12 Maintenance Compound and Office - Sherando Park Description: This project involves the construction of a 1,200 - square -foot office and a 4,000 -square -foot storage shed for operations at Sherando Park. Capital Cost: $196,195 Justification: This facility will enable the county to maintain equipment and facilities in a more responsible and effective manner. The additional responsibility to maintain the outdoor facilities at Sherando High School increases the need for more storage, maintenance, and office space. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 07-08. PRIORITY 13 Lake, Trails, and Parking with Two Irrigated Multi - Purpose Fields - Sherando Park Description: This project involves the development of a 12 acre lake; 1.5 mile trail system around the lake; 800 linear feet of access roadway; lighted parking lot with 125 spaces; and development of two irrigated 70 X 120 yard multi-purpose fields. Capital Cost: $793,000 Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service area. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 07-08. PRIORITY 14 Access Road, Parking, and Trails - Sherando Park Description: This project involves the development of an entrance and 1,500 linear foot of access roadway from Warrior Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 16 Frederick County 2003-2001 Capital Improvements Plan IIDrive; a 50 space parking area; and 2.8 miles of trails. Capital Cost: $797,000 Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park service area and the entire ' Frederick County community. The development of this facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service area. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 07-08. County Administration Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Public Safety Center Description: This project recommends the development of a 23,000 -square -foot facility for the Frederick County Sheriff's Office. This will allow the Frederick County Sheriffs Office to vacate the Winchester -Frederick County Joint Judicial Center. Capital Cost: To be determined. Justification: The Frederick County Sheriffs Office currently has 80 employees that occupy space in the Winchester - Frederick County Joint Judicial Center (JJC). When this space was first occupied, there were 36 employees in the office. Representatives of the JJC have indicated that additional space is required for court officers and other arms of the judicial branch. Development of a new facility in the county will enhance the response time for emergency service in the safest possible manner. The current location of the Sheriff s Office in the JJC increases emergency response time due to congested streets and heavily populated areas, thus compromising safety to persons and property. Construction Schedule: To be determined. PRIORITY 2 New Frederick County Animal Shelter Description: This project involves the development of an 8,500- square -foot building with parking and fencing. This project could be constructed on the same property as the Public Frederick County 2003-2001 Capital Improvements Plan Page 17 Safety Center. Capital Cost: $1,254,000 Justification: This project will replace the existing Esther Boyd Animal Shelter which will be displaced by development of the MSW Landfill within the ensuing five years. Construction Schedule: Begin construction in FY 03-04; complete construction in FY 04-05. PRIORITY 3 Annex Facilities Description: This project will consist of several facilities located at strategic locations throughout the county to house employees of the Sheriff's Office, the Treasurer's Office, and the Commissioner of Revenue's Office. A fire station would be included with offices located in the Fairfax Pike area. Capital Cost: $465,000 for Treasurer's Office Satellite Office; other estimates not available at time of printing. Justification: The development of satellite facilities along major transportation networks and in areas of dense population will provide ease of access for citizens and will improve services to the county. The county continues to experience a significant rate of growth; therefore, it is important toprovide services within these areas instead of requiring citizens to confront congestion, limited parking, and accessibility in the City of Winchester. Construction Schedule: Phase -1 Site acquisition and construction FY 04-05; construction completion FY 05-06. New Fairfax Pike Fire/Rescue Station (coordinated with Annex Facilities request) Description: This project involves the construction of a new fire/rescue facility in southeast Frederick County between Stephen's City and Route 522, along the Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) corridor, which would also house satellite facilities for the Sheriff, Treasurer, and Board of Supervisors District Office. The fire and rescue component of the facility would involve an engine and rescue company. A 5 to 7 acre tract of land would be needed for this project. Capital Cost: Not yet determined. Justification: The need for a new station is in response to Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital improvements Plan Page 18 Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan present and anticipated future growth ( Shenandoah development of Lake Frederick) in this area of the County. The new station would reduce fire and ems response time to the population of southeastern Frederick County. _..... __,.... Construction Schedule: Completion FY 03-04. PRIORITY 4 Relocation of Round Dill Fire/Rescue Station Description: This project includes the relocation and building of a 22,000 square foot facility to accommodate ten or more pieces of emergency equipment and to house living and sleeping areas for staff. A community center of approximately 10,000 square feet with a capacity of 400 people is also planned; it would be used for fund raising events and other activities. The project would need a parcel of 3 to 5 acres. Capital Cost: Not yet determined Justification: The existing facility at serving the Round Hill areas is 50 years old and not large enough to accommodate the equipment needed to serve Round Hill community. This community includes approximately 9,000 households, three schools, and the Winchester Medical Center. Construction Schedule: Begin in FY 03-04, Winchester Regional Airport Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Airport Road (Route 645) Relocation - Construction Phase Description: The relocation and construction of approximately 3,000 linear feet of Airport Road along the southeastern boundary of the Winchester Regional Airport. Capital Cost: $2,100,000 80/20 - State/Local Share Local Share: $420,000. Justification: Removing this obstruction will allow approach minimums to be lowered which will enable the Winchester Regional Airport to accommodate aircraft in all weather conditions. Construction Schedule: FY 03-04. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 19 PRIORITY 2 11 Airfield Lighting Upgrade Description: The project involves the upgrade of the existing medium intensity runway lighting to high intensity runway w lighting and the upgrade of the 2 -box precision approach path indicator (PAPI) to a 4 -box PAPI. - Capital Cost: $75,000 80/20 - State/Local Share Local Share: $15,000. Justification: This project is necessary to accommodate the increase in aircraft that utilizes the Winchester Regional Airport. Construction Schedule: FY 03-04. PRIORITY 3 Airfield Maintenance Building Description: Construction of a 3,800 -square -foot facility to accommodate the airport's maintenance equipment and maintenance work activities. Capital Cost: $300,000 State Grant - $90,000 Local Share: $210,000. Justification: This project is necessary to accommodate maintenance activities at the airport. Construction Schedule: FY 03-04. PRIORITY 4 Land Acquisition - Bufflick Road - Parcels 31, 46, & 53 Description: Acquisition of three parcels located along Bufflick Road. Capital Cost: $823,750 Federal Grants - $111,375 Local Share: $142,475 State Grants.- $569,900 Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within both the Airport's FAR Part 77 Primary Surface and/or approach surface and the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The FAA considers residential land use within the noise contour to be incompatible with airport operations and encourages airports to resolve such incompatibility through acquisition. Moreover, under the FAA's Part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia, the Airport is required to assume fee simple ownership of property located within the Primary Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 20 Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan IISurface. Construction Schedule: Begin process FY 04-05; complete acquisition FY 05-06. l�and�ey 'i��e�on�l Library Project Priority List PRIORITY I Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension Description: The proposal is to expand the parking lot on the Lakeside Drive side of the library from 101 to 221 parking spaces, and to provide a sidewalk from Lakeside Drive to connect with the existing sidewalk at the library. Capital Cost: $ 228,468 Justification: The parking lot expansion is need to relieve overcrowding and to accommodate library patrons. The sidewalk is necessary to provide safer access for pedestrians to the library. Construction Schedule: FY 03-04 PRIORITY 2 Northern Frederick County Library Branch Description: Request to acquire 3 to 4 acres of land for a future branch library along 522 North near Cross Junction. The library proposes a 7,000 square foot branch with the possibility of expansion to 10,000 square feet. Parking would accommodate up to 35 vehicles. Capital Cost:$48,000 - Land Aquisition. Justification: There is no library in the area of the county to serve residents. The residents of the Gainesboro District comprise the largest population group the greatest distance from a library. The library would serve members of the population from toddlers to senior citizens. Construction Schedule: Land Acquisition FY 07-08; Construction proposed for FY 07-08 with library opening in FY 09-10. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan 2003-2®04 Capital Improvements Plan Departmental Share of Requested Capital Projects ® Public Schools 50 Parks and Recreation a County Administration Regional Airport Handley Regional Library Capital Improvements Plan Departmental Project Costs Public Schools $43,955,000 Parks and Recreation $10,193,343 County Administration $1,719,000 Regional Airport $789,275 Handley Regional Library $276,468 TOTAL: $56,933,086 2003 - 2004 FREijERICK COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS EVALUATION FORM LISTED BY DEPARTMENT; IN ORDER OF DEPARTMENT PRIORITY CRITERION Q+nfonn to Health, Irltally Distribute Economic Related Public Department Comp. Plan 5afety, Rvyuin•d Sorvims Impact to Other Support Priority TOTAL Welfare Welfare Pr.1,,U WEIGHT 3 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 LIBRARY Bowman- Pat'king Lok/5icis� aik Etet>sfori':"' =' , — Northern Frederick Librar Branch - SCHOOL SYSTEM Larses Wood Middle School Renovattoir ` - L i r. # 4 Middle School Construction .......__.._ _.._--_.. _...._. _ ..._. --------------- 77: - - Transportation Facility. -1- ,v I1 Elementary School Construction _AdministratonBuildingReno,akionand�ddltlR.n� — ._.-- - i —:_� _ .._ 177 -- ----- Xex• Gainesbow Elementary School — PARKS AND RECREATION Field Mouse/Indoor Poole Park Land East FC _— -._.. - _. r c Park Lattd'WesfFG _ ,: -- - _._------- So " ball Com lex - SY _ _..,___ _---- = ---....-_..+_._...� , - '• _-s._ __...__:�., ;.. .,� � '` �-- -p - -:— Baseball Cotuplex - SP , r i - _� -- - - -- Soccer Complex SI --- Y.... Open Play Area - CB -- - - --- - a J, Skateboard Par0n-Line HockellT� Terinis/BasketbalI Coni .lex - CB Tennis/Picnic Areas - SP ----- _ Slrelter/5#< CB - -- Maintennrlce Cmu otmd/D ce SP _ Lake/I'railS/ParkitrA_ SP , - -- - - - Access RoaclTarkin&lFrails - SP — AIRPORT Airport Road (Rt. 645) Relocatiaii ' "' Airfield Lighting Upgrade Airfield Maintenance Building _.. ::..... --- _ - —._ Land Acquisition - Bufflick Road _ ..- __ _ .,:: COUNTY ADMINISTRATION Public Safety Center --- Meru Animal Sirelier Annex Facilities jlres ComR„�, t evertff) _ ..... _ -..... ..._.._....... _... - -- _.._.. _..----- _....... _ .- Relocation of Round dill F&I2 - ..._....-__...... ' '...._...._.. ,_.. ---_, tote: Projects should be rated on a scale of 1 to 4, "4" indicating that a project most appropriately lits the criterion \'err Capital Improv enreut Yrojecu in bold, italic print represent aer project requests or project nwdificalious by drpaiuneut ',one ('13 idemilie, a Clearbrook Park capital pruject: SP identifies a Sherando Park capdal pl Olecl. FREDERKK COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMiNG PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA U:\CONIMI'I-TC'rS\(�PPS\CIP\2003-2004 (`IP\Clppro)ecti valuationCriteriaDescriplionscpPS.wpd TOPIC DESCRIPTION WEIGHT 1 Conformance to Does the project conform to, or contribute to Comprehensive Plan the attainment of goals/objectives of the 3 Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? 2 Public Health, Safety or Does the project improve conditions affecting Welfare health safety or welfare? Does it eliminate a 4 clear health or safety risk? 3 Legal Requirement Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal 4 requirement? 4 Equitable Distribution of Does the project meet a special need of some Services o f the 1nopulatinn t- at has been identified as needing assistance? Would the 2 project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under- served relative to other areas of the county? 5 Economic Impact Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the 2 tax base --,-reduce operating expenses, produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? 6 Coordination with other Is the project necessary for the successful Projects completion of other projects? Is the project 3 part of a larger project? 7 Public Support Are county residents fully informed and 3 supportive of the proposed project? 8 Department Priority Ratings are provided for the top four projects 2 submitted by each agency or department. U:\CONIMI'I-TC'rS\(�PPS\CIP\2003-2004 (`IP\Clppro)ecti valuationCriteriaDescriplionscpPS.wpd