Loading...
PC 10-16-02 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia OCTOBER 16, 2002 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) August 21, 2002; September 4, 2002; and September 18, 2002 Minutes ........... (A) 2) Committee Reports ........... ...................................... (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments .................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) 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. (Ms. Kennedy)........................................................ (B) 5) Conditional Use Permit #11-02 of Shenandoah Gas Company for a 120' -foot monopole commercial telecommunications facility. This property is located at 350 Hillandale Lane and is identified with Property Identification Number 63-2-A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Ms. Ragsdale) ....................................................... (C) 6) Rezoning #10-02 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 (Route 522) across from Parkins Mill Road (Route 644) and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 76-A-22 and 76-A-23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mr. Lawrence) ....................................................... (D) PUBLIC MEETING 7) Request of Michael And Linda Ferraro for a waiver to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, §144-3 IC(3) which would enable them to subdivide the property without the necessary fifty (50') right of way width for a private shared driveway. This waiver, if approved, would apply to this specific subdivision request. Any future subdivision requests for this property would be required to meet the requirements of § 144-31 C(3). (Mr. Davenport)....................................................... (E) DISCUSSION ITEM 8) Discussion on Development Review Fees (Mr. Lawrence) .........................................................(F) 9) Other 10J;`16/2002 10: 9 54Fbb''i6?�J Ff-;.aE BROOKE FACIE 03 IOJAP102- dct WT . I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY A REMARK MADE BY ms. FORRESTER A WEEK AGO MONDAY, IN THE NORTHERN VA DAILY_ SHE STATED THAT "WATER DAVE INCREASED 41% ON OR ABOUT THE LAST FIVE YEARS." SHE ALSO STATED THATTHE AUi'HORITY IS INSENSITIVE TO THIS BIG INCREASE, BECAUSE NO AUTHORITY DIRECTOR IS ON COUNTY WATER & SEWER_ BOTH COMMENTS ARE FLAT OUT LIES_ THE ACTUAL INCREASE IN WATER FRONT 1, 995 TILL NOW JS 16010 TO THE AVE -RAGE CIJST011FR. USJNG 5000 GAT.J:ONS OF WATER PER MONTH. TT YOU ADD THE SEWER COSTS WITH THE WATER AS SHE STATED, THEN THE INCREASE IS JUST .95% PER YEAR OVER THE LAST 7 YEARS. FAR FROM THE 41 'lo SHE REPORTED, FUTHERMORE, FOR HER TO INSINUATE THAT MY BOARD IS NOT SENSITIVE TO SUCH A LARGE TNCREA.SE, IS AT BEST, PREPOSTEROUS! WE CAN'T BE SENSITIVE TO SOMETHING THAT DID NOT OCCUR, FINALLY, THE REIVLARK MADE BY HER REGARDING T LVT NONE OF THE AUTHORITY DIRECTORS ARE ON COUNTY UTILITJES, MAKES ONE TB NK THE ALTTLI0 .17)" iS MOT EX'FRCISJNG ITS FT tfCIA.R.Y RESPONSIBILITY TO ITS CUSTOMERS. ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, THIS BOARD EX-E.RCISED 10: 29 54a662, 6 u pAt--�E BROOKE PAGE 04 ITS FIDUCIARY. RESPONSIBTLITY TO ITS CUSTOMERS BY NOT AGREEING A TO PAY TO MOVE THE WATER STORAGE TANK ON THE SOLENBERGER FARM AT A COST OF $460,000.00. DID MS, FORRESTER EXERCISE HER FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CITIZENS OF FREDERICK CO. WHEN SHE VOTED TO GIVE $500,000 TO THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC 13ATTLEFTELDS�WHEN TIS COUNTY IS FACING A.34 CENT R-EAL ESTATE HIKE, YOU BF, HE JUDGE! I HAVE .AN ARTICLE WITH ME THIS EVENIN(T WRITTEN TO TETE EDITOR OF THE IXTNC:HESTER STAR BY PAT GALLAGHER, I QUOTE, "THERE IS NOT ONF WATER & S.LWER CUSTOMER ON THE SANITATION AUTHORITY BOARD. NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE TO PUT IJP WITH THE BURDEN OF OIITRA QLC)LTS RATE INCREASES!" YOU SEE, SHE READ FORRESTER'S ARTICLE AND PRESUMED IT WAS FACTUAL. PEOPLE REPORTING IRRESPONSIBLE. INFORMATION ARE IRRESPONSIBLE, WITH THESE PEOPLE, IT JUST GOES ON AND ON! SEP -30-2002 10:02 AN KENHETH_Y.STIEES 540667280.3 Growth factors. Lawmakers irpt, a quick review of the fp rciples set forth In my last two ' growth factnra" columns. Demand for shelter caus- es growth. This demand Is created by people from many places. In America we are Tree to search for shelter anywhere we wish, and we mostly do this where there is a healthy)ab market, Ilevelopors are people who take the risk to meet the demand, Seems so simpia, doesn't it, Well, not snits. There Is this matter of try ing to stifle this simple economic prncesg through laws Placeti with a moderately healthy economy will experience new house construction and buglnens growth ]ural to serve the natural growth of Iocgl famillen. Look at the maps of 6'roderlrk over the years. Or take a walk thmugh Fmderlclt starting at the "ntar FbIlow any of the streets, Niru will notice changes In the ages of the housed at cortaln places, When you cross Bentz Street you move Into a more recent time, development wige, I moved here in 1971, At that time the development line rullowed U.S. is and the [bre Detrick property. Thom was little whining about growth and no coning In the county. 0 1977 the county commission, ora had adopted county -wide zon- ing. This created work for lawyers, a need to hire planners, llmitaitiona on where ane could place things, increases In the value of those pmp- erttes where things could be placed, a wide range of ry ulations and a procons ror enforc ng, amending and adding to regulations, Since then, the state and the federal law- malmrs have added their own rules restricting the use of land. Tha serlea of Rvents described Above hap been on -gains in commu- nity after community as a sort of fol. low -the -leader game starting early In the 20th century. We are so used to this process that when one gtrcetions It one.. seta strange looks Thom peo- ple. "Of course, we adopted zoning. We had to control the growth!" Did it. contirll growth? "Weil, no, but we are chap(rig the coning ordinance, adding big impact fees and rewriting all our manuals." Well this control growth? Perhaps, but at what price? Anawers to thelia questions can he found in a study by the Millennial HuuaiMg Commission, a congrea- sinnally-appoinkd, btpartlgen gtvuA descry e n the September issue of y¢ientlflc American. One of the primary Concerns of this commission was "affordable houetng," They discovered that It Is "being lost at ala"Ing rates" In the yeer 7000, the hlo"polltan Washington reglon ithat's us)added 114,000 new jobs, but only added 35,60 dwelling units. Using it Itgurc of i a workers per dwvlling unit, No lvrt,+ea a shortfall of 311,009 units, This is not a gentle wave, This is an Irreniptible force, It will have Its way, We might let the economic laws operate, but we never have before. Instead, we keep trying to stop It with new laws or fees. The article cites opinions of Isar vard economist Edward L. Olseser and Unlvrtrslty of rennsylvanla poli- cy analynt Joseph Gyourka that %on - Ing rrstrlctlons "may be the most important contributor" to the short- age and high cost of housing. In addition to citing regulations as a cause or the housing shortfall, the comrrrleaion also cited gentrl0cati.n of older properties, housing produc- tion coats, iimltstinne on construe - tion of multi -family dwellings and large tat zoning restrictions. Under, lying each of these factors are mgu- latlona limiting the availability of land far housing or sdding to the coat of housing, Take gentrincellon. An owner of old Property In town has several choices. Tel's look at two: rehab as a ggntrifled high -crest single hotly dwelling or rehab as a three -unit rental. The rental option will Mquirs many more regu latmT hoops than the gentrincatlon opption. And to what end? "'A% need to be rune that the rrntem are fully protected," And that is good. But if the trade-off ends up meaning not enough local hous- ing and a Ion commute from Mar thulburg, whafhas been gained? I have sold 1t before and I will be saying It again: Lawmakers loo .fill hove no more basis for their law, than a couple of what-th and a load of emotion. Case In point; T once: was asked to rewrite a section u( aM ordinance cowering the length of dead-end streets. f had to find out what was too long, The American Planning Assncta- don provided a stack of dean -end street ordinances hem many p4cos around the nation. I did Internet. searches, too. The maximum allowed lengths vgriod from 400 feet to 1,800 feet. What did that Icy? It said that no one knew what the length limit Ibr a dead-end street should be. I asked myself wily we had a standard for something when we don't have an .b-artlw reason for IL The teerch for Ob�ective research yielded nothing. I finslly did a statistIcal ane la to determine the probability of an ambulance being blocked frorn reaching a heart attack victim at the end of a dead end street by sn acel- dent at the entrance of a dead-end street. The probability wall very lbw. Than I asked an emergency ter vices administrator if he ewer had that happen. "orrice," he said on a nine -=lo -long deed-ond road with over 0,00 dwelling unita on It, The mon visa Wkan out by hollcopter. I thrrw in the towel. I conclutte by asldng bow malty rules, laws etc„ concerning land use, or anything else for that mettar, si-e costing us money and providing little at, no return? Nuff Said. P.02 -larldIW4 _ /0/16/O2 PG 7n y . MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on August 21, 2002. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert Sager, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. GALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 19, 2002 AND JULY 1 2002 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of June 19, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of July 1, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 911 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 08/12/02 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed the Northeast Corridor Study and the committee agreed to disagree on the issues. Commissioner Light said the CPPS will hopefully be receiving some new and fresh ideas at the upcoming meeting. Sanitation Authority (SA) - 08/20/02 Mtg. Commissioner Fisher stated that the SA's Director reported the following information: with the four inches of rain in July, our area's total rain deficit is reduced to 13.4 inches; the South Quarry is up 30 feet from its lowest level and basically, has recovered to where it was last July; slightly more than a million gallons per day are being pumped out of the South Quarry; in planning for future water sources, some land has been ratified for exploration wells; a report was given on the study from Dr. Burbey, who was hired as an independent consultant to look at the previous study completed by another company; the report had some critical issues about some of the data needed to analyze the groundwater in our area, however, many of those questions will be answered with the U.S. Geological Study scheduled to be completed in April of 2004. Winchester Cily Planning Commission (WPC) - 08/20/02 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported that the WPC's discussion centered on the fee increases that will be going into affect. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #07-02 of Doris F. Casey, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 30.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to (Residential Performance) District. This property is located approximately 800' north of the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522) and Paper Mill Road (Rt. 644) and is identified with P.I.N. 64-A-23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (This item was tabled from the Commission's 07/01/02 meeting.) Action - Tabled for 60 Days Planner Abbe S. Kennedy explained that in response to concerns raised during the Planning Commission's meeting on July 1, 2002, the applicant has submitted a revised general development plan and Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 912 -3 - proffer statement. Planner Kennedy said the revised proffer statement provides for a residential use restriction for 70 single-family detached urban lots, no commercial rezoning request, and a 50' buffer along the entire southern property line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park with an earthen berm and evergreen screening. She noted that 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. Planner Kennedy added that revised monetary contributions to offset the impact of development to Frederick County have also been included. Planner Kennedy next read the revised proffers for the Commission. Planner Kennedy concluded by stating that the Planning Department has received letters, telephone calls, and e-mail inquiries regarding the proposed rezoning; the issues of concern were for the residential growth, preservation of the quality of life in the Westwood Drive neighborhood, preservation of the integrity of the cemetery, surface water drainage problems existing on the site, as well as adjoining properties, and accommodating large volumes oftraffic on Westwood Drive that may be generated by the new development. Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, representing the Doris Casey Rezoning application, pointed out that the buffer on the south side of the property is located on the outside of the lots for landscaping and a bicycle path and will promote pedestrian traffic and inter -parcel connection. Mr. Smith believed the issue at this time was the compatibility of the proposed residential development with the existing residential neighborhood. He believed the Swisher property was integral to this development; he said the Swisher property is partly platted, half rezoned, and contains right-of-way to Westwood. Regarding the issue of connecting to Rt. 522 versus Papennill, Mr. Smith said that Papermill, a two-lane road, has about 6,500 vehicle trips per day. He said that when a road approaches 7,000 vehicle trips per day, VDOT requires the road to become a "multi -lane" section. He stated that Rt. 522, is a five -lane road running about 10,000 vehicle trips per day and has available capacity. He said that Papermill, on the other hand, has terrain problems and needs to be re -constructed; he said that a connection to Papermill would require left -turn lanes, verticle straightening, and right-of-way that would be difficult to acquire. Commissioner Unger inquired about access for the Swisher property, in the event it would develop, and Mr. Smith replied that ifthe Swisher property develops without the Casey property being an inter - parcel connection, all the traffic from Swisher would go out Westwood anyway. Mr. Smith added that VDOT will still require a standard road section and Westwood is about a foot -and -a -half short on either side. He pointed out that the ditches along Westwood need to be redone nonetheless because many are flat and driveway culverts are crushed. Commissioner Morris stated that more consideration needed to be given to Papermill as an alternative access, as opposed to Westwood, because he believed that half of the vehicular traffic going out of this area, including the Swisher property, would be heading back into Winchester and the retail establishments on Papermill. Commissioner Thomas asked the applicant to consider the installation of a physical barrier, such as a picket or iron fence, on the side of the property facing the cemetery, in order to deter children from accessing the cemetery. Commissioner Thomas said he could not support the rezoning if there was only one access point, as he considered that to be poor planning. There was a discussion on the projection of the number of vehicles per day that may go from this property through the Swisher property and out Westwood. Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 913 -4 - Ms. Barbara L. Midkiff, resident at 179 Westwood Drive, presented a petition with 260 names of residents in neighboring developments, residents along Rt. 522, and concerned citizens of Frederick County, who were opposed to the Casey rezoning. Ms. Midkiff believed the applicant did not want to access Papermill Road because it would be more costly than accessing Westwood Drive. Ms. Brenda S. Dodd, resident at 155 Westwood Drive, said that most of the residents along Westwood Drive are elderly people and the traffic and construction would disrupt the lives of the residents along Westwood. She also mentioned that the Swisher property contained a spring -fed pond and wetlands; she was concerned about the disturbance of wildlife habitat and the creation of drainage problems that could result in flooding of backyards and basements. Ms. Roxanne Wingfield, a 24 -year resident at 122 Westwood Drive, said that her house was the first house on Westwood off of Rt. 522. Ms. Wingfield described an on-going water run-off problem in her yard. She said after they hooked -up to the City's water and sewer, it helped the situation some, but she still gets water run-off from properties up in her subdivision. She also described an episode where there was a water back-up on the highway which caused water to go into her basement. Ms. Wingfield was concerned that if Westwood was widened, it would take away her driveway. She also was concerned about increased traffic congestion. Ms. Judy Morrison, a resident at 117 Westwood Circle, stated that she also owns property along the proposed extension of Westwood Drive and this property contains a garage, a driveway, and a fence. Ms. Morrison said there was talk about her garage and fence being moved, however, she did not even receive a notification of the first meeting. She said that as long as she has lived in her subdivision, there has always been only one entrance/exit. She was concerned about the precedent for development that approval of this rezoning would set and there would probably be many more houses built than just the 70 homes on the Casey property. Ms. Morrison explained that there was considerable flooding when it rained and water runs through yards, garages, and basements. She was concerned about where all the water would go, if additional development takes place_ She was concerned about increased traffic congestion and the problems they experience getting out of their subdivision. Overall, she was concerned about the way Frederick County was growing. Mr. Robert Van, a resident at 1170 Front Royal Pike, stated that both he and his wife, Ann Cross, are adjoining property owners. Mr. Van thanked the applicant for removing the business portion of the rezoning. Mr. Van had the following concerns: he said that due to the terrain, the Casey property is a natural drainage area and a corner of his property stays wet all the time; he believed that additional paving and development would increase the amount of water his yard receives and would make the situation worse. Regarding the entrance onto Rt. 522, he said a turn -lane was needed and he didn't believe there was enough room to accommodate a turn lane. Regarding the proposed 50' buffer area with pine trees, Mr. Van believed a chain-link or steel fence was needed to keep children in the subdivision and away from the cemetery. In conclusion, Mr. Van agreed with Ms. Midkiff that the applicant did not want to use Papermill as an access because it was more costly than using Westwood. Mr. Carl E. Bayliss, Sr., a resident at 125 Westwood Circle, stated that all the surface water from the proposed intersection comes across his back yard and across his septic field area. He said that when the homes on Westwood Drive were first built, a drainage ditch was constructed to take care of the water runoff, however, over time the ditch has not been maintained and has become obstructed. Mr. Bayliss was concerned that his water problems will get worse, after the proposed intersection was constructed. Frederick County Pianning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 914 -5 - Mr. JeffJerome, a resident of Southview, had concerns about sufficient water capacity to serve existing, as well as, future development. Mr. Jerome said that he has been experiencing water pressure problems at his home in Southview. He was concerned about the County's ability to supply infrastructure to accommodate all the new developments and he was concerned about the possible deterioration of the quality of life for County residents. Mr. Michael Brooks, a resident at 187 Westwood Drive, stated that when they received water and sewer hook-ups, they had great water pressure; however, after Fox Run subdivision was constructed, his water pressure went down to about half of what it was before. Mr. Brooks suggested that the Commissioners park at Joe's Ocean Cove and observe the traffic; he believed it was very dangerous. He said there are many trucks and they exceed the speed limit. Ms. Roxanne Wingfield of 122 Westwood Drive returned to the podium to speak about the drainage issue; she said that run-off doesn't flow towards Rt. 522 South as it should. Ms. Wingfield said that she attended numerous VDOT meetings and spoke with VDOT officials. She said they told her that when Westwood is widened, they would make sure the drainage on either side of the road flowed properly. Mr. Mark Smith returned to the podium stating that they are aware of the wetlands area on the Casey property and those areas will remain undisturbed; he said they will work with VDOT to improve the inlet. Regarding the residents' flooding problems, Mr. Smith again described the poor condition ofthe roadside ditches along Westwood. Commissioners inquired if there was any potential for a connection through the Breedlove property out to Papermill, however, Mr. Smith said that they did not approach the Breedloves. Commissioners next discussed with VDOT representative, Mr. Steve Melnikoff, the feasibility of this development accessing Papermill and what improvements would be required. Mr. Melnikoff stated that since the trips per day would be approaching 7,000, a multi -lane (four -lane) road would be needed. When asked about the possibility of using Papermill as a secondary access with Rt. 522 being the primary access, Mr. Melnikoffreplied that VDOT would have to determine the traffic splits. He explained that Papermill is a busy road and extensive improvements would be needed, such as left and right turn lanes, transition lanes, right-of-way acquisition, and verticle alignment work for sight distance. Other issues discussed between the Commission and applicant were: verification that sufficient width was available to allow a right -turn lane to be installed at the Rt. 522 entrance; the possibility of accommodating the access to the Swisher property as "emergency use only;" the applicant offering to amend his proffer to include installation of a fence as a physical barrier to the cemetery, along with trees, and permission to minimize the berm for support of the vegetative plantings only; verification that the Swisher property owns a 50' right-of-way extension to Westwood. Commissioners pointed out that this property is within the Urban Development Area with sewer and water, and has been designating to be developed in some way; they were seeking some way to make it compatible with the existing residents in the area. Several members of the Commission believed it was imperative and simply wise planning to design two access points for residential development. Chairman DeHaven suggested an emergency access, in addition to the two access points, Papermill and Rt. 522, with those three access points tied -in together eventually_ He also believed the connection_ to Westwood should not be allowed until construction has been completed, to eliminate construction traffic on Westwood. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 915 9 Me At this point, Commissioner Morris moved to approve the rezoning with Westwood Drive being an emergency access only. This motion died due to a lack of a second to the motion. Commissioner Thomas pointed out that the rezoning as shown provides absolutely no connection to Westwood Drive; it stubs a road at the edge of the property. He said that it only provides a road to the property line where, once the Swisher property is developed, the interparcel connection could be made. He added that when the road is accepted into the State's System, if the Swisher property has not been rezoned, the applicant will have to install a cul-de-sac, which interferes with the Commission's transportation planning efforts. Commissioner Thomas believed that at the point of the Swisher rezoning, a transportation plan will need to be developed that will either continue the road or let it remain as it is. Mr. Smith suggested the elimination of Proffer #134 Westwood Drive. Planning Director Lawrence advised that road connection issues are a MDP level discussion. He said the applicant has proffered a conceptual street layout and, at this point for the rezoning, all that is being presented is a stub street. Commissioner Morris again moved to approve Rezoning Application #07-02 with the removal of Proffer Statement B4, which relates to Westwood Drive, and the amendment of Proffer D1, which relates to the Shenandoah Memorial Park Buffer, to include the installation of a fence in lieu of an earth berm. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger. Commissioner Fisher commented about the impact of this rezoning on transportation. Comnussioner Fisher believed the timing for this rezoning was not good based on the County's Transportation Plan dealing with Rts. 522 and 50; he said that VDOT's traffic counts have more than doubled at this point on Rt. 522. Commissioner Fisher said that based on this information, the elimination of Rt. 37 from the Transportation Plan, and the by -right use ofpreviously-approved rezonings, he could not support this rezoning. Commissioner Rosenberry stated for the record that the increased demand on the County's limited water supply persuades him to vote against this rezoning request. A Commissioner pointed out that the motion on the floor would effectively allow a development with only one entrance/exit into a 70 -house development, which goes against the Commission's past planning efforts. Other Commissioners commented that they lived in a one -entrance development and they, as well as their neighbors, were satisfied with the arrangement. Commissioner Gochenour stated that the impact of this project, and other similar projects in the County, would necessitate continued construction of new schools. Chairman DeHaven called for the vote and the motion was defeated by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION): Unger, Morris, Light NO: Straub, Gochenour, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry At this point, Chairman DeHaven recognized Mrs. Doris Casey, the owner of the property, who had approached the podium. Mrs. Casey said that she and her deceased husband, Robert Casey, moved Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 916 -7 - to the area in 1956 and they started the cemetery. She said they used the land adjoining the cemetery as farmland. Mrs. Casey said she wanted to take care of this land and get it settled as she wanted it. She stated that it will be a nice residential development. Chairman DeHaven called for a new motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Unger for approval of the rezoning with the inclusion of Proffer B4, Westwood Drive, and the amendment of Proffer Dl, Shenandoah Memorial Park Buffer, to include the installation of a fence in lieu of an earth berm, as offered by the applicant. Some members of the Commission wanted to express, in some fashion, that when the master plan comes before the Commission, the effects on Westwood Drive will be mitigated to the farthest extent possible. They strongly believed that if this was not in some way dealt with through the proffers, then it would not be enforceable at the master plan stage. Mr. Smith volunteered to amend Proffer 134, Westwood Drive, to state that "A connection to Westwood Drive (Rt. 822) onto the Swisher property will be provided to the subject property with approval of the Planning Commission at the MDP stage." The motion failed due to the following tie vote: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION): Unger, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz NO: Straub, Gochenour, Morris, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry Commissioner Gochenour believed that some of the issues that need to be dealt with at the rezoning stage have not been clearly discussed and addressed. Commissioner Straub moved and Commissioner Rosenberry seconded the motion to deny the rezoning. This motion was defeated by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION): Rosenberry, Triplett, Fisher, Gochenour, Straub NO: Kriz, Ours, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger Commissioner Thomas moved to approve Rezoning #07-02 with the proffers as stated except for the amendment of Proffer D1, Shenandoah Memorial Park Buffer, to include the installation of a fence in lieu of an earth berm, as offered by the applicant, and the requirement of the developer to provide at the MDP stage a phasing plan that will show the potential future connection, when it will occur, and a traffic analysis with potential impacts to Westwood Drive indicated. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours. The motion was defeated by the following tie vote: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION): Unger, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz NO: Straub, Gochenour, Morris, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 917 ffle The suggestion was made that the rezoning be tabled until all voting members of the Commission were present, in order to break a tie vote (Connnissioner Watt was absent). A motion was made by Commissioner Gochenour and seconded by Commissioner Straub to table the rezoning application for 60 days. This motion was approved by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table Rezoning #07- 02 of Doris F. Casey, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 30.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to (Residential Performance) District for 60 days. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION): Straub, Gochenour, Unger, Light, DeHaven, Fisher, Rosenberry NO: Morris, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #04-02 for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for the development of commercial and industrial uses. This property is located on the northeastern quadrant of Exit 317 on I-81 and is identified with P.I.N.s 43 -A -96,43 -A -97,43 -A -98,43 -A- 99, 3 -A -96,43 -A -97,43 -A -98,43-A- 99, 43-A-100, and 43-A-111 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Due to a possible conflict of interest, Chairman DeHaven said that he owned property adjacent to the property under consideration and, therefore, would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item. He then relinquished the chair over to Vice Chairman Thomas. Commissioner Light also said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Planner Jeremy F. Camp gave the background information and review agency comments. Planner Camp said the property was rezoned by the Board of Supervisors on April 22, 2002; the property consists of 116.7 acres of M1, 14.5 acres of 133, 23.2 acres of 132, and 3.7 acres of RA. He said all of the associated proffers of the rezoning have been provided on the master development plan (MDP). Planner Camp proceeded to summarize the significant proffers that have been provided. He stated that staff's review of the MDP did not reveal any substantial problems, however, there were five issues that staff wanted to bring forward for discussion with the Planning Commission. The following issues were described by Planner Camp: Zoning District Buffers - the preliminary MDP does not take the buffer and screening requirements into consideration between the proposed commercial uses and the existing residential properties located across Rt. 11; a Category B buffer is required; Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 918 Preservation of Environmental Features - all ofthe protected environmental areas, woodlands, flood plains, and wetlands, should be identified on the MDP and preferably, placed in an environmental easement; Flood Plain Disturbance - details of any approved disturbance of flood plains with a storm water management pond should be shown on the MDP; Sinkholes - the MDP should include sinkholes in its analysis of existing environmental features; however, if the intent is to provide a comprehensive soil analysis for each individual site plan, then the MDP should state this; and, Location of Proposed Collector Road - the location of the proposed major collector road has been modified from the concept plan submitted during the rezoning process; the relocation of the road places the burden of constructing the road through the flood plain on the adjoining property. Planner Camp concluded by saying that overall, the preliminary MDP depicts appropriate land uses and is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He said the preliminary MDP is also in accordance with the proffers of the rezoning; however, the applicant needs to address the concerns identified by the staff, as well as any concerns raised by the Commission. There next ensued a brief discussion between Commission members on procedural issues regarding what the Commission can require or expect of the applicant at the master development plan stage as compared to the rezoning stage. Commissioner Unger inquired about the requirement for easements, in the likelihood that proposed Rt. 37 would pass through the property. Planner Camp said the preliminary plans for Rt. 37 do not indicate that Rt. 37 would traverse this property, however, it is very close, to the north. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, came forward as the representative for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. Mr. Wyatt began by addressing the issues that the Planning Staff raised in their report. Regarding the Zoning District Buffer, he pointed out that the County permits the right-of-way distance to count towards the buffer distance, therefore, they have shown a 100' buffer with landscaped screen along the B2 -zoned properties to the major collector, and on the portion of the property across from the RP - zoned properties, they have chosen to use just the 200' distance separation. He also pointed out that no structures can be located closer than 50' from the arterial road and they will indicate that on the MDP. Mr. Wyatt stated that he would address the Environmental Features issue and the Flood Plain Disturbance issue together. He said they have shown the maximum extent of potential woodlands using aerial photography, they've shown the maximum extent of potential wetlands using the National Wetlands Inventory Map, and in citing the storm water management facility within the floodplain, they consulted with the County's engineer. Mr. Wyatt said that they will need to identify the percentage of the flood plain area that would be disturbed by this feature. Regarding the Woodlands issue, he stated that they've placed a narrative on the plan which states their commitment to amend the MDP, for administrative approval, to concur with the pending Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee's ordinance amendments, which are currently in progress. Regarding the location of the collector road, Mr. Wyatt explained that the Winchester and Western Railroad (WWR) will grant crossing of their rail line, which needs to be signaled for motorists, with the condition that adjacent M1 land uses must have either shipping or receiving that is rail -served. He stated that because of WWR's condition, they needed to shift the road out towards I-81 in order to make use of the M1 property. He explained that the collector road begins at a point on Rt. 11, it will parallel I-81 as it traverses through the property, and will end at the Rutherford's farm property limits at the Carroll property. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 919 -10 - Commissioner Straub recalled from the initial hearings that there was to be a connection or off -ramp from Rutherford's Farm onto I-81. Mr. Wyatt replied that 1-81 is a limited access road, which means that secondary roads cannot have direct points onto it. Regarding the sink hole issue, Mr. Wyatt introduced Mr. Garnet Williams, a geologist with Engineering Consulting Services (ECS), who Greenway Engineering contracted to conduct the sink hole delineation. Mr. Garnet Williams, an environmental geologist with ECS, stated that he was tasked with the responsibility to perform a geological reconnaissance of the Rutherford Farm, specifically looking for limestone solution -related features in the bedrock that are apparent as surface topographical impressions. Mr. Williams gave a brief presentation on the geology of the site. He then pointed out red and greens dots on a map which indicated actual open throats (red) and suspect depressions (green); he noted there were only a few situations where he observed large open throats, in excess of three feet in diameter, and most of those had been filled in. Mr. Williams stated that he would be very hesitant about calling these sink holes in the traditional sense; he believed they were simply collapsed features with large solution channels, which are typically located in areas where there is concentrated run-off. Mr. Williams recommended that the developer concentrate surface flows and storm water detention ponds away from these areas, to minimize future risks. Mr. Williams said that from an engineering standpoint, when it comes time for final construction of buildings and roadways, there have been a number of instances that he has observed and participated in where buildings and roadways have been engineered overtop of sinkholes, solution cavities, and other karst-related features. He said the solutions are relatively simple; the throats are cleaned out, defined, and filled in. He said that for roadways and low-rise commercial buildings, the engineering solutions in the field are relatively simple. Mr. Williams stated that from a planning standpoint, the most critical aspect of dealing with this type of environment, is intelligent planning of storm water control. He advised that water be conveyed away from these areas and ponding water over them should be avoided, either permanently or during construction. Commissioner Gochenour stated that she attended a two-day seminar on karst topography at Lord Fairfax College last year and one of the field trips included the Warren County Industrial Park which had numerous amenities, but also had a multitude of problems. Commissioner Gochenour proceeded to describe some of the problems. Commissioner Ours called for a point of order, as he did not believe these comments were relevant to the issue before the Commission. Vice Chairman Thomas pointed out that the time was fast approaching the 10:30 p.m. cut-off time mandated by the Commission's Bylaws and he requested that Commissioner Gochenour wrap-up her comments. Vice Chairman Thomas remarked that regarding the sink- hole discussion, it was the Commission's responsibility to make sure the developer followed the County's ordinance and it was the developer's engineering responsibility to take care of the property development; he cautioned the Commission not to get so specific as to tell the applicant what to do. Commissioner Morris inquired if there was evidence of new topographic activity on this site or whether it was all aged. Mr. Williams replied that because this feature does not show up on historic aerial photographs, it would appear it has recently developed, possibly a result of the construction of the interchange. Conimiss;oner Straub stated that she heard f oni several people uiat tractor fires, appliances, and other items have been thrown into the cavities; she wanted to know if those things get extracted. She also Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 920 -11 - inquired what types of building supports are used to make sure buildings do not collapse into a hole. Mr. Williams replied that these items would be removed as a part of the remedial engineering. He then proceeded to talk about a number of engineering methods used to prevent a building from collapsing into a hole. Mr. Wyatt stated that the applicant is committed to designing the storm water features away from the identified areas by the field reconnaissance and also to place a narrative on the MDP stating that as individual site plans are submitted that will impact these areas, a geo-technical analysis will be conducted and approved by the County's engineer, as a part of the site plan approval. Vice Chairman Thomas next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Michael Weber, the owner of Weber's Nursery on Rt. 11, which is adjacent to the proposed development, expressed his concerns regarding water runoff and contamination of his well water supply. He noted that on a peak day, his business uses over 150,000 gallons of water per day and if he had to purchase his water from Frederick County, the cost would put him out of business. He said that he also owns another business two miles south on Rt. 11; he said his well there was contaminated with benzene from gasoline and now he pays the City of Winchester approximately $10,000 per year for water. He brought up the subject of a water study done by Virginia Tech that was just released to the public; he wondered whether the Board already knew the results of that water availability study at the time the property was rezoned. Mr. Weber was concerned about the traffic congestion on Rt. 11; he said the proposed traffic signal will help, but it will also slow traffic. It was his opinion that if Rt. 37 was still in the plans and if there was a back entrance to the proposed industrial park, it would alleviate the congestion on Rt. 11. Mr. Weber was also concerned that the proposed industrial park had only one entrance/exit. He expressed concern about the visibility of the site traveling north and screening for the adjacent residences. He also expressed concern regarding the potential of fight interference prohibiting his ability to produce a poinsettia crop. Mr. Thomas Rissler, a resident at 1937 Martinsburg Pike, said he was approximately 600' from the entrance to this industrial park. Mr. Rissler spoke about the existing traffic problems; he believed that Rt. 11 would have to be widened for a turning lane going south on Rt. 11. Mr. Rissler inquired if the new property owners of Rutherford's Farm would follow through on all the proffers offered by the previous owners. Mr. Evan Wyatt returned to the podium to address some of the concerns raised by the public. Responding to Mr. Weber's concern, Mr. Wyatt said that the adjacent residences on Rt. 11 will be protected with distance, a full six-foot opaque element, and full landscaping. Responding to Mr. Rissler's concern, Mr. Wyatt said that the previously -approved proffers go with the land and are legally binding, even though the ownership of the property has changed. Mr. Wyatt added that a road improvement plan was proffered during rezoning which included a collector road, a new median crossing, and stacking lanes. Vice Chairman Thomas deferred the issue of possible well contamination to the Commission's legal counsel, Mr. Jay Cook, who believed any restitution would have to be addressed in civil court. Vice Chairman Thomas announced the time, 10:30 p.m., and the fact that the Commission's Bylaws prohibit engagement in discussion of any new action items after 10:30 p.m., due to the mandatory 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 921 WrAl Commission members believed the preliminary MDP depicted appropriate land uses and was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Policy Plan and was in accordance with the proffers of the rezoning. 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 Master Development Plan #04-02 for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for the development of commercial and industrial uses with the stipulation that the applicant address the concerns identified by the Planning Staff as a condition of favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Straub, Gochenour, Unger, Moms, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry ABSTAIN: DeHaven, Light (Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) Vice Chairman Thomas relinquished the conduction of the meeting back to Chairman DeHaven. Chairman DeHaven commented that unfortunately, the Commission would be unable to consider the last item on the agenda because of time restraints. Chairman DeHaven believed it reinforced the need to diligently adhere discussion topics to the items under consideration on the agenda. CITIZEN PETITION REGARDING DORIS F. CASEY REZONING #07-02 Chairman DeHaven brought the Commission's attention to a petition submitted by a citizen regarding the Doris F. Casey property and the letters, e-mails, and faxes received by Planner Kennedy regarding that same rezoning. Upon motion by Commissioner Ours, and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, these items were made a part of the official record by a unanimous vote. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 922 ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. ERIE No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. by a Respectfully submitted, Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 923 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 September 4, 2002. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon 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; John H. Light, Stonewall District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison, and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; and Robert Sager, Board of Supervisors' Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II; Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner I; Candice Mills, Planner 1; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 2002 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes of August 7, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 08/29/02 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS discussed the protection of environmental features, flood plains, ponds, lakes, wetlands, sink holes, steep slopes, and woodlands. He said further Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 2002 Page 924 -2 - discussion will be needed on these items. AMENDMENT TO AGENDA Chairman DeHaven requested the Commission consider an adjustment to the order of the agenda to move Item Number 7, the Timothy Johnson Waiver Request, to the beginning of the agenda. Chairman DeHaven said that Mr. Johnson attended the Commission's previous meeting, but was never heard due to other lengthy discussion items on the agenda. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Commissioner Unger, the Commission unanimously agreed to adjust the order of the agenda to allow Mr. Timothy Johnson's waiver request to be heard first. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER GOCHENOUR REGARDING TIMELY ARRIVAL OF AGENDA PACKAGES Commissioner Gochenour stated for a point of record that she believed the agenda packages were not received by the Commissioners in a sufficient amount of time in order to review the material and visit the sites. Commissioner Gochenour believed the Commissioners needed to receive the agenda information earlier. PUBLIC MEETING Request for a Waiver from the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-371)(4), Buffer and Screening Requirements, submitted by Greenway Engineering on behalf of Timothy Johnson. The parcels are identified with P.I.N.s 33-A-92 and 33-A-93 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Unanimous Approval Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that staff has received a request from Mr. Timothy Johnson, who is requesting relief from the buffer and screening requirements required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance for Mr. Johnson's two 133 parcels of land, 33-A-92 and 33-A-93, consisting of 1.89 acres. The land fronts on Route I 1 and backs up to I-81, about 1/2 mile south of Exit 323. Mr. Camp said the development of Mr. Johnson's land with an auto repair shop requires a full screen against the residential properties to the south; the required full screen is to consist of a 10 -foot wide landscape screen and a six-foot opaque fence. He said that Mr. Johnson's auto repair shop, located on P.I.N. 33-A-92, has already been constructed; however, the site plan has not been given final approval by the Planning Staff because the required landscaping has not been provided against the south property line. Planner Camp said that Mr. Johnson is requesting the elimination of the fence and landscape screen along the south property line of Lot 33-A-93, until his property is developed to accommodate a 133 -zoned use. He explained that this portion of the full screen would screen the existing church, the church parking lot, and the driveway to the auto repair shop, from the residential Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 2002 Page 925 -3 - property to the south. Mr. Camp added that the church, located on Lot 33-A-93, existed prior to the rezoning of the parcels to B3 and remains in operation. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, the design engineering firm representing the applicant, Mr. Timothy Johnson, said that Mr. Johnson is prepared to place the buffer when a B3 use is developed on the parcel. Mr. Wyatt brought the Commission's attention to a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. Cooke, property owners adjoining the church parcel, who were in support of the waiver request and stated it was their desire not to have the buffer and screening installed as long as the land use on the parcel remained a church. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Manuel DeHaven, adjoining property owner, was concerned ifMr. Johnnson's auto repair shop met zoning regulations at this location. Mr. DeHaven said he was involved in negotiations for a motel to be located adjacent to this auto repair shop on his property to the north; he wanted to know if he would be required to buffer his property against Mr. Johnson's auto repair shop or if Mr. Johnson would be required to supply the buffer. Commission members wanted to be assured that if and when the church use changes to a more intensive B3 use, that Mr. Johnson will install the buffer. Mr. Wyatt stated that they could work with the staff and provide a revised site plan which included a narrative on the plan, stating that should any future development occur on the property, it would result in the need to submit a revised site plan and all applicable requirements will be met. Legal Counsel, Jay Cook, advised that a conditional waiver would be appropriate in this case. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission approved a waiver to the buffer and screening requirement for Parcel 33-A-93 on September 4, 2002. This waiver enables the property owner to delay the implementation of the required Category C Buffer and screen until such time as Parcel 33-A-93 is developed to enable a B3 Zoning District permitted land use. A site plan meeting all requirements of the Code of Frederick County shall be submitted to the County for approval when a permitted B3 Zoning District is proposed to be developed on Parcel 33-A-93. Rezoning #06-02 of Rex Dalrymple, (continued from 6/19/02 meeting) submitted by Valley Mill, L.L.C., to rezone 3.18 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located along Valley Mill Road (Route 639) at Berryville Pike (Route 7) and is identified with P.I.N.s 54F-1-9, 54F -1-9A, 54F -A-30, 54F -3-A, and 54F -3 -Al in the Red Bud Magisterial District Action - Recommended Denial Frederick County Planning Cory tlissioii Minutes of September 4, 2002 Page 926 -4 - Planner Abbe Kennedy stated that as part of this rezoning application, the applicant has requested to disconnect the existing connection to Valley Mill Road, Rt. 716, and relocate the entrance to provide a new connection further east on Valley Mill Road_ She stated that the 3.18 -acre site, comprised of five parcels zoned RP and intended to be rezoned to a B2 zoning classification, is consistent with the County's Land Use Plan, Planner Kennedy said the applicant has submitted a revised proffer statement in an attempt to address various concerns raised during the Planning Commission's June 19, 2002 meeting. She next read the revised proffers for the Commission. Mr. Stephen L. Pettler, Jr., with the firm Harrison & Johnston, Authorized Agent for Valley Mill, LLC, introduced himself and Mr. Hank Sterenberg, P.E., of the engineering firm Chester Engineers. Mr. Pettler stated that in the event the 7 -Eleven is an end user, the structure will be enhanced with brick facade, brick exterior, and canopies. He described the proposed buffer adjacent to the residences using an illustration. He also pointed out that in the event fuel tanks are located on the property, the applicant has proffered the use of double -lined tanks and will cap existing wells to alleviate concerns regarding groundwater contamination. Commission members discussed Rt. 716 and the traffic flow situation with Mr. Pettler and Mr. Sterenberg. The Commissioners also verified with their legal counsel that if the property is rezoned, the proffers will be binding to the development, regardless of the owner. Mr. Stephen Melnikoff and Mr. Homer Coffman, representatives of VDOT, came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioner Rosenberry inquired ifthe applicant's transportation flow plans could be impacted, if there was future widening of I-81. Mr. Melnikoff stated that VDOT wanted to go on record that they anticipate some type of improvements to 1-81, although no plans have yet been approved. He said that VDOT has worked hard to get the applicant's entrance as far away as possible, in order to lessen any impact the future might bring; however, VDOT cannot guarantee at this time whether or not the I-81 improvements would disturb this property. He added that no VDOT right-of-way has been abandoned or discontinued in front of the site; VDOT wanted to make sure the entrance into this facility was far enough away from the limited access to meet federal standards and maintain VDOT's right-of-way. Mr. Melnikoff read some figures for projected trips per day for the proposed uses and the current trips per day on some of the nearby roads per Commissioner Straub's request. Regarding the proposed relocation of the connection at Valley Mill, adjacent to Dowell J. Howard, Chairman DeHaven inquired if VDOT was confident that site distances could be met there and Mr. Melnikoff replied yes. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Don Ganse, stated that he and his wife own the adjoining property and he disagreed with the applicant's statement that this property was surrounded by business zoning; he said it was surrounded by residential properties. Mr. Ganse said that any proposed business located here should not negatively impact the quality of life of its neighbors. Mr. Ganse asked the Commission for consideration of the following concerns: 1) all filling stations and motor vehicle service businesses should be proffered out of the application for rezoning because those uses would attract an inordinate number of vehicles from I-81; 2) requested the installation of a fence or other barrier between the applicant's property and his to prevent the -Intnusiori of pedestrians and to prevent trash from blowing onto his property; and 3) requested that all dumpster sites be Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 2002 Page 927 -5 - placed as far away from adjoining residential properties as possible because of the odor and noise associated with emptying them. Mr. Robert Ganse, the owner of 220 Seafood restaurant, was concerned about increased traffic impacts on the frontage road; he mentioned the bad curve, speeding vehicles, and the new high school scheduled to open next fall. Mr. Ganse was concerned about contamination of wells by leaking fuel tanks and water run- off. He was also concerned that his restaurant customers would be looking at the back of a 7 -Eleven store with a steep bank; nor did he want a retention pond in front of his restaurant. Mr. Ganse said that when traffic backs up at the signal, vehicles take old Rt. 7 to go east; he believed the applicant's traffic flow pattern would cause all those vehicles to cut through the 220 Seafood parking lot, which he did not want. Commissioner Straub expressed concerns about the increased traffic impacts that would be generated; she didn't believe the traffic flow patterns proposed could handle the increased traffic. She commented that the proposed 7 -Eleven may be considered a neighborhood business, but the 24-hour gas station and the increased traffic would negatively impact the quality of life for the adjacent residences. Commissioner Straub also believed the use would primarily benefit travelers coming into town off I-81, rather than the adjacent residential neighborhood. Commissioner Gochenour concurred with Commissioner Straub regarding the traffic impacts. She pointed out the uncertainties regarding the development of I-81 and believed that the issues regarding water usage and availability, drainage, and well contamination had not been addressed. Commissioner Gochenour did not believe the proposed use was appropriate for this location. Other Commission members believed this area of Rt. 7 was in transition from a residential area to a business area. They considered the proposal a neighborhood business that would not attract a large volume of traffic off 1-81. It was noted that Rt. 7 was designed to handle the increase in traffic. Commissioners did not comment favorably on the entrance out the back of the property onto Valley Mill and believed it was not a safe situation, however, it was pointed out that this entrance was being directed by VDOT, not the developer. Additional discussion on the traffic flow in this area took place with VDOT representatives. Commissioner Morris moved to approve the rezoning application and this motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas. The motion failed, however, by the following tie vote: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION): Rosenberry, Ours,Thomas, DeHaven, Morris, Unger NO: Fisher, Kriz, Light, Watt, Gochenour, Straub Commissioner Rosenberry next made a motion to table the rezoning application to allow time for the applicant to consider proffering out the gas station use of the proposal. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gochenour. Legal Counsel, Mr. Jay Cook, was concerned about the wording of the motion. He was also concerned that the time limit on this application, since it was already tabled once, was fast approaching the 90 - day limit on action. Mr. Cook stated that if the Commission's tabling goes beyond 90 days without the applicant's permission, the rezoning would be, in effect, approved. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 2002 Page 928 M The vote on the motion to table failed by a unanimous vote for denial, based on Mr. Cook's counsel. Chairman DeHaven commented about the applicant's attempt to place a great deal of development on a small parcel that already has access problems. He stated that the developer has gone a long way towards attempting to do everything within their power to address the transportation concerns. He believed the perfect solution was not created, however, it was an improvement over what exists there today. Chairman DeHaven believed it was not an ideal solution, but he did believe it was a workable one. Other Commissioners voiced their opinions that the transportation problems were the crux of the matter; there was also the uncertainty of the interstate interchange and an eastern bypass. Commissioner Rosenberry moved to deny the rezoning. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Fisher and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Rezoning 406-02 of Rex Dalrymple, submitted by Valley Mill, L.L.C., to rezone 3.18 acres, located along Valley Mill Road (Route 639) at Berryville Pike (Route 7), from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) District. YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION): Straub, Gochenour, Watt, Light, Kriz, Fisher, Rosenberry NO: Unger, Morris, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours Rezoning #08-02 of Bowman/Shoemaker, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 10.09 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located south of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), approximately 800 feet east of the intersection of Rt. 277 and Double Church Road (Rt. 641), and is identified with P.I.N. 86-A-81 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Tabled for 60 Days Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that the 10.09 aces proposed to be rezoned to commercial property is not located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), however, the subject property is located along a major roadway, it is within convenient access to residential uses, and it is near other commercial properties. Planner Camp stated that other than this concern, the application appears to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan for commercial development. He pointed out that the applicant has submitted a proffer statement in an attempt to mitigate the impacts associated with the rezoning; the proffer statement includes the voluntary restriction of all development for Phase II until the property is given the authority to access public sanitary services. Planner Camp continued, stating that the applicant should be prepared to address the following issues: 1) the existing septic system capacity for Phase I and the evaluation of the property not being located within the UDA or SWSA; and 2) the number of proposed entrances off of Fairfax Pike should be clarified; the staff supports limiting entrances to no more than two, to minimize potential traffic impacts. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 2002 Page 929 -7 - Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, the design engineering firm representing the owner, Ms. Beverley B. Shoemaker, described for the Commission a conceptual 60' right-of-way, traversing this property and other properties to the south, which would connect Double Church Road (Rt. 64 1) to Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) with a proposed traffic signal on Fairfax Pike. Mr. Wyatt said they are not proposing to construct the entire road, but are simply providing an opportunity to accommodate the road as properties to the south develop. Mr. Wyatt believed the rezoning request was appropriate, even though the property was not located in either the UDA or the SWSA, for the following reasons: 1) this has been a developing corridor since the mid 1980's, it is the only parcel between I-81 Exit 307 that is not zoned either commercial or residential on the south side of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277); 2) it has 1,000' of road frontage, it has direct access, it has adequate width and depth to provide for the development; 3) it is in keeping with the land uses that already exist along the corridor. Regarding the adequacy of the septic system, Mr. Wyatt said that under Phase I they are limiting the use of the existing structure on the property to Mrs. Shoemaker's office for her and her two employees. He said the Health Department has given approval for Phase I to be on the septic, provided usage doesn't exceed 210 gallons per day. Regarding the entrances, Mr. Wyatt pointed out they have adequate frontage for four entrances, but will limit the number to two, with one being a signalized intersection on Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) and the second located towards the west. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, but no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Thomas had concerns for development beyond the Phase I development stage, stating that it is not feasible from a traffic standpoint until VDOT has expanded Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) from two to four lanes, from 1-81 past the high school. He did not believe Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), in its current condition, could accommodate the traffic from a 100,000 -square -foot office building. Commissioner Thomas remarked that unless Phase II would not be developed until VDOT expanded Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) to four lanes, he could not support the rezoning at this time. Commissioner Ours wanted to go on record in support of Commissioner Thomas' comments, based on the development that has occurred along Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) over the past 12 years. He, too, was not in support of any additional development until VDOT facilitated improvements on Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277). Commissioner Ours remarked that his objection also included any potential development down to Double Church Road (Rt. 641); he said he objected to the second phase of Woodside Estates because of the traffic it generates on Double Church Road and at the intersection of Rt. 277 and Double Church Road. Commissioner Rosenberry was opposed to the proposed rezoning because of the uncertainty that sewer and water would be available to serve Phase II of the proposed development. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table Rezoning 408-02 of Bowman/Shoemaker, to rezone 10.09 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) District, for 60 days to allow the developer and the owner to consider the phasing of Phase II as it relates to traffic impacts on Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) prior to Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) being developed and improved to four lanes. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 2002 Page 930 -8 - Rezoning #09-02 of Aikens Property, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone 1.34 acres from MI (Light Industrial) and .05 acres from B2 (Business General) to B3 (Industrial Transition) District. This property is located west and adjacent to Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) and south and adjacent of Stine Lane and is identified with P.I.N.s 54-A-21, 54 -A -20A, 54-A-20, and 54-A-22 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers Planner Jeremy F. Camp read the background information and review agency comments. He noted the intent of the application is to rezone this property in order to accommodate an expansion of the existing H&W Construction facility. Planner Camp said the proposal is consistent with the objectives for the development of commercial property found in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, the properties are located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), the properties are located along a major collector road, and the properties are located in close proximity to large urban areas. Planner Camp said the applicant has voluntarily submitted a proffer statement which provides a monetary payment for fire and rescue and police services. Planner Camp continued, stating the applicant should be prepared to address the minor concerns raised by the County Attorney, who advised that the applicant should clarify when, and to whom, the proposed monetary proffer payment will be paid, and the County Engineer, who had identified an ongoing drainage problem in this area and suggested that two commercial properties to the south of the development be included in any future storm water management plans. In addition, Planner Camp recognized a need for the applicant to consider bicycle facilities on the property and additional landscaping and/or architectural standards along Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) to improve the appearance of the site. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the design engineering firm representing the owner, Mr. Walter H. Aikens, and the H&W Construction Company, explained that the proposal involves the consolidation ofmany parcels of land, however, it will provide considerable improvement to the streetscape along Route 11. Mr. Maddox said there were elements of the M 1 Zone that would be prohibitive to their intended purpose, which is an office use. He said the 133 Zone, however, would allow them to construct a high-quality parking facility with curb and gutter, the use of considerable landscaping, and the construction of a 10,000 -square -foot, two-story building which will house a number of different uses. Mr. Maddox said the remainder of the property will remain M 1 because it is presently used as a construction yard, which is not appropriate in a 133 Zone. Regarding the staffs comment concerning a bike path, Mr. Maddox said there was a substantial amount of land between the existing edge of payment on Rt. 11 and their property line and he believed there was ample room for a bicycle path, if that was the chosen element for that area. Mr. Maddox noted that their intention was to maintain a ten -foot buffer strip along the parking lot for landscaping and to install a commercial entrance with transitions. Regarding the staffs comment for additional landscaping, he stated that they intend to exceed the 133 ordinance requirements for landscaping, perimeter and interior trees, and shrubs. He also noted for the Commission that they will be coordinating with the County's engineer to improve the drainage across Lee Avenue during the site plan process. He further added that the proffer will be Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 2002 Page 931 modified to clarify that the monetary proffer payment will be made at the time of building permit acquisition. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one was present to speak. Members of the Commission spoke out positively for the proposal. Comments were made that this was a request from an existing, reputable business to allow for the expansion of their company within the County; they commended the owner and G. W. Clifford & Associates for the outstanding package submitted for a request that was basically a down -zoning; they stated that the professionalism shown gives great confidence that the development will be done in a professional manner and will be an improvement to the community. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning #09-02 of the Aikens Property, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone 1.34 acres from Ml (Light Industrial) and .05 acres from B2 (Business General) to B3 (Industrial Transition) District. Master Development Plan 905-02 Foxe Towne Plaza, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to develop a 5.649 -acre tract for commercial uses. The property is located southeast of the intersection of North Frederick Pike (Route 522 N) and Rt. 37, and to the west of Fox Drive (Route 739), and is identified with P.I.N. 42-A-195 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Stipulation Planner Jeremy F. Camp read the background infonnation and review agency comments. Planner Camp stated the primary entrance to the property is proposed from Fox Ridge Lane; he said improvements to Fox Ridge Lane include its reconstruction to State road standards. Planner Camp remarked that the master development plan (MDP) should indicate when the proposed improvements to Fox Ridge Lane will occur and when the inter -parcel access road will be constructed in the development process. Planner Camp also pointed out that screening on the portion of the property proposed for future development does not satisfy the Zoning Ordinance's buffer requirements. He recommended a buffer and screen similar to the one on the Kentucky Fried Chicken's (KFC) property, which consists of a ten -foot landscape screen and a six -foot -high hedge row and complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the design engineers for the project, came forward to represent the owners, KRA Food Services, LLC. Mr. Maddox spoke with the Commission about the access roads proposed to serve this property, as well as the KFC and Sheetz establishments. He also talked about the existing screening along the north side of the adjoining townhouses, which they planned to preserve. Mr. Maddox said they would supplement the existing screening, if the Commission believed it was necessary. Mr. Maddox added that the proposed uses are by -right uses on an existing B2 (Business General) parcel. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 2002 Page 932 -10 - Chairman DeHaven called for public continents and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Ted Kiracoff, an adjoining property owner and homeowner in the Fox Ridge Townhouses subdivision, was in favor of the proposal, however, he questioned the need for the 30' road over to Foxridge Lane when the main road went between Sheetz and the KFC. Mr. Earl Sutherland, a resident at 102 Fox Court, stated that, by way of disclosure, he was a senior partner of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Mr. Sutherland was acting as the spokesperson for the residents of the 28 -unit Fox Ridge Townhouses subdivision. He said the units are appraised at between $110,000 to $120,000 and almost every unit has two to three vehicles. Mr. Sutherland said the owners maintain their own streets and lights, and there are only about five or six school-age children. He said the residents have no problem with the proposed uses, however, they were opposed to the use of Foxridge Lane for the proposed commercial uses. Mr. Sutherland was concerned that access of Foxridge Lane by the commercial uses would negatively impact the residents' property values and quality of life in their neighborhood. Mr. Mike Carpenter, a resident at the end of Foxridge Lane, behind Fox Ridge Townhouses, stated that he and his wife put the concept for this area together in the late 1980's with Mr. Maddox's help through Mr. George Glaize. Mr. Carpenter was also opposed to using Foxridge Lane as an entrance to the proposed commercial uses. He was not opposed to the uses proposed. Commissioners discussed with the applicant the possibility of making Foxridge Lane an emergency access only as a way to avoid intrusion in the Fox Ridge Townhouse neighborhood. Mr. Maddox suggested creating a link between the rear of KFC and the proposed use to avoid breaking through the tree barrier along the townhouses. The applicant said the owner is not interested in using Foxridge Lane and he would modify the MDP to designate it as a secondary access for emergency vehicles only, if that is what the County requested. Commissioner Gochenour and Commissioner Straub expressed concerns about water usage and believed this MDP proposal was not appropriate at this time. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Master Development Plan 405-02 of Fox Town Plaza, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to develop a 5.649 -acre tract for commercial uses and to allow administrative approval for two entrances into the property, one through the Sheetz property and the other through the Kentucky Fried Chicken property. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Rosenberry NO: Straub, Gochenour Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 2002 Page 933 -11 - Subdivision #14-02 of The Lands of Thomas E. and Ester M. Hinkle, submitted by Dove & ,,associates, for the subdivision of a 1.0331 -acre parcel into two single-family detached lots. The property is located at 150 Stanley Drive (Rt. 781) and is identified with P.I.N. 64A -A-11 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that the proposed subdivision would establish a total of two lots, consisting of 0.59 acres and 0.43 acres each, and the existing dwelling and outbuilding will remain on the 0.59 -acre parcel. He said that both lots will have state road frontage; he said the existing residence is currently served by on-site sewage disposal and a sanitary sewer easement has been established to serve the 0.43 -acre parcel with public sewer service. Director Lawrence stated that all relevant review agency comments have been satisfied and the Sanitation Authority and VDOT have signed the final plats. Chairman DeHaven inquired if the drainfield for the existing residence would remain on the parent tract. Director Lawrence confirmed that the drainfield would remain on the parent tract, which is the larger of the two tracts; he said the drainfield is on the east side of the existing residence. Mr. Eddie Davis, son-in-law to Mrs. Ester M. Hinkle, came fto the podium and stated that he has received approval from the Sanitation Authority to connect the existing residence to public water and sewer. He said the other lot will also have access to public sewer and water. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. No other issues of concern were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Straub, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision #14-02 of The Lands of Thomas E. and Ester M. Hinkle, submitted by Dove & Associates, for the subdivision of a 1.0331 -acre parcel into two single-family detached lots. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 2002 Page 934 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 September 18, 2002. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison, and Robert Sager, Board of Supervisors' Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning & Subdivision 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. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning Application #10-02 of the Village at Harvest Ridge, submitted by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone 16.92 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District. This property is located south and adjacent to Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622) bordering the City/ County line, and is identified with P.I.N. 63-A-2. An adjoining 9.82 -acre tract, zoned RP and identified with P.I.N. 63-A-3, is submitted for proffer amendments to the residential density. The combined tracts, totaling 26.74 acres, are in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Tabled at the Applicant's Request Commissioners Unger and Ours said that they would be abstaining from all discussion and voting on this application, due to a possible conflict of interest. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 2002 Page 935 -2- Planner Abbe S. Kennedy gave the background information and review agency comments. Planner Kennedy stated that the 26.74-acre total site is within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); the site is located along a major collector road, and is adjacent to the City of Winchester. She said the intended use of the property is for a total of 90 single -family small lot units on Parcels 63-A-2 and 63-A-3 and of significance, is the proffer of use as an age-restricted community, which minimizes the permanent residence of school-age children. She said the proffer stipulates that 80% of the occupied housing units have an occupant who is 55 years or older and no unit shall be occupied by a child under the age of 19 as a permanent resident. Planner Kennedy continued, stating that the proposed use is consistent with the UDA expansion of 1999, however, at the time of UDA expansion, a condition was included that the development of this property provide access from Cedar Creek Grade to a connection with the Westridge Subdivision to insure improved public services through a complete road network. She noted that at the Planning Commission's public hearing of 1999, the Commission believed the direct access to the Frederick County portion of the development via Cedar Creek Grade, was most important so that County public service personnel would not have to traverse City streets in order to reach the development. Planner Kennedy reported that the review agency comments were generally favorable. She read the list of proffers offered by the applicant. She concluded by pointing out five prevailing issues that were still of concern to the staff. Those issues involved direct connections for County emergency response vehicles, storm water management clarification, perimeter buffering, preservation of existing trees, and issues regarding the recreational amenities, the hiker trail and sidewalks. There were a few questions from Commission members for the staff. Commissioner Straub asked if the roads in the adjoining Westwood subdivision were state-maintained and secondly, what would prevent residents ofthe proposed subdivision from using the emergency access to Cedar Creek Grade. Planner Kennedy replied that Westwood subdivision roads are in the City of W inchester and are maintained bythe City, however, the roads in the proposed development are intended to be private and would be maintained by the homeowners association. Planner Kennedy explained that the proposed revised proffers indicate that residents of The Village at Harvest Ridge would traverse City streets to get to Cedar Creek Grade; the direct access would be for emergency vehicles only. Commissioner Rosenberry asked for the reason why, at the time of the previously-approved proffers, the Commission was interested in the direct access to Cedar Creek Grade. Commissioner Morris replied that the development proposed was for 12,000 square-foot single -family lots and would require County school buses to traverse City streets. Commissioner Morris commented that the change of use to an age- restricted community obviously eliminates the school bus issue. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the design engineering firm representing the property owners, Mr. Frederick Glaize, Mr. James Vickers, and Mr. James Wilkins, 111, presented the rezoning proposal to the Commission. Mr. Maddox described for the Commission the style and size of the proposed homes, the proposed setbacks, buffering, and screening for existing adjacent homes, and stone water management design. Regarding the street system, Mr. Maddox said that replacing the state- maintained roads within this small lot, age-restricted development with private streets, will eliminate the need to build a new state intersection on Cedar Creek Grade. He explained that the need for a second public intersection on Cedar Creek Grade relatively near the City intersection would be redundant. He stated that the Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 2002 Page 936 -3 - need to bring traffic in at two points is eliminated because the trips -per -day count for an age -restricted community is very low compared to traditional housing. In addition, Mr. Maddox believed it would not be the best transportation planning; he said that Cedar Creek Grade is a major collector roadway and needs to be unburdened by intersections. Mr. Maddox added that they will be able to meet the County's 800' requirement from a publicly -maintained road with the two connections provided from the City. He further added that the City has agreed to the City street connections. Chairman DeHaven recalled that the Board's decision to include the 16 -acre tract within the UDA was contingent upon a connection to Cedar Creek Grade. He commented that with the type of housing now proposed, the Board's viewpoint may be different; however, Chairman DeHaven believed the decision made by the Board was that it was contingent on that occurring and this will be an issue that will need to be resolved. Chairman DeHaven commented that since a commercial entrance was going to be constructed on Cedar Creek Grade for emergency vehicles regardless, he believed the same amount of woodlands would be breeched. Mr. Maddox next discussed the proposed agreement and boundary line adjustment that his clients were working out with Mr. R. J. Turner, the owner of the adjacent historic Homespun property. Mr. Maddox described how adding a side yard to Mr. Turner's property and taking Homespun's rear yard and putting it into their project creates a good situation for both parties. Mr. Maddox said that since the Homespun property is zoned agricultural, they would need to do a boundary line adjustment in order to implement the agreement, which they intend to do prior to the Board of Supervisors' hearing. Chairman DeHaven pointed out that part of Mr. Maddox's boundary line adjustment process would be to remove some of the acreage included in the current rezoning application and adding some acreage that has not been included in this current rezoning. The Planning Commission's legal counsel, Mr. Jay Cook, determined that the rezoning application would have to be re -advertised after the boundary line adjustment has been completed. In consideration of Mr_ Cook's advice, Mr. Maddox stated he would request that the Planning Commission table the rezoning this evening until they can properly take care of the advertising requirements. Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments and the following persons came forward to speak. Mr. Tony Duvello, resident on Westview Lane in the Westwood II subdivision, did not want Westview Lane to be used as a cut -through, because he believed it would negatively impact the value of his home. On the other hand, Mr. Duvello also believed there was some relevance to not having a direct access to Cedar Creek because of the possibility of creating an additional opportunity for cut -through traffic. Mr. R. J. Turner, owner of Homespun, spoke about the boundary line adjustment agreement and a lot purchase he hoped to work out with the owners of the Village at Harvest Ridge. Mr. Turner stated that his wife would like to construct a series of gardens around Homespun and, in order to accomplish this, he will need a small piece of property to the west for parking. Mr. Turner added that he already has water and gas, however, he will need a sewer hook-up and a water line for fire suppression. Mr. George Cather said that his family owns property on two sides of the proposal. Mr. Cather's main concern was for a buffer and/or fencing to screen his property. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 2002 Page 937 -4 - Mr. John Elliott, an adjoining property owner, asked for additional explanation on the reason for the proposed private road in this development. He believed the connection to Cedar Creek Grade would be dangerous because of a blind curve located at the proposed access point. Mr. Elliott was also opposed to his street becoming a cut -through. Mr. Maddox returned to the podium to address some of the concerns raised by the citizens who spoke. He described the emergency access at the rear of the property; he stated their intention of replanting landscaping trees throughout the entire boundary and that the MDP will include a significant landscaping plan. Regarding the comments relating to "cut -through" traffic and whether the proposed road should be state - maintained or not, Mr. Maddox commented that this has been a central design issue. He said the ability to cut from Middle Road to Cedar Creek Grade has the potential of changing the road classification from a local street to a major or minor collector and the road through the age -restricted community would not be designed for that purpose. Mr. Maddox commented that neither the County's nor the City's Comprehensive Plan proposes to link these two roads with a major collector roadway; he said the private street recommendation he presented essentially eliminates that possibility within the County, although a linkage still exists in the City. In conclusion, Mr. Maddox also commented that Cedar Creek Grade is one of the last unspoiled accesses into Winchester and Frederick County; he believed a 20' grassed road for emergency access could easily be implemented with little impact; however, a 50'-60' right-of-way with a 40' street with curb, gutter, and sidewalks would be an entirely different issue. Mr. Maddox believed this was an aesthetic issue for corridor planning. Because of the legal advertising issue and the issues raised by the citizens and Commission members, Mr. Maddox requested that his application be tabled until he could address the concerns. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to honor the applicant's request for tabling of Rezoning Application # 10-02 of the Village at Harvest Ridge, submitted by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone 16.92 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District for a period of time to be determined by the applicant. (Note: Commissioners Unger and Ours abstained from voting.) Conditional Use Permit #10-02 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for a 150' monopole telecommunications facility. This property is located at 220 Imboden Drive (Schrock Bus Tours) and is identified with P.I.N. 54-7-7A in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner Rebecca Ragsdale stated that the proposed 150' monopole telecommunications facility will be located at the end of Imboden Drive in the Baker Lane Industrial Park, adjacent to Interstate 81; the property is owned by Larry and Dorothy Schrock. She said it was the staff's opinion that this application for a commercial telecommunications facility had adequately addressed the requirements of the zoning ordinance in that the need for this facility, based on a lack of coverage and capacity in this part of the County, had been Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 2002 Page 938 -5 - demonstrated. Planner Ragsdale pointed out, however, a history of zoning violations associated with the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Larry Schrock. She explained that the County approved a site plan in July of 1998 for construction of the Schrock Tours' 16,200 square -foot building for use as a bus facility; the building was constructed and occupied, but site improvements such as landscaping and the final asphalt surface treatment were not completed. She said a bond was established by the owners to guarantee the site work. She stated that in June of 2002, staff noted that site improvements were still not complete and, in addition, zoning violations, such as trash, debris, and inoperable vehicles, were reported on the property. Planner Ragsdale said the Planning Staff has had continued dialogue with the Schrocks and they have committed to have all site work completed. She advised that this site history information should be considered along with the conditional use permit application. Mr. Gregory S. Tulley, Director of Planning and Zoning for Site Solutions, LLC, located on Starkey Road in Roanoke, Virginia, was present to represent Shenandoah Mobile Company. Regarding the staff's comment on the pending FAA compliance, Mr. Tulley said that Shenandoah Cellular will not construct a tower until they receive FAA compliance. He said they have no problem with the Planning Commission conditioning their approval on FAA compliance. In addition, Mr. Tulley said they met with Mr. Larry Schrock several times regarding the zoning ordinance violations and it was Mr. Schrock's intention to have everything taken care of by October 8, 2002, which would be the day prior to the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Mr. Tulley said they had no problem with this also being a condition of approval. Mr. Tulley proceeded to introduce Mr. Dexter Turkulas, Manager of Radio Frequency Engineering for Shenandoah Mobile, who was available to answer technical questions, and Mr. Lynn Kerrier, Real Estate Acquisition Specialist with Site Solutions, LLC. Mr. Tulley explained that they were currently implementing a digital expansion and upgrade. Mr. Tulley proceeded to describe Shenandoah Mobile Company's proposal and gave evidence of their need, which was two -fold: to fill in a gap that existed on I-81 between Exits 311 and 317 and to increase the capacity of their entire network. He also handed out a letter from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources stating that no historic properties would be affected by the project. Commissioner Straub inquired what would happen if the tower fell. Mr. Tulley said that to his knowledge there has not been a recorded instance of monopole failure in the United States and second, if it did fall, it is structurally engineered to collapse on itself. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Unger said that he was not in favor of supporting the conditional use permit until the violations were corrected. Chairman DeHaven referred to recommended Condition #5, which stated that all existing zoning violations should be resolved prior to construction of any telecommunication facilities. Planning Director Lawrence pointed out that because the County has a bond to guarantee the striping and paving, the staff does not consider those issues zoning violations. He said that the zoning violations are items not identified in the approved site plan, such as the inoperable vehicles, trash, and debris. The majority of the members were comfortable with the proposed conditional use permit with those conditions recommended by the staff, plus the condition that the tower would be constructed within 18 months or the conditional use permit would become invalid. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 2002 Page 939 -6 - Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend the approval of Conditional Use Permit # 10-02 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for a 150' monopole telecommunications facility at 220 Imboden Drive with the following conditions: All Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and complied with at all times. 2. 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. All existing zoning violations should be resolved prior to construction of any telecommunication facilities. 6. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within eighteen (18) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the Conditional Use Permit will be deemed invalid. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Straub, Gochenour, Morris, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Rosenberry, DeHaven NO: Unger Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to make the two letters received as support documentation a part of the official record. Request by Robert Simmons of Complete Restoration Services, Inc. for a waiver to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-54 and Section 165-55A(2), to enable the subdivision (boundary line adjustment) of a parcel of land which is less than five acres in area, and to enable the setback for an existing dwelling, currently less than 50 feet, to be further reduced. This property is ]coated at 366 Stony Hill Road and is identified with P.I.N. 28-A-163 in the Gainesboro District. Action - Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Achninistrator, Patrick T. Davenport, stated that Mr. Robert Simmons is requesting approval of a boundary line adjustment on his property located at 366 Stony Hill Road (Rt. 688) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 2002 Page 940 -7 - in the Gainesboro District. He explained that Mr. Simmons owns approximately 0.56 acre and the subject property contains an existing dwelling. Administrator Davenport noted that the boundary line adjustment would add approximately 2,539 square feet (0.058 acre) to the adjoining Tax Parcel 28 -A -161A, owned by Mr. Adams. Administrator Davenport stated that the reason for the boundary line adjustment is to resolve a septic drainfield easement agreement between Mr. Simmons and the adjoining property owner. He said the agreement also includes establishing the new boundary line along the existing fence line. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. No issues of concern were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission, by a majority vote, does hereby recommend approval of the request by Robert Simmons of Complete Restoration Services, Inc. for a waiver to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-54 and Section 165-55A(2), to enable the subdivision (boundary line adjustment) of a parcel of land which is less than five acres in area, and to enable the setback for an existing dwelling, currently less than 50 feet, to be further reduced. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Unger, Gochenour, Straub, DeHaven NO: Morris Request by John and Lois Slater for a waiver to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, to allow the creation of a lot containing less than two acres. This property is located at 199 Dicks Hollow Road and is identified with P.I.N. 52-A-9 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Patrick T. Davenport, stated that Mr. and Mrs. John Slater are requesting to subdivide their property located along Dicks Hollow Road (Rt. 608) in the Gainesboro District. He said the 12.02 -acre parcel contains land on both sides of Dicks Hollow Road (Rt. 608), with approximately 10.25 acres of their parcel located on the east side of Dicks Hollow Road and approximately 1.77 acres located on the west side. Administrator Davenport explained that the Slaters are proposing to subdivide the property by allowing the right-of-way of Dicks Hollow Road to create the division line, which will simplify the sale of the property. He added there is an existing dwelling on the west side of Dicks Hollow Road. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, the project design engineers, stated that the Slaters were present to seek relief from the minimum lot size. He proceeded to explain the situation to the Commission in detail. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 2002 Page 941 -8 - Commissioner Unger inquired if the Slaters had ever sold any land off of the 1.77 -acre portion and Mr. Wyatt replied no, not to his knowledge. Commissioner Unger wanted to consider the worst-case scenario, such as a failing septic system, and he commented that sewer could not be pumped across the road. Commissioner Straub inquired if Dicks Hollow Road separates any other properties. Mr. Wyatt replied that the way the tax map numbering is indicated, it doesn't appear that other properties were affected in this area. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr_ Henry Buettner, a neighbor to the Slaters, supported the request for exception. Mr. Buettner also spoke highly of the Slaters and believed the Slaters request was valid. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the request by John and Lois Slater for a waiver to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, to allow the creation of a lot containing less than two acres at 199 Dicks Hollow Road in the Gainesboro District. ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. by a Respectfully submitted, Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 2002 Page 942 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORND V 1"v1 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission I FROM: Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner RE: Public Hearing on the 2003-2004 Secondary Road Improvement Plan DATE: October 2, 2002 The Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan is updated annually in the fall through a public hearing process involving reviews by the Transportation Committee, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The adopted plan is submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Edinburg Residency, who in turn develops cost estimates and advertisement dates for road improvement projects within the County. Allocations for major road improvement projects, hard surface improvement projects and incidental construction projects are provided based on priority. Of significance is the Greenwood Drive project north of Senseny Road. from Route 657 to Route 659 which was completed this year and is removed from the project list. The Frederick County Transportation Committee considered the draft update during their October 1, 2002 meeting. No citizens addressed the committee during this meeting and a recommendation was forwarded to approve the draft 2003-2004 Secondary Road Improvement Plan as presented by staff. Please find attached a draft update for the 2003-2004 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Staff requests that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter. ASK/cih U: \COMMITTEES\TRANSPORTATION\Projects\RoadPlanUpdates\Secondary\2003_2004\2003-2004SecondaryRoadimprovement?ImPCMemo.wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 FREDERICK COUNTY SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN MAJOR PROJECTS/ NEW LARD SURFACE/ INCIDENTAL. CONSTRUCTION 2003 - 2004 through 2008 - 2009 Frederick County Transportation Committee (Recommendation for approval on October 1, 2002) Frederick County Planning Commission (Pending) Frederick County Board of Supervisors (Pending) FREDERICK COUF411 Y MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2003/2004 through 2008/2009 Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to enhance public safety. Improvements required for road width, road alignment, road strength, and road gradient are considered major road improvements projects. 0 0e constructed as one project I _ i I' i W g ! � w Q F- V ff I w cn z # z 0 0 ¢9z! z w w i I� = UJ 0 ¢ F— UJ uWit�— ce I 00 i �-�-�� Op re O 0 (ao o I I i 1 w a 1) 647 0.22 mi. N 1.1 mi. N of A for Road of Rt. 277 Rt. 277 7300 0.9 miles OP/SH $4,070,996 01/04 1a) 647 1.1 mi N of Route 642 1.2 miles 01/06 Aylor Road Rt. 277 6800 OP/SH $4,070,996 2) 719 Route 277 Route 642 n/a 1.55 miles OP Revenue Under Warrior Drive Sharing Construction Fund 3) 656' Route 657 Route 655 3200 1.36 miles SH/RB $11,900,00 UN/SH Feasibility Greenwood Road 0 Phase 4) 655' Route 656 Route 50 4200 0.78 miles SH $6,754,000 UN/SH Feasibility Sulphur Springs Phase Road 0 0e constructed as one project FREDERICK COUNTY UNSCHEDULED MAJOR ROAD IMP1PZ0"V`d4F.NT PROJECTS 2003/2004 through xan / 7nnq - -, -- - U W Z d no W Q d© U a Z Z OWV Z J I w °� a � ~ *� i N w o o o ce f aF I tt 608 Wardensville Grade Route 50 West Route 616 1000 2.83 miles BC 659 Valle Mill Road Route 820 Route 7 1500 0.2 mile R8 Towns curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Stephens City Towns curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Middletown 664Route 761 Route 660 1.1 miles ST Jordan S rings Road 1600 660 Route 664 Route 7 1268 2.13 miles ST Woods Mill Road East 622 Winchester City Route 37 1.03 miles BC Cedar Creek Grade Limits 11,000 600 1.07 Mi. N Rte. 679 Route 684 1.93 miles GA North Ha field Road 910 659 Route 656 Route 820 1500 1.8 miles RB Valley Mill Road 657 Winchester City Route 656 1.6 miles SH/RB Sensen Road Limits 9800 739 Route 673 Route 522 1.66 miles GA Apple Pie Ridge North 2900 Road 636 Route 277 Route 642 1400 1.6 miles OP/SH ]White Oak Road644 WinchesterCityRoute 522 1.36 miles SH rmill Road Limits South 6300 661 Route 11 North Route 660 3.24 miles ST Redbud Road 400 622 Route 629 R oute 37 5.86 miles BC Cedar Creek Grade 3500 657 Route 656 Clarke Co. 2.07 miles RB Sensen Road Line 5600 641 Route 647 Route 277 4200 0.68 mile OP Double Church Road 761 Old Charlestown Route 11 North Route 664 2400 1.13 miles ST Road 659 Route 7 Route 656 5900 1.09 miles RB Valley Mill Road 636 Route 277 1.5 Mi. S. 520 1.5 miles OP Hudson Hollow Road Rte. 277 621 Route 1109 Route 628 1200 0.57 mile BC Jones Road 600 Back Mountain Road Route 753 Route 614 2600 1.8 miles BC 642 0.2 Mi. W. Rte1 887 Route 8400 0.9 mile OP/SH Tasker Road 1031 661 Route 663 Route 11 3900 1.21 miles ST/GA Welltown Road North 628 Route 621 Winchester 2900 1.25 miles BC Middle Road City Limits 627 Interstate 81 Route 11 1600 0.49 mile OP Reliance Road I South 704 Back Creek Road I Route 751 Route 683 d 800 1 4.11 miles BC FREDERICK COUNTY HARDSUR ACE ROAD ]IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2003/2004 through 2008/2009 Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction of non- hardsurfaced secondary roads. Hardsurface improvement projects are prioritized by an objective rating system which considers average daily traffic volumes; occupied structures; physical road conditions including geometrics, drainage, and accident reports, school bus routing; and the time that project requests have been on the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. U_ ~ 119� W 1 I W 117- 0 IL W QZ UJI !LLJ f L t UEZJ I co Z 0 0 � ¢ ~H I cu Jui W O Q ti. >>-V �U) �O �ni ¢ 2 o� w o C3 1) 689 Adams Road Route 600 2.30 Mi. N. 100 2.3 miles GA $1,500,000 08/04 S. Rt. 600 S. 2) 689 2.54 Mi. N. Route 600 100 1.7 miles GA $1,100,000 07/07 Adams Road Rt. 600 S. N. 3) 704 Back Creek Road Route 683 W. VA Line 170 3.30 miles BC $2,600,000 UN/SH FREDERICK COUNTY UNSCHEDULED HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROO/EMENT PROJECTS 2003 / 2004 thmunh 2onR / mnci M (Q Z 2 Z G LU 0 I IW V Z N f Z DLU � r LL 0 _ja_lot 0 a g 1) 618 Gough Road Route 622 Route 608 90 3.3 BC 92 miles 2) 705 Ebenezer 0.25 Mi. E. Rt. Route 522 120 4.25 GA 81 Church Road 703 miles 3) 679 Indian Hollow 0.3 Mi. W. Rt. 0.5 Mi. E. Rt. 600 90 2.5 GA 79 Road 608 miles 4) 692 Pack Horse 1.2 Mi. NE Rt. Route 671 230 1.4 GA 77 Road 600 miles 5) 734 North Sleepy 1.27 Mi. SW 227 Mi. SW Rt. 80 1 mile GA 76 Creek Road Rt. 522 N. 522 N 6) 709 Ridings Mill Route 636 Route 735 130 2.7 OP 75 Road miles 7) 612 Fishel Road Route 600 Route 600 20 1.6 BC 71 miles 8) 676 Warm 0.83 Mi. N Rt. Route 677 240 0.87 GA 71 S rings Road 677 mile 9) 629 Carter Lane Route 631 Route 625 150 1.8 BC 70 miles 10) 636 Canterburg Route 640 Route 641 50 1.5 OP 70 Road miles 11) 707 Hollow Road W. VA Line Route 610 90 1.6 BC/GA 69 miles 12) 607 Heishman Route 600 End of State 110 0.78 BC 69 Lane Maintenance mile 13) 681 Chestnut Route 805 Route 685 100 1.62 GA 63 Grove Road miles 14) 695 Middle Fork 2.3 miles W. VA State Line 20 0.9 GA 62 Road north Rt. 522 mile 15) 644 East Parkins Route 50 East Clarke Co. 260 0.81 SH 60 Mill Road mile 16) 733 Fletcher Road Route 50 Route 707 60 1.3 GA 59 West miles 17) 836 Walters Mill Route 11 End of State 80 0.8 ST 59 Lane North Maintenance mile 18) 638 Clark Road Route 625 Route 759 70 0.8 BC 57 mile 19) 636 Huttle Road Route 709 Route 735 150 1.1 OP 57 miles 20) 671 Woodside Route 669 W. VA State Line 170 0.3 ST 57 Road mile 21) 696 South Timber Route 522 Route 694. 100 1.3 GA 55 _ Ridge Road North miles 22) 811 Timberlakes Route 671 End of State 240 0.25 ST 51 Lane Maintenance mile L�3)634 Cougill Road Route 635 Route 11 South 260 0.25 BC 50 mile FREDERICK COUNTY INCI ENTAi CONSTRUCTIO19 2003/2004 through 2008/2000 Incidental construction projects are defined as minor construction projects that cost less than $100,000. Examples involve drainage improvements, site distance improvements, spot widening, replacing overflow pipes with box culverts, and the application of plant mix on existing road surfaces. The Virginia Department of Transportation determines if a proposed project qualifies for Incidental Construction based on the overall SrnnP of the imnrnvPmPnt I z O Q 1 C U Y z Fes- d� � I f- a tum FN- Q ..J < w 10 <o 0 w I _MW. w 1) 672 Hopewell 0.05 Rt. 11 RIR Crossing -Install ST $12,500 2001/02 Road flashing lights. Improve 10% surface Match 2) 660 Woods Mill From: 1.00 Mi. S Rt. 664 Install guardrail ST $5,000 2002/03 Road To: 1.04 Mi. S. Rt. 664 3) 660 Woods Mill From: 0.66 Mi. S Rt. 664 Install guardrail ST $8,000 2002/03 Road To: 0.70 Mi. S Rt. 664 4) 660 Woods Mill From: 1.07 Mi. S Rt. 664 Install guardrail ST $10,000 2002/03 Road To: 1.11 Mi. S Rt, 664 5) 739 Apple Pie From: 0.38 Mi. S Rt, 672 Install guardrail both ST $19,000 2002/03 Ridge Road To: 0.45 Mi. S Rt. 672 sides 6) 739 Apple Pie From: 0.50 Mi. S Rt. 672 Install guardrail ST $13,000 2002/03 Ridge Road To: 0.63 Mi. S Rt. 672 654 Cedar Grove From: 0.21 Mi. S Rt. 671 Install guardrail ST $16,000 2002/03 Road To: 0.24 Mi, S Rt. 671 8) 645 Airport Road From: 0.05 Mi. W. Rt. 50 Road widening OP $30,000 2002/03 To: 0.2 Mi. W. Rt. 50 9) 600 North Pifer From: 0.05 Mi. S Rt. 608S Widen slope to GA $21,700 2002/03 Road To: 0.05 Mi. N Rt. 608S improve sight distance 10) 1049 Buckingham The Pines Subdivision Plant Mix OP $100,000 2002/03 Drive Improvements 11) 783 From: 0.15 Mi. S. of City Widen Pavement ST $35,000 2002/03 Kent Street Limits Industrial Access — To: 1322 Kent Street 12) 641 Double Church From: 0.02 Mi. N. Rt. 636E Improve drainage & OP $22,000 2003/04 Road To: Rt. 636W widen shoulder 13) 600 Brush Creek From: 1.15 Mi. S Rt. 693 Widen slope and GA $45,000 2003/04 Road To: 1.42 Mi. S Rt. 693 shoulder both sides 14) County -wide Improvement Install guardrail at $20,000 2003/04 various locations 15) 684 Gainesboro 0.2 E. Rt. 600 R/R Crossing - GA $12,500 2003/04 Requesting Road Flashing Lights, & —10% Federal Surface Match Funds 16) 684 Gainesboro 0.5 S. Rt. 522 R/R Crossing - GA $12,500 2003/04 Requesting Road Flashing Lights & —10% Federal Surface Match Funds 17) 672 Brucetown 0.45 E. Rt. 11 R/R Crossing — ST $8,500— 2003/04 Requesting Road Flashina Lights & Bell 1O Federal Match I I Funds 18) 1200 Baker Lane Int. of Rt. 1322 Traffic Light ST $12,000 2003/04 Federal —10% Funds Match Approved 9) 764 Lee Avenue 0.5 W. Rt. 11 Replace Pipe w/ Box ST $75,000 2003/04 Culvert LU Z O 1 d O to = � LU W f" �" Q W Z LU aZ LU u. ?- g _j g Q 20) 627 Reliance Road 0.02 M.W. 1-81 Turn lane into Carolyn OP $75,000 2003/04 Avenue at Middletown 21) 1251 Pebble Brook Brentwood Terrace Plant Mix RB $70,000 2003/04 Lane 22) 1201 Oak Ridge Fairway Estates Plant Mix SH $50,000 2003/04 Lane 23) 618 Gough Road From: 2.09 Mi. S. Rt. 608 Widen Curve BC $30,000 2003/04 To: 2.12 Mi. S. Rt. 608 24) 654 Marple Road From: 0,11 Mi. N. Rt. 679 Re -grade Slope GA $30,000 2003/04 To: 0.16 Mi. N. Rt. 679 25) 647 Aylor Road 0.1 Mi. N. of Rt. 277 Curb & Gutter OP $20,000 2003/04 r2-7) 622 Cedar Creek From: Rt. 629 Lower vertical curve to BC $50,000 2003/04 Grade To: 0.05 mi N of Rt. 629 improve sight distance 1323 Park Centre at 0.4 miles East of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing- Improve ST $8,000 2003/04 Requesting Drive Surface 10% Federal matchin Funds 28) 657 Senseny Road From Rt. 1204 to Rt. 1265 Construct Center turn RB/S $75,000 2003/04 Requesting lane, widen pavement H 10% Federal & bride matchin Funds 29) 657 Senseny Road From Rt. 1265 to 0.06 Construct center turn RB/S $75,000 2003/04 Requesting miles east of Rt. 1225 lane H 10% Federal matchingFunds 30) 1109 Stonebrook Stonebrook Farm Plant Mix BC $220,000 2004/05 Road 31) 681 Siler Road From: Rt. 608 Lower vertical curves GA $50,000 2004/05 To: 0.19 mi S of Rt. 608 to improve sight distance 32) 681 Siler Road At 0.1 mi SW of Rt. 608 Replace pipes with box GA $80,000 2004/05 culvert 33) 699 Hope Road From: 0.16 Mi. W. of Rt. Widen slope to GA $40,000 2004/05 522 improve sight distance To: 0.23 Mi. W. of Rt. 522 14d4jad- - /0//('_/0R FREDERICK COUNTY I I E„1TAlti CONSTV!.UCTION 2003/2004 through 2008/2009 Incidental construction projects are defined as minor construction projects that cost less than $100,000. Examples involve drainage improvements, site distance improvements, spot widening, replacing overflow pipes with box culverts, and the application of plant mix on existing road surfaces. The Virginia Department of Transportation determines if a proposed roIect qualifies for Incidental Construction based on the overall scope of the improvement. Page 5 of 6 W i Z 0 4F o z F- a w H(, <t vi "� Z ua p D a 52 M LU w CG O 0 U) co 0J NC} q, } W W0 D W U 1) 672 Hopewell 0.05 M. W. Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install ST $12,500 2001/02 Road flashing lights. Improve 10% surface Match 2) 660 Woods Mill From: 1.00 Mi. S Rt. 664 Install guardrail ST $5,000 2002/03 Road To: 1.04 Mi. S. Rt. 664 3) 660 Woods Mill From: 0.66 Mi. S Rt. 664 Install guardrail ST $8,000 2002/03 Road To: 0.70 Mi. S Rt. 664 4) 660 Woods Mill From: 1.07 Mi. S Rt. 664 Install guardrail ST $10,000 2002/03 Road To: 1.11 Mi. S Rt. 664 51739 Apple Pie From: 0.38 Mi. S Rt. 672 Install guardrail both ST $19,000 2002/03 Ridge Road To: 0.45 Mi. S Rt. 672 sides 6) 739 Apple Pie From: 0.50 Mi. S Rt. 672 Install guardrail ST $13,000 2002/03 Ridge Road To: 0.63 Mi. S Rt. 672 7) 654 Cedar Grove From: 0.21 Mi. S Rt. 671 Install guardrail ST $16,000 2002/03 Road To: 0.24 Mi. S Rt. 671 8) 645 Airport Road From: 0.05 Mi. W. Rt. 50 Road widening OP $30,000 2002/03 To: 0.2 Mi. W. Rt. 50 9) 600 North Pifer From: 0.05 Mi. S Rt. 6083 Widen slope to GA $21,700 2002/03 Road To: 0.05 Mi. N Rt. 608S improve sight distance 10) 1049 Buckingham The Pines Subdivision Plant Mix OP $100,000 2002/03 Drive Improvements 11) 783 From: 0.15 Mi. S. of City Widen Pavement ST $35,000 2002/03 Kent Street Limits Industrial Access — To: 1322 Kent Street 12) 641 Double Church From: 0.02 Mi. N. Rt. 636E Improve drainage & OP $22,000 2003/04 Road To: Rt. 636W widen shoulder 13) 600 Brush Creek From: 1.15 Mi. S Rt. 693 Widen slope and GA $45,000 2003/04 Road To: 1.42 Mi. S Rt. 693 shoulder both sides 14) County -wide Improvement Install guardrail at $20,000 2003/04 various locations 15) 684 Gainesboro 0.2 E. Rt. 600 R/R Crossing - GA $12,500 2003/04 Requesting Road Flashing Lights, & —10% Federal Surface Match Funds 16) 684 Gainesboro 0.5 S. Rt. 522 R/R Crossing - GA $12,500 2003/04 Requesting Road Flashing Lights & —10% Federal Surface Match Funds 17) 672 Brucetown 0.45 E. Rt. 11 R/R Crossing — ST $8,500— 2003/04 Requesting Road Flashing Lights & Bell 10% Federal Match Funds 18} 1200 Baker Lane Int, of Rt. 1322 Traffic Light ST $12,000 2003/04 Federal —10% Funds Match Approved 19) 764 Lee Avenue 0.5 W. Rt. 11 Replace Pipe w/ Box ST $75,000 2003/04 Culvert Page 5 of 6 Page 6 of 6 LU z o a o cn LU p F- j Z 11--a W w ¢Oi Q F- W v �C O q O N� u' 2 © W Ii p W p 20) 627 Reliance Road 0.02 M.W. 1-81 Turn lane into Carolyn OP $75,000 2003/04 Avenue at Middletown 21) 661 Welltown Road Rt. 11 to Railroad Tracks Turn Lane ST $75,000 2003/04 22) 636 White Oak From: 0.5 Mi. N. Rt. 641 Spot Improvements OP $50,000 2003/04 Road To: 2 Mi. N. Rt. 641 23) 638 Vauclose At 0.10 Mi. W. Rt. 11 R/R Crossing- OP $11,500- 2003/04 Requesting Road Flashing lights and 10% Federal ates Matchin Funds 24) 1251 Pebble Brook Brentwood Terrace Plant Mix RB $70,000 2003/04 Lane 25) 1201 Oak Ridge Fairway Estates Plant Mix SH $50,000 2003/04 Lane 26) 618 Gough Road From: 2.09 Mi. S. Rt. 608 Widen Curve BC $30,000 2003/04 To: 2.12 Mi. S. Rt. 608 27) 654 Marple Road From: 0.11 Mi. N. Rt. 679 Re -grade Slope GA $30,000 2003/04 To: 0.16 Mi. N. Rt. 679 28) 647 Aylor Road 0.1 Mi. N. of Rt. 277 Curb & Gutter OP $20,000 2003/04 29) 622 Cedar Creek From: Rt. 629 Lower vertical curve to BC $50,000 2003/04 Grade To: 0.05 mi N of Rt. 629 improve sight distance 30) 1323 Park Centre at 0.4 miles East of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing- Improve ST $8,000 2003/04 Requesting Drive Surface 10% Federal matchin Funds 31) 657 Senseny Road From Rt. 1204 to Rt. 1265 Construct Center turn RB/S $75,000 2003/04 Requesting lane, widen pavement H 10% Federal & bride matchin Funds ,2) 657 Senseny Road From Rt. 1265 to 0.06 Construct center turn RB/S $75,000 2003/04 Requesting miles east of Rt. 1225 lane H 10% Federal matching Funds Stonebrook Stonebrook Farm Plant Mix BC $220,000 2004/05 *34)61819 Road Siler Road From: Rt. 608 Lower vertical curves GA $50,000 2004/05 To: 0.19 mi S of Rt. 608 to improve sight distance 35) 681 Siler Road At 0.1 mi SW of Rt. 608 Replace pipes with box GA $80,000 2004/05 culvert 36) 699 Hope Road From: 0.16 Mi. W. of Rt. Widen slope to GA $40,000 2004/05 522 improve sight distance To: 0.23 Mi. W. of Rt. 522 Page 6 of 6 PC REVIEW: 10/16/02 BOS REVIEW: 11/13/02 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #11-02 SHENANDOAH GAS COMPANY Telecommunications Facility LOCATION: This property is located at 350 Hillandale Lane. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 63-2-A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District; Land Use: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District, Land Uses: Commercial and Agricultural PROPOSED USE: 120 -foot monopole -type telecommunications facility REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 847, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use; however, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Inspections Department: Structure shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, Use Group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of The BOCA National Building Code/ 1996. Structural plans submitted for permit application shall be sealed by a Virginia -licensed design professional. Please note the requirements in Chapter 17, Special inspections, for this type structure, soils, concrete, bolts, etc. CUP #11-02, Shenandoah Gas Co. Page 2 October 7, 2002 Fire and Rescue: Emergency vehicle access is adequate; no additional comments. Plan approval is recommended. Winchester Regional Airport: Please see attached letterfrom Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director, dated 10/03/0.2. Planning and Zoning: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for Commercial Telecommunication Facilities in the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance specifies that a CUP for a commercial telecommunication tower may be permitted provided that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic values are not negatively impacted. Furthermore, additional performance standards shall apply to the CUP review in order to promote orderly economic development and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties. The proposed telecommunication facility will be located on a 10.9 -acre site located on Hillandale Lane, adjacent to Interstate 81. The property is owned by Washington Gas and the applicant proposes to build a 120 -foot monopole -type telecommunication facility. The proposed facility would replace two existing structures on the property. These two structures include a 42 -foot lattice tower and a 110 -foot monopole tower, and make up Shenandoah Gas's internal communication system. The two structures are outdated and do not provide enough capacity for the company. Expansion of the existing towers is not feasible and the gas company would also like to upgrade technologically. The proposed telecommunications facility would also be designed to accommodate commercial telecommunication carriers and would be constructed to support an extension to 180 feet high. However, this CUP application is only for a 120 -foot monopole tower. Another CUP application would be necessary for extension of the tower. The proposed setbacks for this facility are approximately 300 feet from Hillandale Lane, 152 from the rear property line, 337 feet from the right property line, and 595 from the side property line. Therefore, the proposed location of the structure would comply with the setback requirements even if it was eventually built to 180 -feet. The applicant has provided an explanation why it is not possible to utilize existing structures and has adequately illustrated the need for a telecommunication facility to serve Shenandoah Gas business operations. The zoning ordinance requires appropriate landscaping and opaque screening to ensure that equipment buildings and other accessory structures are not visible from adjoining properties and roadways; this will be addressed at the time of site plan review. CUP #11-02, Shenandoah Gas Co. Page 3 October 7, 2002 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 10-16-02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff believes that this application for a Commercial Telecommunication Facility has adequately addressed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, 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. 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. Existing towers on the site shall be removed within three (3) months after construction of the 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. O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2002\Shenandoah Gas Co. wpd aI DEVELOPMENTS, INC 75 A 90 The City of 'v Winchester, — Yet ti ai Location Map -Zoning symbol CUP#11-02 Shenandoah GAS PI N: 63-2-A - N 0 .. 2r 00 0 Feet SEPT. 24, 2002 Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) t_ NAME: ADDRESS: s'so 44-AJ6 TELEPHONE.lcl,.0 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) kht AL > yS 1?711f=S. 4 . The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of Yf g15- feet and consists of acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by �>�iF��bo4t/ C ��� as evidenced by deed from recorded M (previous owner) in deed book no. on page �Q_S, as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. Magisterial District Shaw Current Zoning 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North gt6,,log, E'fX', East South West f'-a�';lAl�-X&xw- / � i 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) L;y) i z)�4il . N N a >E,� t ✓cif: IF �cry ZAis�i 9nn d /- „ YYJ�alz� is proposed that the f 061�r �1 ,vr� eraC� us6b r rig; T7m6-" X6,f,4-tTej- 9. it ollowing buildings will be constructed: AL COs-' ST P, vL 7 , 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME 4'�Qk� ADDRES 5 Ci; EIsLr� Z �s� PROPERTY ID# Q) :� f 93J NAME Pgn,,,,-,+,o -Lr 11E.-srE-r C-� -1�c ADDRESS , {►„m•s _ PROPERTY ID#M- NAME lg 4, `` )�Il£tmL��S.J� ADDRESS 0yyC�fsTG.e , d Ii 1Z � PROPERTY ID# �� � �� b, EDx .22 5 - NAME NAME Vb B ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# Is— 7/ C— IRI`40F PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applican Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. Vd+Jc6F�s'f f V/ -;L206 a e v� 6)X- ate - 5 TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: / �. Washington Gas September 9, 2002 Frederick County of Virginia Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Subject: Letter of Justification To Whom It May Concern: 6801 Industrial Road Springfield, Virginia 22151 Shenandoah Gas (a subsidiary of Washington Gas Light) owns and operates a communication site at 350 Hillandale Lane, Winchester, VA. This facility is a part of WG's internal communications system. The information transmitted by this facility includes two-way radio communications, gas flow and pipeline pressure metering information and computer data essential to the continued safe operation of Shenandoah Gas' company facilities. The analog microwave system in operation at the present time was installed over 30 years ago. The business operational needs at Shenandoah Gas have taxed the system. Presently we do not have the ability to expand this system. Installation of a digital system would meet present as well as future needs. The operational characteristics of a digital system require larger dish antennas mounted higher than the present antenna. This facility consist of a 40 foot tower and one 110 foot tower. The proposed 120 foot tower will replace both towers. This tower will meet current as well as future operational needs. Sincerely, John L. Whitmer Section Leader October 3, 2002 Lynn Koerner, Project Specialist Site Solutions 3126 South Ox Road Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Re: Conditional Use Permit — Final Comment 120' Monopole —Washington Gas 350 Hillandale Lane — Winchester Dear Mr. Koerner: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority offers the following final comment on the above referenced request for a conditional use permit as conditions to be complied with at all times: It has been determined that the proposed tower does not penetrate any FAR Part 77 surfaces therefore future development of this site should not impact current or future operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. This comment is based on review provided by our engineering firm, Delta Airport Consultants, Richmond, Virginia, and of the Federal Aviation Administration's Aeronautical Study Number 2002 -AEA -1095 -OE. If at any time the tower height exceeds 150 AGL, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority requests the following condition be met: 1. Towers over 200 feet AGL are required by FAA to be lighted. For towers between 150 and 199 feet AGL, the Winchester Airport is requiring all structures to be marked and lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1 K, Change 1, Obstruction Marking and lighting, Chapter 5. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact this office (540) 662- 5786. Sincerely, S. R. Manuel Executive Director Cc: Rebecca Ragsdal, Planner, County of Frederick qs� -3005 r 611dout - /6 OAJ �41 PC ml j COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINYA. Department of Historic Resources W. Tnloe Morph)%Jr- 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 33221 secretan'ofNarural Re w -S MEMORANDUM DATE: ?,A S P /)? Ai$12 File # TO: jK& NeA-WC- R C t&, (.-co FROM., Ethel R. Eaton, Ph.D., Project Review Team Leafier i ion of Ttesouree Services and Aeviaw PROJECT; Kathleen S. Kilparrid v;,sao. Tel; (804) 367-22323 Fox: 1804) 367.2391 TDD: (804) 367.2386 VAV*.dla':nate.ua tjs [A) C'y�i 62t Cur-► u'nJ�G d� ti '.This project will'havt an effect on histone resources. Based on provided, the effect will not be adverse. This project will have au adverse effect on historic properties. Further consultation with DHR is needed under Section 106 of the NIVA. Additional informatiou is needed before we will be able to determine the effect of the project on historic resources. Please see the attached sheet. No- fm -then identification efforts are warranted. No historic properties will be affected by the project. Should unidentified historic properties be discovered during implementation of the project, please notify DHR. We have previously reviewed this pxoject. Attached is a copy of our coir mspondence. _ Other (Please see comments below) Prom smim Div. Pecc15bu7; offi= Parxvntmuh Offitt RoamAc Office winchr4w o8ic 10 courgwuse Ave, 19-B Soilingbroa- street 611 Coat Street 30 Floor 1 D30 Peomor Avenue, 5E 107 N. rint Ssscct. Suitt 203 PamrsbuM VA 23803 Pemsburg, VA 23803 Poruranuth, VA 23704 Rnanahc, VA 24013 Wincbesur,VA 16DI Tei: (804) 863-1685 TO: (804) 86.5-1630 7 e1- ( , 396-d709 Tel: (540) 857-7593 Tel: (40) 7?�-3427 F9x: (804) BGb6196 rax: (904) W-1627 Fax= (7 W) 396.671_ Pax: (541`;) 037-7583 Fax: (540),722-7.2i Z`d 1-Eb9-Bae (O�s) d+MHd eibI:Ii ao 06 dg's REZONING APPLICATION #11-02 DANFORD RIDGE PROPERTIES, L.C. Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: October 4, 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 he useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 10/16/02 Pending Board of Supervisors: 11/13/02 Pending PROPOSAL: To revise the previously -approved proffer statement associated with the original application, Rezoning #019-98. Rezoning #019-98 placed the property in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. LOCATION: This property is located on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) across from Parkins Mill Road (Route 644), north of the Canter Estates development. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 76-A-22 and 76-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Residential; Agricultural South: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Undeveloped Sections of Wakeland Manor and Canter Estates East: Zoned RA(Rural Areas) District Use: Residential West: Zoned RA(Rural Areas) District Use: Vacant REZ #11-02, Danford Ridge (Revised) Page 2 October 4, 2002 ROPOSED USE: 250 single-family residential units REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter from Homer Coffman dated 09/20/02 C'VDOTis satisfied thatthe transportation proffers offered... addresses transportation concerns...'). County Attorney: Appear to be in proper form. Planning & Zoning; Site History: In 1998, the County considered rezoning application #019-98, a request to rezone the subject properties from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). This application contained various proffered conditions, such as: Monetary contributions totaling $4,087.97 per lot. Generalized Development Plan illustrating road access which included a connection to Route 522 (with a median cross-over), provisions for future Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road extended. Maximum of 250 single-family lots; no multi -family. Rezoning application #019-98 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 27, 1999. Request to Revise Proffered Conditions: The applicant has submitted the current rezoning petition in an effort to revise the existing proffered conditions relating to the General Development Plan's transportation network. The proposed proffer revisions would reduce the project's entrance on Route 522 from a primary to a secondary entrance. This change would eliminate the previously proffered improvements to Route 522 which established a median break/cross-over. The proposed entrance onto Route 522 would be a secondary entrance to the project and would be a right-in/right-out configuration. The revised proffer proposes to utilize an access into the adjacent development (Canter Estates, Section III, via Ruddy Drive). Canter Estates, Section III, will have an entrance onto Route 522 at an existing median break. REZ #11-02, Danford Ridge (Revised) Page 3 October 4, 2002 Proffer Statement: The applicant has submitted a proffer statement ("revised October 4, 2002") which has been signed by the property owner, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's office. The following list is a summary of the conditions voluntarily proffered by the applicant: Monetary contribution of $4,087.97 per lot. Staff note: Consistent with previously proffered condition Maximum of 250 single-family dwelling units; No multi -family units. Staff note: Consistent with previously proffered condition Road network which includes: a. Connection with Ruddy Drive in Canter Estates, Section III Staff note: New road connection, note previously included in proffer statement b. Right-in/right-out connection with Route 522 Staff note: Previously had proffered a full connection with Route 522, including a median cross-over C. Connection with the future extension of Parkins Mill Road Staff note: Consistent with previously proffered condition Traffic impact study and conduct identified improvements during the subdivision design plan process. Staff note: Consistent with previously proffered condition Preservation of environmental features to preserve the viewshed of the Frederick Hall historic structure Staff note: Consistent with the previously proffered condition Provide a 100 -foot right-of-way for Warrior Drive Staff note: Consistent with previously proffered condition STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 10/16/02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The subject properties are presently zoned RP, and the applicant has not requested a change to the type ofresidential development that has been previously approved. The submitted proffer statement continues to limit development on the properties to 250 single family lots. Therefore, the proposed use continues to be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and is consistent with the residential development patterns in the immediate vicinity. 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 Route 522. 0:\Agendas\COMMENTS\REZONING\Staff Report\2002\Danford Ridge revision.wpd 75A On 75 A 99A WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC 0 RP 75 A '101 WAKELAND MANOR LAND TRUST 76�A 13 ARTRIP 76 A 23 76 A 22 JASBO. INC JASSO, INC RP RP ------------ 76 A 18A GRAHAM C� 76 A 18 �'� F SPANGLER O, % Bt . JRA 76 A 19 BONIIE17 O 0- 76 A 20 TOMLINSON _ A O 76 A 9: 76 A 21 RA HARTCEY s $�*^r„•s"`� �' :. q � g'� � _tip, y�v RP sp a�4q RP Ql 75 A 100 a^ '� '• WAKELAND MANOR LAND TRUST O 76 A 93 PROFFITT ' '76 A 92 SEE, O E �i f 76 A 23 76'A 22 yf,... I i Location Map REZ #11-02 Danford Ridge Properties, L.C. PIN: 76-A-22 76-A-23 N ---------- w — -- S_ 0 60120 Feet Oct 1, 2002 �-Zu-VZ; d:ZdHM; Greenway Englneer;540 984 5607 ## 1/ 6 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE JERRY A. COPP COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22824 RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 9845600 September 20, 2002 FAX(540)984-5607 VDOT Rezoning Comments Danford Ridge The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 522, Front Royal Pike. Route 522 is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Danford Ridge Rezoning Application dated August 28, 2002 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Of particular concern to VDOT at site plan stage of development are: The proposed extension of Ruddy Drive out of Canter Estates Subdivision at its crossing of Lick Run in terms of the grading within the stream bed for extended length. Also, the probability of steep grades on Ruddy Drive roadway. The significant impact on Route 522, Front Royal Pike, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the proposed development. The probability of a needed traffic signal at the southern crossover (located at Canter Estates) to facilitate traffic exiting the Danford Ridge development to cross and proceed north on Route 522. VDOT originally favored the right tum in/right turn out only features for access to Route 522 and express that approval for this rezoning application. These comments are offered with respect to the attached documents and the rezoning request. Homer F. Coffman, Tr . Assistant Resident Engineer HFC/B)S/rf Attachments: VDOT Rezoning Comments dated 09/20/02, Letter dated 09/04/02 from Greenway Engineering to VDOT, Rezoning Request Proffer — Danford Ridge Properties, L.C. r=.. VirginiaDOT.org Wr: VCC171/1aC`1@llA ARn%11R1l- Greenway Engineering November 1998 Danford Ridge Properties, L.C. Revised August 28, 2002 Rezoning October 4, 2002 DANFOD MIDGE PROPERTIES, L.C. REZONING Tax Parcels #76-((A))-22 & 76-((A))-23 Shawnee Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #11-02 to modify the proffer statement that received conditional zoning approval as a part of Rezoning Application #019-98 which rezoned 103.74 acres 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 Jasbo, Inc. being all of Tax Map Parcel 76-((A))-22 and 76-((A))-23 as further described by Deed Book 935 Page 1531 in the Frederick County Clerk of the Circuit Court Office. Monetary Contribution To Offset Impact Of Development The undersigned owners of the above-described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # 11-02 is approved, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ 3,484.29/lot for Frederick County Public Schools $ 591.06/lot for Frederick County Parks and Recreation $ 12.62/lot for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment, totaling $4,087.97/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 #2291B/EAW Greenway Engineering November 1998 Danford Ridge Properties, L.C_ Revised August 28, 2002 Rezoning General Development Plan The applicant hereby proffers to develop the 103.74 -acre property in substantial conformance with a General Development Plan prepared by Greenway Engineering and dated August 28, 2002 and approved as part of the rezoning application. The General Development PIan is intended to delineate the road systems that will serve the residential lots and the location of the future extension of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. Voluntarily proffered is the attached General Development Plan including the following improvements: 1. The applicant hereby proffers that no more than 250 single-family lots shall be developed on the 103.74 acres to be zoned RP District. No multi -family units shall be constructed on this property. 2. The applicant hereby proffers that the development of the subject property shall provide for a street layout connecting with Ruddy Drive in Canter Estates — Section III, for a right-in/right-out connection to Front Royal Pike, and for a connection to the future extension of Parkins Mill Road on the west side of Front Royal Pike. 3. A traffic impact study will be conducted using Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) procedures for the development within the Danford Ridge properties. The traffic impact study will be conducted during the Subdivision Design Plan process. Improvements to Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and the interior roads will be constructed by the applicant as determined by VDOT. 4. Steep slope and environmental areas, as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, that are located along the Danford Ridge property line bordering Opequon Creek shall be maintained to preserve the viewshed of the Frederick Hall historic structure (#34-143). The location of Frederick Hall and the area along the Danford Ridge property line bordering the Opequon Creek are provided on the General Development Plan and will further identified on the required Master Development Plan for this property. 5. Warrior Drive shall be shown on the attached General Development Plan dated August 28, 2002. Warrior Drive shall be located to conform to the approved Wakeland Manor Master Development Plan. The applicant will provide a 100 - foot right-of-way for Warrior Drive in the southwestern portion of the property to provide for the continuation of Warrior Drive from Wakeland Manor through the property. File #2291 B/EAW 2 Greenway Engineering November 1998 Danford Ridge Properties, L.C. Revised August 28, 2002 Rezoning 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: d Beverley B Shoemak Commonwealth of Virginia, 9-,)3 -oa, Date City County of �yedP_u'('Ck. To Wit: Yrcl The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this23 day of 2002by LL''s��� Notary Public�' My Commission Expires Faxwz.0 2 +. 2-o J File #2291 B/EAW �� : i• ,"r �e f�-/'W -..�. � . e c,� r i- �\� ._' � rrz "� r 13'3 t :� � ' \Z\\, \\ � �.,,.. � •e �,. (I^ /� -. ,^` _ J' � lil t .,-- ,� -�. f � :_ � f_ � �„ �-ire ty i�, J J/, / -,.-.. e ;,i\ _ �+� ;.. .I •i��`'D_.� ,// '=. !r.rf,%J ;.: t/✓J6 � .~���`'•. ���. ilt`'• .�;:: /J ,:..' _. IJ m �y7d:,x�p d• � ttret,.ttr i', J \ei` �� `\ ` y. \...~ ., � . '• -: r (l. 1.�tt -r:/ .'._n� ��-;, .,lt\i � �.:�:�>s. _',1;+. ,:' ..i e•_ a'.90 a.-3��s-q -�.r \.1��' l' -- _ _ .\\`} -_ � : , . -• t r r _r"...-.._ _ v-�` �\'.� � ;.:.,\ � ;, f t-. i y'�,3I.�.°�J,.� '��v— I 1 Yl_;Afi`r,�' � r 4- •,::�: kre i.M1!,71 -`,: ti /� ar ,L eta- j K f'- ° t r \ _ t / �•r• - f t" r- i % { r // - - ,.taa. \ i i^�~� 7 � f �., . /- . /'- '�-'.:y - - _ �. - - / � 013 t. l �' , r � l • �"�_� / �'j - " s l�'�l '�`'`� \1�11`�- \/.� - r. : I ( ',I // r'. � ; � ; '`-.:' ` a/ i •..; i .'�� --j - I + 3 }� iso - _ �/ '3�i / / :.. 1 _ __- � '\ - Pk 71 - X 11 M 3i`\. 1—arwrlircers DAN. 100, IVIW ..rte -. _\\'^�.�� �;�� 3��/_: - � , {v /�-. '�• /_` /^ - Y - - � f �� '� ✓.//'.q.,. i S't -� `•-ita7��os,--e y t 3 t I - \ \ �- � s` _, _. � I /, t \ -- � I /x1i 1 i. \ \ i !ta_I / /r •l moi\ __ tiy`: POW E�,�.ppPJylre0r R yK HALL `#34e 1 43) I � / Ill 710 U9 m m au 0o P—m 00 ' cm 6� f° cit m ole i � Dim moi; TSS o0 Ps6 0 rc N ti MARK Q. SMITH No. 022837 1"=300' DESIGNED BY: 2291—VPLANNING SHEET 1- OF 1 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To he completed by Planning Staff 00 Fee Amount Paid Zoning Amendment Numberate Received Q.; -23-0Z' PC Hearing Date 10 - �L 412--1 BOS Dearing Date _. ,3- O 2 - The following information shall be provided by the applicant.- AD pplicant. All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 147 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different from above) Name: Beverley B. Shoemaker Telephone: 540-869-1800 Address: 500 Fairfax Pike Stephens City, VA 22655 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt,AICP-Greenway Engineering_ Telephone: 540-662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Plat Deed to Property Verification of taxes paid File #2291B/EAW/dls ❑ Agency Comments ❑ Fees ❑ Impact Analysis Statement X Proffer Statement SEP 2 3 2002 DEPT, OFPLMNING/MiE.OP'ME,NT X X El X 5. The Code of Vir ig nia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Beverley B. Shoemaker 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: Undeveloped Single-family Residential PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 75 -A -99A Agricultural RA 76-A-13 Agriculture RA 76 -A -18A Residential RA 76-A-18 Residential RA 76 -A -19A 76-A-20 Residential Residential _ RA RA 76-A-21 Residential RA 76-A-93 Residential RA 76-A-92 Residential _ _ RA 76-A-31 Residential RP 75-A-100 Agricultural RP 75-A-101 Agricultural RP 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): Westside of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) across from Parkins Mill Road (Route 644) RECEIVED SEP 2 3 2002 DEPT, OF PI.ANNINGJDEVELOPuiENT File #2291B/EAW/dls Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Imbact Model BEREMENEEM 11MINIMENEW J_ In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the magnum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 76-((A))-22, 76-((A))-23 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: 10. 11. Shawnee Millwood Millwood Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School: Sherando Aylor Armel Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoaing Requested 32.61 (parcel RP RP 22 71.13 (parcel RP RP 23 103.74 Total Acreage to be rezoned Note: 103.74 acres rezoned under application #019-98. This application is for the purpose of revising the previously approved proffer statement for this acreage under the previous rezoning application. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Single Family homes: Non -Residential Lots: File #2291B/EAW/dls Number of Units Proposed 250 Townhome: Mobile Home: Multi -Family Hotel Rooms: Office: Retail: Restaurant: File #2291B/EAW/dls Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station: Manufacturing: Warehouse: Other 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): LV -,M Date: Date: Owner (s): Date: q- 03 - O a Date: I 1 � Y S Founded in 1971 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 September 4, 2002 Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Attn: Steve Melnikoff Re: Danford Ridge Revised Proffer Statement Dear Mr. Melnikoff: Greenway Engineering has prepared a revised proffer statement and General Development Plan document for the Danford Ridge property, identified as tax parcels 74-A-22 and 75-A-23. These parcels received conditional zoning approval by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as part of Rezoning Application #019-98. Subsequent to this conditional zoning approval, the properties have been acquired by Bowman/Shoemaker Companies who desire to incorporate this acreage into the Canter Estates project. In order to accomplish this, the approved proffer statement needs to be reconsidered to modify the General Development Plan. The modifications to the General Development Plan include the following: Revision of the Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) access to eliminate the proposed crossover and the through movement to the future Parkins Mill Road extension, while maintaining this connection as a localized right-in/right-out access for public safety and public service. Revision to provide a connection from Canter Estates — Section III via Ruddy Drive to serve the future residential lots on the Danford Ridge property. Revision to delineate the connection to Warrior Drive from the Wakeland Manor Subdivision and to eliminate the language pertaining to adjoining property consultation. The Wakeland Manor Master Development Plan has been revised by Dove & Associates to modify the Warrior Drive terminus at the Danford Ridge property and has been forwarded to Frederick County Planning for administrative approval. Please find attached a copy of the approved proffer statement and Generalized Development Plan from Rezoning Application #018-98, a copy of the revisions discussed in this letter and a new comment sheet for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). It is requested that you review these modifications and provide a new comment on behalf of VDOT regarding this modification. Please contact me if you need any additional information for this project. Thank you for your assistance regarding this matter. Sincerely, Greenway Engineering Evan A.Wyatt, AICP Cc: Eric Lawrence, Planning Director Beverley Shoemaker SEP ) 200? Engineers Surveyors Telephone 510-662-4135 FAX 540-722.9525 File #2291B/EAW www.greenwayeng.com Danford Ridge Properties, LC REZOINLNG REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification number 74-((A))-22 & 75 -((Al 23 OFegnon & Shawnee-Mag�sterW District Freliminary Matters l /a4aof - �l410-gt PC— FILE gop�� Pursuant to Section 16.2-2`296 et_ sea._ of the code of Vurnia, 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 gent the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application 9019-95 for the rezoning of 103.74 acres from Rural Area (RA) zoning districtidentiai Performanc.- (RP) zoning 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 term 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 Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. Taese proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successor or assiffis. Monetary Contnbution to Offset Impact of Deveiooment The undersigned, who owns the above described property hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, ti pima approves -le rezoning for the 103.74 acres, with frontage along Front Royal Pike in the Opequon and Shawnee Magisterial Districts of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned wM pay to Frederick County at the time a building permit is applied for and issued the sum of 54,087.97 per lot. The monetary proffer pro -,,rides for 53,484.29 for Frederick County Schools; $591.06 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation; and $12.62 for Frederick County Fire's and _ Rescue. General Development Pian The development of the subject property shall provide for a street layout connecting with U.S. Route 522 South, Front Royal Pike and continuing in a northwest fashion toward the west boundary of the property to connect with Pariin.s IY+MI Drive, as shown on the attached Generalized Development Pian dated August 16, 1998 and labeled "Danford Ridge" as prepared by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. R Danford Ridge Properties, LC Page 2 Voluntarily proffered is the attached Generalized Development Plan including the following improvements: 1. On the 103.74 acres to be zoned RP no more than 250 units shall be constructed. These units shall consist of single family home lots. No multi -family units shall be constructed on this property. 2. Additional right --of way for the construction of Lura lanes and/or travel lanes along U.S. Route 522, Front Royal Pike as required by VDOT will be provided. A traffic impact study will be conducted using VDOT procedures for the development proposed within Danford Ridge Propel ies,4, LC at the time of the site development plan review and/or subdivision. Improvements to U.S. Route 522, Front Royal Pike and the design improvements of interior mads will be constructed by the undersigned as rewired by VDOT regulations for the predicted traffic impacts based upon the specific member of lots. 4. Steeo slope and environmental areas, as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Code, that are located along the Danford Ridge property line bordering Opequon Creek shall be main -n; -ed so as to preserve the viewshed of the adjoining histod building know as Frederick Hail- The general location of these features are shovvrn on the attached Generalized Development Pian dated August 16, 1998 and labeled "Danford Ridge" as prepared by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc_ These areas will be further shown and described on the required Master Development Plan for Danford Ridge. 5_ Warrior Drive shall be shou-n on the attached Generalized Development plan dated August 16, 1998 and labeled "Danford Ridge" as preparers by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. to conform with the approved Wakeland Manor Master Development Plan. The owner agrees to consult with adjoining property. owners involved with the Warrior Drive location as shown in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and attempt to reach an agreement necessary to implement the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan- Prior lan. Prior to submission of a Master Plan for the Danford Ridge Properties, LC the location of Warrior Drive will be resolved to the satisfaction of Frederick County to ensure that Warrior Drive is continued from Tasker Road to proposed Rte. 37. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. i r` II- �o , a PARKINS MILL ROAD - RELCCA= VI Ln e ♦ -.. .. LYS �.:.y::::... -------------- ::1;aiA -'s.Tyj rel v __ , '� r7 C C!'r- _ - - :•._:::. �...:._::�.-:.._ 3 :�^......... ru -ji:•SY.... ..: ...... ... ..•..:�...CL .- ------ Q. ..... _..: }VA' ♦%, _ .zn....... ..::....... -- - :•iiiir::•r}.i:':i•._..........ii:ii:i:,.1 _...._:.. - s� r:i:'rrii.•r:i-:�::'ir.:•ra.'.�:•cr:•r:i::::-:. O - - = 2 • Cr' �� � ✓...�11lf7:�::•IfC::��:�r:'ri�:'i:'?rf::-:r:::�::::.::}a......--'-'.................................::ri::._r-:-:':a•:--:L•Il:-:'�::-:i:•tila�:{•i •:•:a �ftT .-:::::iii'.:.:r':•:�:ri:3rii:.{::•ii::c:i-i:::i •iftl.'`'`-' Y C _ - _ •r.a-rr:: : - .. yt n. f� a= .............. ...................................... :�x. ...... . .......... gym:.::::....... Q /•:::•::.r::•:.-:::::.:_:•.�:. is:«:.:::::::.:•:::.:-:::::::::::.......:...:-:.�.':.::::':.' a f::' ^ism:::-::::':?:::::'::.::.:-.:-:::::ii•:3o.::.:::{ ::?::: }r?::a:.'.:.^':::::.:r::-- %J �:..................ti G_T :... , : ri:............:: ::: is: -i}:;. - .:.: � :' �:�:�:.{.rrir� :..:.'::.:..?:.::-: - ::.... -. ................... V - Y .'rr:i }i:'rii:i:-:{-r: F.:cir:C:.:?:':•ir}r:_ :'}r r i.i:: �.. H l- z � 1 r .- h_ Jw 561.42' a \ �- -- � a \ y 58'1 cd I \ 1 NdANcR TRUST \\t rlL; !CF 1i,aS ER PLAN ❑ `t `j r Cr 'r'i;j.FF! CF Gi N'E 1 \ I C r i y i W � q j O U �i SCALE. � •=2'i ..... alAV&4 ari yao-ErT NC_ DATE- A_s°---III MEMORANDUM COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development TO: Frederick County Planning Commission I FROM: Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator RE: Request for Waiver to 50' Right -of -Way Requirement DATE: October 7, 2002 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Michael and Linda Ferraro are requesting a waiver of a subdivision ordinance requirement, § 144-31 C(3), which requires that a minimum width for a private shared drive way shall be fifty (50) feet in width. This width must be established along the existing right-of-way out to the nearest state road. The nearest state road in this case is Route 707 (Hollow Road). Exhibit "A" is the proposed minor rural subdivision plat prepared and submitted by Furstenau Surveying. The plat indicates that the Ferraros are proposing to subdivide the 108.98 acre tract into two new parcels. One new parcel, Tract 1, would contain approximately 73.47 acres and Tract 2 would contain approximately 35.51 acres. The existing dwelling under construction is to remain on the 35.51 acre tract. The subject property is served by two separate right-of-ways from the north and south. Exhibit `B" illustrates that the required fifty (50') right-of-way exists through the following parcels: PIN: 26-4-2-7 (Cather) PIN: 26-7-1-7 & 26-7-1-1 (Levering) PIN: 264-2-7A (Hamer) The existing right-of-way width for the following parcels is unknown, therefore, the Ferraros were required to request the additional right-of-way width from these property owners: ► PIN: 26-A-60 (Lafollette) PIN: 26-6-2-11 (Huntley) ► PIN: 26-A-44 (Marple) PIN: 26-6-2-10 (Wall) ► PIN: 26-A-53 (Whitlock) PIN: 26-A-64 (Watt) ► PIN: 26-5-7 (Schrock) PIN: 26-A-46 (Meade) The Ferraros did not receive any written responses to their requests and were unsuccessful in their attempt to obtain the necessary right-of-way width. In accordance with § 144-5 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the Ferraros are requesting a waiver to § 144-31 C(3) which would enable them to subdivide the property without the necessary fifty (50') right-of-way width for a private shared driveway. This waiver, if approved, would apply to this specific subdivision request. Any future subdivision requests for this property would be required to meet the requirements of § 144-31 C(3). A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the request is desired. PTD/cih 0 \Agendas\COMMENTS\Waivers\Ferraro Waive[wpd 107 North Kent Street v Winchester, Virginia. 22601-5000 EXHIBIT "Aon FINAL PLAT MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION LAND OF MICHAEL F. AND LINDA D. FERRARO BACK CREEK DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TAX MAP # 26-A-52 ZONE: RA USE: AGRICULTU A A SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, David M. Furstenau, a duly authorized Land Surveyor, do hereby certify that the land in this subdivision is in the names of Michael F. and Linda D. Ferraro and is all of the land conveyed to them by deed dated October 19, 2000 and recorded among the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County as instrument number 000011221. David M. Furstenau L.S. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Above and foregoing subdivision of the land of Michael F. and Linda D. Ferraro as appears in the accompanying plat is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors or trustrees, if any. Michael F. Ferraro Linda D'r Ferraro State of Virgin'a City/Gnuaty of I, Fte-6k F. 1 renarJ , a notary public in and for the State of Virginia and the City/Seaety of VAI i nC heS�p r do hereby certify that this day personally appeared before me, Michael F. Ferraro and Linda D_ Ferraro whose names are signed to the above Owner's Certificate dated September 17, 2002 and acknowledged to thesamebefore me in my state and city/county as aforesaid. Notary Public Given under my hand this I ' day of )G ,�a� , 2002 My commission expires''Y-- 31_-5-0o L - FREDERICK COUNTY SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR Date WINCHESTER -FREDERICK COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Date FURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 DATE: September 17, 2002 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET SCALE: WINCHESTER, VIRGP41A 22601 TM 26-6-12 HUNTLEY RA RES. 50' tarn aro K ?OO FINRL PLnT MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION LAND OF MICHAEL F. & LINDA D. FERRARO BACK CREEK DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TM. 26-6-10 1 S-11 56°4O'.L-, 1799.IS'_A WALL RA RES. i 100' SRL TRACT I f ! N m 73.4701 ACRES Lu I I J r Elf v mI O I t\ m I U oQ f I Ul QLu c0 � N Lr) (O \ SSA q n 9r uQ en Q well ~ Lu O + DWELLING abagdoned UNDER d""lona S 4 °30'06" W CONSTUCTION { 218.08' '0 f 1 a °o j% o TRACT 2 e�� �0 35.5099 ACRES \ 0' p9 RF _ 1 r \ pond N\� 0 I -L I HICK STU F CDI a , 131g.� 13�5.g4 m l�°042 w A 5t z SET STONE � s d x AREA TABULATION _� { BEFORE DIVISION 106.9600 AC. s AFTER DIVISION - TRACT 1 73.4701 AC. TRACT 2 35.5099 AC. U FURSTMAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 111 SOUTH L®U OUN STREET WINC£ESTM VIRGINIA 22601 3 �1 w I -- F- < U T Q d CD Q N Ir Ft/wRTT' TOT JNDETERtANso DATE: SEPT. 17, 2002 a SCALE: I-= 300' 2 Of 2 f x Lu 'Unnamed Private Drive Ferraro Property Requesled 50' RNV Existing 50' RNV Roads Primary Secondary arceParcels r CATHER 42 7 LEVE 28 7 VER 7 LEVE ING LAFOLLETTE 28 A 80 ' Location Map Ferraro Waiver PIN: 26-A-52 N W E SSS 0 600 1200 Feet SEPT. 26. 2002 26 A 521_. D8. 401 P. 149 — 17 ""i 1 108,91540IL cc MA Ulm k FtJi 4f Lm i s, Mo, }453 P. i r op Vc 1 d.� fl'7 M �l , R AAkAO s� Ln 2 R E �� ( Ak- En ti tJ STH�AM �i 19" Hit'Or{ Y �AZ%p HlCnt 'v aw a— +� `9 M %—Toi ft:;ur PL UT 5HOWING THE L;N0 OF SHEETS 9RCK CRE5K DISTRICT FRECC- ICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SURVEY qt A �,.1� aid LI 57061"' 45"E v. *AMF BR. I I , I99Li m gift Q'UnV9r"y1L1A% SCAM 400' UHS. EN 'A' U MPKENS CITYs VIRGINIA 2265 Inca tMrolr was p� tittle[ read rr4libie Guk NO sources or the r �r6'7I ti -is into 900u1d c 14 V911tY th4 hec k — — _ — -•— a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. l A Al�ZEE'�. us 5-t a,,E nC123 e �'Q RN ER �4 AT rr V56P�0w F r ' 1 `` ' ' " SEN'rERWf4Z 0 ACCExsIoAo 8 0 SEE 0a 814 P. 314 D8. 401 P. 149 — 17 ""i 1 108,91540IL cc MA Ulm k FtJi 4f Lm i s, Mo, }453 P. i r op Vc 1 d.� fl'7 M �l , R AAkAO s� Ln 2 R E �� ( Ak- En ti tJ STH�AM �i 19" Hit'Or{ Y �AZ%p HlCnt 'v aw a— +� `9 M %—Toi ft:;ur PL UT 5HOWING THE L;N0 OF SHEETS 9RCK CRE5K DISTRICT FRECC- ICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SURVEY qt A �,.1� aid LI 57061"' 45"E v. *AMF BR. I I , I99Li m gift Q'UnV9r"y1L1A% SCAM 400' UHS. EN 'A' U MPKENS CITYs VIRGINIA 2265 Inca tMrolr was p� tittle[ read rr4libie Guk NO sources or the r �r6'7I ti -is into 900u1d c 14 V911tY th4 hec k — — _ — -•— a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. l A Al�ZEE'�. us 5-t a,,E nC123 Date: 9 - 101'02 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 WAIVER/EXCEPTIONS REQUEST INFORMATION FORM Requesting person/Agent: !"'? ' c- 'I A SL -r4-1-, D 'L- 'i Nv D A YE 12 i -?,A RG Address: i tai 04 1-=;`�� , V Phone: `�5 L4 Cs t: `� Contact Person: 1`1 ti Gr`} A f--- L CZ o Droperty Location: 12011 l -c C" C-C� , \I A Magisterial District: '��`AGi� CE F, (Z -i C;1" Property Identification Number (PIN): 2-L- A —'> Property zoning and current use: /A6,i`, i &-� L U ir' ► U ;Z -'L - Waiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): Attachments: "Completed adjoining properties info. sheet(s); — Existing/recorded and proposed plat(s) C-\MyFiles\Waivers\waiver request fomi.wpd le -r Ux Attachments: "Completed adjoining properties info. sheet(s); — Existing/recorded and proposed plat(s) C-\MyFiles\Waivers\waiver request fomi.wpd HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATSONS WIL6UR C. HALL (1892.1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE O. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR WILLIAM F. BURTON MICHELLE MORRIS JONES STEVEN F. JACKSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW I S 7 EAST MARKET STREET LEESSURG, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 703 777.1050 FAX 703-771-4113 9 EAST SOSCAWEN STREET WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 940-662-3200 FAX 340-66Z,4304 E-MAIL 1—Yers Qhallmanahan.[om October 15, 2002 Frederick County PlanningIt7 Commission 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Ferraro -- Subdivision Waiver Request Dear Members of the Planning Commission: "Ouf- 1,0/1('010; PC PLEASE REPLY TO P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 221504-0848 I have been recently retained to represent Michael F. and Linda D. Ferraro with respect to their application for an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance regarding the minimum width for a private shared driveway, as it applies to their proposed Minor Rural Subdivision. Unfortunately, due to a prior commitment to meet with the Clarke County Conservation Easement Authority at a meeting on the evening of Wednesday, October 16, I will be unable to be present at the Planning Commission meeting when this matter is considered, Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to present to you certain commitments which Mr. and Mrs. Ferraro offer to make as a condition of the approval of the requested exception. Section 144-31(C)(3) of the Subdivision Ordinance provides that the minimum right of way width for a shared private driveway for a minor rural subdivision shall be 50 feet. The obvious reason for such a requirement is that a subdivision of property, by creating one or more additional lots, will logically result in an increase use of a private right of way, and thaf the greater width is necessary to accommodate that increased volume of usage. I believe that the hereinafter described commitments that Mr. and Mrs. Ferraro are prepared to make directly address the underlying policy for the aforesaid ordinance requirement, and provide a reasonable basis to support the granting of the exception. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Frederick County Planning Commission October 15, 2002 Page 2 The Ferraros are fortunate in that they have two (2) recorded rights of way to serve the total tract of 108.998 acres. One right of way is at the north end of the property, and one right of way is at the south end of the property. As you can see from the proposed minor rural subdivision plat, the Ferraros are proposing to divide the property into TRACT 1, containing 73.4701 acres, and TRACT 2, containing 35.5099 acres. As a condition of the granting of the requested exception, the Ferraros are prepared to do the following: 1. Terminate the right of way at the north end of the property with respect to TRACT 1, and to terminate the right of way at the south end of the property with respect to TRACT 2. Accordingly, the right of way at the north end of the property (the right of way over the property of Marple, Huntley, and Schrock) would serve only TRACT 2, and the right of way at the south end of the property would serve only TRACT 1. Accordingly, this would address directly the underlying policy for the subdivision ordinance provision, in that each right of way would only be serving one tract of land. For example, the right of way at the north end of the property (over Marple, Huntley, and Schrock) now serves a single tract of 108.998 acres. After the property is subdivided, that right of way would serve a single tract of 35.5099 acres. 2. To further address any concern about increased use of either right of way, the Ferraros are prepared to place a restrictive covenant on TRACT 1 and TRACT 2 to provide that for so long as each right of way is used for access not more than one single-family residence would be constructed or erected on each tract. Therefore, for example, the right of way at the north end of the property (over Marple, Huntley, and Schrock) would be limited to providing access for one tract of 35.5099 acres, which tract will not contain more than one single-family residence. To clearly set forth how the foregoing restrictions would be implemented, you will find attached a draft of a Deed of Subdivision and Declaration of Restrictions which. Mr. and Mrs. Ferraro do agree to sign and record in the land records upon HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Frederick County Planning Commission October 15, 2002 Page 3 approval of the requested exception and the Minor Rural Subdivision plat. Mr. and Mrs. Ferraro are willing to have the approval of the requested exception conditioned upon their execution and recordation of the attached document. Thank you for your kind attention to the foregoing. Respectfully submitted, Robert T. Mitchell, RTM/ks Enclosure CC: Mr. and Mrs. Michael F. Ferraro R FMJks I O/ 15102 THIS DEED OF SUBDIVISION AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS is made this day of , 2002, by MICHAEL FREDERICK FERRARO and LINDA DARLENE FERRARO, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as "Owners". WHEREAS, Owners are the owner of that certain tract or parcel of land, with improvements thereon, lying and being situate in Back Creek Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 108.98 acres, together with the following rights of way for access for the aforesaid 108.98 acre tract to State Route 707 (Hollow Road): (a) a right of way from the south conger of Owners' property and lying on the lands now or formerly owned by Watt (Tax Map No. 26-A-64), Whitlock (Tax Parcel 26-A-53), LaFollette (Tax Parcel 26-A-60), Harper (Tax Parcel 26-4-2-7A), Cather (Tax Parcel 26-4-2-7), and Levering (Tax Parcels 26-7- 1 -1 6-7-1-1 and 7), the location of said right of way tieing more particularly shown and described on the plat of Michael M. Artz, dated August 4, 1999, and recorded with the Agreement recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 955 at Page 39 (the aforesaid right of way is hereinafter referred to as "RIGHT OF WAY NO. 1 "); and (b) a right of way from the north coiner of Owners' property which right of way lies on the lands now or formerly owned by Marple (Tax Parcel 26- A-44), Huntley (Tax Parcels 26-6-2-11 and 12), and Schrock (Tax Parcel 26-5-7), said right of way being shown the plat of David M. Furstenau dated February 11, 1990, attached to the Deed recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 979 at Page 466 (the aforesaid right of way is hereinafter referred to as "RIGHT OF WAY NO. 2"). The aforesaid property is the same property conveyed to Owners by deed dated 'October 19, 2000, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 979 at Page 466. WHEREAS, Owners desire to subdivide the property into two (2) tracts, as more particularly shown on the attached plat of David M. Furstenau dated September 17, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance would require a minimum right of way width of 50 feet for a shared private driveway for the subdivided tracts, unless a waiver of said requirement is granted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, neither of the aforesaid two (2) rights of way serving the Owners' 108.98 acres are 50 feet wide for the entire distance from the Owners' property to State Route 707; and WHEREAS, Owners have agreed, upon the granting of the aforesaid exception by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, to limit the use of each right of way to one of the subdivided parcels and to place no more than one single-family residence on each parcel; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors have granted the aforesaid exception to the subdivision ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH: Owners do hereby subdivide their above described property into two (2) tracts, described as Tract 1, containing 73.4701 acres (hereinafter referred to as "TRACT 1 "), and Tract 2, containing 35.5099 acres (hereinafter referred to as "TRACT 2"). This subdivision is made 2 with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the Owners. The Owners do further provide as follows: 1. Owners, as the owner of TRACT 1, do hereby permanently relinquish and terminate the right of the use of RIGHT OF WAY NO.2 for access from TRACT 1 to Route 707. The Owners acknowledge and agree that the aforesaid relinquishment and termination shall limit the Owners' right to use RIGHT OF WAY NO. 2 as an access right of way for TRACT 2 only. 2. Owners, as the owner- of TRACT 2, do hereby permanently relinquish and terminate the right of the use of RIGHT OF WAY NO. 1,for access from TRACT 2 to Route 707. The Owners acknowledge and agree that the aforesaid relinquishment and termination shall limit the Owners' right to use RIGHT OF WAY NO. 1 as an access right of way for TRACT 1 only. 3. The Owners covenant and agree that, so long as access to TRACT 1 is provided by RIGHT OF WAY NO. 1, not more than one single- family residence shall be constructed or erected on TRACT 1. This covenant shall run with the land, and shall be for the benefit of, and enforceable by, the Owners of all property on which RIGHT OF WAY NO. 1 is located. 4. The Owners covenant and agree that, so long as access to TRACT 2 is provided by RIGHT OF WAY NO. 2, not more than one single- family residence shall be constructed or erected on TRACT 2. This covenant shall run with the land, and shall be for the benefit of, and enforceable by, the Owners of all property on which RIGHT OF WAY NO. 2 is located. 3 The foregoing provisions of this instrument shall be binding upon the Owners, their heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: (SEAL) MICHAEL FREDERICK FERRARO (SEAL) LINDA DARLENE FERRARO STATE OF VIRGINIA, At -Large CITY/COUNTY OF , To -wit: The foregoing document was acknowledged before me this - day of , 2002, by MICHAEL FREDERICK FERRARO and LINDA DARLENE FERRARO. My Commission expires NOTARY PUBLIC M EXHIBIT "A" FINAL PLAT MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION LAND OF MICHAEL F. AND LINDA D. FERRARO BACK CREEK DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TAX MAP # 26-A-52 ZONE: RA USE: AGRICULTURAL SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, David M. Furstenau, a duty authorized Land Surveyor, do hereby certify that the land in this subdivision is In the names of Michael F. and Unda D. Ferraro and is all of the land conveyed to them by deed dated October 19, 2000 and recorded among the records of the Cleric of the Circuit Court of Frederick County as instrument number 000011221. / David M. Furstenau L.S. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Above and foregoing subdivision of the land of Michael F. and Linda D. Ferraro as appears in the accompanying plat is with the free consent and In accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners, prop�r`ie�t{/o_rs/or trustrees, if any. Michael F. Ferraro Linda D. Ferraro State of Virginia Chy/ I, Flees E I re.�a rJ a notary public in and for the State of Virginia and the City/GeHcfy of h1inc-he5�r 'do hereby certify that this day personalty appeared before me, Michael F. Ferraro and Linda D. Ferraro whose names are signed to the above Owner's Certificate dated September 17, 2002 and acknowledged to the same before me in my state and city/county as aforesaid. Notary Public U Given under my hand this day o(�. 2002 My commission expires_ R, i IOe f i) APPROVALS t'Kt.UtKJCK UOUNIY SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR WINCHESTER -FREDERICK COUNTY HEALTH DEPARPf NT rURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 Dace Datr ' DATE: Scpt=bes 17, 2002 scALE: �r Q �w N J �- 1)' 50' Irrn a \ I TRACT I lf 73.4701 ACRES 01 W 1 N c I n! ) ry m I rn v s 1 Ln W /c \ V< _ �eQ t Q Q Lf)rD f 1� Cv 0 N to CO ui O Will \ W Z o DWELLM abepdoead U1 ER ftv S J30,06- W coksrucrrou l / 218.08' m � 21 to J' o FINAL PLAT MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION LAND OF MICHAEL F. & LINOA D. FERRARO TM 26-6-12 BACK CREEK DISTRICT HUNTLEY RA RES, FREDERICC Col1N-IY, VIRGINIA 5 56°40' 01 " TM. 26-6-10 E 1739.15' FALL RA RES. --�KIO' BRL _ N 0 TRACT 2 P`� f 35.5099 ACRES \ \ I v I Ln CIO co wCD, , w I /' lOO 1�1an�313 Z N 75°p4 42 6_ A-5� TM 2 SET STONE Rp' pGR�GV`" 0 'g ICKORY - tD Cr) 79.9' M O Lo W � Lil 1 proge,.d F Z) ifs ` OQ O Will i? F H Q 3L) w0� w` AREA TABULATION 6 i� OfL� a ' 0 `_ BEFORE DIVISION CD 108.9800 AC. fF-- ! 1� ! E, y AFTER DIVISION r TRACT i - po eRt L Q 73.4701 AC. = N TRACT 2 35.5099 AC. �O r^�5 TO 06K _ FORTE TOT N 57,00T`4�"V" 392. 88' L'"D,r�ro�J•R+ li~ URSTENA-U SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET DAiH SEPT_ 17, 2002 W7NC`I�ESTF.R. VFRCTTMA ??,in1 SCALE: 1-= 300' MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director COUNTY of FREDERIC Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Proposed Revision of the Development Review Fee Schedule DATE: October 4, 2002 Staff has completed a 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. The adoption of a revised development fee schedule is recommended to resolve this issue. A proposed revised development fee schedule has been prepared by staff and is attached for your review. In arriving at the revised fee schedule, staff - Surveyed the fees charged by other similar sized jurisdictions and those with similar development pressures; • Analyzed the staff time spent on a development review; and Considered the expense involved with notification of adjoining property owners, as well as, the publication of public notices in the local media. Staff requests that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed fee schedule revisions at its regular meeting on October 16, 2002. The Commission's input will assist staff in preparing the proposal for consideration and action by the Board of Supervisors. 107 forth Kent Street • Wincheste , Virginia 22601-5000 ----- Proposed ----- FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEE SCHEDULE REZONING MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN NON RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION RP(Residential Performance) RA(Rural Areas) SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE EXCEPTIONS NON RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN MINOR SITE PLAN RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $1,000.00 plus $50.00 per acre $50.00 refundable fee for sign $1,500.00 plus $50.00 per acre. $1,000.00 plus $100.00 per lot $1,500.00 plus $100.00 per lot $1,000.00 plus $50.00 per acre. In the case of a Minor Subdivision (3 lots or less) the fee shall be $100.00 per lot. $500.00 $1,000.00 plus $100.00 per acre (to 5 acres) plus $50.00 per acres for each acre over 5 acres. $500.00 - A revision that increases the existing structure area by 20% or less and does not exceed 5,000 square feet. $1,000.00 plus $50.00 per unit (to 20 units) plus $25.00 per unit for each unit over 20 units. Cottage Occupation $ 500.00 Telecommunication Tower $1,000.00 Other $ 750.00 plus $50.00 refundable fee for a public hearing sign. VARIANCE OR BZA APPEAL ZONING CERTIFICATION LETTER ZONING DETERMINATION LETTER $500.00 plus $50.00 refundable fee for a public hearing sign. $100.00 $50.00 *(Structures used for Fire and Rescue services are exempt from design review fees). OF ZONING - --_ - 4NNED DEV'T REAPPROVAL INDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN (RESIDENTIAL _ SITE PLAN (NON -RES.) _ -_ MINOR SITE PLAN - SUBDIVISION �RESIOENTIAU - SUBDIVISION (NON-RE_S.Z.- MINOR SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION REAPPROVAL MASTER DEV'T PLAN E & S: PROJECTS E & S: SINGLE FAMILY 9123/2002 DEVELOPMENI rEE COMPARISON -�. $1000+$100/ac. $550+$35/ac. $2000/ac. _ I $15_730(0200)+$801ac.. over 200) $500+$50 00/2C $500 _ N/A N/A _ _.. $500 - _.. - _. 7,865 N/A $75 _ - - - - - --- -.- _ I I _ .. - - _$100. $460 to$7.360 $200 $500 $250 $300 _ - - --- - - - $350 _ $25 _ -----_. - ---- - 0 $1200+$201provided park&display space; $1000+$40/unit(to 20)+$25/unit(ove20) $1000+$1001r9'dpark'g space+Prof[ Fees I $2,318+$701unit Qo 20) +$401unit jover 20L. N/A $.1200+$20/provLded park&display space) $1000+$100/ac(to 5)+$30/ac.over5 I-- - - -- - - - - .. _ (- i $2500+$100/req'd pag space+Profl fees 1 $3,538+$140/ac. (to 20) +$401ac. (over 201 $200($50.00/ac over 5a_ c_ -- ...I$300+$201providedpark&display space i $500 $1000+$100/reg'd parkg space+Prof) Fees _ $_400 - $500+$50 ea lot $1800+$200/lot I$1000+$90/lot(to-101+$45/1ot(over10) _ _ - $1500/lot+$200/road sign - - $4,222+$230/lot to 20) + $60/IotSover 291_, -__ -_ _11000t$50/lot _ $1800+$2001101 _-(__) _( ) _ - _-___$1500/lot+$200/road sign -,_ _ $8,002+400llot(to 20)+$60/lot_�over t0l_. $200+$5000 ea lot . . - .- . $800+$90/lot to 10 +$30/lot over -10) f $300+$20/lot $250+$35/lot - _.. - _-_$1500/lot+$200/road sign _ - __ r - _ _- --- $1,730 +$150/lot - -.j _ $250+50/1_ot $100NIA N/A _ Ping Comm(1/2re.fee) Ping Admr(114. re.feej_ y-- _-. NIA _ N/A NIA _ $1300+$40/ac. to 50 +$30/ac over 50 _ _ -... -. - - - - _ -- -- - -- - I - (---) -_._(_ _) ---- NIA .--- --- ---- - N/A _ N/A $200 w/o other dev't fee Comm: $300+$50/ac- Res $400+$50/ac $100+$100/ac Roads $200+100/ac Res $200+$100/unR $314_+$50lac Ip Us bond mit fee _ $100+20/ac -- 4 N/A Proposed $50/lot 200+100/unit (residential) $20 OO/1dt $5/lot 4..._ _. - _. - Y Feesced2. z1s Page 1 Possible Development Scenarios Review Fee Comparison Current Proposed City of Clarke Warren Loudoun County Frederick Frederick Winchester County County County County Scenarios 1: A request to rezone 50 acres to RP, enabling a 100 lot single family development. Rezoning Application Fee $ 2,300 $ 3,500 $6,000 $100,000 $3,000 $15,720 MDP Application Fee $ 3,300 $ 4,000 N/A N/A N/A Subdivision Application Fee $ 6,450 $11,500 $21,800 $150,000 $6,000 $6,364 Total $ 12,050 $ 19,000 $21,800 $250,000 $ 9,000 $ 22,084 62 increase Scenario 2: A request to rezone 10 acres to RP, enabling a 50 townhouse lots. Rezoning Application Fee $ 900 $ 1,500 $2,000 $20,000 $1,000 $15,720 MDP Application Fee $ 1,700 $ 2,000 NIA 0 0 0 Subdivision Application Fee $ 2,800 $ 6,500 $11,800 $75,000 $3,500 $4,864 Total $ 5,400 $ 10,000 $ 13,800 $ 95,000 $ 4,500 $ 20,584 86% increase Possible Development Scenarios Review Fee Comparison Current Frederick County Proposed Frederick County City of Winchester Clarke County Warren County Loudoun County Scenario 3: A request to rezone 2.5 acres to B2 to enable a automobile service station with 20 parking spaces. Rezoning Application Fee $ 637.50 $ 1,125 $1,250 $5,000 $625 $15,720 MDP Application Fee N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Subdivision Application Fee N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Site Plan Application Fee $ 1,250 $ 1,250 $1,600 $4,500 $200 $388 Total $1,887.5 $ 2,375 26% increase $ 2,850 $ 9,500 $ 825 S> 16,108 Scenario 4: A request to rezone 35 acres to M 1 to enable a 100,000 square foot distribution center with 60 parking spaces on a 10 acre parcel. Rezoning Application Fee $ 1,775 $ 2,750 $4,500 $70,000 $2,250 $15,720 MDP Application Fee $ 2,700 $ 3,250 N/A N/A N/A N/A Subdivision Application Fee $ 320 (2 lots) $ 1400 $2,200 $3,000 $300 $8,802 Site Plan Application Fee $ 1,500 $ 1,750 $2,400 $8,500 $700 $4,938 Total $ 6,295 $ 8,950 42 increase $ 9,100 $ 81,500 $ 3,250 $ 29,460 Possible Development Scenarios Review Fee Comparison Current Proposed City of Clarke Warren Loudoun County Frederick Frederick Winchester County County County County Scenario 5: Subdivision of a RA Zoned, 100 acre parcel, into 20 Rural Preservation Lots. Subdivision Application Fee N/A $ 6,000 N/A —_ $30,000 $ 1,500 $ 8,522* — _F Scenario 6: Subdivision of a RA Zoned, 20 acre parcel, into 3 traditional lots Subdivision Application Fee N/A $ 300 N/A $ 4,500 $ 350 $ 4,612* *Note: Loudoun County fee comparisons reflect a two-tiered subdivision review process involving both preliminary and final/record plat subdivision applications. The fees for these applications have been combined to yield the total review fee for the given scenario. Qctf— PGS �y Frederick County Development Review Fee Schedule Current Vs. Proposed TYPF OF APPLIC'ATIM - Current Fees Pronosed Feet REZONING $ 550.00 base $ 1,000.00 base $ 35.00 per acre $ 50.00 per acre MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN $ 1,300.00 base $ 1,500.00 base $ 40.00 per acre (to 50 acres) $ 50.00 per acre $ 30.00 per acre (for each acre over 50) SUBDIVISION Non Residential $ 800.00 base $1,000.00 base $ 90.00 per lot (to 10 lots) $ 100.00 per lot $ 30.00 per lot (over 10 lots) Non Residential (4 lots or less) $ 1,000.00 base (Minor) $ 250.00 base $ 100.00 per lot $ 35.00 per lot Residential (RP) $1,000.00 base $ 1,500.00 base $ 90.00 per lot (to 10 lots) $ 100.00 per lot $ 45.00 per lot (over 10 lots) Residential (RP) (4 lots or less) $250.00 $1,500.00 base (Minor) $ 35.00 per lot $ 100.00 per lot Residential (RA) None $1,000.00 base $ 50.00 per acre Residential (RA) Minor - 3 lots or None $ 100.00 per lot less TYPE OF APPLICATION Current Fees Prnnosed Fees SITE PLAN Non Residential $ 1,000.00 base $1,000.00 base $ 100.00 per acre (to 5 acres) $ 100.00 per acre (to 5 acres) $ 30.00 per acre (over 5 acres) $ 50.00 per acre (over 5 acres) Residential $ 1,000.00 base $1,000.00 base $ 40.00 per unit (to 20 units) $ 50.00 per unit (to 20 units) $ 25.00 per unit (over 20 units) $ 25.00 per unit Minor Site Plan $500.00 - for revision that increases the existing structure area by 201,% or less and does not exceed 5,000 square feet CONDITIONAL USE Cottage Occupation $ 75.00 $500.00 PERMIT Telecommunication $ 75.00 $1,000.00 Tower Other $ 75.00 $750.00 VARIANCE OR BZA APPEAL $250.00 $500.00 ZONING CERTIFICATION LETTER NONE $50.00 ZONING DETERMINATION LETTER NONE $50.00 U:\Eric\Projects\Fee Schedule\proposedfeeschedule2.wpd � N Consultant P.O. Box 3106 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Education Specialist Telephone: (540 P6? -2939 October 16, 2002 To: The Frederick County Planning Commission & Staff From: Commissioner Patricia W. (Pat) Gochenour, Red Bud District Re: Out of Ordgr, Point of Order, Robert's Rules of Order When Supervisor Gina Forester asked me to serve on the Frederick County Planning Commission and I had received a unanimous approval of the Board of Supervisors, I was elated at the opportunity to be involved with serving the people of Frederick County at a decision making level. I was not only looking forward to working with the other members of the Commission and stag', I had the optimistic views that even though I knew I had a lot to learn, I felt the other experienced members would help and guide me in a positive and cooperative manner. Over more than the past eight months, this has not been the case. Tonight, I will not belabor this opinion by quoting incident after incident where I was existing as a Commissioner in a very hostile environment. I am aware I have much to learn about Frederick County Codes, the Comprehensive Plan, and the connection to an applicant's rights and the good of the community, however there is a place for other values such as living by ethical codes. I am of the opinion that if you can remain positive in both your thoughts and actions, you can always find a solution to any challenge you may face. However, I am finding it very difficult to remain positive when others Commissioners make erroneous and flamboyant statements, expressing themselves in such a way as to suggest they are correct, and I am wrong. During these past three days while attending the 43`d Certified Planning Commissioners Program in Lynchburg, VA, I heard how other Planning Commissions conduct business around the state, and therefore, I'm looking forward to the day that our Planning Commission and Staff can work in a more courteous, trusting, and harmonious atmosphere. Tonight, I would like to just fast forward from last February's meeting on rezoning the Rutherford Farm from Rural to an Industrial Park, dotted with sinkholes and cones of depression, (which by the way I was informed that it was a rezoning consideration not just a Master Site Plan issue), and refer to pages 920-921 of the August 21, 2002 minutes of the Frederick County Planning Commission. This will illustrate my emphasis on Out of Order, Point of Order, and Robert's Rules of Order. ...........I do not believe that the minutes reflect the order in which the events occurred, therefore when Commissioner Ours called out Point of Order, Vice Chairman Thomas failed to follow Robert's Rules of Order. Thank you for allowing me to express my ideas on what I felt I needed to say in order to set the record straight. Hopefully, we as Commissioners and Staff can now move forward in a positive, congenial, and productive maturer. �Rrs- Pat 05-ar4miaur Consultant _E Education Specialist October 16, 2002 To: The Frederick County Planning Commission & Staff From: Commissioner Patricia W. (Pat) Gochenour, Red Bud District Re: Out of Ordgr, Point of Order, Robert's Rules of Order P.C. Box 3106 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Telephone: (540�6 2939 qQ0,,&i laa 111 .Cori) When Supervisor Gina Forester asked me to serve on the Frederick County Planning Commission and I had received a unanimous approval of the Board of Supervisors, I was elated at the opportunity to be involved with serving the people of Frederick County at a decision making level. I was not only looking forward to working with the other members of the Commission and staff, I had the optimistic views that even though I knew I had a lot to learn, I felt the other experienced members would help and guide me in a positive and cooperative manner. Over more than the past eight months, this has not been the case. Tonight, I will not belabor this opinion by quoting incident after incident where I was existing as a Commissioner in a very hostile environment. I am aware I have much to learn about Frederick County Codes, the Comprehensive Plan, and the connection to an applicant's rights and the good of the community, however there is a place for other values such as living by ethical codes. I am of the opinion that if you can remain positive in both your thoughts and actions, you can always find a solution to any challenge you may face. However, I am finding it very difficult to remain positive when others Commissioners make erroneous and flamboyant statements, expressing themselves in such a way as to suggest they are correct, and I am wrong. During these past three days while attending the 43`d Certified Planning Commissioners Program in Lynchburg, VA, I heard how other Planning Commissions conduct business around the state, and therefore, I'm looking forward to the day that our Planning Commission and Staff can work in a more courteous, trustjng, and harmonious atmosphere. Tonight, I would like to just fast forward from last February's meeting on rezoning the Rutherford Farm from Rural to an Industrial Park, dotted with sinkholes and cones of depression, (which by the way I was informed that it was a rezoning consideration not just a Master Site Plan issue), acid refer to pages 920-921 of the August 21, 2002 minutes of the Frederick County Planning Commission. This will illustrate my emphasis on Out of Order, Point of Order, and Robert's Rules of Order. ...........I do not believe that the minutes reflect the order in which the events occurred, therefore when Commissioner Ours called out Point of Order, Vice Chairman Thomas failed to follow Robert's Rules of Order. Thank you for allowing me to express my ideas on what I felt I needed to say in order to set the record straight. Hopefully, we as Commissioners and Staff can now move forward in a positive, congenial, and productive manner.