The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 11-06-02 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNT' PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia NOVEMBER 6, 2002 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) October 16, 2002 Minutes ................................................ (A) 2) Committee Reports ............................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments .................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC NEARING 4) Conditional Use Permit #12-02 of Shared Towers, Inc./Cross Junction Tower, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for a time extension to a previously -approved condition associated with CUP #18-01. This property is located near the intersection of Collinsville Road and Cross Junction Road, approximately 290 feet from North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522N) and is identified with Property Identification Number 18-A-38 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. (Mr. Lawrence) ........................................................ (B) 5) Conditional Use Permit #13-02 of Shared Towers, Inc./Reynold's Store Tower, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for a time extension to a previously -approved condition associated with CUP #20-01. This property is located at 8926 North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522N) and is identified with Property Identification Number 11-A-39 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. (Mr. Lawrence) ....................................................... (C) 6) Rezoning #07-02 of Doris F. Casey (tabled from 8/21/02), submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 30.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District. This property is located approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 S.) and Paper Mill Road (Route 644) and is identified with Property Identification Number 64-A-23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Ms. Kennedy)....................................................... (D) DISCUSSION ITEM 7) Discussion on Russell Farm SWSA/UDA Expansion Request (Mr. Lawrence) ........................................................ (E) 8) Other r� r1 U 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 October 16, 2002. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chauman/Stonewall District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT:Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Robert Sager, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Molm, Deputy Planning Director, Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator; Rebecca 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 - AUGUST 21 2002 SEPTZMBER 4, 2002, & SEPTEMBER 18. 2002 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, the minutes of August 21, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of September 4, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Cominissioner Kriz, the minutes of September 18, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 2002 Page 943 -2 - COMMITTEE. -REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 10/14/02 Mtg. Chairman DeHaven reported that the CPPS discussed several proposals. He said the CPPS is waiting for historical information on the Northeast Land Use Plan re-evaluation. Sanitation Authority (SA) - 10/15/02 Mtg. Commissioner Fisher stated that the SA's Director reported that 4.5" of rain fell last month, reducing the deficit to 12.1" since of July of 1998. The following items were also reported: the South quarries remain stable at about 1.1 million gallons and approximately three million gallons are being purchased from the City; due to work being done on the computer controls, the SA predicts it will be another month before the North Water Treatment Plant opens, the SA approved four projects to be advertised for bid, which include the I-81 rest area, the maintenance facilities design, the Miller Heights sewer system design, and the Parkins Mill sludge plans. Commissioner Fisher also reported that the SA's CPA, Mr. Michael Kilmer, read the audit report. Commissioner Fisher next read a statement that was presented to the Authority last night by the Sanitation Authority's Chairman, Mr. Anderson, in which Mr. Anderson wanted to correct some inaccurate statements he believed were made by a Board of Supervisors' member. PUBLIC HEARING Update of the 2003-2004 through 2008-2009 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the Construction Priority List for 2003-2004. Identification of prioritized major road improvement projects, hard surface road improvement projects, and incidental construction projects will be presented. Action -Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Abbe S. Kennedy, presented the Update of the 2003-2004 through 2008-2009 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the Construction Priority List for 2003-2004. Planner Kennedy stated that the plan includes allocation for major road improvements, hard surface road improvements projects, and incidental construction projects, all of which are based on priority. She reported that the Transportation Committee held a public hearing on October 1, 2002 and unanimously voted to forward the plan to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Planner Kennedy pointed out that no new major road improvement projects were added to the list this year; she noted the recent completion of Greenwood Road, from Senseny Road to Valley Mill Road, was moved off of the list and the other priorities were bumped up. She next pointed out and described the four major road improvement project priorities on a display map for the Commission. Those major road improvement projects included: two sections of Aylor Road (Rt. 647), Warrior Drive (Rt. 719), Greenwood Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 2002 Page 944 -3 - Road (Rt. 656), and Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655). Planner Kennedy next pointed out and described the three designated hard -surface road improvement projects, which included: two sections of Adams Road (Rt. 689) and Back Creek Road (Rt. 704). Planner Kennedy introduced Mr. Jerry Copp, Resident Engineer, with the VDOT-Edinburg Residency, who was available to answer questions from the Commission. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Straub, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Update of the 2003-2004 through 2008-2009 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the Construction Priority List for 2003-2004 to the Board of Supervisors. Conditional Use Permit #11-02 of Shenandoah Gas Company for a 120' monopole commercial telecommunications facility to be located at 350 Hillandale Lane, a 10.9 -acre site, zoned MI. This property is identified with P.I.N. 63-2-A in the Shawnee Magisterial District Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner Rebecca Ragsdale stated that the proposed facility would replace two existing structures, a 42' lattice tower and a 110' monopole tower, which make up Shenandoah Gas's internal communication system. She said the applicant has stated that the two existing structures are outdated and do not provide enough capacity for the company. She said the applicant has stated that expansion of the existing towers is not feasible and, in addition, the gas company would like to upgrade technologically. Planner Ragsdale stated there were no negative review agency comments and the proposed location meets all setbacks. She said that Staff believes this application has adequately addressed the requirements of the zoning ordinance and she read a list of seven conditions recommended by the staff to be placed on the conditional use permit, if the Commission found the use to be appropriate. Mr. Gregory S. Tulley, the Director of Planning and Zoning for Site Solutions, L.L.C., located at 5402 Starkey Road in Roanoke, Virginia, came forward and introduced himself, along with Mr. John L. Whitmer, a Section Leader for Washington Gas and author of the Justification Statement included with the application materials, and Mr. Lynn Koerner, Real Estate Acquisition Specialist for Site Solutions. Mr. Tulley said that collectively, they represent the interests of Shenandoah Gas, Inc., a subsidiary of Washington Gas and Light Company. Mr. Tulley continued, stating that the tower is not being constructed to primarily accommodate the needs of any wireless provider; the need for the larger structure is exclusively for the benefit of Shenandoah Gas's internal two-way radio system. He explained that the existing two towers are part of a 30 -year old analog system, that has been outgrown by Shenandoah Gas. He said the new 120' tower will replace the two existing towers and help to take the internal communication system into the new digital modern age. Mr. Tulley Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 2002 Page 945 -4 - submitted a letter from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources which stated that the project will not have an adverse impact on adjoining historic resources. Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Tulley if he was comfortable with all of the recommended conditions. Mr. Tulley replied that they do not have a problem with the spirit of Condition #7, however, it is a little vague in terms of where on the tower a space would be reserved for Frederick County Emergency Communication Services. Chairman DeHaven believed that clarification on this condition was reasonable. Commissioner Morris said he thought Mr. Tulley had stated that this was an internal company tower and the applicant had no intention of using it for personal wireless services. Mr. Tulley replied that they are asking for an internal system, however, the tower is being designed for co -locations and will be made available to anyone who wants to use it. Mr. Tulley stated that the structural capacity of the tower will support three additional users. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. The Commission believed the applicant had adequately addressed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and believed the request was appropriate. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #11-02 of Shenandoah Gas Company for a 120' monopole commercial telecommunications facility to be located at 350 Hillandale Lane with the following conditions: All Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency cormnents shall be addressed and complied with at all times. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers. A minor site plan shall be approved by the County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of abandonment of operation. 5. Existing towers on the site shall be removed within three (3) months after construction ofthe proposed tower, to allow time for transfer of existing communication equipment to the new tower. 6. In the event a telecommunication tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the Conditional Use Permit will be deemed invalid. The tower shall have space reserved for Frederick County emergency communication services. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 2002 Page 946 -5- A motion was made by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, and unanimously passed to include the letter from the Historic Resources Advisory Board, submitted by the applicant's representative, Mr. Gregory S. Tulley, as a part of the official record. Rezoning #11-02 of Danford Ridge, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to revise the previously - approved proffer statement associated with the original application, Rezoning #019-98. This property is located on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522) across from Parkins Mill Road (Rt. 644) and is identified with P.I.N.s 76-A-22 and 76-A-23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that Rezoning Application 411-02 is actually a revised proffer. Director Lawrence noted that in 1999, the County approved a rezoning from RA to RP which enabled a 250 -home residential development with proffers regarding a generalized development plan, access to the property, and viewshed protection, etc. He explained that the property has since been acquired by the developer of the Canter Estates project who is interested in tying the two projects together. Director Lawrence noted that in doing so, they are requesting a revision to the proffers which would enable the generalized development plan to be modified regarding the transportation element. Director Lawrence stated that the proposed proffer revisions would reduce the project's entrance on Rt. 522 from a primary to a secondary entrance; this change would eliminate the previously proffered improvements to Rt. 522 which established a median break/cross-over. He said the proposed entrance onto Rt. 522 would be a secondary entrance to the project and would be a right -in/ right -out configuration. He added that the revised proffer proposes to utilize an access into the adjacent development, Canter Estates, Section I1I, via Ruddy Drive. He further added that Canter Estates, Section III, will have an entrance onto Rt. 522 at an existing median break. Director Lawrence reviewed the revised proffers with the Commission. In conclusion, he stated that the applicant has not requested a change to the type of residential development that was previously approved; the submitted proffer statement continues to limit development on the property to 250 single-family lots. He said the proposed use continues to be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and is consistent with the residential development patterns in the immediate vicinity. He added that the request to revise the transportation portion of the proffer statement will not increase the number of proposed entrances onto existing public roads, but will redirect the generated traffic to a single median break on Rt. 522. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was present to represent the owner, Beverley B. Shoemaker, and the Danford Ridge project. Mr. Wyatt said the previously -approved proffer offered the applicant's intention to work with the adjoining Wakeland Manor developers on an agreement for the location of the Warrior Drive project. Mr. Wyatt indicated the applicant's intention to keep the original proffer statement in tact, but to modify the transportation component to provide improved trattic management. He said they now have a connection with Canter Estates, Section III, which will go into the property and provide a second means of access; they are now able to make the connection at Rt. 522 a right -in/ right -out only, thereby Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 2002 Page 947 -6 - eliminating the crossover and providing improved safety; and they have worked out a mutually -agreeable solution with representatives of the Wakeland Manor project for a proposed location for Warrior Drive. In addition, Mr. Wyatt said that they were able to provide a 100' right-of-way for Warrior Drive, which is identical to that on the Wakeland Manor MDP, on the revised proffer statement. He added that VDOT has already informed the applicant that there may be a potential for signalization at the crossover at Clydesdale, which should be studied at the subdivision design stage; it will not be known until that time if VDOT warrants can be met for signalization. Chainnan DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Commission members were interested in VDOT's comments as to whether the revised proffers would provide improved traffic safety and flow. Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT's Resident Engineer, believed the transportation proposal was appropriate at this particular location. However, Mr. Copp was concerned that VDOT may end up financing signalization all on their own because Canter Estates is currently being constructed and the construction of Danford Ridge will come later. Commission members were satisfied that their concerns had been addressed by the applicant, VDOT, and the staff. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning # 11-02 of Danford Ridge, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to revise the previously - approved proffer statement associated with the original application, Rezoning #019-98. PUBLIC MEETING Request of Michael and Linda Ferraro for a waiver to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144-31 C(3), which would enable the Ferraros to subdivide their property without the necessary 50' right-of-way width for a private shared driveway. This waiver, if approved, would apply to this specific subdivision request. Any future subdivision requests for this property would be required to meet the requirements of Section 144-31C(3). Action - Recommended Denial Commissioner Watt said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Zoning Administrator Patrick T. Davenport reported that Michael and Linda Ferraro are requesting a waiver of a subdivision ordinance requirement, Section 144-31C(3), which requires that a for a private shared driveway be 50' in width. He stated that this :viduii mast be established miiiirnuir, width Y y along an existing right-of-way out to the nearest state road, the nearest state road in this case is Rt. 707 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 2002 Page 948 -7 - (Hollow Road). Administrator Davenport said the Ferraros are proposing to subdivide the 108.98 -acre tract into two new parcels; Tract 1 would contain approximately 73.47 acres and Tract 2 would contain approximately 35.51 acres and would retain the dwelling currently under construction. Administrator Davenport explained that the required 50' right-of-way exists through three adjoining tracts, but the right-of- way width is unknown through six parcels. He said that the Ferraros were required to request the additional right-of-way width from those eight property owners. Administrator Davenport noted that the Ferraros did not receive any written responses to their requests and were unsuccessful in their attempts to obtain the necessary right-of-way width. He said the Ferraros are now requesting a waiver that would enable them to subdivide their property without the necessary 50' right-of-way width for their shared private driveway. In conclusion, Administrator Davenport stated that the Ferraro's attorney, Mr. Robert T. Mitchell, Jr., requested that copies of the proposed covenants, which would be recorded along with the subdivision plats, be distributed to the Planning Commission. Administrator Davenport presented copies of the covenants to the Commission. Mr. Michael Ferraro, the owner of the property, was available to answer questions from the Commission. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Joseph Marple, owner of property over which the right-of-way crosses, read a prepared statement regarding his issues with the Ferraro's request. Mr. Marple's statement reported a series of events which began in November of 2000, when Mr. Ferraro placed a locked gate closing access to Mr. Marple's land. Mr. Marple said that he sought legal counsel and was granted permission to remove the gate. Mr. Marple was of the opinion that Mr. Ferraro knew that a 50' right-of-way was not available when he purchased his property. Mr. Marple believed that Mr. Ferraro will continue to pursue subdivision of his property and attempt to use the narrow right-of-ways across adjoining properties for access. Mr. Marple requested that the Commission deny the Ferraro's request for a waiver. Ms. Renee Lafollette, representing Allan Lafollette's property, stated that they were against placing the 50' right-of-way through their property and were against the granting of any waivers. Ms. Lafollette said they did not want to be forced into a position where they have to give up some of their property to provide access to a land -locked parcel. In addition, Ms. Lafollette raised the point of providing fire protection for properties that are accessed by, basically, a "horse and buggy path." Mr. Patrick Huntley, owner of property over which the right -of --way crosses, was opposed to granting any waivers because he did not want a subdivision developed behind his property. Janice Lafollette Scholl, representing Allan Lafollette's property, stated that their property has been in their family for about 100 years. Ms. Scholl said that the Ferraro's property is landlocked. She said she did not want to see a road going through their family farm; she said the road through their property is only seven and a half feet wide. She was opposed to granting a waiver. Ms. Pat Smallwood, owner of property over which the right-of-way crosses, stated that they operate a tree farm. Ms. Smallwood said that access to her property crosses about six other properties. Ms. Smallwood said this is an inconvenience; she said they have been unable to get a double lane. Ms. Smallwood Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 2002 Page 949 -8 - was of the opinion that it was unjust for other property owners to be able to limit the use of her property and interfere with her right to make a living off her property. Mr. Thomas W. Wall, adjoining property owner and owner of property over which the right- of-way crosses, was concerned that ifthe right-of-way was granted, the Ferraro's property would be subdivided and more homes would be built. Mr. Wall said that he chose to place his home on this property because of the low population density, low traffic, low noise pollution, and the country setting. He was opposed to the granting of the waiver. Mr. John T. Watt, Jr. came forward to speak on behalf of himself and Mr. Tommy Watt. Mr. Watt said that they own property adjoining Mr. Ferraro's. Mr. Watt said that Mr. Ferraro knew the situation with the right-of-way when he purchased the property. Mr. Watt said that the increased right-of-way width would interfere with his peach orchard. Mr. Joseph Marple returned to the podium and presented some photographs ofthe right-of-way to the Commission. Mr. Michael Ferraro, the applicant, said that he has placed a declaration of restrictions on his property limiting future subdivision to one time and only two lots. Members of the Commission stated that they could not support the waiver request with so many of the adjoining property owners being opposed to it and because of the uncertainty about the actual width of the right-of-way that traverses the various properties. Upon motion made by Carmnissioner Gochenour and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of the request of Michael and Linda Ferraro for a waiver to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144-31C(3), which would enable the Ferraro's to subdivide their property without the necessary 50' right-of-way width for a private shared driveway. (Commissioner Watt abstained from voting.) Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz, the Commission unanimously agreed to include the letter and associated documents from Hall, Monahan, Engle, Mahan & Mitchell, dated October 15, 2002, as a part of the official record. DISCUSSION ITEMS DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES Action - Recommended Approval Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that the Planning Staff has completed a Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 2002 Page 950 -9 - comprehensive analysis of the County's current development review fees, the results of which indicate the need to increase fees to more appropriately compensate the County for the time and resources allotted to review development proposals. Director Lawrence stated that the adoption of a revised development fee schedule is recommended to resolve this issue. He then reviewed the proposed fee schedule for the Commission's consideration. Director Lawrence added that he intends to present this to the Board of Supervisors jointly with the Department of Public Works, who is also reviewing and recommending an increase in the building permit fees. Commission members were concerned about the fairness in the increase to the fees for a homeowner who is just seeking to start a small business through a conditional use permit. A question was raised by a Commission member as to whether or not the proposed fee schedule would encourage or discourage growth in either the RA (Rural Areas) or the UDA (Urban Development Area). Director Lawrence replied that it would not either encourage or discourage growth. After some discussion, the Commission members believed the increased fees were appropriate, especially since the fees had not been revised in a number of years. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner K iz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the increase in fees to the development review fee schedule. OTHER CANCELLATION OF 1 HE COMMISSION'S JANUARY 1 2003 MEETING Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that the Commission's first meeting ofthe new year falls on January 1, 2003, a holiday. Director Lawrence inquired if the Commission wanted to reschedule that meeting or cancel it. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to cancel their January 1, 2003 meeting. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER GOCHENOUR Commissioner Gochenour stated that she had a statement to read and report and she wanted to submit it as part of the agenda for today. Commissioner Gochenour said the statement was to the Planning Commission and Staff, from her, regarding the subject of parliamentary procedure that was raised at the Commission's August 21 meeting. Commissioner Gochenour proceeded to read her statement. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 2002 Page 951 ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. -10 - No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. by a Respectfully submitted, Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 2002 Page 952 • CU • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION #12-02 SHARED TOWERS, INC./CROSS JUNCTION TOWER (Revision of CUP #18-01) Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: October 21, 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: 11/06/02 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/11/02 Pending LOCATION: This property is located near the corner of Collinsville Road and Cross Junction Road, approximately 290 feet from North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522N). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 18-A-38 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential and Agricultural PROPOSED USE: 260 -foot high lattice -type telecommunications facility Planning and Zoning: This application is a request to revise a condition previously placed on Conditional Use Permit # 18-01. The condition stated that: "5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deeded invalid." Conditional Use Permit 418-01 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 13, 2002. Therefore, condition #5 requires that the tower be erected by March 13, 2003. The applicant does not CUP #12-02 - Shared Towers, Inc., Cross Junction Tower Page 2 October 21, 2002 believe that the tower will be erected by the anniversary date of the CUP approval, and has requested that this condition be revised to allow for an additional 12 months. Background In late 2001, the applicant ("Shared Towers, Inc.") submitted four (4) Conditional Use Permit applications for telecommunication towers to be constructed along the Route 522 North corridor. Shortly after Shared Towers, Inc. submitted the CUP applications, another applicant (SBA Properties/Triton PCS) submitted three (3) CUP requests for competing sites along the corridor. Both applicants provided documentation illustrating that the existing telecommunication network along the Route 522 North corridor was inadequate, and that additional towers were warranted. The Board of Supervisors ultimately granted the CUP tower requests to Shared Towers, Inc. following extensive discussions with both Shared Towers, Inc. and SBA Properties/Triton PCS. A condition was placed on the approved Shared Towers, Inc. requests stating the towers were to be constructed within a 12 -month period. It was believed that if the tower was not constructed, this condition would enable the County to reevaluate the applicant's proposal, as well as the applications submitted by SBA Properties/Triton PCS. At the request of SBA Properties/Triton PCS, Board action on their three (3) Conditional Use Permit applications has been deferred. These three applications are scheduled to return to the Board of Supervisors in December for consideration, prior to their 12 -month application anniversary. Site Plan One condition placed on the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP #18-01), was that a site plan be submitted and approved by the County. This site plan illustrates the tower's location on the property, setbacks, screening, and access. The site plan associated with CUP #18-01 for the Cross Junction Tower was approved on June 3, 2002. Approval of the site plan enabled the construction of a 260 -foot lattice telecommunications tower. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11-06-02 PLANNING COMMISSION ON MEETING: Staff believes that this application for a Commercial Telecommunication Facility has adequately addressed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in that need for this facility, based on a lack of coverage and capacity in this part of the County, has been demonstrated. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this application, essentially granting the applicant an extension of 12 months to construct the tower, the following conditions of approval would be appropriate: 1. All Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and complied with at all times. CUP #12-02 - Shared Towers, Inc., Cross Junction Tower Page 3 October 21, 2002 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers. 3. A minor site plan shall be approved by the County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of abandonment of operation. 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deemed invalid. 0:\Agendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2002\CrosslunctionTower_time ext.wpd i g 18 A 32 18 A 36C CROSEN R) BRAITWAITE R � 18 A 35A ✓u,,, Rd MICH/�EL i ;3' 1\KJHI I 19 A 7 R BAKER 18 A 36A 18 A 320 18 A 37 COFFELT COLLINS MAN. 'y A 38 � HOFFMAN 18 A 36 e: RAINES Aerv, A 39 cowmerr H(�O/QFFM�AN eetien �/ 18 `A 40 \� SHAWNEE 18 A 41 \' CANNING \ SHAWNEE r COMPANY, INC \ CANNING / y� OMPA INC 8. A M� 888 R SHAWNEE,\ CANNIN\. COMPANY INS . \ 18 A 43 18:; A 42A _ * V . • \ ORGAN , SHAWNEE ip`A7Y CANNING \ .COMPANY INC,'; i ZO�m R Thy - NO MAN ------- 1 A 10 18 A 42 HOFFMAN CUP # 12 - 02 O Zoning Location Map: Cross Junction Tower (Revised) PIN: 18-A-38 N W+. S 0 80 160 Feet Oct. 18. 2002 CUP #12-02 (Revision of CUP #I f-01) CROSS JUNCTION TOWER (Shared Towers, Inc.) Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting { -(2 7, APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the ❑ owner X other) NAME: Greenway Engineering ADDRESS: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 TELEPHONE 540-662-4185 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Jeanette Hoffman 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of our road or street) PO Box 325 Cross Junction, Virginia 22625 4. The property has a road frontage of 650 feet and a depth of 600 feet and consists of approximately 3 acres to the east of Rt 522 of a 96.41 acre parcel. (Please be exact) T he property is owned by Jeanette Hoffman as evidenced by deed from O.G. Deriaven and Goldie DeHaven (previous owner) recorded in deed book no. 182 on page 448, as recorded in the records of the clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 18-A-38 Magisterial District Gainesboro Current Zoning RA 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North Single Family RA East Single Family RA South Single Family, Business RA, B2 West 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) Unmanned Commercial telecommunications facilities 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 260' tall lattice tower structure inside a 100' x 100' leased area for round equipment/shelters to be placed on concrete pads. All equipment and lattice will be secured by.a fence. 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in from of (across the street) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on next page if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME Shawnee Canning Co ADDRESS PO Box 657 Cross PROPERTY ID# 18 -A -42A Junction, VA 22625 NAME Shawnee Canning Co PROPERTY ID# 18-A-41 NAME Jearldean D. Collins PROPERTY ID# 18 -A -32C NAME Jeanette Hoffman PROPERTY ID# 18-A-37 NAME Jeanette Hoffman PROPERTY ID# 18-A-39 NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS PO Box 657 Cross Junction, VA 22625 ADDRESS 198 Chestnut Grove Rd Winchester, VA 22603 ADDRESS PO Box 325 Cross Junction, VA 22625 ADDRESS PO Box 325 Cross Junction, VA 22625 ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 12. Additional comments, if any: If (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 Signature of r--*- &C-1 I - , () /9 A 2— Owner's Mailing Address c/o Eddie Cave, PO Box 325 Cross Junction, VA 22625 Owner's Telephone No. 540-888-3418 TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: OCT -11-2002 08:47 AM Sharr Towers 7036282654 1 257 123 3800 P.02 10/11/2002 08:16 54098430bj SF-ENANDOAH PCS PAW 81/91 ...A.WSHENTEL SHENAMOAN TSLECOMMUNICAMONS PO, Bax 40 • Edrnburg, VtrgInla 22824.04,70 (S�Op oeaa�a� October 9, 2002 Mr, Kamal Doshi Shared Towers, LLC 6501 Sandy Krsa11 Court MCLez, VA 22101 Ret Shared Towers Sites - mute 522 Fred®rir.k County, Virginia Dear Kamal: Sbanandoah Peraonal Commun lcations Company (Shcmtel) condnUes to be interaw in possibly leasing space on the facilities you we developing aiotlg State Route 522 nordh from Winches*, through Frederick County, toward Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, As previously stated, tbie interest is conditioned on the formal approval of Shentel's Board for Sonde to expand into this arae, and the str=turre being erected at a height suf5eient to allow 5bentel to =gets it® coverage objectives. We are an416 at this time to predict cur exact timetable for the development of nous area, but we would encourage you to obtain municipal approval to exteod the pertnits for the construcean of these sites for as long a time period as possible, at the least until June 2004. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have aU questious. LLG/lsb cc: Mr. William L. Pule Mr, Nail Fadely Sincerely yours, I;_I %3� Leonard L. Grciaz Project Menagcr SHE.NANQOAN rettp4oNE COMp4NV RHENTEL SiRVICE COMPANY • SHENANpoAH 6A0LS TELGOION COMPANY $HENANDCAN LONG CIsrANCE COMPANY • SHENANDOAH VALLF/ LIASMG COMPANY i SHENANDOAH MOZILE COMPANY SHENAN00AN NETWORK COMPANY • NIM1 EL COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY WE MUST SERVE WELLTO PROSPER • WE MUST FROU69 To 96RVi WRLL Shared Towers, Inc. 6501 Sande Knoll Court McLean, VA 22101 Thursday, October 10, 2002 Mr. Eric P. Lawrence Director, Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Lawrence: CUP # 18-01 for the Cross Junction Telecommunications Facility We are in need for an extension in the time allowed to complete construction of the telecommunication facility. Until now, I have made diligent efforts to attract the users of facility, to make a commitment to the facility. In each case. the response I am getting is that due to slowdown in telecommunications industry (as a result of financial market conditions all are limiting their expenditures to improving existing services and cutting back on new coverage areas) they are unable to commit to specific timeline when they would install their systems on the proposed towers. They are also saying that ultimately they will cover Route 522 in Frederick County. it is a matter of finding resources. We have in the meantime, taken all the steps necessary (site plan approval, specifications ready. bids obtained. etc) to build promptly upon positive response from users. We continue to spend money in good faith to bring telecommunications facilities to this section of the county. I have obtained the building, permit, issued construction contract and purchase order for the tower steel for the tower nearest to Winchester (Hunting Ridge). That tower should be constructed soon. Since, the county requires empty towers to be taken down, and for economic reasons, it is not prudent to build towers and have them sit empty. At the same time, all indications are that these towers are needed and Nvireless companies will install their services on them. Hence, I request processing of an application to extend the time granted by this CIP for a period of twelve months Sincerely, Kamal Doshi President RECEIVED OCT 11 2002 DEPT. OF PIANNI NGIDEVELOPIOENT • • C CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION #13-02 SHARED TOWERS (REYNOLDS STORE TOWER) (Revision of CUP #20-01) Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: October 21, 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: 11/06/02 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/11/02 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 8926 North Frederick Pike. MAGISTERIAL. DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 11-A-39 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District; ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Residential and Agricultural PROPOSED USE: 195 -foot high lattice -type telecommunications facility Planning and Zoning: This application is a request to revise a condition previously placed on Conditional Use Permit #20-01. The condition stated that: "5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deeded invalid." Conditional Use Permit #20-01 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 23, 2002. Therefore, condition #5 requires that the tower be erected by January 22, 2003. The applicant does not believe that the tower will be erected by the anniversary date of the CUP approval, and has requested CUP #13-02 - Shared Towers, Inc., Reynolds Store Tower Page 2 October 21, 2002 that this condition be revised to allow for an additional 12 months. Background In late 2001, the applicant ("Shared Towers, Inc.") submitted four (4) Conditional Use Permit applications for telecommunication towers to be constructed along the Route 522 North corridor. Shortly after Shared Towers, Inc. ubmitted the CUP applications, another applicant (SBA Properties/Triton PCS) submitted three (3) CUP requests for competing sites along the corridor. Both applicants provided documentation illustrating that the existing telecommunication network along the Route 522 North corridor was inadequate, and that additional towers were warranted. The Board of Supervisors ultimately granted the CUP tower requests to Shared Towers, Inc. following extensive discussions with both Shared Towers, Inc. and SBA Properties/Triton PCS. A condition was placed on the approved Shared Towers, Inc. requests stating the towers were to be constructed within a 12 -month period. It was believed that if the tower was not constructed, this condition would enable the County to reevaluate the applicant's proposal, as well as the applications submitted by SBA Properties/Triton PCS. At the request of SBA Properties/Triton PCS, Board action on their three (3) Conditional Use Permit applications has been deferred. These three applications are scheduled to return to the Board of Supervisors in December for consideration, prior to their 12 -month application anniversary. Site Plan One condition placed on the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP #20-01), was that a site plan be submitted and approved by the County. This site plan illustrates the tower's location on the property, setbacks, screening, and access. The site plan associated with CUP #20-01 for the Reynolds Store Tower was approved on May 17, 2002. Approval of the site plan enabled the construction of a 195 - foot lattice telecommunications tower. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11-06-02 PLANNING COWAISSION 1V EETING: Staff believes that this application for a Commercial Telecommunication Facility has adequately addressed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in that need for this facility, based on a lack of coverage and capacity in this part of the County, has been demonstrated. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this application, essentially granting the applicant an extension of 12 months to construct the tower, the following conditions of approval would be appropriate: 1. All Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and complied with at all times. CUP #13-02 - Shared Towers, Inc., Reynolds Store Tower Page 3 October 21, 2002 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers. 3. A minor site plan shall be approved by the County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of abandonment of operation. 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deemed invalid. 0'\Agendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2002Weynolds Store_time extwpd rO� i S �e II 08 A 83A WHIIiACRE m O8 A 82A WESLEY tii V CROSEN CHAPEL Ra. 08 ':A 84 ® CEMETERY ® 07 10 23 SCOTT CHESHIRE OB A 83C ® 3P o� NS 7 A 1a -' BALLENTINE 11 A 39 App— T— SHENK L-0- f %\ 11 A 39 SHENK / 31 SHENK 11 A 39A 12 A 1 S ! �BALLANTINE 572 i �m Q SHENK �� 11 A 398 „+ S r k 11 A 39 CUP # 13-02 _ zoning Location Map: Reynolds Store Tower (Revised) PIN: 11 -A-39 N WE S 0 100 200 300 Feet Oct 22, 2002 CUP #13-02 (Revision of CUP #;L&01) REYNOLDS STORE TOWER (Shared Towers, Inc.) Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting (a BOS Meeting �, 2 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Applicant (The applicant if the ❑ owner X other) NAME: Greenway Engineering ADDRESS: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 TELEPHONE 540-662-4185 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Daniel A. & Mary J. Shenk Roser :serW- Sue L. Shenk 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of our road or street) 8.13 orth Frederick Pike Cross Junction Virginia 22625 The property has a road frontage of 1050 feet and a depth of 1000 feet and consists of 105 acres. (Please be exact) The property is owned by Daniel A. & Mary J. Shenk and Roser W & Sue L Shenk as evidenced by deed from Evelyn G. Shenk (previous owner) recorded in deed book no. 902 on page 1533, as recorded in the records of the clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 11-A-39 Magisterial District Gainesboro Current Zoning RA 7. Adjoining Property: 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) Unmanned Commercial telecommunications facilities 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 195' tall lattice tower structure inside a 100' x 100' leased area for ground equipment/shelters to be placed on concrete pads. All equipment and lattice will be secured by a fence. 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in from of (across the street) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on next page if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: _ S,ke,jk NAME Daniel Shm, et al ADDRESS 8840 North Frederick PROPERTY ID# 11-A-3913 Pike, Cross Junction, VA 22625 NAME Commonwealth of ADDRESS PO Box 2249, Staunton, PROPERTY ID# Virginia Va 24402 11 -A -39E NAME Robert A. Ballentine, S ADDRESS 9910 Old Court Road, PROPERTY ID# 12-A-1 Woodstock, MD 21163 NAME Robert A. Ballentine, Sr ADDRESS 4386 Montgomery PROPERTY ID# 7-A-10 Road, Ellicott City, MD 21043 NAME David S. & Susan B. ADDRESS PO Box SS7, Cross PROPERTY ID# Whitaker Junction, VA 22625 6-A-84 NAME Frank V. & Barbara ADDRESS 561 Chapel Hill Road, PROPERTY ID# Ann Scott Cross Junction, VA 6 -A -83C 22625 USE ZONING North Single Family, Cemetery RA East Agriculture Single Family RA South Single Family, State RA West Route 522 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) Unmanned Commercial telecommunications facilities 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 195' tall lattice tower structure inside a 100' x 100' leased area for ground equipment/shelters to be placed on concrete pads. All equipment and lattice will be secured by a fence. 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in from of (across the street) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on next page if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: _ S,ke,jk NAME Daniel Shm, et al ADDRESS 8840 North Frederick PROPERTY ID# 11-A-3913 Pike, Cross Junction, VA 22625 NAME Commonwealth of ADDRESS PO Box 2249, Staunton, PROPERTY ID# Virginia Va 24402 11 -A -39E NAME Robert A. Ballentine, S ADDRESS 9910 Old Court Road, PROPERTY ID# 12-A-1 Woodstock, MD 21163 NAME Robert A. Ballentine, Sr ADDRESS 4386 Montgomery PROPERTY ID# 7-A-10 Road, Ellicott City, MD 21043 NAME David S. & Susan B. ADDRESS PO Box SS7, Cross PROPERTY ID# Whitaker Junction, VA 22625 6-A-84 NAME Frank V. & Barbara ADDRESS 561 Chapel Hill Road, PROPERTY ID# Ann Scott Cross Junction, VA 6 -A -83C 22625 NAME Wesley Chapel ADDRESS 271 Spring Valley PROPERTY ID# Cemetery Drive, Winchester, VA 6-A-83A 22603 NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY Ill# _ NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# 12. Additional comments, if any: If (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 Applican Signature of Owner Owner's Mailing Address 8840 North Frederick Pike, Cross Junction, Virginia 22625 Owner's Telephone No. 540-888-3712 TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: OCT -11-2002 08:47 AM Share, Towers 7036282654 1 253 ?3 3800 P.02 10/11/2002 08:16 5409843005 SHENANECAH PCS PALS 8I/01 SHEN TEL SHENe NDOAH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PO, sox a64 • Edrburg. Vo-glnla 22 9-0939 • (50984-4141 Dctob= 9, 2002 Shared Towers, LLC 6501 Sandy Knoll Court McLewa, VA 22101 Re, Shared Towers Sites - Route 522 Frederick Cauaty, Virginia Dear KMUW: Sbenaadoah Personal Communications Company (Shontel) continues to be intorestod it possibly leasing space on the facilities you are developing along State Route $22 tlorrh from Winchester, through Fradmick County, toward Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, As previously maw, this interest is conditioned on the formal approval of Shentel's Board for finds to expand into this arca, and the stnictum boing erected at a height sufficient to allow Sbentel to =veto its eovo mgs objectives. We are unable at this time to predict our exact timetable far the development of Itis area, but we would encourage you to obtain, municipal approval to extend the pennits for the cattstrucgna of these sites for ea long a time period as possible, at the levet until June 2004, bo not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. LLG/lsb cc: Mr. William L. Pirtle Mr. NCO Fadely Si1w "Wely yours, Leonard L. Greiez Project Manager SHENANpoAH reLEPNCNE COh pANY • DIOWEL URVICE COMPANY + SHENANDOAH CABLE TBLI: SION COMPANY 4MENMOCAH LONG DISTANCE COMPANY ' SHENANDOAH'dALIFY LdA3WO COMPANY I $MLNAND04H MOBILE COMPANY 5HENANDQAH NEnV0rw =mPANV - &HENTEL COMMUNICATION6 COMPANY WE MUST SERVE WILL TO PROSPER ' W9 MUST PROPER TO PEEVE WELL • C1 • REZONING APPLICATION #07-02 DORIS F. CASEY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 21, 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: 07/01/02 Tabled Planning Commission: 08/21/02 Tabled 60 Days Planning Commission: 11/06/02 Pending Board of Supervisors: (Tentative) PROPOSAL: To rezone 3 0.31 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) zoning district to RP (Residential Performance) District. LOCATION: This property is located west on Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 ft. north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Agricultural and Nonconforming Commercial (Shenandoah Florist) AD110INING PROPER'T'Y ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Use: Agricultural RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District Residential South: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Use: Cemetery B2 (Business General) Zoning District Funeral Parlor REZ 407-02, Doris F. Casey Page 2 October 24, 2002 East: B2 (Business General District) Zoning District Use: Commercial RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Residential West: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Use: Agriculture PROPOSED USE: 70 Single Family Detached Urban 12,000 SF lots REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Det. of Transportation: The application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 522 and 822. Routes 522 and 822 are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Doris F. Casey property rezoning application dated May 9, 2002 (revised) addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the ITE Tri 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. Fire Marshal: Recommendation: Residential sprinkler system. Additional comment: Extension of municipal water for fire fighting. Plan approval recommended. Millwood Station Volunteer Fire & Rescue: Normal proffer model for fire/rescue/residential. Frederick County Department of Inspections: No comment required at this time; will comment at the time of site plan or subdivision plan. County Engineer: We have no comments at this time. We reserve the right to perform a detailed review at the time of the submission of the site plan and subdivision plans. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the Casey property rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic properties. No comments on this rezoning request. Sanitation Authority: Water and sewer are available to this site. There is adequate capacity. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the 70 new residences will yield 35 new students to be served by Frederick County Public Schools. Residential REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 3 October 24, 2002 growth in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollment near or exceeding their design capacity. The cumulative impact of this project, and others of a similar nature, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the application process. Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation: The $600/lot proffer proposed for Parks and Recreation is adequate to meet 50% of the impact the county has projected this development will have on parks and recreation. County Attorney The proffer statement appears to be in proper form. Planning & Zoning_ 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (USGS Winchester, VA Quadrangle) depicts the zoning of the subject parcel as R-1 (Residential Limited) District. During the comprehensive down -zoning of October 10, 1980, parcel 63 A 23 was changed from R-1 to A-2. On Feb. 14, 1990, the A-2 and A-1 were modified to the R -A zoning classification. 2) Location The proposed site is located west of Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 ft. north of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 644 (Paper Mill Road). 3) - Comprehensive Policy Plan The subject property is included in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan, a study within the County's 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Plan does not specifically identify the future land use for this site. The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area (UDA) is intended to accommodate suburban residential development. The subject site also has road frontage on Routes 522 and 644. Route 522 is classified as a minor arterial and Route 644 is major collector road according to the VDOT functional classifications. 4) Site Suitability Environmental Features The entire site is located as "Zone C" area outside the 100 -year flood plain. The site does not contain areas of steep slopes or woodlands as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 4 October 24, 2002 The soil types located on maps 63 and 64 show that 77.5% of the site is 9B,Clearbrook Channery silt loam, typically having a high water table and depth to bedrock, limiting this soil for community development; 22% of the site is 3B, Blairton Silt loam, identified soils as prime farmland, well-suited to cultivated crops, hay and pasture, and tree productivity. Seasonal high water table and depth to bedrock and potential frost action are the main limitations to use of soil for community development; and .5% of the site is 41D, Weikert-Berbs Channery silt loam, poorly suited to hay and pasture. There are approximately .35 acres of wetlands present on the site. Any disturbance of this area will be in conformance with Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality permitting procedures. Access The site has a manmade boundary created by Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) on the eastern edge of the tract and Route 644 (Paper Mill Rd) on the western edge of the tract. One entrance is proposed on Route 522 to provide access to the residential property. A connection to Westwood Drive is proposed to occur form the residential property through the Swisher parcel. Access to Route 644 (Paper Mill Road) is not proposed due to traffic flow concerns identified by VDOT. 5) Potential Impacts & Issues a.) Transportation Impact Anal sis Statement For the proposed 30.31 acre property to be rezoned from RA to RP, the access will be on Route 522, Analysis of the residential land use indicates a worst-case scenario impact to Route 522 as follows: Existing Traffic on Route 522 = 10,000 VPD (Based on the 2000 VDOT Average Daily Traffic Volumes Manual) Average Vehicle Trips = 9.57 VPD Projected Traffic Increase =670 VPD Percentage of increase to the traffic pattern of Route 522 = 6.7% The complete build out of this project will increase the traffic on Route 522 by 6.7% of the year 2000 VPD. Route 522 is a five -lane major arterial road with two travel lanes in each direction and a center turn lane to facilitate left turn movements. The increase in traffic volume from this rezoning proposal can be accommodated by this road facility. REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 5 October 24, 2002 Review Agency Comment VDOT concurs with the transportation analysis offered in the rezoning application. Staff Comment The primary access for the 70 -single-family lots will be provided through the extension of a state road constructed from Route 522. This proposed state road will not have a connection with Papermill Road. The applicant has indicated that a road connection to Westwood Drive (Route 822) on the Swisher property, P.I.N. 64-A-20 will be provided to the subject property. If access is acquired, pavement widening on the existing portion of Westwood Drive to Route 522 will be paid for and installed by the applicant in the dimensional widths as directed by VDOT, when the connection to Westwood Drive through the Swisher property occurs. There have been numerous comments of concern by property owners in the adjoining development along Westwood Drive. There are concerns regarding the widening of their street, drainage concerns, and concern of the impacts of the potential future development of the R2 Swisher parcel the Casey parcel and their neighborhood adjoins. The applicant has provided a number of transportation related proffered conditions. These conditions are reviewed in the Section 6 of this report. b.) Water & Sewer Impact Analysis Statement There will be public water and sewer serving the site. An existing eight -inch sewer main is currently in place on the west side of Route 522. The proposed sanitary sewer system will run along the north boundary of the property in a west -to -east flow pattern, towards the existing main. It will then be connected to the main in accordance with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority regulations. An eight -inch water main is currently in place on the west side of Route 522 and is available to service the site. The impact of rezoning the 30.31 -acre parcel from RA to RP on sewage conveyance is based on a development schedule of 70 dwellings. At an estimated 275 gpd, the build -out impact on sewage conveyance would be 19,250 gpd. These figures are based on the Frederick County Sanitation Authority's Water and Sewer Standards and Specifications. REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 6 October 24, 2002 Review Agency Comments There is an adequate capacity of sewer and water available to this site. Staff Comments The applicant's discussions with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority indicate adequate capacities in the water and sewer transmission lines, adequate capacity at the water and sewer treatment facilities, and adequate water supply resources to serve the proposed project. The FCSA comment dated March 19, 2002, states that water and sewer are available to the site and that there is adequate capacity. c.) Solid Waste Disposal Impact Analysis Statement The impact on solid waste disposal facilities is based on an average annual per household consumption of landfill volume figure of 5.4 cubic yards. Based on the proffered density of 70 dwellings at 5.4 Cu. Yd. per dwelling the daily volume = 378 Cu. Yd. Sta Comments Staff feels the applicant has adequately addressed the impact of solid waste. d.) Historical Sites and Structures Impact Analysis Statement The applicant noted the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks showed the Duncan Farmhouse and the Evandale School in the vicinity ofthe subject site. The Winchester Regional Preservation Office Department of Historic Resources said there were no archeological artifacts found on the site. Review Agency Comments A response letter dated February 6, 2002, states that the Doris F. Casey property does not significantly impact any historic properties. Staff Comments Staff feels the applicant has adequately addressed the impact to historic structures. REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 7 October 24, 2002 6) Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffered condition statement, signed by the property owners, that provides the following: • Limit the total lots for the RP acreage to 70 single family lots. • Restrict the 74single-family dwellings to SF Detached Urban, 12,000 SF lots, and prohibit all other housing types allowed in Section 165-65. • The applicant proffers to install a turn lane at the primary entrance on US Route 522, if warranted by VDOT. • The applicant proffers to dedicate right-of-way to the Commonwealth of Virginia adjacent to the property on US Rt. 522 and Rt. 644 as determined by VDOT. • A connection to Westwood Drive (Route 822) onto the Swisher property (PIN. 64-A-20 and 21) will be provided to the subject property. Pavement widening on the existing portion of Westwood Drive to Route 522 will be installed by the applicant in the dimensional widths as directed by VDOT. These improvements will be installed when the connection to Westwood Drive through the Swisher property occurs. The applicant proffers to develop the 30.31 -acre property in substantial conformance with the General Development Plan approved as part of the rezoning application. The General Development Plan is intended to delineate the road systems that will serve the 70 single-family lots and the connection to Westwood Drive through the Swisher property. Provide a 50 -foot buffer along the entire southernproperty line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park. An earth berm with a single row of evergreen trees planted on 10 -foot centers will be developed within the first 25 feet closest to the Shenandoah Memorial Park property. A 10 -foot non-exclusive easement will be provided within the remaining portion of the 50 -foot buffer for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility by others. Provide a 10 -foot non-exclusive easement for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility by others within the established road efficiency buffer along Papermill Road (Route 644). The applicant has offered the following monetary contributions to offset the impact of development: a. $700/lot to offset the impact to Frederick County Fire and Rescue b. $600/lot to Frederick County Parks and Recreation c. $3,600/lot for Frederick County Public Schools d. $210/lot for Frederick County Library e. $120/lot for Frederick County Sheriff's Office REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 8 October 24, 2002 f. $245/lot for Frederick County Administration Building This payment, totaling $5,475/lot, is intended to offset additional costs to Frederick County due to the increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of issuance ofthe building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 07/01/02 MEETING The original rezoning Application #07-02 ofDoris Casey, submitted by Greenway Engineering to rezone 27 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP; and 3.31 acres from RA to B2 came before the Planning Commission on July 1, 2002. The Planning Commission tabled the action and waived time restraints to allow Greenway Engineering to address the concerns raised and to revise their proposal. At the July 1, 2002 meeting, comments from Frederick County Parks and Recreation noted that the impact of this development was not adequately mitigated. Comments from Frederick County Public Schools advised that the cumulative impact of this project and others of a similar nature will necessitate the future construction of additional school facilities. In regards to the comments from Parks and Recreation Department, Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering explained that the Capital Facilities Impact Model indicated a positive impact from this development because of the B2/RP zoning. Planning commissioners had concerns about residents having to drive through the middle of the B2 area to get to their residences, and suggested limiting the neighborhood transition area to B 1, or eliminating the intensive uses allowed in B2. They pointed out that some commercial uses may not be compatible with respect to the adjoining cemetery. Chairman DeHaven inquired about buffering against the cemetery property, and Mr. Smith could see no problems with placing additional buffering and screening. Five area residents carne forward with public comments. Adjacent landowners were concerned about numerous issues. One issue was the concern about the compatibility ofbusiness uses with the cemetery, especially since Patsy Cline is buried in this cemetery. Maintaining the integrity of the adjoining cemetery was emphatically stated by three citizens. Neighborhood residents of Westwood Drive felt further improvements to Westwood Drive to accommodate future developments would disrupt the quality of life in their neighborhood. Neighboring residents of Westwood Drive who were not adjoiners to the Doris Casey property, expressed disappointment that they were not notified of the public hearing. Other expressed concerns were water runoff and flooding. Planning Commission members requested that the applicant become more creative with the inter -parcel design. Commissioner Light recognized the traffic congestion currently in the area, and believed the drainage could be better controlled if the proposal were all residential. He also felt B1 or B2 would disrupt the flow of the residential neighborhood and negatively impact the funeral/cemetery area. REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 9 October 24, 2002 UPDATE SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON 07/01/02 In response to concerns raised during the Planning Commission meeting on July 1, 2002, the applicant has attempted to address the concerns in a revised general development plan and proffer statement. This revised proffer statement provides for a residential use restriction for 70 single family detached urban lots, no commercial rezoning request, a 50 -foot buffer along the entire southern property line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park, with an earthen berm and evergreen screening. The revised general development plan is intended to delineate the road systems that serve the 70 single-family lots and the connection to Westwood Drive. Revised monetary contributions to offset the impact of development to Frederick County are included. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/21/02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The revised application for the rezoning of the Doris Casey property appropriately meets county requirements and has addressed many concerns of the Planning Commissioners, public comment, and staff. The subject parcel is located within the UDA and the SWSA. The Urban Development Area (UDA) is intended to accommodate suburban residential development. After any further concerns of the Planning Commission are addressed, staff suggests that a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to address any concerns raised in this report, as well as the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 08/21/02 MEETING The August 21, 2002 meeting of the Planning Commission had nine citizens speak regarding the potential rezoning for the Doris Casey property. One resident presented a petition of 260 names opposed to the rezoning because of traffic concerns. Neighboring Westwood Drive residents expressed concerns regarding construction traffic, traffic congestion, and increased drainage problems and flooding that would disrupt the quality of life in their neighborhood. Other specific concerns expressed by neighboring residents included the concern that a precedent would be set for even more development in their area; the need for a barrier to protect the integrity of the adjacent cemetery; disturbance of wetlands and wildlife habitat; experiencing decreased water pressure because ofotherrecent developments; the ability to supply sufficient infrastructure to support the proposed development; and sufficient water capacity to serve future development. Commissioners discussed with VDOT representatives the feasibility of using Papermill Road as the primary or secondary access for the development. VDOT representatives described the extensive improvements that would be needed to Papermill if it was used as the primary access, such as left and right turn lanes, transition lanes, right-of-way acquisition, and verticle alignment. The applicant addressed numerous issues raised by the Commission, including whether there was REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 10 October 24, 2002 sufficient width available to allow a right -turn lane on Rt. 522; the possibility of accommodating the access to the Swisher property as "emergency use only;" the inclusion of a physical barrier, such as a fence, along the adjacent cemetery; and confirmation that the Swisher property owns a 50' right-of-way extension to Westwood Drive. There were many varying points of view among Commissioners regarding the outcome of the proposal. Some members pointed out that this property is within the Urban Development Area, with sewer and water, and has been designated for development; those Commissioners were seeking some way to make the proposed development compatible with the existing residents in the area. Other members of the Commission were not in favor of the development at this time based on the County's current Transportation Plan, the County's potentially limited water supply, and the possible necessity of additional school construction. There were also varying points of view regarding the number of access points to the development, whether or not Papermill Road or Rt. 522 should be the primary access, and wether or not Westwood Drive should be a restricted access for "emergency vehicles only." There was agreement that the buffer against the Shenandoah Memorial Park should include a fence in lieu of an earth berm and that any connection to Westwood Drive should not be allowed until construction was completed, to eliminate construction traffic on Westwood Drive. Five motions were made on the rezoning, all of which either died, were defeated, or failed because of tie votes. A sixth motion was made to table the rezoning for 60 days in the hope that all voting members of the Commission would be present, in order to break any tie votes. This motion passed by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION TO TABLE): Straub, Gochenour, Unger, Light, DeHaven, Fisher, Rosenberry NO: Morris, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett (Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) UPDATE SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON 08/21/02 The applicant has submitted a revised proffer statement to address issues of concern. The revised proffer statement, signed by the owner on October 10, 2002, and approved by the County Attorney provides for the following: • 70 Single -Family Detached Urban 12,000 SF lots. • Primary access for the 70 SF lots through a single access point on Route 522, with a right -turn lane if warranted by VDOT • Right-of-way dedication to the Commonwealth of Virginia adjacent to the property on US Route 522 and State Route 644 (Papermill Rd.) as determined by VDOT. O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\REZONING\Staff Repon\2002\Doris CaseyPC3 wpd REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 11 October 24, 2002 • Emergency access connection to State Route 644 (Papermill Road) in a location that is consistent with the General Development Plan. • To develop the 30.31 -acre property in substantial conformance with the General Development Plan approved as part of the rezoning application. • Provide a 50 -foot buffer along the entire southernproperty line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park Property. The 50 -foot buffer will not contain any portion of residential lots. A fence that is a minimum of six feet high, resembling a traditional iron fence style for cemetery enclosures, will be provided. • A single row of evergreen trees planted on 10 -foot centers will be provided within the first 25 feet of the entire buffer, and a 10 -foot non-exclusive easement will be provided within the remaining portion of the 50 -foot buffer for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian path by others. • Route 644 (Papermill Road) will have a 10 -foot non-exclusive easement for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian path by others within the established road efficiency buffer along Route 644. • Monetary contributions to Frederick County, totaling $5,475/lot is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the building permit according to the following breakdown: • $3,600/lot for Frederick County Public Schools • $600/lot for Frederick County Parks and Recreation • $700/lot for Frederick County Fire and Rescue • $210/lot for Public Library • $120/lot for Frederick County Sheriff's Office • $245/lot for Frederick County Administration Building STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/06/02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The revised application for the rezoning of the Doris Casey property appropriately meets county requirements and has addressed many concerns of the Planning Commissioners, public comment, and staff. The subject parcel is located within the UDA and the SWSA. The Urban Development Area (UDA) is intended to accommodate suburban residential development. The applicant meets buffer requirements along major collector roads, and exceeds the zoning code requirements by providing a 50 -foot buffer along the entire southern property boundary adjacent to the Shenandoah Memorial Park. A six-foot high fence resembling a traditional iron fence along the cemetery and a planting of evergreen trees on 10 -foot centers along the entire length of the property line is offered in the proffer statement. No buffer is required by the Frederick County zoning code in this area adjacent REZ #07-02, Doris F. Casey Page 12 October 24, 2002 to the RA zoned property. The applicant has provided an emergency access connection to Route 644 (Papermill Road) as shown on the General Development Plan. The rezoning proposal was first submitted in March of 2002, and first reviewed in July of 2002. Staff would note that the output model shows a net capital facilities impact to Frederick County of $9,155 per lot. The applicant is offering a monetary contribution of $5,475 per lot at the time of building permit. After any further concerns of the Planning Commission are addressed, staff suggests that a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to address any concerns raised in this report, as well as the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\REZONING\Staff Report\2002\Doris Ca eyPC3_wpd OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: 64-.A-23 Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Doris Casey RE Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Take REAL EST VAL $9,177,000 Total Potential Adjustment For Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CI P/ FIRE & RESCUE 6 Capital Faciltii_es col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes, Other Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per (Unadjusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department. $45,095 Elementary Schools $300,138 $0 $0 $45,095 $644 Middle Schools $176,554 $49,109 $238,393 High Schools $258,828 $287,502_ _ $205,545 $529,975 $7,571 Parks and Recreation $107,450 $24,216 Public Library $18,680 $24,216$1 $$,313 $90,137 288 $5,224 Sheriff's Offices $11,056 $9,059 $0 $2 258 $5,224 $11 3 ,735 $3 $8,091 $14,945 $ Administration Building $14,188 $© ,317 $2,965 $42 $42 Other Miscellaneous Facilities03 $18,101 $17,455 $19,272 $0 $36,727 $0 $26,257 $14,188 $2$0 $0 SUBTOTAL $950,090 $75,623 $257,665 $31,698 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $0 $364,985 $260,941 $689,148 $9,845 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $0 $0 $0 $0 689,148 $9,845 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Av g: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.533 PLANN114G DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 0.715 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the firs t column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative), included are the one-time taxes /fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper c ap equip taxes paid in third c olumn as calculated in fis cal 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 c urrent 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 03/07102 as k - - - --- -- Project Description: Assumes 70 Single Family Dwellings on 30.31 ac res zoned RP District Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Modula may not be valid beyond a period of 90 day s from the model run date. 2001MODEL Greenway Engineering Preliminary Matters March 18, 2002 Revised May 1, 2002 Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 September 25, 2002 DORIS F. CASEY PROPER'T'Y REZONING Tax Parcels #64-((A))-23 Shawnee Magisterial District Doris F. Casey Property Rezoning Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application 4 07-02 for the rezoning of 30.31acres from the Rural Areas (RA) District to Residential Performance (RP) District. Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Doris F. Casey being all of Tax Map Parcel 64-((A))-23 and further described by Boundary Survey Plat prepared by Darren S. Foltz, L.S., dated January 9, 2002 (see attached Boundary Survey Plat). A.) Residential Use Restriction 1. The applicant hereby proffers that the 30.31 -acre property shall be developed as Single -Family Detached Urban 12,000 SF lots. All other housing types allowed in Section 165-65 are hereby prohibited. 2. The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of Single -Family Detached Urban lots to 70. B.) Transportation 1.) Access to Route 522 The primary access for the 70 single-family lots of this rezoning will be provided through a single access point on Route 522. File 43230/MDS/eaw Greenway Engineering March 18, 2002 Doris F. Casey Property Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 September 25, 2002 2.) Turn lane — US Route 522 The applicant hereby proffers to install a right -turn lane at the primary entrance on Route 522, if warranted by VDOT 3.) Right-of-way Dedication The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate a right-of-way to the Commonwealth of Virginia adjacent to the property on US Route 522 and State Route 644 as determined by VDOT. 4.) Emergency Access The applicant hereby proffers to construct an emergency access connection to State Route 644 in a location that is consistent with the General Development Plan. The emergency access will be developed during the construction of the road system serving the 70 single-family lots and will be designed to the minimum detail standard provided on the General Development Plan. The final construction standard for the emergency access connection will be approved by VDOT as a component of the Subdivision Design Plan. C.) General Development Plan 1. The applicant hereby proffers to develop the 30.31 -acre property in substantial conformance with a General Development Plan approved as part of the rezoning application. The General Development Plan is intended to delineate the road systems that will serve the 70 single-family lots and the emergency access connection to Route 644. D.) Shenandoah Memorial Park Buffer 1. The applicant hereby proffers to provide a 50 -foot buffer along the entire southern property line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park. The 50 -foot buffer will not contain any portion of residential lots developed within the 30.31 -acre property. A fence that is a minimum of six feet in height, resembling a traditional iron fence style for cemetery enclosures with a single row of evergreen trees planted on 10 - foot centers will be developed within the first 25 feet of the entire buffer along the Shenandoah Memorial Park property. A 10 -foot non-exclusive easement will be provided within the remaining portion of the 50 -foot buffer for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility by others. File #3230/MDS/eaNv 2 Greenway Engineering March 18, 2002 Revised May 1, 2002 Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 September 25, 2002 E.) Route 644 Road Efficiency Buffer Easement Doris F. Casey Property Rezoning The applicant hereby proffers to provide a 10 -foot non-exclusive easement for the future development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility by others within the established road efficiency buffer along Route 644, F.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above-described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application 4 is approved, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ 3,600/lot for Frederick County Public Schools $ 600/lot for Frederick County Parks and Recreation $ 700/lot for Frederick County Fire and Rescue $ 210/lot for Public Library $ 120/lot for Frederick County Sheriff's Office $ 245/lot for Frederick County Administration Building This payment, totaling $5,475/lot is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the building permit. File 93230/MDS/eaw Greenway Engineering March 18, 2002 Doris F. Casey Property Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised May 9, 2002 July 11, 2002 September 25, 2002 G.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: ` , �' !& ICS 02. oris F. Casey I Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/(ounty f To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 104 -day of QGJDU �r 20C)Lby F C0Se My Commission Expires Fe by-ua�2t Z�, 2s�Q— File #3230/MDS/eaw Notary EIED L r F. OF FL J%A''iP41DEVELOPjjJENT Rezoning Comments .;: •M�'4�'.•;f,%. �'. h,�'iT vi._ n'i K��{ r. yy�.'1Vk' �� .. _ ... ..h"� .9+13.1• •. �� .Y� '.. '.. � '. ,: � Frederick County Attorney Mail to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-6383 Hand deliver to: Frederick ounty Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, Virginia (540) 665-5651 appucant: rtease till out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the County Attorney's office with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane me ester, A 02 Location of property: West along Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Route an oute aper i oa Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 30.31 Uuuiy tiuorney-s Comments:/ / 9 a 7` k ih rz �� ;Y„� Assistant County Attorney's Signature & Date: Notice to County Attorney — Dfease Retu. n This Form to the Applicant • Muc JLC ,-��/,; � __ COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22824 September 27, 2002 Comments to Proposed Rezoning Ref: Doris F. Casey Property Routes 11, 822 Frederick County JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX(540)984-5607 The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 522 & 822. Routes 522 & 822 are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Doris F. Casey Property Rezoning Application dated September 25, 2002 (revised) addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Generation Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off- site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of- way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Homer F. Coff Transportation Assistant Resident Engineer elk r: VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING H z C� C a 0 ui N O N O O N O O 3 cu a 0 c) N M x w n '_ V z z z Q J a N N Of (D 0. 0 L a a a� U O M N c� V) N 0 x REINFORCED ORA FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES ONLY YELLOW BALLARDS W/ CHAINS I TAPER I I T .PER EMERGENCY ACCESS DETAIL NOT TO SCALE uasRm V 1 F� E ;RGEN' C \ \ ESS \ 0 \ JA a na m n ae � � �`lar'"°aa:��•a I •u a ama • / I �/aaxzwa+/ r'a`rer n,n.3aa�on•1 �•I ' u•uw�ol l"�tD'°rva anaaaaa• EMPORARY CUL=DE-RAC — r. S 1 7 77 === \ : BIJ�EI " LEGEND D PRIMARY ROAD SYSTEM C--150' BUFFER Z� low J1pfM� ■ 1 I I �O' �HEN,ANDOAH MEMO Re . L PARK CEMETARY BUFFER NOTE: THE PROPOSED ROAD LAYOUT ON THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS INTENDED TO B:: DEVELOPED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE ILLUSTRATION. MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ROAD LENGTH, ROAD CURVATURE AND CUL-DE-SAC LOCATIONS MAY OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL BY THE -VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 02 0 U) W 0 m I" d Z d� C12tkom LLZ 04 �Lo a F+ 0 .S W A MARK D. SMM No. 022837 DATE:OCTOBER 2002 SCALE: -1"=200' DESIGNED BY:EAW/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET -1 OF 1 E- L U� a cc H W Aa 0— a O Cc z w W ISL U U �q WW W DATE:OCTOBER 2002 SCALE: -1"=200' DESIGNED BY:EAW/JNT JOB NO. 3230 SHEET -1 OF 1 • • C COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM x TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director �f RE: Discussion - SWSA/UDA Expansion for the Russell Farm DAVE: October 22, 2002 _ Staff has received a request from Mark Smith, vof Greenway Engineering, to consider incorporating the entire Russell Farm within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). A small portion of the farm is also requested for inclusion in the Urban Development Area (UDA). The property is located east of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South), near its intersection with Papermill Road (Route 644). The properties are presently accessed via Laurelwood Drive Mr. Smith has requested the expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to incorporate the remaining acreage of the farm within the SWSA. Approximately 149 acres of the 277 -acre farm is presently within the SWSA; the request would include an addition of 128 acres to the SWSA. The request is also for an addition of less than six acres to the Urban Development Area (UDA). The farm consists of various parcels, with three owners. The site is predominantly vacant, but the Frederick County School Board is seeking to acquire a portion of the tract for use as a future middle school site. The School Board is seeking to purchase a 30 -acre portion of the farm for use as the County's fourth Middle School. In order to utilize the public water and sewer system, the future school site would need to be incorporated into the SWSA.- Please refer to the illustration provided by Greenway Engineering, dated September 2002, for the approximate location of the school site. Primary access to the farm (including the proposed school site) would be via a proposed collector road, which would be constructed through the southern portion of the Shenandoah Mobile Home Park. The owner of the mobile home park has indicated that the road would displace 15 mobile home units. Therefore, it is their intent to relocate the 15 units to an expanded portion of mobile home park. The UDA expansion is being sought an in effort to accommodate a MH 1 rezoning petition that would ultimately be filed with the County. Attached is information and mapping provided by the applicant and staff. The mapping illustrates the location of the UDA and SWSA, and current zoning in the general vicinity of the subject site. During this discussion, staff will be seeking comments regarding this request that could be forwarded to the Board during their discussion of the request. ERL/cih Attachments 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 SWSA ! UDA EXPANSION REQUEST RUSSELL FARM Staff Deport for Planning Commission Discussion Prepared: October 23, 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 request. It may also be useful to others interested in this comprehensive planning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/06/02 discussion Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/11/02 discussion Pending PROPOSAL: • To expand the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) by 128 acres • To expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) by 10 acres PLANNED USE: Possible middle school site, and industrial uses LOCATION: The property is located east of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South), near its intersection with Papermill Road (Route 644). The properties are presently accessed via Laurelwood Drive MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64-A-37, 64 -A -37C, 76-A-6, PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION: Existing Conditions Suburban residential development (Southview and Red Fox Run, Zoned RP) is located adjacent to the northwestern boundary of the subject properties. The Shenandoah Mobile Home Park is located immediately west of the site, on land zoned MH 1. The subject site, as well as the properties adjoining to the east and south, are presently zoned RA, and are in agricultural uses. Comprehensive Policy Plan Land Use Plan The subject properties were included in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The properties were generally identified for future industrial use. There are no Agricultural and Forestal Districts in the vicinity of the site; although there are agricultural land uses adjoining the site Russell Farm Discussion Page 2 October 22, 2002 The Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundary presently bisects the site, in an east - west fashion. The northern portion (approximately 149 acres) of the farm is within the SWSA; the southern portion (approximately 128 acres) is not. The Urban Development Area (UDA) boundary is presently located immediately west of the subject site; none of the farm is in the UDA. The UDA boundary is shared by the property line along the site's western edge. Transportation The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan identifies a proposed collector road, located south of the subject properties, which would provide access from Route 522 to the subject properties. The Plan also identifies a Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) proposal for a collector road - extended from Papermill Road- traveling east towards Airport Road. The planned WATS collector road would transverse the subject properties. The request, as presented, would construct the portion of this planned road as it crosses the subject properties. Community Facilities and Service The site is adjacent to a water main located along Front Royal Pike. A sewer main transverses the northern portion of the site. A portion of the site is currently within the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility service area. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE (CPPSI SUMMARY & ACTION OF 10/14/02 MEETING: The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) felt that the request to expand the SWSA to include the entire farm in the service area was good planning practice. The CPPS expressed concern that the potential use of the site for a middle school should not be part of the consideration as to whether or not to expand the SWSA boundary; it was not appropriate to review an expansion request based solely on the potential use of the site for school use. An expansion of the SWSA should consider the appropriateness of the site for the planned industrial uses as identified in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. To that degree, the CPPS felt the request to expand the SWSA was appropriate. Furthermore, the CPPS recognized the necessity to implement the planned road network identified in the WATS and the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Therefore, the CPPS was supportive in concept to the proposal to relocated existing mobile homes that would be impacted by the planned collector road. The UDA could be expanded to accommodate the relocation of the displace mobile home units. U-\COMMITTEES\CPPS\Projects\2002 Projects\Russell SWSA Request\PC Discussion. Memo.wpd - -.64 A 40E Longcroik Rd \ �i: .. - See 45/ 64 A 4�T.y133 - 64 A 42. a 4`'a4�0 RP n ba, A b McClure Wayd.b- i ili'. °fie- p b p RP , y 64 A 37A Vine Ln - .4.. e7 RA fl RA 64 A 37 Laurelwood Dr a� . 64 A 33 Proposed UDA Expansion 10 Acres Approx 64 A 375 Proposed SWSA _ Expansion Area 7c 128 Acres Approx Will r'7. �s f � RA f _— ----.' 30 Acre -132 Proposed R 1,r _ -+� Middle School 1 Site RA \ / RA RA 221}224 Requested Expansions (approximations): UDA 10 acres SWSA 128 acres DRAFT Proposed Access Road Existing UDA ^9 Existing SWSA Boundary 7 Russell Farm Boundary UDA EXPANSION AREA SWSA EXPANSION AREA © 30 Acre Proposed School Ste Current Zoning 0 B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) © B2 (Business, General District) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) EM (Extracttve Manufacturing District) 0 HE (Higher Education District) [_] M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MW (Motile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) -] R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) [_] RA (Rural Areas DisMct) [', ] RP (Residential Performance District) -- ,0/7102 Russell Farm 1 MiddleiCh»®l Site LIRA I SWSA Expansion Request z a 00 N rn d: o� 0 04 O 0 N N O 3 w U) J O O 2 U U) c io U) O a. a� a N N 3 Em ` 1 � NEW -� Vv',�,!k I ti ��;Ooe � ham. co z ac m W 02 w Z �0 �m Z3 ro� Z IW W .0 LuCD m Fa MI ID D. MARK R. SMITH N0.022837 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2002 SCALE: 1"=509 DESIGNED BY: MDS NO. T T OF 1 H O F U az � W W w wzl, O 4L, SWSA A I': m -:� UV u DATE: SEPTEMBER 2002 SCALE: 1"=509 DESIGNED BY: MDS NO. T T OF 1