The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 06-19-02 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia JUNE 19, 2002 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) May 15, 2002 Minutes..................................................................................................... (A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Rezoning #06-02 of Rex Dalrymple, submitted by Valley Mill, L.L.C., to rezone 3.18 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located along Valley Mill Road (Route 659) at Berryville Pike (Route 7) and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 54F -1 -9,54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A and 54F -3-A1 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. (Ms. Kennedy).......................................................................................(B) 5) Conditional Use Permit #09-02 of Frog Eye Fiber Emporium, submitted by Mary S. Groundwater, for a Cottage Occupation — Instructional Classes and Retail Sales. The property is located at 347 Schoolmarm Lane and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 62-A-22 and 62 -A -21A in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (Ms. Ragsdale)............................................................................................................... (C) 6) Proposed Amendments to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Rural Areas District, Section 165-54B, Family Division lots; and Article XXII, Definitions. The proposed amendments are intended to identify qualifying family members for family division lots and to provide a supportive definition. (Mr. Camp).................................................................................................................... (D) PUBLIC MEETING 7) Subdivision #12-02 of Kim and Marietta Walls Townhouses, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for the subdivision of a 0.79 -acre tract into six townhouse lots. This property is located at 909 North Loudoun Street and is identified with Property Identification Number 54-A-50 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Mr. Davenport)............................................................... ..... . (E) .......................................... DISCUSSION ITEMS 8) Discussion on Proposed Ordinance Amendment regarding Setbacks on Existing Structures (Dwellings). (Mr. Camp)...................................................................................................................... (F) 9) Discussion on Proposed Ordinance Amendment regarding Telecommunication Tower Setbacks and Waivers. (Mr. Camp)......................................................................................................................(G) 10) Preliminary Discussion — Department Work Priorities (Mr. Lawrence)................................................................................................................(H) 11) 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 May 15, 2002, 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; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Interim Planning Director; Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner; Rebecca A. Ragsdale, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3, 2002 Upon motion made by Conunissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes of April 3, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcoinmittee (CPPS) - 05/13/02 Conmiissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed corridor entrance and appearance entering the Winchester and Frederick County areas. Conunissioner Light explained that at present, the committee is becoming familiar with available tools and implementation. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 2002 Page 862 -2 - Transportation Committee - 05/07/02 Mtg. Con-unissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee had just enough members present to have a quorum for the meeting. Commissioner Kriz said the committee discussed the 2002 Primary Road Plan, however, when it was time to vote, one of the committee members refused to vote. He said that as a result, no action was taken. Economic Development Commission (EDC) - 05/10/02 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported a downturn on the number of requests from businesses for space in the County. Conunissioner Thomas reported that the EDC is looking at initiatives that will present Frederick County in a more friendly and attractive light. PUBLIC HEARING Request of Roy and Loretta McDonald to remove two parcels totaling 37.95 acres from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. These parcels are identified with P.I.N. 84 -A -49B, which contains 25.7 acres, located along Vaucluse Road (Route 638), and P.I.N. 72-A-85, which contains 12.25 acres, located along Middle Road (Route 628), in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Senior Planner Abbe Keumedy stated that on March 1, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Roy McDonald submitted a letter of request to remove two of their parcels, totaling 37.95 acres, from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District, due to their desire to pursue other options for their acreage. Planner Kennedy stated that the Agricultural District Advisory Coni nittee (ADAC) considered this request on April 23, 2002, and recognizing the hardships within the industry of agriculture in our area, the ADAC unanimously voted to reconmiend to the Conmlission that these two parcels be removed. Mr. Roy McDonald explained that some of this land is in apple orchard that is old and ready to go out. Mr. McDonald said that considering the current status of the orchard industry and the cost of replacing the existing orchard with a new one, it would not be cost-effective for him to pursue an orchard on this property. He added that he will continue to farm the remainder of his property, but the removal of this acreage will help to support his other fanning activities. speak: Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to Mr. Doug Dolan, a resident of the Red Bud District and the Executive Officer of the Blue Frederick County Planning CominiSS1011 Minutes of May 15, 2002 Page 863 Ridge Association of Realtors, expressed his belief in upholding private property owners' rights. Mr. Dolan said that the Blue Ridge Association of Realtors supports the highest and best use of land and it also supports the property owners' rights to do with their property as they see best. He was concerned about any possibility of pinning someone into an unprofitable business because one would not like to see development occur. He said that apples have not been a good cash crop; there's not only competition from Washington, but from overseas. Mr. Dolan said that most of the equity fanners have is in their land; he said if they are denied the highest and best use of their land for the better good of the County, it leaves questions and could lead someone into bankruptcy. Commissioner Thomas stated that a property owner's placing of land into an Agricultural and Forestal District is a total volunteer process; he said there is no benefit, other than some tax breaks. Commissioner Thomas believed if membership in the Agricultural District made it too difficult for property owners to use their land and to retain their property rights, it could jeopardize fixture landowners from putting their property in the Agricultural and Forestal District again. He believed the Agricultural and Forestal District was a good program, but the County needs to make certain not to abuse the program and destroy it. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Con-unission does hereby reconunend approval of the request of Roy and Loretta McDonald to remove two parcels totaling 37.95 acres from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. These parcels are identified with P.I.N. 84 -A -49B, which contains 25.7 acres, located along Vaucluse Road (Route 638), and P.I.N. 72-A-85, which contains 12.25 acres, located along Middle Road (Route 628), both in the Back Creek Magisterial District. The vote on this reconunendation was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE REMOVAL): Straub, Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, Deffaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry NO: Gochenour Request of Marker -Miller Orchards L.P. to remove one parcel totaling 234.33 acres from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. This parcel is identified as Property Identification Number 62-A-29 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - ReconUnended Approval Senior Planner Abbe Kennedy stated that on March 20, 2002, Mr. John Marker submitted a letter of request to remove one parcel, totaling 234.33 acres, from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District, due to their desire to pursue other options for their acreage. She said that the Markers will continue to concentrate on their fruit growing for retail and local wholesale markets on the majority of their property. Planner Kennedy stated that the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) considered this request on April 23, 2002, and recognizing the hardships within the industry of agriculture in our area, the ADAC unanimously voted to recommend to the Commission that these two parcels be removed. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 2002 Page 864 Commission -4 - Mr. Jolui Marker, the property OAwner, was available to answer questions from the Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and one citizen came forward to speak: One citizen came forward to inquire when Stonymeade, the new road made in that subdivision, will be finished. She said the extension of Stonymeade would traverse the property in discussion. Chairman DeHaven believed that when the adjoining properties along Stonymeade develop, additional portions ofthe road would be built. Chairman DeHaven advised the citizen to meet with one of the Planning staff. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Conunissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, The Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the request of Marker -Miller Orchards L.P. to remove one parcel totaling 234.33 acres from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. This parcel is identified as Property Identification Number 62-A- 29 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. The vote on this reconunendation was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE REMOVAL): Straub, Watt, Unger, Morris; Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry NO: Gochenour Master Development Plan 403-02 for the Hartwood Subdivision, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for the development of 19 single-family detached cluster lots on an 8.264 -acre parcel. This property is located at 746 Double Church Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 86 -A -21B in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Reconunended Approval Conunissioner Greg Unger said that he would be abstaining from all discussion and voting on this item due to a conflict of interest. Senior Plarmer Abbe Kennedy read the background information; she reported no significant review agency comments. Planner Kennedy stated that this property was rezoned from RA to RP in 1998 and a number of proffers were approved as part of the rezoning application , which are included on the submitted master development plan (MDP). She said tlic proffered density was not to exceed more than 20 single-family detached dwellings; there are to be no apartments, duplexes, toNvnhouses, or other multi -family dwellings; and $3,934.21 per lot would be assessed to address impacts on public schools, parks and recreation, and the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company. Planner Kennedy noted that the proximity of this parcel near the Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District, as well as agricultural land uses, is of concern to the staff. She stated that staff believes it would be prudent to have the developer disclose the location of the Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 2002 Page 865 -5 - Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District and permitted land uses in the Rural Areas within all property deeds and sales literature. Planner Keimedy concluded by stating that the property is located within the Urban Development Area, the Iayout of the plan conforms to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. She added that the proposed single-family residential development is an appropriate land use for the Residential Performance (RP) District. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was present to represent the applicant. In response to one of the Commissioner's questions regarding structures on the property, Mr. Wyatt replied that the two-story white structure will stay and become one of the 19 lots on the property, however, the outbuildings will be removed. Regarding the VDOT comment, Mr. Wyatt noted that the 25' to 30' off-site dedicated right- of-way for Double Church Road (Rt. 64 1) will allow a taper off of Rt. 641 for safety and it better aligns Rt. 641 with the entrance to Woodside to the north. He stated that VDOT has indicated that the design incorporated into the MDP, which was also part of the proffer, has mitigated their concerns. Commissioner Ours inquired if calculations were done on impacts to the intersection of Rt. 277 and Double Church Road. Mr. Wyatt projected a maximum of 190 average vehicle trips per day based on VDOT counts; he said the increase in traffic overall will be less than 8% and, during peak hours, even less. Chairman DeHaven called for public continents and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Tim Thomas and Mrs. L-,-im Thomas, oxN;ilers ofproperty directly across fromthe entrance road to the proposed Hartwood subdivision, were concerned about the increased traffic and especially the headlights from vehicles shining into their bedroom and living room. Mr. Thomas inquired if the entrance to Harhvood could be made through Woodside. Mr. Wyatt responded by stating that the reason this traffic cannot be pulled through Woodside is that all of the area around this property has already been legally platted into lots and the only point of access is Route 641. Mr. Wyatt explained that with VDOT's 50' entrance requirement, there is not enough room to shift the entrance and still meet site distance requirements. Commissioner Thomas, who stated for the record that he was not related to Mr. and Mrs. Tim Thomas, inquired if Mr. Wyatt could work something out with the Thomas' concerning a vegetative or earth berm buffer across the road on the Thomas' property, so the headlights would not shine into their home. Mr. Wyatt commented that they are proposing to do a landscaped screen and a berm along Rt. 641, but they will see if there is a potential to do something on the Thomas' site. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to what type of street lighting was envisioned for the neighborhood. Mr. Wyatt replied that the ordinance for lot sizes of this type requires street lights at all intersections, so the intersection point in this particular subdivision would be at Double Church and Plankwood. Mr. Wyatt described the street light as pole -mounted, but it would not have shields. He said the street light should not protrude light across the road onto the Thomas' property. Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Wyatt about the staff's recora riendation concerning the disclosure statement. Mr. Wyatt replied that the applicant would certainly be more than willing to have the disclosure statement, indicating the proximity of the Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District, Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 2002 Page 866 -6 - included in all deed disclosures. Conunissioner Ours said that he has had concerns for iilany years about the traffic on Double Church Road and his comments are on record from when Woodside Estates was considered. Commissioner Ours conunented that along with the additional homes comes the additional traffic and he was concerned about upgrading the road, which unfortunately, he said was not up to the County, but up to the State. He believed this developer had done as good a job as they could to mitigate the impacts of the traffic; he commented that this is a by -right use in an area zoned for this type of development. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Conunissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Master Development Plan #03-02 for the Hartwood Subdivision, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for the development of 19 single-family detached cluster lots on an 8.261 -acre parcel with the stipulation that the developer work with the adjacent landowners at P.I.N. 86 -((A)) -71A on the possibility of installing some method of screening to prevent headlights from protruding into their home and with the stipulation that the location and the significance of the Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District and permitted land uses in the Rural Areas be disclosed within all property deeds and sales literature. This recommendation was passed by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Watt, Morris, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry NO: Straub, Gochenour ABSTAIN: Unger OTHER SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION (SVBF) IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT GRANT APPLICATION Action - Recommended Approval Planner Rebecca Ragsdale said that staff is in the process of preparing a grant application to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF) and the grant, if awarded, would be used to acquire three interpretative signs from Virginia Civil War Trails (VACWT). Planner Ragsdale explained that VACWT is a program designed to enhance Civil War sites throughout the Conunonwealth by providing interpretative signage and heightening marketing efforts to promote tourism. She gave the three proposed locations as: 1) Fort Collier (Third Battle of Winchester [Opequon]); Winchester Equipment (Second Battle of Winchester, located at Rt. 522 North and Indian Hollow Rd.); and Poorhouse (Second Battle of Winchester, located along Poorhouse Rd., between Rt. 522 North and Rt. 50 West), Planner Ragsdale continued, stating that the County's costs associated with the project would Frederick County Planning COIInnission Minutes of May 1 5, 2002 Page 867 -7 - be a minimum of a 20% match to the total project cost, as required by the SVBF grant. She said that the cost of each sign from VACWT is $2,600 for a total project cost of $7.800. She added that the County's minimum required match is $1,60 and is already available in the Department of Planning and Development's 2001-2002 Fiscal Year budget. Chairman DeHavcn called for public comments, hoNv ever, no one came forward to speak. The Plamiing Commission reviewed the grant application and expressed their support. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the submittal of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation Implementation Project Grant Application for the acquisition of three interpretive signs to enhance Civil War sites in the County. KERNSTOWN BATTLEFIELD ASSOCIATION'S REOUEST FOR GRANT SUPPORT Action - Recommended Approval Interim Planning Director Eric R. La\vrence stated that the Kemstown Battlefield Association (KBA) is submitting a grant application to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation's (SVBF) Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District Iimplementation Project Grant Program to acquire funding to erect perimeter fencing on the KBA's property. He said the KBA has requested that the County consider endorsement of the grant application, as well as provide a portion of the matching funds necessary for the grant program. Interim Director Lawrence explained that the staff had approached the KBA inviting them to participate in a grant application the County was submitting to secure fiinding for Virginia Civil War Trails (VACWT) signs, however, the KBA informed staff that an individual had already offered to provide the KBA with the necessary funds to acquire such a sign. He said the KBA did express an interest in utilizing the matching funds the County would have provided for the VACWT signs, to be redirected for use in the KBA's grant application for the perimeter fencing. Interim Planning Director Lawrence continued. stating that the KBA is seeking a grant from the SVBF for $10,000: this grant program requires the applicant to provide a minimum of 20% ($2,000) matching funds. He said the KBA has requested that the County provide $1,000 towards the required 20% match. Mr. W. Lawrence (Larry) Duncan, President of the Kernstovvn Battlefield Association, explained about the rather extensive perimeter fencing project the KBA plans for their northern and eastern boundaries. Commission members had questions about the fencing material and whether the proposed fencing would compliment the fencing at Creekside. Mr. Duncan said the proposed fencing iN411 compliment other interior fencing and natural resource protection projects they have in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture. He said that in addition to KBA's mission of historic interpretation, they also try to be the best Frederick County Phinning Commission Minutes of May 15, 2002 Page 868 -8 - stewards of the land as far as the protection of natural resources and the continuance ofthe agricultural heritage of the property. Mr. Duncan said their intention is to use a cattle fence and the material will be American Wire or woven wire. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the folloNving person came forward to speak: Mr. Doug Dolan stated that he had the privilege of co-chairing the Battlefield Task Force back in 1993 and 1995 and, therefore, was present to speak in favor of the grant application. Mr. Dolan said that the Kernstown Battlefield was the site of two very significant battles during the Civil War and was the keystone of the Battlefield Network Plan for Winchester -Frederick County and it also ties in to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation's network throughout the Valley. He added that the Kernstown Battlefield is probably the best interpretive site in terns of maintaining its historic significance. The P1auling Commission reviewed the grant application and expressed their support of the County contributing $1,000. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Conunission does hereby unanimously recommend support ofthe Kemsto«m Battlefield Association's submittal ofthe Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation Implementation Project Grant Application for the acquisition of perimeter fencing at Kernstoivn Battlefield and also recommends support of a $1,000 contribution by Frederick County. ELECTION OF ERIC R. LAWRENCE SECRETARY FOR 2002 Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Conunissioner Ours, the Frederick County Plarn Jing Conunission does hereby unanimously elect Eric R. Lawrence as Secretary of said Conunission for the remainder of 2002. BY-LAWS FOR SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Straub suggested that subcommittees ofthe Planning Conunission establish by- laws, similar to those used by the Planning Commission, so that if the Chairman or Vice Chairman are not available, the other members of the subcommittee have a guide to the conduction of the meeting. The consensus of the Commission was that Mrs. StrauVs suggestion was reasonable. Chairman DeHaven requested that the staff draft a simple one-page document that each of the two subcommittees could review and then bring to the Planning Commission for discussion. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 2002 Page 869 ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. -9 - No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. by a Respectfully submitted, Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Cozmnission Minutes of May 15, 2002 Page 870 REZONING APPLICATION #06-02 DALRYMPLE Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: June 6, 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: 06/19/02 Pending Board of Supervisors: 07/10/02 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 3.18 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) District. LOCATION: This property is located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Berryville Pike (Route 7), and Valley Mill Road (Route 659). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-3 0, 54F-3 -A, 54F -3-A 1 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned B2 (Business General) District Use: Vacant South: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Residential East: Zoned B2 (Business General) District Use: Commercial - 220 Seafood RP (Residential Performance) District Residential West: Zoned B2 (Business General) District Use: Commercial RP (Residential Performance) District Residential REZ #06-02, Dalrymple Page 2 June 6, 2002 PROPOSED USE: Commercial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Trans ortation: The application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 7/716/659, the VDOT facilities which would provide access to the property. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition, for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of- way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. See attached VDOT comments dated 3/25/02. Fire Marshal: Recommendations: Sprinkler system and automatic fire alarm system. Plan approval recommended. Greenwood Volunteer Fire & Rescue: The only noted question is do we really want to create another way to get onto Route 7 by by-passing the light? This may cause more accidents. County Engineer: We have no comments at this time. We reserve the right to perform a detailed review at the time of the site plan submission. Sanitation Authori : No comment. Health Department: Keep fuel tanks 100'+ from existing wells. Keep sewer lines 50'+ from wells. Abandon all other wells as per the requirements in the water well regulations. Existing septic tanks must be pumped and removed or pumped and filled with suitable fill material. Restaurant permits are required. Historic Resources Advisory Board: No comments on this rezoning request. City of Winchester: Please see attached letter from Tim Youmans, Director of Planning, dated I0/3I/0l. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning map (USGS Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the five parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning as R2 (Residential Limited) District. On February 14, 1990, the R-2 District zoning classification was modified to RP (Residential Performance), during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. Prior to the redistricting, the subject parcels were part of the Stonewall Magisterial District. REZ #06-02, Dalrymple Page 3 June 6, 2002 2) Location The five parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning are located on the south side of Berryville Pike (Rt. 7); and on the east side of Valley Mill Road. There is an existing access road (Route 716) that extends along the front of the subject property and intersects Valley Mill Road. The subject property abuts a B2 parcel on the northwest, RP property to the southwest, a restaurant along the northeast property line, and RP property on the southeast. Rt. 7 is classified as a major arterial roadway. There are three existing structures on the site, to be removed prior to the development. The subject property is located in the Redbud Magisterial District, and is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). 3) Site Suitability The site is not located in a flood plain, and there are no wetlands present on the site. Approximately 29,150 sq. ft (.67 Ac.) of the site has slopes greater than 15%, and this area is generally located along the eastern property line. Approximately 37,000 sq. ft. (.84 Ac.) of the site is currently wooded. The trees mostly consist of second generation growth, one -inch to three-inch caliper, and brush as undergrowth. The soils on the site are listed in the Soil Survey of Frederick County Virginia as moderate to severe for building site development. The site has access to public water and sewer. Based on a demand of 1,000 g.p.d. the projected water demands for the site would be 3,180 g.p.d. According to Mr. John Whitaker of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the existing water line has adequate capacity to support the proposed rezoning. Currently, there are several wells on the site. 4) Potential Impacts & Issues a.) Transportation Impact Analysis Statement The subject site could have access from both Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659) and Berryville Pike (Route 7). Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement advises that traffic generation from the 3.18 acres requested to be rezoned will produce 1,992 vehicle trips per day on the existing road system, as calculated utilizing The Institute of Transportation of Engineers Trip Generation 6`h Edition, for a fast food restaurant and a convenience store. As part of this rezoning, the applicant requests to discontinue the existing Rt. 716 and Valley Mill Road entrance; the entrance would be relocated further east on Valley Mill Road. REZ #06-02, Dalrymple Page 4 June 6, 2002 Review Agency Comment The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has reviewed the Rezoning Concept plan. VDOT comments first on the proximity of the proposed site to I-81. If VDOT were to approve an entrance, there could be no guarantee that the location would not be impacted by the widening of I-81 in the immediate vicinity. VDOT affirms that Rt. 716 should be retained as an open operating facility for public access for users on and through the site with properly dedicated right- of-way to the Commonwealth of Virginia. With the proposed extension of Rt. 716 along 659, VDOT feels an acceptable headlight glare barrier (not vegetative) should be located between Rt. 716 and Rt. 659 (Valley Mill Road). VDOT also states that Rt. 716 should be one-way south where it is parallel with Rt. 659. If so, the 24' proposed roadway width would be acceptable with curb. Planning Staff Comment The applicant states that 60 percent of the new traffic would utilize Valley Mill Road, and 40 percent Berryville Pike. The 2000 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes Jurisdiction Report 34 indicates that the average annual daily traffic (AADT) counts for Valley Mill Road was 6,100. Counts for Berryville Pike were 24,000 AADT. Based on these assumptions, the proposed use would introduce an additional 1,195 VPD onto Valley Mill Road. This increases the traffic on Valley Mill Road to 7,295, an increase of 20 percent. The proposed use would introduce 797 VPD onto Berryville Pike, an increase of seven percent over the current 24,000 AADT. b.)Water & Sewer Impact Analysis Statement There will be public water and sewer serving the site. An existing 16" waterline runs along the north and west line of the site, generally following existing right-of-ways. There are two fire hydrants located on or near the site. Based on a demand of 1,000 g.p.d., the projected water demands for the site would be 3,180 g.p.d. The applicant states that, per Mr. John Whitacre of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the existing water line has adequate capacity to support the proposed rezoning. Currently there are several wells on the site, and the existing wells will be used to irrigate the site landscaping. An existing gravity sewer is located along Valley Mill Road approximately 275' south of the intersection of Route 7 and Valley Mill Road. Based on a demand of 1,000 g.p.d., the projected flows for the site would be 3,180 g.p.d. The applicant states that, per Mr. John Whitaker of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the existing sewer line has adequate capacity to support the proposed rezoning. REZ #06-02, Dalrymple Page 5 June 6, 2002 Review Agency Comments The Frederick County Sanitation Authority had no comment on their review sheet submission. Staff Comments Staff would note that there is also a City of Winchester sewer main in close proximity to the site and that if the applicant intends to utilize the City's sewer main, approval for connection should be through the Winchester Department of Public Utilities. This could be addressed at the time of the Master Development Plan review. c.) Solid Waste Disposal For intense commercial uses (worst case scenario) based on the EPA environmental defense fund study for intense commercial uses, the amount of solid waste generated per 1,000 sq. ft. of building space would be approximately 10,500 lb./yr. This results in approximately 64,050 lb, of waste generated per year. d.) Impact on Community Facilities The County's Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model projects an impact to fire and rescue services of $43,621. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 06/19/02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The 3.18 -acre site, comprised of five parcels zoned RP (Residential Performance), is within the Urban Development Area and the Sewer and Water Service Area. Adjoining these tracts on the east and on the west are existing B2 tracts. Furthermore, the site is adjacent to Interstate 81, Exit 315, and is consistent with the Idealized Interchange Development Pattern included within the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff would note that the applicant does not specifically identify mitigation efforts to offset the anticipated impacts on the County's fire and rescue services, nor does the applicant consider the impact such a use would have on the public as they exit the interstate and enter our community, as well as the adjoining residential uses. Futhermore, staff would note that the Rezoning Concept Plan, submitted with this application, is not a proffered document; therefore, it should only be utilized for illustrative purposes. The applicant should be prepared to address the concerns raised in this report, as well as the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\REZONING\Staff Repon\2002OWrymplempd U C .'J C C 10 1-4 IL n C D O U x .N L N "U W L LL 1p N Lo O .-a to O R 9 OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: PIN 54F -A30, etc.. Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Business Costs of Impact Cmft INET. MODU E-Cmdils to-baJake Total Potential Adjustment For REAL EST VAL $4,421,324 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap, Future CIPI Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per FIRE & RESCUE 4&a 'petal F�c�Lllies col sum only) QPg-rap-"uIR ExAW d1D0=. Taxes, 9thw (Unadjt s� ted) C,-ost.@alan FacHhies tmpa(A Owellino Unit Fire and Rescue Department $43,521 $0 $0 $43,521 ERR Elementary Schools $0 --- -- Middle Schools $0 $0 So $0 $0 $0 ERR High Schools $0 -- — Parks and Recreation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ERR Public Library $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ERR Sheriffs Offices $0 $1,350 $0 $0 $1,350 $1,350 $0 ERR Administration Building $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ERR Other Miscellaneous Facilities $0 $15,654 $3,150 $18,804 $18,804 $0 ERR SUBTOTAL $43,621 $17,005 $3,150 $0 $20,155 $20,155 $23,466 ERR LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $2,641,117 $2,641,117 $2,641.117$' ERR NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT ERR INDEX: "1.0" if Cap. Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" If Rev -Cost Bal, '0.0" 9 Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 1.433 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are Input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input In row total of second column (zero if negative): included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future open cap equip taxes paid In third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid In fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include Interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 915/01 ERL P.I.N.s 54F -A-30, 30A, 31, and 5417-1-9A, 9 Rezoning: Assumes 3.18 acres zoned B2 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. Funkhouser, Rhonda - )m: Funkhouser, Rhonda :nt: Monday, March 25, 2002 2:55 PM To: 'Henk Sterenberg w/ Chester Engineers' Cc: Melnikoff, Steve; Coffman, Homer; Heironimus, David (Dave) Subject: 7 -Eleven / Route 7, Berryville Pike @ Route 659, Valley Mill Road / Frederick County A VDOT review has been completed on the Rezoning Concept Plan dated May, 2001 for the referenced project. Our first comment revisits the caveat statement concerning the proximity of the proposed site to Interstate Route I-81. There can be no guarantee by VDOT that in the event of an approved entrance being granted by VDOT, that the location would not be impacted by widening of I-81 in the immediate vicinity. We are providing general approval of the Rezoning Concept Plan referenced above, based primarily on the fact that the plan acknowledges the affirmed VDOT position that Route 716 should be retained as an open operating facility for public access for all users around, on and through the site property with properly dedicated right-of-way to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Other comments, which have been established prior to site plan stage development due to the overall complexity of issues surrounding the site, are restated for continuity. The desirable entrance access to Route 7 should be located as far east on the site as practical. An acceptable minimum distance would be 300' east of Route 659 intersection radius termini to proposed entrance west radius termini. Entire site frontage along Route 7 should provide appropriate curb and gutter CG -6 with face of curb established at 14' from existing edge of pavement. • The drainage analysis should include the site discharge on existing series of culverts under the 220 Seafood entrance (on Commonwealth of Virginia right-of-way). This should address culvert size required to accommodate cfs volume at inlet end (receiving additional cfs from site). Comments addressing proposed extension of Route 716 along existing Route 659: • An acceptable headlight glare barrier (not vegetative) between Route 716 and Route 659 should be provided. Route 716 should be one way south where parallel/concentric with Route 659. If so, the 24' proposed roadway width would be acceptable with curb. VDOT would continue to reserve the opportunity for detailed review of any site plan proposal. -here are any questions, please call. Barry J. Sweitzer Trans. Roadway Engineer NO\!— 5-01 MON 8:44 REX DALRYMPLE CITY OF WINC ESTE ., MEMORANDUM TO: Tim Youmans Director - Planning FROM: Dale E. Lehnig, P. E. ( ' Project Engineer - Public Utilities tJ DATE: October 31, 2001 ` SUBJECT: 7 -Eleven j Route 7 @ Valley Mill Road I, Frederick County 4109973093 P_01 GINIA YA Rouss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-1815 FAX: 540-722-3618 TAD: 540-722-0782 Web Site: r� .Iy�yvpy p} �vir►chesterva.us �D L tJ 0 V Vt ,.' I I' � 1 I, DCT 3 1 2001 i ALJ We have reviewed the following: 1. 7 -Eleven, Route 7 at Valley Mill Road, Frederick County, Sheets land 2 of 2, including Sheet 1 - Rezoning Site Plan (dated 5/01), and Sheet 2 - Rezoning Land cape Plan (dated 5/01). Plans were prepared by: Chester Engineers, 818 West Diamond Avenue, aithersburg, MD 20878. 2. Rezoning Application Form and supporting documentation. based on our review we have the following comments: 1, The Rezoning Application Form and attached information note that the site will be served by public sewer and notes the location of the existing san�tary sewer. The report also notes that Frederick County Sanitation Authority stated that the line has adequate capacity for this project. The Report should clarify that the existing se er main Is a City of Winchester sewer main, and approval for connection should be through ti ie Winchester Department of Public Utilities - 2. The Plans do not show the proposed sanitary sewer c nnection. Plans need to show the location of the proposed sanitary sewer lateral(s), loca ions of cleanout(s), pipe sizes and materials. Connections must conform to the City of W nchester Standards. 3. If the proposed sewer connection point is a City of Wir chester sewer main, availability fees payable to the City of Winchester are applicable and a e based on the size of the proposed water meter(s), 4. The Plans should show the location(s) and size(s) of a proposed water meters. No error or omission in either the plans, calculations or application (whether these plans, calculations or applications have been reviewed by the City or not) shall permit or release the applicant and ddWgner from constructing this work in any other manner than that provided for in the City Ordinances. J • t,� f If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. cc: fife �c. Post-itm Fax N*, 7671 G-) T Fro 1 co, Co. aM Ph n Phone # L,9 Fax # Fax "Providing quality services to our citizens in a cc st-effective, efficient and courteous manner, while anticipating the future needs of our community." REZ # 06 - 02 Location Map For: Dalrymple PIN: 54F -1 -9,54F-1 -9A 54F -A -30,54F -3-A, 54F -3-A1 0 40 80 Feet IMPA.CT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF VALLEY MILL ROAD @ ROUTES 7 AND 716 A. SUITABILITY OF SITE • The site is located in Zone "C", areas of minimal flooding, per FIRM Community Panel 510063-0115-B. • Wetlands Per the National Wetland Inventory Maps, no wetlands are present on site. • Steep Slopes (15%+) Approximately 29,150 square feet (0.67 Ac.) of the site has slopes greater than 15%. The area is generally located along the eastern property line, see attached plan. • Mature Woodlands Approximately 37,000 square feet of the site is currently wooded. The area would not be considered a mature woodland area, generally the wooded area consist of second generation growth (1"-3" cal. trees) and undergrowth (brush). • Prime Agricultural Soils The soils on site are listed in the Soil Survey of Frederick County Virginia to be fairly to moderately well suited for cultivated crops. Currently no agricultural activities are present on site. • On-site Soil/Bedrock Conditions consist of Berks Channery Silt Loam (1B, 2-7% slopes, shale bedrock at 30") and Clearbrook Channery Silt Loam (913, 2-7% slopes, shale bedrock at 27"). • The soils are listed in the Soil Survey of Frederick County Virginia as moderate to severe for building site development. During the site plan stage a Geotechnical Engineer will evaluate the onsite soils and make recommendations for the proposed development. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The subject property is surrounded by State rights-of-way, Rt. 7 and Rt. 716, to the north and Rt. 659 to the west (site is triangularly shaped). It abuts residential properties to the southeast and a restaurant along the northeast property line. The closest residential building to the subject property boundary line is approximately 8' and the furthest is 235'. The 220 seafood restaurant is approximately 300 feet from the subject property boundary line. In areas where residential properties are adjoining the subject boundary line Category "B" landscape buffers and maximum setbacks are provided to minimize impacts. Orientations of buildings are such to face away from these residences. Building and area lighting is designed as non -glare and forward throw to minimize lighting "spillover" onto adjacent properties. Vapor recovery systems employed on the gasoline dispensers minimizes odor. Trash receptacles are provided throughout the site. The receptacles will be screened with 8' high sight proof enclosures. C. TRAFFIC The subject site will have access from both Valley Mill (Rt. 659) and State Route 7. As part of this rezoning application a discontinuance of a portion of the existing Rt. 716 right-of-way is being requested. The discontinuance will take place from the intersection of Rt. 716 and Valley Mill Road east to the proposed entrance on Rt. 7. Based on information provided by the Virginia Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Division the average annual daily traffic volumes for the Route 7 and Route 659, Valley Mill Road are: Route 7 24,000 Route 659 6,100 Trip generation rates were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report (6`b Edition). The following table summarizes the Average Trip Ends (ATE) and the morning and evening peak hour trips for each proposed use. USE - ATE =VPD A1�I PEAK PM PEAK' ADJACENT RESTAURANT 672 336 33 CONVENIENCE 2495 1248 132 175 STORE FASTFOOD 1488 744 150 100 RESTAURANT (3000 sf) TOTALS 3983 1992 1 282 1 275 It is estimated that the Route 7 entrance will receive approximately 40% of the exiting traffic, 797 vehicles and the Valley Mill entrance will receive 60%, 1195 vehicles, of the exiting traffic. With the discontinuance of Rt. 716, access to Valley Mill Rd. and eastbound Rt. 7 by the 220 Seafood restaurant patron will be via the portion of 716 to remain and the proposed public use ingress/egress easement across the subject property. From discussion with VDOT and the county it has become evident that the actual amount of traffic currently using Rt. 716 is minimal. For the purpose of this investigation it has been assumed that 15% of the restaurant traffic will use the Valley Mill entrance on the subject site. Thus an additional 50 vehicles per day will use the Valley Mill entrance. During the PM peak hour the restaurant generates 33 trip. According to the ITE Report the 64% of the vehicles would be entering the restaurant and 36% would be existing, thus an additional 12 vehicles would use the entrance during the PM peak hour. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The site will be served by public sewage. An existing gravity sewer is located along Valley Mill Road approximately 275' south of the intersection of Route 7 and Valley Mill Road. Based on a demand of 1000 gal./ Ac./day the projected flows for the site would be 3180 gal/day. Per Mr. John Whitaker, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the existing sewer line has adequate capacity to support the proposed rezoning. E. WATER SUPPLY The site will be served by public water. An existing 16" waterline runs along the northern and western property line of the site, generally following the existing right-of-ways. There are two fire hydrants located on or near the site. One located near the intersection of Valley Mill and Rt. 7 is located within the site and a second located near the eastern end of Rt. 716. The existing residences on site are currently served off of the 16" waterline. Based on a demand of 1000 gal./ Ac./day the projected water demands for the site would be 3180 gal/day. Per Mr. John Whitaker, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the existing water line has adequate capacity to support the proposed rezoning. Currently, the site has several wells located on it. The existing wells will be used to irrigate the site landscaping. F. DRAINAGE Currently the site drains in an easterly direction to an existing swale running along the eastern property line. The swale collects stormwater from the upstream drainage area via a series of pipes and ditches. The swale empties into a roadside ditch along Route 7. The proposed development will provide on-site stormwater management through the use a surface pond, generally located as indicated on the attached plan, northeast corner of site. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES Based on the EPA Environmental Defense Fund Study, for intense commercial uses (worst case), the amount of solid waste generated per 1000 square feet of building would be approximately 10,5001b./yr, thus the site would generate approximately 64,050 lb of waste per year. The site will implement a recycling program H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES There are no known historic sites present on-site nor within the surrounding properties. I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES From the Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model the estimated impact to community facilities, Fire and Rescue only, is $43,621. A copy of the output model is attached for your review. VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1 "=2000' REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUN'T'Y, 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, 147 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: kox PA i. ( Y o Pi.. s Telephone: 3 c;l - Address: r -)A i. tzym Pi. 2. Property Owner (if different than above) L ,k�E SEE ATfi�c+j -f --, I I fi , A Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Telephone: Telephone: 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map - Plat Deed to property Verification of taxes paid_ 11 Agency Comments Fees impact Analysis Statement Proffer Statement 5. The Code of Virginia allows yrs to request full disclosure of ownership in reflation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: 6. A) Current Use of the Property: �Z� t r•) t t -A L- B) Proposed Use of the Property: ��1�i t�`;1��J�� ;�rr `i�r✓j 7. Adjoining Property: k�A4. PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 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): VAA-L-e-I M r t,t_ Vc AI:R rrje . 63q) i A -T t�-m • 74� r fe . --- 12 Information be Sub mitted for CapitalImpact i n 7 �'�f:,�1r�'�K� �'�t?,�+`.NA•S`xi t+�`:�.My ,rP'ur:'; FSLxiAd"J�+;*�+�d'�?'°,3J.4Ytd?ik�-;rt mi,.^� °'i ..:+R tStrl hywkz "'��Er�^AiF['ntFb3+E�SQ� 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 5A -f- A-30, -a4F-3-A i 54F- 3-,A I lam'( , Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: Districts High School: _ Middle School: _ Elementary School; 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 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: Office: Retail: 1 Restaurant: Square Footage of Proposed Uses 13 Service Station: -Manufacturing: Warehouse: Other: 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned,do hereby respectfullymake application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance aid to change the zoning'map of Frederick County, Virginia_ I (we) authorize FiederiA County Officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understandthat 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 hear�g and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road light -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. licaa + Date: A pp t{s: ) ` , � a_ '�` q y (f1" rn C om., Date: Owner(s): Date: Date: 14 OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES TO BE REZONED: The G. W. Morns Property: Clara E. Proffitt, being the same person as Clara E. Morris Proffitt, 3230 Elm View Road, Apt. 337 Roanoke, Va 24014 Ms. Proffitt's care giver: Ms. Debbie Mitchell 4214 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, Va 24018 - L. Pauline Keefauver 1290 Broad Street West, Apt L18 Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936 Rupert B. Morris 456 Spruce Drive Warrenton, MO 63383 Robert E. Heckman 110 Garfield Street Waynesboro, PA 17268 Douglas A. Heckman 1419 Apt B Winterpark Circle Baltimore, Md 21221 2. The Douglas E. Russell Property: Sandra DeLaet Hawthorne Road Charlestown, WV 25414 Michael Wesley Morris Audrey M. Morris, 11601 Lockwood Drive, Apt T4 Silver Spring, MD 20904 Verona Morris Crim Route 2 Box 196B Martinsburg, WV 25414 Douglas E. Russell, Jr. and Betty Jean Russell. 244 Parkway St. Winchester, VA 22601 3. The Simpson Property: Wallace E. Simpson, Sr. and Janice R. Simpson 3219 Blundell Road Falls Church, VA 22042 LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS FOR REZONING APPLICATION Virginia Dept. of Transportation Mary Patton Lonas 153 Dowell J Circle Winchester, Va 22602 Ronald D. Overstreet and Deborah M. 319 Pine Road Stephenson, VA 22656 54F -A -30A* 54F-1-8 and 54F -A -29A 54F-1-7 and 54F-1-5 County School Board of Clarke Co. 54-A-14 County School Board of Frederick Co. P. O. Box 3508 Winchester, Va 22604 This parcel is the Dowel I Howard Vocational School jointly owned by the two counties 220 Seafood Restaurant, L. C. 1514 Berryville Pike Winchester, Va 22602 Norman V. Garrison 1516 Berryville Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Donald G. Ganse and Cathy G. 177 Valley Mill Road Winchester, Va 22602 Development Co. of America P. O. Box 520 Westminster, Md 21158 54 -A -112C 54-A-111, 112,112A, 113 54 -A -112E, and 54 -A -112D 54 -A -99A * This strip of land is shown on the Frederick Co. Tax Map and listed on the land book with a reference to a highway plat in Highway Plat Book 7, page 235, but I can find no justification in the deed records or on the referenced plat to support the existence of this parcel. The Morris family owns everything between Valley Mill Road on the south and the right of way line of Rt 716(wherever that is) on the north, and between Simpson on the west and Russell on the east. . The tax map also shows an additional parcel of land lying between the Simpson parcel and the Morris land, but there is no evidence In the record to support this either. When I asked the Co. assessment people about these strips, they were unable to say why or when these strips were added to the tax map. I think your field survey will support my findings. -M -ay.. 27th, 1959, have personally appeared before me, in my county aforesaid, and aw nowledged the same. Given under my hand and notarial seal this 2 day of June 1959. ( SEAL) 0. F. SPITLER C. F. SPITLER Notary Public, Lorain County, Ohio Notary c Nay commission expires April 22, 1962. G. W. MORRIS LAND IS77°45`E -27.5'v46'E- 212.65 1 R -o -w 16,583.5 SQ. FT. M'q 155, /IV 4gti IWAM 5.1 PT. BEG, IRON PIN / �`0 A; �p N W IY W CD The above Plat is a Survey of the southern Portion of the Eugene Russell I-an.d. The said Portion lies south of the Berryville Pike - Rt. 7, just C: C: • PC REVIEW: 06/19/02 BOS REVIEW: 07/10/02 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #09-02 MARY S. GROUNDWATER ("Frog Eye Fiber Emporium") Cottage Occupation - Instructional Classes and Retail Sales LOCATION: This property is located at 347 Schoolmarm Lane. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 62-A-22 and 62 -A -21A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential, Agricultural and Undeveloped PROPOSED USE: Cottage Occupation (1. In-home studio for teaching classes in spinning, weaving, knitting and dying wool. 2. Sales of spinning wheels, notions, home/farm-grown fibers and commercial fibers, and related literature.) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 620, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use; however, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Eire Marshal: NTFPA 299 requires a 14.5 -foot vertical clearance over the "entire width" of roadway. A previous incident at a separate dwelling on the same roadway did not allow fire apparatus to reach the scene due to the growth of trees, brush, and shrubs. During this Mary S. Groundwater Page 2 June 7, 2002 incident, a $300,000 fire apparatus was damaged. Plan approval is contingent upon improvements and maintenance of obstructions. Inspections Department: Area of building being utilized shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 309, Use Group M (Mercantile) of the BOCA National Building Code/ 199. Other code that applies is CABO A117.1-92, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Please submit a floor plan of the area and apply for a change of use building permit. Area shall not be utilized until permit is issued, inspections approved and new certificate of occupancy issued. Health Department: No record of approval for a sewage disposal system serving parcel 62-A-22 has been located. There does appear to be a system serving the property which was not malfunctioning on 4/29/02. Specific system components would have to be uncovered to verify the existence of an acceptable system. Planning and Zoning: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for Cottage Occupations in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The applicant's proposed cottage occupation would be in conjunction with the sheep farm located on their property at the end of Schoolmarm Lane. The applicant is proposing to conduct instructional classes in spinning, weaving, knitting, and dying wool. In addition, the applicant would like to sell products associated with this craft, including spinning wheels and fibers. The classes and sales activities would take place in an existing 525 -square -foot studio in the applicant's home and there would be no employees. Classes and sales would generally be conducted on an appointment -only basis. There were no disapproving agency review comments. However, the Fire Marshal requires a 14.5 -foot vertical clearance the entire width of Schoolmarm Lane. The applicant is willing to provide this vertical clearance along the entire lane. Staff feels the proposed use would not adversely affect adjoining properties and it would be appropriate to approve this application for a conditional use permit. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 6-19-02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use to be appropriate, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. CUP #09-02, Frog Eye Fiber Emporium Page 3 June 7, 2002 2. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and should not exceed four (4) square feet in size. 3. Any change of use or expansion of this use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. O: \Agendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2002\Groundwater.wpd GROUNDWATER CLOVERDALE FARMS, INC. 62 A , 22 52 A 305 SEBASTIAN 62 A 2,� �i GROUNDWATER 62 A 21A BOYD 62 A 23 DAVIDSON 62 A 21 CUP #09-02 Location Map For: Mary S. Groundwater PIN: 62 - A - 22 N wire 0 80 160 Feet RECEIVED Submittal Deadline MAY 17 2002 P/C Meeting BOS Meeting 'FP�,I'CTt'bN F`Qk' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA �- - r -/-02- 7-/0-41- 1. _-7-f®-, - 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: ARD,-) " 7?z.> A T< r2 ADDRESS: TELEPHONE 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) nAAX � rC3•�Q. 4. The property has a road frontage of 017!7; feet and a depth of feet and consists of j( acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by ;2,e i -� (}�,�iQySe,Rc�� as evidenced by deed from („,,,, recorded 2 4 1 (previous owneT) in deed book no. 17/ on page (jo- as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. Magisterial District Current Zoning .; 7. Adjoining Property: ZONING T� � USE North = q c 41 East bjo(� 05 South 1='! 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing)_,._ 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME -;�VWC-6--- JR, ,LAVJ% 5"QN i7�e ADDRESS Z l LI PROPERTY ID# (0 a nl)D�-) A 060(),� 10 NAME C /.,0W; -R iV �� r-IgR 15 %IV6, ADDRESS w(.6 J PROPERTY ID# G q ()t)6a A 060D -30S NAME :! P -,T �� Y_'? _* ADDRESS ;fQ (, lt% y - G =l? A u _ PROPERTY ID# &a y000 PQ oo o , 3 o NAME TA Qw L- L, S E b R Sl- i A ADDRESS -?,L; `g PROPERTY ID# Lo --� onoo A 6WQ OA D I M01 PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS PROPERTY IDI NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 7- 2- SC=BIASTMS FAR, *, NJQ'7�-U S 767 N) FA R� I 51"'ID WV6 P- 11 A Y v �=Aizm A -2z Z`•6 12. Additional comments if any: t" I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address -3)4 -7 Owners' Telephone No. -5 IA o %6-6o 2- -7 l -7 TO BE COMPLETED Bi ZONING ADMIINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: ZI C3 crp-D- (3-r, r j PC � 1 r' him. Slz I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address -3)4 -7 Owners' Telephone No. -5 IA o %6-6o 2- -7 l -7 TO BE COMPLETED Bi ZONING ADMIINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: i BKl7IPC0o05 Jee _2Q� tRS ACRES tt� \I, /9/11'93c' Zoned: RA eI rte 4/ Use: Residential gyp/4X � � 6 t6� �AF F 238 giro \ IAF <�j '7d /IRF / /�,s� 0 v/// \y� 0/ P. yy� o / QQ�p � LEGEND IRS - Iron Rod Set IRF =Iron Rod Found C.P. = Corner Fence Post IRF / r CRES / v / 0 S50°35'40'W 946.71' �S44°42'51'W 'lRF1SCFFsr r 191.62' M95°22W-W 17&.23' Minimum Sethac* Reauirements: As Shown NOTES: 1. No Title Report fumished. 2. Easements may exist that are not shown. 3. The tract of land shown hereon is delineated on Frederick County, Virginia Tax Map 62 ® as Parcel 21. 4. Existing unimproved road used for ingress 6 egress is the same road shown as Road No. 654 on a Plat of Survey by Richard U. Goods dated October, 1956 and recorded among the land records of Frederick County, Virginia In Deed Book 244 at Page 546. Y c�jO j FINAL PLAT TTE4=3X, g� r r, / 9 / MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION OFT ccLA-"c TFacf 2 s 15.000 A ROBERT B. GROUNDWATER ET UX Zoned: n 1 BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Use: Agricultural ACRES tt� \I, /9/11'93c' Zoned: RA eI rte 4/ Use: Residential gyp/4X � � 6 t6� �AF F 238 giro \ IAF <�j '7d /IRF / /�,s� 0 v/// \y� 0/ P. yy� o / QQ�p � LEGEND IRS - Iron Rod Set IRF =Iron Rod Found C.P. = Corner Fence Post IRF / r CRES / v / 0 S50°35'40'W 946.71' �S44°42'51'W 'lRF1SCFFsr r 191.62' M95°22W-W 17&.23' Minimum Sethac* Reauirements: As Shown NOTES: 1. No Title Report fumished. 2. Easements may exist that are not shown. 3. The tract of land shown hereon is delineated on Frederick County, Virginia Tax Map 62 ® as Parcel 21. 4. Existing unimproved road used for ingress 6 egress is the same road shown as Road No. 654 on a Plat of Survey by Richard U. Goods dated October, 1956 and recorded among the land records of Frederick County, Virginia In Deed Book 244 at Page 546. GRAPHIC SCALE W FEET FINAL PLAT TTE4=3X, 300' 150' SCALE: 1'-300' MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION OFT ccLA-"c qp ROBERT B. GROUNDWATER ET UX �:�1ZH BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRG NIA GEORCATE NO .JANUARY 9, 1992 SCALE: 1'=.?00' 1197 Vibert w. cLffor�s associates, inc. f0 JIRG!N1A- FRED:RICX COUNTY, SCT. LAND gJ Enp—, t. -d PI.— This instrument of writing was .3"1m.acA �•. S.—y— to nc t'e 19�'rK+ Wiifi �tiff�te SHEET 2 of 2 O! c�F.: i71c'i�dr;16O tfgreie 8nr02xDd we5 a r�it;ai t,, rocord. • C • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II �t RE: Public Hearing - Proposed Amendments to 165-54B, Family Division Lots, and 165- 156, Definitions. DATE: June 5, 2002 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered a proposal to define immediate family members. The Zoning Ordinance provides for several types of land divisions in the RA (Rural Areas) District. One type of land division is a family division lot which provides for the ability of a family member to sell or gift a lot that is a minimum of two (2) acres to qualifying family members. Section 15.2244, of the Code of Virginia, states that a member of the immediate family is defined as, "a person who is a natural or legally defined offspring, spouse, sibling, grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the owner. In addition, any such locality may include aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews in its definition of immediate family." Clarification of who qualifies as an immediate family member will assist staff and local land surveyors in advising land owners if they qualify for the creation of a family division lot. Staff has prepared an amendment which provides a definition for immediate family member and provides for the appropriate reference section of the Code of Virginia. This amendment has been discussed by the DRRS, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. All bodies felt the amendment was appropriate and should be advertised for public hearing. Please find attached the proposed text amendment that was recommended by the DRRS. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider this language and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final resolution. JFC/ch Attachment U.iCOA,LLIl7TEESDRRSU'rojeclsllmmediate Family - Family Lot Divisioti.YWOSPfiblicHearingMemo. wpd 107 North Kent Street ® Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Current Zoning Ordinance Requirement 165-54B Family division lots. On any parcel which contained seven acres or more prior to the adoption of this article, lots as small as two acres may be created, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) Lots are conveyed to members of the immediate family or the owner of record of the parent tract. (2) Only one such lot shall be permitted per family member. (3) One parcel of at least five acres in size shall remain intact following the division. (4) The creation of all such lots shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Frederick County Subdivision Chapter and §15.1-466Al2.of the Code of Virginia. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment 165-54B Family division lots. On any parcel which contained seven acres of more prior to the adoption of this article, lots as small as two acres may be created, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) Lots are conveyed to members of the immediate family or the owner of record of the parent tract. (2) Only one such lot shall be permitted per immediate family member. (3) One parcel of at least five acres in size shall remain intact following the division. (4) The creation of all such lots shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Frederick County Subdivision Chapter and § 15.' 466A!2-.15.2-2244 of the Code of Virginia. 165-156 Definitions. Immediate Family - any person who is a natural or legally defined offspring, spouse, sibling, grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the property owner. Complete Zoning Ordinance Amendment 165-54B Family division lots. On any parcel which contained seven acres of more prior to the adoption of this article, lots as small as two acres may be created, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) Lots are conveyed to members of the immediate family or the owner of record of the parent tract. (2) Only one such lot shall be permitted per immediate family member. (3) One parcel of at least five acres in size shall remain intact following the division. (4) The creation of all such lots shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Frederick County Subdivision Chapter and 15.2-2244 of the Code of Virginia. 165-156 Definitions. Immediate Family - any person who is a natural or legally defined offspring, spouse, sibling, grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the property owner. PC REVIEW: 06/19/02 BOS REVIEW: 07/10/02 SUBDIVISION #12-02 KIM & MARIETTA WALLS TOWNHOUSES LOCATION: The property is located at 909 North Loudoun Street. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 54-A-50 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance); B2 (Business General) District; and City of Winchester Zone HR (High Density Residential); Land Uses: Residential and Retail SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of a 0.79 -acre tract into six townhouse lots REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter dated 3/13/02 from Philip A. Baker, Hwy. Permits & Subdivision Specialist Sr. Fire Marshal: Recommend residential sprinkler system. "Fire Lane" signs and markings required at all fire hydrants. Property owner is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of fire lane identification. Plan approval is recommended. Inspections Department: Townhouse dwellings shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 310, Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1996, and the 1995 CABO One and Two -Family Dwelling Code. Please note the requirements in table 705.2 ofBOCA for the Fire Rating of 2 hrs. for exterior walls on property. Subdivision #12-02, Kim & Marietta Walls Page 2 6/10/2002 Sanitation Authority: This project will be served by the City of Winchester. Developer will need to get a letter from FCSA stating that the Authority will allow the City to serve this part of the county. See attached letter dated 5122/02 from W. K Jones, P.E., Engineer - Director. Public Works: Recommends approval of building lots. Several issues concerning drainage and erosion and sediment control will be addressed on the Subdivision Design Plan. Parks and Recreation: Plan appears to meet the recreational unit requirements for this development; however, a summary of required, provided and usable open space is needed. Planning and Zoning: Public Meeting Requirement The Subdivision Ordinance requires that land divisions in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, without an approved master development plan, be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval (§144-12-B). The Master Development Plan (MDP) requirement may be waived, and has been waived for this project as permitted by §165- 134A. On May S, 2002, a letter from staff was provided to the applicant which granted a waiver to the MDP requirements This project contains land zoned RP and does not have an approved MDP; therefore, Board review and action is necessary. Cta ff R Pvi ew The subject subdivision request involves a concept to subdivide the subject property along the zoning district lines and to develop six (6) townhouse units. The subject property recently obtained approval (#01-99) to rezone a 0.60 acre portion of the property from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General). The site plan for the B2 portion of the property has been approved and all proffers associated with the rezoning have been satisfied. The applicant has submitted the required subdivision application and the required fee for the subdivision design plan. Exhibit "A" illustrates the subject property being bisected by the corporate limits of Winchester and Frederick County. Six (6) townhouse units are proposed in the Frederick County portion and eight townhouse units are proposed in the City of Winchester portion of the property. The illustrated Category "A" buffer is required to separate the zoning districts in the Frederick County portion of the property. 0:\Agendas\COMMENTS\SUBDIVISION\Kim & Marietta Walls.doc Subdivision #12-02, Kim & Marietta Walls Page 3 6/10/2002 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 06-19-02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant has not satisfied all review agency comments associated with this subdivision proposal. At the time of this staff report, the applicant has not provided a recommendation for approval from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The applicant has provided a VDOT review letter dated March 13, 2002. The letter does not provide plan approval recommendation but addresses plan detail revisions and a comment pertaining to trip generation data. The applicant is seeking approval of the conceptual layout while the subdivision design plan is currently being circulated for technical review. Staff is seeking administrative approval authority, therefore a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the subdivision request is desired. Should the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation, it would be appropriate prior to administrative approval, to require the applicant to: Provide language in the subdivision plan and final plats for the townhouse development pertaining to the establishment and maintenance of the required 50' common shared buffer and screening easement. O:\Agcndas\COMMENTS\SUBDIVISION\Kim & Marietta Walls.doc ENGINEIRING -l Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 1-01a:"� ii in ! 07" June 3, 2002 Frederick County Department of Public Works 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Atm: Joe Wilder, Assistant County Engineer Re: Kim & Marietta Walls Townhouse Project Dear Mr. Wilders: Greenway Engineering has submitted a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for the approval of six lots associated with the referenced project. The Planning Department has indicated that they will process this request for the June 19, 2002 Planning Commission meeting provided that a comment from your department is obtained. For the purpose of this submittal, your comment should indicate the appropriateness of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approving these lots. Your comment should also advise that all technical design issues associated with drainage and erosion and sedimentation control will need to be satisfied to obtain final Subdivision Design Plan approval. The Planning Department will need to receive this comment by Wednesday, June 5, 2002 in order to process this request for the June 19, 2002 meeting. I appreciate your willingness to provide the Planning Department and our company with this comment letter. Thank you once again for your assistance regarding this matter. Sincerely, Greenway Engineering ,L . tl Evan A. �yatt. AICP ' /Cc: Eric Lawrence, Planning Director ,z 6 JUN C 4 7002 DEPT: OF PLANNiNQ/DEVELOPMENT Engineers Surveyors l'e.iephone 540-662--41 85 f=:\Y 540-:' 22-9= 2S File #0 17J/AEAW/dis t"vmgreenwayeng.com COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - EDINBURG RESIDENCY' -.14031 OLD "VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 JERRY A. COPP RAY D. PETHTEL RESIDENT ENGINEER INTERIM COMMISSIONER March 13, 2Q02 TEL (540) 9B4-5600 FAX (540) 984 5607 Mr. Mark D. Smith, P.E. C/O Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Ref: Kim Walls Route 1308, North Braddock Street City of Winchester / Frederick County Dear Mr. Smith: We have reviewed your site plan dated February 27, 2002 for the referenced project. We have the following comments shown in red on the attached plan sheet and as follows: 1. North arrow should be shown on plan sheets. 2. DI -1 at south side property line should be replaced with a Type 3C DI. Drainage calculations should also be provided for drainage design on project. 3. Sight distance should be shown on plan sheet at the proposed commercial entrance. 4. VDOT standard design items should be shown for the following drainage items: DI -1, DI -313 and DI -3C. 5. Trip generation data on the cover sheet is for office use. This would need to be for townhouses. 6. Flow arrows should be on the plan sheet. After the above comments are addressed, please resubmit one set of plans for our review. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, f Philip A. Baker, Hwy. Permits & Subdivision Specialist Sr. PAB/rf z Enclosures WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING xc: Mr. Dave Heironimus, Mr. Evan Wyatt FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION +I AU THORI 'Y _ P.O. Box 1877 Winchester VA 32604-8377 JAMES T. ANDERSON, Chairman ROBERT N. CARPENTER. Vice-chairman ROBERT P. MOWERY, Sec -treasurer ,JOHN STEVEN'S RICHARD A. RGCXM AN DARWIN S. BRADEN May 22, 2002 Mir. Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Winchester VA 22602 REFERENCE: Kim & Marietta Walls Townhouse Site 909 North Loudoun Street PIN: 54-A-50 Dear Mr. Wyatt: Wellington H. ,;ones, ?.E.. Engineer-Direcn:r At their regular meeting, May 21, 2002, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority approved allowing the City of Winchester provide water and sewer service to the referenced property if they so desire. Should you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely yours, W. H. Jones, P. E. Engineer -Director /ths cf: Frank Sanders - City of Winchester Ph. — (540) 868-10li 1 Fax. — (5311) ,568-1,29 WATER AT YOUR SERVICE 'T y'� APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Date: 5/24/02 Application # �� Applicant/Agent: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Phone: (540) 662-4185 Owners Name: Kim & Marietta Walls Address: 1207 Cedar Creek Grade Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: 540 678-1628 Please list names of all owners, principals and/or majority stockholders: Kim & Marietta Walls Fee Paid C"1 � E I- i` MAY 2 3 2002 DEP 1-1 OF PLANNINQ,'DEVELOF,'NE;yT Contact Person: Evan Wyatt Phone: (540) 662-4185 Name of Subdivision: Kim & Marietta Walls Townhouse Subdivision Number of Lots: 6 Total Acreage 0.79 acres Property Location: 909 North Loudoun Street (Give State Rt. #, name, distance and direction from intersection) Magisterial District Stonewall Property Identification Number (PIN) 54-((A))-50 Property zoning and present use: RP (Residential Performance) District - Unimproved Adjoining property zoning and use: RP (Residential Performance) District - Residential; B2 (Business General) District - Retail; HR (High Density Residential) District - Residential Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes 11 No If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? Yes F� No What was the MDP title? N/A Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes n No F] If yes, specify what changes: F] Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) 1,700 sq.ft. Number and types of housing units in this development: Number 6 Types Two-bedromm townhouses KIM AND MARIETTA WALLS - TOWNHOUSES ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS NAME TAX MAP # ADDRESS Michael S. Weber 54-((A))-47 937 Martinsburg Pike, Winchester Gerald D. Brown 134-((4))-143 101 Locust Ave, Winchester Ruthanna W. Shell 134-((4))-142 943 N. Braddock St, Winchester Miller and Anderson, Inc 134-((5))-1,2,3 PO Box 543, Winchester Toan and Associates Lmtd Partnership 134-((5))-6 360-2 McGhee Rd, Winchester George G. Hower 114-((1))-157 1003 N. Braddock St, Winchester Mary V. Davies 114-((1))-158 1005 N. Braddock St, Winchester Mary M. Mills 54A-((2))-1 101 Star Fort Dr, Winchester Roy W. Ebbert 54A-((2))-2 103 Star Fort Dr, Winchester Jamie N. Wade 54A-((2))-16 100 Star Fort Dr, Winchester Marie Ann Morrison & Todd Fenton 54A-((2))-15 102 Star Fort Dr, Winchester i File #2210/AS/dls May,8,. 2002.. Mr. Austin Spitler Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 COUN'T'Y of FREDERICK 71 Department of PlanningJand Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Master Development Plan (MDP) Waiver Request; JKim and Marietta Walls Proposed Townhouses; Property identification Number (PIN) 54-A-50 Dear Mr. Spitler: On April 30, 2002, our department received a request for a waiver to the County's Master Development Plan requirements for the referenced parcel. The subject parcel is located in both the City of Winchester and Frederick County. The portion of the property located within Frederick County is .79 acres in area. T'ne portion of the property located within the City of Winchester is .78 acres. Access to the parcel is provided off of Route 1308 (North Braddock Street) and through an inter -parcel connector with the parcel immediately to the west, which has access to Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike). The proposed subdivision would create six (6) townhouses in the County and eight (8) townhouses in the City. A Master Development Plan waiver for "Kim and Marietta Walls - Proposed Townhouses" is consistent with the requirements of Section 165-134 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The subdivision contains less than ten (10) traditional detached single-family dwelling units; it is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or subdivision; it will be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and it does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of its zoning district and the intent of Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development will grant your request for a waiver to the requirement for a Master Development Plan. The waiver of the Master Development Plan for this project does not exempt this development from any site design or site development requirement specified in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, or any additional requirements ofthe Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Approval of this waiver is based on the design plan titled "Kim and Marietta Walls: Proposed Townhouses" dated February 27, 2002. An approved subdivision design plan shall be required for this development. Furthermore, be advised that the Board of Supervisors must approve the proposed subdivision of the existing parcel. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Jeremy Planner II JFC/ERL/ch cc: Eric Lawrence, Deputy Director Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator C: UeremylMaster Oevelapmeni Plansl Waiver Lette"IK&MWaI&Townhouses. wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 Z \I LINE IBE4RINCs rxiq W \ LI N 20'39'05" 1= 161.44' ul L2 N 45.44'00" L 12156' \ 0 o a \ w" _ S 45'2I'05" E - 338.41' TOTAL I� 156.42 ti gg ZONE: W!Lp.! ERfb 14 ZONE: 132 ` t4 cp PARKING AREA \ v e _ -RECREATION � � \ \ \ a � Rg :r- _ - AREA e \ ZONE: B2 \ \ \ `� No ZONING\\ ` � PARKING \ LINE 1 ao � I AREA \ CC 00 \rF� < �yo r�3o % \ / o 8 T HO ISE Ut ITS / a WIN HES R C• y ,p n ;n ZONE: HR o` Y `r N 40TOTAL AREA ■ 118,211 SQ. FT. '48'2S W 250.48' OR 2.1139 ACRES 50 25 0 50 100 �JG/1LEe I" = rin' DATE MAY 20, -2002 SCALE: C-50' DESIGNED BY. AS JOB NO. 2210 SHEET } OF 2 25' INACTIVE BUf-ER i ZONE 132 ZONE RP !, U >_ L 20.00' L 20.00' E - 13133' TOTAL PARKING AREA 20 10 O 20 40 5GALE. I" = 20' RECREATION AREA N1 44'21'01" W 115.13' 6 2,ft * PARKIWs co IgU F B3 o� or, Cc 00 o a It DATE., YAY 23,-2002 SCALE 1'-20' DESIGNED BY' AS .roe No. 2210 SHEET 2 OF 2 12020' TOTAL 2ID.0ID T 2000' T am mm' sm mm—jie I I 2 1 1,'700 I 3 I 1,7100 d� I I 4 1 5 I 1,100 1,10ID z zz z z U >_ L 20.00' L 20.00' E - 13133' TOTAL PARKING AREA 20 10 O 20 40 5GALE. I" = 20' RECREATION AREA N1 44'21'01" W 115.13' 6 2,ft * PARKIWs co IgU F B3 o� or, Cc 00 o a It DATE., YAY 23,-2002 SCALE 1'-20' DESIGNED BY' AS .roe No. 2210 SHEET 2 OF 2 • .-, u • COUNTY of ]FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II�. RE: Discussion - Existing Structure (Dwelling) Setbacks DATE: June 7, 2002 Section 165-55C of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows a subdivided parcel in the Rural Areas Zoning District to have reduced side and rear setbacks whenever created around an existing structure. The normally required side and rear setbacks for an orchard (200') or an agricultural use (100') do not apply for these types of lots. The problem with this requirement is that if a landowner wants a setback of 50' from a side or rear property line, all he would have to do is place a shed or any structure on the property, thus establishing an existing structure and circumventing the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. After discussion with staff, the DRRS believes the intent of this section was to have a 50' setback from an existing dwelling. The DRRS recommends that the following revisions be made to §165-550 Proposed Amendment: Existing strdetures dwellings. The side or rear setbacks for any lot created around an existing dwelling or any family division lot shall be fifty (50) feet from all lot lines. Please review the proposed amendment for discussion during the June 19, 2002, Board of Supervisors' meeting. During the meeting, staff will provide an illustration for explanation purposes. Changes are proposed only to Section 165-55C, Existing Structures. If the Planning Commission is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is appropriate, staff will forward them to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. A public hearing is required to be held prior to final approval. JFC/ch U:'.COMM177EESlDRZVrojecisWxisring Owelling Se[6acksWCOismssimLWemo.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FRiEDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-63995 MEMORANDUM k TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner I�- RE: Discussion - Minimum Setbacks for Commercial Telecommunication Facilities DATE: June 5, 2002 In response to a request from the Planning Commission, the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) has prepared a draft text amendment to Section 165-48.6, Commercial Telecommunication Facilities. If approved, the amendments will establish a minimum setback distance for commercial telecommunication towers when a setback waiver is requested, as well as require engineer certification when the requested setback is less than the tower height. The changes will provide clear guidelines for the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to follow when reviewing applications for a new commercial telecommunication tower. Please review the proposed amendments attached with this memorandum for discussion during the June 19, 2002 Board of Supervisors' meeting. Changes are proposed only to Section 165-48.6, Commercial Telecommunication Facilities. If the Planning Commission is of the opinion that the proposed amendments are appropriate, staff will forward them to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. A public hearing is required to be held prior to final approval. JFC/ch Attachment U.• I COMMITTEESIDRRSI PROJECTSI TELECOMMUNICATIONDAMAGEZONEIPCDISCUSSIONMEMO. WPD 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Proposed Amendment: 165-48.6. Commercial telecommunication facilities. [Added 4-9-1997; amended 7-8-19981 The intent of this section is to ensure that the siting of commercial telecommunication facilities occurs through the conditional use permit public hearing process defined in Article III of this chapter. Commercial telecommunication facilities that locate on existing structures and towers shall be exempt from the conditional use permit requirement. The siting of commercial telecommunication facilities is permitted within the zoning districts specified in this chapter, provided that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic value are not negatively impacted. A. Information required as part of the conditional use permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) A map depicting the search area used in siting each proposed commercial communications facility. (2) Identification of all service providers and commercial telecommunication facility infrastructure within a proposed search area. The applicant shall provide confirmation that an attempt to collocate on an existing telecommunication facility has been made. (3) Information demonstrating that the commercial telecommunication facility is in compliance with the Federal Communication Commissions established ANSUIEEE standards for electromagnetic field levels and radio frequency radiation. (4) An affidavit signed by the landowner stating that he/she is aware that he/she may be held responsible for the removal of the commercial telecommunications facility as stated in § 165-48.6B(7). B. The following standards shall apply to any property in which a commercial telecommunication facility is sited, in order to promote orderly economic development and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties: (1) The Planning Commission may reduce the required setback distance for commercial telecommunication facilities as required by § 165-24B(6) (7) of this chapter if it can be demonstrated that the location is of equal or lesser impact. When a reduced setback is requested for a distance less than the height of the tower, a certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification to the Planning Commission that the tower is designed, and will be constructed, in a manor that if the tower collapses for any reason the collapsed tower Mll be contained in an area around the tower with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of the base of the tower. hi no case shall the setback distance be reduced less than 1/2 the distance of the tower height. Commercial telecommunication facilities affixed to existing structures shall be exempt from setback requirements, provided that they are located no closer to the adjoining property line than the existing structure. 2) Monopole -type construction shall be required for new commercial telecommunication towers. The Planning. Commission may allow lattice -type construction for new telecommunication towers that are located outside the Urban Development Area and are not adjacent to properties that are identified historic sites. 3) Advertising shall be prohibited on commercial telecommunication facilities except for signage providing ownership identification and emergency information. No more than two signs shall be permitted. Such signs shall be limited to 1.5 square feet in area and shall be posted no higher than 10 feet above grade. 4) When lighting is required on commercial telecommunication facility towers, dual lighting shall be utilized which provides daytime white strobe lighting and nighttime red pulsating lighting unless otherwise mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission. Strobe lighting, shall be shielded from ground view to mitigate illumination to neighboring properties. Equipment buildings and other accessory structures operated in conjunction with commercial telecommunication facility towers shall utilize infrared lighting and motion -detector lighting to prevent continuous illumination. 5) Commercial telecommunication facilities shall be constructed with materials of a galvanized finish or painted a noncontrasting blue or gray unless otherwise mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communication Commission. 6) Commercial telecommunication facilities shall be adequately enclosed to prevent access by persons other than employees of the service provider. Appropriate landscaping and opaque screening shall be provided to ensure that equipment buildings and other accessory structures are not visible from adjoining properties, roads or other rights-of-way. 7) Any antenna or tower that is not operated for a continuous period of 12 months shall be considered abandoned, and the owner of such tower shall remove same within 90 days of receipt of notice from the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. Removal includes the removal of the tower, all tower and fence footers, underground cable and support buildings. If there are two or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower. If the tower is not removed within the ninety -day period, the county will remove the facility and a lien may be placed to recover expenses. U: I COMMIITEESIDRRSIProjectsl TelecommunicationDamageZonel texiamendmentl65-48.6. wpd C7 COUNTY of FRF-DERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors Frederick County Planning Commissioners FROM: Eric Lawrence, Planning Director RE: Planning Department Project Priorities - Calendar Year 2002 DATE: June 6, 2002 Each year the Planning Department seeks guidance from the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission pertaining to the ranking of projects associated with the departmental work program. During the Planning Commission Retreat in March, staffpresented information on Residential Growth trends in the Rural Areas and the VAPA Tool Kit in an effort to initiate discussion. The discussion session in the afternoon revealed various issues for the department project priorities. A summary of these issues have been attached. Please find attached a summary sheet which provides a brief description of the work program items identified by staff, as well as rating tables which identify long-range planning projects and current planning projects. It is staff's belief that the Planning Department can undertake a long-range planning project and a current planning project simultaneously, as these projects are typically accomplished through the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) and the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS), respectively. Please review this information and take the opportunity to provide a ranking for each identified project. This process ensures that staff is addressing the tasks that are considered to be of greatest importance to the decision makers. The project with the highest ranking should be identified with a one and subsequent projects should be ranked accordingly. Additional rows have been incorporated into each table to allow for additional projects to be identified. Please complete these tables and forward your results to our department prior to the retreat. Staff will tabulate the cumulative results of the project rankings and discuss the results with the retreat meeting participants. ERL/ch Attachments 107 North Kent Street m Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT ISSUES From the 2002 Retreat held on March 16, 2002 Residential Growth Trends in the Rural Areas • Review current goals, objectives, and strategies to determine if they still meet the desires for rural area development, rural area preservation, and rural area character. • Develop a Vision for the rural area of Frederick County. • Evaluate the benefits of a true agricultural zoning district, also consider establishing a residential zoning within the RA. • Consider alternatives to the traditional 5 acre lots that is fair to farmers and also addresses the rural character. • Develop management tools for the RA. Look to the UDA standards to decrease growth in the RA. Figure out a percentage of new lots created in the RA that is acceptable. • Focus on making the LDA more attractive to new home buyers than the RA, by increasing recreational amenities in the UDA. • Consider an application fee for development in the RA. This fee could count staff time during subdivision application reviews. • Review the feasibility of recreation requirement in the RA by requiring more open space, also look into having more public facilities in the RA. • Determine the available inventory of 5 acre lots and determine how many of them can be developed now. What is the carrying capacity of these lots and are they approved by the health department? • Focus on problems that deal with water availability and sewer capacity, considering new industries locating to Frederick County and existing ones expanding. • Develop an impact model for the RA to see if things like fees and proffers would work. • Consider changing the proffer system by tying it to building permits. • Establish design standards for the RA which prohibit houses on existing state roads. -2- Virinia Chater of the American Planning Association VAPA Tool Kit • Determine the feasibility a transitional rule, having the entire application process start over for projects that sit dormant for a certain period of time. • Look into changing the density requirements in the RA. • Establish what is an acceptable rate of growth for Frederick County. • Consider implementing a PDR program in Frederick County, possibly with a repay option. • Determine if easements would be a better option than PDR's. •Assess the benefits of implementing a level of service standard into the application process. • Focus on a way to use the American Planning Association tools that are currently not used, and use the tools already used effectively. Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model U date • Consider making sure that all agencies are accounted for in the model so that the burden is not passed on to consumers, but is included in the proffers. • Review the current Board of Supervisor policy that expects 50% of the projected impact on schools and parks to be addressed and 100% of all other. Determine if the policy should expect 100% of the impacts to be addressed. • Expand the concept of this model, use the Comprehensive Plan to determine areas expected to have certain types of growth. • Consider taking growth scenarios and determine the impact to county build -out scenarios and financial implications • Establish a proactive planning way to take control of applications since it is undetermined when sewer, water and fire and rescue limits will be triggered. Other Issues Consider design standards for corridors and gateways to the county. -3- 9 Ensure that parties whom are impacted by procedures are involved from the beginning. • Explore new areas to accommodate industrial sites. • Look to the past for things like partnership, economy guiding principles and strategies in place to help determine what to keep and what to change in order to come up with a new Vision. • Develop ways to get the community to participate in the Vision process. • Provide the community with ways to participate in the "vision" of the county. Some avenues could be through presentations to groups that have meetings or through education at public meetings. M Calendar Year 2002 Long -Range Projects Please rank the identified projects by placing a number between 1 to 8 in the left hand column of the table provided below. This number indicates the priority which you feel each project should be given within the Planning Department Work Program. Blank rows have been incorporated into this table to provide an opportunity to identify additional projects which may warrant consideration. Department of Planning and Development tong -Range Projects Rank Project Title Develop strategies; policies; and land use regulations which protect the rural character of the county and sustain agricultural land use. Conduct an analysis of the Urban Development Area and develop strategies and policies which guide boundary adjustments Assist in improvements to the county's Geographic Information System database to allow for enhanced analytical capabilities. Institute a study for the development of a land use plan for the Route 522 / Route 277 "triangle". Develop a review and recommendation process for public projects to ensure compliance with section 15.2- 2232 of the Code of Virginia. Develop an on-line process for the review and completion of various development applications. Continue efforts to implement the Winchester -Frederick County Battlefield Network Plan through the development of grant applications and assistance in plan preparation. Expand opportunities for citizens to access various departmental information through the county's webpage. Respondent's Name Date Summau of Identified Long -Range Planning Projects 1} Develop Strategies; Policies; and Land Use Regulations for the County's Rural Area A number of issues regarding rural land use patterns have been raised in recent years. The concerns vary from development trends in this area; the ease with which rural residential lots are created; the threat to the county's active agricultural areas and the transformation of the overall rural character of the western portion of the county. In general, there seems to be increased concern over the number of homes being constructed outside of the Urban Development Area (one out of three dwellings constructed in the 1990's was built outside of the UDA). Staff believes that a review of the county's rural area policies and the current rural subdivision regulations should be conducted. This analysis would begin with a projection of the net effect of present growth trends within the rural area 10 or 20 years into the future to determine impacts to the rural character of the county; to active agricultural land use activities; and to the provision of county services within this area. 2) Urban Development Area Analysis and Policy Development Since the inception of the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) in the late 1980's, adjustments to the boundary have been relatively minor and have customarily resulted as a request of a property owner. Staff believes that the county should examine the area encompassed by the UDA to determine if sufficient land is available for development and to establish strategies and policies which guide future decision makers in the timing necessary to proactively expand the boundary. If it is determined that the area should be expanded, considerable discussion will need to take place regarding how much area should be included, where the boundary should be expanded, and when. It is conceivable that some type of phased expansion might be established over a period of 10, 20, or even 50 years. 3) Enhance the County's Geographic Information System Database In order for Frederick County to effectively utilize GIS technologies to accomplish the numerous tasks and directives from the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, and County Administration, a reliable and efficient database is needed. Currently, the county's CAMRA file, which was developed primarily as a real estate assessment tool, is the primary database that is available for GIS applications. Attempts to utilize this database for ArcView mapping and querying operations, such as the Southern Frederick Land. Use Study, the Northeast Land Use Study, and the 2000-2005 Agricultural and Forestal District Update, have proven to be problematic. The development of a County -wide database will require the involvement and cooperation of a number of county departments and agencies. The scope of this task is beyond the means of the Planning Department. However, the establishment of a departmental database would enable the planning staff to effectively utilize GIS technologies to accomplish the numerous tasks that are being assigned to the department, and will enable other departments to access GIS data to assist in their operations. While this is not the ultimate solution to the present GIS database shortcomings, it is a short-term remedy that is essential for the department to effectively utilize our GIS equipment The departmental database can be created from the department's P.I.N. database to ensure that the database is spatially related to the County's digital mapping system. The architecture of the departmental database can be developed utilizing the DBASE V software which will allow for the creation of appropriate fields that meet the needs of the Planning Department, and with specific fields from the CAIVIRA file that are appropriate for normal ArcView mapping and querying operations. 4) Conduct a Land Use Study of the Route 522/Route 277 "triangle" At the 1999 Planning Commission Retreat, staff presented three geographic areas which were determined to be appropriate for the development of detailed land use plans. The adoption of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan accounted for two of the identified areas. The land area located west of Front Royal Pike (Route 522); east of White Oak Road (Route 636) and along Fairfax Pike (Route 277) to the Clarke County line appears to be logical for the development of the next land use plan for the county. 5) Develop Review and Recommendation Procedures for Section 15.2-2232 Compliance Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia requires that prior to any feature (street, park, public building, public utility facility, etc.) being constructed, established, or authorized, which is not already identified within a locality's Comprehensive Plan, it must be approved by the Planning Commission as being "substantially in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan..." The Code states that in making this determination the Commission may, and at the direction of the governing body, shall hold a public hearing. The findings of the Commission are to be forwarded to the governing body which can overrule the Commission's determination with a majority vote. Frederick County has no formal procedures for such a review and to staff s knowledge has never followed the procedures called for by the Code. If established properly, such a process might be handled without causing any undue delay to projects, while at the same time, help to avoid such recent conflicts as those which arose over the location of the Sanitation Authority's water tank, the Back Creek well site, or the schools' bus maintenance facility. 6) Develop an On -Line Application Process Staff feels that the potential exists to improve customer service by offering county citizens the option of handling certain application procedures over the Internet. Such a process would offer several advantages to the applicant and staff including reduced trips to the county office complex; the ability to complete applications outside of normal operation hours; and a reduction of paperwork. 7) Implementation of the Winchester -Frederick County Battlefield Network Plan The Battlefield Network Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1995. The plan sets out specific tasks aimed at protecting the many area battlefields, and linking them together through a series of identified travel routes, signage, and promotional efforts. The goal of the plan is to insure the protection of the sites, while at the same time, making it easier for tourists, scholars, and the public in general to visit the sites and learn of their significance. Much planning has been done already. Resource management and preservation plans exist for the Kernstown Battlefield; the Third Winchester Battlefield; and for Star Fort. Each of these plans were funded through grants from the National Park Service's Battlefield Protection Program. Though significant staff time has been involved in applying for and administering these grants, no local funds have been spent. An additional application has been prepared in hopes of receiving funding for planning the interpretation and displays for the planned Civil War Museum in the Old County Court House. It is hoped that these planning efforts will begin to bear fruit in the form of increased land being set aside either through acquisition by public or private entities or through the purchase or donation of protective easements. The ability to offer public access and interpretive material at strategic locations on or near the battlefields will undoubtedly lead to increased visitation and tourism income to the area. 8) Increase Information Available through County's Webpage There is an infinite amount of information which ultimately might be made available to the public via an interactive webpage. Staff would be interested in incorporating notices; agendas and various map products on-line; as well as exploring the possibilities of making it possible for certain applications to be obtained and submitted electronically. It may be possible to set up a system that would permit citizens to review parcel information; land use plans; peruse reports and applications; and order various departmental products over the Internet. Calendar Year 2002 Current Planning Projects Please rank the identified projects by placing a number between 1 to 9 in the left hand column of the table provided below. This number indicates the priority which you feel each project should be given within the Planning Department Work Program. Blank rows have been incorporated into this table to provide an opportunity to identify additional projects which may warrant consideration. Department of Planning and Development Current Planning Projects Rank Project Title Complete a comprehensive review and revision of Chapter 165- Zoning Ordinance of the Frederick County Code. Complete a comprehensive review and revision of Chapter 144 - Subdivision Ordinance of the Frederick County Code. Complete the design; right-of-way acquisition; and construction of Warrior Drive from Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) to Tasker Road (Route 642). Review and revise planned unit development standards for the R-4 (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District. Develop requirements for "minor" site development plans for additions to existing land uses and low impact projects. Review development design standards for commercial corridors within the county, primarily those leading into the City of Winchester. Develop an objective rating system for the prioritization of major secondary road improvement projects within Frederick County. Develop a process and standards for the implementation of proportional site development improvements. Review Planning Department application packages and procedures to ensure that current standards and policies are adhered to. Respondent's Name Date Summary of Identified Current Planning Projects 1) Comprehensive Review and Revision of Chapter 165 - Zoning Ordinance Since the comprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinance in 1990, there have been numerous amendments to address concerns with changing conditions. These amendments tend to be initiated by landowners seeking relief from regulations that were implemented with good intent, but for one reason or another are now viewed as being overly restrictive or out of date. Staff attempts to make note of problem areas in the ordinances as they are encountered, and address them as time permits; however, these amendments tend to be reactive instead of proactive. Much like the County's Subdivision Ordinance, the issues of piece -meal revisions being made over a number of years applies here as well. A current issue of note is that the Standard Industrial Classification Code - (STC) on which all of our commercial and industrial districts' permitted uses are based should be revisited to ensure that changes in development philosophies associated with these land uses are current. 2) Comprehensive Review and Revision of Chapter 144 - Subdivision Ordinance Since the comprehensive revision to the Subdivision Ordinance in 1991, there have been numerous amendments to address concerns with changing conditions. These amendments tend to be initiated by landowners seeking relief from regulations that were implemented with good intent, but for one reason or another are now viewed as being overly restrictive or out of date. Staff attempts to make note of problem areas in the ordinances as they are encountered, and address them as time permits; however, these amendments tend to be reactive instead of proactive. Over the years, as the number of piece -meal amendments begin to mount, the overall continuity and coordination of the Subdivision Ordinance begins to suffer. Each new amendment to a section of the ordinance tends to impact other sections. At some point, it becomes critical that a comprehensive rewrite be undertaken to bring all the various regulations back into a coordinated format. 3) Design and Construct Warrior Drive Warrior Road is an important element of the county's Eastern Road Plan, as well as the Winchester Area Transportation Plan (WATS). Following years of planning, negotiation, and hard work, a somewhat fragile cooperative agreement has been struck involving various county departments, individual land owners, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Board of Supervisors which will enable this road segment to be constructed at the lowest possible cost to Frederick County. This effort has succeeded in securing the vast majority of right-of-way needed through the Village at Sherando, Sherando Park, and The Camp subdivision. Revenue Sharing funds in excess of $3,000,000 have been committed by the Commonwealth and Frederick County. The ultimate design and initial construction of this road segment has been agreed upon by both parties, and an agreement is in place which describes the responsibilities of each party. 4) Revise Planned Unit Development Ordinance (R4 Zoning) The R-4 (Planned Unit Development) District was adopted in 1993, but has never been implemented within the county. With the many advantages associated with planned communities in terms of minimizing negative impacts associated with more typical isolated, single use developments, it would be in the County's best interest to have a PUD ordinance that is attractive to the development community, while maintaining the many positive factors associated with planned communities. 5) Develop "Minor" Site Development Plan Requirements For years staff has recognized the need to establish an alternate means for dealing with small scale construction projects such as additions to commercial structures. Presently, ordinance requirements do not differentiate between a project of the scale of the H.P. Hood plant, versus a country store operating trader a Conditional Use Permit, in terms of the level of detailed information that must be supplied by the applicant prior to approval. Staff feels that some flexibility needs to be built into the ordinance in an effort to recognize the variation in potential impact of various projects. This might be accomplished in a number of ways including establishing thresholds for site development plan design, or by allowing more discretion on the part of the Zoning Administrator to waive certain requirements when specific circumstances exist. 6) Review Development Design Standards for Commercial Corridors An effort to revise and improve county design standards met opposition from the business community on the basis that the proposed requirements were overly restrictive when applied to small parcels of an acre or less. Staff believes it may be time to revisit the issue of enhancing commercial corridors with an eye toward improving the street side appearance of new development, particularly in entrances to the City of Winchester and defined commercial corridors within Frederick County. This effort would bring interested and impacted parties into the discussion at the onset of the process in to insure that new development design standards have the support of the community. 7) Develop Objective Rating System for Prioritizing Major Secondary Road Projects Staff believes that a mechanism is needed to assist the county in assigning priorities to major road improvement projects in a systematic and defensible way. The issues are very similar to those which led to the development of an objective evaluation criteria for the ranking of hard surface road improvement projects. 8) Develop a Process and Standards for Proportional Improvement Requirements Existing vacant commercial and industrial sites continue to experience adaptive reuse as tenants desire to utilize parcels that are zoned and developed in lieu of developing raw land. This is a benefit to the county in limiting sprawl and enhancing our tax base. Unfortunately, many of these sites were established prior to 1990 when the county adopted the comprehensive revision of the Zoning Ordinance. It would be prudent to ensure that older sites are brought into compliance with current design standards to improve upon the overall appearance and functionality associated with new development. One mechanism that has been utilized by other localities is that of proportional improvements. This standard requires a new land use to bring a portion of the existing site into compliance with existing regulations, such as paving a parking lot or providing landscaping improvements. A process needs to be developed which ensures that older sites are improved over time that is equitable to the potential user and in keeping with the county's vision of redevelopment proposals. 9) Review application packages and procedures It has been a number of years since the last comprehensive review of the department's various land development application processes was conducted. The department needs to undertake a review of the process and procedures mandated by these application packages to ensure that they provide for flexibility and streamlining of these processes. UAPC RETREAT\2002 PC Retreat\PlanningDepartmentProjectPriorities-TablesAndSummarylnformation.wpd '_� • r MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Interim Director�'� RE: 2001 Annual Report DATE: May 29, 2002 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Attached is the 2001 Annual Report for the Department of Planning and Development. The Aimual Report is a document that is intended to show what the department has been working on and accomplished during the 2001 calender year. The report includes some of the demographic data of Frederick County like population, schools and employment. The Annual Report also looks at the different types of duties and applications that are processed by the department. The report breaks down violations, MDP's, rezonings, subdivisions, site plans, CUP's, and variances to see how many were processed and in what magisterial district it was located. Staff will present a summary of this document during the Planning Commission meeting. ERL/ch Attachment U:\Ca dice\Misc\ARmemo.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ANNUAL REPORT 2001 FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Prepared by the Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Ammid Repr»•t _1001 Table of Contents Frederick County Planning Commission Members 2001 ............................ 1 Role of Planning in Frederick County Preface................................................................2 Department of Planning & Development Organizational Chart .....................................................3 The Department of Planning & Development .................................. 4 Development Activity Population.............................................................6 Building Permits........................................................7 Schools...............................................................8 Employment............................................................9 Violations.............................................................10 Application Reviews....................................................11 Planning Activity Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee ............................. 18 Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee ........................... 18 Transportation Committee ................................................ 19 Mapping & Graphics....................................................20 Historic Resources Advisory Board ........................................ 21 Priority Planning Issues for 2002 Current Planning Projects ................................................ 23 Long -Range Planning Projects ............................................ 24 FREDERICK COUNT ?Uol FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2001 Charles S. DeHaven Jr. - Chairman Stonewall District Roger Thomas - Vice-chairman Rick Ours Opequon District Opequon District William Rosenberry Robert Morris Shawnee District Shawnee District Cordell Watt Greg Unger Back Creek District Back Creek District George Kriz Charles Triplett Gainesboro District Gainesboro District John Light Gene Fisher Stonewall District Member at Large Sidney Reyes Vincent DiBenedetto BOS Liaison City of Winchester Liason Jay Cook Evan Wyatt, AICP Legal Counsel Secretary FRE1)FRICK C0LlNT'Y -1- 100/ Preface The Frederick County Annual Report for 2001 is compiled to provide the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and citizens with information to evaluate recent planning activities and to aid in comprehensive planning and development for the upcoming year. The report has been organized into four sections. Section one introduces the Role of Planning in Frederick County. The state of the County and development activity and trends during the year 2001 is highlighted in section two, Development Activity. Sections three and four address Planning Activities during 2001 and Priority Planning Issues for 2002. FRE1)ERICK COUNTN' -2- Organizational Chart DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Evan A. Wyatt, AICP - Director Eric R. Lawrence, AICP - Deputy Director Patrick T. Davenport, CZA - Zoning Administrator Jeremy F. Camp - Planner II Mark Cheran - Planner I Rebecca A. Ragsdale - Planner I Marcus D. Lemasters - Mapping & Graphics Manager Alex J. Grey - Cartographic Design Technician Renee' S. Arlotta -Administrative Assistant Carol I. Huff - Secretary III Beth A. Hall - Secretary I Karen A. Cain -Office Assistant II FREDERICK ('OUNTY" -3- 7(Y)i _ iIIII(al Rcnnrl ?00i The Department of Planning and Development The following is a brief description of the Planning and Development Department's activities in the community. Planning Efforts The Planning and Development Department is responsible for all short- and long-range planning within the County. The Department prepares the annual updates to the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan, Capital Improvements Plan, and Primary and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. Department staff work with numerous committees responding to a wide range of issues affecting the County, apply for and administer various planning -related grants, such as the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21St Century (TEA -21) and the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP), assist in economic development efforts, and lend technical support to various community groups. Transportation planning continues to be one of the more significant areas of planning activity in recent years. The completion and adoption of the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS), which encompasses the City of Winchester and a portion of east -central Frederick County, developed a comprehensive set of transportation solutions aimed at accommodating projected travel demands to the year 2020. Staff has been monitoring the Interstate 81 Study which is being conducted by Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) consultants. The recommendations of this study have significant planning implications for Frederick County. The approval of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Route 37 extension in the eastern portion of the County was accomplished during calendar year 2001. In addition to major planning efforts, the Department reviews all land use applications within the County. Department personnel have the authority to act on certain types of applications, such as site plans and rural subdivisions, while other applications require approval by the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, or the Board of Zoning Appeals. In cases where applications must go before one of these bodies, the staff assists the applicant in understanding the formal review process and prepares a written review and recommendation on the completed application package. 1+RE1?E_RICK("0UNTY Es A!71!221(11 Rcoori '1001 Zoning Enforcement Another of the Department's responsibilities is the interpretation and enforcement of the County's subdivision and zoning regulations. All land within the County is classified as being within one of a number of "zones" such as Rural Areas District (RA Zoning) or General Business District (B2 Zoning). Each zoning category has a list of land uses which are permitted with no special approval being required. These uses are referred to as "by -right" uses. A separate list of uses which require review and approval of a permit by the Board of Supervisors are referred to as "conditional uses." Zones are established in any given area in order to protect residents and landowners within the zone from intrusion by incompatible neighboring uses. Zoning enforcement involves responding to inquiries and complaints concerning land use and development. Formal complaints are registered, investigated, and appropriate enforcement action taken. Department staff attempt to work with landowners to ensure compliance to an ordinance violation; however, some of the violations handled by the Department cannot be resolved and criminal charges must be filed. From that point on, resolution of the matter is determined through the court system. For additional information on the activities of the Department or on any of the following types of land use applications: Conditional Use Permits Rezoning of land Site Plan Obtaining a Variance Subdivision of land Master Development Plan you can contact the Department of Planning and Development by telephone at: (540) 665-5651; or by mail at: The Department of Planning and Development, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601. You may also visit the Frederick County Web page at www.co.frederick.va.us FREDERICK COUNTI -5- =(illlllCi11 Re'ow Population Frederick County continued to experience population growth during this decade. Since 1990, the annual population growth has maintained an average rate of 2.6%. The population in 1990 was estimated at 45,723 people and was estimated at 52,000 in 1995. In 1997 the population was calculated at 54,900, and 55,800 in 1998. These figures were derived from the current population estimates prepared by the Virginia Center for Public Service. The Virginia Employment Commission had projected that Frederick County would reach a population of 55,823 by the year 2000, but that figure was greatly exceeded. The actual population for the year 2000 according to the Census was 59,209 people. According to the 2001 provisional population estimates released by the Weldon Cooper for Public Service, it is estimated that the 2001 population of Frederick County will be around 64,500. Current Population and Population Projections for Frederick County 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1990-2050 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 0 Frederick County M Winchester Frederick County I 45,723 1 59,209 1 67,996 1 79,291 1 90,586 1 101,881 1 113,176 Winchester 21,947 23,585 25,009 26,596 28,093 29,590 31,087 Total Area 67,670 82,794 93,005 105,887 118,679 131,471 144,263 Source: Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission & The Virginia Employment Commission FRE1)1,RICK C0U!NTY In Building Permits Building Permits Issued in Frederick County for New Residences in 2001. 1000 800 Mobile Homes Multi -family 800 Single Family 400 200 O � 00 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 A total of 853 building permits were issued in 2001, which is an increase of 34 percent over those issued in 2000. In 2000, building permits were issued for the construction of 639 new residential units in Frederick County. 2000's figures represented an increase of 4 percent from 1999's figure of 613 building permits. The percentage of new residential building permits issued for single family and multi -family increased by 25 percent and 117 percent respectively from 2000 to 2001. nuuaing rernuts issued Year Single 1990 486 for New Kesiflential multi- 119 Units (1990-20Ul) Mobile Total 134 739 1992 385 63 87 535 1994 448 73 181 702 1995 414 63 100 577 1996 417 132 141 690 1997 431 70 103 626 1998 529 73 92 694 1999 509 34 70 613 2000 506 52 81 639 2001 632 113 108 853 It should be noted that the multi family figure is based upon the number of individual residential units within a multi family structure. Source: Frederick County Department of Inspections FIZE1)ERiCK COUNTY -7- Schools - �.wrr�rw. t•� �.Lw� ,ter.` �.. School Apple Pie Ridge Elem. K-5 625 500 80% Armel Elem. K-5 735 528 72% Bass -Hoover Elem. K-5 735 673 92% Gainesboro Elem. K-5 260 174 67% Indian Hollow Elem. K-5 585 506 86% Middletown Elem. K-5 735 533 73% Orchard View Elm K-5 550 472 86% Redbud Run Elem. K-5 735 597 81% Senseny Road Elem. K-5 550 559 102% Stonewall Elem. K-5 550 501 91% Robert E. Aylor Middle 6-8 965 851 88% Frederick County Middle 6-8 845 779 92% James Wood Middle 6-8 1,000 1,009 101% Total Middle School 6-8 .0 James Wood High 9-12 1,635 1,526 93% Sherando High 9-12 1,545 1,432 93% Total Uigh School NREP Ages 2-21 56 , 43 77% f i Source: Frederick County Public Schools FREDERICK COUNTV -8- .innrntl Rc!not-i {)W Employment The Virginia Employment Commission states that employment within the private sector in 2001 was 15,431. That was an increase of 11 % from the 1999 total of 13,744. Employment in Frederick County for both the private and public sectors totaled 18,463 in 2001 according to the 2nd quarter data for 2001. The following figure highlights the percentage of total employees in each employment sector for 2001. The largest percent of jobs lie in the manufacturing related jobs. This figure was 33.6 % of the total private employment in 2001, this is down from 36 % in 1999. The fact that manufacturing still holds the largest percentage of the total private employment emphasizes that manufacturing continues to play a major role in Frederick County's economy. It is important to recognize that agricultural employment has increased slightly from 2.9 % in 1999 to 3.0% in 2001. Percentage of Employment by Sector in Frederick County, 2001 s •rr 1. l_ A Agriculture Transportation Wholesale Trade Manufacturing __ — 3.0°le { 0.9% 4.8% g 10.1% 17.7% 13.2% 7.7°14 Services Retail Trade l Finance, Insurance, Real Estate h Source: Virginia Employment Commission ES -202 Report for the 21 quarter of 2001. FREI)ERICK COUNTY lima! Reoor, _-1001 Violations Percentage of Violations in 2001 by Magisterial District Shmvnee la. 21.336 19.8% � �9uon i Gainesboro ��J Hack Crerk Please note that these figures do not reflect the new magisterial district boundaries adopted on May 23,2001. Future issues of the Annual Report will reflect these changes. As anticipated, the number of violations investigated, and ultimately resolved, by planning staff substantially increased with full staffing in place. In 1997, 68 zoning ordinance violations were investigated by the Frederick County Planning Department. This figure increased to 110 in 1999. In 2001, 111 violations were investigated. The majority of complaints received by planning staff were once again about citizens who store too many inoperable vehicles on their property or those who do not screen them properly, followed by illegal businesses and tall grass complaints.. The Opequon District had the lowest amount of violations, totaling 13, followed by the Back Creek District with 15 violations. The Gainesboro District had 22 violations, and the Shawnee District had 27. The Stonewall Magisterial District had the most violations in 2001 with 34. Violations by Type 2001 ® Junk Cars Illegal Business M Tall Grass Dumping/Trash Illegal Signs Mobile Homes J Tractor Trailors U Misc Violations fl '� . y w 45 13% a� 11% 4% 0% FREDERICK COUNTN 5[11! Hull Report Application Reviews The Planning and Development Department continues to review a significant number of develop- ment applications, plans, and permits on an annual basis. In recent years, these numbers have generally fluctuated a bit. The table below highlights the number of development applications reviewed in Frederick during the recent years. Summary of Development applications reviewed in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Source. Frederick County Department of Planning and Development The figures that follow on the ensuing pages show in more detail the recent history of applications and permits reviewed by planning staff. A review of these figures clearly indicates that the level of development activity has remained relatively high during recent years and generally continues to increase. In particular, significant increases have occurred in the number of rezonings, subdivi- sions, site plans, conditional use permits, and variances reviewed. Please note that these figures do not reflect the new magisterial district boundaries established in May of 2001. Future issues of the Annual Report will reflect these changes. FRE1)1;1'iCK COUNTY -11- Rezonings 5 19 15 4 11 Master Development Plans 8 6 4 8 6 Subdivisions 19 20 29 14 26 Site Plans 48 73 68 65 57 Conditional Use Permits 24 9 30 20 22 Variances 16 27 10 18 21 Source. Frederick County Department of Planning and Development The figures that follow on the ensuing pages show in more detail the recent history of applications and permits reviewed by planning staff. A review of these figures clearly indicates that the level of development activity has remained relatively high during recent years and generally continues to increase. In particular, significant increases have occurred in the number of rezonings, subdivi- sions, site plans, conditional use permits, and variances reviewed. Please note that these figures do not reflect the new magisterial district boundaries established in May of 2001. Future issues of the Annual Report will reflect these changes. FRE1)1;1'iCK COUNTY -11- Rezonings Rezonings Reviewed in 2001 Rezonings Reviewed by Year 1990-2001 199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001 Total Rezonings Reviewed: 11 Acres Rezoned RP: 105 Total Rezonings Approved: 9 Acres Rezoned R5: 1.75 Total Acres Rezoned: 187.5 Acres Rezoned B2: 17.6 Acres Rezoned B3: 32.7 Acres Rezoned MI: 30.4 -10oIl Of the nine rezonings that were approved in 2001 the majority were located in the Opequon and the Stonewall Districts. Both districts had 3 (33.5%) of the rezonings approved. The other rezonings were located in the Back Creek District, Shawnee District, and the Gainesboro District, each containing one (11%). Rezonings Approved in 2001 by Magisterial District Opequon Stonewall ® Back Creek Shawnee Gainesboro FRF DF,RI('K COUNTY -12- �f;J71/rli iZ U�1]'! '1001 Master Development Plans Master Development Plans Reviewed by Year 1990-2001 199019911992 1993 19941995 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 Master Development Plans Reviewed in 2001 Total MDP's R. eviewed. 6 Total MDP's Approved. I Total Acres Approved: 48.3 Total RP Approved: 1 Total RP Units Approved: 23 Total RP Area Approved: 48.3 Average Density .48 lots per acre The only approved Master Development Plan was located in the Gainesboro District, and it was for a revision to Westminster Canterbury to include 23 Independent Living Units. 11 RF1)h;RICK COt.1NTY -13- Subdivisions Subdivisions Reviewed by Year 1990-2001 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 19951996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Subdivisions Reviewed in 2001 Total Subdivisions Reviewed. 26 Total RP Approved: 4 Total Subdivisions Approved: 12 Total RP Lots Approved: 247 Total Lots Approved: 265 Total RP Area Approved: 96.7 Average Density: 3.6 lots per acre Five ( 41%) of the 12 subdivisions that were approved in 2001 were located in the Stonewall District, some of the larger subdivisions included: • Briarwood Estates Section 6 (29 lots) • Dominion Knolls Section III (25 lots) Four (33%) of the 12 subdivisions that were approved in 2001 were located in the Shawnee District. The larger subdivisions in this district in 2001 were: • Canter Estates Section II & IV (136 lots) • Copperfield (57 lots) The remaining three (25%) were located in the Back Creek District. FREDERICK COI-[NTY -14- il"Imll .Rcnnr! 100/ Site Plains Site Plans Reviewed by Year 1990-2001 199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001 Site Plans Reviewed in 2001 Total Site Plans Reviewed: 57 Total Site Plans Approved: 46 Total Site Plans Pending/Withdrawn: 13/1 Of the 46 Site Plans that were approved in 2001 the majority were for the Stonewall District, with 35% (16 site plans). 20% of the Site Plans (9) were for both the Shawnee and Back Creek Districts, the Gainesboro District had 13% (6 site plans) and the Opequon District had 10% (5 site plans). The other 2% was for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Site Plans Approved in 2001 By Magistrial District Stonewall Shawnee Back Creek Gainesboro Opequon Other FIRF1)V1t1('1\ ('()1iNfl'� -15- bolltzi! Rcyorl 20o." Conditional Use Permits Conditional Use Permits Reviewed by Year Since 1990 Total CUP's Reviewed: 22 199019911992 1993 19941995 1996 1997 1998199920002001 Total CUP's Approved: 19 Total CUP's Denied: 1 Total CUP's Withdrawn/Pending: 1/1 Of the 19 approved Conditional Use Permits, the majority 38%, were located in the Gainesboro District, the Back Creek District with 31%, the Shawnee District with 15%, the Stonewall District with 11% and the Opequon District with 5%. The 19 Conditional Use Permits approved included operations like: • Telecommunications Towers • Day Care facilities • Bed & Breakfasts • Country Stores • Restaurant f • Garages • Off premises business signs • Welding • Shale Mining • Cottage Occupations h1�EDEI:TCK COt:INTY -16- lMIM"l R,:noo 11101 Variances . Variances Reviewed in 2001 Variances Reviewed by Year 1990-2001 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total Variances Reviewed: 21 Total Variances Approved: 11 Total Variances Denied:3 Total Variances Withdrawn/Pending: 710 Of the eleven variances that were approved, most of them were located within the Shawnee District. The Shawnee District contained five (45%) of the eleven approved variances. The Back Creek District came in second with three (27%) of the variances, Gainesboro had two (18%), and Opequon had one (10%) variance. Stonewall was the only District in 2001 that had no variances. Variances 2001 by Magistrial District Shawnee Back Creek Gainesboro Opequon FIRE 1)F"RIC K C011N` N' -17- Committee Activities during 2001 Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), a subcommittee of the Planning Commission, is tasked with formulating land use policies which help shape the location and timing of development throughout the county. The CPPS considers requests for the expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries, as well as requests for the extension of water and sewer service outside of these boundaries. The CPPS also conducts detailed studies of the UDA, SWSA, and Rural Community Centers to develop guidelines for future land use within those areas. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee reviews and recommends amendments to the Comprehensive Policy Plan annually. The most recent amendments to the plan occurred in 2000 and included the adoption of the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. It established land use policies for approximately 14,500 acres of land between Interstate 81, the West Virginia state line, the Opequon Creek, and the northern study area boundary limits of the Route 7 East Corridor Plan. This study recommends firture land use that include industrial and commercial along the major road and railroad corridors, and the preservation of rural areas and significant historic features within the study area boundaries. Also accomplished was the incorporation of study area into the SWSA, and updates of text and statistical information to various chapters. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee reviews and recommends project priorities for the Capital Improvements Plan annually. The staff and subcommittee continue to use the capital improvements evaluation system consisting of seven weighted criteria to aid in prioritization of requested projects. The 2002-03 Capital Improvements Plan included several new projects for the Public Schools, including a new central transportation maintenance facility. Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) is responsible for considering text amendment proposals and making recommendations to the Planing Commission and Board of Supervisors regarding issues relating to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 165 of the Code of Virginia), and the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 144 of the Code of Frederick Coun ). During 2001, the DRRS completed several tasks that were directed by either the Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission, and some which were requested by staff, local citizens, and businesses. FREDFRICK COUNTY _ 17111hd Rc noo ?n)) j The DRRS's undertakings of 2001 are listed below: • Review with a recommendation of approval for the creation of a new zoning district (Medical ,Support District • Review with a recommendation of approval for new radon resistant construction regulations • Review and denial of a request to allow mobile homes as accessory dwellings • Review with a recommendation of approval for changes to the County's parking lot regulations • Review with a recommendation of approval for changes to the County's loading area regulations • Review with a recommendation of approval for changes to site plan and subdivision design plan regulations • Review with a recommendation of approval for new drive-in lane width requirements • Review with a recommendation of approval for changes to the County's road efficiency buffer requirements During 2002, the DRRS will continue to review the zoning and subdivision ordinances for areas that can be improved. In particular, the creation of a new woodland preservation ordinance will be a top priority during the middle part of 2002. Furthermore, if accepted priorities are agreed upon by the Comprehen- sive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) and the Board of Supervisors, the second major project of 2002 would be the review of corridor design standards. Transportation Committee The Transportation Committee is responsible for considering all transportation and road improvement issues for Frederick County. The Transportation Committee is established by the Board of Supervisors and makes recommendations on all transportation issues to the Board through the Planning Commission. During 1999, the Transportation Committee held public hearings for the review and approval of the Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan and the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. The Primary Road Improvement Plan was presented to Transportation Secretary Ybarra, Commonwealth Transportation Board Representative Welsh, and representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation during the March 1999 Pre -allocation Hearing. The Secondary Road Plan was updated in recognition of the Winchester Area Transportation Study to prioritize the major road improvement projects, 12 new incidental construction projects, and to revise the hard surface improvement project priorities. Other committee tasks included working with the Frederick County Sheriffs Department to secure funds through the Division of Motor Vehicles Highway Safety 402 Grant Program to accommodate additional DUI checkpoints, speed checkpoints and neighborhood patrols, the development of a No Through Truck Traffic Policy for Tasker Road (Route 642), the placement of a series of four-way stop 11 1Z E 1) F R ICK C01�NT� -19- fn.; / R�r�x,r�, ?UO/ signs and revised stop conditions at various locations in the County, and the installation of several children at play signs. A primary focus of the committee during recent years was the development of a new road rating system for road improvements requiring hard surfacing. The adoption of the road rating system was a significant accomplishment. This rating system was designed to assign points to each candidate hard surface project based on a weighted criteria including average daily traffic counts, number of occupied structures, school bus travel, road geometries and drainage, and time that the project had been on the road plan. A policy was established for how hard surface projects would be rated, which also established criteria for how new hard surface projects would be incorporated into the plan. Historic Resources Advisory Board Preservation of historically significant properties in Frederick County continues to be of the utmost importance to the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB). The Historic Resources Advisory Board is a committee that is established by the Board of Supervisors. Staff support is provided to the Historic Resources Advisory Board which works to develop a continuing preservation strategy. Staff coordinated meetings between the development community and the HRAB which resulted in the provision of rezoning proffers to protect significant historic resources and viewsheds for the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, areas within the Second Battle of Winchester, and resources in the Stephenson's Depot/Millburn Road area. The HRAB also commented on Conditional Use Permit applications involving significant historic structures and sites. This included a proposed country store to be located in Homespun on Cedar Creek Grade and a proposed leadership development center near Cedar Creek Battlefield. The first rezoning of property in Frederick County to include the Historic Areas (HA) Overlay Zone was approved by the Board of Supervisors in December. The HA Overlay zone was established and incorporated into the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance in 1991. The property, Jordan Springs, also known as Shalon et Benedictus was rezoned from the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district to the Business General (132) zoning district with the HA Overlay zone. Once the HA Overlay zone is established, any modifications to the exterior of structures, as well as site improvements, are reviewed by the HRAB. In 1999, staff secured a grant from the American Battlefield Protection Program in the amount of $25,000. This grant was utilized to hire a consultant to develop a Management and Interpretation Plan for Star Fort. The plan was completed in August 2000 and is intended to guide future planning and management of the Star Fort site and development of it as an interpreted historical site. Plans were adopted for Kernstown and Third Winchester in 1996 and 1999. In addition, the department manages a historic plaque program to recognize historic sites. In 2001, the FkF1)ER1CK COU�`N 1.1 -20- twentieth historic plaque was presented to the Old Stone Church on Green Spring Road. The Old Stone Church was originally built in 1820 but later burned and was rebuilt in 1838, the site also includes a cemetery. C'PE1)E-HI C K ('OUNTY -21- Anllill(l, _100 Mapping & Graphics The Frederick County Geographic Information System (GIS) continues to evolve. In the past year, the Mapping and Graphics staff contracted out a digital orthophoto project to Kimball and Associates. This project has provided the County with a set of 542 digital orthophotos at a scale of 1 "= 200'. With this information the next phase ofthe GIS revision project may continue on into the procurement of new and highly accurate planimetric data. A new GTS Department was officially established, two new positions; the GIS Manager and GIS Analyst were created, and the Cartographic Design Technician position was reclassified to a GIS Technician. The manager and technician are the core of the new department which will be hosted by the Department of Planning and Development until such a time as office space may be acquired and the new department moved to independent operation. Three additional GIS personnel will be added to the staff, an analyst, analyst/programmer, and secretary. The current analyst position will remain in the Planning Department. In addition to these actions, an additional GIS technician has been added to the staff of the Commissioner of Revenue. Staff members have made great strides in the development of the GIS system and gained great insight in customizing and using GIS. Projects such as redistricting of magisterial districts, voting precincts and school districts were accomplished in much shorter time and with higher accuracy. GIS and mapping software is migrating from single user licenses to "floating" or concurrent licenses, meaning centralized software that is up-to-date with a minimum of maintenance. The Arc family of software has been upgraded to the newest 8.1.2 version. Although there is a significant learning curve with this software, it's flexibility and usability will greatly enhance the entire County GIS effort. Current GIS staff have expended maximum effort in developing and refining GIS base data, allowing for complicated projects like dynamic road segmentation and structure database population. Both of these elements are critical to the advancement of the Enhanced 911 system. Excellent coordination between the Planning, GTS, and Real Estate departments has provided staff with a "plan of attack" for defining and rectifying discrepancies within the Tax Mapping and the CAMRA real estate database which will increase the accuracy of information generated through GIS analysis. FREDERIC'h� COON TY -22- -x:711.'1;1 Priority Planning Issues for 2002 Current Planning Projects 0o * Complete a comprehensive review and revision of Chapter 165- Zoning Ordinance of the Frederick County Code. * Complete a comprehensive review and revision of Chapter 144- Subdivision Ordinance of the Frederick County Code. * Complete the design; right-of-way acquisition; and construction of Warrior Drive from Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) to Tasker Road (Route 642). * Review and revise planned unit development standards for the R-4 (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District. * Develop requirements for "minor" site development plans for additions to existing land uses and low impact projects. * Review development design standards for commercial corridors within the county, primarily those leading into the City of Winchester. * Develop an objective rating system for the prioritization of major secondary road improvement projects within Frederick County. * Develop a process and standards for the implementation of proportional site development improvements. * Review Planning Department application packages and procedures to ensure that current standards and policies are adhered to. F P, 1 y is 1� 1 t: K C:' () i. N T'%- -23- Long -Range Planning Projects * Develop strategies; policies; and land use regulations which protect the rural character of the county and sustain agricultural land use. �+k Conduct an analysis of the Urban Development Area and develop strategies and policies which guide boundary adjustments. �k Assist in improvements to the county's Geographic Information System database to allow for enhanced analytical capabilities. * Institute a study for the development of a land use plan for the Route 522 / Route 277 "triangle". Develop a review and recommendation process for public projects to ensure compliance with section 15.2 - 2232 of the Code of Virginia. Develop an on-line process for the review and completion of various development applications. Continue efforts to implement the Winchester -Frederick County Battlefield Network Plan through the development of grant applications and assistance in plan preparation Expand opportunities for citizens to access various departmental information through the county's webpage. -24-