Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 06-20-01 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA FREDERICK COUNT' PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia JUNE 20, 2001 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) May 16,2001 Minutes..................................................(A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments ...... ........................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Conditional Use Permit #03-01 of Kitty B. Hockman and Kitty Hockman-Nicholas for a Cottage Occupation for a Bed and Breakfast. This property is located at 688 Shady Elm Road (Hedgebrook Farm Log Guest House) and is identified with Property Identification Number 74-A-67 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (Mr. Camp).......................................................... (B) 5) Conditional Use Permit #07-01 of John Kevin Smith (Westside Auto Repair) for a Public Garage Without Body Repair. This property is located at 191 Tori Lane and is identified with Property Identification Number 52-14-J in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. (Mr. Camp)..........................................................(C) 6) Rezoning #01-01 of Southern Hills, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone a 105 -acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) to establish 250 single-family residential lots. This property is located south of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Town Run Lane (Route 1012), and is identified with Property Identification Number 85-A-138. (Mr. Wyatt).......................................................... (D) DISCUSSION ITEMS 7) Discussion on the Planning Commission By -Laws (Mr. Wyatt).......................................4.................. (E) 8) Discussion on Definition of Cottage Occupation (Mr- Camp) .......................................................... (F) 9) Discussion on Rural Policy Issues (Mr. Lawrence) .......................................................(G) 10) Other Page 2 • • C7 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on May 16, 2001. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Sidney A. Reyes, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison STAFF PRESENT: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 4, 2001 Upon motion made by Mr. Kriz and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of April 4, 2001 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 05/14/01 Mtg. Chairman DeHaven reported that the CPPS is continuing discussion on the rural areas issues. He said that the committee split up into two discussion groups with a portion of the committee working on Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and the other portion of the committee working on the rural areas issues surrounding subdivisions, policy statements, goals, and objectives. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May iu, 2001 Page 666 Ira Sanitation Authority - 05/15/01 Mtg. Commissioner Fisher reported the following information from the Sanitation Authority meeting: the Authority appointed Mr. Darwin (Skip) Braden as the new Gainesboro representative to the Authority; the Sanitation Authority's Director, Mr. Wellington Jones, presented some graphs concerning rainfall over the last several years; Mr. Jones also reported that the South quarry recovered about 20 feet in April; the northern water treatment plant proposal that came in over budget was reduced by cutting construction costs; a resolution was passed supporting the refinancing ofthe Parkins Mill 1998 bond issue due to lower interest rates; and a public hearing will be held on June 19 to discuss an increase in water rates. Winchester Planning Commission - 05/15/01 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported that the Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) approved a rezoning for a portion of land for the church that is moving to the Grim Farm property. Commissioner Ours stated that the WPC also discussed a proposed rezoning on Plaza Lane, adjacent to Grand Furniture, for a commercial use abutting a residential use. He said the main issue here was the relocation of a gas transfer station, which apparently creates noise and odor. He said the issue was resolved when it was determined that the transfer station could be placed underground. Mr. Ours added that the final discussion involved the comparison of White Pines versus Leland Cypress for use in buffers. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #03-01 of Kitty B. Hockman and Kitty Hockman-Nicholas for a Cottage Occupation for a Bed and Breakfast. This property is located at 690 Shady Elm Road (Hedgebrook Farm Log Guest House) and is identified with P.I.N. 74-A-67 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Tabled its:. Mark R. Cheran, Planner I, read the background information and said there were no adverse comments from any of the reviewing agencies. He stated that the proposed bed and breakfast would take place in a two-bedroom house located on the property. Mr. Cheran said that the proposed bed and breakfast is located approximately 800 feet from Shady Elm Road. In addition, he said the property is surrounded by similar uses and property setbacks are greater than required by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Commissioners had questions regarding VDOT's comment for a commercial entrance. Mr. Wyatt pointed out that there are various standards for commercial entrances; in some instances, a similar Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 16, 2001 Page 667 -3 - surface to the adjoining road surface is required. He said that in some instances, all that may be required is an asphalting of a gravel driveway back a number of feet from where it adjoins the road. Commissioner Kriz pointed cut that it may also involve site distance at the entrance. Ms. Kitty Hockman-Nicholas came forward and introduced herself, her mother, Kitty Hockman, and her daughter, Jackie Hott. Ms. Hockman-Nicholas said that her daughter, Jackie Hott, will be presenting information pertaining to the bed and breakfast. Ms. Jackie Hott gave a briefhistory and description ofHedgebrook Farm, a 110 -acre working, family dairy farm, noting that the farm was established in 1907 by her great-grandparents. Ms. Hott gave a summary of what they are proposing and what they anticipate for their bed and breakfast. Chairman DeHaven called for anyone who wished to speak regarding the proposed conditional use permit and the following person came forward: Mr. Warden Jenkins, a resident at 243 Soldiers Rest Lane, said that as of today, he has not received any notification in the mail about the public hearing for the proposed conditional use permit. Mr. Jenkins said that he knew of the public hearing from the advertisement in the "Winchester Star" newspaper. Mr. Jenkins said that he had no problems with the bed and breakfast, however, his biggest concern was where the entrance to the bed and breakfast was going to be. He said that if the entrance to the bed and breakfast was going to be Soldiers Rest Lane, then an agreement would have to be worked out regarding the maintenance of the road. Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Jenkins ifhis property bordered the Hedgebrook Farm property and Mr. Jenkins replied that it did. Mr. Jenkins said that Soldiers Rest Lane is a right-of-way to his 15 acres, which he maintains. Ms. Jackie Hott stated that the entrance to the bed and breakfast will be on Shady Ehn Road (Route 690), not Soldiers Rest Lane. Ms. Hott explained that the farm had no entrances off Soldiers Rest Lane. Commissioner Ours said that he visited the site and the building is a beautifully -restored log home and is very much in keeping with the type of industry Frederick County wants to promote. He said that the area lends itself well to this type of business. However, because Mr. Jenkins said that he had not received notification of the conditional use permit, the Commission voted to table the application until proper notification could be made. Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table Conditional Use Permit 403-01 of Kitty B. Hockman and Kitty Hockman-Nicholas for a Cottage Occupation for a bed and breakfast for 30 days in order to allow time for proper notification of adjoining property owners. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 16, 2001 Page 668 -4 - DISCUSSION ITEMS DISCUSSION OF THE MS (MEDICAL SUPPORT) DISTRICT Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, stated that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) has been working since March of 2001 on a new zoning district for the County, a medical support district. He explained that the intent of the proposed district is to allow for a variety of support services and related residential land uses which would cluster around a hospital, a clinic, a medical school, or medical offices. Mr. Wyatt said this work was initiated through a request by Valley Health Systems and the directive from the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator ultimately led to the DRRS commencing work on the project. Mr. Wyatt stated that due to the scope and scale of developing a new zoning district, the DRRS believed it was important to have an ongoing discussion with the Planning Commission to ensure that the subcommittee was proceeding in the appropriate direction. Mr. Wyatt introduced Mr. C. Douglas Rosen, Senior Vice President of Administration for Valley Health Systems, who was available for specific questions from the Planning Commission. Mr. Wyatt and the Planning Commission proceeded to review the draft working copy which included a statement of intent, development densities, floor -to -area ratios, public and private street systems, and performance standards. The essence of the discussion included the following land use issues and design standards that needed further consideration: Land Use Issues: Compare the land uses in the B-1 (Neighborhood Business) District with those in the MS District to determine if there are additional compatible land uses that could be added to the new district. 2. ConcLrn vas expressed with the allowance of gasoline filling stations in that a Sheetz-type store may not be conducive to this district. Design Standards A VDOT Urban Design Standard for the street systems should be utilized for state -maintained streets and private streets. 2. Subdivision of land along private streets would not be a concern based on the street standard. A waiver provision could be applied for at the master plan stage with administrative approval of plats. 3. Corridor appearance should be the focus along arterial and major collector roads. 4. An increase in FAR and overall residential gross densities should be allowed in this district. Frederick Coui..J� P --nning Commission Minutes of May 16, 2001 Page 669 -5- 5. Greater setbacks should be required between residential land uses, support service uses, and medical uses. 6. Additional height allowances should be given for medical uses, office buildings, and hotels to make up for the greater setback requirements. 7. Performance standards need to be established to include signs, lighting, building design for support services, separation of vehicle travel areas for passenger cars and trucks, loading space aspect, and scale of permitted manufacturing uses. 8. Open space needs to be a design element of the overall master plan. 9. Increased setbacks from adjoining parcels that are agricultural or residential need to be provided. 10. Ambulwwe air service needs to be located so as not to be obtrusive to adjoining parcels. DISCUSSION ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, reviewed the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission Bylaws made by the Commission at their April 4, 2001 meeting. The Planning Commission believed that all the amendments were appropriate. Mr. Wyatt said that according to Statement 9-1, the current bylaws allow for amendments by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after a 30 -day prior notice. Chairman DeHaven requested that staff present the amended bylaws to the Commission for vote after the appropriate time period had elapsed. DISCUSSION ON WORKSHOP FOR DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES FOR SiENSITIVE LANDS Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, stated that he has had E-mail discussion with the gentleman who is willing to conduct the "Development Strategies for Sensitive Lands" workshop in our area and several logistics for scheduling the workshop will need to be worked out. Mr. Wyatt and the Commission proceeded to discuss the intent of the workshop and decided on a three-hour evening seminar, which includes a question and answer period, within a facility that would accommodate at least 100 people. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 16, 2001 Page 670 ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Evan A. Wyatt, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 16, 2001 Page 671 C • PC REVIEW: 5/02/01 (Postponed); 5/16/01 (tabled); 6/20/01 BOS REVIEW: 7/11/01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #03-01 KITTY B. HOCKMAN KITTY HOCKMAN-NICHOLAS Hedgebrook Farre Bed and Breakfast (Motel/Resort) LOCATION: This property is located at 688 Shady Elm Road (Hedgebrook Farm). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 74-A-67 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential and Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential and Agricultural PROPOSED USE: Bed and Breakfast REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property. However, prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be constructed to our minimum standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the States' right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. See additional comment dated 5125101. Inspections Department: Structure shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 310, Use Group R (Residential) of The BOCA National Building Code/1996. Fire Marshal: Recommend portable fire extinguishers. A plan showing designated parking Hedgebrook Farm CUP #03-01 Page 2 .lune 7, 2001 areas is needed (designated parking areas to allow emergency access to the structure for firefighting and emergency medical assistance). Bed & Breakfast should have own address and posted at entrance on Shady Elm Road; eliminates confusion for emergency vehicle access. Plan approval is recommended. Health Department: The Health Department has no objections to the proposed Bed and Breakfast as long as the applicant meets our requirements which are water samples for her well, an application for a Bed and Breakfast and an application to renew the septic permit. Sanitation Authority: We do not serve this area. City of Winchester: No comments. Winchester Regional Airport: This permit will not interfere with operations at Winchester Airport; therefore, the airport has no objections to this request. We do advise owners to notify their customers of proximity to the airport. Planning and Zoning: This proposed bed & breakfast (motel/resort) would take place in a two-bedroom house located on the property. The applicant has indicated that two rooms will be rented in association with the bed and breakfast operation. The scale of the proposed use is generally more intense than a single-family dwelling unit. Bed & breakfast (motel/resort) is permitted in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved conditional use permit. The site of this proposed bed and breakfast (motel/resort) is located approximately 800 feet from Shady Elm Road. The property is surrounded by like properties and properly setbacks are greater than required by the Zoning Ordinance. It is staff's belief that this proposed use will not have any negative impact on the surrounding properties. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 05-02-01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use to be appropriate, staff would recommend the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be addressed within 90 days of approval, and complied with at all times. 2. Based on the scale of the proposed bed and breakfast, Cottage Occupation sign requirements are appropriate. Signage shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area. 3. No more than two (2) bedrooms shall be utilized for the bed and breakfast operation. Hedgebrook Farm CUP #03-01 Page 3 J anG 7, 2 V O 1 4. Any expansion or change of use will require a new conditional use permit. Note: During the May 16, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled this application to allow staff the opportunity to provide a nearby property owner, who spoke out during the meeting, with written notification. O: W gendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2001 \Hockman. wpd CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 May 25, 2001 Mr. Evan Wyatt, Planning Director C/O County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601-5000 Ref:. Hockman Conditional Use Permit Request Route 651, Frederick County Dear Mr. Wyatt: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE(540)984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 To clarify VD0rs comment on the entrance requirements that will be required at the referenced location, I have included an addendum that may be added to our 02/28/01 comment. The existing gravel entrance does not satisfy any VDOT commercial entrance standards. Safe sight distance can be obtained at the present location. The entrance must be reconstructed and enlarged to a 24' wide throat with 20' radii. This entrance will require an asphalt surface. I trust this additional information is helpful to your staff and the Planning Commission Members. As always, do not hesitate to call if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer SAM/rf Enclosure — Copy of 02/28/01 Comment xc: Mr. Dave Heironimus WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING tNptAIE NQWq MAW ' Q F' btu Liv�c �O_ 24` M,n,�nyr� (in,i'�s of /pa�en.sn} d.s�9„ s� area, 20• fr4�n e� e 1 . 'Pole f �• pone ' 4q , �tYC ------------- LINE ROUTE ---------------- •7® +0 All ib R+c. F 52 �RE FFt,�� ,tlr�c SIGHT DISTANCE + gedge6rook Farm 69) shady Ella Road N 1nitnch�s�e�� VA 2260z r: 0 0 co Lo m a 4''No+�a5cale- f LAN VIEW RTE -(n- HALF TYPICAL SECTION 0 ENTRANCE RAOPUS CATCH poPNT PAVEMENT DESIGN ®A-�E 5t j A . SF NAL.• P EAR K -r LONG CREEK FARM, INC. - 62 A 40 LONG CREEK FARM, INC. 74 A 66 BROWN 74 A 64 I � MADIGAN 62 A 81 'CO 74 A 67C 75 IA 1 b CF CARBAUGH 74 A 68 /° I i L 3-01 Location Map For: Ditty B. Hochman & Ditty Hochman - Nicholas PIN: i 74-A-67 =1 Office of Mapping and GIS, 05/01, Agray Submittal Deadline A4 -n(; -0L P/C Meeting AS -®z-()1 BOS Meeting Q S -h �- rp APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the ✓' owner other) NAME:^ ADDRESS: 69 TELEPHONE 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: -z' !, O Lr �� , T� `J • ��#t7L.J� �..� h,�.. -- --B � � r� V Y� nv. r1 Vr�.. N `C.^ ����Z'' �� ei T"� IN % ch. ir %.,m - C 1 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) I\-- A \_- _V - ea /'..rC S �r` �) 1 c r v, S t c L51 4. The property has a road frontage of `7aZ) �eet and a depth of 6 a feet and consists of � p acres. (Please be exact) \ 5. The property is owned by ��;�� 1�.� „+h as evidenced by deed from recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 4j_S'`� on page L{ 1 k , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. M 14 -Digit Property Identification No. Magisterial District Current Zoning 0 Q. 7. Adjoining Property: USE s North East South 144 West14z-- rr� T�6 o�7 ZONING MAR 2 3 2001 DEPT, OF P!.ANNINGOEVELOPiMENT 8. The type of use propo e before completing)o is (consult w th the Planni 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: P, S S .\�1- Ste. Nl Lo4 4&-A'c 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 �;c.�e��� �����----- ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# 1 44- (�- ( J 4 l.J'r.c�c ��� •z z 6 a Z. ( ` n NAME �.... ADDRESS ���cY^4r s 11Ccs PROPERTY ID# NAME �a1o.l.. ��- �c�d� ADDRESS �aLcQ,�rs �let� Lrt•�•` PROPERTY `TY ID# NAME W<�..� ti �c�,u•hS ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME Lt, G, C,-r'c..\L ADDRESSLJ PROPERTY ID# 4 NAME ADDRESS n' z a'-' PROPERTY ID# ` q'10 C�.. NAME h,���c,�_w\J�,,)n ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME l�c., _ �, . ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# '7-q -- 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. IR.rfs'.-ZJ-tPf�k6.� Bares --'t1 �1�0' N 0 s F'r 651 X �l shCLA 'C-�1M I? SC'lIC I"= 350" 12. Additional comments, if any: \�rai7 w\ L-, V4,.,. ESQ: - jt. cS -moi vt'rJ- -qv — ��`4�~ i ti V�.�C1+1n.o....�Y MV4 �� "" ^�hC„ �� � LYC..�•�l� (\ (\ C ✓�, I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address ='OSMSEN'.► / .� • r Owners' Telephone No. S-iQ- Yb 2 - ± � 12 - TO Z TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: C� • PC REVIEW: 06/20/01 BOS REVIEW: 07/11/01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #07-01 WESTSIDE AUTO REPAIR (John Kevin Smith) LOCATION: This property is located at 191 Tori Lane. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 52-14-J PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Public Garage Without Body Repair REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this property appears to have minimal measurable impact on Route 608, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. The existing entrance provides access directly to Tori Lane, a private subdivision road, and is adequate for the proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Fire Marshal: Portable fire extinguishers are recommended. Requirements of Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code, Section F-3206, and referenced NFPA Standards. Material Safety Data sheets maintained on-site for hazardous products. Plan approval is recommended. Inspections Department: Building shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 311, Use Group S (Storage), of The BOCA National Building Westside Auto Repair, CUP #07-01 Page 2 June 7, 2001 Code/1996. Other codes that apply are CABO Al 17.1-92, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Please submit a floor plan of the building for review at the time of Change of Use Permit application. Permit shall be issued, inspections approved and new certificate of use and occupancy issued prior to operation. Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to the garage as long as it creates no wastewater without a proper means of disposal. Planning and Zoning: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows public garages without body repair in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District with an approved CUP, provided that all repair work takes place entirely within an enclosed structure and all exterior storage of parts and equipment is fully screened from view from any adjoining property. The subject application is a request to operate a public garage without body repair in an existing detached garage that was constructed in 1996 for the applicant's towing service business. Staff first became aware of the need for a CUP when the Building Inspections Department required the applicant to obtain planning approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for a recently constructed garage addition. After speaking with the applicant, staff came to the determination that an approved CUP was required for the business. The property is approximately 4.5 acres in size and is located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District on Tori Lane. Tori Lane is a private dirt and gravel road that connects with Dicks Hollow Road/Route 608. The surrounding land use is residential or vacant. However, there is a similar public garage without body repair located in the general vicinity. Staff predicts that there will be minimal impact to surrounding properties, primarily because of the natural screening and topography in the rear of the applicant's property where the garage is located. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06-20-01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff is of the opinion that this application for a public garage without body repair has adequately addressed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, no adverse comments have been made by any ofthe relevant review agencies. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this application, the following conditions of approval would be appropriate: 1) All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2) In accordance with Cottage Occupation sign requirements, signage for the proposed use may not exceed four square feet in area. A sign permit must be issued by the County Building Inspections Department prior to the placement of a sign. Westside Auto Repair, CUP #07-01 Page 3 June 7, 2001 3) A building permit for the recently constructed garage addition must be issued by the County Building Inspections Department within 30 days of this CUP approval. 4) All repair work shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure. 5) No more than five vehicles awaiting repair shall be permitted outside of the garage. 6) All exterior storage shall be screened from the view of surrounding properties. 7) The business may only operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 8) Any expansion and/or change of use shall require a new CUP. 0:\Agendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2001\W estsideAuto.wpd LeWs La PANGLE 52 A 33 KENNY 52 14 D SHUTTS 52 14 K r SHELL SMITH 52 14 E Westside, AtAo Repair Co 52 14 3 HENRY 52 14 L s SMITH I 52 14 M1 LLOYD 52 14 F DRAKE HEIRONIMUS 52 14 G1 52 14 N DRAKE 52 14 H1; i i X i! Office of Mapping and GIS, 06/01, Agray Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTS, VIRGINIA - 0 9 r - ar i i -'_n r 1. Applicant (The applicant if the _ owner other) NAME: "J o k e- V) ADDRESS: TELEPHONE 3 Z 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) 4. The property has a road frontage of ; 90, ,,25 feet and a G',2% depth of G',2%-7-3 feet and consists of q, %/y acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by evidenced by deed from 0 in deed book no. i9 records of the Clerk Frederick. as �` ^ s %� -✓� C recorded (previous owner) on page 0 36 3 , as recorded in the of the Circuit Court, County of i^ n i�r-Gper-ty Identification No. Magisterial District vct") es bos-U Current Zoning IC'1 7. Adjoining Property: 5:i coo - !y - 000 - 000-I ZONING USE North East C ) South West 5:i coo - !y - 000 - 000-I ZONING ' C ) 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) V (2) 12u 61 ; + t0 :-+h + 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: I e iia: ca ti ; S x s+ G 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 DC0(I1 e 4T,,,, -z She it ADDRESS 147 -TO"' PROPERTY ID#-S� 00L3-l�1-00060 w. n r Ua ZZ6o3 L-6" vN -c- NAME S-andrei Scifb ADDRESS 216 1- ?,rMv4ri i—cLi� s c - PROPERTY ID# 91 0 "' -1 q -000 -coo - 4L W ; ,, c - Ur,, Z Z (o 0 3 NAME 9i'Leri Gi it Sbu71'� ADDRESS 1q0 PROPERTY ID# S9 d 00 - q -000 - OCO NAME Ri'A4.t> d N+ ADDRESS alS 10ri k la Yl le- to'oc- Ua- LZ b03 PROPERTY ID# 5;t000 la -006-x'00 A I NAME NAME CAP -4 41r-141, ),rLA-k ADDRESS 900 j 6r, hcans- PROPERTY IDI -P, 00n - y -coo -0®0 - H (,iJ +�0- lJu ZZ G 0 3 NAME �ci+'4 cl +( C. a W ADDRESS Z- i ra C_ V U. PROPERTY ID# .52 600 - � " 000 ` 0� L,aJ NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 331 12 . Additional comments, if any: hgj LA 6U.5; -)-r55 15 zh sz } 4 �) �s ,� ct Jr -e s s .f' 6� - � ,� e w J 0 7-L — p� t j A TpWIN� � /��as� SeryfG.E Pia,S;hP eS5 ,Th ,Vf� I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit. authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. s�o-3 77-/;Z3�2- TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: PC REVIEW DATE: 1/03/01 (continued); 2/21/01 (tabled); 3/21/01 (tabled); 6/20/01 BOS REVIEW DATE: 7/11/01 REZONING APPLICATION #01-01 SOUTHERN HILLS To rezone 105 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) LOCATION: This property is located on the east side of Interstate 81, southeast of the Town of Stephens City; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Town Run Lane (Route 1012). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 85-A-138 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District East: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District West: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Town of Stephens City Lagoons Land Use: Residential; Agricultural Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Agricultural PROPOSED USE: Residential Single -Family Subdivision REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter from Barry J. Sweitzer, Transportation Engineer, dated 11/21/00; attached letter from Steven A. Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer, dated 5101101; and E-mail message from Steven A. Melnikoff, dated 6105101. Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 2 June 11, 2001 Fire Marshal: Water supplies to meet requirements of Frederick County Chapter 90; avoid fire hydrant placement at end of cul-de-sacs. Board of Supervisors approved proffer model at 100% for Fire and Rescue; plan approval not recommended. Stephens City Fire & Rescue Co.: Based on a follow-up conversation with Mr. Maddox, the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company would not object to the rezoning of the aforementioned property, provided that traffic adjustments are made for an extension of Stickley Drive so as to divert congestion from the I-81/Fairfax Pike/Aylor Road and Town Run Lane Intersection. Town of -Ste hens City: See attached letterfrom Michael Kehoe, Zoning Administrator, dated 11-07-00. Sanitation Authority: We have water and sewer capacity to serve this project. County Engineer: See attached letter from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Director of Public Works, dated 11-29-2000. Parks & Recreation: Plan appears to conform with the requirements established by the county. However, with the developer's contribution for recreation being only 50% of the impact module, consideration should be given to providing active recreation areas with the development. Frederick Co. Public Schools: See attached letter from Al Orndorff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent, dated 11/29/00. County Attorney: Stickley Drive extended and paid for by whom? Once signed by owner, appears alright. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the parcel proposed for rezoning as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. The A-2 (Agricultural General) District zoning classification was modified to RA (Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. The initial location ofthe county's Urban Development Area (UDA) traversed approximately 23 acres of the 105 -acre parcel. The applicant submitted a request to the county to incorporate the entire acreage into the UDA. This request was recommended favorably by Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 3 June 11, 2001 the Planning Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors during their October 25, 2000 meeting. 2) Location The 105 -acre parcel is located southeast of Interstate 81 Exit 307; approximately 3/4 mile south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277); along the east side of Town Run Lane (Route 1012). Fairfax Pike is classified as a minor arterial Broadway, and Town Run Lane is classified as a local road. The 105 -acre parcel is located within the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). This acreage does not fall within the boundaries of an adopted land use plan for the county. The 105 -acre parcel is located in an area that is rural in nature. Adjoining properties include large tracts that are utilized for agricultural purposes with a few large residential lots to the south. The Scothom tract immediately adjacent to the east is within the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District. 3) Site Suitability The 105 -acre parcel contains areas of steep slope, streams, floodplain associated with Stephens Run, and woodlands as defined by county ordinance. The general site development plan calls for the provision of common open space within the floodplain areas and some of the areas defined as steep slope. It is uncertain if this delineation will comply with the maximum allowance for open space as permitted by county ordinance, as the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement does not indicate percentages of the total site area proposed for these set -asides. The 105 -acre parcel has approximately %2 -mile of road frontage along Town Run Lane (Rt. 10 12) which is within the VDOT secondary system of roads. By policy, the parcel is entitled to be served by public water and sewer. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has indicated that adequate capacities exist to serve the development proposal for this parcel. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies structures within the proximity of the 105 -acre parcel. None of these structures are identified as potentially significant historic resources. Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 4 June 11, 2001 4) Potential Impacts and Issues a) Transportation The applicant has developed a traffic impact analysis statement that was submitted to VDOT for review and comment. VDOT has conducted cursory reviews of this document and has corresponded with the applicant's engineer for clarification regarding several issues. The applicant's engineer has attempted to address these concerns as indicated in the memorandum from John Callow, PHR&A to Chuck Maddox, G.W. Clifford & Associates, dated May 15, 2001. The traffic impact analysis indicates that the proposed development of the 105 -acre tract will generate 2,500 daily vehicle trips on average. The applicant recognizes that all of this traffic cannot be supported by Town Run Lane (Rt.1012) and indicates that there will be a need to extend Stickley Drive (Rt. 1085) to Town Run Lane to facilitate traffic movement from this parcel to Fairfax Pike (Route 277). The applicant indicates that the Town Run Lane connection to Fairfax Pike will be severed as a result of the improvements to Interstate 81 Exit 307 and that VDOT will consider design alternatives which may result in the relocation of the Exit 307 interchange to the south within the proximity of this parcel. The VDOT comment, dated November 21, 2000, identifies that Town Run Lane currently has an average daily traffic count of 210 vehicle trips. Furthermore, VDOT states that the existing road structure is inadequate to handle the projected traffic volume generated by this site which will increase traffic by approximately 1,200% of the current volume. The applicant's traffic impact analysis has been developed utilizing existing traffic counts at all critical intersections within the proximity of the acreage proposed for rezoning. The traffic impact analysis statement considers Level of Service (LOS) conditions for both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. Two scenarios have been developed for this application. The first scenario identifies the LOS conditions assuming that the Stickley Drive extension from Town Run Lane to Fairfax Pike is in place, that the Stephens Ridge townhouse development is built out, that 12.65 acres of retail are developed, and that Southern Hills is built out. The analysis of this scenario indicates that the intersections of Town Run Lane, Aylor Road and Fairfax Pike operate at a deficient LOS during peak traffic hours. The second scenario identifies the LOS conditions assuming that the Stickley Drive extension from Town Run Lane to Fairfax Pike is in place, that the Stephens Ridge townhouse development is built out, that 12.65 acres of retail are developed, that Southern Hills is built out, and that access onto Town Run Lane is limited to southbound traffic movement only. The analysis of this scenario indicates that all critical intersections function at an acceptable LOS during peak traffic hours. Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 5 June 11, 2001 The applicant's general development plan calls for the extension of Stickley Drive to connect with Town Run Lane to the north of the 105 -acre tract. This design is prudent, as the Level of Service at the intersection of Town Run Lane and Fairfax Pike will decrease significantly as a result of this development. Furthermore, the applicant's proposal calls for participation in traffic signalization at the Stickley Drive intersection with Fairfax Pike. The need for traffic signalization along Fairfax Pike is paramount to facilitate left turn movements and maintain the Level of Service along this road system. b) Community Facilities Public Schools The proposed residential development would increase student enrollment capacities, thus impacting Middletown Elementary School; Robert E. Aylor Middle School; and Sherando High School. The Frederick County Public School Administration comment identifies that the school facilities within this area of the county are nearing maximum design capacities. In order to project the number of school-age children that could be expected to be generated from the project, staff has utilized the averages that are used as multipliers in the county's Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model. Projected School Enrollment Impact Total Building Elementary Middle School High School Total School - Permits Issued School Impact Impact @ .14 Impact @. 17 Age Children @.39 Pupils/Dwelling Pupils/Dwelling On Average Pupils/Dwelling 250 98 35 43 176 Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 6 June 11, 2001 Solid Waste Disposal The Department of Public Works has identified an impact to the citizen convenience center site at the old weight scales near the Town of Middletown. The Department of Public Works comment states that the proposed development will negatively impact this facility and may require and expansion of this site to serve the future residents of this project. Parks and Recreation The Department of Parks and Recreation comment identifies that the monetary proffers received from new residential projects do not allow their department to keep pace with the recreational demands of the county residents. Therefore, the Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that the developer establish active recreational areas within the proposed development to provide on-site opportunities for the future residential end users. C) Ewing Family Cemetery A family cemetery exists within the southeast portion of the 105 -acre parcel. This cemetery, owned by the Ewing family, is identified as circa 1750 and contains grave sites dating to 1856. Staff met with representatives of the Ewing family and was advised that the family actively maintains this area through an agreement with the property owner. The applicant's general development plan calls for the development of residential lots in the area in which the cemetery exists. Representatives of the Ewing family advised staff that their concerns include the ability to maintain access to, and continue the use of, this area. In order to ensure that this desire is realized, the Ewing family requests that the applicant establish a deeded area for this purpose; that access is maintained to the family cemetery throughout the development phase process; that a curb cut is established to ensure access to the family cemetery from the proposed public street system; that the property owner provides the ability to identify any grave sites that may fall outside of the currently established family cemetery area prior to development; that the family cemetery be improved to be enclosed with a rod -iron fence with an eight -foot wagon gate; and that a disclosure statement be established within all property deeds advising future lot purchasers of the proximity of the family cemetery and the right of the Ewing family to utilize and maintain the deeded area for perpetuity. Southern Hills REZ ##01-01 Page 7 June 11, 2001 d) Adjoining Properties As previously mentioned, the Scothorn parcel, and other parcels within close proximity ofthe 105 -acre parcel, are within the county's Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District. The applicant's general development plan identifies an area of open space along the eastern property limits due to the location of Stephens Run which will provide some separation between the agricultural land uses and the proposed development. However, it would be prudent to require the developer to provide a disclosure statement within all future property deeds and homeowner covenants advising future purchasers of the proximity of this proposed development to the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, as well as the agricultural land users rights as identified in the Right To Farm Act. 5) Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed by the owner, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. The applicant has proffered to develop a maximum of 250 single family residential lots; to extend Stickley Drive (Rt. 1085) to connect with Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012); to overlay a portion of Town Run Lane and provide guardrail; to provide an easement along the southern portion of the site to establish a buffer and preserve existing woodlands; to develop a disclosure statement within each property deed advising purchasers of the proximity ofthis development to the Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District, the Ewing Family Cemetery, and the Stephens City and FCSA lagoons; to set aside a lot with public road access for the Ewing Family Cemetery; to contribute $100,000 for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Fairfax Pike (Route 277); and to provide a monetary contribution for each residential building lot to offset impacts to county services. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 01/03/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING• The 105 -acre parcel proposed for residential land use is located within the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that suburban residential development must occur within the UDA. The 105 -acre parcel has significant frontage along a state -maintained road and can be served with public water and sewer with adequate capacities. Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 8 June 11, 20011 Several concerns have been expressed by the various review agencies regarding the rezoning of this 105 -acre parcel. These concerns include impacts to the road network system; impacts to public school facilities; impacts to the solid waste disposal citizen's convenience site; and the difficulties of providing fire and rescue service to residential land uses in this area of the county. The applicant has submitted a proffer statement to attempt to mitigate the impacts associated with this residential rezoning proposal. The proffered conditions include a monetary offer to offset costs associated with the capital facilities needs of various county service providers, the offer to limit the number of residential units to 250 single family lots, and the offer to extend Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. Staff believes that the applicant should adequately address the following issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors regarding this proposal: 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. 2) The applicant should identify the scope of improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. 3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to obtain a deeded easement from the Stimpson parcel that provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow for the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. 5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. 6) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate impacts associated with the increased use of the citizens convenience center and the need to expand that facility. 7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if there is the potential to provide for active recreational areas within the proposed residential development. 8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to accommodate the desires of the Ewing family to preserve access to and improve the area of the existing family cemetery. 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on-site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 9 June 11, 2001 of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 02/21/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission continued this item from the January 3, 2001 meeting to ensure compliance with the adopted by-laws. The Planning Commission was required to adjourn during the public comment portion of this public hearing item; therefore, it was determined that additional public comment would be taken at the next available meeting. The applicant provided staff with new information since this item was continued. This new information includes a revised review agency comment from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company; a revised proffer statement; and a memorandum from Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., to Evan Wyatt, dated February 1, 2001. The information in this memorandum provides an applicant response to the nine issues identified by staff during the January 3, 2001 meeting. In order to summarize the revised materials prepared by the applicant, staff will revisit each issue previously identified and provide a staff comment based on the new information. 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. Staff Comment: The applicant did not submit revisions to the Impact Analysis Statement; therefore, existing and projected LOS conditions are not provided. The applicant's response in the February 1, 2001 memorandum indicates that the proffered extension of Stickley Drive (Route 1085) to Town Run Lane (Route 1012) coupled with the proposed VDOT improvements to Aylor Road (Route 647) will provide for an acceptable LOS at all intersection points with Fairfax Pike (Route 277). 2) The applicant should identify the scope of improvements that are planned for Town Run Lane and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. Staff Comment: The revised proffer statement calls for the applicant to overlay Town Run Lane with bituminous concrete from the project entrance to the Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 10 June 11, 2001 intersection of the Stickley Drive extension and to provide guardrail by the Town of Stephens City lagoons prior to the issuance of the 50' buildingpermit. Furthermore, the revised proffer statement requires the applicant to overlay Town Run Lane with bituminous concrete from the first project entrance to the second project entrance when the second project entrance is constructed. 3) The applicant should indicate what agreements exist to obtain a deeded easement from the Stimpson parcel that provides for an adequate right-of-way width to allow for the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane. Staff Comment: The applicant provided a letter from Mr. Harry Stimpson III, to Evan Wyatt dated December 22, 2000, and a preliminary plat of the proposed right-of-way for the extension of Stickley Drive. Mr. Stimpson's letter indicates that he will dedicate a 50 foot right-of- way for the purpose of extending Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane, and that this improvement will be paid for by the applicant. 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. Staff Comment: The applicant's revised proffer statement does not provide for traffic signalization at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Fairfax Pike. The applicant's response in the February 1, 2001 memorandum indicates that the VDOT improvements to Aylor Road would be the appropriate time to install traffic signalization at this intersection point. The applicantfeels that any signalization improvements done now would be impacted by the VDOT project which would cost all involved additional money in the future. Furthermore, the applicant feels that the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane constitutes a fair share portion of the improvements to the transportation system in this area of the county. 5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 11 June 11, 2001 Staff Comment: The revised review agency comment from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company indicates that the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane provides a viable solution for emergency access in this area. The applicant's response in the February 1, 2001 memorandum indicates that the provision of $446.00 per residential unit is appropriate due to the significant increase in costs projected by the revised fiscal impact model. d) The applicant should indicate how they can mitigate impacts associated with the increased use of the citizens' convenience center and the need to expand that facility. Staff Comment: The applicant's response in the February 1, 2001 memorandum indicates that the landfill is a fee -sustained operation; therefore, additional costs to the development community should not be required. 7) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if there is the potential to provide for active recreational areas within the proposed residential development. Staff Comment: The applicant's response in the February 1, 2001 memorandum indicates that the monetary proffer offered for this development is adequate for necessary recreational services. 8) The applicant should indicate how they plan to accommodate the desires of the Ewing family to preserve access to, and improve the area of, the existing family cemetery. Staff Comment: The revised proffer statement provides for a lot to be created and deeded for the Ewing family cemetery; for the provision of public street access to this lot; and for the establishment of deed covenants allowing for maintenance of this area by the Ewing family. 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on-site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Staff Comment: The revised proffer statement calls for language to be incorporated Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 12 June 11, 2001 into all property deeds and covenants disclosing the location and proximity of this subdivision to the adjoining agricultural land uses; the Town of Stephens City and FCSA lagoons; and the Ewing family cemetery. The Planning Commission should determine ifthe revised information and revised proffer statement provided by the applicant adequately mitigates the issues identified by staff during the January 3, 2001 meeting when forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 02/21/01 MEETING: The applicant/developer and the design engineer both spoke to the Commission about the proposed rezoning. One person addressed the Commission during the public hearing; she was a neighbor of the proposed subdivision, residing on a private road that enters onto Town Run Lane. She expressed concerns about traffic, especially the increased traffic on Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive, which she believed would have a major impact on safety. She commented about the inadequacy of the traffic signals on Town Run Lane and the problems created by not having a left-hand turn signal or lines painted on the road. The Planning Commission's primary concern was the traffic issue, especially at Stickley Drive and Town Run Lane. Although they understood this particular developer did not create the existing problems and should not be held totally responsible for mitigating those problems, they were hesitant to move forward without having a definite commitment from the developer to participate in that mitigation, possibly during the master development plan stage. Members of the Commission pointed out that if egress from the proposed development is directed up Town Run Lane and the majority of traffic is coming down from Aylor Road, it will be difficult to make a left-hand turn because the intersection lacked a left -turn lane or signal. They believed some change in the signalization at that intersection by VDOT was necessary. The Planning Commissioners requested that the applicant come back with a Warrant Analysis for a traffic signal and a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis in order to help mitigate the increased traffic impact. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission tabled the rezoning application for 30 days and granted the applicant their request for a waiver of the time restraints, in order to give the applicant the opportunity to gather the necessary information for the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis and LOS Analysis. The vote on this tabling was as follows: Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 13 June 11, 2001 YES (TO TABLE): Unger, Morris, Light, Marker, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher NO: Miller (Note: Mr. Wilson was absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 03/21/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant's engineer has developed a traffic impact analysis that has been submitted to VDOT for review but has not been formally submitted to staff. It is the applicant's desire to present this traffic impact analysis to the Planning Commission during the meeting and have representatives of VDOT participate in the discussion. The following provides a summary of the original issues identifies by staffthat have not been formally addressed by the applicant or are intended to be addressed during the consideration of the traffic impact analysis statement: 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. Staff Comment: The applicant's traffic impact analysis provides LOS conditions for all critical intersections during peak traffic hours; however, this information has not been reviewed by staff, nor has VDOT submitted a comment regarding this issue. 2) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. Staff Comment: The applicant's revised proffer statement does not provide for traffic signalization at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Fairfax Pike. The applicant's response in the February 1, 2001 memorandum indicates that the VDOT improvements to Aylor Road would be the appropriate time to install traffic signalization at this intersection Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 14 June 11, 2001 point. The applicant feels that any signalization improvements done now would be impacted by the VDOT project which would cost all involved additional money in the future. Furthermore, the applicant feels that the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane constitutes a fair share portion of the improvements to the transportation system in this area of the county. The Planning Commission should determine if the information in the applicant's traffic impact analysis is acceptable, and if the proposed improvements to the transportation system within the proximity of this acreage adequately mitigates the transportation impacts when forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 03/21/01 MEETING: VDOT's resident engineer, Jerry Copp, stated that they were in receipt of the applicant's traffic impact analysis and it was formally being reviewed by their transportation traffic engineering division in Staunton. Commissioners requested that the following information be addressed by VDOT during their review of the applicant's traffic impact analysis: 1) the safety problems expected turning west on Stickley Drive without a traffic light and how the safety impacts will be mitigated; and, 2) the effect on the efficiency of traffic traveling east, coming across the intersection. The design engineer for the project, Charles W. Maddox, Jr., stated that they have supplied all of the information requested by the Commission; they have supplied a transportation study, they have revised their proffers, they have participated in mitigating their share of the impacts, and they have met the requirements of the County's fiscal impact model. Mr. Maddox also pointed out that the traffic plan predicts that traffic on Aylor Road will drop dramatically because Warrior Drive will provide a new access and a way for traffic in the Tasker Road area to access Route 277, especially the high school. He said the traffic study estimates a traffic decline from 11,000 to 6,000 trips per day, which will improve functioning of the intersection. Two citizens came forward to speak regarding the rezoning, a resident of Ridgefield Subdivision and a resident off Town Run Lane. They were concerned about the traffic and were not convinced that Warrior Drive would alleviate the impacts at Town Run Lane. There was a concern that children from the proposed development would be playing in the adjacent farmlands because of a lack of adequate open space in the proposed development. A concern was raised that this rezoning would set a precedent for additional development in the area and would cause County taxes to be increased. Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 15 June 11, 2001 Members of the Planning Commission were interested in hearing VDOT's comments regarding the applicant's traffic impact analysis before they made a final decision on the rezoning. By a unanimous vote, the Commission tabled the rezoning in order to give VDOT the opportunity to review and make comments on the applicant's traffic impact analysis. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 06/20/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant has developed a traffic impact analysis that has been submitted to VDOT and staff for review and comment. VDOT has provided two comments subsequent to the submittal of this traffic impact analysis which request additional information pertaining to some items and responses to several inquiries. The applicant's transportation engineer has attempted to address these inquiries through the development of additional information that is provided in a memorandum from John Callow, PHR&A to Chuck Maddox, G.W. Clifford & Associated, dated May 15, 2001. The following provides a summary of the issues identifies by staff in the March 21, 2001 staff conclusion and identifies how the applicant has attempted to address these issues: 1) The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. Staff Comment: The applicant's original traffic impact analysis and subsequent information provides LOS conditions for all critical intersections during peak traffic hours based on two development scenarios. The scenario which allows Town Run Lane to maintain northbound and southbound traffic movements demonstrates a deficient LOS at the Town Run Land, Aylor Road, Fairfax Pike intersection during peak traffic hours; while the second scenario which prohibits southbound traffic movement on Town Run Lane indicates that all critical intersections function at an acceptable LOS during peak traffic hours. 2) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 16 June 11, 2001 Staff Comment: The applicant's revised proffer statement provides a monetary contribution of $100, 000 for the installation oftraffic signalization at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Fairfax Pike. The Planning Commission should determine if the applicant's offer to develop an alternative road system to allow for traffic movements to occur at a signalized intersection to the east of the intersection of Town Run Land and Fairfax Pike adequately mitigates the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning proposal when forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter. 0:\Agendas\COh4WNTS\REZON[NG\Staff Report\200I\SouthemHiIIs.wpd 1 i i OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT PIN 85-A-138 Net Fiscal Impact c� LAND USE TYPE Single Family Costs of Impact Credd Crecits to be Take Total Potential Aolustmert For REAL EST VAL $32,775,000 FIRE & RESCUE Required (entered in Cur Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIPt Tax Credits Revenuo- Net Capital Net Cost Per �j r 1i CalMal Facilli es col sum only) Oper Cap Fgjip Expend(Debt S. Taxes, Other (Unadiusled) Cost 9alarice Fdsrllties Impact Dwel,trg Unit Fire and Rescue Department $222,149 50 Elementary Schools $1,019,969 SO $222,149 $889 Middle Schools $540,569 $126,010 5729,921 5655,931 $601,733 _ $1,790,469 $7,162 3 �� High Schools $831,664 Parks and Recreation $364,315 593,181 $93,181 _ .565508 _ $298.807 p $1,195 5! Pubic Library $66,714 $,044 $20,044 514,091 $52,623 $210 Sheriff's Offices 547.020 S16,51 $8 t 50 S8,fi63 $25,174 517,698 $29,322 $117 Administration Building $60,342 SO So SO $60,342 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $76,717 $230.040 $46,291 5276,331 $194,265 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $3,229,459 5372,562 $776.211 $121,888 $1,270,661 $893,295 $2,336,164 $9,345 LESS. NET FISCAL IMPACT $0 s0 $0 SQ $0 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $2.336,1641 $345 /D INDEX: "1 Will Cap Equip Included; 1.0 INDEX: •1.0" it Rev -Cost Bat, "0.0" if Rata to Co Avg- 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal a 0.491 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 0.703 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are Input to the first column as calculated In the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations Is input in row total of second column (zero H negative); included are the one-time taxesifees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future open cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NFV of future capital expenditure taxes paid to tnurth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilittes requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for a I residential development). NOTE. Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments upfront, Credits do include interest it the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Dale 10125100 EAW P.I-N 85-A-138 Rezoning: Assumes 250 Single Family Dwellings on 105 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with developmeit to the County, the results of this , Output Module may not Ce valid beyond a period o1 90 days from the model run date. /' JVUU1G11111111J JUVUIV 1,31V11, 1\VULG 41 1� 1.1VUG111.1, %iUUAALy Subject: Southern Hills Subdivision, Route 277, Frederick County Date: Tue, 5 Jun 200109:30:52 -0400 From: "Melnikoff, Steve" <SMelnikoff@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> To: "Charles E. Maddox Jr. (E-mail)" <gwcacem@mnsinc.com>, "G. W. Clifford & Associates (E-mail)" <gwcliff@mnsinc.com> CC: 'Evan Wyatt' <ewyatt@co.frederick.va.us>, "Melnikoff, Steve"<SMehiikoff@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>, "Heironimus, David (Dave)"<DHeironimus@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>_, "Downs, Kelly" <KDowns@vdot.state.va.us>, "Copp, Jerry" <JCopp@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>, "Coffman, Homer"<HCoffinan@vdot.state.va.us> Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5600 - Fax (540) 984-5607 June 5, 2001 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly St., Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Maddox: VDOT has begun the review of the traffic impact analysis received on May 16, 2001. A cursory review of this data has revealed the need for additional information. The analysis of the I-81/Route 277 ramps is missing from this submittal. Please supply impact analysis data for present conditions and the impacts at subdivision build out, 2005. Also, factor in this analysis that the south bound off ramp will be enlarged to two lanes this year. The analysis demonstrates at subdivision build out in 2005, Route 277 at Stickley Drive will have eight lanes. If the eight lanes configuration is necessary to maintain Level of Service C or better, is your client prepared to make these improvements? Should the closing of Town Run Lane north of the proposed intersection of Stickley Drive extended and Town Run Lane be the most practical option to insure safety and an acceptable level of service at Town Run Lane and Route 277, an interconnecting street will be required between Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive to insure access to those businesses on Town Run Lane. The location of this interconnecting street should be outlined in the build out descriptions. Please resubmit the requested information so we can proceed with our review. Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer VDOT - Edinburg Residency Permit & Subdivision Section 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) 1 of 2 L 6/5/2001 10:19 AM Funkhouser, Rhonda ,om: Funkhouser, Rhonda on behalf of Melnikoff, Steve vent: Tuesday, May 01, 20012:37 PM To: G. W. Clifford & Associates (E-mail); Charles E. Maddox Jr. (E-mail) Cc: 'Evan Wyatt'; Heironimus, David (Dave); Melnikoff, Steve Subject: Southern Hills Traffic Impact Analysis CUMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 May 1, 2001 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: Southern Hills - Traffic Impact Analysis Route 1012, Frederick County Dear Mr. Maddox: We have completed the traffic impact analysis for the referenced development. Our comments are as follows: n the traffic impact analysis, the existing lane geometry for westbound Route 277 traffic at Aylor Road shows two through lanes, the rightmost being a shared through/right lane. A true shared through/right tum lane has right turning traffic sharing the lane with the through movement. This is not the case here. Westbound traffic in the right lane at this intersection is in a dedicated right tum lane and must turn right either at Aylor Road or in 175' at the I-81 northbound on ramp. Therefore, there is one westbound through lane and one westbound right turn lane. This misinterpretation of lane assignments affects the Level of Service computations at Aylor Road for the existing traffic (Figure 2), the 2005 background traffic (Figure 4), 2005 build -out traffic scenario �A (Figure 8), and the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #2A (Figure 12). In some computations, it is assumed Route 277 will be five to seven lanes wide in 2005 when the subdivision is built out. Although VDOT is performing a preliminary study to widen Route 277, no money has been appropriated for purchasing the right of way or scheduling construction. In 2005, the only road widening anticipated will be whatever is proffered by this developer. This misinterpretation of number of traffic lanes available affects the level of service computations at Stickley Drive for the 2005 background traffic (Figure 4), the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #1A (Figure 8), the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #18 (Figure 10), the 0� build -out traffic scenario #2A (Figure 12) and the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #2B (Figure 14). r ne consultant performed manual traffic counts at the intersections of Route 277/Town Run Lane (March 7, 2001) and Route 277/Stickley Drive (March 8, 2001) and computed the AM and PM peak hour factors. These peak hour factors should have been used in their analyses. 3 e have reviewed the Route 277 pavement markings and lane assignments in the field from the northbr- and ramps of I-81 to Route 1065 (Ridgefield Avenue) and have prepared the attached map. The consultant juld prove the intersections along this corridor will operate at satisfactory levels of service within the existing lane configurations and assignments or provide solutions to mitigate the problem areas. ditionally, the traffic impact analysis should address what effect this additionalenerated traffic will have eon the I-81/277 interchange. We feel that until the traffic impact affects to I-81/277 interchange are addressed as part of this analysis, VDOT comments cannot be considered complete. Upon receipt of this additional data, VDOT will continue our review and further comment. Should you have any questions, please call. Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer VDOT -. Edinburg Residency Permit & Subdivision Section 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg. VA 22824 (540) 984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) Enclosures (sent U.S. Mail) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDINBURG, VA 22824 COMMISSIONER November 21, 2000 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Stfeet Winchester, VA 22601 JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE(540)984-5600 FAX(540)984-5607 Ref: Southern Hills, Holliday Concept Plan Route 1012, Town Run Lane @ Route 277, Fairfax Pike & I-81 Interchange Frederick County Dear Chuck: A VDOT review has been completed at the Edinburg Residency Office on the concept plan and attendant rezoning request. dated 10/26/00 for the referenced project. The impact analysis addresses traffic issues in a general way. However, VDOT concerns may be extended to other developments, both residential and commercial in the general area of this proposed Southern Hills concept plan. A glimpse at the Frederick County Index Map appears to reveal approximately three square miles of residential performance: residential, recreational community and commercial areas which have potential impacts on VDOT facility improvement studies in the vicinity of the Southern Hills concept plan. As indicated in a letter dated 08/24/00 from Mr. Steven A. Melnikoff to your office, the portion of the Frederick County Rezoning Application addressing VDOT and County needs under the Impact Analysis/'Traffic (Pages 4, 5 & 6) should be included in the Impact Analysis presented for VDOT review. Among VDOT concerns which should be addressed are: Improvement of Route 1012, Town Run Lane. The attached typical section indicating the roadway 'width and pavement structure on existing Route 1012 demonstrate the inadequacy of the existing structure to support the projected 2500 TPD anticipated to access Southern Hills. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr..:. November 21, 2000 Ref: Southern Hills Concept Plan Page #2 The application to rezone should address how and who would provide the necessary improvements to Route 1012: a) County Six Year Plan b) Developer participation in cost and/or construction c) Other sources of participation Please note the improvements should address the heavy increase in traffic volumes to be generated onto the Route 1012 facility. Current VDOT estimate (1999) is at 210 AADT, the proposed 2500 TPD generated by Southern. Hills represents a tremendous impact on the existing typical section (copy attached). Development of turn lanes and tapers should also be considered. Traffic impact should include consideration of signalized intersections. Since no VDOT improvement plan exists for the Route 1012 facility, the Southern Hills concept should address improvements beginning at the Route 277 intersection with Route 547. Please note a copy of this letter and all previous correspondence regarding the referenced project has been forwarded to our Staunton District, Office for their review and information. We look forward to receiving and reviewing a more complete rezoning package whenever available.- If vailable. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call. .1 Sincerely, Barry J. Sweitzer, Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Steven A. Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer BIS/rf Enclosure xc: Mr. Jim Diamond, Attn: Mr. Terry -Jackson, Attn Mr. Dave Heironimus Mr. Kris Tierney, Attn: Mr. Kelly Downs (w/ attachments) Mr. Guy Tudor (w/ attachments) Mr. Evan Wyatt FOUNDED 1758 TOWN OF ST'EPHENS CITY November 7, 2000 Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. C/o Charles E. Maddox, Jr. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Maddox: 1033 Locust Street P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, VA 22655-0250 (54011869-3087 - Fax (541(0)869-6[66 E-mail: tosc@visuallink.com Police (540) 868-1012 The comment sheet for Southern Hills Subdivision was forwarded to the Stephen City Planning Commission at the request of Mayor Ray Ewing. Several Town Council members also reviewed the master plan and offered comment. The following concerns are derived from the comments that have been given to me from the Council members or taken from notes at the October 31, 2000 Stephens City Planning Commission meeting. The foremost concern is theimpact that additional traffic will have on the town and surrounding area with an inadequate road system. A decision has not been made as to the relocation of the I-$1 interchange or any other road way alternations. According to some, VDOT is still hedging on relocation of the interchange. The town adamantly supports the relocation of the interchange and does not wish to have anything to impede the plans or possibility for this to happen. The master plan for the Southern Hills development does show a conceptual relocation of Town Run Lane, but at this point VDOT has not given any indication if this is acceptable or not. Furthermore, the I-81 interchange could be moved to the south to Salem Church Road or somewhere in between or not at all. There were many other comments from the discussion of the planning commissioners related to taxes, width of the roadway, school impacts, etc., and site plan deficiencies. However, I will refrain from elaborating upon these as most of those comments are outside the town's preview and were more individual in nature. In summary, the town feels that it may be premature to rezone this property or to allow development to begin until assurances can be made about first adequate road size and conditions and second the status of 1-81 improvements and changes on Route _ 277_ Citizens of the Town of Stephens City are subjected to negative traffic impacts associated with the present location of the interstate interchanges and the enormous amount of traffic generated from the east side of I-81 and inadequate roads to handle it_ Sincerely, Michael K. Kehoe Zoning Administrator November 29, 2000 Mr. Chuck Maddox, P.E. Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Rezoning for Southern Hills Subdivision Frederick County,'Virginia Dear Chuck: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Forks 540/665-5643 FARC: 540/678-0682 Based on our review of the proposed rezoning request from RA to RP, we offer the following comments related to the proposed Southern Hills project: 1) We concur with your analysis and offer to construct the extension of Stickley Drive as part of planned improvements to mitigate traffic impacts. We recommend that this extension be included in the initial phase of the project development. 2) The proposed stormwater ponds shall be constructed prior to the construction of the roads and related site development. The stormwater ponds shall be designed to include sediment control. 3) The county does not plan to provide a dumpster specifically for this project. The project in general will have a negative impact on the county's citizens' convenience site located near Middletown, Virginia. The proposed project may require an expansion of this site to serve the residents that will occupy the additional 260 single family dwellings. The above comments should be reflected in the revised impact analysis. Sincerely, Harvey . trawsnyder, Jr., P. . Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Frederick County Planning Department file 107 North Kcnt Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ' zyyv YF C P J Frederick CountyPr'bllc-Schools Adniizj trative assistant to Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us the Superintendent November 29, 2000 Mr. Chuck Maddox Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 N. Cameron St. Winchester, VA 22601 REF: Rezoning Comments Southern Hills Dear Mr. Maddox e-mail: 0rndorfa@frederjck,k12.va.us I am in receipt of your request for rezoning comments concerning a parcel of land containing 105 acres to be rezoned from RA to RP (Residential Performance). It is my understanding the proposed rezoning from Ra to RP will allow for the construction of 250 homes. You have also indicated the Iand to be rezoned is 105 acres in size at the following location: South` of Stephens City, east. of Interstate '81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Route 1012 (Town Run Lane) Residential development in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing maximum design capacity. The proposed monetary proffer of $3,581 per building :permit will assist the county in addressing capital improvement projects for future school facilities. The cumulative impact of this project and others of a similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undevelopedresidential Lots in this area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of the proposed rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Sincerely, AlOrndorff Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent PC- Dr_ William C. Dean, Superintendent of Schools Mr. Robert W. Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration 540-6623889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-772-2788 f-.; PlnnnfnWSourhem Hills REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Dumber 85-A-138 Opequon Magisterial District DOROTHY CARBAIIGII ESTATE PROPERTY 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 rezoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #01-01 for the rezoning of 105 acres from Rural Area (RA) to Residential Performance (RP). 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 Virginia law_ In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successor or assigns. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 105 acres, with frontage along Town Run Lane in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County at the time a building permit is applied for and issued the sum of $4,91.0.00 per lot. This monetary proffer provides for $3,581.00 for Frederick County Schools; $598.00 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation; $446.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue; $105.00 for Public Library; $59.00 for Sheriff's Office and $121.00 for Administration Building. General Development Plan Voluntarily proffered is the attached Generalized Development Plan including the following improvements: 1 _ On the 105 acres to be zoned RP no more than 250 single family dwelling units shall be constructed. These units shall consist of single family home lots. 2. Stickley Drive (SR 1085) shall be extended as shown to connect with Town Run Lane (SR 1012) during the first phase of development(A to B). 3. Town Run Lane (SR 1012) shall be overlayed with a bituminous concrete surface from B to C . Guard rail shall be installed right and left along Town Run Lane "fill" areas greater than 7' vertical . The improvements are to be further described by a VDOT Permit to be issued at the time of the work_ This work shall be done prior to the issuance of the 50'h building permit. 4. Town Run Lane (SR 10 12) shall be overlayed with a bituminous concrete surface from C to D during the phase where the entrance at "D" is constructed. These improvements are to be further described by a VDOT Permit to be issued at the time of the work- 5- ork 5_ An easement shall be established 75' in depth along the South property line E to F. This easement will be prominently shown on the final plat and will restrict construction of homes as well as limiting the clear cutting of trees larger than 4" diameter. 6. A statement shall be added to the plat and covenants for all lots created by this project advising that agricultural uses exist on the South and East, the Ewing Family Cemetary exists within the limits of development, and, wastewater treatment facilities exist or previously existed to the North of this site. 7. The Ewing family cemetery will be set aside as a separate lot with public road access and conveyed, if possible, to the Ewing family with covenants for future maintenance by the Ewing family. 8_ A contribution of $100,000 for construction funding shall be made at the time VDOT implements the construction of a stoplight at the intersection of Stickley Drive and Rte 277. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PROPERT WNER By- Date: yDate: X,YV ^ �� STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To-wit.- The o-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 714"1 day of , 200 b David B_ Holliday. �� Y Y Joyce Q. rJofifernyer NOTARY PUBLIC Commou�p,Ealth of Virginia My commission expires , rn Q Frnirtgc 0,90P/115 Notary Public , l • . ; r J` j � t • �r n1�'','•r,Ci x. tF _... _ .._ itn, ti .,, �.: �`:•. c, \'ti, ��r,•V i _ +.z ,�•�4''t '`. r! ; �.. J .. i1�iA-S}..:i. ���,; \�,r.. �.••e: ,,�.{• , `f•t `. %t,JS, .sem--•,.- Rezoning s v+e rs ! •. jam•. .; \,x a F � ( �( '. ,` \ 4 4j'`,, i � ;` s , Site �f From ,& To RP °fb 105 Acres ` N� �Xi�i`�a � -. • 1 , �, fit., . :..y r F ,p .. ry F�+.E�:45��{{ etey ��� 4 '�'ti 91 * f - rJ rr�iittl�"���'� 7wff `•� ti,, f .,� • - .., lf� '"t'' `� j }�-• f C 2) 4�F <- �y�'S"t`� � k; +� �� �� `!Y+ ei ���+4v,�` � ` � �' � � � lfi�rl ` \rNs j t•, - '. ;\OA �.' _. I � P t � °t�'i 4 � • M f A�..,• ktr f.'?f f � ���i (i•Oli$ ��[WR Ci 1'l4p .. 1l t ii V -cr , .r#• •',`% j f I J� �4 +• f . llS 11•"t'r: .' •R ,f "'�.' a ,•./i ` p' '` }, ,/ ,,•� i `°tail y- Y._•— � .� tFe y't u+ra(f t• hi `//. ` ti 4 ..y 6. -- Pi ;yr Q -r' CSk`f• �,ti,l _ Y.teaair tits Ffu¢ } i.�''• 7amt.ie�(p F7� +ia t -}l ,,{,`i ,A'a �f •�:, 4.A�� f W t(/,' f4 { °'�j�� "Y• G .i .. _. �/.�.'. `''4� t.k,��y y E tq�4'�y.:. __. .s y 'i5 �`�� jl t 3�. ..-lt - �..-_, _ '\``•t. r'7 flf � �_ � ,tf'�•�'\ ✓ r Y-'�{ t �1•�4`�+ `It ��t��` '4� _x _ �. �3�' r' � •JIJy� ,`(` i` f�/ rtf��.GO t,NA � • OAF gilbert w. cliffo d & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Land Planners — Water Quality 16 May 2001 Mr. Steven A. Melnikoff Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 RE: Southern Hills Dear Steve, Hoard of Directors: President: Thomas J_ O'Toole, P.E. Vice Presidents: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland, P.E. Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E. David J_ Saunders. P.E. Directors: William L. Wright Michael A Hammer Thomas W. Price Thank you for your review comments on the Southern Hills Traffic Analysis on May 1, 2001. The first three comments are answered by Memorandum from Mr. John Callow (copy attached). Of note is the supplemental analysis which posts a "Do Not Enter" sign for the created subdivision traffic on Town Run Lane, thus eliminating the increase in "out" traffic at Town Run Lane and Route 277. This change, as suggested by Mr. Jerry Copp, allows the Town Run Lane and Stickely Road intersections with Route 277 to function with a level of service of C or better after build out of the development proposed with normal growth of traffic included. We have reviewed the pavement markings as requested and some improvements to the intersection at Stickley Road are required to properly site the stoplight. We suggest the stoplight control system will be of a temporary nature since this intersection is proposed to shift as the result of the Route 277IAylor Road improvement project or the I-81 Interchange work or both. A reduction in width of the Stickely Drive intersection to channalize traffic and align with the Wendy's entrance seems appropriate. Also, installation of a storm drain extension to widen the Route 277 WSL shoulder on approach to the light is appropriate. Re -striping of this approach to allow a left turn lane and through lane is also appropriate. The Southern Hills developer intends to adjust his proffer to the County to $100,000 to pay for the stoplight and associated work. The impact of the development on the 1-81 and Route 277 interchange is considered by the developer to be outside of the scope of this rezoning. Any rezoning or new development on existing zoned lands in the South Frederick Urban Development area will have an affect on this interchange. This interchange is under current study for improvement and may even be relocated, which is the current plan favored by the County and Town of Stephens City as well as the local business group. The improvements planned by the developer of Southern Hills improves the level of service of the eastern approach to the interchange and requires the maximum resources which are fair, equitable and available to proffer i.e. Stickley Lane extension, Town Run Lane improvement and the stoplight at Stickley Lane and Route 277. This project helps implement the County's comprehensive plan by providing finished building lots within the UDA to assist in stemming the tide of rural area development. 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcliff@mnsinc.com Member American Consulting Engineers Council gilbert w, clifford and associates, inc Page 2 We trust this answer to your comments addresses your concerns. We request your indication to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors that the improvements proposed are beneficial and useful in tragic control while planned final improvements in the area can be studied, funded and implemented. Thank you for your attention to our request. Sincerely yours, gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P. E., is President CEM/kf Enclosure cc: Mr. Evan Wyatt, Planning Director Mr. Dave Holliday, Developer, Southern Hills Mr. John Callow, PHR&A Mr. Kelly Downs, VDOT, Staunton Residency M 4m mm cio irza omcla,rry 14532 Lee Fbad Phone: 703-449-6700 (hantik VA Fax 70311495714 20151-1679 EmailJohn.Qdow@gI;A om T« Chuck Maddox From John Callow, PHR&A Date: May 15, 2001 Ree Response to May 1, 2001 Comments by VDOT Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) has prepared this document in response to comments addressed in VDOT's May 1, 2001 letter regarding the report titled: AA Tr rc Impact Ana: sis of Southern Hills, by PHR&A, dated March 14, 2001. In addition to providing responses to VDOT comments, PHR&A has evaluated a supplemental 2005 build -out scenario to further describe the impacts relating to the proposed Southern Ills development. The following provides responses to each of the review comments included in VDOT's May 1, 2001 letter. 1) VDOT Comment — In the traffic impact analysis, the existing lane geometry for westbound Route 277 traffic at Aylor Road shows two through lanes, the rightmost being a shared through/right lane. A true shared throughInght turn lane has right turning traffic sharing the lane with the through movement This is not the case here. Westbound irafjic in the right lame at this intersection is in a dedicated right turn kne and must turn right either at Aylor Road or in 175 ' art the 1-81 northbound on ramp. Therefore there is one westbound through lane and one westbound right turn lane. This misrepresentation of lane assignments affects the Level of ,Service computations at Aylor Road for the existing traffic (Figure 2), the 2005 background traffic (Figure 4), 2005 build -out traffic scenario OA (Figure 8), and the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #2A (Figure 12). PHR&A Response — PHR&A has attached the following revised figures in order to present accurate lane geometry and levels of service at the intersection of Route 277/Aylor Road: 1) Figure 2 — existing lane geometry and levels of service. Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 2 of 9 2) Figure 4 — 2005 background (includes 54 townhouses & 12.65 -acres retail) lane geometry and levels of service. 3) Figure g — Scenario #1A 2005 build -out (includes Southern Hills plus the 2005 background volumes) lane geometry and levels of service. 4) Figure 12 — Scenario #2A 2005 build -out (includes Southern Hills plus the 2005 background volumes minus the 12.65 -acres retail trips) lane geometry and levels of service. The Route 277/Aylor Road intersection operates with levels of service `D' and `E' during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, with and without the proposed development. Under Scenario #2A (without 12.65 -acres retail trips), the PM peak hour would improve to a level of service `D'. 2) VDOT Comment — In some computatiom it is assumed Route 277 will be five to seven lanes wide in 2005 when the subdivision is built out Although VDOT is performing a preltminmy study to widen Route 277, no money has been appropriated for purchasing the right of way or scheduling consinrchon. In 2005, the only road widening anticipated will be whatever is proffered by this developer. This misrepresentation of number of tragic lanes available affects the level of service computations at Stickley Drive for the 2005 background traffic (Figure 4), the 2005 build -out traffic scenario OA (Figure 8), the 2005 build -out traffic scenario #IB (Figure 10), the 2005 build -out tray c scenario #2A (Figure 12) and the 2005 build- out traffic scenario #2B (Figure 14). PHR&A Response — This issue has been address in the March 16, 2001 and March 19, 2001 memorandums where PHR&A evaluated 2005 build -out conditions with existing lane geometry along Route 277. The following lists each of the build -out scenarios analyzed by PHR&A to -date: • March 14, 2001 report — 2005 Build -out #I A (future geometry) • March 14, 2001 report — 2005 Build -out #1B (future geometry) • March 14, 2001 report — 2005 Build -out #2A (future geometry) • March 14, 2001 report — 2005 Build -out #2B (future geometry) • March 16, 2001 memo — 2005 Build -out (existing geometry) • March 19, 2001 memo — 2005 Build -out (existing geometry) 3) VDOT Comment — The consultant performed manual traffic counts at the intersections of Route 277/Town Run Lane (March 7, 2001) and Route 277/Stickley Drive (March 8, 2001) and computed the AM and PMpeak hour factors These peak hour factors should have been used in their analyses Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 3 of 9 PHR&A Response — Using the computed AM and PM peak hour factors, PHR&A has re -analyzed (HCS 3.2) existing traffic volumes at the intersections of Route 277/Town Run Lane and Route 277/Stickley Drive. Implementing these factors created negligible impacts to existing HCS 3.2 levels of service. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS - 2005 BUH D -OUT CONDITIONS PHR&A has evaluated a supplemental 2005 build -out scenario to further describe the impacts relating to the proposed Southern Hills development. The build -out traffic volumes for this condition were obtained via the following: existing traffic volumes; general traffic growth through 2005 (at a rate of 6% per year); specific background trips associated with a 54 -townhouse development and the trips generated trips by the proposed Southern Hills development. The respective roadway configuration includes all existing lane geometry with a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 277/Stickley Drive. Trip distribution and assignment methodology for this analysis remains consistent with that of the March 14, 2001 traffic impact study. For the purpose of this scenario, PHR&A assumed the intersection of Route 277/Town Run Lane would provide inbound Southern Hills access only. The Route 277/Stickley Drive intersection would continue to provide inbound and outbound access to Southern I-1_ills. Figure SA -1 has been attached to show 2005 build -out ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes along key roadwaysrmtersections within the study area. Figures SA -2 includes the respective build -out lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS 3.2 level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. The . traffic impacts associated with this supplemental build -out scenario are acceptable and manageable. All intersections maintain acceptable levels of service `C' or better for future build -out conditions. Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 4 of 9 No Scale 0 Intersection o LOS = C(C) e R0ut� C(C) at q SITE AM(PM) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement PIMM �i Denotes Two-way Left -turn Lane Movement - A A XA ki1 air Figure 2 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service 5-15-01 Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 5 of 9 Intersection LDS = D(E) A Intersection 7 ,-.CI 4",A". No Scale � C(C) AM(PM) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement Figure 4 2005 Background Lune Geometry and Level of Service 5-15-01 Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 6 of 9 Intersection LOS = D(E) A z� )0 �► VI 1 11 1 -1 -, 91 Intersection T A-114cl �,�. No Scale AM(PM) * Denotes Unsignahzed Critical Movement --I- A -UK ti -1 ,R, Figure 8 2005 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service - Scenario NA 5-15-01 Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Paee7of9 intersection LOS = D(Dr) , V 2171 i ntersiiilon LOS = QQ C'1 Ito waif (C)C � i No Seale C(C) AM(PM) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement PH R8A .t Figure 12 2005 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service - Scenario #2A 5-15-01 Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 8 of 9 1 �a 0 oNo Scale 00 Romeo *"ft757 - (73) 33� �(858) 1 r3 6(23) r8 %30, )yo r (858)46 c r" (59)18 v A U N c�V a 3 E° SITE AM PM Figure SA -1 Supplemental Analysis - 2005 Build -out Traffic Conditions 5-15-01 Chuck Maddox May 15, 2001 Page 9 of 9 Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) *AMWC'C 01"UN P18A Figure SA -2 SITE Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) �, (QU '8"t No Scale AM(PM) A. Supplemental Analysis - Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Servic( 5-15-01 NEWEST COMMENTS FROM G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES gilhert W® clifford associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Land Planners — Water Quality 19 March 2001 9oard of Dimetom: Mr. Charles DeHaven, Jr. Pmsident: Chairman, Frederick County Planning CommissionTbomas.I. 07wle, P.E. 2075 Martinsburg Pike 'v'ice Presidents: Charles li. Maddox. Jr., I'.r.. Winchester, Virginia 2260; Furl R. Sutherland_ P.T. Ronald A. Mislo"skc. RE. RE' Southern [-fills DandJ. Saunders. 1) 1{. birccturs: William L. Wright Dear Chuck, Michael A. I lammer 111omas W. trice Since our February 21" meeting we have generated the attached traffic study using actual site traffic counts and available data. This report has been prepared by Mr. John Callow of Patton Harris Rust & Associates. pc (PHR&A, pc) A Traffic Im act Arra! ysis o .Southern [lois dated March 14, 2001 that documents the present and future traffic conditions along Route 277 east of Interstate 81 with approved and proposed land uses in the vicinity. The study has been prepared in two parts as will be described in this letter. Southern Hills is a proposed single family detached community south of Route 277 with direct access to Town Run Lane. It has been estimated that the community at the earliest would be built -out by the year 2005. As part of the proposed rezoning package, the developer is offering to extend, at his cost, Stickley Drive south and west to connect to Town Run Lane at the beginning of the development of the community_ This allows the future residents of Southern Hills the possibility of using either Town Run Lane or Sticklev Drive to access/egress Route 277. The Part "A" traffic study assesses study area conditions where the VDOT Route 277 improvement project is mplemented as follows: (1) Existing conditions (2) 2005 Background conditions with normal area traffic growth, with and without a by -right retail development located between Town Run Lane and the proposed extension of Stickley Drive (3) 2005 build conditions with current Route 277 intersections and road configurations at Town Run Lane/Aylor Road and at Sticklev Drive (4) 2005 build conditions with Town Run Lane/Aylor Road closed at Route 277. Aylor Road is assumed to be relocated opposite Sticklev Lane in this scenario as well VDOT may close all access at the existing I ntersection adjacent to the Interstate. The study findings are as follows: (1) Existing conditions operate at marginal but acceptable conditions using single intersection analysis techniques. (2) 2005 background conditions with normal area traffic growth and the inclusion of the by -right retail south of Route 277 shows the need for the VDOT Route 277 project that would include a 5 -lane cross section with 2 through lanes in each direction and a continuous left turn lane. A tral-fic signal would be required at the intersection of Route 277 and Stickley Drive. (3) 2005 background conditions with normal traffic growth and without the by -right retail also requires the VDOT Route 277 widening project and warrants a traffic signal at Route 277 and Sticklev Drive. (4) 2005 build conditions (Southern Hills projected traffic is layered on top of baekg�ound conditions) and for all scenarios does not after the levels of service shown in background. The impact of Southern Hills traffic is manageable, within VDOT accepted criteria of level of service "C" or better), with a traffic signal at Stickley Drive. ,,0�,7 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester. Virginia '_'2601 (540) 667-2139 Fax 1540) 665-049, e-mail gwciifl cimnsinc.com i lembe r .-1 mericun ( ,ousalling A)iganeers Colonel/ gilbert w. clifford and associates, inc Page 2 (5) The closing of Town Run Lane intersection is not required except as it conflicts with interchange tr `c (outside the scope of this model). ft is assumed that VDOT programs undenvay will improve .e interchange to operate acceptably. Alternatives for Town Run Lane under Part "A" include leaving Town Run Lane open, closing Town Run Lane or converting to "right in" traffic only, all with the developer improvement of Stickley Drive. The Part "B" traffic study looks at an impact scenario where "Southern Hills" builds out with existing background traffic and with existing lane configurations on all streets at both intersections. This study confirms that Southern Hills traffic is manageable �%Ith the Stickley Drive extension and the addition of a stoplight at Stickley Drive. Consideration of the results of this report has prompted the finding that: (1) Southern Hill's contribution of the extension of Stickley Drive to Town Run Lane allows the redistribution of background and Southern Hills traffic and facilitates the completion of the VDOT widening project earlier than previously possible. A contribution towards the traffic signal will help existing traffic issues as well. (2) The extension of Stickley Drive and a stoplight at Stickley Drive and Route 277 is needed under all growth scenarios regardless of the rezoning of Southern Hills. The Route 277 VDOT project is necessary for the proper function of the roadway system under normal growth conditions. Frederick County needs to continue to promote funding for the Route 277 widening project or as an alternative, 3 below. (3) The Southern Hills contribution of the extension of Sticklev Drive also otfers and guides the potential selection by VDOT of a new south interchange alternative which has been endorsed by business and political leaders in the area. This scenario, depending on when it is built, would shift the need for major improvements to the Stickley corridor and reduce the scope of improvements needed on Route 277 and allow Town Run Lane and Aylor Road to function acceptably. The impact of Southern Hills traffic is manageable with the addition of proffers including a contribution towards stoplight control at Stickley Drive and Route 277 with existing Route 277 lane configurations. fn consideration of the findings, the developer of Southern Hills offers an additional proffer of $25,000.00 to be paid to VDOT when it is decided a stoplight at Stickley Drive is needed under present or future lane configurations at this intersection. 1 look forward to answering any questions you may have prior to the hearing and f have asked Mr. John Callow, P.F. to attend the Wednesday, March 21" meeting to address this issue. Sincerely yours, Z e ord & associates, inc. Maddox, Jr., P.E_, Vice Presi t CEMA T Enclosure cc: Planning Commission Members Evan WN•att, Plannins; Director Jerev Copp, Resident Engineer. VDOT A Tratfic impact Xnalvsis of Southern Hills Located in Stephens Cifw, Virginia PART "A" prepared fir, llollidav Construction Companv 'Y-Gllhert W. Clifford & .associates ?00 V Cameron Street Winchester. Virminia ??GUI prepared by pf Patton Ilarns Rust & associates, pc I•VS3? I-ce Road ChantilIv, Virginia 20151-1671) March I.I. "Ool Report tiuntrnar7 I'his studv conoders the traffic Impacts associated with the proposed Southern [fills development In Stephens City, Vir,,inta The de'eloptnent is to be located south and east of the exisun,, Route 277iTown Run I -ant! intersection and will include _50 single-f'amily detached residential units. Access to the site will be provided via two (2) site-d,i�eways provided alone the east side of Town Run Lane Traffic anaf�5is will be colnplctcd for the existing, 2-005 background and future build -out traffic scenarios 11.1ETHOM)I,()(;1" I'he traffic inrprtcts accornpanyrn.' the Southern Hills developrnertt were obtained throu,,h a sequence ofactivities as the narratives that Follow document. • Calculation oftrip I eneration for Southern Hills, • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects ur the area of impact. • Distribution and assiuMMent of Southern Hills generated trips onto netwoI k. [tic completed road • Anxlvsr; u1 , Zpacity, level of seri ice and queue with the newest � erslon of the hi�_hwav rapacity software. HCS_; ?, for future build -out conditions E\ISTIN(. C ONDITIO.NS AADT (Annual Al,erage Daily Traffic) counts Were provuied by the VDU7 (� rr rnia Department of fransportatron) alonS Route 277. To%sn Run lane and Sticklev Drive Manual A"O :rod I'M peak hour traffic counts were also conducted It the lilt crsel`tlorts of Route 277�Tu%tirt Run Land and Route 277/Sncklew DtlV F'iKure I shoo, the cxnrlrl� AI) 1'(•>vrra.�e Dail% Trips) and ANI and I'N9 peak hour traffic volumes at kev locations along the road network surroundurg the proposed Southern 11111< devrl•Il•rrunt Figure 2 provides tht re,pcctr�-c existinit lane geometry and ANI and MI peak )your levels of" seiNrcc All tl,rtfic count data and IICS -, 2 level ofsenice wo►ksheets are included In the Appendix tiection ofthis repor7 TrAIFIIC IM[MLt Aii.1I%%J\ ul Ilio Noulh�rll f{iil,, pffflcA_ � N1.I17Lh la 2MI t':IeC 1 PHRIA Figure 1 SITE v v v JIL 13►►11 �` {6 (3 )12 w"1t Existing Traffic Conditions f J]J No Sale 3-14-o1 Intersection LOS = B(B) L R, 4x C'(C ) VOW C.� C.� N _ .4op` c) No Scat 2005 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Vo accurateIN depict luture conditions within the study area. I'liRLXC.\ considered all trips associated will, file lollowint, approved but not completed developments O S4 lim nhouses (located to the south alons4 Stickle`, Drive), • 1'.(,; -acre site (located to the south along Stickley Drivel Using the ITE Jai!! (i(vier(r1ina►_r1Joyma/, 61h edit I'ldR 'A has provided Table 1 to summarize the calculated trips associated with the aforementioned developnlcnt< Table 1: • Other Development" Ttip Generation Summar I rt .117 Palk Hour Ph1 Peak Hour Land Ua• ,lmoun( ADT In Out Total In Out rotai SJ 1 nu•nhott%e% ;11 1. t.:1L.v1�ciC'.a1lu i4 anus i '6 =� 1 1 l7( Total S 26 31 2:5 12 37 4711 I112.65-.-o roe i)/ Retail K_'() kcl:,11 117,739 SI: 118 75 191 r72 lit ;'(. x_i7(. Total Its 75 193 372 4113 776 8 37(. The total 200; background traffic conditions vv.ere determined by combinin-, the "other development • ( I'able I ) trip assignments with the existing traffic volumes shown in Fillure I The 2005 condition assumes the extension of Stickley Drive south to Town Run Lane Figure 3 twos ides the total 2005 background _ADT and :\M and P\I peak hour IrafTic volumes :dons, kev roadway:s/intersections within the study area Figure 4 shows the respective 200S backround lane geometry and AM and I'M peak hour le\els of service IICS ; 3 level t>f,;ervice worksheers arc included in the :\ppendix section ofthis report Since the Route •'77!Stickley Drive intersection operates unacceptably under stop-se:n control for thy 21105 analysis vear, traffic sI-_,nalization %vas assumed. In addition_ stinal warrant an,rl\.rs was completed and is provided in the Appendix section of -this report TRIP GENERATION The numhcr of trips produced by and attracted to this Southern I fills site t\cre established using ITL 7► -►1, Ge►►erah-1 .11al►►nd 6th Edition rates. 'Fable 2 shrnas the trip --eneration for the Southctn Hills development I'ahle Z: Southern Hills Ttip Generation Summar - Southern 101% ITE AM Perk Hour Pll Peak Hour Land l.'a Amount ADT ode In Out Total In Out 're -ca _111 tion. I eras 11::J1.111•d Wilt, U.IiA i}{3 157 XX '.ti ' Sl u) Tut„1 46 138 184 157 xx 245 2,51111 T �C Traffic Inlpacr ,1n.11\,1c t11 111c SuulhctTr HMIs 1�LLI�L 1111 March 14 will Rlyc 4 143(60) 695(Kl9) ,6(23) I t e '7 O JIL PHRLA , Figure 3 Total 2005 Background Traffic f:ondition% r NO SC;9C Intersection ■ Elco __ ��. rte. � A.IJ J — k- 11 1 .% C� \' C(C) No Scat Intersection r C(C) TRIP DIS FRIBI A-IQN ANI) TRIP ASSIGNRIENT The distrihulron of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road nets+ork surroundirn_ the proposed site Figure S represents the trip distribution perccnt,►,es into and out of thc Smithern Hills development Figure 6 :lows the respective de\clopment �,enerited \\I and PNI peak hour trips and ADT assienments along the :tudv area road),vav nctNc,„l, ` 2005 BUILD -01 IT CONDITIONS f HR&,.A ha�L: prepared two (2) separue 2005 build -out n-atTic scenarios I he fir -it includes the t, fps ;rssociated with each of the backs~round de\ elopntcnts shox+n on Table I (S4 tosvnhn,and 12.65 -acres of retail) plus those trip; associated with the proposed Southern Ifill, dec,•clopnterl( The second scenario) is identical to the first but docs not include the 1' W; -;►ere background retail development. Within each ,,I the future build -out scenarios. PIIR&A have evaluated tato (2) alternative roadway nettict,ik coril-Wurations The first assumes the ioadwav network as described in the 200 13ack1-11uund section of this report (Stickley Drive extension to roc\,n Run Lane) The second r: identical to the first but includes the -elocation of Aylor Road to the north leg of the Route '77/Stickley Drive intersection BVI I,D-Mj'SCEN,%RIO #I This scenario includes the trips associate with each of the background de%eloprnent, shM%,n on Table 1 (54 townhouses and 12 65 -acres of retail) plus those trips asvwmied kith the proposed Southern Hills development RuarlmaI, Nerit."rk .,i The following assumes the roadurav configuration as described in the 200ti Back,round section of till, report (Sticklev Drive extension to Town Run Lane) Future hudd-out tratiic condui,n: were determined by adding the Southern (fills assigned tarp. (Fi�;rrre ti) to the tot,il '(r(i�, background traffic volumes (Figure :) Figure 7 shows loop build out .ADT and k\l and f"M peak hour tratfic volumes along key roadways:'inter:cctuins cvithul the stud-, arc,i Figure R shows the respective build -out lane geometry and ANI and 1'\1 Peak hour Ic%cic of service All HCS _i 2 level of service ctiorksheets arc nlcludcd in the .Appetldis wci fun of this report Roar/rrat• "Vetn•rrrk B In additu>n to the Stickley Dane southern extension. this analysis assurllcs the tclocation of A, -Om Road to the north let-, of the Route 277/Stickley Drive intersection Figure 9 •hoctis 'tit) huild-out ADT and Alit and I'M peak hour traffic volumes alum, key Pfffl(�A,,Tratl7L 1111P.101111P.10An.il�"� )I �1.ircl, I1 'UnI P.1;FC D UMKA 0 1 I 1 1-2-4 Figure -5 Southern HillsTrip Distribution Percentages 14-01 N South �1t1•5111:11, DUM, & 1 SITE A N will d dd 1 e— 9" I ) South �1t1•5111:11, DUM, & 1 SITE A N v n d dd 1 e— 9" I ) -� c oc n rr-• N�a t- .._ 69(.1.1) tiltL• Dft1C%17 "f South �1t1•5111:11, DUM, & 1 SITE M ffm AM(PNI ) Figure G Southern llills Development -Generated Trips )-14-01 ti A �r No Loom i dd 1 M ffm AM(PNI ) Figure G Southern llills Development -Generated Trips )-14-01 ti tit tip North Silt: I)ri%,!wa% SITE T south PHRA Figure 7 JI1. -Uri\ ctv.iv � � 0 N N N 69(44) x foam (,(()) n` a 45(,42) / 6 ; �ac ��O��i �i� 1604) f '? ' j9 tip 690 4) ^� o N tit tip North Silt: I)ri%,!wa% SITE T south PHRA Figure 7 JI1. -Uri\ ctv.iv � � N N N 69(44) x foam (,(()) �o 45(,42) / �ac j OC � N 690 4) tit tip North Silt: I)ri%,!wa% SITE T south PHRA Figure 7 JI1. -Uri\ ctv.iv � a 69(44) 1 foam (,(()) / 1C 1"otal 2005 Build -out Traffic Conditions - Scenario #lA A *01 P'\ 11 14-ul intersection LOS = C(D) (b)c ft.* 10, Nile I)ri�c�ra� D i TTN" Intersection 1 NO S�:JIc C(C) D-lolcs Un-si,nalized Urmcal Movement Figure 8 2005 Bijild-out Lane Gcomet" and Level of Service -Scenario #lA rfP"� 71066) V _ n 7 69(.3.4) 1)(0) ULMAKA \,wlh Sitc Dnxc%%uv SITE „1,:!l tii[c-D[ wovav (362)311 kJ 16137 5'�♦ (365)l10 "M1► a C 1 h �- 69(44) r` u((1) 7 o � o- 0 y No Scalc fir■ � �31111�11 fir; R712681 i' y a � 1 T 1 J !Figure Total 2005 Build -out Traffic Conditions - Scenario 4113 -1-1-()1 roadl�ay.'intcr�ecnons \kithtn the .tudv area Figure 10 show: the respcclnc build -out lane eometr\, ,Ind AM and P\1 peak hour lc\,cis of service ,all I ICS 1 2 Ick -el of ,er-k•Ice work,heets are Included in the .appendix section of this report BUILD-OU'll S('f'NARI0 02 Fhis scerruio I, Identical to the tint but doles not include the 12 0 -acre ba,_kuround retail development - Romlhvit-r Verirurl:.1 The tirllowi11L ;ts,uittes the roadway configuration as described in the 2005 Back round section of this report (Stickley Dttve extension to Toxin Run Lane) Future build -out traffic conditions were determined by I) adding the Southern Hill,, as,; Z., tnp> (Fi�,ure (�) to the total 2005 backs,round traffic volumes (Figure;); -) ,uhtracting, the trips associated with the 12 6S -acre retail backu,round development Figure I I show. 1_005 build -out A 1)F and AN and I'M peak hour traffic volumes alone key roadwaysllntcl.ectioni within the study arra Figure 12 shows the respectn•c build -out lane eometry and AM and PM peak hour lekels of service ail HCS i' 2 level of service worksheet, arc included in the ,appendix section of this report Remilu'ut• 'Vens-i'Prk ll In addition to the. Stickley Drive southern extension. this analysis asctnnc. the relocation of Avlor Road to the north lull of the Route 277/Stickle", Drive intcrscctu�n Figure 13 shows -p(I� build -out ADT and AM and PN1 peak hour traffic \olutncs along key ►oadways.•`intel,ections within the ,tudv area. Figure. 14 .hoes the Icspccri�e build -out lane comctry .ind AM and PNI peak hour levelsof ser vice 111 H('S , ' lV%cl of service vmrk,heet, arc Included in the :appendix section of this report CONCLUSION HUJILD-01' 1 SCENARIO 01 RuntIrene• Netwilrk . I 'rlre tratliL rrnp,rct, associated with Build -(het Scenario r'I Roadwav \ettvork A arc acceptable ,Ind tnanaveahle All Intersections, except the Route Road intersection'maintain acceptable lekels of ,ervice 'C' or better for future build -out condition, ['lie Route _777/,\vlor Road Intersection operates with Ievel� of D' durm- the 13\1 peak hour \.tiith and V Jthout the proposed development Roonthowv lrrnrtirA R The traffic unhacts asxiciated Ruild-nut Scenario -11 Roadwav \et%.ork B are acceptahle and manageable all intersections maintain acceptable fuel. til ,en Ice '(' or better for fulule build -out condnlorr, Tlallic ImpALl \n.il\v.(if Ihc ti0nlhCtn low 'nil l P u•i' I I? Intersection LOS l (CSC J '` Denotes Una�,nahzed ('ritica! Movement` DI -M&A -1 lllill Figure 10 2005 13uild-out Lane Geometry and Level of Stn ice - Scen,ario tt -1.1_nj 14 3(60) 695(X19 �~ 16(54) ) iuc-Urlk C%vilv U [ nr?," i `U Scale �g�OlKaM Zalb;l 1 s► Y J — 1 1 LI l_1 1 ', Figure I I Total 2005 Build -out Traffic Conditions - Scenario 42A mom .A%I(Ph1) 7c 69(-14) iuc-Urlk C%vilv U [ nr?," i `U Scale �g�OlKaM Zalb;l 1 s► Y J — 1 1 LI l_1 1 ', Figure I I Total 2005 Build -out Traffic Conditions - Scenario 42A mom .A%I(Ph1) ( rRte rSeCtiCl a v V J I rC..- A(A)* lurff: SIC -I)ncc«•ay SITE Sue -Driveway Intersection LOS = C(C) C"} (c)c I � A(AA()J: top nLTf_).ti-A * Denote, Unsipahzcd Critical Rlovernent U I I I.V21 J Figure 12 2{)U,55 Build -out Lane Geometry and level of Service - Scenario 92:1 -14-01 717 78(266) c � N � ■ FIs 69(34) tr N `ollh Site Driveway � tiullfh ILS PHRA FFigure 13 .lI IC-UrI\ c\\ :1\' SITE (3(,,)311 ' 315 � (1yg)5'J'N � n N ,., **A"m 69(44) j tom' 0(0) I r 1�0o v, v ZO Total 2005 Build -out Traffic COUditions - Scenario #213 0M, 4"'" A(A)* r� V Site-Drtt•cn ay "me-uriveway C; J zi Dencxc; [;nsi`_n.tlt/ed (•rittcal Nknement PHRA k Figure W 2005 Build -out Lane Geometry and I.evel of Service - Scenario ft2B ;_14_x)1 Intersection r LOS = C(C) G No Scalc C(C) (C)c C; J zi Dencxc; [;nsi`_n.tlt/ed (•rittcal Nknement PHRA k Figure W 2005 Build -out Lane Geometry and I.evel of Service - Scenario ft2B ;_14_x)1 E UILD-fIr';'I 92 i Romljwq N riewrh ,-I The tratlic imilmcls associated with Build-OLd Scenario ;�2 RoadxvaN- Network A are acceptable and manageable. All intersections maintain acceptable levels of ser%ice -C* or better tibr future build -out conditions Ronrlwut- .Velnwrk R The traffic impacts associated with Build -Out Scenario 42 - Roadm ar Nox%.ork 13 are acceptable and nl:rrla0eable All intersection: maintain acceptable levels ot'service 'C' or better ti)r bate build -out conditions PfIRA.k Trmfic Inrp:rc-t :\rialuu ul lhr 5uulhcrn 11111, 11:IrLh 14. `001 Pats 1 v APPENDIX VOLUME INPUTS FOR WARRANT ANALYSIS SHEETS 2005 BA CK(;ROI'ND NVITH 12.65 -ACRE: RETAIL. SITE Southern I fills -Route 277 R Stickler Drive 11 %JOR S 1 RFET MINOR STREET Hour o1 day Route 277 Sticklev Drive Time tict!m ER *%D NR/SB i 12 10 I'\ 1 '77 ti•i1 21i(1 1:00 11\1 701 7(,1 231 2:00 P\1 WIC) nt,i _I) 1 00 PNI 'W( 766 1:(1(1 PM tl I SX 1 271 5:00 P\' );{ 10:7 11,) 6:00 N\ 1 -87 7 f1(I 1'\1 70; SAM 1'\1 i<)\ 64,) _'011 `)(11011\1 166 ;1)7 1_- 10:110 1'\ I _III 0" 76 11 1)01'\1 I`li IS`I IS 12:1)(1 \\i 6i 117 ; '.00.a\i �I. 101 II 7.11(1,\\I S: 11h 16 1 1111 AN I 111' f'),I I S(1UANI 2S7 14 S7 6:0O:\\1 176 t3cl 566 90 41tl 1111 91 900 \\I ::(1 54i 66 10oo \\I 'gin 1W ;I Z065 RACEGROIIND "IT" 12-65--1(-RES RCT:\11. SITE .t.11K:u liIiI, - R,nl:c" I.ct:cnJ: \L\ - ALUOIt Ml - mlN111t •\I'I'lUml I I 13-H1)III,\PPR(hU 11% N- KE I I I II'R A1'111((),u I I(t,\ 1 'Ihlcrtnulc.lu>m-, MOR 1) li••.n. 1 h,;n.11-K 111\(1R 1 \\'ar-im Nurniter ItY Lit. •, Will ul J,n I It Ilnlrlk w ! It 111 \I1�11 \1':rr rl l 1211n P\1 IfiI - '60 11 I.W 1'M 114 ), .;•1 It 2.00 I'M 12'11 .U3 Ii _.noP\1 I4-1 2:; It IIHII'M !h.1` 171 II 5-001'tl 19.11 B B B frl4 B , V[I ' 00 1'\l x III) i'\f 11' 1 1!�: _ —" 1:5 100 R g ').UO I'M '6 1 )2 MA M 00 r%1 1,1 76 MA II IHII'hi .1I I; N I200AM IK' 13 N I On AM :51 I I N 1)O A\t :7 11 N 00Ah) `27 16 N hl MA h1A N 5 00 A h1 7 (H► •\h1 K.00 AM NO I X 71. 11;11 —; ? 1)t, 82 MA MA MA MA %] s 1f�` llti• 7�;I1 1110 WHO 75 \leets N'arrsnt: Hcli'mrd \Ismsnum \ olunlcc \ f s +(10 1511 I.ct:cnJ: \L\ - ALUOIt Ml - mlN111t •\I'I'lUml I I 13-H1)III,\PPR(hU 11% N- KE I I I II'R A1'111((),u I I(t,\ 1 'Ihlcrtnulc.lu>m-, MOR 1) li••.n. 1 h,;n.11-K Warrant: 8 - \\'ar-im Para It !t It It H ); It • Il II 1; i; It H , it ]t B F3 B 9 A B B B 1i � B B B frl4 B , V[I M A NN 1. , N N N . N N N N N y N N N - N Y N MA MA MA B MA AVIA . B MA B 11 NIA It %IA MA h1A N MA x , 1 Fc 1 1• s %] s 1f�` llti• 7�;I1 1110 WHO 75 1211 (11) VOLUME INPCITS FOR WIWARRA,1T:1NALYMS; SHEET' 21)(15 BACKGROUND W/O1;T 12.65 -ACRE RETAIL SITE southern Hills - Route 277 K Stickle+• I)rit.c MAJOR STRFET MINOR STRE:E Ilour of da` Route 277 '% ickle% Urine l•iuic Bcz-tla ER I1 00 \M -;'IX 1:00 1'\1 101 _'.Ut) I'\I rsll': 116 i 11t) i'1[ 7)i X66 111 656 117 5:(10 P\ _ t) RXX I :.t 6101'\1 silo 7()() I ;R 7 00 11\1 70; 656 142 8'110 1'\ I ;9l "6 , 17 4 11(1 I'\ ryq 1 100 P \ 1 10 174 12:00:1\I f,S III q 06 1:00 A\T IR1' _Y7 Mo !i 0:00 76 642 :v 7.1)(1 : \ \ : ISO; R I') X.IlII :\ \ I 1 111 1 (1(1 f+h 4, 01) :\ \ I : ili —N(t i 5011(1 •\\I �g1, 1;? 1; „•:,, •.t:r ! I. k - i:utrc ” C 1,:1 I )r.N: \Iccls %%arrrnu \(1 ILS 1 \I/ 1 Fs \ 1.S• 1 1'.N' Required \Ltnmum Volume% SIH) ?50 400 600 150 75 1211 MI 1 r_cnd� MA MAJOR \I'PR/-)A( tl \11 AI'1•RI)A( I I 11 - 80'101 AF'I'Ro A( 11.1, N \1.11III-14 AI'1'RO A( 11(1\i Mocrmmcdueinr \Il:ll 1) l��nrr� J.b,wJ i -K �F\1(lit %114( )K I Nn:rbcrof l-anc, ILnrr o: Jj% K1v.:; aril:, II. ; N;ulant K I mte Ilc!!m 14 N ; \ it "It Warrent I A arr:mt ' Pan I Pan ? \\'s'r:ua `) Warrant I I I 1 (11) ANI 115.1 99 k1A N NIA 14 17 1111 P\I 1491) 1 �1t MA B \1A It • 10111'M 1 116 \1A Il MA It • 1.110 PM I i 7< I(II _ NIA It AIA Il ' IH) I'V I i61 I I % AL1 it MA It 100 1'\I 1 fit MA \IA 11 SiNII'M IKl: 158 B B MA B 600 PM 165;f 142 MA B MA B . 7:00 P\l 1 :hl III MA B MA B H 00 P\I W ! _ `M MA B BNA B 9 00 1'\I 706 (11 MA N MA N In0OP\1 ;4.1 _ 5? MA N MA N 1 1 00 1'M 'HJ N N- K N 1 2:00 A M 17(, 146 a 7 N N r}. N y N N N . 1.01) -\\1 2.011 AM I K N N. N N (11) A\1 'I'+ 11 N N N N ?90 15 N N: N N 77Y :`► MA .. MA MA MA IMIX 1 '9`1 52 66 M. A MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MOO. 1110 '.6 MA MA MA MA MA NIA MA \1A 1000AM 69: \F.\ \ h1A _V \Iccls %%arrrnu \(1 ILS 1 \I/ 1 Fs \ 1.S• 1 1'.N' Required \Ltnmum Volume% SIH) ?50 400 600 150 75 1211 MI 1 r_cnd� MA MAJOR \I'PR/-)A( tl \11 AI'1•RI)A( I I 11 - 80'101 AF'I'Ro A( 11.1, N \1.11III-14 AI'1'RO A( 11(1\i Mocrmmcdueinr \Il:ll 1) l��nrr� J.b,wJ i -K :\ Tritlic Impact-\nalvsic of Southern Hills Located in Stephens Chit,., Virginia PART "B" prepared liar- Hollidav Construction Companv '%C:ilhert W. Clifford & .-Associates 'Ut) V. Cameron Street Winchester Virginia 2260 1 prcparcd by Pit Patton Ilarris Rust & Associates, lic 111532 Lee Road (:hantilly, Vircinia klarch I.I. -10ol PI f pv�t .t MAmnn4cx1ram"es"r" 14532 LeefbA 111u %(r34a9b-JC i?art,L. 1.AI .�v .•33444677.1 205f1 -1E79 EjnL; Jcrr,©rove corj Toe Holliday Construction. LLP From Jahn Calltrw, PIiR&A Date: k larch 19, 2001 Re: Southern Hills - Existing Traffic plus Development Tragic Patton Han is Rust & Associates (P}IR&A) has prepared this document to provide a supplemental build -out scenario for the report titled. .a 7►rrf�r: /n���c�r! ft,x,/t!,•iS- rf Snrrrh�r�l_Hi/1.%, by PHR&A, dated March 2, 2001- This scenario examines a build -out condition that includes only the existing traffic volumes and the Southern Hills development traffic. The proposed condition assumes the extension of Stickley Drive south to Town Run Lane. From the March 2. 2001 traffic impact analysis, Figures I and 2 are provided to show the existing traffic volumes and levels of service/lane geometry, respectively. along the existing roadway net%vork The Southern Hills development -generated trip assignments (included as I- figure G in the March 2, 2001 report) are provided as Figure 3. The trips shown in figure ; were then added to the existing traffic volumes shown in Figure I to determine the "existing plus Southern [fills" build -out scenario. Figure 4 shoes existing plus Souther Ifills" build -out ADT and AM and P31 peak hour traffic volurncs along key rL,adwayslintersectIons within the study area. Figure 5 shows the respective build -out Lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. All 1 ICS 3 2 level of service and sinal warrant worksheets are attached to the back of this memorandum. PHR Figure 1 %oft 110(46) �S� )� } tip N N SITE i7.14; f'] N N C j I L (30) t (6SO)365 (35)t wO% Existing Traffic Conditions J } No Scalc UUM Akl(r'M) 1.ntPrcnr�tir�n a aw.r uva.arvrr LOS = B(B) V V 404. los"U�� C(C) ................................................................................................. ..� A(A)A 1 No 5calc J Figure 2 Existing Lane Geometry and Leve! of Service -20-01 Site-DnVCXV• Iv T No Scallc mi ,�bl(P1i1) PTUVa 'k Figure 3 Southern Mills Development -Generated "1 -rips -?U-01 C� 1 i iz x M rzs� riz�J�i®rte+ 6 N � N O Z 69(44) 9(iO �P 1� % 69(44) Le—" 0(0) rr fes. �(46) i(644 5� �~ 14(49) � Q O N er Sire-Drivew av SITE south Site -Driveway b� � n 69(44) 0(0) 1� No Scale ��� 31331 rr 6 3(6i �y J -ff-wr X-" P -A ANI( Ph1) rtl ivi J Figure 4 Buiid-out Traffic Conditions - Existing plus Southern Hills 3-'0-01 e Intersection LOS = B(C) rr� W� DLTI ' A. wOno C(C) C.� Site- Driveway U No Scale —,�Xx —�v J�w4lolp A AM(P.10) * Denotes l:nsignalized Critical Movement Denotes F%%.O-%%av Left -turn Lane Movement —i iuVl-i & Figure 5 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service 3-20-01 VOLUME INPUTS FOR WARRANT ANALYSIS SHEETS EXISTING l'RAFFIC PLUS SOUTHERN HILLS DEVELOPMENT TRIPS Southern Hills - Route 277 & Sticklev Drive MAJOR STREET MINOR S'('RFET I Flour of day Route 277 Stickley Drive lime Begin EB WH \a/SB 11-00AM 478 17; g5 12:001 M C._'i 61t) III 1:00 PN 1 560 559 100 2:00 Pnl ag7 78; 3:00 P:I -�F 1Ii' 100 4:00 P\I ('49 5:00 P \ 1 6:00 P\1 h3(. 68 122 7.00 P\1 5t;2 1m) 8.00 P\1 47S 477 85- i9:00 9:00P%1 21)2 '(p ;) 10:00 Ml 161 294 y; 11.00 PIN NO I tG a1. 12:00,\\I 1:00 :\A1 .16 75 7 2:00 AM .47 73 7 3:00 A\1 69 112 I l .taro AM %)1 148 1; N3 6:00 .k \ 1 1 Ig 5? 2 49 7.00 AM 406 GGG („ 8:00 AM : 7? SGi) 5.1 9:00:'1\i-9 459 a3 10.00 A\1 217 1 =55 1 1:1 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS I \IS TING TRAFFIC PLUS SOI THERS HILLS DEVE1,011MEN 1 I-Rll's �✓c:llcrn i!iar. - R:•..._ -- .i `Lc61., I);.�� \lcctc Warrant: V0 \ Fos M) \T" 1 1.,%' \ t ti Rrquirrd Minimum Volumes _5141 750 100 601) 151) 75 120 60 I.cgcnd: NIA — MAJOR A VPROAt I I Ml = M1NON APPKOA( 11 B —110711 APPROACI Iti N — Nf:I'1 I11 R APPIM \t l l()%l 'Docuninul usiv \ll 1( 1) rw cr, 4-6.tnd 1-8 \I \)Ou I MINOR I \um!xrul I ones !hour of d %V=all: x FIllli Beall: I •) 1t. l l \ 11111 \\ alrilllt I Warlaw. 2 Pan I I,dll WxTam I) Warrant I I 11.00 Ak1 •,�.{ — 85 NIA B b1A 13 -� 12:00 1'\1 1 ?40 111 kl:\ B MA B 1 00 I'\1 1 1 1 •% 100 M A B h1.1 U 2.00 1'M •" )5 MA 13 MA li 00 I'M I L'° _ 100 MA Il MA 11 4-00111.1 I "!J _ 115 VIA 13 NIA H 5:001'\1 I' 1 _ 136 MA., B MA B 0 00 I'M I ^; _ 122 MA D MA :B 7 0)1'\1 S 12 _ 100 MA ...,. _ :.... .. B . .. {v14.,. _:.. B 8:00 PM 951 x5 MA B MA. - B MA :: N MA N 10:001'M 1i1 -- 45 N N N ' N 1 1 00 11\11 ; i '0 N N N.: N — 121K) AM 14 9 N N N N 1:00 AM I,! 7 ::.;N :::.::.:... :._... N IV N _ 2.00 AM_ t' i 7 :. Iy.; .. N N N (NI AM !81 11 N: N N N l: " 1 + 5i)1) A.M 01I 318 MA N MA N 6.00 AM K10 •10 MA: `MA:.: MA MA 7'00 A M 107_' 63 MA !MA MA MA ` 8.00 Ant '116 5.1 %IA NIA MA MIM 900 AM -37 43 titA N MA \t•\ 10.00A\i i'/' 1.1 .lA N \1A N \lcctc Warrant: V0 \ Fos M) \T" 1 1.,%' \ t ti Rrquirrd Minimum Volumes _5141 750 100 601) 151) 75 120 60 I.cgcnd: NIA — MAJOR A VPROAt I I Ml = M1NON APPKOA( 11 B —110711 APPROACI Iti N — Nf:I'1 I11 R APPIM \t l l()%l 'Docuninul usiv \ll 1( 1) rw cr, 4-6.tnd 1-8 PREVIOUS COMMENTS FROM G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES U.W Clifford css Cres, 'Inc 1/ ari.i tris To: Mr Evan Wyatt, Planning Director CC: Mr David Holliday From: Charles E. Maddox, Jr PE Date: 2/1/01 (rev from 1/1/01) Re: Southern Hills, Staff Issues The following are the requested applicant responses to staff comments of Dec22. 1,2000. Responses are in italic and under the staff comment, for:: ease of review and reference � Staf believes that the applicant should adequately address the ll*ng.issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Coissi®n prior a recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors thisro osah" P P The applicant should demonstrate the current Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections of Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive with Fairfax. Pike, and the future LOS conditions assuming the build -out of this project. The intersection in question is scheduled by VDOT .to become the Prima y intersection on Rt277 East of I-81 . It will support traffic from the relocated Aylor Road as well as Stickley Drive. Further , it is VDOT's plan as presented in their Public Hearings on the Rte 277 design, to extend Stickley Drive to Town. Run Lane, thus allowing contolled access to Town Run Lane from Rte 277 and the I-81 Interchange.It is obvious that VDOT plans to provide stoplight control to the subject intersection when the upgrade is perfoamed. Also, the (540) 667-2139 (540) 665-0493. fax 1 February 1, 2001 4) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission if plans exist to provide for traffic signalization at the Stickley Road intersection with Fairfax Pike, and indicate when the improvements will occur, who is responsible for the cost of the improvements, and if those commitments are planned to be incorporated into the proffer statement for this project. See applicants reply in 1 above. The applicant does not voluntarily * proffer improvements at this intersection for the reasons stated. 5) The applicant should address the concerns expressed by the Fire and Rescue Service division regarding viable solutions for emergency vehicle access and regarding the proposed monetary proffer to offset impacts to fire and rescue capital facilities costs. The applicant has received an updated reply for comments from Chief Greg Locke of the Stephens City Fire Company, stating that his Department now, does not object to the rezoning after review of the Stickley Drive plan proposed by proffer. With regard to proffer amount, the applicant proffered the amount agreed to by the. Board of Supervisors with the Top of Virginia Builders Assoc., namely 50$ of the recently updated proffer model. In the case of Fire and Repscue, this constituted an amount many tames previpus proffers made by the applicant. Apparently, the DVpt of Emergency Servic¢s desires a 100% proffer which raises the proffer from $15 to $880 per lot (500-*+) . Tie, proffer r*de is $446.00 per home created and Ig consitkd ,ped appropriate by the applicant. Y January 1, 2001 9) The applicant should advise the Planning Commission how they plan to advise future lot purchasers of on- site and adjoining property issues including the Ewing family cemetery, the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, and the lagoon sites owned by the Town of Stephens City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Proffers have been added to notify homeowners by plat and covenants of the nature of adjacent Ag Districts and the wastewater treatment functions and their position around the Southern hills subdivision. Additional setbacks and tree cutting provisions have been added after consultation with neighbors. Also, the GDP has been revised to move the South project entrance North on Town Run Lane in order to satisfy property owner concerns to the South. 5 Harry Stimpson, III Rte.], Box 173-C Boyce, VA 22620 December 22, 2000 Frederick County Planning Department Attn: Mr. Evan Wyatt 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Southern Hills Rezoning Dear Mr. Wyatt, This letter will serve to show my intent to provide by way of dedication the 50' right of way, including temporary and permanent easements as necessary, to construct the Stickley Drive extension as shown in concept on the attached plan. I am the owner of the subject property. It is understood that I may make adjustments in line and grade during the design phase of the project to properly suite development of my B-2 zoned property but understand that the alignment will generally be in accord with the alignment shown I also have an understanding with Mr. David Holliday that he will pay for all improvements necessary within the right of way so dedicated. Please advise if you will need anything additional in this regard Sincerely, /" J Harry Stimpson, III Cc: Mr. David Holliday t� L no Drive \ OR to sion ' a Iola � P f' Frederick County, Virginia Rezoning Application Materials And Impact Analysis Statement For The Dorothy Carbaugh Estate Property SOUTHERN HILLS Opequon Magisterial District October 2000 Prepared by: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street 1.ourth Floor - Winchester Towers Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540-667-2131 Fax- 540-665-09493 E-ma'L % -cliff cc�mnsincxom Impact An2lysis Introduction The site of Southern Hills is the Dorothy Carbaugh Estate Property located immediately south of the former Stephens City Wastewater Treatment Facility and the Frederick County Wastewater Treatment Facility. The site is accessed by way of Town Run Lane which has a direct connection to Route 277 at the interchange with Interstate 81. A portion of this site has been included sinde the 1980's in the comprehensive plan urban development area (UDA). Recently upon recommendation of the comprehensive plan subcommittee of the Planning Commission, the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission and action by the Board of Supervisors, this site has been deemed to be entirely within the urban development area Site Suitability The site is mostly.cleared as shown on the attached photograph. A description of the property is contained in Deed Book 163 Page 274 described as PIN 85-A-138. The site rises from a low elevation along Stephens Run of 685 elevation to a high of 765. The site can best be described as gently rolling with some steep slopes near the stream channel. A flood plain exists along the north and east side of the project. Ample utilities exist within close proximity of the site. The site is underlain by Martinsburg Shale characteristic of other lands within the urban development area of Frederick County. Surrounding Properties The site is bounded by undeveloped land along Interstate 81 on the west, farms on the south and east, and the developed urban development area on the north including former wastewater treatment facilities, as well as a townhouse development and emerging commercially zoned land. The. site can be adequately screened and buffered from all adjacent uses. Lands to the southeast are intensively farmed and require consideration of a buffer of some type. Traffic Traffic impacts are a substantial issue in this proposed rezoning. The site will generate 2,500 trips per day by the proffered density utilizing the ITE study. The intersection with Route 277 has been designated as a problem intersection requiring substantial improvements both as Route 277 is widened and also when Interstate 81 is improved. The Route 277 improvement project by VDOT calls for the relocation of the Aylor Road intersection near Interstate 81 to a point east which aligns with Stickley Drive. This activity will "take" the Wendy's restaurant and result in a relocation of Aylor Road to this new intersection. The improvement of the Interstate 81 interchange will close the Town Run Lane intersection and provide for access through Stickley Lane to the new Aylor Road intersection with Route 277 (see attached plan). A proffer of this rezoning is to provide the right-of-way and initial road improvements necessary to establish this traffic pattern. This activity will eliminate the traffic impact on the Route 277 stoplight at Town Run Lane. It also affords the opportunity to revise traffic patterns in the area which may assist in the State study for Interstate access locations along the Interstate 81 corridor. Recent meetings with State officials has indicated a relocation of the Route 277 interchange to a point south and lining up with the new Stickley Drive access road could be a better solution than improvement of the existing interchange. A study of this alternative has been agreed to by VDOT at the time 81 design studies are performed. A full tragic analysis of this situation will be prepared at the time of master development plan approval for comment by VDOT and local planning officials. Road improvements will be based on needs established by this traffic analysis. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment The site can be served by gravity sewer extension to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority facilities located to the north. The 250 houses on this site will generate approximately 50,000 gallons per day of wastewater based on the monthly average water usage in the urban development area. As of the September operating history of the Parkins Mill Facility, the plant is operating at 65% capacity allowing space in the plant for this project. There are no known transmission line issues which would prevent adequate service to this project. Water Supply Water service would be extended along Town Run Lane to this site. The water demand for this project would be 50,000 gallons per day and there are no known deficiencies that would prevent adequate service from being provided to this project subject to FCSA comment. Site Drainage Site drainage would go directly to the Stephens Run stream channel. Along the way stormwater management . facilities would be constructed to meet siltation control and stormwater peak flow discharge requirements of the County and the State. The site storm system would be designedto VDOT standards but that there are no unusual issues surrounding drainage that would affect utilization of the site. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities The solid waste would be handled by contract hauler or by owner access to dumpster locations provided by the County. Each home would generate approximately 12 lbs: of solid waste per day for a total of 1.5 tons per day created by this project. Recent consultation with County officials would indicate that there is no limitation to landfill facility dw would prevent thisproject from being serviced. i Historic Sites and Structures There are no known historic sites or structures on this site. Impact on Community Facilities Frederick County's capital impact model has been run to reflect the impacts associated with this project. Proffers have been created that intend to mitigate the associated impacts as presented. A copy of the impact model output is attached. The proffer amount of S4,9 10.00 is 50% of the predicted total impact in all categories. Summary The following Impact Analysis Statement is provided in summary form for the property known as "Southern Hills The property is located on Town Run Lane, south of VA Route 277, near Stephens City, Virginia. The parcel to be rezoned totals 105 acres. The parcel is currently zoned Rural Area (RA). The requested rezoning is to change the current 105 acres of RA to Residential Performance (RP) zoning. The property is shown on the attached generalized land use development plan. The Impact Analysis Statement for Southern Hills is prepared as required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for rezoning approval of the property. The model projects a negative fiscal impact. The owners/developers have proffered an amount that will offset the projected negative fiscal amounts projected by the Frederick County model. There are residential units proposed as part of this rezoning request. The property will support approximately 250 homes. The property is planned with interconnected subdivision streets that connect at two points with Town Run Lane. An extension of Stickley Drive is planned and proffered to mitigate traffic impacts. The property proposed for RP zoning is located in the Urban Development Area (UDA) pursuant to recent action by the Board of Supervisors and within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Analysis of environmental and physical characteristics of this property to be rezoned indicated that there is opportunity for development as envisioned for the residential uses. Environmental features that limit the development are identified and incorporated for design consideration. Public sewer and water service are available to the property. Natural gas and electric service are available to the property. The rezoning of the 105 acres of the Southern Hills property fits within the guidelines of present planned policy for the area. REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUINTY, VIRGI NU The following information shall be provided by the applicant. All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Dent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Dave Holliday Construction Inc Telephone: 540-667-2120 Address: 205 N_ Cameron St. Winchester VA 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: William H. Herrell Telephone: 540-869-4235 Address: 1680 Marlboro Road Stephens City, VA 22655 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Telephone: G. W_ Clifford & Associates, Inc. 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deep of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request fall disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned. William H. Herrell 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural, „ B) Proposed Use of the Property: Residential Single Family Subdivision 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER 85-A-59 USE A cultural ZONING RA 85-A-60 Agricultural RA 85-A-131 Agricultural RA 85-A-137 Residential RA 85 -A -137D Residential RA 85 -A -137E Residential RA 85-A-139 A cultural RA 85-A-141 Local Gov't RA 85-A-142 Local Gov't RA 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). South of Ste hens City, east of Interstat 81: 0.8 miles south of Route 277 Fairfax Pike on the east side of Route 10I 2 Town Run Lane 2 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the pioposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 85-A-138 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: 10. Zoning Change: requested. O e uon Ste hens City Stephens City Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School: Sherando R. E. Aylor_ Middletown List the acreage included in each new zoning category being Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 105± RA RP 105±Y Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following ilnformation should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family home 250 Townhome 0 Multi -Family 0 Non -Residential Lots 0 Mobile Home 0 Hotel Rooms 0 Office Retail Restaurant 0 I 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Warehouse Other 0 0 n I t2. Signature: 1 (we)_ the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Owner(s): 14 a Date:-�Q Date: Date: 6--)3-0D Date: Dave Holliday Rezoning I Tax I.D. Number Name and Address 85-A-59 Mary Virginia Stickley Estep c/o Robert M. Bushong 14502 St. Stephens Place Midlothian, VA 23113 85-A-60 W William H. & Shirley A. Hewell 1680 Marlboro Road Stephens City, VA 22655 85-A-131 Ritenour Farm LP c/o .Mary C. Ritenour 514 Peace & Plenty Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 85-A-137 Henry F. Kent & Joyce E. Myers 625 Town Run Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 85 -A -137D William L. & Elizabeth N. Ramey 824 Peace & Plenty Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 85 -A -137E William L. & Elizabeth N. Ramey 824 Peace & Plenty Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 85-A-139 Gary L. Scothorn & Stephen P. Scothorn & Dennis A. Scothorn 506 Ewings Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 85-A-141 Frederick — Winchester Service Authority P.O. Box 43 Winchester, VA 22604 85-A-142 Stephens City Town of PO Box 250' Stephens City, VA 22655 tepheps PROJECT -,AREA SCALE M �t�5o�l Cloys ''a ° �►r. MG/M. ac -2 �� �,�-2 0,� Q �-5 - �-, Coven ���'l. ��c X09 �;�Go•te lit, in;1;oi . SEoI &8 At:4i r��n�l dal (2.25 5;cl �r �� Uti't ►�'ot'1 .'vol , a�—. rte. .�D 25 lbs. pep O-------0- 4' -t—I Ste. ' 12TE.1012 vi ! n 1 '`� �CS-4 S/OAC.°; ��`' sq* 50 (C,S- /S/0,0e -T`;'IICAL 5EC i ION (FINGER Q4,W) P201? QAMP 14' x i;2° BI UMINOU5 CONCQE7'� 845 E COU125E TYPE H-3(0 `A,,I TH' 8t Tu,WiNOLi5 CONCQE TE BINDN COCQ5E YPE h'-2 l40 LAS. PER 5q, YD, 6 a1TUMINOU5 CONCRETE 5Ur?FACE COUQ5E (TYPE ,-3 r 80 L85, P`Q, `gip• 30' QOA DVVA� - L t23. CO �i I)cmp A—i C^d L. • • 7 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAY: 540/665-6395 M y MORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director RE: 2001 Planning Commission Bylaws DATE: June 5, 2001 As you know, staff has been directed to complete a comprehensive review of the Planning Commission Bylaws. Staff accomplished this task and has conducted two discussions with the commission to review the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission identified specific issues that warranted consideration during the April 4, 2001 discussion, and reviewed those items during the May 16, 2001 discussion. The Planning Commission directed staff to present the final document for consideration and approval at the next available meeting. Please find attached the 2001 Planning Commission Bylaws. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider this information for final resolution. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS County of Frederick, Virginia (adopted June 20, 2001) ARTICLE I -AUTHORIZATION 1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick Count-, and in accord with the provisions of Section 15.2-2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Frederick County Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission." ARTICLE II -PURPOSE 2-1 The primary purpose of the Commission is to advise the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and to carry out all duties and functions described by the Code of Virginia, as amended. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP 3-1 The membership of the Commission shall be determined by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as specified in Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick Countv. Methods of appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick CORM. ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS 4-1 Officers of the Commission shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The chairman and vice-chairman must be voting members of the Commission. The secretary shall be a member of the Commission or a county employee. -1- 4-2 Selection 4-2-1 The officers shall be elected by the voting members of the Commission at the first meeting of the calendar year. 4-2-2 Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor at the first meeting of the calendar year. Elections of officers shall follow immediately. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire voting membership shall be declared elected. 4-3 Duties 4-3-1 The Chairman shall: 4-3-1-1 Preside at meetings. 4-3-1-2 Appoint committees. 4-3-1-3 Rule on procedural questions. A ruling on a procedural question by the chairman shall be subject to reversal by a two-thirds majority vote of the members present. 4-3-1-3 Report official communications. 4-3-1-4 Certify official documents involving -the authority of the Commission. 4-3-1-5 Certify minutes as true and correct copies. 4-3-1-6 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission. 4-3-2 The Vice -Chairman shall: 4-3-2-1 Assume the full powers of the chairman in the absence or inability of the chairman to act. 4-3-2-2 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission Chairman. 4-3-3 ` The Secretary shall: 4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings. -2- 4-4 4-5 4-3-3-2 Ensure that the minutes of all Commission meetings are recorded. 4-3-3-3 Notify members of all meetings. 4-3-3-4 Prepare agendas for all meetings. 4-3-3-5 Maintain files ofall official Commission records and reports. Official records and reports may be purged in accordance with applicable state codes. 4-3-3-6 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public meetings. 4-3-3-7 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the Commission. 4-3-3-8 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and functions of the Commission. Term of Office 4-4-1 Officers shall be elected for a one-year term or until a successor takes office. Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the Commission. In such cases, the newly elected officer shall serve only until the end of the calendar year or until a successor takes office. Temporary Chairman 4-5-1 In the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from any meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members a temporary chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice- chairman. ARTICLE V -COMMITTEES 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose. In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose for each committee. Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or committee members on committee appointments. Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or citizen volunteers. -3- 5-5 The chairman and vice-chairman shall be ex -officio members of every committee. ARTICLE VI - MEETINGS 6-1 Regular meetings shall be held at the time and place set by the Commission at the first meeting of each calendar year. 6-2 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and publication by the secretary. 6-3 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days before the meeting. 6-4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for Closed Sessions held in accordance with the provision specified under Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 6-5 Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. ARTICLE VII - VOTING 7-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or motion made unless a quorum is present. 7-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting. ARTICLE VIII - OPERATING RULES 8-1 Order of Business 8-1-1 Call to Order 8-1-2 Consideration of Minutes 8-1-3 Committee Reports 8-1-4 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda 7� 8-1-5 Public Hearings 8-1-6 Public Meetings g-1 -7 cussv L TlasV liJiions 8-1-8 Other 8-1-9 Adjournment 8-2 Minutes 8-2-1 The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting. The Chairman and Secretary shall sign all minutes following approval by the Commission certifying that the minutes are true and correct. The minutes shall not be made available to the public until they are approved by the Commission. 8-3 Procedures 8-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures. 8-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite recommendation is made. If a motion has been made and defeated, additional, different motions may be made concerning the item under consideration. 8-3-3 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures: 8-3-3-1 Report by County Staff 8-3-3-2 Presentation by Applicant 8-3-3-3 Citizen Comment 8-3-3-4 Rebuttal by Applicant 8-3-3-5 Discussion by Commission 8-3-3-6 Motion and Action by Commission 8-3-4 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia, 1950. as amended, or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the Chairman may allow public comment. -5- 8-3-5 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information after the staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-6 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting maybe made part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the Commission and are to be kept on file by the secretary. Such items need not be made part of the published minutes. 8-3-7 Public Hearings 8-3-7-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which hearings are required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or by the Code of Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and notifications provided as required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 8-3-7-2 The Chairman may establish special rules for any public hearing at the beginning of said hearing. These rules may include limitations on the time of staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-7-3 In addition to those required by law, the Commission may hold public hearings on any matter which it deems to be in the public interest. In such cases, the public hearings shall follow all procedures described for public hearing in these bylaws. 8-3-8 Tabling 8-3-8-1 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to table agenda items if any one of the following situations occurs: A) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. B) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Frederick County. C) Insufficient information has been provided for the agenda item. D) Issues or concerns that arise during formal discussion of the agenda item warrant additional information or study. E) The applicant provides the Frederick County Planning Department with a written request to table the agenda item. F) The Frederick County Planning Department is advised of an emergency situation that prevents attendance by the applicant. G) The applicant fails to appear at the meeting in which the application has been advertised to appear. 8-3-8-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from a scheduled Planning Commission meeting one time. The Planning Commission shall table the application for a specific period of time to ensure that the requirements of Section 165-10 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are not exceeded unless the applicant requests a waiver from this requirement. 8-3-8-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall be readvertised for consideration by the Planning Commission once the following steps have been completed: A) The applicant has requested in writing that the agenda item be considered by the Planning Commission. B) The applicant has provided all required information to the Frederick County Planning Department which addresses all concerns of the Planning Commission. 8-3-8-4 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to act on an agenda item that has been tabled one time when the agenda item has been readvertised for a subsequent Planning Commission agenda. 8-3-9 Work sessions 8-3-9-1 The Commission may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of these bylaws shall not apply. 8-3-9-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. 8-3-9-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at least five days before the session. 8-3-9-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and discussion. 8-3-9-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session. 8-3-9-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required at a work session. -7- 8-3-9-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all work sessions and the items discussed. 8-3-10 Adjournment 8-3-10-1 In no case shall the Commission consider any new items after 10:30 P.M. and in all cases the Commission shall adjourn by 11:00 P.M. ARTICLE IX - AMENDMENTS 9-1 These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice. 9-2 The Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of these bylaws to ensure their accuracy. Editor's Note: The last amendment to the Planning Commission By -Laws occurred on October 16, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ACTION: APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION: June 20, 2001 WHEREAS, The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with Chapter 165 of the Code ofFrederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section 15.2-2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held discussions on proposed amendments to the Planning Commission By -Laws on April 4, 2001 and on again on May 16,2001; NOW, THEREFORE, upon final review and consideration, the Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve to adopt the amended Planning Commission By -Laws as described on the attachment herein. These By -Laws shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 20th day of June, 2001 by unanimous vote. A COPY ATTEST Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Planning Commission Chairman PDRes. #I 1 -0 1 C • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 M E M O R A N D U M u TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II RE: Cottage Occupation Definition Discussion DATE: June 6, 2001 In the past couple of years, staff has received several comments that some of the types of businesses applying for Co.,ditional Use Permit approval under the cottage occupation definition may be inappropriate- Staff would like to discuss this matter further with the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the County's definition of a cottage occupation is appropriate. The current definition for a cottage occupation is as follows: COTTAGE OCCUPATION -- An occupation or profession customarily carried on in a dwelling unit or an accessory building, which: A. Actually is carried on wholly within the principal residential building or an accessory building or structure; B. Is carried on by no more than one person other than members of the family residing on the premises, and, C. Is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit for residential purposes. (§ 165-145) Staff requests that the Planning Commission review this definition for the purpose of discussion during the June 20, 2001 meeting. Staff is interested in determining if additional language needs to be incorporated into this definition. JFC/EAW/rsa U:Veremy\Memos\CottageOccupationDisewsion_6-20-01 PCAgendaMemo.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • C COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX.- 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Director Lt `- RE: Discussion - Rural Policy Issues DATE: June 5, 2001 At this year's Planning Commissioner's Retreat in February, the Commission and Board of Supervisors discussed numerous growth and development issues that affect our community. One of the issues discussed dealt with the rapid loss of agricultural lands. This conversion of agricultural lands to residential uses is significantly impacting the agricultural economy, as well as the rural characteristics of our community. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) has been reviewing the County's current rural areas policy. The CPPS has identified a number of elements that should be removed, and others that could be included, in the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan as it pertains to rural areas. The CPPS is also considering recommended policy changes for the Urban Development Area that might assist in lessening the residential pressures on the agricultural areas. Staff will present the Commission with an update on the CPPS's progress to date. Following the presentation, staff would seek guidance from the Commission regarding the CPPS's current efforts. ERL/ch UAEdc\Common\CPPSVune20.200 LPC Discussionmpd 107 North Dent Street o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000