Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 02-06-02 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia FEBRUARY 6, 2002 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) December 19, 2001 Minutes ............................................. (A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................ (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments ................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The CIP is a prioritized list of projects requested by numerous County agencies, to be reviewed for potential allocation in the ensuing five-year period. The plan is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. The CIP is an advisory document; projects are not necessarily funded because of their inclusion in the CIP. (Mr. Lawrence) .......................................................(B) 5) Rezoning #07-01 of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 5.1 acres of RP (Residential Performance) and 149.3 acres of RA (Rural Areas) to 116.7 acres of M1 (Light Industrial); 23.2 acres of B2 (Business General); and 14.5 acres of B3 (Industrial Transition. This property is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike on the east and south, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-100 and 43-A-111 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Mr. Lawrence) .......................................................(C) PUBLIC MEETING 6) Request for a Waiver to Increase Woodlands Disturbance on Lot 4 in the Westview Business Center, submitted by Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering. (Mr. Lawrence) ....................................................... (D) 7) Request for a Waiver to the Zoning District Buffer Requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, submitted by Mr. Timothy G. Painter of Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. (Mr. Camp) ..........................................................(E) DISCUSSION ITEMS 8) Discussion Pertaining to Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow public schools in B2 (Business General) Zoning Districts. (Mr. Wyatt).......................................................... (F) 9) Discussion Pertaining to a Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to Modify Residential Road Efficiency Buffer Requirements. (Mr. Wyatt)..........................................................(G) 10) Other • C • MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on December 19, 2001. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Moms, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; and Sidney A. Reyes, Board Liaison. ABSENT: Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. STAFF PRESENT: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director; Jeremy Camp, Planner Il; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 2001 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of November 7, 2001 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS is continuing with work on capital improvements projects, which will be forwarded to the Commission at some future time. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 19, 2001 Page 764 -2 - Economic Development Commission (EDC) Commissioner Thomas reported on their wrap-up meeting with retiring Executive Director, June Wilmot, and the committee's preparations for the new year. Sanitation Authority (SA) -12/18/01 Mtg. Commissioner Fisher reported that the SA's Director, Wellington Jones, reported on the current drought conditions in Frederick County. He said that other highlights of the report were: the South Quarry has rebounded due to the SA purchasing water from the City of Winchester; and, the SA is reviewing alternatives and options for providing a water supply from the Northern Treatment Plant. Winchester Planning Commission - 12/18/01 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported that the Winchester Planning Commission raised some of their development fees through a change in the ordinance and had a brief reception for outgoing Chairman, David Chandler. PUBLIC HEARING Request for Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), submitted by Triad Engineering, Inc., to incorporate approximately four acres, identified with P.I.N. 53-A-92, and owned by Willow Grove, L.C. The site is bounded by two roads (Rt. 37 and Merrimans Lane) and the Merrimans Chase subdivision in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Tabled for 90 Days at the Applicant's Request Chairman DeHaven stated that the Commission has received a letter from the applicant requesting a tabling for 90 days. Chairman DeHaven asked if there were any citizens present who had wanted to speak regarding this expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). No one came forward. Upon motion by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table the request for expansion of the sewer and water service Area, submitted by Triad Engineering, Inc., for 90 days at the applicant's request. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 19, 2001 Page 765 -3 - PUBLIC MEETINGS Revision to Master Development Plan 902-99 for "The Ravens" (Oakdale III, Raven Pointe, Raven Oaks, and RavenWing). The revisions would affect the project's phasing plan and traffic patterns. This project is located north of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50), and is primarily accessed via Inverlee Way. The properties within the project area are identified with parent tract P.I.N.s 64-A-113, 64-A-119, and 64-A- 117 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Tabled for 60 Days at the Applicant's Request Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt stated that staff has received a request from G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. to modify the phasing plan and traffic patterns of the approved master development plan of The Ravens development. Director Wyatt said that the approved master plan (approved in July of 1999) enabled the development of 668 single-family lots and established phasing and traffic patterns that would restrict vehicular access to the north (Senseny Road) until the last phase in the project was built. He said that temporary traffic barriers were placed at three future road connections to restrict the vehicular traffic until the final phase of development. He pointed out that the outstanding issue during discussions of the 1999 master plan was the concern, primarily from residents in the Oakdale Crossing subdivision, about the need to have Inverlee Way (a major collector which will ultimately provide a connection from Rt. 50 to Senseny Rd.) continued through to provide access, so that traffic going from Senseny Road to Rt. 50 would not weave through Oakdale Crossing. Director Wyatt said that nine phases of development throughout the acreage was approved with the provision of three road connections being constructed during Phase 9, or when road work commenced on Senseny Road. Director Wyatt continued, stating that the applicant wishes to accommodate larger lot sizes, 15,000 square foot rather than 12,000 square foot, in the Raven Pointe section; to construct the larger lots earlier in the project as opposed to the final phase; to include the extension of Inverlee Way to the property limits, as the primary road access for this phase; and, to remove the various barricades that were proposed to be in place until the final phase of development. Considering these proposed modifications, Director Wyatt identified a couple concerns. He said that the removal of the barricades will enable cut -through traffic and the requirement for sidewalks and street lights can no longer be mandated because of the larger lot size. Director Wyatt said that considering this development is under construction, there may be persons who have purchased lots with the expectation that sidewalks and street lights will be provided. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., Vice President of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., was representing the applicants, Glaize Developments and JENI Company. Mr. Maddox said that this section would cease to be Raven Pointe and would become an extension of Oakdale, which is high-end housing with 90 -foot fronts, and it would be important to be "connected" with the original Oakdale. He said that because some of the surrounding road issues, such as Senseny Road, Greenwood Road, and Cork Street, would not be resolved in the short term, they believed it was beneficial to construct the entire major collector roadway system (Inverlee Way) to the property line. Mr. Maddox believed the modifications would create a better development and they also believed there was a market for this type of housing. Mr. Maddox agreed with the staffs comments on the sidewalks and street lights. He said that a number of sidewalks would be added and street lights will be provided. Commissioner Thomas raised two concerns, specifically, how would the applicant encourage contractors with construction equipment to use Inverlee Way, off Rt. 50, rather than to come through Oakdale Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 19, 2001 Page 766 -4 - Crossing and, secondly, the continuity ofmoving people would depend on the provision of sidewalks and would be greatly desirable. Mr. Maddox believed that construction traffic could be controlled through contract clauses and supervision. Regarding the sidewalks, Mr. Maddox said that they planned to create an interconnecting pedestrian way, on one side of the road, through the project along the minor collector roads; he said these will connect into the major trail system along the major collector. He added that the cul-de-sacs, the dead-end streets, and the streets with fixed generation would not have sidcwalks. He further added fliat curb and gutter and street lights will be provided. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Ed Trexler, a resident in Oakdale Crossing, urged the Commission not to allow the developer to remove the traffic barriers. Mr. Trexler said that Oakdale Crossing does not have sidewalks and he was concerned for the safety of the neighborhood children, who like to play in the streets. He added that two of the barriers have already been pushed aside and his neighborhood has been experiencing considerable construction traffic and subcontractor traffic daily, with no traffic enforcement. Mr. Shawn Stanic, a resident at 109 Dewberry Drive in Oakdale Crossing, pointed out his residence on a map, which was located at the proposed joining of Oakdale into the Ravens. Mr. Stanic believed that if the road in front of his home was continued, accidents were bound to happen. He said that he has filed numerous complaints about construction traffic traveling through this area and has brought this to the project manager's attention numerous times. Mr. Stanic was concerned for the safety of neighborhood children. Mr. Eric Milkerson, a resident of Oakdale Crossing, was very much opposed to through traffic traveling through his subdivision to get to Senseny Road or Rt. 50. He compared the situation to the through - traffic problems that residents in the City's Meadowbranch subdivision are experiencing. Mr. Robert Rimmel, a homeowner at RavenWing, Lot 7, 108 Kimross Drive, came forward to speak on behalf of the homeowners of The Ravens. Mr. Rimmel expressed disapproval and concern for the proposed revisions to the master plan because as prospective buyers, the residents of Raven Wing were shown the original master plan and purchased their particular lot based on that plan; he said to change it now would be an injustice to persons who have purchased lots so far. He stated that he purchased his lot with the assumption there would be open space next to his lot and, now, with the proposed modifications, he will lose the open space td -an adjoining lot. He mentioned possible drainage problems with the decrease in open space. Mr. Rimmel said the residents of Raven Wing are opposed to through traffic traveling through their subdivision to get to another destination. He was concerned that construction traffic from Winchester would travel down Rt. 50 East, make a "U-turn" at Greenwood Road, go back up Rt. 50, and turn into Inverlee Way; he said this construction traffic would create congestion on Rt. 50. He was concerned about the residents' safety with increasing the traffic through the subdivision while decreasing the sidewalks. Mr. Byron Armel, 116 Kinross Drive, concurred with many of the statements by other residents made so far. Mr. Armel had concerns about drainage problems; he believed ifthe drainage flow down to the natural creek behind his home was disrupted by larger lots, his basement would be flooded. He was also concerned about larger lots taking away the numerous water retention ponds. Mr. Armel disputed statements made by the applicant that larger lots would create greater tax revenue for the County. In addition, he was opposed to the elimination of sidewalks because because it would create a safety problem for neighborhood children and it would destroy neighborhood continuity. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 19, 2001 Page 767 -5 - Mr. Edgar Hickman, a resident on Kinross Drive in Raven Wing, concurred with residents in Oakwood who were opposed to removal of the barricades to protect neighborhood children's safety; he did not believe the developer should have the ability to eliminate sidewalks from the revised plan, especially ifthe roads were being used by construction traffic; he did not believe Inverlee Way would be developed past the Carper Farm in the foreseeable future; he was opposed to the removal of the open spaces because of the possibility of flooding problems. Mr. Hickman was opposed to all of the modifications proposed by the developer and believed the developer should be required to develop the smaller -sized lots with sidewalks, street lights, and curb and gutter. Ms. Kammy Reimer, a resident of RavenWing, concurred with her neighbors' opposition to the elimination of open spaces because it would negatively affect natural drainage ways, it could cause environmental pollution, and it could affect the safety of her children. Mr. Dave Hepler, President of Hepler Construction, spoke in favor of the proposed revisions by the applicant. Mr. Hepler didn't believe the proposed modifications would create any increase in the traffic this development is experiencing, but he did believe there would be a change in the traffic patterns which could positively affect the residents in the long run. Mr. Hepler also believed that the applicant was only trying to make the lots more marketable. He said that the Oakdale development was a prosperous subdivision and no more lots are available. He believed Oakdale was just a step above the Raven Wing subdivision and by adding a few more of the Oakdale -style homes, it would complement the entire area. Mr. Herald Fincham, a resident at 130 Kinross in RavenWing, spoke about why he was opposed to the removal ofthe barricades; he believed it would create additional traffic and it would compromise safety. Mr. Stephen Markland, a resident at 288 Huntersridge Road in Oakdale Crossing, said that there were no street lights installed in the back half of Oakdale Crossing. Mr. Markland believed that the only benefit he could determine from the removal of the barricades is that it would increase the marketability of the new lots. Mr. Mark Sutherland, a resident on Darby Drive in RavenWing, described the significant commuter traffic traveling through this area towards Washington; he was opposed to his development becoming a commuter thoroughfare. 4Z. Ms. Kimberly Hickman, a resident on Kinross in RavenWing, refuted several statements made that Oakdale homes were a step above Raven Wing homes as far as marketability was concerned. She said that RavenWing has a mixture of lot sizes, which are not limited to 12,000 square feet; she also pointed out that homes in the Ravens are selling for $300,000 and above. Ms. Hickman was concerned about tree removal in the open spaces to accommodate larger lot sizes and she was also opposed to removal of the barricades. Mr. Julius Armel, a resident on Dewberry Drive in Oakdale, concurred with many of the comments previously made. Mr. Armel commented that since Greenwood Road was redone over to Rt. 7, it is a very nice road and serves well as a by-pass road. Mr. Armel wondered about the possibility of getting that done from Greenwood over to Sulphur Spring Road; he believed it would remove much ofthe traffic that would ultimately go through these subdivisions. No other citizens wished to speak and Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 19, 2001 Page 768 of the meeting. Mr. Maddox returned to the podium and stated that the residents' concerns had not been anticipated. Mr. Maddox thought the last citizen's comment on the construction of the Greenwood Road connection with Rt. 50 was important to the development of the County's Urban Development Area. He said that VDOT is in their conceptual design stage with this connection, however, the process moves quite slowly. Mr. Maddox noted that this master development plan was approved with the concept that the subdivisions would be connected and he pointed out that the streets were designed to handle the traffic flow. He did believe, however, that the issue of eliminating open space adjacent to homeowners who had bought their lots with the understanding they would be next to open space, deserved further study. Mr. Maddox added that they will not be eliminating storm water detention ponds, but would be relocating them. Mr. Jim Petry, representing both JENI Company and Glaize Development, was also surprised that the residents of Oakdale Crossing preferred smaller lots instead of the larger ones. Mr. Petry said that Mr. Glaize believed that additional Oakdale -type, 15,000 -square -foot lots adjacent to the existing Oakdale Crossing would only benefit property values for those existing homeowners in Oakdale Crossing. He said there was a demand for the 15,000 -square -foot lots and they were completely sold out. Mr. Petry stated that Inverlee Way will be constructed at the onset and by building this road, they were providing a good access road to the area they planned to develop. Mr. Petry was confident he could have their primary contractor enter the site through Inverlee. He said he could barricade the Oakdale entrance, because there were houses on either side and he could also barricade at the end of Underwood, forcing traffic up Inverlee during project construction of roads, sewer, and water. He said that when home construction begins, he could try to keep those barricades in place for a period of time, but once those homes are sold, it would be wrong to have an Oakdale section that could not enter through Oakdale Crossing. Commission members were of the opinion that sidewalks and curbs and gutters, should be extended throughout this development for safety and as a means to move pedestrian and vehicular traffic through developments. They also stated that their concern with removing the barricades was based on whether or not the applicant would be able to control the construction traffic. Chairman DeHaven did not want any citizen to be under the misconception that there was a possibility the Commission would decide to make the barricades permanent. He said the barricades were already approved to be removed once the development is completed. Chairman DeHaven also believed that those residents who purchased lots with the understanding they would be adjoining open space was a valid concern that needed to be addressed, along with the other issues. Mr. Maddox believed that tabling of the request to revise the master development was in order and he requested a 60 -day tabling from the Commission. Upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to table for 60 days the request to revise Master Development Plan #02-99 of "The Ravens" (Oakdale III, Raven Pointe, Raven Oaks, and RavenWing), which would affect the project's phasing plan and traffic patterns, at the applicant's request. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 19, 2001 Page 769 -7 - Master Development Plan #03-01 for Shawnee Village, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for 64 single-family detached cluster and/or zero lot line dwellings and 64 apartments. This property is located north and adjacent to Tasker Road, west and adjacent to Lakeside Estates, and is identified with P.I.N. 75 -A -86D in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Stipulations Planner Jeremy F. Camp read the background information and review agency comments. Planner Camp reported that the property is located within the County's Urban Development Area, as well as its Sewer and Water Service Area, and no significant historic resources have been identified on the property. Planner Camp further reported that the layout of the preliminary master development plan conforms to the requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances and is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. He stated that staff has identified two issues: 1) clarification ofthe type of residential lot proposed to be built and where the exact locations will be; and 2) it would be appropriate to provide a narrative on the master development plan which describes the intent to dedicate necessary right-of-way to VDOT at the subdivision design plan and site plan stage for the Tasker Road Improvements. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., representing the owner, David B. Holliday, stated that the issues with VDOT regarding land dedication for Tasker Road and the improvements necessary to meet transportation requirements will be worked out. Mr. Maddox commented that there is a substantial amount of open space with this project and there may be a need for some minor lot line adjustments in order to straighten out and make adjacent owners' land more useable. He was confident that he could accomplish this and still meet the full complement of the 30% open space requirement. Mr. Maddox inquired if some adjustment of the open space was possible after the approval of the master plan? Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt replied that staff would be willing to do that administratively, if the Commission desired, provided the minimum open space is provided. He said, however, that if any lot line adjustment resulted in adding property that's not currently zoned RP, it may be an issue. -Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Gary D. Rutherford, an adjoining property owner, voiced his concerns about the existing traffic congestion and the potential traffic hazards that would be created by increased traffic from the proposed development. He was concerned about the safety of neighborhood children because of increased traffic; he was opposed to the increased housing density; and he was concerned about the possible negative effects of additional development on the drainage patterns in the area. The greatest concern of the Planning Commission was the traffic situation at this location, especially in light of the unknown future construction on Rt. 37 and Tasker Road. They, pointed out visibility issues cresting the hill before Chinkapin and the bottleneck situation occurring with left-hand traffic turning onto Chinkapin. Commissioners believed that VDOT erroneously Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 19, 2001 Page 770 -8 - concentrated their evaluation of the traffic situation on the numbers of vehicles, rather than the movement of vehicles. Because of the anticipated traffic congestion, the Planning Commission believed the applicant should do more than the minimum required by VDOT because of the safety issues involved. Some Commissioners suggested a left -turn center lane that would encompass more than just Chinkapin and right -turn acceleration lanes going down Chinkapin at both connections onto Tasker Road. The applicant and staff believed they could work out the details of VDOT's review comments and the safety issues associated with the two entrances. Mr. Maddox was willing to bring the plan back to the Commission for public review after they have worked out the details and issues with VDOT. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission, by a majority vote, does hereby recommend approval of Master Development Plan 403-01 for Shawnee Village, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for 64 single-family detached cluster and/or zero lot line dwellings and 64 apartments, to the Board of Supervisors with the stipulation that the Planning Commission review the associated site plan and/or subdivision design plan to verify that the potential transportation impacts of the development have been satisfactorily addressed. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): DeHaven, Fisher, Kriz, Ours, Rosenberry, Thomas, Triplett, Unger, Watt, Light NO: Morris Master Development Plan #04-01 of Southern Hills for the development of 225 single-family detached traditional lots. This property is located south of Stephens City, east of I-81, 0.8 miles south of Rt. 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012), and is identified with P.I.N. 85-A-138 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Planner Jeremy F. Camp reported that the applicant had prepared a preliminary master development plan for the development of 225 single-family detached traditional lots, with a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet and an overall gross density of 2.10 dwellings per acre. Planner Camp said that unlike the other allowed types of RP subdivisions, curb and gutter is not a requirement for this development because the lots will be at least 15,000 square feet in size. He added that the applicant's proffer statement includes a payment of $4,910.00 per lot to be allocated to schools, parks and recreation, fire and rescue, the public library, the sheriffs office, and administration building. He said that other proffers include road improvements to and along Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive; a maximum density of 250 dwellings per acre; the establishment of a preservation and buffer easement; the creation of a lot for the Ewing family cemetery; a statement of notification on all plats and deeds; and payment of $100,000 to VDOT for the construction of a Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 19, 2001 Page 771 stop light at Stickley Drive and Fairfax Pike. Planner Camp continued, stating that the applicant is requesting a woodland disturbance waiver with the plan, however, the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not provide the possibility for a woodlands waiver, if the total site area is less than 25% wooded. Planner Camp explained that the requested waiver is inappropriate and should not be considered because it fails to qualify for a waiver. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., representing the owner/ developer, agreed with the staff, after re -reading the ordinance, that they do not qualify for the woodlands disturbance waiver; however, he commented that he has devised several alternatives that will meet the requirements of the ordinance and will be included in the final master plan. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Ms. Sandra Ritenour, representing the Ritenour farm, stated that the three acres of trees along the property line between the proposed development and her farm were important as a buffer and she asked that they not be cut down. She said she appreciated the applicant including the additional 75' distance buffer above what is required. Ms. Ritenour questioned why the density of housing was greatest up against her farmland; she believed the higher density should be closer to the road going out of the subdivision. She also wanted to know if consideration was given to the impacts that would occur along the entire length of Stephens Run. Mr. David Holliday, the owner and developer, stated that he would not clear-cut any woodland area and they will work around it. The Planning Commission believed the preliminary master development plan depicted appropriate land uses and, after the preliminary plan is modified to allow no more than 25% woodland disturbance, it would be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the zoning and subdivision ordinances. The Commission believed the representative for the owner/developer had addressed all of the comments made by the Commission and the reviewing agencies. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #04-01 of Southern Hills for the development of 225 single-family detached traditional lots. Revision to Master Development Plan 401-01 for Westminster -Canterbury, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for the addition of two single-family units. This property is located at 300 Westminster - Canterbury Drive and is identified with P.I.N. 53-A-63 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval With a Revision Deputy Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that approximately six months ago, a Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 19, 2001 Page 772 -10 - master plan revision for Westminster -Canterbury was submitted and approved which allowed for the addition of 23 cottages to the site. Deputy Director Lawrence said that when the applicant began the site -planning layout, it was discovered that two of the cottages did not work as they desired. He said the applicant pursued the 21 cottages, and they were approved. Deputy Director Lawrence said that the applicant is before the Commission this evening for a slight revision to allow those original two cottages to be relocated on the property. Commissioners asked if the setbacks could be met. Deputy Director Lawrence replied that the applicant will meet the standard 15' setback. Mr. Joe Kelsey, an adjoining property owner at 107 Rugby Place, said that when he purchased his residence, it was with the understanding that there would be no construction behind him, that the numerous trees would remain, and a 100' buffer would be adhered to. He did not think it was fair to change the plan at this point because the developer can not place two units in up at the other end. Mr. Kelsey stated that not only have they cut trees down, they've created a ground elevation six-foot higher than what is was originally. Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, representing Westminster -Canterbury, said that they have maintained the 100' setback to the back of Mr. Kelsey's property line. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Morris, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the revision of Master Development Plan 401-01 of Westminster -Canterbury to allow the two cottage locations. Subdivision Application #24-01 for Stonebrook, L. C., submitted by Greenway Engineering, to subdivide a 20.8559 -acre tract into three lots: two single-family lots and one lot retained for the fitness club. The property is located on the west side of Jones Road (Rt. 621) ±500' north of the intersection with Stonebrook Road and is identified with P.I.N. 62-A-51 in the Back Creek District. d Action - Recommended Approval Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt stated that the Stonebrook subdivision predates the County's Master Planning requirements, therefore, any further subdivision of land zoned RP would require Board of Supervisors' approval. Director Wyatt said the Health Department has approved each of the properties for health sites. He believed the most significant issue involved with this request was that the vast majority of both lots falls within the Opequon Creek flood plain area; he pointed out that developing these lots may be fairly cost prohibitive to bring building sites up out of the flood zone. Conunission members inquired whether the lots were intended for houses and whether a County policy existed regarding the development of property within a flood plain. Director Wyatt's understanding was that the lots were of no use to the Fitness and Racquet Club facility for expansion and their. intention was to subdivide it for building lots. Director Wyatt was unaware of a County policy regarding development within a flood plain. Frederick County Planning Commission - Minutes of December 19, 2001 Page 773 -11 - Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, representing the applicant, stated that the subdivision ordinance requirements have been met; they have received approved perc sites and all Health Department approvals; access is available; and despite the fact that the majority of the propose 1otn, are v..th....n. the floodr^ am, there are building sites. available outside of the fllowo.p. ain on each lot. The applicant's representative added that there is an existing contract to purchase both lots by an engineering and surveying professional who is aware of the floodplain situation. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Ms. Joan V. Schroeder, adjoining property owner at 2344 Jones Road, said that she owns the farmhouse from which these two lots were originally carved. Ms. Schroeder said that she has seen both lots completely flooded on four separate occasions. She inquired if FEMA flood plain boundaries were determined for this application; she commented about a reference made in the application to a dry hydrant being placed in the Opequon Creek for fire protection; and she was concerned about destruction of the integrity of the Opequon Creek if the lots are re -graded to accommodate housing. Some of the Commissioners were not in favor of approving lots within floodplain areas, while other Commissioners believed that their role was to determine whether or not the plat met the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. Other Commissioners believed they could vote in favor of the subdivision based on the fact that building sites on each of the lots were found outside of the floodplain area. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Unger, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Subdivision Application #24-01 for Stonebrook, L. C., submitted by Greenway Engineering, to subdivide a 20.8559 -acre tract into three lots: two single-family lots and one lot retained for the fitness club, as submitted by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger NO: Fisher, Watt Frederick County Planning Commission - Minutes of December 19, 2001 Page 774 ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. -12 - No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Evan A. Wyatt, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission - Minutes of December 19, 2001 Page 775 COUNTY of FREDERIC Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Director RE: Public Hearing — 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan DATE: January 24, 2002 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPB) met with county department representatives to discuss new project requests and project modification requests associated with the 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Following the discussion, the CPPS evaluated all projects proposed for inclusion in the 2002-2003 CIP and established a prioritized list that was forwarded out of committee with a recommendation. Please find included with this agenda item a summary of the 2002-2003 CIP; information pertaining to new or modified department projects; the results of the 2002-2003 CIP project evaluation by the CPPS; and a preliminary copy of the 2002-2003 CIP. Please contact our department if you have any questions regarding this information. The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors have each held discussions to review the proposed 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan, and have directed staff to proceed with a public hearing. A recommendation to forward to the Board of supervisors would be appropriate. ERL/bah Attachments UACOMMITTEES\CPPS\CIM2002-03 CIP\PC Public Flearing Memo.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan Summary 1. 28 total projects are included in the 2002-2003 CIP. The previous year contained 29 projects. 2. Total county costs of $165.2 million including $67.9 million estimated project costs and $55.5 million estimated debt service compared to $145.0 million from the previous year. A portion of the total county costs reflects the third high school (Millbrook) partial funding provided in the previous year CIP. 3. New project requests include a: new western county library; parking lot expansion and sidewalk extension for the Bowman Library; the relocation of Round Hill Fire and Rescue; and the construction of a new fire station on Fairfax Pike within a County Administration annex. 4. Three projects has been removed from the previous CIP: new elementary school site acquisition, new middle school site acquisition, and Indian Hollow Elementary School addition. The new high school received most of its funding in FY 2001-2002. Therefore, its project request has been reduced significantly. Frederick County Department of Public Works Project Type of 2001 Local 2002 Local Difference in FY Request Expenditure Expenditure Local Request Request Expenditure Request New Animal Shelter Modification $855,000 1,095,000 +$240,000 am Frederick County 'Treasurer's Office Project Type of 2001 Local 2002 Local Difference in FY Request Expenditure Expenditure Local Request Request Expenditure Request New Satellite Office Modification $390,000 465,000 +$75,000 "Annex" Modification (land acquisition and construction costs as provided by/for the Treasurer's office ) ...does not include costs associated with other "Annex" offices Frederick County Parks and Recreation Project Type of 2001 Local 2002 Local Difference in FY Request Expenditure Expenditure Local Request Request Expenditure Request All Projects From Cost $8,109,016 $8,352,280 +$243,276 2001-2002 CIP Modification Carried Forward -4- Handley Regional Library Project Type of 2001 Local 2002 Local Difference in FY Request Expenditure Expenditure Local Request Request Expenditure Request Northern Frederick New N/A $48,000 +$48,000 County Library Branch Bowman Library New N/A $228,468 +$228,468 Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension -5- Frederick County Public Schools Project Type of 2001 Local 2002 Local Difference in FY Request Expenditure Expenditure Local Request Request Expenditure Request Millbrook Modification $34,440,000 $7,950,000 +$7,950,000 Highschool * partially funded in previous year CIP James Wood Middle Modification $8,900,000 $4,005,000 +$4,005,000 School Renovation * partially funded in previous year CIP #4 Middle School Modification $22,300,00 $12,780,000 +$12,780,000 Construction * partially funded in previous year Transportation Modification $2,600,000 $6,700,000 +$4,100,000 Facility Replace Gainesboro Modification N/A $10,000,000 +$10,00,000 Elementary School * funding needs not provided for in previous CIP Administration New N/A $2,000,000 +$2,000,000 Building * Note: Cost estimates for Public School projects do not reflect debt service. �6- Fire & Rescue Project Type of 2001 Local 2002 Local Difference in FY Request Expenditure Expenditure Local Request Request Expenditure Request Relocation of Round New N/A not available at Hill Fire Station time of printing Fairfax Pike Fire New N/A not available at Station time of printing -7- -9- FY 2002-2003 Capital Improvement Plan Project Evaluation Remits Project Title Total Points FY2002-2003 Rank CIP Previous Rank Millbrook High School 53.50 1 2 James Wood Middle School Renovations 42.33 2 15 Public Safety Center 41.62 3 1 #4 Middle School Construction 39.33 4 13 Airport Road Relocation (Construction) 39.09 5 3 Airfield Lighting Upgrade 38.47 6 4 Park Land West 38.12 7 5 New Library - Land Acquisition 38 8 N/A Bowman - Parking/Sidewalk Expansion 38 9 N/A Field House/Indoor Pool 36.93 10 11 Park Land East 36.76 11 20 New Gainesboro Elementary School 33.40 12 23 New Animal Shelter 33.29 13 18 Soccer Complex (SP) 31.38 14 19 Transportation Facility 31.17 15 N/A Softball Complex (SP) 27.40 16 10 #11 Elementary School 26.83 17 9 Baseball Complex Renovation (SP) 24.36 18 14 Airfield Maintenance Building 24.09 19 16 Open Play Area (CB) 23.83 20 21 Shelter/Stage (CB) 21.40 21 29 Annex Facilities 21 22 27 Tennis/Basketball Complex 20.14 23 22 -9- Project Title Total Points FY2002-2003 Rank CIP Previous Rank Tennis/Picnic Areas (SP) 19.93 24 25 Maintenance Compound 18.67 25 24 Skateboard Park/In-line Hockey 16.31 26 26 Administration Building Renovations (PS) 15.50 27 N/A Relocation of Round Hill Fire / Rescue 12.57 28 N/A UACOMMITTEEWPPS OM2002-03 CIP\2002-2003 CIP Project Evaluation Ranking Table.wpd -10- FREDERICK COUNTY, v �.&GINIA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN DRAFT 2002-2003 DRAFT (County PrioritV epartmen Prioritv Projects COUNTY CONTPUBUTION County Interest .Fro m Any TOTAL COUNTY Total Project 2002-03 2003-04 1 2004-05 2045-06 2006-07 Contributions Nofes Debk�ervice COSTS` Costs 1 2 1 (PS) 2 (PS) Millbrook High School James Wood Middle 7,950,000 7,950,000- E 21,139,875 59;139,875 $59,139,875 School Renovation 4,005,000 890,000 4;895,000 E 4,951,181 13,851,181, $13,851,181 3 1 CA) ,Public Safety Center N/A * 0 4 3 (PS) #4 Middle School Construction 12,780,000 2,770,000 15,550,000, E 0 12,962,081 0 36;262,081 0 $36,262,081 5 1 (AP) Airport Road Relocation (Construction) -.-- 420,000 - --- 420,000 A 0 6 2 (AP) Airfield Lighting Upgrade 15,000 _ --- - --- T15,000 A _ 420,000 $2,100,00_0 7 3 (PR) Park Land West 1,305,099 1,305,099 0 0 15,000 $75,000 8 1 (HL) New Library - Land Acquisition 48,000 48,000 D 0 1,305,099 $1,305,099 9 2 (HL) Bowman- Parking LottSidewalk Extension 228,468 228,468 0 48,000 $48,000 10 1 (PR) Field House/Indoor Pool N/A *** 2,132,100 0 2,132,100 N/A ** 0 228,468 0 .$228,468 $0 11 2 (PR) Park Land East 12 6 (PS) New Gainesboro Elementary School 3,280,000 6,720,000 10,000,000 5,563,125 2,132,100 15,563,125 $2;132,100 $15,563,125 13 2 (CA) New Animal Shelter 110,000 985,000 11095,000 0 14 6 (PR) Soccer Complex - SP 1,112,941 1,112,941 0 1,095,000 $1;095,000 15 4 (PS) Transportation Facility 2,195,000 --- - -- 4,505,000 - - _ - - --- 6_,700,000 3,727,294 1,112,941 1.0,427,294 $1,1.12,941 $10,427,294 16 4 (PR) Softball Complex - SP 477,307 477,307 0 17 5 (PS) #11 Elementary School Construction 3,280,000 6,720,000 101000,000 E 6,008,175 477,307 16,008,175 $477,307 $16,808,175 4 8 5 (PR) Baseball Complex Renovation - SP 978,433 978,433 0 ,19 3 (AP) Airfield Maintenance Building 210,000 210;000 A 0 978,433 $978,433 20 7 (PR) Oen Play Areas -CB 358,201_ 358,201 0 210,000 $300,000 21 11 (PR) Shelter/Stage - CB 369,183 _ 369,183 _ 0 35$,231 $358,201 369,183 `$369,183 22 3 (CA) Annex Facilities (Fire;Tres;ComRev; St eriff) 215,000 250,000 465,000 B C 0 23 9 (PR) Tennis/Basketball Complex 372,486 372,486 , 0 465,000 $390,000 24 10 (PR) Tennis/Picnic Areas - SP 601,664 601,664 0 372,486 $372,486 25 12 (PR) Maintenance Compound 190,481 0 601,664 $601,664 26 8 (PR) Skateboard Park/In-Line Hockey 454,385 _190;481 454,385 _ 0 190,481 $190;481 27 7 (PS) Administration Building Renovations 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,112,625 454,385 3,112,625 $454;385 $3,112,.625 28 1 4 (CA) I Relocation of Roundhill Fire/Rescue N/A* 0 TOTALS &27,913,468$16,082,199 $14,818,681 $7,965,o72 $.1,209;328 1671928,7481 0 $55,464,356 0 $165,148,104 $0 $167,753,104 11 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 were funded in previous year N/A` -Project Scope Not Determined At Time Of Printing N/A- -Funding Source Not Determined; Therefore, Debt Service Uncertain At Time Of Printing N/A- -Feasibility Study To Be Completed Prior To Project Scope Determination N/A**** -Project To Be Complete Beyond FY 2006-2007; Therefore No Cost Estimate Projected B -Project• includes County Administration annex offices for the Commissioner of the Revenue, the Treasurer, the Sheriff, and the proposed Fairfax Pike Fire Station. D= Partial funding from private donations. Department Priority Abbreviations: AP- Winchester Regional Airport CA - County Administration HL - Handley Library PR - Parks and Recreation 12/12/01 I'S - Public Schools 2002C I P. W K4 FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Capital Improvements Plan 2002-2003 Fiscal Year Adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors February XX, 2002 Recommended by the Frederick County Planning Commission February XX, 2002 -13- TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................ ............................................. 1 PROTECT RLQ OMIWENDATIONS.................................. . ............ 2 "S60:cfBo-,4rd.............................................. . ............ 2 Parks and Recreation ........................... 2 County Administration................................................... 3 Handley Regional Library ................................................. 4 Airport Authority........................................................4 2002-2003 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN .................................... 5 CIP TABLE EXPLANATIONS .......................................... 6 PROJECT FUNDING..........................................................7 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS..................................................... 8 Frederick County Public Schools ............................................ 8 Millbrook High School.............................................8 James Wood Middle School Renovation .......... . ...................... 8 94 Middle School Construction ............. . . . . . . ................... . 9 Transportation Facility .............................................. 9 #11 Elementary School Construction .................................. 9 New Gainesboro Elementary School ........... . . .. . . . ................ 10 Administration Building Renovations ................................. 10 Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ... . ........................ I I Field House/Indoor Pool Complex ................ . .................. 11 Parkland in Eastern Frederick County ................................. 12 Parkland in Western Frederick County ............ . .. . ................ 12 Softball Complex-Sherando Park .................................... 13 Baseball Complex Renovation-Sherando Park .......................... 13 Soccer Complex-Sherando Park .............................. . ...... 14 Open Play Areas - Clearbrook Park ........... . ...... . . .... . .......... 14 Skateboard Park-Sherando Park ...................................... 14 Tennis/Basketball Complex -Clearbrook Park ........................... 15 Tennis/Picnic Area - Sherando Park .................................. 15 Shelter/Stage Seating - Clearbrook Park ............................... 15 Maintenance Compound and Office - Sherando Park ..................... 16 County Administration ................. .. . ............................. 16 Public Safety Center .............................................. 16 New Frederick County Animal Shelter .......................... . ..... 17 _15_ Annex Facilities..................................................17 Relocation of Round Hill Fire/Rescue Station ........................... 17 New Fairfax Pike Fire/Rescue Station ................................. Is Winchester Regional Airport .............................................. 19 Airport Road 'Route 645) Relocation - Construction Phase ................ 19 Airfield Lighting Upgrade .......................................... Airfield Maintenance Building ...................................... 19 � .a Hfid lyRegional Library ................................................ 20 New Gainesboro Library ........................................... 20 Bowman Library Improvements ..................................... 20 DEPARTMENTAL SHARE OF EXPENDITURES ................................. 21 -16- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY 3 yy22yyyy7 '74 4 _++a INTRODUCTION Frederick County 2002-2003 Section 15.2-2239 of the Code of Virginia 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. -17- 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS I -School Board 2. Parks and Recreation Frederick County Page 2 In an effort to maintain educational facilities that will handle the growing student population, the construction of a new high school, new middle school, and two new elementary schools are recommended. Construction of the Millbrook High School has began; funding is needed to complete the project. Renovations to James Wood Middle School are proposed for 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. The majority of the recommended projects are planned for the county's two regional parks. Six 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 and a maintenance compound. 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 for each regional park system to accommodate the recreational needs of the growing population. -18- 2002-2003 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 location of a new a 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 Sheriffs Office, the Frederick County Treasurer's Office, and the Commissioner of Revenue's Office. The Department of Fire --V- Rescue 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. Frederick County 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan _19_ 5. Handley Regional Library 4. Airport Authority Frederick County Page 4 The Handley Regional Library has recommended two projects. 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. 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; and to construct a new airfield maintenance building. Funding for airport projects is derived through a complex formula where the Federal and State Governments contribute a maj ority of the funding, with Frederick County and the City of Winchester providing the remaining funding. -20- 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan 7-1 Frederick County Page 5 Insert CIP priority list to replace this page 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan Page C CIP TABLE EXPLANATIONS Th,:- (`tal TmnrnyPmntl tlnttreant,ee page contains a list of the capital improvement projects proposed for the ensuing five years. A description of the information in this table �- is explained below. County Priority - The priority rating of all projects included in 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 20 of this booklet. Department Priority - The priority rating assigned by each department for their requested projects. Project Description - The name of the capital improvement prof 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 County 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan -22- Page 7 PROJECT FUNDING ► The projects included in the 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan have a total project cost of $167,753,104. If all projects are undertaken, the county will contribute $67,928,748 over the ensuing five years, excluding the interest from any debt service. By adding the projected debt service of $55,464,356, the total county contribution of the approved projects comes to $123,393,104. 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 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan - 23 - PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS _[reel cK"htx Public Schools Project Priority List S_ PRIORITY 2 Frederick County Page 8 Millbrook High School Description: This project involves the construction of a high school for grades 9-12 to serve 1,500 students. A 233,000 -square - foot facility is under construction on approximately 50 acres adjacent to Red Bud Run Elementary School. This site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the intersection of Route 7 and Interstate 81. Capital Cost: $7,950,000 Debt Service: $21,139,875 (includes previous year expenditures) Justification: The school will provide space for 1,500 students in grades 9-12, to satisfy projected student population increases. Construction Schedule: Began construction in FY 01-02; construction to be complete for Fall 2003 opening. 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: $4,895,000 Debt Service: $4,951,181 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: FY 01-02 through FY 04-05. -24- 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan Page 9 P1 ORjTY 3 # 4 Middle School Construction s , ` Description: This project involves the construction of an 800- member middle school in eastern Frederick County on 30 to 35 acres. Capital Cost: $15,550,000 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. PRIORITY 4 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 Sheriffs Department, and Parks and Recreation. Capital Cost: $6,700,000 Debt Service: $3,727,294 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 03-04. PRIORITY 5 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: $ 5,563,125 Justification: This project is needed to accommodate growth patterns in the County's Urban Development Area. Construction Schedule: Open in Fall 2005. Frederick County 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan -25- Page 10 PRIORITY 6 New Cainesboro Elementary School Descriprtionz Tills project involves the construction of an elementary school (grades K-5) of approximately 65,000 square '171 r 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: To be determined. PRIORITY 7 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 Debt Service: $1,112,625 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. Construction Schedule: The project is estimated to take one year to complete and is proposed for FY 2004. Frederick County 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan -26- Page 11 Frederick County Parks and Recreation Project Priority List PRIORITT 1 Field House/lin door 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. Capital Cost: To be determined. Justification: Since the inception of the Parks and Recreation Department, the department has relied solely on the use of the county public schools to house programs. This arrangement 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 2002-03. Frederick County 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan _27_ Page 12 PRIORITY 2 Parkland in Eastern Frederick County Description: Parkland acquisition in the eastern portion of the county. Capital Cost: $2,132,100 .. 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 2002-03. PRIORITY 3 Parkland in Western Frederick County Frederick County Description: Parkland acquisition in the western portion of the county. Capital Cost: $1,305,099 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 2002-03. -28- 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan Page 13 PRIORITY 4 Softball Complex - Sherando Park Description: This project includes two softball fields; an access road; parking spaces; and landscaping. --- -, -. Capital Cost: $477,307 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 2003-04 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: $978,433 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 project cannot be completed until the Sherando Softball Complex is completed. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 2003-04. Frederick County 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan -29- PRIORITY 6 PRIORITY 7 PRIORITY 8 Frederick County Page 14 Soccer Complex - Sherando Park Description: This project includes the developir_ent of two soccer fields; one picnic shelter; access paths; restrooms; concessions; landscaping; and lighting. Capital Cost: $1,112,941 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 2003-04. 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: $358,201 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 2004-05. 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: $454,385 Justification: This facility will enable the county to provide a recreational facility that has been requested for the community's youth. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 2004-05. -30- 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan Page 15 PRIORITY 9 Tennis/Basketball Complex - Clearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of four tennis —1., r , courts; two basketball courts; a shelter; parking, and landscaping. M s Capital Cost: $372,486 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 2004-05. 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: $601,664 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 2005-06. 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: $369,183 Justification: This facility would be used by the entire county population. Presently, there are no facilities to accommodate 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 2005-06. Frederick County 2002-2003 Capital hnprovements Plan -31- Page 16 PRIORITY 12 II 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: $190,481 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 05-06. County Administration 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 Sheriff s 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 Sheriffs 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. Frederick County 2002-2003 Capital bnprovements Plan -32- Page 17 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 Safety Center. -; Capital Cost: $1,095,000 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 02-03; complete construction in FY 03-04. 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 to provide 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. Relocation of Round Hill 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. Frederick County 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan -33- Frederick County Page 18 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 02-03. New Fairfax Pike Fire/Rescue Station 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. The facility would house an engine and a rescue company along with satellite offices for the Sheriff, Treasurer, and Board of Supervisors District Office. A 5 to 7 acre tract of land would be needed for this project. Coordinated with the Annex Facilities request. Capital Cost: Not yet determined. Justification: The need for a new station is in response to 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 2003. -34- 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan Page 19 Winchester Regional Airport Project Priority List 1111 PROJECT 1_; _ Airport Road (Route 645) Relocation - Construction Phase y1A 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 02-03. PROJECT 2 Airfield Lighting Upgrade Description: The project involves the upgrade of the existing medium intensity runway lighting to high intensity runway lighting and the upgrade of the 2 -box precision approach path indicator (DAPI) 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 02-03. PROJECT 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 02-03. Frederick County 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan -35- Page 20 Handley Regional Library Project Priority List RJ1aCT1 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: Construction is proposed for FY 2007/2008 and opening of the library in FY 2009/2010. PROJECT 2 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. Frederick County 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan -36- 2002-2003 Capital Improvements Plan "epartmentai Snare of icequested Capital Projects ■ County Administration $ Regional Airport Regional Airport Parks and Recreation ■ Handley Regional Library $ Public Schools Capital Improvements Plan Departmental Project Costs County Administration $ 1,560,000 Regional Airport $ 645,000 Parks and Recreation $ 8,352,280 Handley Library $ 276,468 Public Schools $ 57,095,000 TOTAL: $ 67,928,748 -37- COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development TO: Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Director ew-� RE: Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Rezoning DATE: January 24, 2002 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Attached is the updated staff report for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Rezoning. In order to more clearly provide the Commission with an update on this application, staff has included a number of character font features in the staff report. The features are as follows: Staff concerns are shown in BOLD ITALICS New staff report information is shown in BOLD UNDERLINE htfiofmafion 4tat has been removed &om the ireport is shown with a STP,4�OUT- Staff has also provided a copy of the revised proffered conditions utilizing the font features. It is our hope that this information will assist you in better understanding the changes to this rezoning application. Please contact staff with any questions regarding this memorandum or application. Thank you. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Hearing Prepared: January 24, 2002 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: November 7, 2001 Deferred February 6, 2002 Pending Board of Supervisors: February 27, 2002 Pending PROPOSAL: • To rezone 113 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 3.7 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to M 1 (Light Industrial); • To rezone 21.8 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 1.4 acres of RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General); To rezone 14.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition); To include the entire 154.4 tract in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District. LOCATION: This property is located on the northeastern quadrant of Interstate 81, Exit 317. The tract is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11 North) on the east and south. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43 -A -96;43 -A -97;43 -A -98;43 -A -99;43 -A -100;43-A-111 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Agricultural / Vacant RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Agricultural / Vacant Rutherford's Farm REZ 907-01 Page 2 January 25, 2002 ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Zoned M2 (Industrial General) District South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District East: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District West: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District PROPOSED USE: 154.4 acres Commercial and Industrial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Use: Agricultural/Nursery Use: Industrial Use: Commercial/Industrial Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Agricultural/Residential Use: Vacant Virginia Dept. of Transportation: VDOT has reviewed the rezoning application for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park, rezoning Application #07-01. Based on our review, we find we are not in opposition of the transportation proffers (revised January 7, 2002) as offered to Frederick County. Also, see attached letters from Homer Coffman, Trans. Assistant Resident Engineer, dated September 6, 2001, and from Steven Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer, dated October 18, 2001. Fire Marshal:,.Access identified during site plan process, along with waterline extension for fire protection services. Plan approval is recommended. Historic Resources Advisory Board: See attached letter dated July 19, 2001. Inspections: No comment required at this time. Shall comment at the time of site plan review. County Engineer: See attached letter from H. E. Strawsnyder, Jr., Director ofPublic Works, dated 9/5/01. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: This property is in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). FCSA has sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve it. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: Public water and sewer must be provided. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 3 January 25, 2002 County Attorney: Once signed by owners and changes as shown on proffers are made, they appear to be in proper form. Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick Co. Public Schools: No direct impact on Frederick County Public Schools. Planning _& Zoning_ 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U. S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning as R-3 (Residential -General) District. On October 8, 1980, parcels 43-A-96; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-111; and a portion of 43-A-97 were rezoned from R-3 to A-2 during a Comprehensive Downzonmg. The A-2 (Agricultural General) District zoning classification was modified to RA (Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. The R-3 (Residential -General) District zoning classification was modified to RP (Residential Performance) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance; this action affected 43-A-100, and a portion of 43-A-97. 2) Location The six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning are located on the north side of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11); and on the east side of Interstate 81. The parcels are located on the northeast quadrant of Interstate 81 interchange Exit 317. Martinsburg Pike is classified as a major arterial roadway. The site is bisected by a north -south running CSX rail line. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The parcels are within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and are a component of the Northeast Land Use Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. The parcels were also a component of the Route 11 North Corridor Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 8, 1997. Both land use plans proposed future commercial and industrial development within the area of these parcels; as well as the provision of a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) overlay along Martinsburg Pike. The Northeast Land Use Plan also identifies a major collector road along the northern portion of the subject tract. This planned roadway would intersect with Martinsburg Pike and travel westerly Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 4 January 25, 2002 towards I-81, and then angle towards the north. The applicant has made provisions to construct this planned roadway. 4) Site Suitability The six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning contain areas that are defined as floodplain and wetlands. The majority of the defined environmental features are located in the vicinity of Hiatt's Run which travels through the northern section of the tract. The soil types on the property are well -drained and predominantly moderately sloping terrain. The southern portion of the property contains rock outcrops. All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without fertilization, liming, and soil management. All of the soils are suitable for agricultural use such as hay, pastures, and orchards. 5) Potential Impacts a) Transportation Impact Analysis Statement Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement advises that traffic generation from thel 54 acres requested to be rezoned will produce 9,744 vehicle trips per day on the existing road system, as calculated utilizing The Institute of Transportation of Engineers Trip Generation 6'' Edition, Volume 1, Classification 130 -Industrial Park. The applicant conducted traffic count studies at Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park in November 2000 to determine the vehicle trips per day (VPD) per square foot generation of these industrial parks. The applicant's traffic study identified a range between 4.14 VPD per 1,000 sf. and 3.12 VPD per 1,000 sf, respectively. The applicant has assumed a projected VPD of 3.63 per 1,000 sf which would yield 5,082 VPD for the development of 1.4 million square feet. The applicant's impact analysis projects traffic generation between 5,082 and 9,744 VPD. The Impact Analysis Statement refers to the applicant's Proffer Statement to indicate what improvements will occur with the development. Rutherford's Farms REZ #07-01 Page 5 January 25, 2002 Review Agency Comment The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has reviewed the traffic impact analysis' dated September 28, 2001, and October 26, 2001. The VDOT comments, dated 9/6/01 and 10/18/01, acknowledge the applicant's proposed road improvements. , tma4ysis does not adeqttately assess impaets oft the existing road network. A44itieft04 *tFormatieft has been req-dested to a4low VD9T to complete the analysis and deterntifte the impaets proposed development wi]4 have att the 181 interehmZe wtI4 Route 1 !.. The VDOT comment dated January 11, 2002 acknowledges the revised proffer statement dated January 10, 2002, and concurs that the identified transportation im acts have been mitigated through the proffer statement. Planning Staff Comment Y_ PIM_ : _ _■■_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ■__ _■. : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ■ ■ 11 i v : •_ _ ■_ : i _ _ _ --------------- I ■ • _ _ _ i • • The Traffic Impact Analysis dated October 26 2001 provides an accurate depiction of the current traffic information for the impacted roadways immediately southwest of the site. The study also provides the current and projected Level of Service (LOS) information for the impacted roadways. The 2000 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes Jurisdiction Report 34 indicates that the average annual weekday traffic (AAWDT) counts for Martinsburg Pike from Interstate Exit 317 to Old Charles Town Road was 10,000 trips. The applicant has estimated that the build -out of this acreage would generate between 5,082 and 9,744 VPD; therefore, the projection would increase traffic on Martinsburg Pike by at least 50%, and possibly up to 97% of the current average daily traffic volume. The applicant's traffic impact analysis projects that approximately 75 percent of the trips generated would travel through the Exit 317 interchange area (southwest of the site), yet the applicant has not addressed this anticipated traffic impact. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for the provision of a new east -west collector road throughout the subject tract. The applicant, through the proffer statement, has proffered to provide the necessary right-of-way and construct the segment of the planned collector road as it transverses the subject tract. Rutherford's Farm REZ 907-01 Page 6 January 25, 2002 b) Water and Sewer: Impact Analysis Statement Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement advises that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that on average, 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre is reasonable to use for sewer impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. The proposed zoning will add 0.08 mgd to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant. The applicant has also provided information advising that the FCSA has determined that 1,000 gallons -per -day -per -acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the water impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. The maximum design consumption for the subject site is determined by comparing the current use of water within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. The proposed zoning will use 0.15 mgd of the public water conveyance system. The applicant has projected that the development of 155 acres will result in water usage of 154,400 gallons -per -day and 77,200 gallons of service discharge per day. Review Agency Comment The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) comment, dated 7/20/01, states that sufficient water and sewer capacity exist to serve the demands of the rezoning. The proposed service discharge will not negatively impact the projected available 250,000 gallons -per -day allocated for this area of Frederick County. PlanningSStaffComment Staff contacted the FCSA prior to the commencement of the Northeast Land Use Plan process to discuss water and sewer capacity issues. Representatives of the FCSA advised staff to assume a 1,000 gallon -per -day -per -acre quantity to project potential water and sewer capacity needs for the planned area. These figures have been revised more recently to adjust to more realistic consumption figures. Staff would agree with the applicant's assumptions that while water continues to be consumed at 1,000 gallon -per -day -per -acre, sewer discharge is more closely generated at 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre. Staff compared the current water and sewer use within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park to determine which projection was more realistic. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 7 January 25, 2002 The data for water and sewer consumption within these industrial parks was provided by the FCSA which accounts for use from August 1999 to August 2000. The following tables provide the gallon -per -day -per -acre quantity for water and sewer use for each industrial park during this time period: Existing Industrial Park Water Use Name Total Acreage Developed Acreage Total Gallons of Water Used Between 8199-8100 Total Gallons of Water Per Day Gallons/Day /Acre Fort Collier 442 acres 370 acres 110,979,000 gallons 304,000 gpd 822 gpd/acre Stonewall 494 acres 205 acres 13,503,000 gallons 37,000 gpd 180 gpd/acre Existing Industrial Park Sewer Use Name Total Acreage Developed Acreage Total Gallons of Sewer Generated Between 8/99 - 8/00 Total Gallons of Sewer Generated Per Day Gallons/Day /Acre Fort Collier 442 acres 370 acres 55,959,000 gallons 153,300 gpd 415 gpd/acre Stonewall 494 acres 205 acres 8,151,000 gallons 22,330 gpd 110 gpd/acre Based on existing water and sewer consumption patterns, it appears that the 1,000 gallon -per -day - per -acre projection that was utilized by staff during the Northeast Land Use Plan process is reasonable to consider for the applicant's water, and 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre is reasonable for sewer impact analysis. Rutherford's Farm REZ 907-01 Page 8 January 25, 2002 C) Solid Waste: Impact Analysis Statement The applicant has provided information which projects potential solid waste generation associated with the development of the 155 acres requested to be rezoned. This analysis utilizes an industrial waste calculator from Fairfax County. The calculator assumes a worst case scenario and does not account for recycling. The applicant has projected that the potential solid waste generation from this acreage would account for approximately 4,494 tons -per -year. Implementation of a recycling program could reduce the potential solid waste by approximately 50 percent, to 2,247 tons -per - year. Review Agency Comment The Department of Public Works (County Engineer) comment, dated 9/5/01, endorses the recycling proffer and recommends that it also be included in the deed covenants. Accordingly, it will be important to inform potential lot buyers and developers that the respective certificate o occupancy will not be issued until a recycling program has been reviewed and approved by Frederick County. Planning Staff Comment The county landfill is designed to dispose of solid waste that is generated by residential, commercial, and industrial land uses within the municipal solid waste landfill (MSW); and to dispose of construction waste in the construction demolition debris landfill (CDD). The county has an anticipated MSW landfill life of 20 years, based on a 3% average annual increase in solid waste disposal. The Department of Public Works has filed an application with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to increase the permitted air space (vertical capacity) at the landfill. The amended permit to extend air space capacity would expand the landfill life by an additional 15-20 years. The DEQ will render a final decision regarding this application in July 2002. Based on existing development patterns in Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park, it appears that the approximately 4,500 -ton -per -year solid waste generation is reasonable to consider for the applicant's solid waste impact analysis. This figure suggests that the build -out of the acreage requested to be rezoned would generate the average annual increase of solid waste disposal experienced by the county for a one-year period. Rutherford's Fane REZ #07-01 Page 9 January 25, 2002 d) Historic Resources: Impact Analysis Statement The applicant has provided information which identifies Rutherford's Farm (VA Historic Landmark Commission File #10082 34-727) as a Historical Landmark. However, all that remains of the house is a set of concrete steps that lead from Route 11 up to the site of the house. There is a historical marker south of the site on Route 11. One archeological site is noted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. It is a raised berm allowing access to the opposite side of the rail line. However, it is abandoned and no longer in use. This site does not exhibit features that suggest eligibility for National Register consideration. Review Agency Comment The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) comment, dated 7/19/01, encourages the implementation of a number of improvements offered by the applicant that would further assist in the preservation and the historic interpretation of the subject site. Specifically, the applicant offered, and the HRAB supported, the establishment of a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm. The HRAB also encouraged the provision of linear landscaping along Route 11 to maintain the visual rural community features existing along Martinsburg Pike. Planning Staff Comment The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second Winchester study area, and are also within the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the HRAB has expressed concern for the loss of historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. The applicant has proffered to establish a Civil War interpretive site pull -off along Route 11, in the general area where the existing historical marker is currently located. This site will offer an opportunity for interpretation of Second Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm operation. The HRAB will review the information that will be placed on the proposed interpretative markers. It will be imperative of the applicant to design the pull -off area so as to not further detract from the interpretive site. The applicant has also proffered to establish and maintain the proposed interpretive site. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 10 January 25, 2002 e) 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 list is a summary of the conditions voluntarily proffered by the applicant: • Establish a maximum building square footage of 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154 acre site. • Prohibit the Truck Stop use from the entire site. • Installation of a traffic signal at the site's main entrance (Route 11 and the planned Major Collector Road, as illustrated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan) • Installation of a traffic signal at the southbound ramps of the 317 interchange Dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the I-81 improvement project. • Construction of intersection improvements at the two proposed entrances. The improvements will be constructed as necessary to serve the first site plan in the Rutherford project. The improvements in their entirety will be constructed prior to the approval of a second site plan in the Rutherford project. • Construct the planned Major Collector Road as it transverses the site. • Construct a third southbound lane along Route 11. The improvements will be constructed a, necessary to serve the first site plan in the Rutherford project. The improvements in their entirety will be constructed prior to the approval of a second site plan in the Rutherford project. systems.Provi4e an tteetrmi4ati-ee traffie tabu4afian for the entire developnaent on eaeb site plan. 'Alen the improvements will be e-atidueted for the site plan exeee4ing 10,000 NIPD, and improvemen eattsfttteied, to maintain a level of serviee "e" on the aFfeeted Toad • Establish an interpretative area and pull -off along Route 11 for historical interpretation of Second Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and Rutherford's Farm. • Establish a 15 -foot transitional landscape buffer along Route 11, extending the length of the site. Ground cover, trees, and an earthen berm of 2-3 feet in height would be provided within the transitional buffer. • Establish maximum height of 12 -foot for all freestanding business signs/monument signs in the MI Zoning District. The height limitation, as proffered, would only apply to freestanding signs in the MI District. • Limit the total number of IA (Interstate Area Overlay) signs to three within the subject site: • Establishment of recycling program to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. Such programs must be approved by the County prior to issuance of certificate of occupancies. This program should be included in the development's covenants to ensure all property owners are aware of the requirements. • Provide a monetary contribution of $10,000 to the county to be utilized for fire and rescue services. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 11 January 25, 2002 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The 155 -acre site proposed for rezoning is located within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area; is within the portion of the Northeast Land Use Plan which recommends future commercial and industrial land use; is adjacent to the identified Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA); and contains a portion of the Second Battle of Winchester and the Battle of Rutherford's Farm. The Northeast Land Use Plan recommends that commercial and industrial land uses should only occur if impacted road systems function at a grade "C"level of service (LOS) or better; that commercial and industrial land uses be developed with public water and sewer service; and that commercial and industrial land uses be adequately screened from adjoining land uses to mitigate visual and noise impacts. The applicant has submitted proffered conditions including the elimination of the Truck Stop land use; various road improvements to address the projected build -out of 5,082-9,744 VPD; future studies and improvements to the impacted road systems, in the event the project VPD exceeds 10,000; and the establishment of a pull -off area for historic interpretation. A monetary contribution for fire and rescue services has also been proffered. In an effort to address the Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA), the applicant has proffered the establishment of a landscape buffer along the entire Route 11 road frontage. This buffer, to be 15 -feet in depth, would contain a 2-3 foot berm and various landscape plantings. Deciduous and evergreen trees would be planted throughout the length of the landscape buffer. There continues to be a number of concerns regarding transportation issues, identified by the Virginia Department of Transportation and staff. The Traffic Impact Analysis did not adequately address the necessary items for inclusion in a traffic impact analysis, as indicated in the rezoning application package. Most specifically the analysis should provide traffic count information for all roads impacted; pre- and post- development Level -of -Service for the affected roadways; details regarding vehicle composition; and traffic movements. Rutherford's Industrial Park trip assignments include the Route 11/1-81 interchange. However, the 2010 Build Out Traffic Condition at the interchange and the proposed right in -out Rutherford entrance/intersection are excluded from the intersection analysis of the study. There is no "method of management" suggested for the northbound ramp/Route 11 intersection, the southbound ramp/Route 11 intersection or the Rutherford right in-out/Route 11 intersection, all of which should be addressed. Without a thorough Traffic Impact Analysis, it is unclear if the proposed rezoning will have a detrimental impact on the road network servicing the site. The applicant has proffered to construct various road improvements, but the time at which the improvements will be completed, and agreements executed, have not been addressed. The applicant should provide a more thorough Traffic Impact Analysis for review, and be prepared to address how the proffer statement addresses the various issues identified by staff. Staff would recommend that action on this rezoning request be deferred until the identified issues are provided and resolved. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 12 January 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 11/07/01 Staff presented the application to the Planning Commission and identified a number of transportation issues identified by staff and VDOT that were not adequately addressed by the applicant. The applicant reviewed the planned transportation improvements. The applicant requested that the application be tabled to allow time to addressed the outstanding transportation issues. Six citizens spoke during the public hearing. Concerns raised included the need for architectural standards, and master planned developments; impacts of the existing road networks; and buffers against adjoining residential properties. Citizen comments also addressed the positive aspects of the property's location in proximity to the interstate, and that the site is appropriate for commercial and industrial development. The Planning Commission tabled the rezoning until such time that staff felt the comments are addressed. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 2/06/02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant has submitted a revised traffic impact analysis and revised proffer statement that addresse, the concerns of staff and VDOT. The revised proffered conditions provide for the installation of a traffic signal at the southbound ramp for Interstate 81; a more defined time frame as to when the traffic improvements would be competed; and right-of-way dedication along Interstate 81 to accommodate the planned I-81 improvement project. The applicant should be prepared to address how the January 7, 2002 proffer statement adequately mitigates the issues and impacts previously identified by staff during the review of this application by the Planning Commission. OUTPUT MUDULE APPLICANT: PIN 43-A-96,97,98,99,100,111 Net Fiscal Impact Net Capital Net Cost Per (UnadjustKI LAND USE TYPE business/industr REAL EST VAL $127,780,934 Costs of hPa_ot Credit $0 INQUT MODULE--Qrsd't�.sto-wake FIRE &RESCUE 1 Required Qapital Faciltiieg (entered in col sum only) Cur. Budget 4RerCaREgV1p Cur. Budget Cap. ExRe-ndLDebi_$ Future CIP/ Ta ther Fire and Rescue Department $730,362 $0 ERR $0 $0 Elementary Schools $0 $40,352 $40,352 $0 ERR Middle Schools $0 $0 $0 $0 $561,961 High Schools $0 Parks and Recreation $0 Public Library $0 $0 Sheriff's Offices $0 $40,352 $0 $0 $0 Administration Building $0 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $0 $467,822 $94,139 $0 METHODOLOGY SUBTOTAL $730,362 $508,174 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $32,184,482 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX: "1:0" If Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 Total Potential Adjustment For Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per (UnadjustKI C-0"818nca EacilitsJmp,M1 Dwelling Unit $0 $0 $730,362 ERR $0 q$0 $0 ERR $0 v$0 $0 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $40,352 $40,352 $0 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $561,961 $561,961 $0 ERR $94,139 $0 $602,313 $32,184,482 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 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 DOI as calculated in fiscal Impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). $602,313 $128,049 ERR $32,184,482 EBR $01 ERR 1.000 1.433 NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include Interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 10/15/01 ERL P.I.N. 43-A-96,97,98,99,100,111 Rezoning: Assumes155 acres zoned B2, B3, M7 utilizing a maximum of 1,400,000 square feet Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. TEPHENSON'S DEPOT REZONING Funkhouser, Rhonda Frrr-M: Funkhouser, Rhonda on behalf of Coffman, Homer So,— Friday, January 11, 2002 7:10 AM To: 'Donna Stephens' Co.. 'Eric Lawrence; 'Evan Wyatf; Melnikoff, Steve; Coffman, Homer Subject: RUTHERFORD FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK, REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 VDOT has reviewed the rezoning application for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park, Rezoning Application #07-01. Based on our review, we find we are not in opposition of the transportation proffers as offered to Frederick County. Homer F. Coffman Assistant Resident Engineer YDOT - Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Yalley Pike Edinburg, YA 22824 (540) 984-5625 (540) 984-5607 (fax) ----Original Message— From: Donna Stephens[mallt:o:dstephens@greenwayeng.wm] Seng Wednesday, January 09, 200212:16 PM To: 'hmff:man@vdotstate.va.us' Subject: FC Planning Proffers 3an7-REVIEW SHADED AREA THANKS RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING Tax Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43 -A -97143 -A -98.,43-A-99, 43-A-100 Stonewall Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Page 1 of 6 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 # 07-01 for the rezoning of 154.4 acres from the Rural Area (RA) zoning district to the following: Zoning districts • 116.7 acres Light Industrial (M 1) + 23.2 acres Commercial (B2) + 14.5 acres Commercial (133) Overlay district 1/2002 Post -it, Fax Bole Co_'DeRI. E-1 Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Price Edinburg, Virginia '_'�824 (540) 994-5600 '- )71 Da,e ro Psge_:� I Phone C Fir � Hand deliver to - Virginia Department of Transportation Artn: Resident Engineer 1550 Commerce Street Winchester, Virginia Applcant's Name: Greenway En- neerin ; Telephone: (540) 662-4185 MaLitig Address: 151 Windv Hill Lane Winchester, `'A 22602 Location afproperty: Located on the natural boundary created bo Interstate 81 on the wes+..err, edge of the track. US Rt 11 bisects this area ill a North/Soni b linear fashion. CSS and Winchester & Western Railroad have tines para_ il�Q Rt. 11 -North. Current zoning: RA Zoning req}: ested: NILB2,133 Acreage: 154 �Vlc iuia Department of Tramportation Comments: The Sowing meets are offered b2sel ;:non a review of Illimtrations detailed as part of the rezoning .',quest tar tv proposed t2.1th Firm 1-4-0eiei 0-1,- • VDOT Is in agreement with the proposed in,-Mection Imprpvements at the collector road ertrarce at the unnamed comprehensiveL ...t f r'- tN a n tf a south of the unnamed comprehensive catector road, right and !eft tum lanes and a tum lane from the notthem rne� entance Y the northbound entrance ramp of 1-81 with improved fuming radius. • A second enhance trth of rie collector road enhance is of c- ncem tc V. -,OT due to safety cf t' a trayeEnp public end set-`acks from .8'. The second entrance ma} be perrmt`,eo :rased upon final cesign. Should the second entrarce be provided, a median csossirg from the iurth bound lane of Rte. 11 to the secoria e:rtrance maynot be permitted due tc minimal distance between �ssarers not being met In adcitj�n a traf'Ic signal may be required at the se=x: entrance depending ug= final desmon and a determined imDa o VDCT has not seen a traffic Impact thus uve cannotgrrt on the traffic imca= of the proposed development an Rte. 11 north or South / 7 1002bound or the 317 interchange and its ramp system. i Signature & Date: Trans. Assistant Resident Engineer 09/06/01 FVP: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Subject: FNNI: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:27:44 -0400 From: "Funkhouser, Rhonda" <RFunkhouser@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> To: 'Eric Lawrence' <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> > --Original Message------ * From: Funkhouser, Rhonda On Behalf Of Melnikoff, Steve > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:23 PM > To: 'Mark Smith @ Greenway Engineering'; Greenway Engineering (E-mail) > Cc: Coffman, Homer; Clem, Sam; Melnikoff, Steve; Heironimus, David > (Dave) ; 'Evan Wyatt'; 'Eric Lawrence' > Subject: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park > Virginia Department of Transportation > Edinburg Residency > October 18, 2001 > Mr. Mark Smith > C/O Greenway Engineering > 151 Windy Hill Lane > Winchester, VA 22602 > Ref: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park > Route 11, Frederick County > Dear Mr. Smith: > Staff comments regarding the traffic impact analysis dated September 28, > 2001 as received from PHR&A are as follows: > This impact analysis states the four -lane divided section of Route 11, > which presently transitions to three (3) lanes just north of I-81, will be > extended to the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Roadway. All > site entrance roadways will include left and right turn lanes where > applicable. The County Comprehensive Plan Collector Roadway will have two > inbound left turn lanes from Route 11 and will be signalized. > The Rutherford's Industrial Park trip assignments include the Route > 1111-81 interchange. However, the .2010 Build out Traffic Condition at the > interchange and the proposed right in -out Rutherford entrance/intersection > are excluded from the intersection analysis of the study. There is no > "method of management' suggested for the north bound ramp/Route 11 > intersection, the south bound ramp/Route 11 intersection or the Rutherford > right in-out/Route 11 intersection. All of which should be addressed. > It is anticipated this development will generate traffic volumes that will > warrant signalized intersection and ramp roadway improvements. > Please submit the additional information to allow VDOT to complete the > analysis and impacts this proposed development will have to the I-81 > interchange and Route 11. > Steven A. Melnikoff > Transportation Engineer > VDOT - Edinburg Residency > Permit & Subdivision Section > 14031 Old Valley Pike > Edinburg, VA 22824 > (540) 984-5611 > (540) 984-5607 (fax) 1 of 1 10/26/2001 3:: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 July 19, 2001 Mark Smith, RE_, L.S., President Greenway Engineering 151 Windy FI'ill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford's Farah Rezoning Proposal Dear Mr. Smith - The Frederick County Ifistoric Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of July 17, 2001. This proposal involves the rezoning of approximately 144 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial Transition), and MI (Light Industrial) Zoning Districts. The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second. Virmchester study area, and- are also within the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the DRAB has expressed concern fortheloss of historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. In response to the B RAB's concerns, you presented a number of proffered condition concepts and indicated your willingness to incorporate the conditions with the formal rezoning application submittal. Specifically, you offered the following concepts: To estatlish a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm.. The interpretation area would contain historical markers and be maintained by the Industrial Park Association. It was also stated that the marker design and textual content would be returned to the MtAB for review and approval - Maintain the visual rural community elements existing along Martimburg Pike by providing linear landscaping. This landscaping along Martinsburg Ike would include combinations of three-foot high evergreen hedges and berms, and mass clustering of tree and shrub plantings. The landscaping is intended to retain the natural feel of the rural community and utilize native vegetation including red buds, oaks, and cedars. A combination of hedges, berms, and tree clusters would be implemented to lessen the visual impact of the proposed_ development. 107 Nartn Emmert Street F��i�c�ester; Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mark Smith, P.E., L. S., President, Greenway Engineering Re: Rutherford's Farm July 19, 2401 Establish a link to the property's history by naming the development after the Rutherford's Farm. The BRAD felt the rezoning proposal would be more palatable for the historic preservation community, if the above identified concepts were included in the rezoning application's proffer statement. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the Frederick County lEstoric Resources Advi.sory Board - ,\I ErWL Lawrence, AICP Deputy Director cc: Dr. Richard R Duncan, 6101 Edsall Road, Apt 1802, Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Mr. StephenL. Pettler, Jr., Harrison & Johnston, 21 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 Mr. R. I'Tuner, Adams -Nelson & Assoc., 303 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 U:1Fric1E.omm.M 4E1R.i.f.d Fa®.HP.AB P..datimwpd COUNTY of FREDERICK September 5, 2001 Mr. Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mark: Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of the rezoning request for the proposed Rutherford Farm Industrial Park and offer the following comments: 1) A review of exhibits "C" and"E" revealed that a substantial portion of the proposed M-1 zoning is located within the 100 -year flood plain. This delineation should be reflected on the master development plan. Also, the impact of proposed development on the 100 -year flood plain should be addressed in the master development submittal. 2) Existing wetland areas and obvious karst features (i.e., sinkholes), should be reflected on the master development plan. 3) In an earlier proffer submittal (July 19, 2001), regional stormwater management was proposed for low-lying areas. This facility or facilities should be highlighted in the master development plan. This same proffer statement indicates that BMP facilities might be required on individual sites if regional stormwater management is not available. We applaud this approach considering the sensitive nature of Hiatts Run. This requirement should be added to the deed covenants for each building lot considering BMPs implementation is not a county requirement. 4) We strongly endorse your recycling proffer and recommend that it also be included in the deed covenants. Please insure that the buyers or potential lot developers are informed of this requirement that a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until a recycling program has been reviewed and approved by 107 North Pent Street l r'inchester, Virginia 22601-SOOO Rutberrord Farm Industrial Park Rezoning Page 2 September 5, 2001 Frederick County. We certainly do not, want any misunderstandings at a later date. This requirement should also be highlighted in the master development submittal. I can be reached at 655-5643 if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Harvey . Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Patrick Davenport, Zoning Administrator file 1Fit-, Greenway Engineering July 19, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING T ., __ I �_ l's A7 ♦ All ♦ ni ♦� ♦ n .l+ 1 Ylai rill ce1J 40-t"1-111 SFJ -.EH -yo, 40-11-9 / 43-A-9�, 43-A-99, 4 -A-1UU Stonewall 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 # 07-01 for the rezoning of 154.4 acres from the Rural Area (RA) zoning district to the following: Zoning districts • 116.7 acres Light Industrial (M1) • 23.2 acres Commercial (132) • 14.5 acres Commercial (133) Overlay district • 154.4 acres Interstate Area Overlay (IA) 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 lands owned by Richard Ray Duncan, Janet D. Riddick, and Turner Enterprises, LLC being all or part of Tax Map Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, and 43-A-99, 43-A-100 and further described by zoning plat prepared by Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S., dated July 16, 2001 (Exhibit A). A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154.4 acres. ej\j r�EPT OF P�i�N�NuIDr'd�L�I ', Greenway Engineering July 19, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 B.) Prohibited Uses The following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed Industrial Park: Description Sic Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) C.) Transportation 1.) Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation at the intersection of the proposed Industrial Park entrance and the unnamed Comprehensive Plan collector road in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. b.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound ramps of the 317 interchange and U.S. Route 11 in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. 2.) Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements at the proposed two entrances will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The existing multi -lane system on U.S. Route 11 will be extended north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road. All left and right turn lanes and pavement transitions north and south of proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road on U.S. Route 11 will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. 3.) Right of Way Dedication a.) The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along U.S. Route 11 adjacent to the property as determined by VDOT. This right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the approval of Greenway Engineering July 19, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 the U.S. Route 11 construction plans prepared for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park as noted in Proffer C2 (Intersection Improvements) and Proffer C5 (Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements). b.) The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-1711, PE -100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). The right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the master development plan approval for Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The applicant hereby agrees to coordinate, set aside right of way, and construct the portion of the major collector road traversing on the land herein to be rezoned and developed and as outlined in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Northeast Land Use Study adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. Said collector road will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or part of the site plan. 5.) Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements The applicant will construct a third southbound lane on US Route 11 from the northern most entrance of the applicant's property to the northbound I-81 ramp of Exit 317. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the northbound entrance ramp of the Exit 317 interchange. Additionally, the applicant will construct turning radius improvements at the entrance ramp to ensure a smooth transition. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The applicant hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along U.S. Route 11 and more particularly at the location of the old concrete steps that now remain. An easement of sufficient size will be provided for a pull -off area and viewing. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: 3 Greenway Engineering July 19, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 • The Second Battle of Winchester • The Battle of Rutherford's Farm • The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative plaques will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. All work performed for the pull -off area will meet the minimum standards of Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County Ordinances in respect to Highway pull -off and safety. Ground maintenance of the interpretative area will be performed by the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association under a separate continuous approved permit issued by VDOT. 2.) Landscaping A transitional landscape buffer will be provided along U.S. Route 11 from Interstate 81 traveling north to the Comprehensive Plan collector road and transmission power line easement. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, and grasses. Indigenous trees such as redbud, oaks, cedars, etc. will be incorporated along said landscape easement in a cluster mass fashion to provide a naturally planted look. The maintenance of said landscape buffer will be the responsibility of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association and will be installed with the first commercial development adjacent to said easement. 3.) Industrial Park Name The applicant hereby proffers the naming of the Industrial Park to: "Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park" E.) Lighting 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. Lighting plans will be submitted as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to installation. F.) Signage 1.) Within the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers that all freestanding business signs shall be monument -style not to exceed 12' in height. 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of signs to three. 4 Greenway Engineering G.) Recycling Proffer July 19, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 Recyclingprograms will be implemented with each Industrial Park user to ensure appropriate waste Leuu� Kivu, uISYvSal, Arid recycling or any waste orb yproduct material. This program will be reviewed and approved by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to final occupancy permit. H.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above-described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # 07-01 is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within an B2, B3, and M1 zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ 10.000 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the first site plan submission. I.) 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 tY_e_FTpderick County Code. Res ectfully S tted: By: Richard Ray Duncap Commonwealth of Virginia, City/ ounty f X10 Date To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I My Commission ExpiresZC»�— 5 101�'day of Janvc Notary Greenway Engineering July 19, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 By:C,?�'lC c a t D. Riddick Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Cit County f ryz2cj 111 CL, To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this lAday of -jQW q -268+by Jgne-�- D- 12 ('Ad Notary Pu c My Commission Expires rf-(OV-U q4 zcf. , Llp�- 2--- T rner terprises, LLC Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City Count-Pf To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this qday of JC' nu,-ai -2661 by 3 —Fu r'ec? r -Pe, r —i r rx? r Late o u( C- _ Notary � -c My Commission Expires eloy� aca2 Z�j 2(A/-) 6 REVISED PROFFER Deleted Language New Language RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING RECEIVED 1/11/02 Tax Parcels 43-A-111, 43 -A -96,43 -A -97,43 -A -98,43 -A -99,43-A-100 Stonewall 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 i# 07-01 for the rezoning of 154.4 acres from the Rural Area (RA) zoning district to the following: Zoning districts 116.7 acres Light Industrial (M1) 23.2 acres Commercial (B2) 14.5 acres Commercial (B3) Overlay district 154.4 acres Interstate Area Overlay (IA) 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 lands owned by Richard Ray Duncan, Janet D. Riddick, and Turner Enterprises, LLC being all or part of Tax Map Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, and 43-A-99, 43-A-100 and further described by zoning plat prepared by Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S., dated July 16, 2001 (Exhibit A). A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154.4 acres. B.) Prohibited Uses The following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed Industrial Park: Description Sic Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) C.) Transportation 1.) Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation at the intersection of the proposed Industrial Park entrance and the unnamed Comprehensive Plan collector road in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement and pay their pro rata pertient as determitted by ;1-9(4T prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. b., A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound ramps of the 317 interchange and U.S. Route 11 in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a si nalization agreement prior to the first site plana roval of said Industrial Park. 2.) Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements at the proposed two entrances will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The existing multi -lane system on U.S. Route 11 will be extended north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road. All left and right turn lanes and pavement transitions north and south of proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road on U.S. Route 11 will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site lan approval and prior to the second site plana roval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park thgy shall be made art of and constructed with this first site plan. 3.) Right of Way Dedication a. The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along U.S. Route 11 adjacent to the property as determined by VDOT. This right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the approval of the U.S. Route 11 construction plans prepared for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park as noted in Proffer C2(intersection Improvements) and Proffer C5(Route 11 and Northbound 1-81 Ramp Improvements). reqttested prior to or at the tifne of master de-eellopme.n.t. plan for said industria:l Park. Additionally, the applieent hereby agfees to prohibit-the b. The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081 -968 -Fl 1, PE -100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). The right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the master development1p an approval for Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. rm 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The applicant hereby agrees to coordinate, set aside right of way, and construct the portion of the major collector road traversing on the land herein to be rezoned and developed and as outlined in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Northeast Land Use Study adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. Said collector road will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or part of the site plan. 5.) Route 11 and Northbound 1-81 Ramp Improvements The applicant will construct a third southbound lane on US Route 11 from the northern most entrance of the applicant's property to the northbound I-81 ramp of Exit 317. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the northbound entrance ramp of the Exit 317 interchange. Additionally, the applicant will construct turning radius improvements at the entrance ramp to ensure a smooth transition.. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The applicant hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along U.S. Route 11 and more particularly at the location of the old concrete steps that now remain. An easement of sufficient size will be provided for a pull -off area and viewing. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. -:They are as follows: The Second Battle of Winchester The Battle of Rutherford's Farm The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative plaques will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. All work performed for the pull -off area will meet the minimum standards of Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County Ordinances in respect to Highway pull -off and safety. Ground maintenance of the interpretative area will be performed by the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association under a separate continuous approved permit issued by VDOT. 2.) Landscaping A transitional landscape buffer will be provided along U.S. Route 11 from Interstate 81 traveling north to the Comprehensive Plan collector road and transmission power line easement. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, and grasses. Indigenous trees such as redbud, oaks, cedars, etc. will be incorporated along said landscape easement in a cluster mass fashion to provide a naturally planted look. The maintenance of said landscape buffer will be the responsibility of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association and will be installed with the first commercial development adjacent to said easement. 3.) Industrial Park Name _(IJ10 MM W&WATATIRIOLVA■ _ _ • D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The applicant hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along U.S. Route 11 and more particularly at the location of the old concrete steps that now remain. An easement of sufficient size will be provided for a pull -off area and viewing. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. -:They are as follows: The Second Battle of Winchester The Battle of Rutherford's Farm The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative plaques will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. All work performed for the pull -off area will meet the minimum standards of Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County Ordinances in respect to Highway pull -off and safety. Ground maintenance of the interpretative area will be performed by the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association under a separate continuous approved permit issued by VDOT. 2.) Landscaping A transitional landscape buffer will be provided along U.S. Route 11 from Interstate 81 traveling north to the Comprehensive Plan collector road and transmission power line easement. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, and grasses. Indigenous trees such as redbud, oaks, cedars, etc. will be incorporated along said landscape easement in a cluster mass fashion to provide a naturally planted look. The maintenance of said landscape buffer will be the responsibility of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association and will be installed with the first commercial development adjacent to said easement. 3.) Industrial Park Name The applicant hereby proffers the naming of the Industrial Park to: "Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park" E.) Lighting 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. Lighting plans will be submitted as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to installation. F.) Signage 1.) Within the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit all monttment sign that all freestanding business signs shall be monument -style not to exceed 12' in height. 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of signs to three. G.) Recycling Proffer Recycling programs will be implemented with each Industrial Park user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. This program will be reviewed and approved by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to final occupancy permit. H.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above-described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # 07-01 is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within an B2, B3, and M1 zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: 10,000 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the first site plan submission. I.) 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. IMPACT STATE i NT Stonewall District Frederick County, Virginia =° TM 43-A-111, 43 -A -965,43-A-979 43-A-989 43-A-999 43-A-100 154.4 Acres July 5, 2001 Revised September 28, 2001 Current Owners: Richard Ray Duncan Janet D. Riddick Turner Enterprises, LLC Contact Person: Mark D. Snaith, P.E., L.S. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 " Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28,2001 Industrial Park RUTHEIFO 'S PAIM INDUSTRIAL PARK INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of 154.4 acres parcel owned by Richard Ray Duncan, Janet D. Riddick and Turner Enterprises, LLC. The subject site is located on.a natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the tract. Norfolk Southern and the Winchester and Western Railroads have rail lines paralleling Route 11 North. The current zoning is RA. Duncan, Riddick and Turner Enterprises proposes to rezone 154.4 acres to commercial (B -2B-3) and Industrial (M-1). See attached Proposed Zoning "Exhibit A". Basic information Location: Magisterial District: Property ID Numbers: Current Zoning: Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning: Total rezoning area: Proposed build -out COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Intersection of Interstate 81 and Route 11 Stonewall 43-A-111, 43 -A -96,43 -A -97,43 -A -98,43-A-99, 43-A-100 RA Agriculture Industrial Park and Business B2 — 23.2 Acres B3 — 14.5 Acres MI —116.7 Acres 154.4 Acres (Exhibits A & D) 1.4 million sf (Based on 9000 sf per acre) The proposed site is being developed in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Northeast Land Use Study adopted in 1996 and updated in 2000. With in the limits of the study, the property will consist of commercial and industrial development. 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28,-2001 Industrial Park A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject site, tax parcels 43-A-96, 43-A- 97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100, 43-A-111 is located on a manmade boundary created by interstate 81 on the western edge of the tract and U.S. Route 11 to the east. U.S. Route 11 enables vehicular traffic to quickly travel to the south onto interstate 81 at Exit #317. The availability of rail through the north portion of the tract increases the opportunities of transporting freight in and out of the area. Flood Plains (Exhibit C) `F The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map #510063-0105 -B. The majority of the site is located as "Zone C", area outside the 100 -year flood plain. The area traversing Hiatt Run is indicated "Zone A", 100 -year flood plain. See Exhibit C. Wetlands The soil types on the property are well -drained and predominantly moderately sloping terrain. The southern portion of the property contains rock out crops. However, Hiatt Run travels through the northern section of the tract, which is estimated to contain one- tenth of an acre of wetland. The National Wetlands Inventory Map indicates this feature. Any disturbance of this area will be in conformance with Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality permitting procedures. Gradual Slopes — 2-7 % The site contains gradual slopes with well -drained soils draining into Hiatt Run. Prime Agricultural Land Use All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without fertilization, liming, and soil management. Portions of the property contain rock out crops however; all of the soils are suitable for agricultural use such as hay, pastures, and orchards. Soil Types (Exhibit B) 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. 3 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28,.2001 Industrial Park The subject site is located on map sheet number 24, and contains nine soil types: 6C -Carbo Oaklet — Silt Loam covers approx. 13 % of site 7C -Carbo Oaklet — Rock Out Crop covers approx. 15 % of site 1413 -Fredrick Poplimento — Loams covers approx. 25 % of site 16B -Fredrick Poplimento — Loams, very rocky 2-7 percent slopes, covers approx. 4 % of site 16C-17,redrick Poplimento — Loams, very rocky 7-15 percent slopes, covers approx. 13% of site 17C -Fredrick Poplimento — Rock Out Crop, covers approx. 9 % of site 32B-Oaklet Silt Loam, covers approx. 16 % of site 513 -Carbo Silt Loam, covers approx. 4 % of site 34-Pagebrook Silt Loam < 1% of site B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: Zoned M2 (General Industrial) District South: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District RA (Rural Area) District East: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District RA (Rural Area) District West: Zoned B-2 (Business, General) District B-3 (Industrial Transition) District M-1 (Light Industrial) District C. TRANSPORTATION 1. Traffic .s See existing Zoning Map "Exhibit F" The traffic impact for the proposed 154 -acre Industrial Park has been calculated by using two methods for traffic projections. The Institute of Transportation of Engineers Trip Generation 6`h Edition, Volume 1, Classification 130 -Industrial Park, estimates the following: Method 1 Trip generation per 1,000 sf gross floor area: Range of trips = 0.91 to 36.97 Average trip = 6.96 Projected sf = 1.4 million Projected traffic = 9,744 VPD 4 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park Method 2 Based on existing counts that Greenway Engineering conducted on Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park during the month of November, 2000, and knowing at that time the total developed square feet of 2,344,104 and 1,767,877 respectively, it was determined that Stonewall Industrial Park produced 3.12 VPD per 1,000 sf and Fort Collier produced 4.14 VPD per 1,000 sf which is within the range of rates listed in the Industrial Park's 130 classification. Therefore, the Method 2 traffic study is as follows: Average trip = 3.63 Projected sf = 1.4 million Projected traffic = 5,082 VPD Method 3 A traffic impact analysis has been performed and is attached and made part of this application. The highlights from that study are as follows: • Existing level of service on US Route 11 is currently "A" at the existing median break of the divided highway and "C" at the three -lane section north of the median break. Proposed level of service on US Route 11 will be `B" at the median section and "C" at the three -lane section. The main entrance level of service will be "C" (see Figure 6 of the Traffic Study). Total projected ADT for the project will be 9,744. In conclusion, with the vision of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park having a small sector utilizing the B3 (Industrial Transition) and B2 (General Business), the traffic projections for this Park should range between the three methods stated above. For simplification and as an added safeguard to insure compliance with the Traffic Study, Proffer Statement C.6. has been prepared to insure the County that accumulative traffic tabulations will be made part of each site plan submission and, if at any time the accumulative traffic reaches 10,000 VPD, a new traffic study will be performed to outline additional improvements to the road system that would be caused by these additional vehicles. This Proffer has been created because of the varying uses of the three different zones within the Industrial Park. By preparing a second traffic study, the County, VDOT, and the users of the Industrial Park are ensured of adequate improvements being installed. 2. Interstate Improvements Exhibit E shows the Interstate 81 lane -widenings and future Route 37 interchange improvements. The Exhibit has been color -coordinated to match Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project # 0081-968-F11, PE -100 to demonstrate the different widening requirements. E Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park CONCLUSION OF TRANSPORTION IMPROVEMENTS Based on Greenway Engineering's feasibility study of this 154 -acre project and in discussions with VDOT on August 9, 2001 and with the dialogue in preparing the Traffic Study, the following items have been determined for the proposed Rutherford's Farm rezoning: 1. The applicant will install a traffic signal at the main entrance to the site (per Proffer C.1.) Estimated Cost: $115,000 2. Intersection improvements at the proposed two entrances will be installed by the applicant with the main site entrance requiring the extension of the existing grass median north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan collector road. All left and right turn lanes will be installed by the applicant and pavement transitions on US Route 11 will be north of said entrance (per Proffer C.2.). In accordance with the Traffic Impact Analysis, dual left turn lanes will be installed on US Route 11 at the main entrance of the Industrial Park. Estimated Cost: $310,000 3. The applicant will dedicate right-of-way along US Route 11 that will be offset approximately 59' from the existing right-of-way. This area is estimated at 50,000 sf (per Proffer C.3.). Estimated Cost: Value of Land 4. The applicant will construct the Comprehensive Plan collector road as outlined in Proffer C.4. The length of this collector road is estimated at 4,200 linear feet traversing through the 154 -acre project. The estimated construction cost is projected at $150 per linear foot. Estimated Cost: $630,000 5. The applicant will construct a third southbound lane on US Route 11 from the southern most proposed entrance to the northbound I-81 ramp. Additionally, the applicant will improve the turning radius of the said entrance ramp and the proposed third lane improvement. This lane widening is approximated at 600 linear feet. This improvement will be installed to facilitate traffic movement on the Stephenson Exit 317 interchange. Estimated Cost: $200,000 3 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28,.2001 Industrial Park D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The subject site is within the northeastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The maximum design usage for the subject site is determined by comparing the current discharge of sewage within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. Based on discharge patterns, FCSA has determined that 500 gallons/day per acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the sewer impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. The proposed zoning will add 0.08 mod to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Waste Water Treatment plant. Q=500 gallons/day/acre Q=500 gpd x 154.4 acres Q=77,200 gpd (0.08 m, -d) E. WATER SUPPLY The maximum design consumption for the subject site is determined by comparing the current use of water within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. Based on existing water consumption patterns, FCSA has determined that 1,000 gallons/day per acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the water impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. Q=1000 gallons/day /acre Q=1000121pd X 154.4 acres for Q=154,400 gpd (0.15 mgd) F. DRAINAGE Currently the runoff from approximately 154.4 acres drains into fingers, natural streams, and drainage ditches. These conveyances flow into Hiatt Run, which flows from the northern boundary to the east and off site. The following calculations estimate the proposed storm water runoff for a ten-year flow: Existing C = 0.30 (pasture) Iio =4.6 in/hr (15min) A = 154.4 acres Qio = 213 cfs (Q = CIA) Reference: VDOT Drainage Manual Proposed C = 0.90 (commercial) Iio = 5.5 in/hr (10 min) A = 154.4 acres Qio = 764 cfs (Q = CIA) 7 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park Development of the subject site at maximum build -out will therefore result in an increased runoff of 559 cfs. A detailed stormwater evaluation shall be included with any site plan submittals. Detention ponds and other stormwater management facilities ;rill be built to control storm water discharge into the above referenced streams and Hiatt Run. By controlling runoff of the site, the impact of developing the subject site on Hiatt Run will be within acceptable limits. Based on historical knowledge of this area, and in consultation with the Frederick County Public Works Department, karst topography appears to be present at the western property line adjacent to Interstate 81. Prior to master development plan preparation, an analysis of the karst topography in relationship to surface drainage will be performed to protect any further degradation that could be caused by surface drainage. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL q: L Using Fairfax County design requirements, the following calculations were made to estimate the maximum impact of solid waste generated by the proposed rezoning of the subject site. At 100% buildout of 1400.000 sf Building Industrial waste generated rate = 3210 Ib 1000 sf/yr Total solid waste Maximum total solid waste = 1,400,00 sf X 3210 lb 1000 sf/yr = 4,494 tons/year It should be emphasized that the above calculations do not include any recycling by industry. Most industries recycle a large percentage of their waste stream due to economics and cooperation with local landfill authorities. Therefore, the above calculations are generally conservative and indicate a "worst-case scenario" of maximum impact for solid waste generation. A 50% recycling program would produce a 2,247 tons/year solid waste. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES 1. Virginia Historic Landmark Commission The Rutherford's Farm File # 10082 34-727 is sited as a Historical Landmark. However, all that remains of the house is a set of concrete steps that lead from Route 11 up to the site of the house. There is a historical marker south of the site on Route 11. Landmark records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28,2001 Industrial Park 2. Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Archeological Sites One archeological site is noted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. It is a raised berm allowing access to opposite side of rail lines. However, it is abandoned and no loner in use. This site does not exhibit features that suggest eligibility for National Register consideration. Records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Conclusion of Historic Resource Advisory Board Meeting that was held on July 17, 2001, the Historic Resource Proffer D.1, D.2, and D.3 were a result of the HRAB meeting. :;.7 0j REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Telephone: (540) 662-4185 2. Property Owners (if different than above) Name: Richard Ray Duncan & Janet D. Riddick Address: 6101 Fisel Rd. Apt# 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Telephone: (703) 461-7988 Name: Turner Enterprises, LLC Address: 317 Greenfield Avenue Winchester, VA 22602 Telephone: (540) 722-2200 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 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: Richard Ray Duncan Janet D. Riddick Turner Enterprises LLC 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural., .undeveloped B) Proposed Use of the Property: 154.4 acres Commercial & Industrial 7. Adjoining Property: Please see attached 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): The subject site tax parcels 43-A-111 43-A-100 43-A- 99 43-A-96 43-A-98, 43-A-97 is located on a natural boundary created by interstate 81 on the western edge of tract. U.S. CSX and the Winchester and Western Railroads have rail lines paralleling Route 11 North. Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide 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 Magisterial: Stonewall Fire Service: Stonewall Rescue Service: Stonewall Districts High School: Stonewall Middle School: Stonewall Elementary School: Stonewall 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 116.7 RA M1 23.2 RA B2 14.5 RA B3 154.4 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other: • To rezone 113 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 3.7 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to M1 (Light Industrial); • To rezone 21.8 acres from RA (Rural Areas). and 1.4 acres of RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General); • To rezone 14.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition); • To include the entire 154.4 tract in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District. Supplement to Item 9 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property # 43 (A) 96 Name: Turner Enterprises, Inc. 317 Greenfield Ave. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #: 43 (A) 97 Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property # 43 (A) 98 Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property #: 43 (A) 99 Name: Richard R. Duncan 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property: #43 (A) 100 Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property # 43 (A) 111 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. �I-V �� applicant: D � ate: 1"Y' ]Date: Owner(s): Date: Date: fc i.frt ► --�! �t;t_a._ Date: c, C✓ M,&� o. 5.11 "Tt-1 Adjoining Property Owners Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application; adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Taylor Charles C & Mary M 1849 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-101 Name Bradford Village Apartments LC 2520 Bradford Court Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43-(A)-102 Name Johnson Robert B 2054Northwestern Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-103 Name Moore Michael A 1927 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-104 Name Rissler Thomas W& Mary L 1937 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-105 Name Lee Ronald A & Mary C 1947 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-106 Name McQuain Clifford D & Etals 1957 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-107 Name Kercheval Ethel T 1985 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-108 Name Keiter Mildred P 412 S Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43-(A)-109 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Riddick Thomas E Jr & Janet 2045Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-110 Name DeHaven Charles Stuart 2073 Bradford Court Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43 -(A) -112A, 112B, 113 Name Buckley Lages Inc P.O Box 337 Stephenson, VA 22656 Property # 43-(A)-84, 85 Name Messick Roy R & Nancy L 1897 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43C -((1))-A Name Elliott Barbara E. 6115 E. Peabody Street Long Beach, CA 90808 Property # 43B-((8))-22 &1 511, Ilqu a �sbur� P. Y)e, L►nc-heS , V�q aaX003 8.92600 ACRES o (TOTAL) (V O DUjfCgN 4• ?I I THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON MARCH 13. 2001 I MADE AN ACCURATE SURVEY EM OF THE PRISES SHOWN HEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS VISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON. THIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOOD ZONE C, AREA OF MINIMAF FLOODI AS SHOWN ON FIRM MAP # 510063 0105 B EFFECTIVE JULY 17. 1978. 25. r-- . --- BURTON HOOVER LOTS DB. 214 P. 499 24 23 o F,O' un - ro�; m co R=5629, 58' CH. 517.33' m A=517.51' CH. BRG. N ►4.44'55" E `O1 INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 (WIDTH VARIES) N 13°21'.20"E 467,57' ELLIOTT 243/22 " t 0.5 MIL TO RTE 11 FURSTENAU SURVEYING - (840) 662-9323 i l I SOUTH LOUDO' ON SST, WINCHESTER. VA 'found 5TP'SE •°t .BOUNDARY SURVEY 11 . L.RND OF BURTON HOOVER STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEED REF. IDB. 207 P. 62 :ALEc 1" = IQW TAX MAP 43-A-97 U Z t7 DUjfCgN 4• ?I I THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON MARCH 13. 2001 I MADE AN ACCURATE SURVEY EM OF THE PRISES SHOWN HEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS VISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON. THIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOOD ZONE C, AREA OF MINIMAF FLOODI AS SHOWN ON FIRM MAP # 510063 0105 B EFFECTIVE JULY 17. 1978. 25. r-- . --- BURTON HOOVER LOTS DB. 214 P. 499 24 23 o F,O' un - ro�; m co R=5629, 58' CH. 517.33' m A=517.51' CH. BRG. N ►4.44'55" E `O1 INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 (WIDTH VARIES) N 13°21'.20"E 467,57' ELLIOTT 243/22 " t 0.5 MIL TO RTE 11 FURSTENAU SURVEYING - (840) 662-9323 i l I SOUTH LOUDO' ON SST, WINCHESTER. VA 'found 5TP'SE •°t .BOUNDARY SURVEY 11 . L.RND OF BURTON HOOVER STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEED REF. IDB. 207 P. 62 :ALEc 1" = IQW TAX MAP 43-A-97 AREA TABUL477ON M1 116.7 ACRES B3 14.5 ACRES B2 23.2 ACRES = 154.4 ACRES W7ninuc� �.&�fS t - _ 1 ` B-3 _,-- 14.5 AC- ♦ 60. ED�O_t�C_, 61.3 AC 0��\\ B-2 ` �css 23.3 AC o� .0, 1 1 U.S. ROUTE 11 MAP"NSBURG PIKE MARK D. SMITH 9' No.022837 X ric:L; VE STP 0 7 2001 EXHIBIT A z a c 0 i Z 0 W i -- D (Y DATE: • AtY (q 2W? I SCALE: • !' - SAD' I DESIGNED BY'. MAS "NO. • 2785 SHEET -! OF - / D I 111 9 11 U LEGEND FLOOD PLAIN—EXHIBIT C RUTHERFORD INDUSMIAL PARK FLOOD ZONE: 9TONEwALL YAGrsT>MIAL DWMCT F1:B EMCs COUNTY. V1 WNU GREEKWAY ENGINEEMNG Engine= 151 WMY ML LAPIS Surveyors WWCHESTM VA. 22802 TELEPHONE: (540) 882-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 WWW.GREMC.TAYXNG.COM A DATE: 7/5/01 SCALE: N/A OFv MARK D. SMITH No. 022837 O� S�jONAL �� MARK v. 5HTH NO. 022&31 C4 a a 'a E- Q z H ix 0 r� W Q W rO NW W 1tW�i WL. E-1---�� fN W RATE: 3/8/01 _--d SCALE: 1 "-500' PE5)6twP 13QNT 2795 SOURCE OF DATA: INTERSTATE 81 IMPROVEMENT STUDY VDOT PROJECT No. 0081-968-Fll, PE -100 MP 305 TO WEST VIRGINIA STATE LINE FREDERICK COUNTY LEGEND PROPOSED R/W, L/A LINE PROPOSED INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED MAINLINE WIDENING COLORS MATCH SOURCE DATA 22 r QW HARK D. SMITH tb.022&M a FLOOD PLAIN w cote q0 a z0 PROPOSED F a C99 a 11 0 w� 0 W 0 P� O 7: ND o° DATE. 3/8/01 `gg 1 O O 500 10001 SCALE: SGALE. r=500' er ur .be No. 2,745 P = 500' r 1 of 1 1'. \y WAI ® qtr ,�;,� ♦ ��� �s*` � �'� � • � �`'; l ri, COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Deputy Director 540/665-5651 EA X: 540/665-6395 RE: Request for Waiver to Increase Woodlands Disturbance on Westview Business Center, Lot 4 -,ro DATE: January 25, 2002 Attached is a letter and materials from Mr. Mark Smith, on behalf of the Westview Business Center. Mr. Smith requests that a waiver of the woodlands disturbance requirement of the Zoning Ordinance be granted. Westview Business Center, Lot 4, is located on Independence Drive, adjacent to the Winchester Regional Airport and the recently -opened BB&T data facility, and is in the Shawnee Magisterial District. The woodlands waiver would apply to property identified by P.I.N. 64 -A -159F which is approximately 35.62 acres, zoned M1 (Light Industrial), and included in the Westview Business Center Master Development Plan, approved in 2001. The Zoning Ordinance allows for no more than 25 percent of woodlands to be disturbed (§ 165-31.B). The Ordinance further states that the Board of Supervisors may allow larger woodland areas to be disturbed in industrial parks [§ 165-31.B(7)]. The applicant is requesting to be permitted to disturb up to 38 percent of the woodlands in the master planned area in order to more fully develop the property for light industrial use. The approved Westview Business Center MDP indicates that there are 31 acres of woodlands in the business center. The MDP further allows for 24 percent of woodland disturbance; approximately 7.5 acres. As requested, an additional woodlands disturbance of 4.2 acres is being sought. The applicant has provided an illustration (dated December 2001 and titled "Woodlands Waiver, Lot 4, Westview Business Center") of the limits of the proposed woodlands disturbance area. A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the woodlands waiver request is desired. Should the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation, it would be appropriate to require a survey description for the "perimeter tree save area" to ensure that subsequent site development plans do not encroach into this area. ERL/ch Attachments O\Agendas\CONDAENTS\Waivers\Westview Business Center. Woodlands Waiver.PC.wpd 107 North Kent Street o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 i� 151 %%'indv hill [_ane T fir' Winchestci, Virginia 22602 f Founded in 1971 January 9, 2002 Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Attn: Eric Lawrence Re: Westview Business Center Project, Lot 4 — Woodlands Waiver Dear Mr. Lawrence: Please find enclosed an exhibit demonstrating the treed area on the remaining 35 acres of Westview Business Center. The amount of treed area is 31 acres. The approved Master Development Plan for Westview Business Center allowed 7.5 acres of disturbance in this area. Please see attached exhibit. We are requesting an additional 4.2 acres of tree disturbance that will increase our tree disturbance to 38% on the Westview Business Center property. The attached exhibit demonstrates the additional the disturbance in light green that we are proposing. Therefore, we are requesting your support and approval in granting a waiver on the Woodlands Disturbance Ordinance 165-31 B7. Please forward this application to the Planning Commission at the next available meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, `— Greenway Engineering` ark mith, .E., L.S. President Enclosures Engineers Surveyors File #518/MDS/dls Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 wivw. gree nwayeng.coin Request For Site Plan Comments Winchester Regional Airport Mail to: Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport 491 Airport Road Attn: Executive Director (Route 645, off of Route 522 South) 491 Airport Road (540) 662-2422 Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Fax — (540) 722-9335 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the site plan with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester Virginia 22602 Phone Number: (540) 662-4185 Name of development and/or description of the request: Woodlands Waiver -Westview Business Center, Lot 4 FIE EID Location of property: Westview Business Center J u iN 0 9 2002 DEPT OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT, Winchester Regional Airport's Comments: -i ` e , �� � �'� � 5 � �� � � � n J ` �:%��y - - :%>il%�Tji::%;tom::;»%i?:'$1�:•';>'•`:�`i':- ii'%[f� �:'"':�:;::;�::::µ%�:''_';:;;.':3:::'i,;:�:;s5%':'s:':�'>::::;p=�::tri:�i';:;�:y��;;y`:#:.x���s;i':"<i;':�:�:":�i'�::�::''':::':�:::':':::j.?'';;;'?''�";:;::�;y`::�"�:;:;::��r,'::;i':j.:•'::i��:�:;:'::>:;:::::::::::•:•:-;�::::.>:w:s•:::>:::::::::::: �::: ��::: 25 c -D TOTAL PARCEL AREA= 35.62 ACRES Zcd WOODLANDS WAIVER AREA (AC) DISTURBED (AC) % DISTURBED • ' . ' ' ' - - _ - j w CU WW7ru to CD MDP WOODLANDS 31 7.5 24% a °' N DISTURBANCE 31 4.2 ' / ; '' ' / ' ( —J L W J' , N .DDITIONAL DISTURBANCET� .' >- o INCLUDING WAIVER REQUEST 31 11.7 38% ,�" ,. - / z p % s Oji Ld 7V11 _ TH op 53 MARK D,. SMITH ' — No, 022837 -- - , flwpoew Sam Cc U ,• ' , .-.. __- .. 30m'1 sic 9mommSF..., Fes-+ c^ i TREE LINE A3 -' crwoPr ' .. 1 ` '� / % / 04 E - Z / APPROVED ON THE / (il — ' ' / i / q E- W E - MDP DATED 21103/01-- r - - y m 0 W W zq ilo _ – – EX15TIN -Baal,� - DATE, DECEMBER 2001 " SCALE, 1 200 , DESIGNED BY, JNT JOB NO, 0518 SHEET 1 OF 1 • • C TO: FROM DATE: RE: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM Frederick County Planning Commission Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II' January 28, 2002 Request for a Waiver to the Zoning District Buffer Requirements 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-639S Staff has received a letter from Timothy Painter, of Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., requesting the County to consider approving a waiver to the zoning district buffer requirements for the property of Hilltop House Adult Care Facility (see attached letter). If approved, the waiver would allow a parking lot in the 25 -foot inactive portion of a zoning district buffer between the B2 (Business General) and RP (Residential Performance) Zoning Districts. Section 165-37 D(6), of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, grants the Planning Commission the ability to waive any or all of the requirements for the zoning district buffers on a particular site, so long as the use of the developing property is permitted on all adjoining properties. Hilltop House Adult Care Facility has been granted CUP approval for the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District and, therefore, the Planning Commission has the authority to consider their request. Hilltop House Adult Care Facility presently operates on five adjoining parcels of land, located at 1811 Berryville Pike. Four of these parcels are zoned RP (Residential Performance), and one is zoned B2 (Business General). They would like to build a parking lot and new entrance on the northern portion of the B2 parcel (see exhibit A: Overview); however, the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 - foot active and 25 -foot inactive zoning buffer, with a full screen, along this portion of the property. Approximately 10 to 15 feet of the proposed parking lot is shown in the required inactive buffer area (see exhibit B: Plan View of Buffer Area). Although the eight encroaching parking spaces are not required parking, Hilltop House feels that these spaces are necessary to provide adequate parking during times of heavy visitation. Furthermore, they believe that their request for a waiver is reasonable because the proposed 10 -foot landscape screen and opaque fence will provide an adequate visual screen from adjoining properties. JFC/ch Attachments U:Ueremy\Waiver Requests\HilltopHouseRequest_Memo.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Tel.: (540) 662-5792 Winchester, VA 22601 Fax.: (540) 662-5793 January 23, 2002 Mr. Jeremy F. Camp, Planner R County of Frederick Planning Department 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Hilltop House Adult Care Facility 1811 Berryville Pike Stonewall Magisterial District County of Frederick, Virginia Dear Sir: On behalf of Hilltop House, Inc., developer of this project, this is to serve as the request for a waiver of the 25 ft. inactive buffer required for a full screen to buffer between a B-2 General Business District and an RP Residential Performance District. There is a spot zoning of B-2 on one of the parcels of this project which requires the buffering element. In accordance with Section 165-37D (6) of the County of Frederick Zoning Ordinance, the planning commission may waive any or all of the requirements for the zoning district buffers when all uses on the site plan are allowed in the zoning district where the development is occurring and in the adjoining parcels, which is the case here. The design of this site requires that a new entrance must be provided to service the Hilltop House development. This entrance will provide access to Denny Lane and is positioned to provide the greatest possible stacking distance on Denny Lane. With this access road location, a minor encroachment exists into the inactive buffer area due to the proposed parking. Although, this parking is not part of the required parking for this use, it is needed during times of heavy visitation. Without it there could be substantial congestion in and around this facility which could be a hazard for emergency vehicles responding to this adult care facility. Please be advised the degree of encroachment is only in the area of the eight (8) parking spaces along the north side of the main drive only. Secondly, all elements of the full screen will be installed as part of the development of this project. There will be no visual impact to the adjoining property if this waiver is approved, and therefore, we feel this is reasonable request with this type of facility. Mr. Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II January 23, 2002 Y County of Frederick Planning Department Hilltop House Adult Care Facility Please review this information and advise us as to your findings regarding support of this waiver and submission to the Planning Commission for final approval. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you would have any questions or would require further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Enclosures: Sincerely, Timothy (.'Painter, P. E RECEIVED JAN 2 4 2002 DEPT OF PLANNINGIDEVELOPMR �x AL mw � Ylm 1 _ �...... ...... .� = '�iiC�f' ®^ -- +�'E.� i Emr=s sR:► 1i / waiar ......... .... ttttttt� E B atttta� s OWNER s . at070v0 '. . E Aeatoanr tt,tAtt t.a aaa� wa �� g - ...: �I� a �o� m a `,rant I99 ru i lw A Hart a.r taataam m atalw j 1 f a l i rtoa ttttttxGXML a (� ow °oe 4 let • 3 I � ' a �y s)aex 3 •lqi wirr � •' 1 ii il� i a latwo) F' = a.. Aw "` A"'.Q ♦ } .,1t �3 .tf � � jt it f111.t���nbK��—auO � t "dm� 'idrxxw y� a � IRMO j .s j Y� i•�1 ••I• �•.lA ;� I Qil aas I � d • Y 11 .d-._ JL a000 e.rwr i' °ara+r,)aR zlar ��Isr •. !d ,, 1 � ' � 'bD39�" r•,�. ..........um ASS= i ' .J); y • l� • 'GCNC. 1MUI'.. AW MEMO= EF.n Ca �� aaawoii -iiia o�Wiat t i pro��ao�a'*' •/ azar —��� n, ��`j I i� � { :a O ' .� f •' �fa�6as r .a / MCI n OM70ouY*I M �• 1 i �— �� +¢ ''�F. �' v �F xa 9 ra aw f S Y�d�i( � i M i >< •:F� y�nn� O[�7a1�pt, ♦� i ' •�- / ; t»avadc�� "�"'^•� j' t 'ft ^� • ...• _ ;•• A; J r � -. �����pp66 � • mss•.., � � � � ��� �—'„ r i r r• SS,\ ` :..t.E �� yrs: as M ':x'%° .�^. '""' / p• : ,r.' it � � �.� yjF�'� � � � '� _ ` .....--.^a'YI'w:.iMrlr. �3R_��'� l ��?s•.wo.►"o'�. yA%A�y!{Oy� .,-„• f ��t ._ ..11.L..�.„� c_w6 x mF1Gl1EIr�� —�►# .� ,def �. .. .. — y. ^a�ma• --;;;]t=i ^ � ?FAG .,•� �—�— — •..w .& '._ Ali ° })A3 l77'�AA���rrr00011f� '� I-1 DHC S 5.0' Ft>1UE) VECEfATiON TO 8E PRESERVED �'tt 11 7 e" I RELOCATED. SUS 2,_: M E Fy I STORY. HG .-2 _ `, /� ,, EA F.F. t 81 A0 . t. t735 p. [ �..i0►lJ �t1rLw Of �C�F �Q, 1-i11�t,� SE: ASSiSjE0 F.F.s882. t t.... -,.. �; .> _< 4 '-� - NC a SE: ASST i t ESIDENCE' � � p R DENC�I: t TM I + t TM g0 ihn►rJSCP►M U`gA C P -N p � ,,,,,, tLj ft .,� �Y�. �-lf ► t t i� •� bdutinq Parking Oatx?37�i.YR` i , tl I t Facility © : '. i i ✓ 1 YP NOTE _.......... .........,,, � i ALL SIDEWALKS ARE AT GRADE I 'I 1 TM at .: { 31 t AACCCE�BILLIT HANDICAP Imr.-886 85 ;#� I TM Im.-ee8 st' I iof s£E.3q 2 VP I j r EX. VEGETATION TO BE PRE: A I....... ... _..... .. I 'p t t 2 VP NOTE ARE REQUIRED TO Cffr#JN t SIGN PERMR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. Im.— I �' a: #� I TO 6 8 ` ' e 1 Nil 55 a, � �E FITO 0 C4UG7: :. BED I �:5's9� i t2lJ Ci 4 IM 2 AS ; # !ifJi sail l jre � 1 I f `• :� �� I l —ess- / I I f •! � .rte I ; j � ' t W-kie coNc /' III I j •► yW. i � I i 1 t� Q X571.2 7 1. a §: a 5? / 0:8R87:Rii4' PR ' I .Fs r°' 4i8�8 a767467t? OP. SIGN t 1 f .t r 9Ayw rss z-, G 80ux AREA + TOP -878. {Rain Tap, An Deeded) +i •£s!£s.G7 �/ 15t* irJv In— 3,80 m r I Inv. Out .89 I i i' 4'tf 5?.4t1 44E' x 47834 1 x 99.4 JI I gg fj ' 3,50 79.7 In 'r / zS I � � f if 1 ? t 477 T e I 4' C 3 47-7 ° L �{,,, f1 f �• e ✓ �" .. — .... v $ 1 {12� 1` 4' CO WI�iC ' I 'w( ! f n ORCFI a u — e \ CG &7E1.959 \ { I o I i . s W" t u� �+ r £ : r"— � ONC 1 &Sni: # SbTf•` X 5&?.7 } &7 0 , ... . Woad .... ! ' 7,l,' ^c} # RC 1 I tFence (E CI. } e yµ •-� 6' 5554 Je 2 Inv.- x rte' �dat CONC WAIKI I NOTE { I l i t' �'•_ ... t f tel. L fiti.i�---+. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Director RE: Discussion Pertaining to Permitting Schools in the B-2 District DATE: January 25, 2002 Staff recently received a letter from Chuck Maddox, of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, requesting the County to consider adding "schools" to the list of permitted uses in the B2 (Business General) Zoning District (see letter dated January 21st). Mr. Maddox is representing the Frederick County School Administration in the planning process for the construction of a new middle school. Mr. Maddox and the Frederick County School Administration believe that schools are an appropriate land use for the B2 Zoning District. Presently the Zoning Ordinance does not permit "schools" in the B2 Zoning District. It does, however, permit "public buildings", as pointed out in Mr. Maddox's letter. Staff does not believe that schools were intended to be classified as public buildings when the Zoning Ordinance was written. This is because "schools" are specifically listed as a permitted land use in the RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance) Zoning Districts, but not in the B2 Zoning District. Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance defines a school, but does not define public buildings. This issue was considered by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) during their January 24, 2002 meeting. The DRRS felt that schools with or without a residential component were an appropriate land use in the B2 District. Committee members recognized that the majority of B2 District land was situated within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Therefore, the proximity to residential land uses, the ability to be served by public water and sewer, the location along road systems designed to accommodate larger volumes of traffic, and the potential to allow for pedestrian movement to nearby services were cited as reasons for permitting this land use in the B2 Zoning District. The DRRS unanimously recommended the addition of schools with or without residential components in the B2 Zoning District. Please find attached the proposed amendment and the current definitions for schools with and without residential components. O:ICOMMITTEES\DRRSTrojects\Schools In B2 District\PC_DiscussionMemo_Febmary6,2002,wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Proposed Draft Amendment Article X - Business and Industrial Zoning Districts Section 165-82B(l) Allowed Uses Schools with or without residential component Current Definitions: School SIC A. Without residential component: any building used for organized education or instruction in any branch of knowledge. This school does not contain rooms where overnight lodging and meals are provided to students. B. With residential component: any building used for organized education or instruction in any branch of knowledge. This school does contain rooms where overnight lodging and meals are provided to students. Merl iv. clifford & ass o da tes, in re INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Land Planners — Water Quality 21 January 2002 Mr. Evan Wyatt, Planning Director County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Kathryn M. Perry Property Route 50 East 57.57 Acres Dear Evan, Board of Directors: President. Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. vice Presidents: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R_ Sutherland, P.E. Ronald A Mislowsky, P.E. Da -Ad J. Saunders, P.E. Directors: William L. Wright Michael A Hammer Thomas W. Price Thank you for our recent meeting and phone conversation regarding the above referenced tract. This property is zoned B-2 and is under option for purchase by the Frederick County School Board for use in part as a new middle school site. There are three issues which require your assistance prior to clearing this site for use as a school. rst, the site, although zoned B-2, does not exist within but is adjacent to the County's Sewer and Water Service Area. We need to amend the SWSA map to include this site. The attached Figure 1 shows how this line can be adjusted to service the 57.87 acres. Second, at present, the County Zoning Ordinance does not specifically allow "schools" as a permitted use. The ordinance for B-2 allows public buildings but schools are not specifically mentioned. We know that schools are often included in business zoned areas and we see no good reason why that use should not be included into the list of uses permitted in B-2. Please consider this letter our formal request for "Text Amendment" to the County ordinance in this regard. Finally, the proffers accepted at the time of the 1990 rezoning are attached. At this time, the County Comprehensive Plan showed this roadway as a major collector extending into the Senseny Road corridor to the north. The comprehensive plan has since been revised due to Route 37 and VDOT Greenwood Road (S.R. 656) planning to eliminate this collector roadway. The approved proffer calls for the 4 lane road (items 1-5 of proffer) to be extended 700' into the site during phase one of the development (points A to B). Item 5 of the proffer speaks to the construction of a two lane roadway from B to C as development goes from front to rear (south to north) on the site. Paragraph 1 also offers for dedication of 70' right of way from A to C "upon development" of the tract. HECEIV -JAM 2 a 200'2 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540)667-21'19 Fax(540)665-0493 e-mail gwcliffrt mnsin evnAt �� �V�i��j�`f�F;iFf t Fr•,� "` Member American Consulting Engineers Council gilbert w. clifford and associates, inc Page 2 The changes we request be made to the proffer are attached. These changes request the right of way dedication from B to C and the need for construction of the 2 lane road be eliminated_ The justification is that this road is not called for extension by the Comprehensive Plan. All other items in the proffer would remain as originally approved. Please advise of any comments you have on our three requests and we would look forward to any instructions you have on the approval sequence for this request. Sincerely yours, giibert w. difford & associates, inc. G C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V* President CEibIM Enclosure cc: Mr Rupert Werner, Perry Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. All Orndorff, Frederick County Schools TO: FROM RE: DATE: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development Frederick County Planning Commission Evan A. Wyatt, Director y0 Discussion Pertaining to Road Efficiency Buffer Requirements January 25, 2002 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Chapter 165-37E of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides requirements for road efficiency buffers for residential land uses. The intent of the road efficiency buffer is to adequately screen residential land uses from interstate, limited access, arterial and major collector road systems to reduce visual and noise impacts. Currently, developers and designers have two options to meet the requirements for road efficiency buffers. The first option, identified as a Full Road Efficiency Buffer, requires a setback of 100 feet from primary roads and a setback of 80 feet from major collector roads with a single row of evergreen trees. The second option, identified as a Reduced Road Efficiency Buffer, provides for a reduced setback of 80 feet from primary roads and 50 feet from major collector roads with a six- foot opaque element and three trees per ten linear feet, of which two-thirds are evergreen trees and one-third are deciduous trees. Road efficiency buffers are required to separate residential land uses from the specified road systems; however, there is no requirement to have this buffer located outside of a residential lot. Staff has concerns with the current requirements for road efficiency buffers including disparity between full and reduced vegetative planting requirements, the spacing requirements for plant materials and the ability to place this feature within residential lots. This issue was discussed at the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) in October 2001 and in January 2002. The DRRS concurred with the concerns raised by staff and considered proposed amendments which alleviate these issues, while providing flexibility to the development and design community. The DRRS recommended that the proposed amendments be forwarded out of committee for discussion and action by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Please find attached the proposed amendments recommended by the DRRS for review and discussion. U:\COMMITTEES\DRRS\Projects\Road Efficiency Buffers\PC_DiscussionMemo_February6,2002.wpd 107 North Kent Street m Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT: ROAD EFFICIENCY BUFFERS Current Zoning Ordinance Requirements 165-37E Road efficiency buffers (1) All residential structures shall be separated from arterial or major collector roads, as designated by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, by the following road efficiency buffers. Distance Buffer Required Road Type Inactive (Minimum feet) Active (Maximum feet) Total (feet) Interstate/arterial/limited access Full 50 50 100 Reduced 40 40 80 Major collector Full 40 40 80 Reduced 25 25 50 (2) Such road efficiency buffers shall be measured from the principal structure to the nearest edge of the road right-of-way, with the inactive portion starting at the road right-of-way as shown in the example diagram. Access roads to property through these buffers are permitted. (3) All road efficiency buffers shall contain a row of evergreen trees intended to reach a minimum height of six feet at maturity. These plants shall provide a continuous screen, with trees spaced no more than eight feet apart. The road efficiency buffer may be reduced as described above if full screening is provided as described in this section. Landscaping shall not obstruct safe sight distances. A full buffer shall be required if landscaping cannot be provided due to sight distance requirements. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments 165-37E Road efficiency buffers (1) All residential structures shall be separated from interstate, limited access, primary, major arterial, minor arterial or major collector roads, as designated by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, by the following road efficiency buffers: Distance Buffer Required Road Type Inactive (Minimum feet) Active (Maximum feet) Total (feet) Interstate/arterial/limited access Full Distance Buffer 50 50 100 Reduced Distance Buffer 40 40 80 Major collector Full Distance Buffer 40 40 80 Reduced Distance Buffer 25 40 25 10 50 (2) Strch All road efficiency buffers shall be measured from the principal stmdure to the neares begin at the edge of the road right-of-way, with the inactive portion starting at the abutting the road right-of-way . Access roads serving as the primary means of vehicular travel to prop ertq residential subdivisions ers are permitted to traverse road efficiency buffers. No portion of the required inactive distance of a road efficiency buffer shall be permitted to be located within a residential building lot. (3) All road efficiency buffers shall contain arow -of evergreen trees intended to reach a minimum height of six twenty (20) feet at maturity. These plants evergreen trees shall provide a continuous screen, with trees plantings spaced no more than eight ten (10) feet apart. The full distance buffer shall contain a double row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height when planted. The road efficiency buffer maybe reduced as described above if fall scre i -i . ided as described in this sect The reduced distance buffer shall contain an earth berm that is six feet in height above the average road grade and shall contain a single row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height when planted. Landscaping Alternative landscaping shall be permitted near entrance drives to ensure not obstruct safe sight distances. ^ full L__ cr__ shall L The Planning Commission may allow for alternative designs which meet the intent of the section in the event of topography or sight distance constraints. Complete Zoning Ordinance Amendments 165-37E Road efficiency buffers Od 0-1 & r� 7 (1) All residential structures shall be separated from interstate, limited access, primary, major arterial, minor arterial or major collector roads, as designated by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, by the following road efficiency buffers: Distance Buffer Required Road Type Inactive (Minimum feet) Active (Maximum feet) Total (feet) Interstate/arterial/limited access Full Distance Buffer 50 50 100 Reduced Distance Buffer 40 40 80 Major collector Full Distance Buffer 40 40 80 Reduced Distance Buffer 40 10 50 (2) All road efficiency buffers shall begin at the edge of the road right-of-way, with the inactive portion abutting the road right-of-way. Access roads serving as the primary means of vehicular travel to residential subdivisions are permitted to traverse road efficiency buffers. No portion of the required inactive distance of a road efficiency buffer shall be permitted to be located within a residential building lot. (3) All road efficiency buffers shall contain evergreen trees intended to reach a minimum height of twenty (20) feet at maturity. These evergreen trees shall provide a continuous screen, with plantings spaced no more than ten (10) feet apart. The full distance buffer shall contain a double row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height when planted. The reduced distance buffer shall contain an earth berm that is six feet in height above the average road grade and shall contain a single row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height when planted. Alternative landscaping may be permitted near entrance drives to ensure safe sight distances. The Planning Commission may allow for alternative designs which meet the intent of the section in the event of topography or sight distance constraints. U:\COMMITTEES\DRRS\Projects\Road Efficiency Buffers\165-37EDraft.wpd