The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 03-21-01 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia MARCH 21, 2001 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) February 7, 2001 Minutes ............................................. (A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................ (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments ................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Rezoning #01-01 of Southern Hills (continued from 2-21-01), 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 in the Opequon Magisterial District. (Mr. Wyatt).......................................................... (B) 5) Proposal to Establish the Crooked Run Regional Water and Sewer Area to include all parcels within the Shenandoah Master Development Plan and all parcels on the south side of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) between the Shenandoah development and the Clarke County line. (Mr. Wyatt)..........................................................(C) DISCUSSION ITEMS 6) Presentation of the General Site Development Plan for the new county high school located on the north side of Berryville Pike (Route 7) adjacent to Redbud Run Elementary School. (Mr. Wyatt)..........................................................(D) 7) Discussion on the Planning Commission Retreat White Paper (Mr. Wyatt).......................................................... (E) 8) Discussion on the Planning Commission Bylaws (Mr. Wyatt) ................................. (F) 9) Other Page 2 • • J MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the auditorium of the James Wood Middle School on Amherst Street in Winchester, Virginia on February 7, 2001. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.. Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opcquon District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Sidney A. Reyes, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John R. Marker, Back Creek District; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison STAFF PRESENT: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - December 6, 2000 upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Kriz, the minutes of December 6, 2000 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 01/08/01 Mtg. Mr. Morris reported that the HRAB discussed issues that are on the Planning Commission's agenda for this evening. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 Page 614 N -2- Economic Development Commission EDC - 02/02/01 Mr. Roger Thomas reported that the EDC discussed various topics regarding economic development in the County. Mr. Thomas gave each of the Commissioners a report regarding facts and figures on the status of Frederick County and development in the County. He said that if Commissioners had questions on the report, it could be discussed at a later time. PUBLIC HEARINGS Rezoning #04-00 of Mid -Atlantic Industrial & Tech Center (continued from 11-15-00), submitted by Greenway Engineering on behalf of Shockey Industries, to rezone 206 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to MI (Light Industrial), and 198 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M2 (Industrial General). This property is located east of Milburn Road (Rt. 662), south of Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 761) and southwest of Jordan Springs Poad (Rt. 664) and is identified with P.I.N. 44-A-31, 44-A-292, and 44-A-293 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Chairman DeHaven began by announcing the rules of procedure and the format for the public hearing. The following format was proposed by the Chairman: staff report, applicant's presentation, 45 - minutes for opposition group, 45 -minutes for support group, three minutes each for persons who signed in at the previous public hearing but did not have an opportunity to speak, three minutes each for adjoining property owners who have not had an opportunity to speak, and three minutes each for persons on the newest sign-up sheet. Chairman DeHaven announced that at 10:15 p.m., the public comment portion of the meeting will be closed to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to discuss the issues. Since everyone seemed to be in agreement on how to proceed, Chairman DeHaven called for the Planning Staff to begin with their presentation. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, read the revised comment from the HRAB (Historic Resources Advisory Board), which recommended denial of the rezoning, but gave recommendations for how the property should be developed, if it were rezoned. Mr. Wyatt stated that the applicant's original proffer statement has been replaced by a revised proffer statement. Mr. Wyatt next proceeded to review a list of comments from the Commission's November 15 meeting and the revised proffer statement information pertaining to those comments that had been provided by the applicant. In conclusion, Mr. Wyatt stated that the Planning Commission should determine if the revised proffer statement adequately mitigated the issues raised by the staff and the Commission when forwarding a recommendation to the Board for final disposition. Mr. J. Donald Shockey, Jr., President of Shockey Industries, introduced himself and Ms. Danielle Staeger of the law firm Reed, Smith, Hazel & Thomas, whose expertise was in land use law; Mr. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 Page 615 .3_ Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, the design engineering firm for the project; and Mr. John Good, Treasurer ofthe Shockey Companies. Mr. Shockey gave a brief introduction; he stated that the revised proffer addresses issues raised by all of those who made comments. Mr_ Shockey showed an aerial view of the Stephenson area, pointing out the area proposed for development. He pointed out the DSA (Developmentally Sensitive Area) easement, which has been included in the proffer in an effort to protect the adjacent battlefield and Milburn Road. He also pointed out the remaining Shockey property in the area, not subject to the rezoning request. Mr. Shockey compared the 1996 Land Use Plan and the updated 2000 Land Use Plan and pointed out that the same area in Stephenson is designated for industrial development in both plans. Mr. Shockey stated that the Land Use Plan was a key document relied upon by the Shockey Companies in making its decision to purchase the property and to pursue the proposed development. He said that the project proposed is consistent with the Land Use Plan and will meet the needs of economic development for sites that could be served by rail. He next proceeded to give his vision for the project. Regarding the historical issues, Mr. Shockey said that in their quest to obtain accurate facts and gain consensus among expert historians, they discovered there is no consensus concerning the historical significance of this property. Mr. Shockey called upon Ms. Danielle Staeger to discuss their findings. Ms. Danielle Staeger, an attorney with the law firm, Reed, Smith, Hazel & Thomas, said that her firm was asked by the applicant to research the historical significance of this area and she was present to discuss their findings. Ms. Staeger hoped to dispel some of the rumors and highlight the significant facts. She said that the Shockey Company had already conducted extensive research on the possible effect ofthe proposed rezoning on Civil War battlefields. She presented a list of the experts who were consulted or contacted and a list of the documents members of her team have reviewed. Ms. Staeger believed it was important to note that some of the experts were not able to agree regarding the historical significance of the subject property or the potential affect of a rezoning on this area. Ms. Staeger proceeded to talk about the facts they uncovered. Referring to the National Park Service's (NPS) Civil War Sites Advisory Commission's List of Priority Sites in Virginia, she said that neither the Second nor Third Battles of Winchester are listed as Priority 1 or Priority 2 sites. On another map from the NPS, showing the entire area of study for the Second Battlo of Winchester, she pointed to the NPS's identified "core battlefield areas;" she stated that the Shockey Companies have proffered to permanently protect approximately 32 acres of the core battlefield area from both industrial and commercial development. She explained that almost 99% of core battlefield areas are not affected by the proposed rezoning. Ms. Staegar presented another map from the NPS indicating the entire area of study for the Third Battle of Winchester which included a portion of the Stephensons Depot area. Again, she pointed out areas circled in red that were considered by the NPS to be core battlefield areas. She said that no core battlefield areas are included in the rezoning application. Ms. Staeger remarked that the Shockey Companies are very sensitive to the fact that Stephenson Depot is located in the vicinity of the rezoning and have voluntarily proffered a number of protective measures, including the DSA (32 acres west of the ridge line), viewshed limitations on buildings and sign, no commercial or industrial access on Milburn Road, and additional landscape buffers. Ms. Staeger next called upon Mr. Mark Smith to discuss the protective measures in further detail. Mr. Mark Smith with Greenway Engineering & Surveying, the design engineers for the project, proceeded to review and discuss each of the eight revised proffers. First, he said that upon recommendation ofthe Planning Commission, two additions were included on the prohibitive uses list in the proffer: stand-alone incinerators and fuel dealers. Mr. Smith next discussed transportation; he explained that actual counts on two existing industrial parks were conducted as a means for comparison and results indicated that the Mid -Atlantic Industrial & Tech Center will yield just over 10,000 vehicles per day at full build -out, which includes an Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 Page 616 -4 - average of 12-15% truck traffic; he said that this projection falls within the acceptable range of the ITE manual. To mitigate the impact of traffic generated by the project, Mr. Smith said that they have proffered progressive improvements, to be determined by traffic studies focused on six study points. Mr. Smith brought everyone's attention to a collector road, proposed by the County under the Land Use Plan, which lies within their application area; he said the applicant has proffered to dedicate and construct the road, which will ultimately provide access to Route 11. He pointed to another collector road, which is located on additional Shockey-owned land to the south of the application area; he said that the Shockey Companies and Greenway Engineering are committed to work alongside other owners to make certain that the connection to Route 11 is made. Mr. Smith next proceeded to speak about the railroad spur and gave the proposed location; he said that after consultation with architectural historian, Maral Kalbian, they've decided to use. current construction materials in natural colors. Regarding the viewshed, he stated that 26 cross sections along Milburn Road were studied, looking eastward, to create the viewshed proffer. He explained that their viewshed analysis determines the maximum ceiling height for buildings and other structures, assists in addressing concerns regarding building-mounwd signs facing Milburn Road, and protects both the DSA and the viewshed along Milburn Road. Mr. Smith next spoke about the Land Area Separation (LAS) and gave the distances between the edge of the proposed rezoning and neighboring adjacent property lines. He pointed out the exception of the 14 homes along Old Charles Town Road and described the proposed screening and buffering for this area; he added that this landscape screen will be installed immediately after rezoning. Mr. Smith next proceeded to speak about signage and lighting. He said that the proffered maximum sign height is 12% he said that they've proffered lighting plans for each site plan for the development. Regarding storm water management, Mr. Smith said this will be provided by a regional system, which will include best management practices for water quality, and he proceeded to state what these practices will include. Mr. Donald J. Shockey, Jr. returned to the podium for closing remarks. Mr. Shockey said that since their time was limited, they condensed their presentation, however, they had additional backup information, if anyone had questions or concerns. Mr. Shockey said that he was pleased with the revisions and the proffers and believed the proposed development will be better because of these revisions; -they are based on extensive input from a number of people within the community. Mr. Shockey requested approval of the rezoning application for this property. Chairman DeHaven called for those persons who wished to speak in opposition to the rezoning and the following persons came forward: N-. Mark Stivers, a local attorney and resident of Stephenson, stated that the Shockey application was excessive and conflicts with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. He made four points: 1) the study conducted by the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) suggested that no industry was appropriate for this area; 2) the County Zoning Ordinance warns about the incompatible nature of industry and nearby residential and business use; 3) the request adversely affects thousands of people's quality of life and investment; and 4) in light of the historic value and tourism, there is a mandate in the Comprehensive Plan to protect the Milburn corridor, its viewshed, and Stephenson's Depot. Mr. Stivers continued, stating that a taxpayer -funded study changed the path of Route 37 to protect this entire area; the County's Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) recommended that the application be rejected; Mr. Stivers said that in addition to the acreage requested for rezoning, the 32 -acre portion which contains the rail spur will also be affected. Mr. Stivers believed that the railroad spur, which is 120' wide and 18' deep, would permanently destroy the viewshed and character of the landscape. In Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 Page 617 INE conclusion, Mr. Stivers questioned the value of site projections made from a depression on Milburn Road, when the entire site can be seen from Old Charles Town Road or Route 11. He also suggested that the staff used an economic model that failed to consider costs and/or used outdated information and, therefore, their report did not reflect a competent and objective effort. Mrs. Sharon Boyd, a iife-iong resident and current business owner in Frederick County, presented petitions with over 2,800 signatures and 75 individually -written letters from members of the community who were in opposition to the proposed rezoning. Mrs. Boyd stated that citizens have commented to her that an orchestrated effort has been underway to distort the facts. She was concerned that information provided by the Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission (EDC) and the Frederick County Administrator, John R. Riley, Jr., was misleading the public. She stated that members of the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) who worked on the Land Use Study for this area have stated that their recommendation, that M 1 and M2 uses were not compatible for this area, were ignored by the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator. Mrs. Boyd said that Frederick County has failed to recognize the boundaries of the Stephenson Depot Core Battlefield as identified in a 1992 study by the National Park Service (NPS); she asked why the 1997 Milburn Historic Study was excluded from the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Boyd concluded by pointing out that the majority of this property has been identified as being environmentally sensitive. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends the protection of "...the natural environment from damage due to development activity and to avoid development in identified developmentally -sensitive areas." She added that the zoning code states that M1 and M2 uses are not compatible with residential neighborhoods. Mrs. Gina Forrester, a resident of the Stonewall District and a member of Frederick County Voters with Common Concerns, stated that on January 5, 2001, the Frederick County Voters with Common Concerns sent a letter to Frederick County Administrator; John R. Riley, Jr., requesting a comprehensive economic and environmental impact study of the proposed Mid -Atlantic Industrial & Tech Center. Mrs. Forrester said that this information has still not been developed and, without this study, neither the Planning Commission nor the Board of Supervisors are in a position to determine the fiscal impacts of rezoning this land for industrial use. Using the County's own .figures, she said that Voters with Common Concerns met on January 26, 2001, with the County Administrator to present an economic analysis, prepared by Mr. Michael W. McMillan, which projected a $48 million negative return over 10 years. In addition, Mrs. Forrester believed the Comprehensive Plan was inaccurate because information about the Stephenson's Depot area was left out when determining appropriate land uses for this area. She believed that if all available information about the Stephenson Depot had been included and sound planning guidelines adhered to, the industrial land use designation would never have been adopted. Mrs. Forrester requested that the Commission recommend denial of the rezoning. Mr. Michael W. McMillan, the individual responsible for the preparation of the alternative Net Present Value (NPV) Analysis and member of the Opequon District, began by rebutting the public statement that the Stephenson Depot project would provide a $28.8 million return to the County. Mr. McMillan pointed out numerous expenditures and capital investments dollar amounts that were not used in calculating the $28.8 million figure estimated by the County. He next talked about the data sources he used to collect the information for his alternative analysis. Mr. McMillan suggested that a joint county/citizen advisory committee be established to oversee the project's economic analysis and he volunteered his services to that committee. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 Page 618 M Mr. James Lighthizer, President of the Civil War Preservation Trust, stated that the primary mission of the Civil War Preservation Trust is to buy and protect important civil war battlefields and his organization has spent millions of dollars to buy and preserve civil war land in Frederick County alone. Mr. Lighthizer said there is a tremendous opportunity for tourism in Frederick County, if battlefields are protected and marketed correctly. He pointed out that, although tourism will not replace industrial development, a study done by the Virginia Tourism Corporation showed that civil war tourists visiting Virginia, versus ordinary tourists, stayed twice as long and spent twice as much money. Mr. Lighthizer asked the Commission not to approve the requested rezoning because it would damage, if not destroy, an economic asset and an important part of national heritage. Mr. Robert Solenberger, a member of the Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission (EDC), Chairman of the Winchester -Frederick County Service Authority, and a resident ofthe Gainesboro District, downplayed the importance of rail in attracting industrial prospects to sites and he cited several examples that he was familiar with. Mr. Solenberger said that his biggest criticism of the Shockey project was the roads. He pointed out that the first business or industry to arrive at a location, seems to be able to use up all the road capacity at no expense; he said that Flying J did this on Route 11. Mr. Solenberger next speculated about the total amount of money the Shockey Company has invested in this project and the amount of profit they stood to make. In light ofthe amount of profit, he believed the Shockey Company should be required to construct a feeder road from their project over to Route 11. Ms. Micky White, resident of the Stonewall District, urged the Commission to join the many citizens of the County in opposing the development of an industrial park in the Stephenson area. Ms. White said that for the past 26 years of her professional life, she has been affiliated with the hospitality and tourism industry; she said that according to the Virginia Tourism Corporation, tourism is the third largest industry in Virginia. She asked that the County's historical resources not be sacrificed for economic growth. Chairman DeHaven next called for persons who wished to speak in support of the rezoning and the following persons came forward: Mr. David Kollar, owner of DK Industrial Services and resident of the Gainesboro District, said this was the third time he has appeared in public to speak in favor of the rezoning application for the Mid - Atlantic Industrial & Tech Center. Mr. Kollar asked the Commission to consider the recent news announcement ofthe impending closing ofthe Fleetwood Corporation and he suggested that the manufacturing and industrial base in our region is in a time of change and flux. He said that many of the old manufacturing companies that everyone has come to recognize and grow dependent on, find themselves facing cutbacks and changes that may adversely affect the County in the not so distant future. Referring to the existing industrial parks in the community, he said that most of these industrial parks are not the kind of facilities that modern manufacturers, plants, or industries are looking to move into. He remarked that the balance of the County's industrial parks house many of his clients, but those parks are dotted; he noted that the viewshed is spoiled by the proliferation of pre-engineered metal buildings. Mr. Kollar believed that the kind of industrial park that we need bring to our area is the kind that Mr. Shockey and the Shockey Companies are describing and planning; he believed it would attract the kind of industries, future revenue, and jobs that Frederick County will desperately need as the manufacturing base changes. Dr. James A. Davis, President of Shenandoah University, spoke about the lack of respect for the difference of opinion and the willingness of people who disagree to do so civilly. Dr. Davis stated that for Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 Page 619 -7 - the last ten years, Shenandoah University has offered seminars, training, and programs that, hopefully, would help to improve this type of discourse in the community. Dr. Davis stressed the need to discuss controversial issues, to compromise, to work for the best outcome, and not simply say "yes" or "no" based on emotions. He said that the variety of issues presented have been a tremendous education for the community. Dr. Davis, a civil war historian, proceeded to share some observations that he believed were important as the deliberations proceeded. He said that both he and his faculty have worked hard to help teach the value of the role of the war in the history of this region and this country. Dr. Davis stated that he will not be the one to say that every acre and every inch of every battlefield that took place in Virginia in the Civil War needs to be preserved; he did not believe that to be a wise public policy. He believed, however, that strategic areas should be bought and properly preserved, and regional interpretation centers built, so that persons can speak intelligently about the tragedy ofthe war and not glorify it. He stated that a good choice will not be made, if we simply reject a citizen of this community who has done wonderful things for the community. Dr. Davis stated that it was unacceptable not to move fcr v- . Dr. Davis hoped that decision -makers would find the middle ground necessary, and that all the citizens in attendance would work hard to help bring about resolution, rather than conflict. Mr. William Simmons, resident at 935 Breckingridge Lane in the City of Winchester, said that he was a resident of Frederick County for 13 years and he has been an employee of the Shockey Companies for 23 years. Mr. Simmons believed some less than accurate representations have been made about the proposed project and some personal attacks on Mr. Shockey, the Shockey families, and the Shockey Companies and its employees. Mr. Simmons stated that in his 23 years of association with the Shockey Companies, they have always strived to be good corporate stewards in the community. He stated that it has been corporate culture to treat employees as family and the community as home. He said there were few organizations in the community who have not, over time, received some of the Shockey generosity; he then proceeded to name a few of those civic groups. Mr. Simmons asked that decision -makers disregard the propaganda and focus on the facts so that a decision could be made that will allow the community to not only grow wisely, but to also prosper. Mr. Jeffrey Rezin, resident of the Back Creek District, came forward to speak about environmental issues. Mr. Rezin named and briefly described all of the various regulations and acts that are currently in place that will help the community to achieve environmental excellence and community safety. Mr. Thomas Lawson, a practicing attorney in the Winchester -Frederick County community, the Secretary -Treasurer of the Shenandoah Valley Manufacturers Association, and a Gainesboro District resident of Frederick County, believed it was important to keep the analysis of this debate in the proper perspective, particularly, whether or not the proposal fit within the parameters of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lawson said the adopted Comprehensive Plan contains a balance of all uses that, together, make the community a desirable place to live. He believed the proposed rezoning fit within the Comprehensive Plan and should be recommended for approval. Mr. Walter Aikens, the local owner of several businesses in Frederick County and a native of Winchester and Frederick County, stated that he was in favor of controlled growth versus no -growth. Mr. Aikens believed that industrial growth was needed in order to support the tax base and public services; he said that Frederick County needs good schools, good roads, good infrastructure, good recreation for youth, and a clean environment and lifestyle for everyone. He believed that the only way to achieve this was to have controlled growth that helps keeps the tax base at a rate where retirees can enjoy life, young people can bring up their families in a good lifestyle, and the working force can obtain their goals. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 Page 620 -8 - Mr. Charlie Weiss, Director of the Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of Commerce, refuted prior statements that industry degrades the quality of life in our area. He stated that the 1,200 members ofthe Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of Commerce consists of over 40,000 employees who appreciate that area businesses and industries are the key to maintaining their quality of life. Mr. Weiss said that not only do the employees enjoy receiving regular paychecks, but the tax revenue generated by these companies is protecting the quality of other valuable resources, such as schools, roads, police and fire protection, and more. Mr. Weiss explained that the Chamber of Commerce has led regional tourism promotion efforts for the City and County for over 14 years, it assists in the development of new tourists' sites, and is proud of the many wonderful area resources. Mr. Weiss cautioned, however, that we need to be realistic about what to expect from any one site; current public studies indicate that in order to produce the number of visitors needed to off- set industrial development, it would, in fact, create an enormous drain on the infrastructure of the County and the City. He believed the best way to protect our economy is by pursuing business diversity and a balance of growth and since economic development takes time, it is in our best interest to protect ourselves for when a down -tum happens. He said that we can't wait until the region is suffering before we act. Mr. Weiss said that the Comprehensive Plan presents a balance of community needs and the Chamber believes that a balance is necessary. Mr. Weiss stated that the Chamber of Commerce encourages the Planning Commission, as well as the Beard of Supervisors, to continue on the path of smart growth with the current Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Raymond Fish, a resident of the Gainesboro District, a former member of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, and a retired veterinarian, outlined five points as to why he believed the proposed rezoning should be approved, as follows: 1) although some people believe they honor Civil War soldiers by opposing the Shockey development, Mr. Fish believed our soldiers fought for freedom; he said that we are all free within the zoning laws to use our property as we wish, and we cannot deny that freedom to someone else; 2) although some people propose to turn the Shockey land into a tourist site, the Economic Development Commission projects that the proposed industrial center will generate $28 million in tax revenue over 10 years; to equal that revenue as a tourism site, the Economic Development Commission projects the Stephenson site would need to attract over two million visitors each of those 10 years. Dr. Fish asked if anyone believed that two million visitors a year would have less of an impact than an industrial center; 3) development of one kind or another in Stephenson is inevitable; the Shockey project, by setting aside the historically sensitive areas, is far preferable to most other likely alternatives, such as a housing development. Dr. Fish believed that the community needs to develop land wisely and the Shockey Companies have gone out of their way to make the industrial center as unobtrusive as possible; 4) local residents have a stake in the community; their children will need a good education, good jobs, and all the other benefits that economic development helps to ensure; he believed that people outside of the community should not have a voice in the discussion and their opinions should not count when it is our future that is at stake; and, 5) discussion of issues is a democratic right, but ultimately, the final decision will be up to the public officials; it is their job to consider the needs of the entire community. Dr. Fish believed that economic development, such as the Mid -Atlantic Industrial & Tech Center, is needed to sustain the quality of life we all enjoy. Dr. Fish urged the County's officials to vote "yes" for the Shockey rezoning. Mr. Bob Wells, a resident of Frederick County, spoke in favor of the Shockey Company's proposed project for the Mid -Atlantic Industrial and Tech Center. Mr. Wells said that each organization represented here has a purpose and each organization is made up of many individuals who have their own personal agendas and reasons for being in favor or opposition. He said that a multitude of information has been presented by the the "experts" as well as the personal opinions. Mr. Wells implored the Commission not to decide the case on emotion or personal opinion, but on the true merits of the case. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 Page 621 Mr. James L. Longerbeam, a resident of Frederick County and former Frederick County Board of Supervisors member and chairman, stated that he has no financial interest in Mr. Shocke_y's request, nor was he asked to come forward to speak; however, he wanted to make several points concerning this issue. Mr. Longerbeam agreed with the comments made by Shenandoah University's President, Dr. James Davis, that civility is needed in public discourse. He brought everyone's attention to an advertisement publicizing the public hearing this evening, which began by stating, "Exposure to Toxic Chemicals," and Mr. Longerbeam pointed out that no specific use has yet been identified for the proposed industrial park, yet these types of assumptions are being made. Referring to Mr. Michael W. McMillan's previous comments rejecting the County's estimated return projection of $28.8 million and Mr. McMillan's own NPV Analysis projecting a $48 million loss to the County, Mr. Longerbeam said that during the eight years he was a member of the Board of Supervisors, he used the Economic Development Commission's (EDC) figures numerous times and he never experienced them to be in error. Mr. Longerbeam said all of the EDC's projections came to be true: a return on an investment was always experienced in two -and -a -half to three years maximum. He had total confidence in the EDC's numbers then, and had no reason to suspect that they may be wrong now. Mr. Longerbeam pointed out that if you believe the logic behind the projected $48 million deficit, then no jurisdiction in the country would ever build an industrial parr because of the monetary loss. Mr. Longerbeam continued, stating that Frederick County would not be doing itself any favors by demonizing a company, such as the Shockey Companies, who have been in business in this area for over 105 years. He said that the Shockey Companies have built most of the major buildings in this area; there has been no one that has been a better corporate citizen. He said that if someone is going to put an industrial park in this County, there is no better company than the Shockey Companies. In conclusion, Mr. Longerbeam stated that the Planning Commission and staff did a superb job with the long-range plan for the northeastern part of the County, which began seven to eight years ago. He said there were many public hearings and many opportunities for public input, and votes were made on various levels. Mr. Longerbeam believed that Mr. Shockey's proposal fits exactly in with what was designed in the Comprehensive Plan for the northeastern part of the County. Mr. Jack Drumheller, a lifelong resident of Winchester and Frederick County who was currently residing in Clearbrook, believed it was imperative that the County continue to follow and maintain its sensible, long-range balanced approach to growth and development, in order to continue to build on the County's past successes. Mr. Drumheller enumerated the various on-site and off-site improvements that the Shockey Companies would be responsible for with the proposed industrial park; he also believed the proposal was consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Drumheller refuted opponents' statements that industrial and residential uses were incompatible and he cited several examples throughout the County where they co -exist without problems. He stated that Frederick County has experienced steady, healthy growth and has succ, ssfully attracted diversified businesses and industries that have been an asset to the community. Mr. Drumheller urg.ul die County to continue, through proper foresight and good long-range comprehensive planning, to provide the necessary sites to attract similar businesses in the future, when the right opportunities come along. He commented that no one has to look very far to see the affect a lack of industry can have on a county budget or on individual taxpayers. Mr. Drumheller concluded by saying that if the developer has done what is reasonable and responsible to make the project successful and if the proposal conforms with the long- range Comprehensive Plan of Frederick County, then he would urge the Planning Commission to support the rezoning for the Mid -Atlantic Industrial & Technology Center. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 Page 622 -10- C:nairman DeHaven next read a list of persons who had signed up to speak at the initial public hearing on this rezoning, but did not have the opportunity to speak because of time restraints. Chairman DeHaven now offered those persons the opportunity to speak, if they so desired. n- c first individual, Mr. Ron Comer, deferred his time to Ms. Katherine Whitesell of the Bark Creek District. Ms. Whitesell raised concerns about the possibility of the property being sold atter it was rezoned to someone less community -minded than Mr. Shockey. Ms. Whitesell said that said that no one knows what the status of the Shockey Company will be in the future. Ms. Whitesell said that as a Civil War preservationist, her family owns a large tract of Second Core Civil War area; she commented that there was not a lot of core battlefield area left in Frederick County and most of it has been developed. Regarding the previous comments made concerning clean industry, Ms. Whitesell pointed out that Frederick County is currently in "non -attainment" for air quality and Frederick County has some very heavy air polluters that are endangering health. Regarding the subject of rail, Ms. Whitesell commented that the Shockey Companies indicated that they were going to preserve 30-40 acres in the developmentally -sensitive area; however, she did not believe that running a rail line with a 125' cut could be qualified as preservation. Ms. Whitesell urged Mr. Shockey to look at the option of making quite a bit of money on the property through the tax deductions and credits, available on both federal and state,levels. Mr. Randy Forrester, a resident of the Stonewall District, expressed a number of reasons why he believed the Planning Commission had the right and obligation to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning. Mr. r „i �.;ster stated that since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, new information about the area and the proposed use has been presented that renders the plan to be incomprehensive. He believed the fact that the Shockey property was identified on a planning tool, identified as the Comprehensive Plan, for possible industrial use does not legally bind the County to rezone Mr. Shockey's land. Mr. Forrester stated that there are health hazards associated with living with poor air quality and there are serious questions about our area's limited water supply. Mr. Forrester pointed to the fact that Mr. Shockey purchased agricultural land; he said that zoning limits the use of land in specific areas for the common good of the entire community. He asked the Planning Commission to take time to revise the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate all of the new, available information. Mr. Forrester continued, adding that since new information has also been submitted in the form of an alternative financial analysis which indicates the Shockey proposal will hurt the County's financial stability, the Planning Commission has the responsibility to take the time to seek out the accurate information. Mr. Forrester believed that the financial information reported by the County Administrator and the EDC appears to be misleading to the taxpayers and to the Board of Supervisors because it does not include cost figures. He asked why the costs of the proposed rezoning were withheld; he believed that if revenue projections could be made, then so could cost projections. Mr. Forrester stated that the County Administrator knows this project could cost the County more than it brings in and that the County's financial analysis is incomplete. Mr. Forrester said that the community owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Michael W. McMillan for his willingness to become involved. He requested that the Planning Commission vote "no" on the proposed rezoning. Ms. Pat Gochenour, Vice President of Citizens for a Quality Community (CQC) and resident of the Shawnee n;c*rict, spoke of proper land use, being good stewards of the land, and preserving the County's integrity. She spoke about the importance of preserving battlefields; farmlands, and historical sites and the willingness of our community leaders to do their part. Mr. William Jensen was concerned about water resources. Mr. Jensen said that the County already has an existing commercial area with in excess of 3,000 acres; he questioned the reasoning of Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 Page 623 -11 - destroying 404 acres in a beautiful area. Mr. John Stryker, a resident of Wardensville Grade, was concerned about the water situation in Frederick County. He said that information about the industrial park indicated that 2.5 million gallons of water per day would be used. Mr. Stryker asked how this figure could be arrived at if no one knows yet what the uses in the industrial park will be. He disputed another argument, that the County needs factories for employment, stating that factories in this area have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for workers. Mr. Stryker believed that the reason counties to the east of us have such higher taxes is because they have uncontrolled growth and too much commercial use. Mr. Stryker commented that his reassessment rates have gone up twice in one year; he said that more is not cheaper, the more people that live here, the more it's going to cost the taxpayers. He was opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Jessie Southers was opposed to the rezoning. He believed that assessment rates will increase, if this development is approved and all of the County's "silent majority" will then come forward to speak. Mr. Southers said that he's seen many development proposals and this one has to be one of the worst; he believed our country needed more passion because we were losing our nation and culture; and finally, he told the commissioners that he would hold them accountable for how they voted. Chairman DeHaven next called for any adjoining property owners who wished to speak. The following persons came forward: Mr. William Myer, a homeowner in the Stonewall District and resident of Frederick County for the past 30 years, said that he is an engineer who has been involved in building many roads and buildings in this arca over the last 22 years. Mr. Myer spoke regarding the policy statements in the Northeast Land Use Plan dealing wit:: Levels of Service (LOS) for roads. He said that Route 11 is currently at an "A" LOS and the applicant has proffered to maintain the road at a LOS of "C" or better. Mr. Myer stated that a LOS "C" is the lowest possible allowed by VDOT and he proceeded to read VDOT's definitions of the three levels of service, A, B, and C. He said that VDOT does not have control over developments; the local jurisdiction controls the development that takes place. Mr. Myer was very concerned about dropping two levels of service to accommodate this development; he was concerned about the increased volume of traffic, the possible influx of traffic onto neighborhood secondary roads, and the increased damage to roads due to truck traffic. Ms. Pam Stivers, an adjoining property owner in the Woodsmill Subdivision, deferred her time to Dr. Neil Crow. Dr. Neil Crow, a resident of Winchester, said that he had concerns about the environmental impact of a heavy industrial park and, especially, the industrial toxins that are detrimental to human health. Dr. Crow said that he was surprised to learn recently that there were not strict constraints in terms of what towns can be put into the environment by industry and he believed this needed to be addressed. He spoke about being good stewards of the environment. Dr. Crow mentioned a local spike of lung tumors associated with asbestos poisoning by a local plant and several locations of carbon monoxide poisoning in this area where he's been involved with caring for patients. He added that if the glass manufacturing plant would have come to this area, hundreds of tons of lead would have been put into the air. Ms. Dawn Biggs, an adjoining property owner in the Woodsmill Subdivision, requested that her time he deferred to Mr. George Orfstrom. Mr. Goerge Orfstrom, a resident of Clarke County just across the Frederick Coy, n*;r line, a few miles from the proposed rezoning, stated thatthe Commission has heard many impassioned speeches this evening concerning many different issues, such as economic issues, historical issues, Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 Page 624 -12 - land use issues, and quality of life issues; however, there was one issue that had not been addressed, and that is one of public trust. Mr. Orfstrom said that there is an implicit trust between local governments and their constituents; local populations feel their officials, be they elected or appointed, are expected to make difficult decisions. He was concerned about industries with smoke stacks or power plants locating in this area. Mr. Orfstrom stated that the 10% population of Frederick County that lives within two miles of this area is relying on their elected officials to uphold public trust and to vote "no" on this rezoning. Chairman DeHaven interjected that this is the second time this evening that a reference has been made to a power plant. Chairman DeHaven said that the EDC did receive an inquiry from a public utility, however, the site they were inquiring about was located on the south end of Frederick County, and they have since gone elsc3 he—e. Chairman DeHaven said that any reference to a power plant locating within the Shockey property proposed for rezoning is completely erroneous information. Mr. Jeff Bensen, a third -year resident of Winchester -Frederick County, spoke of some similarities with this particular case and one in Richmond, Virginia, with the construction of the Richmond International Airport. He said that the airport surfaced -over a swamp in which the Battle of Seven Days was fought. Mr. Bensen believed that much history was lost about the people who fought there, the way they lived, and their contributions to medicine. Mr. Bensen believed certain areas should be preserved and standards adhered to. Mr. David Heard, a resident of Opequon Ridge III, stated that when he purchased his home in November of 1999, the real estate agent failed to tell him that he was within a mile of a potential industrial zoning area. He was also not aware of the studies that were being done for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Heard said that had he known that there was a potential for heavy industry to be located here, he probably would not have come to this area of Frederick County to live. He said the vast majority of people who were present this evening were opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Heard believed that too many issues and concerns needed to be resolved regarding this project and the request should be postponed until all the issues are settled. Chairman DeHaven announced that the time allocated for the public hearing portion of the meeting had ended and he closed the public hearing so the Planning Commission could have an opportunity to discuss the issues. Mr. Fisher expressed concern over the rail penetration into the DSA (Developmentally Sensitive Area) and encouraged the applicant to look for other possibilities for the rail spur. Chairman DeHaven commented that he also had a concern with the rail spur and believed it violated the intent of that particular corridor. Mr. Morris expressed two concerns, transportation and historical resources. Mr. Morris said that he would like to see more specificity in the transportation planning effort and how the degradation of the level of service (LOS) at the six interchange points were going to be mitigated. In addition, Mr. Morris said that he would like to see the Second Winchester Core Area somehow mitigated. He pledged to personally review these efforts, as site plans are submitted, in light of the fact that the applicant has proffered triggering for these items. In conclusion, Mr. Morris said that despite these issues, he finds consistency with the rezoning with the Comprehensive Plan and finds no overwhelming basis in which to deny the rezoning request. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of Febrway 7, 2001 Page 625 -13 - Mr. Light said that when he was a member of the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), he did not envision any residential component in this particular Urban Development Area (UDA), nor did he envision any sewer lines outside of the Sewer & Water Service Area (SWSA) heading east towards this area. Mr. Light believed that all proposed projects need to work south in the area designated for infrastructure network. Regarding the roads scenario, Mr. Light stated that this project should absolutely be developed south to north, instead of north to south, so that all roads may be brought in off of the interstate interchange area at Stephenson and not impact the 2%2 miles on Rt. 11 North going to the Stephenson area. With regard to the historical aspect, he stated that there should be certainty, before the property is rezoned, whether the Milburn corridor can be accepted by the National Park Service, if the rail spur is allowed to go in. Mr. Light next spoke about sewer and water issues; he believed there should be a. Sanitation Authority (SA) agreement or regional partnership between the SA and the developer to monitor and conserve water usage in the Clearbrook area. He believed that emergency services were not fairly represented in the impact model. Mr. Light remarked that this large amount of acreage should not be rezoned because it's impossible to predict what the future impacts may be 20-30 years from now as the property develops. He recommended that the amount of acreage proposed for rezoning be reduced, to see how the developer proceeds, to see how the impacts are mitigated, and give the applicant an opportunity to rezone additional acreage later. Mr. Light said that he was not against the applicant's concept;, he was against the impact of the traffic on the Rt. 11 North community. Because of the projected impacts, Mr. Light made a motion to deny the rezoning. Mr. Light's motion died, however, due to a lack of a second to his motion. Mr. Thomas next gave his views on the issues discussed. First, regarding transportation, Mr. Thomas believed this was a good site for transportation access, particularly because it had the "backbone" for transportation access that could be improved and fit to meet the needs of the area; he said that it has rail access, good interstate access, and access to major collector roads. He agreed that improvements would need to be made to those facilities, but the developer has agreed to pay for those improvements. He stated that it will be the County's responsibility to make sure, at the master development plan and site planning stages, that impacts are assessed and the developer comes forward with methods to mitigate the impacts and protect the interests of the local residents. Regarding environmental distress, Mr. Thomas mentioned the many environmental regulations of federal and state government agencies, such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality), who spend much time assessing and monitoring environmental conditions so that standards are met. Mr. Thomas pointed out that the applicant has already included fecycling in their proffer and will be responsible for landfill costs; and water and wastewater access are user -funded. regarding historical preservation, Mr. Thomas recalled an earlier statement addressing the 2,800 homes in the area; Mr. Thomas commented that in all probability, many of these homes are already on the Stephensons Depot battlefield area, along with I-81, Rt. 11, and the railroad. He pointed to the insignificance of disturbing 1% of an additional 41 acres out of 3,000 total acres; he said that what is significant is that the applicant has agreed to preserve 30 acres, which no one else has come forward to do. Finally, Mr. Thomas spoke about the balanced development concept; he said that a diversified revenue stream is needed --industrial development, tourism, and agriculture. Mr. Thomas believed that the County needed a balance of all of the development to be able to sustain both growth and the County's well-being. Mr. Thomas then made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the stipulation that all review agency comments be complied with. This motion was seconded by Mr. Wilson and was passed by a majority vote. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 Page 626 -14 - BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning #04-00 of Mid -Atlantic Industrial & Tech Center, submitted by Greenway Engineering on behalf of Shockey Industries, to rezone 206 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial), and 198 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M2 (Industrial General). This property is located east of Milburn Road (Rt. 662), south of Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 76 1) and southwest of Jordan Springs Road (Rt. 664) and is identified with P.I.N. 44-A-31, 44-A-292, and 44-A-293 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The vote on this recommendation of approval was as follows: VES (TO APPROVE): Unger, Morris, DeHaven, Wilson, Thomas, Ours, Miller, Kriz, Fisher NO: Light (Note: Mr. John Marker was absent from the meeting.) ADJOURNI<?L N7" Chairman DeHaven thanked everyone for their demeanor and participation during the meeting and encouraged everyone to stay involved in local government and planning efforts. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Evan A. Wyatt, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2001 . Page 627 PC REVIEW DATE: 1/03/01 (tabled); 2/21/01 BOS REVIEW DATE: 4/11/01 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 Dent. of Transportation: See attached letter from Barry J. Sweitzer, Trans. Roadway Engineer, dated 11/21/00. Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 2 March 8, 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 Stephens City: See attached letterfrom Michael %hoe, Zoning Administrator, dated 11-7-00. 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 of the 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 March 8, 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 roadway, 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 Scothorn 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 %r -mile of road frontage along Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012) 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 March 8, 2001 4) 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 restrict the development of multi- family units; to extend Stickley Drive (Rt. 1085) to connect with Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012); and to provide a monetary contribution for each residential building lot to offset impacts to county services. 5) Potential Impacts and Issues a) Transportation The applicant's traffic impact analysis statement 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. 10 12) 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 3 07 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. The VDOT comment 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. VDOT believes that the applicant should provide a traffic impact analysis which considers signalized intersections; the development of turn lanes and tapers into the project site; and the improvement of Town Run Lane from the intersection of Fairfax Pike to the project site. 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. However, the applicant's proposal does not indicate plans to provide, or participate 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. The applicant's traffic impact analysis statement does not provide for current or future Level of Service details at Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 5 March 8, 2001 the proposed Stickley Drive intersection with Fairfax Pike; however, it would stand to reason that a significant percentage of vehicle trips would make left turn movements; therefore, this intersection would most likely operate at less than a Level of Service C without traffic signalization. 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, staffhas 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 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. Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 6 March 8, 2001 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. d) Ad ioining 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 Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 7 March 8, 2001 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. e) Pro er Statement The applicant has proffered to extend Stickley Drive from its current terminus to the east to connect with Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012). This extension would require the applicant to develop a -public roadway through a parcel owned by an adjoining property owner (Stimpson). In order for this improvement to occur, the applicant would need to obtain a deeded right-of-way easement through this property which currently does not exist. Therefore, this component of the applicant's proffer statement is not valid at this time. 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. 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: Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 8 March 8, 2001 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 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 Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 1{ Q9 March V, 2001 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 intersection of the Stickley Drive extension and to provide guardrail by the Town of Stephens City lagoons prior to the issuance of the 501h buildingpermit. Furthermore, the revisedproffer 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. Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 10 March S, 2001 ti 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 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. 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. StaffComment: The revised review agency commentfrom 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. 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. Staff Comment: The applicant's response in the February 1, 2001 memorandum indicates that the landfill is a fee -sustained operation; therefore, N Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 11 March 8, 2001 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 howthey 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 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 if the revised information and revised proffer statement provided by the applicant adequately mitigates the issues identified by staffduring the January 3, 2001 meeting when forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter. O:\Agendas\COMMFWSXREZONINGStaff Report\200Mouth=Hills.wpd Southern Hills REZ #01-01 Page 12 March 8, 2001 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 maj ority 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: YES (TO TABLE): Unger, Morris, Light, Marker, DeHaven,•Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher NO: Miller (Note: Mr. Wilson was absent from the meeting.) 0:Wgendas\COMMENTS\REZONINGIStaffReperA2001\.So th=Hills.wpd OUTPUT MODULE $3,229,459 $372.562 $776,211 $121.868 $1,270,661 LESS. NET FISCAL IMPACT SO $0 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $7,162 INDEX: '1117' If Cap Equip included: 1.0 APPLICANT PIN 85-A-138 $210 Nei Fiscal impact Rev -Cost Bat - $0 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = METHODOLOGY i. Capital facilities requirements are Input to she first column as calculated to the model LAND USE TYPE Single Family Costs of Impact Credit- Crucils to W Take Total Potential Aofusimert For 3. REAL EST VAL S32,775,000 Required (entered in Cur B fidget Cur Budget Cap. Ful -ire CIPI Tax Credits Revenuo- Net Capital FIRE & RESCUE 11 Cap.tal Fauili es col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expendlkbt S. Taxes, Other (Uaa0justed) Cost Baia0ce Roll ies imoul Fire and Rescue Department $222,149 $0 $0 $222,149 Elementary Schools $1,019,969 Middle Schools $540,569 $126,010 $729,921 $855,931 $601,733 _ $1,790,469 High Schools $831,654 Parks and Recreation $364,315 593,181 $93,181 465_,5_08 _ $298,807 PublcLibrary $66,714 $20,044 $20,044 $14,091 $52,623 Sheriffs Offices 547.020 S16,511 $0 $8,663 $25,174 517,698 $29,322 Adrninistraiion Building $60,342 $0 $0 $0 $60,342 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $76,717 $230,040 $46,291 $276,331 $194,265 $0 SUBTOTAL $3,229,459 $372.562 $776,211 $121.868 $1,270,661 LESS. NET FISCAL IMPACT SO $0 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $7,162 INDEX: '1117' If Cap Equip included: 1.0 5!U $210 INDEX: '1.0` 0 RevCosi Bat, '0.0' It Rata to Co Avg, 0.0 Rev -Cost Bat - $0 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = METHODOLOGY i. Capital facilities requirements are Input to she first column as calculated to the model 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations Is input in row total of second column (zero it negative): included are the one-time taxestlees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future open cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of luture capital expenditure taxes paid in tnurih 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 live are added as Polen:lal credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for a I residential development). '$893.295 $2,336,164 $9,345 $0 $0 S0 /f /O 2. ,164 ,345 T" 0.491 0.703 NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include Interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do Include interest it the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Dale 10/25/00 EAW P.1. N 85-A-138 Rezoning: Assumes 250 Single Family Dwellings on 105 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with developmail in the County, the results of this Output Module may not to valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. I Sod Net Cost Per PRQ�r Uwebtrg Unit $669 $7,162 $1,195 5!U $210 $117 �- $241 $0 '$893.295 $2,336,164 $9,345 $0 $0 S0 /f /O 2. ,164 ,345 T" 0.491 0.703 NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include Interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do Include interest it the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Dale 10/25/00 EAW P.1. N 85-A-138 Rezoning: Assumes 250 Single Family Dwellings on 105 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with developmail in the County, the results of this Output Module may not to valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. I COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDINBURG. VA 22324 JERRY A. COPP COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER November 21 2000 TELE( -5600 FAX(5 0)984 5607 FAX (540)984-5607 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 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 Paoe #2 The application to rezone should address how and who would improvements to Route 1012: a) County Six Year Plan b) Developer participation in cost and/or construction c) Other sources of participation provide the necessary 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 647. 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 there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, �i Barry J. Sweitzer, Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Steven A. Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer BJS/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 STEPHENS CITY November 7, 2000 Gilbert W. Clifford &r 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 (540) 869-3087 • Fax (540) 869-6166 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 the impact 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-81 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 I-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 at-nount of traffic generated from the east side of 1-81 and inadequate roads to handle it. Sincerely, Michael K. Kehoe Zoning Administrator I 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 iFREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 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 Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 IFC-Ps Fes- l Frederick CGU17tV iblidSdools Administrative Assistant to Visit us at wlvw.frederick.R12.va.us e-mail. the Superintendent orndorfa�frt!derick.kl2.va.us 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 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 land 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 53,581 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, undeveloped residential 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, f� If CXR Al Orndorff Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent PC: Dr. William C_ Dean, Superintendent of Schools Mr. Robert W. Cleaver, .Assistant Superintendent for Administration 540-662-3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-722-2788 L1 mningi5outhem Hills REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 85-A-138 Opequon Magisterial District DOROTHY CARBAUGR ESTATE PROPERTY Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. Seg.. 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 gubject 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 abovedescribed 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 $4,910.00 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 Sherifrs 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 5e building permit. d. Town Run Lane (SR 1012) shall be overlayed with a bituminous concrete surface from C to D during the phase where the entrance at `V" is constructed. These improvements are to be further described by a VDOT Permit to be issued at the time of the work. 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. 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,- PROPERTY ubmitted, PROPERTY OWNER By: / _---- Date:— STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � day of F9 6 VA MU 2004, by David B. Holliday. My comnuissionxVires C]'IvAjgt4 Aq, avo Notary Public a s G. W:ajffiYW &4s- Ocid , Inc To: Mr Evan Wyatt, Planning Director CC: Mr David Holliday From: Charles E. Maddox, 7r PE. Date: 2/1/01 (rev from 1/1/01) Re: Southern Dills, 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, The intersection in question is scheduled by VDOT to become the Primary 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 percentage of use of this expanded intersection by Southe= hills will be vary small in relation to this expanded use. Finally, any stoplight improvements done now , because of Right of Wa_v acquisition and shifts in roadway centerlines ,will be replaced when the VDOT Rte 277 project is constructed. In summary, it is the applicants position that construction of Stickley Drive ex -tended and improvement of Town Run Lane are a more than. adequate "Fair Share' for mitgation of traffic impacts. it improves the operating characteristics immediately for traffic in the area and it is felt that since Construction Drawings have been prepared by VDOT then the ROW acquistion and construction will be done well within the 5 to 10 year design life of Southern Kills. 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. The proffer statement and generalized development plan has been changed to reflect improvements to Town Run Lane including overlay of Bituminous Concrete on the existing prime and seal surface between Stickley Drive and the first project entrance and the addition of guardrails where needed, with work to be performed prior to the issuance of the 50th occupancy permit. Town Run Lane will be overlayed between the project entrances when the second entrance is constructed. All work shall meet with VDOT permit requirements. 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. We have sent to your office a letter , signed by W Barry Stimpson, III, the owner, showing his intent to provide the necessary rights of way and easements for the applicant to construct Stickley Drive extension. 2 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 Rescue, this constituted an amount many times previous proffers made by the applicant. Apparently, the Dept of Emergency Servicps desires a 100$ proffer which raises the proffer from $15 to $880 per lot (500-W. The proffer z"de is $446.00 per home created and 14; consida'ed appropriate by the applicant. .71 3 January 1, 2001 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. The applicant believes that the Solid Waste Management function of the County Public Works Dept. is operated as an Enterprise activity where the fees charged pay for the operation and capital improvements required. With great respect for the administrators who operate this important public service, we believe that this effort will continue to be selfsupported and proffers are not, therefore 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. This project will be all single family detached housing which does not require active recreational facilities. It is the applicants feeling that the proffer made for Parks and Recreation will provide for the needed facilities. 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. The Ewing family cemetery will be set aside as a separate lot with public road access and deeded, if possible, to the Ewing family with covenants for future maintenance by the Ewing family. 4 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. 4 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, Harry Stimpson, III Cc: Mr. David Holliday N Drive r y Sti Z/ � �, I/\— Ex, 1-1101 1 E ss r� r I 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 h-ourth h7oor - Winchester l owers Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone- 540-667-2131 Fax: 540-665-0949; E-mail: *vcliffcymnsinc.com 11 Impact Analysis 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 FacllitV. The Site iS a�CeSS�d 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 since 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 271 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 traffic 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 designed to 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 that would prevent this project from being serviced. 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 $4,910.00 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 COUNTY, VIRGINIA I he following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: 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 Address: 1680 Marlboro Road Stephens City, VA 22655 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone: 540-869-4235 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 full 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: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: Agricultural _ Residential Single Family Subdivision PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 85-A-59 Agricultural RA 85-A-60 Agricultural RA 85-A-131 A ricultural RA 85-A-137 Residential RA 85 -A -137D Residential RA 85 -A -137E Residential RA 85-A-139 Agricultural 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 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 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 proposed 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: Opequon Stephens City Stephens City Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School Sherando R. E. A.lor Middletown 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Reguested 105± RA RP 105± Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family home 250 Townhome 0 Multi -Family 0 Non -Residential Lots 0 Mobile Home 0 Hotel Rooms 0 Office 0 Retail 0 Restaurant 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Warehouse Other 0 0 0 12. Signature: I (we). the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s):a3- Flo Owner(s): r� 14 Date: Date: Date: Date: Dave Holliday Rezoning Tax I.D. Num R5 -A-59 �, . ��.....� .,...,..,.,y � OLL tJ . v LwVViL lvi. nusnUn 14502 St. Stephens Place Midlothian, VA 23113 85-A-60 William H. & Shirley A. Herrell 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 Ste hens City, VA 22655 85 -A -137E William L. & Elizabeth N. Ramey 824 Peace & Plenty Lane Ste hens City, VA 22655 85-A-139 Gary L. Scothorn & Stephen P. Scothom & Dennis A. Scothorn 506 Ewings Lane Stephens Citv, 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* Ste hens City, VA 22655 PROJECT AREA PROJECT I ;� � #Eii is SCALE n ` t i f lAaryi StI` ley A85 -A -A -59 1 '� `t � 'lt ,�� a ., \ flamey 4,n � t"� .� •� c .�A. �A .rf � °'ti ��F r i M ^��gd�� ,,t} _ �^M_• �'�i f�ryi \� _.3 �i2 i Ddrotfry C.,u U - j a ., Q� , .,. :, 3 - _ •. . t � ie" � r �.� €.; € r ��'�y` � r .r= s � •' t , � ._,,, r , � � t. 1 r> t� * � 1 � At�,.,CGwt -;*..r!.r'�..,," �� `�' j � x` � ', r.,,..v»a^mrk � fry % ;"° N_) . • ,. 4 ,. 4rItFt$_ tl .+'fig°tip ... Repiogrt Se eK i Pamp 9ta11o' �! `� .s ..�'y�.,'.»W....a...mpa�!^`�/Q( .�w .."` 5 r �' F ..�-�, i W .r,.. , c;, •y ''C Y,i � '' °''� i �y 1' iAt % � � a ✓ �- h14 .4, 4� . � � P f t , 4 � 4 , '4... f. "+`. �' � 4 4 `$ ,� .. ,yamy •1 � 3� 4# � f 5 1S 1, jz , � ,fi sF...' £ � a 'A � :� -tv, 6 � { � - -.1 ',,,�- k •� } t f . '�.� 'a, � �''-R.yn.« '!'..1 S t t 'i 9 b� �' � ^ � '- ,,t \ .tom O� ya � .� sem: mer HEET,�ar ini1;Qt 5Ea1 -IU L4VOP ��pso�l CIGSs 'a" fit. Mogi. 12C-2 4t,M-2 on Qi -5 r;ncl dal /1 �h 14/70.30 til, pe"' � d• aYr r cc��n •, � X05 4�gTgo e b�-r. rtilcr �. -APX Qi -10 .,, � ��-�,� ►ti��'� .tip a�.,�,�- ��. Pj,raf ;D 251b5. . • `' li%I''.i L..�� ala":� �er �q• -�`"�,•. mss. RTE. 1012 Sta. SCS 5/0,00: } -T`; PICAL 5EC i ION (FINC; EQ 124MP ) PQO�? QAMP 14' xi;2" & i C;MINOU5 CON' CQE T r 845a COME TYPE N -3(t ) PEQ & i ti'W=NUuS_ CUi�CQc �E BINDEt2 COt;`RSIt �; YPE H-2 (t4U . go L85,Y�, 6 5.l'UMtN0U5 CONCQE Tf 5UQFACE COUQ5E 7\/P5 .-S a0 r� `��D. .v L 30' QOA DVVA`( t `'o oomp A -1 to COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Director J RE: Crooked Run Regional Sewer Service Area Boundary DATE: March 12, 2001 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has requested guidance from the Board of Supervisors regarding the appropriateness of providing sewer service within the proposed Crooked Run Regional Sewer Service Area. The proposed Crooked Run Regional Sewer Service Area (CRRSSA) encompasses approximately 1,410 acres of land. Of this acreage, approximately 1,170 acres is within Frederick County and approximately 240 acres is within Clarke County. The acreage within Frederick County includes the Shenandoah development; Sandy's Mobile Home Park; and additional land on the south side of Fairfax Pike (Route 277); while the acreage within Clarke County includes the Double Tollgate area that is being studied for commercial land use and the Camp 7 State Correction Facility. Information from Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., indicates that the proposed wastewater reclamation facility will have an ultimate design capacity of 625,000 gallons -per -day (gpd). Initially, this facility will be constructed by the developers of the Shenandoah project to treat a wastewater flow of 375,000 gpd. This facility would then be dedicated to the FCSA for operation and maintenance. Upgrades to this facility to achieve the ultimate design capacity will be determined through an agreement between the FCSA and the developer of the Shenandoah project. Projected wastewater flow volumes for the proposed Crooked Run Regional Sewer Service Area Boundary provide 487,200 gpd for the Shenandoah development; 45,000 gpd for the Double Tollgate commercial area; 43,000 gpd for Sandy's Mobile Home Park; 25,000 gpd for the Camp 7 State Correction Facility; 5,000 gpd to the Department of Games and Inland Fishery for concessions at Lake Frederick; and a reserve capacity of 24,300 gpd. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 CRRSSA PC Memo Page -2- March 12, 2001 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors will need to authorize the FCSA to provide regional sewer service to the land in Frederick County which falls outside of the Shenandoah development; as well as, extraterritorial land in Clarke County. Furthermore, the Clarke County Board of Supervisors will need to authorize the FCSA to serve land within their locality should it be deemed appropriate. The Clarke County Board of Supervisors will need to determine the appropriateness of the proposed CRRSSA boundary that is depicted in their jurisdiction. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) considered this request during their February 12, 2001 meeting. The CPPS asked several questions of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. representatives; Wellington Jones,-FCSA Director; and staff. The following provides a listing of the inquiries and responses pertaining to this issue: Q: Does establishing a regional sewer service area meet the goals and objectives -set forth in the Comprehensive Policy Plan? A: The Comprehensive Policy Plan does not identify the establishment ofregional service areas as a goal or objective; however, several references to suburban development patterns and environmental protection made in the Land Use and Environmental Chapter could be supported by regional service areas. Q: Are any of the existing systems within this area in trouble? A: Sandy's Mobile Home Park is under a consent order from the Department of Environmental Quality due to the current condition of their health system. Q: What is the number of mobile home units in Sandy's Mobile Home Park? How many more mobile homes could be permitted based on zoning allowances? A: Health Department records indicate that 100 mobile homes would allowed to be served by the approved system; however, this number has been reduced to 40 mobile home units due to the consent order. Sandy's Mobile Home Park contains 17.41 acres of land zoned MH -1; therefore, the County Zoning Ordinance would allow a total of 139 mobile homes based on the current density of 8 units per acre. Q: What are the plans for the remainder of the 240 acres outside of the Shenandoah development and Sandy's Mobile Home Park that is within Frederick County? A: No land use plan has been adopted for this area of the County; therefore, it is uncertain as to what the plans are for this acreage. CRRSSA PC Memo Page -3- March 12, 2001 Q: What is the effluent in Crooked Run today? A: 500 gallons per minute. Q: Will any County dollars be used for the treatment plant or for supporting infrastructure necessary to tie into the treatment plant? A: No. The Shenandoah developer would construct a treatment plant that is initially 325, 000 gpd. The FCSA would have the right to expand the treatment plant as needed. The FCSA would enter into agreements with the Shenandoah developer and other interested parties within the CRRSSA for capacity and pro rata funding allocations. Q: When does the FCSA take over the plant? What are the safeguards? A: The FCSA will receive the dedicated treatment plant once it has obtained an operational certificate from the Health Department. The Shenandoah developer will be required to establish an escrow fund for the treatment plant. Q: Is there any concern with private lines being part of this system? A: No. All properties within the defined CRRSSA boundary will be required to have public infrastructure dedicated to the FCSA. Q: What are the personnel requirements for this facility? A: The operation of this treatment plant would be accomplished through use of the existing staff at the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. The FCSA may have to hire one additional person to adequately operate both facilities. The CPPS felt that the proposed CRRSSA would allow for the elimination of a system that is currently failing within this area, and may provide an opportunity to facilitate regional agreements which was desirable. The CPPS felt that only allowing service to Sandy's Mobile Home Park and not to other properties would be arbitrary. The CPPS was comfortable with the proposed CRRSSA boundary that was established within Frederick County and recommended approval of this concept. CRRSSA PC Memo Page -4- March 12, 2001 Please find included with this agenda item a memorandum from the FCSA to the Planning Department dated January 23, 2001; a color map identifying the proposed Crooked Run Regional Sewer Service Area with existing and proposed land uses, acreage totals, and the location of the wastewater treatment facility; a letter from Clarke County to the Frederick County Planning Department dated February 7, 2001 and information pertaining to the Crooked Run Wastewater Reclamation Facility. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider this request and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter. REDERI CX COUNTY ANITATI ON AUTHORITY P.O. Box 1577 Winchester 'VA 22604-8377 JAMES T. ANDERSON, Chairman ROBERT N. CARPENTE.% Vice-chairman ROBERT P. MOWERY, .lee -treasurer JOHN STEYENS GREGORY W. HEWITT RICHARD A. RUCKMAiN MEMORANDUM TO: Evan Wyatt, Director of Planning FROM: Wellington H. Jones 0), SUBJECT: Shenandoah Development DATE: January 23, 2001 Wellington H. ,zones, N.E. Engineer -Director Ph. — (540) 363-1061 Fax. — (540) 363-1429 The attached exhibit was provided by Dogwood Development Group. It shows the proposed rooked Run Regional Sewer Service Area Bounhat includes the Shenandoah development. Please review and comment as to conformance with the comprehensive plan. In drafting the agreement between the Authority and developer, I want to ensure the Authority only agrees to provide service within the area permitted by the County. /ths attachment WATER AT YOUR SERVICE JAN 232001 DEPT, OF PLANNINNEVELOPNIENT r° .. i i rb ��.�t t rJ: .� \'. ` �\..�-., r'` , .•�� r.. J. r�L � ...� r. 1 ��r f�;'i S#`,s' � � t rj \ { �t ,'.a lJ �r. J�'ra�3�' y _ �'� _ i`.—:� } �'� ?i'�L_ ,,,i � ri � \• �;r v� ► c y• is � f � Fr f '�' r ... � ��,(_ � � �.r ..mss' J.-'� . Co i} (3� ell .E e r t 5 "P `.._. ` _ ..� .'% 1 'fi r j F '.. it r ✓ 5ubstatlon r G`�,iCI�EC&i•r%¢1�'°."" P - a - _� •„'^-. if s � � � � i � (t ! � A � �� it"rc Xer r� � '+. !� � � � i� �/ • g: Prison' *1i lel - s tr � � Pi .�irY / rr � '' r _rn t+ -'-� --`. "'� `'"-✓ 5 r.' � :� F � � i. � i 'S. 3.� 1 1. - !, •�• .f w'� RMIr"J .^. U. l ( I � ■■ Ch I}/ ; D ! y 3'1 1. �1 k M. i ` _ Ste^ �� Cf �' �... ,✓fq t y 1 i t r --”/� � �. t a. '1 5;1.1 • > i. f •1�! \ s! ! 9 o C,NPIiIC County r t sx� a y ( ZM AC } �� .� } ,� .j ° X fd• ti' Y*' A ce s i ' v ....1 .. � fi bF '; i S St. S r•rl r --h V \ C ` f ' FF t 1"A �ee>r , i ,- 7 ! i'ropnsed "� crooked un" X Regional Sewer ,Service, .t t 0." i.' r' 4di4 0� pr+eve 7 1!'ea a ilund, F; {h}� yrt ':t 'GvFr I 'VHI a Ceater ;J ` 6 Tr�at>�t ) ►1 1 e r ,�.,: F ?...} y iia � ✓ � 6` '� /(i P � Y /� ♦ x ...`^J•'t Ik ar', '�, �. �� /. �, r •.,� / f -�� ' �/ ••..moi ifs x gilbert w. clifford & assoc. inc, N CLARKE COUNTY III iNgIN 7 February 2000 Evan Wyatt, Planning Director Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Objective 6 of the Clarke County Comprehensive Plan states "Encourage residential, commercial, and industrial development to occur in designated growth areas. Provide for non- residential business development at the intersection of two or more ... primary highways." Policy 3 under this Objective is: "Promote business activities at the intersection of two or more ... primary highways ... through provision of public water and sewer services and provision of additional areas zoned for business uses. An Area Plan should be prepared prior to any rezoning action to identify the specific boundaries and mix of uses, how public service are to be provide and how proposed activities will be integrated with surrounding uses, especially agricultural." At the charge of the'Board of Supervisors, a committee of the County Planning Commission is working on a Double Tollgate Area Plan. The Commission is scheduled to recommend a plan to the Board by the 2nd Quarter of this year. As stated above, it is the policy of Clarke County to promote economic development at the Double Tollgate intersection through provision of public water and sewer services. It appears that provision of such services by the Frederick County Sanitary Authority to the Double Tollgate area would be efficient and economical. Favorable consideration of inclusion of the Double Tollgate area within the service area of the Frederick County Sanitary Authority would help achieve the land use goals of the County. Please call if you have any questions or need any further information. att�'tJ`_ Charles Johnston Planning Administrator TRI �� 7, PED' FES; 101 i DEFT. OF PLIANNING/DEVELOPMEiNT 102 N. Church St. Berryville, Virginia 22611 (540) 955-5132 FAX (540) 955-4002 gilbart w clith - f & asar�cia#as, inc SUBJECT: Crooked Run Wastewater Reclamation Facility Project Design Concept Summary TO: Files FROM: E. R. Sutherland, P. E. DATE: February 5, 2001 The Crooked Run Wastewater Reclamation Reclamation Facility is intended to provide wastewater treatment to the Shenandoah Community and to selected adjacent areas in Frederick and Clarke Counties. The facility will discharge to Crooked Run, a tributary of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. The treatment facilities will be located at the southern end of the Shenandoah development, below the Lake Frederick Impoundment on the west side of Crooked Run. Operation of the treatment plant will be governed by discharge permit number VA0080080 issued by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality under the authority of the State Water Control Law and the Clean Water Act. The principal administrative features of the permit are, as follows: Effective Date Expiration Date December 14, 1998 December 14, 2003 The qualitative limits for the permit are as follows: Design Flow 250,000 GPD CBOD5 7.5 mg/I Suspended Solids 30 mg/I Ammonia Nitrogen 4.1 mg/I as N pH Range 6.5 to 9.5 Chlorine Concentration after Disinfection 1.0 mg/I Effluent Chlorine Concentration nondetectable Dissolved Oxygen 7.1 mg/I NOTES: CBOD and suspended solids limits are maximum monthly averages. Maximum weekly averages are 1.5 times the monthly average values. The ammonia nitrogen value is a maximum weekly average value. The dissolved oxygen limit is a minimum value. The permit does not place a limit on wastewater flow volume but it is indirectly regulated by the imposition of mass limits on BOD5, suspended solids, and ammonia nitrogen. Crooked Run wastewater Reclamation Facility kI ect Design Concept Summary The proposed wastewater treatment facilities include the following unit processes: Passive Screening (Screenings disposed in Frederick County Landfill) Biological Stabilization (Phased Isolation Ditch variant of the Oxidation Ditch) Disinfection (Ultraviolet Radiation) Effluent Aeration (Cascade Aerator) Aerobic Sludge Stabilization Sludge Thickening (Thickened sludge to be transported to Parkins Mill WWTP) The plant will be designed in such a manner that no single failure of a process component in any unit process will result in a degradation of effluent quality. Facility reliability features are as follows: The passive screen will be a stainless steel 0.1 inch wedge wire unit. The unit has no moving parts. Screened solids will be collected in a roll away trash container. The oxidation ditches will each have two sets of brush rotors for aeration. One set of brush rotors in each ditch is an in place spare. The ultraviolet disinfection unit will had a complete in place redundant unit. An additional spare unit will be kept on site. The treatment plant will probably be manned for two shifts a day seven days a week. The treatment process will be continuously monitored and operated by a PLC based control system that alternates wastewater flow and treatment patterns between two parallel oxidation ditches based on wastewater flow and loading patterns. The control system can remotely accessed for real time operational data and will include a remote alarm system. A full scale standby power generator with automatic load transfer switch will be included for process reliability. Although the first phase of the treatment facilities are presently permitted on the basis of a design flow of 250,000 GPD, the treatment equipment will be sized to treat a wastewater flow of 375,000 GPD. The ultimate projected capacity of the Crooked Run Wastewater Reclamation Reclamation Facility is 626,000 GPD. At that flow volume, additional treatment unit processes such as clarification, chemical coagulation and filtration will be required to meet the expected higher effluent requirements. E. R. Sutherland, P. E. gilbart tv. cliM ' & associates, inc SUBJECT: Crooked Run Wastewater Reclamation Facility Service Area Wastewater Flow Generation Projection TO: Files FROM: E. R. Sutherland, P. E. DATE: February 2, 2001 Following is a tabulation of the projected wastewater flow volumes for the Crooked Run Wastewater Reclamation Facility. SERVICE AREA COMPONENT Quantity Unit Value TOTAL Shenandoah Residential 2230 dwellings at 180 GPD 401,400 Double Tollgate Area allocation 45,000 Virginia Prison #7 existing use 25,000 CCRC 220 dwellings (_a 115 GPD _ 25,300 Shenandoah Village Center 280 thousand sq. ft. @ 200 GPD 56,000 Sandys Trailer Park existing use 43,000 Lake Concession estimated 5,000 TOTAL, GPD 600,700 Reserve 24,300 ULTIMATE DESIGN CAPACITY, GPD 625,000 These projections assume 100 percent buildout of the various service area elements. A map showing the extent of the proposed service area is attached to this memorandum. E. R. Sutherland, P. E. gilbert w. clifford & associates COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan Wyatt, Planning Director SUBJECT: New County High School DATE: March 7, 2001 Representatives of the Public School Administration and Oliver, Webb, Pappas, and Rhuddy will present the general site development plan for the County's third high school during the March 21, 2001 meeting. Historically, the Public School Administration has presented plans for school facilities to the Planning Commission and the Boards of Supervisors for information and discussion. Attached is a summary sheet for this project which identifies the project scope and anticipated construction schedule. No action by the Planning Commission is necessary, unless the commission desires to grant staff administrative approval authority of the site development plan. C:\MyFiles\Backup\Plan Reviews\NewCountyHignSchool_PlanningCommissionDiscussionMemo.wpd 107 North rent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 NEW COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL SUMMARY • The County's third high school will be located on the same parcel as the existing Redbud Run Elementary School. This parcel contains128 acres. • The new facility will be designed as a one-story structure containing approximately 242,000 square feet. This facility will provide for a capacity of 1,250 students. • There will be a 1,650 linear foot.extension ofthe existing road into the school property which will terminate at a cul-de-sac. New paved parking lots, driveways, and a bus loop will be accessible from this extended road. • The required parking for the new facility will be achieved primarily on the high school campus, with overflow parking available at the elementary school. A minimum of 1,313 parking spaces and 20 bus parking spaces will be provided. • Water service will be provided to the high school campus from the existing water main that was constructed to accommodate the elementary school. • Sanitary sewer service will tie into the existing sewer and pump station located near Berryville Pike which was constructed to accommodate the elementary school. • Athletic facilities include a football and track/field stadium with seating for 4,000, a press box, and a concessions building; baseball/softball fields, a press box, and a concessions building; 3 practice/soccer fields; B lighted tennis courts; 4 basketball courts; 2 baseball fields; and 2 softball fields. • A future access road from the signalized intersection at Berryville Pike (Rt. 7) and Blossom Drive (Rt. 815). • The construction schedule will include three separate contracts: - Site improvements (grading, erosion control, and storm drainage) - approx. bid April 2001 - Building contract (site roads, parking lots, walks, remaining utilities, buildings) - approx. bid June 2001 - Future access road contract - approx. bid summer 2001 k k� © 2001 OLIVER, WEBB, PAPPAS & RHUDY, INC. PLANNING C€IMWSITEPQMIK MAR 08 9:51 am PROPOSED HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING PRACTICE TT Cl ��o j PRA TICE 1 LIZL t REDBUD RUN ELEM. SCH. 9r. z r.11fza 0 TY PRACTICE J.V. & P.E. BASEBALL FIELD VSI BASEBALL \ FlELD 1 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 300 100 0 300 600 1" = 300'-0" \� t 200' 0 2 C. li LL - F9 ov z 8 s Z 45 E5 RE �m :7 • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan Wyatt, Planning Director S-„ SUBJECT: 2001 Planning Commission Retreat Issues and Project Priorities DATE: March 8, 2001 FAX: 540/665-6395 During the 2001 Planning Commission Retreat, staff presented information pertaining to residential development trends and issues within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the County's rural areas; as well as information pertaining to land acquisition programs for development rights. Following these presentations, staff facilitated an issues identification session with the meeting participants to determine various visions, issues, and concerns associated with residential development patterns. This information is intended to be utilized by staff at the various subcommittee levels to complete a comprehensive review of current goals, objectives, and strategies associated with the County's rural area policies. Included with this agenda item is a summary of the issues that were identified by the retreat participants and tables providing the ranking of various long-range and current planning program projects. Staff would like to review this information with the Planning Commission to ensure that the subcommittees are proceeding in the appropriate direction regarding this issue. C;1MyFi1es\Backup\PC Retreat12001P1anningCommissionRetreat-PCSummaryMemo.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virgiaia 22601-5000 PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT ISSUES February 10, 2001 Urban Development Area Residential Development Trends and Standards • Review current goals, objectives, and strategies to determine if they are maximizing the development potential for the Urban Development Area (UDA). • Focus on policies and standards,which increase residential densities in the UDA. • Consider appropriate locations for expansion of the UDA to manage growth within designated areas. • Keep the UDA within Route 37 on the west side of the City of Winchester. • Determine incentives necessary to encourage a greater percentage of residential development to occur in the UDA. • Ensure that commercial land use opportunities are made available within residential developments or in close proximity to residential developments. • Consider the removal of the Apple Pie Ridge area from the UDA as the Comprehensive Policy Plan does not call for public water and sewer service in this location. • Determine if Frederick County is enabled to utilize Affordable Dwelling Unit ordinances (ADU)• Rural Area Residential Development Trends and Standards Review current goals, objectives, and strategies to determine if they still meet the desires for rural area development, rural area preservation, and rural area character. Produce mapping which projects growth patterns over the ensuing 10-20 years based on current trends of the past decade. Produce mapping which depicts parcels that are 50 acres and greater; identify the ownership of all parcels and specify which of these parcels are in land use. -1- Rural Area Residential Development Trends and Standards (Continued) • Focus on policies and standards which require residential clustering in the rural areas. • Review rural area residential design standards to make better use of land development. • Determine the appropriateness of establishing a true agricultural zoning district. • Consider reducing minimum lot sizes in the rural areas and permitting multiple rural area residential lots to utilize community drainfields. • Increase the open space percentage requirement for Rural Preservation Lot subdivisions. • Determine if various land division options in the rural areas need to be modified or eliminated. • Determine if rural area residential development densities need to be reduced. • Maintain the 200 -foot buffer between rural area residential land use and orchards. • Determine the appropriateness of establishing sanitary districts for rural area development. Purchase of Development Rights Programs (PDRs) • Determine if a PDR program enhances the County's long-range goals for our rural areas. • Meet with officials from Albemarle County, Loudoun County, and the City of Virginia Beach to determine how much is invested in their Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and what the relationship is between that cost and the PDR cost. • Determine how long it took these localities to implement their PDR programs from the Board/Council directives to the Board/Council approvals. • Provide information on PDR programs that establish perpetual non -development easements, and PDR programs that are "tier structured" which only purchase development rights for a certain period of time. • Establish a reasonable time table for a "yes or no" determination by the Board of Supervisors for the development of a PDR program. -2- Other Issues • Provide the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission with educational opportunities for transportation issues such as Level of Service (LOS) determination and appropriate measures for mitigation of deficiencies. • Provide the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission with educational opportunities for water resource and water capacity issues. • Determine if the County can place change of ownership conditions on Conditional Use Permits (CUP). • Better define qualifying land uses for cottage occupations under the CUP process. • Establish educational opportunities for the public and determine additional methods for the public to access information. • Determine if other localities have established transferable recreational rights to mitigate the deficiency of regional development opportunities. -3- I Department of Planning and Development 'Long -mange Projects Rank Point Project Title Total 1 15 Develop strategies; policies; and land use regulations which protect the rural character of the county and sustain agricultural land use. 2 38 Conduct an analysis of the Urban Development Area and develop strategies and policies which guide boundary adjustments. 3t 49 Assist in improvements to the county's Geographic Information System database to allow for enhanced analytical capabilities. 3t 49 Institute a study for the development of a land use plan for the Route 522 / Route 277 "triangle". 5 50 Develop a review and recommendation process for public projects to ensure compliance with section 15.2- 2232 of the Code of Virginia. 6 69 Develop an on-line process for the review and completion of various development applications. 7 78 Continue efforts to implement the Winchester -Frederick County Battlefield Network Plan through the development of grant applications and assistance in plan preparation. 8 84 Expand opportunities for citizens to access various departmental information through the county's webpage. CAMyFiles\Backup\PC Retreat\LongRangePlanningProjects-RankingTable.wpd Department of Planning and Development Current Planning Projects Rank Project Title 38 Complete a comprehensive review and revision of Chapter 165- Zoning Ordinance of the Frederick County Code. 40 Complete a comprehensive review and revision of Chapter 144 - Subdivision Ordinance of the Frederick County Code. 46 Complete the process necessary to comply with the 2001 magisterial district and voting precinct redistricting requirements in Frederick County. 53 Complete the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of Warrior Drive from Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) to Tasker Road (Route 642). 63 Review and revise planned unit development standards for the R-4 (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District. 69 Develop requirements for "minor" site development plans for additions to existing land uses and low impact projects. 74 Review development design standards for commercial corridors within the county, primarily those leading into the City of Winchester. 80 Develop an objective rating system for the prioritization of major secondary road improvement projects within Frederick County. 88 Develop a process and standards for the implementation of proportional site development improvements. 89 Review Planning Department application packages and procedures to ensure that current standards and policies are adhered to. C:\MyFiles\Backup\PC Retreat\CurrentPlanningProjects-RankingTable.wpd i • �7 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director RE: Planning Commission Bylaw Amendments DATE: March 5, 2001 Staff discussed the need to conduct a comprehensive review of the Planning Commission's Bylaws with Chairman Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., to ensure that procedures were up-to-date. The last amendment to the Planning Commission's Bylaws occurred on October 16, 1996 when standards were established for the tabling of agenda items. Please find attached the current Planning Commission Bylaws which have been reviewed by staff. Staff comments have been provided for specific sections for the purpose of discussion. Staff asks that the Planning Commission evaluate these recommendations and provide direction for potential amendments to the bylaws. Staff will modify all sections as determined by the Planning Commission and schedule an opportunity for action at a later date. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22501-5000 1\ BYLAWS County of Frederick, Virginia Planning Commission ARTICLE I -AUTHORIZATION 1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with Chapter 21 of the _Code of Frederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section 15.1-427.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Staff Comment: References to the County Code and State Code need to be updated to reflect the correct chapter and section information. 1-2 The official title ofthis 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 21 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 21 of the Code of Frederick Coun . Staff Comment: References to the County Code need to be updated to reflect the correct chapter information. -1- 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. 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 Commission. Staff Comment. This may need to be revised to state ...as assigned by the Board of Supervisors. Staff is unclear if it is appropriate far the members of the Commission to give assignments to the Chairman. -2- 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 Commission. Staff Comment. Same comment as in Section 4-3-1-6. This may need to be revised to state ...as assigned by the Board of Supervisors or the Chairman of the Commission. 4-3-3 The Secretary shall: 4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings. 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 of all official Commission records and reports. Staff Comment. It may be prudent to establish a minimum time limit for the maintenance of files associated with Commission business. This would assist staff in maintaining adequate file space within the department. The State Code only requires officialfiles and recordings to be maintainedfor a three-year period. 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. 4-3-4 Term of Office - 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. 4-3-5 Temporary Chairman An the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice- chairman from any meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members -3- a temporary chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice-chairman. ARTICLE V - COMMITTEES Staff Comment. The Sections within this Article need to be numbered correctly. 6-1 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose. 6-2 In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose, membership, and terms of office for each committee. Staff Comment: Currently, this Section is not reflected in the CPPS or the DRRS information. Staff will develop a mission statement for each committee to be reviewed at a subsequent meeting. However, it would be beneficial to receive inputfrom the Commission on membership and terms of office for each committee. 6-3 Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or committee members on committee appointments. 6-4 Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or citizen volunteers. 6-5 The chairman and vice-chairman shall be ex -officio members of every committee. ARTICLE VII -MEETINGS Staff Comment. This Article needs to be numbered correctly and the Section needs to be renumbered to coincide. 7-2 Regular meetings shall be held at the time and place set by the Commission at the first meeting of each calendar year. 7-3 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and publication by the secretary. Staff Comment. This may need to be revised to eliminate the secretary's ability to call a special meeting. 7-4 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days before the meeting. -4- 7-5 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for executive sessions as allowed by the Code of Virginia, as amended. Staff Comment. It may be prudent to list the State Code sections which permit executive sessions for reference in the event they are ever utilized 7-6 The Planning Commission may hold an executive session only according to the requirements of, and for the purposes described by, the Code of Virginia as amended. Staff Comment: This may be redundant due to Section 7-5. It may read better if these two sections were combined. 7-7 Work sessions shall be held at the adj ournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission at the first meeting of each calendar year. Staff Comment: This language appears to be fairly inf lexible. The Commission should not be bound to holding work sessions at the end of a meeting if it makes more sense to hold them before the meeting. Furthermore, it may be difficult to know where and when a work session should be held for the entire calendar year during the Commission's first meeting. ARTICLE VIII -VOTING Staff Comment: This Article needs to be numbered correctly and the Section needs to be renumbered to coincide. 8-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or motion made unless a quorum is present. 8-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting. ARTICLE IX -OPERATING RULES Staff Comment: This Article needs to be numbered correctly and the Section needs to be renumbered to coincide. 9-1 Order of Business 9-1-1 Call to Order 9-1-2 Consideration of Minutes -5- 01 9-1-3 Secretary's Report Staff Comment. It may be appropriate to eliminate this section as this has not occurred historically. 9-1-4 Committee Reports 9-1-5 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda 9-1-6 Unfinished Business 9-1-7 New Business 9-1-8 Adj ournment 9-2 Minutes - The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting and, on adoption by the Commission, these minutes shall become a public record. The Chairman and Secretary shall sign all minutes at the end of the year, certifying that the minutes are true and correct. Staff Comment. It would be beneficial to reword this section to state that minutes shall not be made available to the public until they are formally adopted by the Commission. Furthermore, the last sentence of this section should be reworded to eliminate ...at the end of the year, and modified to state ...following approval by a majority vote of the Commission. 9-3 Procedures 9-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures. 9-3-2 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. 9-3-3 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures: 9-3-3-1 Report by the Secretary, County Staff or Commission Members Staff Comment. This should be amended to state ...Report by County Staff. -6- 9-3-3-2 Presentation by Applicant 9-3-3-3 Citizen Comment 9-3-3-4 Rebuttal by Applicant 9-3-3-5 Discussion by Commission 9-3-3-6 Motion and action by Commission 9-3-4 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the Chairman may allow public comment. 9-3-5 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information after the staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 9-3-6 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting may be 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. 9-3-7 Public Hearings 9-3-7-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which hearings are required by the Code of Vir inia or by the Code of Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and notifications provided as required by the Code of Virginia. 9-3-7-2 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. 9-3-7-3 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. 9-3-8 Master Development Plans - Master development plans shall be considered by the Commission according to the following procedures: 9-3-8-1 Presentation by Applicant -7- NO 9-3-8-2 Report by the Secretary, County Staff or Commission Members Staff Comment: This should be amended to state ...Report by County Staff. 9-3-8-3 Citizen Comment 9-3-8-4 Rebuttal by Applicant 9-3-8-5 Discussion by Commission 9-3-8-6 Motion and action by Commission Staff Comment: This section should be eliminated, unless the Commission would like to specify procedures for all applications that are duly considered. 9-3-9 Tabling (Revised 10/16/96) 9-3-9-1 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. 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. ' 9-3-9-2 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. 9-3-9-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall be read v ertised fvr consideration b;' -.1 Acumnir �Villllllssllrlll V11cG L11G V11U W lll� 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. 9-3-9-4 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. 9-3-10 Work sessions 9-3-10-1 The Commission may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of these bylaws shall not apply. 9-3-10-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adj ournment of regular meeting or at times scheduled by the Commission for work sessions at the first meeting of the year. Staff Comment. (Same comment from Section 7-7) This language appears to be fairly inflexible. The Commission should not be bound to holding work sessions at the end of a meeting if it makes more sense to hold them before the meeting. Furthermore, it maybe difficult to know where and when a work session should be held for the entire calendar year during the Commission's first meeting. 9-3-10-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at least five days before the session. 9-3-10-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and discussion. 9-3-10-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session. 9-3-10-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required at a work session. 9-3-10-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all work sessions and the items discussed. 9-3-11 Adjournment - 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. Staff Comment. The Commission may want the ability to waive this requirement in the event of a heavy agenda. If a waiver of this requirement is desired, the Commission should only do so by majority vote of the voting membership prior to consideration of the agenda item. ARTICLE X -AMENDMENTS Staff Comment. This Article needs to be numbered correctly and the Section needs to be renumbered to coincide. 10-1 These bylaws maybe amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice. FILE: A:\BYLAWS\PlanningCommissionBylaws-RecommendedAmendments.wpd (REVISED 10/16/96) -10-