Loading...
PC 11-07-01 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia NOVEMBER 7, 2001 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) September 5, 2001 and October 3, 2001 Minutes ............................. (A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................ (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments ................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Continuation or Revocation of Conditional Use Permit #01-01 of Mr. S. Blaine Wilson and Mr. Keith A. Wilson for a Shale Mining Operation. The properties are located at 881 W. Parkins Mill Road and identified with Property Identification Numbers 76-A-137 and 76- A -137A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mr. Wyatt).......................................................... (B) 5) Conditional Use Permit #17-01 of Jordan Springs to establish an office use that is of equal or lesser nonconformity than the Shalom et Benedictus treatment center. This property is located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 44-A-294 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Ms. Ragsdale)........................................................(C) 6) Update of the 2002-2003 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. (Mr. Camp) .......................................................... (D) 7) Rezoning #07-01 of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 5.1 acres of RP (Residential Performance) and 149.3 acres of RA (Rural Areas) to 116.7 acres of M1 (Light Industrial); 23.2 acres of B2 (Business General); and 14.5 acres of B3 (Industrial Transition. This property is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike on the east and south, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-100 and 43-A-111 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Mr. Lawrence) ....................................................... (E) 8) Rezoning #09-01 of the Estate of Naomi Adams Poole, submitted by Triad Engineering, Inc., to rezone 7.6 acres from M2 (Industrial General) to B2 (Business General). The parcels are located on either side of Hood Way, adjacent to Valley Pike (Route 11) approximately 2,200' northeast of the intersection of Route 11 and Route 3 7 and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 63 -A -86B and 63 -A -86C in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mr. Lawrence) ....................................................... (F) PUBLIC MEETING 9) Waiver Request for Lots Abutting and Having Direct Access to VDOT Rights -of -Way, submitted by Space, L.L.C. (Mr. Davenport) .......................................................(G) 10) Master Development Plan #02-01 of Red Fox Run II, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for the development of 66 single-family detached urban lots. This property is located northeast and adjacent to Red Fox Run I, approximately 600' east of Route 522 and 2,400' southwest of Airport Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 64-A-40 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Oft. Camp) ..........................................................(H) DISCUSSION ITEMS 11) Discussion of Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) Expansion South of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) (Mr. Lawrence) ....................................................... (� 12) Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Regarding Loading Area Requirements (Mr. Camp) .......................................................... (J) 13) Other Page 2 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on September 5, 2001. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Sidney A. Reyes, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: . Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; STAFF PRESENT: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner I; Mark Cheran, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - JULY 2, 2001, JULY 18, 2001, & AUGUST 1, 2001 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, the minutes of July 2, 2001 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of July 18, 2001 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, the minutes of August 1, 2001 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2001 Page 717 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Reeulations Subcommittee MRS) - 08/23/01 Mtg. Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt reported that the DRRS is revisiting the issue of loading spaces in the commercial and industrial zoning districts for small lots; he said the DRRS is also interested in streamlining the review procedures for subdivisions and site plans for townhouses and apartments. Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 08/13/01 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS made a recommendation to the Planning Commission to include all of the McTieman property into the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); the CPPS also discussed staff proposals on the public education programs designed to educate the community on comprehensive planning in Frederick County. Deputy Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, added that the five educational meetings scheduled this Fall are designed to provide the community with an overview of comprehensive planning, to inform about the growth trends the County is experiencing in the rural areas, and to let the participants prioritize goals within the Comprehensive Plan. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 08/14/01 Mtg. Commissioner Morris reported that the HRAB awarded a historic plaque for the Old Stone Church located on Greenspring Road. He said that the HRAB also considered a conditional use permit for a school with a residential component along Chapel Lane and Cedar Creek. Commissioner Morris explained that the site is located within the Phase H area of the Battle of Cedar Creek as identified by the National Park Service Study. Two probable conditions suggested by the HRAB and which were acceptable to the developers were: 1) the log cabin on the property would be maintained; and 2) a Phase I Study of the history of the general area would be completed in the future. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #11-01 of Walter I. Floyd, Jr. for a Motel (Bed & Breakfast). This property is located at 6244 Wardensville Grade and is identified with P.I.N. 69 -A -44A in the Back Creek District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2001 Page 718 -3 - Planner Mark R. Cheran read the background information and reported no adverse comments from any of the reviewing agencies. Planner Cheran explained that the bed and breakfast would take place in a three-bedroom house located on the property and the number of guests will not exceed eight_ He said that the property is surrounded by like properties, with the nearest property with a dwelling being 50' from the proposed bed and breakfast. Planner Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, if the use was found to be appropriate. Commissioner Morris inquired if it would be permissible for the applicant to have more than eight guests on some occasions, for example, if there was a wedding reception. Staff replied that the Health Department is restricting the conditional use permit (CUP) to eight persons because of the limitations of the septic system. It was pointed out by the staffthat the intent of this CUP is for a bed and breakfast only; as with previous bed and breakfasts that have sought to expand to include gatherings and meeting places, the applicant would be required to apply for a new CUP for expansion of the business. Mr. Walter I. Floyd, Jr., the applicant and owner, stated that he does not plan to have wedding receptions, parties, or seminars because the building to be used for the bed and breakfast is too small to handle large numbers of people. There were no public comments. The Commissioners were of the opinion that the proposed use would not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties and believed the use was appropriate. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of CUP #I 1 -0 1 of Walter I. Floyd, Jr. for a bed and breakfast at 6244 Wardensville Grade with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than eight (8) guests shall be permitted at any given time. 3. Based on the scale ofthis proposed use, Cottage Occupation Sign Requirements would be appropriate; signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet. 4. Any expansion or change of use will require a new conditional use permit. Conditional Use Permit #12-01 of Mary C. Dixon for an expansion of Conditional Use Permit #13-99 for a daycare facility. This property is located at 128 Meadowbrooke Drive and is identified with P.I.N. 85B-1-22 in the Opequon District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner Rebecca Ragsdale stated that this is a request to revise a previously -approved Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2001 Page 719 -4- conditional use permit to operate a daycare facility. She said that the applicant is permitted only six non- resident children under her current conditional use permit (CUP) and desires to expand to ten non-resident children. Planner Ragsdale added that the daycare facility is conducted with the principal structure, the applicant has no employees, and the applicant is licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Social Ser,-.ccs as a Famsly Day H--me. She further added that the residence is on pablic sewer and water and there were no adverse comments by any of the reviewing agencies. In conclusion, Planner Ragsdale read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission determine the expansion to be appropriate. Mrs. Mary C. Dixon, the applicant and owner of the property, came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioner Thomas inquired of Mrs. Dixon if the public hearing sign was posted in her yard for the hearing this evening and Mrs. Dixon replied that it was and it was posted last Tuesday. Chaiman DeHaven commented that Mrs. Dixon's State permit limits her to six children and that she would need to have her State permit updated. Chairman DeHaven asked Mrs. Dixon at what point the State would require her to have a helper. Mrs. Dixon replied that the requirement is based on points, which are based on the ages of the children; when she accumulates 16 points, she would be required to have a helper. She said that she did not anticipate having ten children; she explained that she has an infant coming that is a brother of another child in her care. She said that she has the points available, but it will put her at seven children and her State capacity was set at six children. Mrs. Dixon said that this was her main reason for pursuing the expansion of her CUP. There were no public comments. The Commission voiced no adverse concerns about the expansion of the CUP and believed the expansion would not be inappropriate at this location. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Unger, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit # 12-01 for an expansion of Conditional Use Permit # 13-99 for a Daycare Facility at 128 Meadowbrooke Drive with the following conditions: The applicant shall satisfy the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and the County of Frederick. 2. The number of non-resident children allowed at this daycare facility shall total no more than ten. 3. No business sign shall be permitted. 4. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2001 Page 72C -5 - Conditional Use Permit #13-01 of Lynnette L. Embree for a Cottage Occupation for a Counseling Service. The property is located at 687 Front Royal Pike and is identified with P.I.N. 64C -A-2 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner Mark R. Cheran stated that this conditional use permit (CUP) application is for a counseling service to occur in a detached garage that has been remodeled into an office. He stated that the applicant proposes to see no more than one client at any one time and no more than five per day. Planner Cheran reported no adverse comments from any of the reviewing agencies. He added that the detached garage is greater than five feet from any adjoining property. He next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission determine the CUP to be appropriate. Mrs. Lynnette L. Embree, the applicant and owner of the property, explained that she will be operating a "coaching" business, which is different from counseling in that counseling deals with the past and coaching deals with the present and the future; she said she will be working with people to help them achieve the results they want in life. Mrs. Embree said that the business will not require licensing from the State. There were no public comments. No issues of concern were raised by the Commission and they believed the use would not have any significant impacts on adjoining properties. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit # 13-01 of Lynnette L. Embree for a Cottage Occupation for a Counseling Service to be located at 687 Front Royal Pike with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements; the sign is not to exceed four square feet. Any change of use or expansion of the use will require a new conditional use permit. Proposed Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, to establish new Article XVIII, Medical Support (MS) District. The establishment of the new MS District requires amendments to Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-27, Off -Street Parking, Parking Lots; Section 165-30, Signs; Section 165-37, Buffer and Screening Requirements; and amendments to Article XXI, Definitions, Section 165-145, Definitions and Word Usage. The proposed amendments are intended to establish a new zoning district which allows for a variety of support services and related residential land uses to support medical uses and schools of medicine. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2001 Page 721 Action - Recommended Approval Planning Director, Evan A. Wyatt, stated that the Planning Staff conducted a work session with the Board of Supervisors on August 8, 2001, to review the draft MS (Medical Support) District. He said that the Board was comfortable with the overall format and language proposed by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS); however, specific issues pertaining to the buffer and screening requirements were raised. Upon the Board's direction, Director Wyatt explained that staff revised the text to increase the buffer distance between the new district and adjoining properties that are zoned RA (Rural Areas) and eliminated language which provided for modifications to the buffer and screening requirements, provided that a legal agreement was entered into by both parties. Specifically, the 50' buffer requirement adjacent to agriculture use and a 100' buffer requirement adjacent to orchards was increased to 100' against agriculture use and 200' against orchards; in both scenarios the earth berm and landscaping is still required to provide a vertical buffer as well as a linear distance buffer. . Director Wyatt pointed out an additional concern which surfaced regarding the urban collector and urban local road standards to make certain they were well defined to eliminate confusion about what was required. Director Wyatt said that staff met with VDOT officials to review the text and VDOT is comfortable with what is now proposed. In addition, he said that a waiver provision had been stricken from the text and some minor revisions were made to the off-street parking, signs, definitions, and word usage sections. Regarding the buffers and screening issue, Commissioners pointed out that every combination of zoning district possible is referenced in the matrix with the exception of the RA (Rural Areas) District. Commissioners believed the issue concerning buffers and screening against (RA) Rural Area property deserved consideration and warranted future study, however, they did not want to delay passing on the MS District. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following person came forward to speak: Ms. Diane Kerns, an orchardist residing in the Gainesboro District, had a few comments from an orchardist's point of view regarding the buffers. Ms. Kerns believed that, 1) the footage for buffer/setback requirements against adjacent properties should be the same for all zoning districts to enable enforcement; 2) she was in favor of the 200' distance buffer; and 3) she raised the issue of whether or not there would be a greater percentage of persons within the MS District that might have issues with the spraying more so than persons in other districts, for example, the elderly, the very young, or persons with compromised immune systems. Commissioner Light moved to send the MS District to the Board with a favorable recommendation and this motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger. There was discussion about whether the distance buffer should be placed at 200' for all districts, across the board. As a compromise, Commissioner Light amended his motion to change the 20' landscape easement in the 100' section to a 40' landscape easement in order to move parking lots away and increase the three-foot berm to a six-foot berm in order to catch blowing matter. However, the amended motion died for lack of a second to the motion. Most Commissioners believed that a 200' buffer across the board was excessive. They believed that the buffer changes that were already made were a good compromise and the proposed ordinance Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2001 Page 722 -7 - was appropriate as presented. Commissioner Light again moved to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors for the adoption of the Medical Support District as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger and was unanimously approved. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, to establish new Article XVIII, Medical Support (MS) District. The establishment of the new MS District requires amendments to Article IV Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-27, Off -Street Parking; Parking Lots; Section 165-30 Signs; Section 165-37, Buffer and Screening Requirements; and Amendments to Article XXI Definitions, Section 165- 145, Definitions and Word Usage. These amendments are intended to establish a new zoning district which allows for a variety of support services and related residential land uses to support medical uses and schools of medicine. Proposed Amendment to Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article III, General Provisions, Section 144-6, Violations and Penalties. The proposed amendment establishes new penalties guidelines for violations of this Chapter of the Code of Frederick County. Action - Recommended Approval Planning Director, Evan A. Wyatt, stated that during the Planning Commission's 2001 Annual Retreat, one of the items under the heading, "Current Planning Projects," was the need to begin a comprehensive review of both Chapters 144 and 165 of the Frederick County Code. Director Wyatt said that the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) has begun to review some of the "straight- forward" text amendments to begin this process, with the first being the Violations and Penalties Sections of both ofthe chapters. He said that the Planning Staff met with representatives of the County Attorney's Office to review the information pertaining to violations and penalties for enforcement measures and it was the County Attorney's Office's opinion that the County's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances need to be amended to specifically address language within the Code of Virginia pertaining to misdemeanors. Director Wyatt said that the DRRS considered this issue during their July 26, 2001 meeting and have recommended the revised text amendments presented in the Commission's agenda. concern. There were no public comments. The Planning Commission believed both amendments were appropriate and had no issues of Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE Tr RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article III, General Provisions, Section 144-6, Violations and Penalties. The proposed amendment establishes new penalties guidelines for Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2001 Page 723 -8 - violations of this Chapter of the Code of Frederick County. Proposed Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article I, General Provisions, Section 165-6, Violations and Penalties; Enforcement. The proposed amendment establishes new penalties guidelines for violations of this Chapter of the Code of Frederick County. Action - Recommended Approval Planning Staff comments on this item were received with the previous amendment, as both of these proposed amendments were completed in conjunction with each other. Chairman DeHaven instructed that the two amendments be considered separately since they were advertised individually. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, but there were none. As with the previous amendment proposal, the Planning Commission believed it was appropriate and raised no issues of concern. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendment to Chapter 164, Zoning Ordinance, Article I, General Provisions, Section 165-6, Violations and Penalties; Enforcement. The proposed amendment establishes new penalties guidelines for violations of this Chapter of the Code of Frederick County. PUBLIC MEETING Request for a Waiver to Increase Woodlands Disturbance in the Stonewall Industrial Park submitted by Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering on behalf of the Lenoir City Company of Virginia. This waiver would apply to 4.8 acres of woodlands identified by P.I.N. 43-A-63 within an approximate 119 - acre site zoned M1 in the Stonewall Magisterial District and previously master planned in 1999. Action - Recommended Approval Deputy Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that this request is to increase the woodlands disturbance allowance within the Stonewall Industrial Park. Deputy Director Lawrence stated that the applicant, Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, has submitted the request on behalf of Lenoir City Company for the Stonewall Industrial Park. He explained that the applicant is requesting to be permitted to disturb up to 75 percent of the woodlands on this site in order to more fully develop the property for light Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2001 Page 724 IRE industrial use. He proceeded to point out the location of the site and the area of woodlands proposed to be disturbed. Deputy Director Lawrence continued, stating that the applicant has provided for the establishment of a 20' -wide easement along the northern property line, essentially preserving the natural landscape while maintaining a buffer against the adjoining agricultural property; the easement would contain approximately 1.6 acres, protecting approximately 25 percent of the site's woodlands. He added that these woodlands would be further protected by the applicant's proposal to prohibit the placement of utilities within the easement, except for future utilities necessary to serve the adjacent site; and at such time, the utilities will run perpendicular to the property line, minimizing disturbance. Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, representing the applicant, Lenoir City Company, stated that this particular area of Stonewall Industrial Park was added a little more than two years ago and contains an access connector road that extends to Welltown Road. He said that if the woodlands disturbance request is approved, he will proceed with the preparation of a site plan for three buildings to be located within this particular. corner. He noted that this request is similar to the one recently approved for the Airport Business Center. Mr. Smith commented that woodlands disturbance for Commercial and Industrial Districts has always been a part of the County's ordinance; however, just recently, within the last few months, the topic of woodlands disturbance for Residential Districts has been discussed. He elaborated further, stating that a waiver provision for woodlands disturbance in Residential Districts was just recently approved and the County is now working on a new 75 -percent tree save ordinance. Some members of the Commission speculated whether it would be reasonable to ask the applicant for replacement trees, for example, tree -lined streets, to replace the woodlands disturbed. Chairman DeHaven favored pursuing tree replacement as a goal; however, he believed that directing applicants to meet conditions and requirements that the Commission hasn't yet developed, or that the community has not yet reviewed, was not the best approach. Another point made by the Commission was that the Stonewall Industrial park has already been designed, it has matured, and the County should maximize and optimize this particular park. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Ms. Sue Golden, a resident of the Back Creek District, believed tree replacement was an excellent idea and believed it should be pursued for this particular request. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, The Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the request for a waiver to increase woodlands disturbance in the Stonewall Industrial Park submitted by Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering on behalf of the Lenoir City Company of Virginia. This waiver would apply to 4.8 acres of woodlands identified by P.I.N. 43-A-63 within an approximate 119 - acre site zoned M1 in the Stonewall Magisterial District and previously master planned in 1999. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2001 Page 725 -10 - Request for a waiver of the 50' right-of-way requirement of Section 144-5 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, submitted by Ms. Wendy Baruch, to create a family subdivision. Ac�.c : = ID-- u e :ded Appr--val Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Patrick T. Davenport, reported that Ms. Wendy Baruch is requesting a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance, Sections 144-24C, which states that all lots shall abut and have direct access to a public street or right-of-way; Section 144-31 C(2), which states that vehicular access to minor rural subdivisions may be provided by means of shared private driveways; and Section 144- 31C(3), which states that the minimum width for shared private driveways shall be 50'. Mr. Davenport said that Ms. Baruch wishes to subdivide her 7.6 -acre property to create a family variance lot of 5.0 acres and to retain the remaining 2.6 acres. He said that Ms. Baruch was unsuccessful with her request to have Ms. Susan Golden, the adjoining property owner who owns an existing 12' private access easement known as Boyers Mill Lane, widen the existing access easement to the required 50'. Mr. Davenport said that Ms. Baruch has submitted a request for a waiver that would permit her to complete the proposed subdivision. Ms. Wendy Baruch was available to answer questions from the Commission. Ms. Susan Golden, adjoining property owner, stated that the existing 12' easement was perfectly adequate for her needs and the needs of the other property owners requiring its access. Ms. Golden said that other than Ms. Baruch, her home and the adjoining dwellings are weekend homes and, in addition, the 12' easement is located on a cliff which would be difficult to widen because of the steep topography. No other public comments were made. Commission members believed the potential for surrounding properties to be further subdivided was remote. The Commission believed this was an appropriate request. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the request for a waiver of the 50' right-of-way requirement of Section 144-5 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance by Ms. Wendy Baruch. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ALLOWANCE OF MOBILE HOMES AS ACCESSORY DWELLINGS. Action - Recommended Denial Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt stated that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) had received a request for the consideration of an amendment to Chapter 165-26 of the Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2001 Page 726 -11 - Zoning Ordinance which would allow mobile homes to be used as accessory dwellings throughout the RA District. Director Wyatt said that the DRRS considered this request at their meeting on July 26, 2001 and did not believe mobile homes should be allowed as an accessory residential dwelling because it would open the door for establishing two residential uses per lot within the RA (Rural Areas) District and may negatively affect the overall character of the District. He said that in addition, the DRRS believed that the current language governing accessory residential dwellings should be amended to require the issuance ofa conditional use permit for property owners desiring this use. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Cecil Boyce of 1759 Wardensville Grade said that he requested the amendment for his sister, whose husband passed away last April, so she could place a mobile home on her property because her house was in terrible disrepair and she does not have money for repairs. Mr. Boyce said he made the request for this particular purpose only. The Commission believed that if approved, this amendment would affect the County as a whole and while they were supportive of Mr. Boyce's goal to assist his sister, the Commission did not believe this was the appropriate way to proceed. The Commissioners were not in favor of allowing two dwelling units on a single parcel throughout the County. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of the request to amend Chapter 165-26 of the Frederick County Code to allow mobile homes as an accessory dwelling. OTHER CANCELLATION OF THE COMMISSION'S SEPTEMBER 19 2001 MEETING Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt stated that no applications for consideration have been received for the Commission's September 19, 2001 meeting; however, in keeping with the Commission's desire for educational opportunities, a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) presentation could be held during that time. Commissioners were in agreement that the GIS presentation would be welcome. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to cancel their meeting of September 19, 2001 and instead have a GIS educational presentation. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2001 page 727 ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. -12 - No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Evan A. Wyatt, Secretary Charles S. Deflaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2001 Page 728 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on October 3, 2001. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Sidney A. Reyes, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: - Richard C. Ours, Opequon District STAFF PRESENT: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director; Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner I; Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk_ CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 09/27/01 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed requirements for loading docks, paving, and some other items that will be coming to the Planning Commission in the next several months for discussion. Transportation Committee (TC) - 10/02/01 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the TC reviewed and recommended the update of the 2002-2003 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 2001 Page 729 -2 - Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 09/18/01 Mtg. Commissioner Morris reported that the HRAB reviewed a conditional use permit for a country general store on Cedar Creek Grade that the Planning Commission will be addressing this evening. Commissioner Morris added that the HRAB had a presentation from Mrs. O'Sullivan of the National Park Service regarding the creation of a new national park at the Battle of Cedar Creek. Economic Development Commission Commissioner Thomas reported that the EDC had discussions on an effort the EDC staff is pursuing concerning compiling characteristics of development in our area; for example, what prompts economic development, what fuels residential and industrial development, etc. Commissioner Thomas said that these statistics will hopefully be able to be used for future planning purposes. Sanitation Authority Commissioner Fisher reported that the Sanitation Authority's Executive Director presented some information regarding rainfall and the quarries; basically, the storms arrived at the wrong time of the year and quarries are still holding their own, but are not really in a recovery mode. Commissioner Fisher said that reference was also made to the upcoming meetings for the Regional Water Study Committee. Winchester Planning Commission City Liaison, Mr. Vincent DiBenedetto, said that the Winchester Planning Commission is continuing its review of the Community Facilities chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #15-01 of Homespun Gifts and Gardens by Turner Enterprises, LLC for a Country Store/ Mercantile. This property is located at 949 Cedar Creek Grade and is identified with P.I.N. 63 -A -2H in the Shawnee District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 2001 Page 73C -3 - Planner Mark R. Cheran read the background information and reported no adverse comments from any of the reviewing agencies. He explained that the property is located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) as noted in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In addition, he said the property is a nonconforming lot of record and has no current RA (Rural Areas) setback requirements. Planner Cheran reported that the use would take place in a two-story, eight -room, 2,448 -square -foot stone and log structure. He said that one ofthe eight rooms will be used as a store office and the remaining rooms will be furnished with merchandise to sell. He said that merchandise for sale included furniture, bedding, throws, pillows, games, and garden accessories; an on -premises kitchen will produce apple and vegetable specialties, as well as cookies and candies. He added that there will be no service of gasoline or other petroleum products and no restaurant or deli operation. Planner Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Mr. R. J. Turner of R. J. Turner Enterprises, LLC, was the applicant and contract owner ofthe property, and he came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Turner said that his wife would be operating and running the store. Commission members inquired aboutparkmg lot standards and staffreplied that the zoning ordinance requires a prime and seal surface with no curb and gutter or landscaping requirement. Mr. Turner requested that he be permitted to use interlocking pavers or a material similar to what was used at Hackwood, so as not to spoil the integrity of the building. Mr. Turner did not believe it would be appropriate to use a large slab of concrete next to a building that was constructed in the 1700-1800's. Commission members inquired how far outside of the UDA this property was located. Staff replied that the UDA line literally envelopes this parcel, but the parcel is not within the UDA. Commission members inquired if the entrance to this parcel crossed someone else's property. Staff replied that the proposed plat shows the entranceway to the parking lot coming through the Allen property and also shows an off-site drainfield easement. Mr. Turner explained that he is having discussions with Mr. Richie Wilkins and Mr. Jim Vickers, contract purchasers ofthe Allen tract, in attempts to acquire additional easement. Mr. Turner explained that he and his wife are trying to maintain the integrity of the historic house and are sensitive to the way in which it will be developed. Mr. Turner said that they are in the process of attempting to have the home recorded in the National Registry of Historic Places. Mr. Turner next described his and his wife's plans for both the inside and outside ofthe building and their anticipated intensity of use. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment, however, no one was present to speak. Commissioner Morris, a member ofthe Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB), said the HRAB had a very favorable meeting with the Turners. Commissioner Morris referred to the memo in the Commission's agenda, written by Planner Rebecca Ragsdale, which explained in detail the essence of the meeting. Commissioner Morris was confident that the Turners would have a first-class business, while maintaining the historic integrity of the building, and he was in favor of the proposal. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 2001 Page 731 -4 - Some members of the Commission voiced opposition to the proposal, however, because the proposed business would be located in an agricultural area. The point was made that if this structure is to be used as a business, then it should be rezoned to B 1 (Neighborhood Business); they believed that conducting this activity in an RA area under a conditional use permit, in light of its potential intensiveness, would not be appropriate. They believed that rezoning the property to B 1 would be the appropriate way to proceed. Other members were supportive of the request. They compared this request to the CUP that was granted for a 7-11 Store at the Farmers Livestock Exchange some time ago and believed this request was nowhere near that intensity. It was pointed out that this is an opportunity to help save, remodel, and refurbish a historical property. It was also pointed out that this property is quite close to the UDA, it is a quarter -mile from the City of Winchester, and is a potential tourist attraction. Commissioner Morris argued that CUPS are permitted in the RA District and ifthe property was rezoned, the UDA line would have to be modified to accommodate the rezoning. He questioned the appropriateness of creating these obstacles for an applicant over a use that is allowed under a CUP. Chairman DeHaven agreed; he believed this CUP was completely within the intent and purpose for CUPS in the RA Zoning District. However, he hoped that the site plan would show an off-site entrance that serves the entire parcel, as opposed to multiple entrances on Cedar Creek Grade. Upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit # 15-01 of Homespun Gifts and Gardens for a County Store/Mercantile at 949 Cedar Creek Grade with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. An engineered site plan shall be approved by the County. All improvements shall be installed prior to operation of the country general store. 3. Maximum height of a freestanding sign shall be six (6) feet. 4. Maximum size of a freestanding sign shall be twenty-five (25) square feet. 5. No internally -illuminated signs shall be allowed outside of the building. 6. Maximum size of a building -mounted sign shall be ten (10) square feet. 7. Dumpsters shall be completely enclosed by an opaque fence with a minimum setback of fifteen (15) feet from the property line. 8. Parking shall only be permitted behind the structure. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 2001 Page 732 -5- 9. No petroleum sales, restaurant or deli operation shall be allowed. 10. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. The vote on this conditional use permit was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Triplett, Fisher, Kriz, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt NO: Thomas, Wilson Revised Proffers for Briarwood Estates, submitted by Dave Holliday of SHIHO, Inc. to eliminate platting restrictions associated with the Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) Improvement Project. Briarwood Estates is located in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Planning Director, Evan A. Wyatt, read the background and project history for this request. Director Wyatt said that in 1998, the Briarwood Estates subdivision received conditional zoning approval in the form of a proffer statement for a 50.53 -acre portion of the tract which was ultimately consolidated and is under development today. He said that one of the conditions of the proffer the applicant had voluntarily offered was to only build a certain amount of the lots within Briarwood until the Greenwood Road improvement project was complete. Director Wyatt said the developer was willing to do that because of the concerns expressed by both the Commission and the Board of Supervisors about the ability of Greenwood Road to handle additional traffic until the road improvement project was completed. Director Wyatt continued, stating that currently, the developer has maximized the lots he is allowed to develop under his proffer statement and has requested an opportunity to come before the Commission and Board to have just one section of his proffer revised, the one which limited lot development. Director Wyatt said that VDOT officials are anticipating completion ofthe Greenwood Road Improvement Project by or before Thanksgiving of 2001 (approximately eight weeks from now). He added that both the Building Official and the Director of Public Works have stated that if building permits were issued for the remaining lots, the time frame for issuing Certificates of Occupancy, which would result in additional traffic generation onto Greenwood Road, would be approximately 90 to 120 days (approx- imately 12 to 16 weeks from now). The President of SHIHO, Inc., owner ofBriarwood Estates, Mr. Dave Holliday, stated that they are presently working on the final lot on which they can build and he has five builders who would like to get building permits for the remaining lots before the cold weather sets in. Mr. Holliday guaranteed the houses would not be completed until after November or December, after the projected completion date for Greenwood Road. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 2001 Page 733 The Planning Commission had no issues of concern with amending the proffer, in light of the time frames for the completion of Greenwood Road and the development of the remaining residential lots. iTnon mot_nn maw;le by Mr Thmm�e and seconded by Mr. Kris , BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the request by SHIHO, Inc. to amend the proffer statement for Briarwood Estates by eliminating platting restrictions associated with the Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) Improvement Project. Waiver Request for Driveway Spacing Requirements at the Trex Office Center, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. The property is located on North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522 North) and is identified with P.I.N. 42 -A -198J and 42 -A -198G in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Planner Rebecca Ragsdale reported that this request for a waiver to the minimum driveway spacing requirements was submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. on behalf of the Bank of Clarke County. Planner Ragsdale explained that North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522 North) is classified as a primary road with a 45 mile -per -hour (mph) speed limit and the ordinance specifies that new driveways or entrances be placed 200' from existing driveways on roads with a posted speed limit of more than 35 mph. She explained that the waiver will permit an entrance offNorth Frederick Pike to access the proposed Bank of Clarke County and she pointed out the locations of the facility and entrances on a map. Planner Ragsdale said that the applicant is 12' short of the 200' requirement. Mr. Ronald A. Mislowsky with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. was available to answer questions from the Commission. Chairman DeHaven stated that when the Commission originally considered this development, the Commission expressed the desire to ultimately see Exeter go out to the intersection with Fox Drive. Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Mislowsky if any progress was made towards that goal. Mr. Mislowsky replied that the rear property line of the adjacent site also has an egress/ingress easement and the road will be constructed as part of the development of this site and the site immediately to the north. Mr. Mislowsky said there will be the ability to proceed up Exeter, just past the the Bank of Clarke County site, to make a left behind the chapel, and exit on Fox Drive. He believed this would be the main access for the gas station on the next site to the north. He added that the future Handy Mart site will share the entrance with the Bank of Clarke County. Mr. Mislowsky guaranteed there would be no additional entrances or exits from any portion of this site out onto Route 522. There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr, Kriz, Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 2001 Page 734 -7 - BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the waiver request for driveway spacing requirements at the Trex Office Center on North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522 North) with the understanding that no other entrances going into the Trex Center from North Frederick Pike will be proposed. The entrance for which this waiver was necessary will be approximately 188' from Exeter Drive and will be shared with the proposed Handy Mart. OTHER PLANNING COMMISSION'S MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2001 - WATER SENSITIVE WORKSHOP Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt reminded everyone that the Commission's second scheduled meeting of October (October 17, 200 1) will be held at the Orchard View Elementary School for the Water Sensitive Design Workshop sponsored by Virginia Tech on behalf of the Planning Commission. Director Wyatt said the meeting will start at 6:30 p.m. and should end by 9:30 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION'S MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 2001 RESCHEDULED TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2001, DUE TO THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY Director Wyatt pointed out that the Commission's regularly scheduled second meeting of November (Wednesday, November 21, 2001) falls on the day before the Thanksgiving holiday. The Commission decided that if applications were submitted that needed to be acted on, they would prefer to have the meeting on Monday, November 19, 2001. If no applications were submitted, then the meeting should be canceled. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Evan A. Wyatt, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 2001 Page 735 • • �7 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director . 1 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Continuation or Revocation of Conditional Use Permit #01-01 for S. Blaine and Keith A. Wilson DATE: October 25, 2001 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #01-01 for S. Blaine and Keith A. Wilson on July 11, 2001 to allow for a shale mining operation on parcels 76-A- 137 and 76-A137A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. This CUP was approved with the following conditions: 1) All review agency comments and Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requirements, including the EM District requirements applicable to this site, shall be complied with at all times. 2) A state mining permit shall be kept current as required by the Code of Virginia. 3) No commercial mining operation shall occur until an approved VDOT entrance is constructed. 4) No vehicular traffic involved in the shale mining operation shall travel on Airport Road west of the site's entrance. 5) A schematic plan illustrating the current conditions of the subject properties shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 30 days of approval of the Conditional Use Permit. A site plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the County prior to further expansion of the shale mining operation. Violation of Condition Staff received numerous telephone calls between the dates of October 5, 2001 and October 16, 2001 from citizens within the proximity of the shale mining operation to file formal complaints against the Wilson Shale Mining Operation. The essence of these complaints pertained to the alleged violation of condition #3 which prohibited commercial mining operations until an approved VDOT 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 entrance was constructed by the applicants. Staff conducted three site inspections in response to the formal complaints on October 9, 2001, October 12, 2001 and October 16, 2001. Each site inspection substantiated the formal complaints, as staff observed and documented trucks hauling shale leave the Wilson property and proceed easternly along Airport Road (Route 645) to Millwood Pike (Route 50 West). Commercial Entrance Requirements The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) provided information pertaining to commercial entrance standards during the CUP review process. The VDOT comment, dated July 2, 2001, identifies the following items to comply with their minimum entrance standard requirements for this application: 1) The provision of 350 feet of unobstructed sight distance based on the posted 35 MPH speed limit. 2) The provision on a 30 -foot entrance with a 25 -foot minimum radii to accommodate truck traffic. 3) The provision of 8 inches of 21-B aggregate base stone with 2 inches of SM -12.5 asphalt pavement. 4) A joint use agreement between Mr. Wilson and Mr. Turner as both land uses share this access. * Staff Note: Item #4 may be rescinded by VDOT if it can be proven that Mr. Wilson owns the 30 - foot right-of-way in fee simple. Planning Commission Considerations Several options are available for consideration of this issue. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission consider the following issues and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter: 1) Revision of condition #3 to specify a time requirement for the installation of the commercial entrance and to allow for shale mining and hauling to occur in the interim. 2) Advise the applicant that any further violation of condition #3 as currently written will result in automatic recommendation of revocation of CUP #01-01. 3) Recommendation of revocation of CUP #01-01. 0-\.Igendm\COMMENTS\CUP's\2001 \Alai ne W i IsonContinuationOrRevocationOfCLIP01-0 I _wpd • • C PC REVIEW: 11/07/01 BOS REVIEW: 11/14/01 GONDii T iONAL uSE PERMi I #17-07 JORDAN SPRINGS To establish an office use that is of equal or lesser nonconformity than the Shalom et Benedictus treatment facility LOCATION: This property is located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 44-A-294 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Occupied by maintenance staff for the upkeep of existing structures and grounds ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Vacant and Residential PROPOSED USE: Office space for the County Court Reporters/Court Reporting Consultants REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Rt. 664, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be constructed to our minimum standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the States' right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. See also the attached letter and sketch dated 9111/01 from Mr. Steven Melnikof, ,, VDOT Transportation Engineer. Fire Marshal: Additional uses of other building portions may be cause for additional comments. Emergency vehicle access maintained per NFPA 299, 12 -ft. width/14.5-ft. vertical. Access to normal and emergency building ingress and egress points. Maintenance Jordan Springs CUP # 17-01 Page 2 October 25, 2001 of existing fire sprinkler system and current recall procedures for existing sprinkler heads. Inspections Department: No change of use permit required for business use in this structure. Please contact our office if renovations are to occur for permit requirements. Planning and Zoning: In accordance with Section 165-139 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, a legally nonconforming use that was discontinued due to abandonment may be re-established by obtaining a conditional use permit. Approval ofthis conditional use permit shall only be granted for a use that is of equal or lesser nonconformity than the original use in relation to intensity, type of use, or dimensional requirements. Jordan Springs has been used in the past as a resort, as a hotel, and as a seminary by the Missionary Servants of the Holy Trinity. Most recently it was used by Shalom et Benedictus, Inc. as a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center. Shalom et Benedictus was the primary user from the early 1970's to 1999. It operated at Jordan Springs with 30 to 50 employees and residents. On the weekends, the number of people using the property would increase due to visitation by family and friends of the residents. The applicant, County Court Reporters/Court Reporting Consultants, proposes to relocate their office to Jordan Springs. At present, there are 17 employees of the business that would relocate to the site. The number of employees is not expected to significantly increase. The facilities as they exist are adequate for the business. There are four buildings on the property: the main hotel building (A), the administration building (B), the shop building (C) , and the original house (D). The location of these buildings is shown on the attached plan of Jordan Springs. Also attached is information about the square footage of the buildings. Two maintenance employees currently live in the apartment above the shop building and would like to continue living there. The property is served by a septic tank and lagoon, all appropriate Department of Environmental Quality permits are in good standing. The existing structures are located approximately 500 feet from Jordan Springs Road (Rt 664) and at least 800 feet from the side and rear property lines. The nearest residence is over 1,000 feet away. There is substantial vegetation on the sides and rear of the property, forming a buffer to any future development or agriculture. Staff feels that the applicant's request would not negatively impact surrounding areas and is a good example of adaptive reuse of the property. Staff feels that the use proposed by the applicant is of a lesser nonconformity than the original use of a drug treatment facility. Jordan Springs CUP 417-01 Page 3 October 25, 2001 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11-07-01 PLANNING CONMSSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission determine that this request is appropriate, staff suggests the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. Compliance with VDOT's commercial entrance requirements shall occur within 180 days of CUP approval. 3. All parking areas shall be hard surfaced with asphalt and striped. Compliance with these conditions shall occur within 180 days of CUP approval. 4. All vegetation within close proximity of all travel ways serving access to the structures shall be maintained to provide a 15 -foot vertical clearance for emergency vehicle access. 5. All applicable permits shallbe obtained from the Department ofEnvironmental Quality forthe use and maintenance of the health system. 6. Land use shall be limited to general office with the exception of residential above the shop building. Occupants of the shop building shall be limited to maintenance personnel. 7. One business sign shall be permitted. It should be ofmonument-type construction and limited to fifty (50) square feet in size or a placard. 8. A site plan shall be approved by Frederick County for applicable site improvements. Any future expansion or structural development shall require an amended site plan. 0 \Agendas\COMM EMS\CUP's\2001 UordmSpnngs.wpd a e�hlt COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDINBURG, VA 22824 COMMISSIONER September 11, 2001 Mr. Evan Wyatt, Planning Director County of Frederick Department of Planning 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601-5000 Ref: Conditional Use Permit Comment Jordan Springs - Route 664, Frederick County Dear Mr. Wyatt: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 The attached sketch depicts a commercial entrance of appropriate design for the Jordan Springs request. The minimum entrance required for this application will require an entrance 30' wide at the back of the radii with 25' radii to the edge of pavement and paved with 2" of asphalt. No curb and gutter will be required. A land use permit will be required accompanied by an engineered drawing. I trust this information will be helpful. I., Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer Attachment HECEIVED. xc: Mr. Dave Heironimus j Mr. Steve Gyurisin S E P 1 2 2001 °r Or PLANNINGIDEVELOPM WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING C172 CDP Cu/uerf .' re9ui,--ted and p'ir�cr�ion ZC L fo l ) GC. 4a- I--, l -- 1=�== I C v lv e r 7L o end c - -adl 7' nn I/ S/GHT 0/S7"AnVCE 660` C'Oc'sb LAA/ V/E W EP .. �Q7-� /4'S I°tf94 LT •_l Z , + 5 N_ • 12.6 A HALF 7"Y,o/CA4- SECTIOIV CC -D /V G E 3- _ 4 /t/o , 0 le- 09/07/U1 YXI 11:42 PAA, 54U4340i341 1riaa rrarrlsoijuur-K a rti iree%XT'T77T^ T T 11 ..t I7TnDf�T TT A k'kj jV14J1N VV I;IiLl i t V1 V 11<�J1�v gra DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Permit No. VA0029653 Effective Date: June 30, 1997 Expiration Date: June 30, 2002 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE VIRGINIA POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM THE VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL LAW In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act as amended and pursuant to the State Water Control Law and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, the following owner is authorized to discharge in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in this permit. Owner: Shalom et Benedictus, Inc. Facility Name: Shalom et Benedictus STP City: Stephenson County: Frederick Facility Location: East of Rt. 664, 0.4 mile north of Rt. 664 X 660 The owner is authorized to discharge to the following receiving stream: Stream: Lick Run River Basin: Potomac River Subbasin Potomac Section: 11 Class: IV Special Standards: pH The authorized discharge shall be in accordance with this cover page, Part,I - Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements, and Part II - Conditions Applicable To All VPDES Permits, as set forth herein.. , Dep*tmenE of Environmental Quality ane- Xt (997 Date County Court Reporters, Inc. and Court Reporting Consultants plan to purchase the Jordan Springs property and move their corporate office to the property. Approximately seventeen (17) office employees are associated with this move. Employee growth at this location is not anticipated because of the high level of technology associated with these businesses. Following the relocation, a long-term preservation program for the Jordan Springs property is anticipated. The buildings and grounds surrounding the core complex are planned to remain unchanged except for required repairs and maintenance. Amble parking and access exist for the planned office use. The core complex of Jordan Springs consists of four major buildings: - BUILDING "A":The "hotel or main building" which consists of approximately 29,150 square feet. - BUILDING "B":The "administration building" which consists of approximately 2876 square feet. - BUILDING "C":The "shop building" which consists of approximately 4840 square feet. - BUILDING "D":The "original house" which consists of approximately 1750 square feet. The approximate total square footage of -Jordan Springs consists of 38, 615 square feet subdivided as follows: - Living Areas 9500 square feet, approximate. - Storage / Utility Areas 7100 square feet, approximate. - Office / Meeting Areas 7200 square feet, approximate. - Shop Areas 2900 square feet, approximate. - Kitchen / Dining Areas 2750 square feet, approximate. - Misc. Attic/Crawl Areas 9165 square feet, approximate. Jordan Springs has been in continuous use as a resort, hotel, seminary and'drug and alcohol rehabilitation center for over 100 years. More recently, the complex has been used by the Missionary Servants of the Most Holy Trinity as a seminary, and by Shalom Et Benedictus, Inc. for alcohol and drug rehabilitation purposes. The transformation from the seminary to the rehabilitation facility occurred gradually in the late 1960's with Shalom Et Benedictus, Inc. emerging as the primary user in 1971- 72. Shalom Et Benedictus, Inc. operated at Jordan Springs with between 30 to 50 residents and employees until late 1999. Jordan Springs has been maintained since, as a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility by the owners. This use has not been discontinued. The owners have kept staff on board at Jordan Springs to maintain the property in its current use and condition in hopes of having another operator such as Shalom Et Benedictus, Inc. provide similar services. Currently two staff members are employed in such a capacity. OPERT Y BOUNDARY I I TAX MAP PARCEL 447A-294 T'REELINE BUILDING BUILDING s C e^_� I ARKING PARKING n . BUILDING Z c D.. OWNERS: TREELINE O MISSIONARY SERVANTS OF P N THE MOST HOLY TRINITY a APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 500' o BUI ADI G �Q NOTE: ? THIS PLAN SHEET HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM AN f a I �O� AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND HAS NOT BEEN FIELD - APPROXIMATE O TREES CHECKED. SCALE: 1 " = 200' THE BOUNDARY IS APPROXIMATE AND IS INCLUDED FOR GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION ONLY. I I Dept of Planning and Development, 09/01, Submittal Deadli ,� P/C Meetin l 4 BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PREDERICR COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. A (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: ADDRESS: I Z -3,q "7 TELEPHONE c✓''fU `'UW ( - 10 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of, t1ae property: ri 3, The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) (iJ1 r�GF-t Jf ar� VSA � . 4. The property has a road frontage of -rr�eao '/ feet and a depth of 2000 -Y feet and consists Of 4,1 Ut acres. (Please be exact) ���-tom Pte` 5. The property is owned evidenoed by deed from vy•+t. Nt.->)'Du0�7- recorded (previous owner) in dead book. no. 7-Z.4 on page JJ -,1 , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court_ County of Frederick. 'e;v� 2'S l &22s- A,.> 6. 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. Magisterial District►J�►-SPc�cr Current Zoning IZ _-_i2CJZAd- Pjac Adjoining Property: North .J41rACAAJT- East �m P?Tft- South leur-RE-I�= 1ceprktu west 411 - ok - Z14 ON I1+rG RAr i ECEIVED SEP 0 7.2001 _,r nc of ah Nu^ r_ nPvP1 cpWAII SEP -06-2061 15:24 TE I W1 HC F. E3 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed:— rt!OC -- 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the roquested use will be conducted. (continue on bask if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAL[BA4�AEFt_ �" r" r ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# J? ^ 1 " { , 2Zt�✓"�o NAME VJ t LJ -1 Oc6k 6, ADDRESS ZD -7 kAZA '!T- t-�t . E SEl EYZ- 7 P-^t)e G. )A Z� 1.7 PROP 15�NAME 1 �2 e 0 "� ' �-� O< •t ADDRESS 8617 t M l til.. PP, PROPERTY IDS S !F " t 4A- Z7.4,9, NAME (V A IN% ADDRESS p. Q - L�y 29j) PROPERTY ID qq - A - L'IZ Zai vJ►�K�� JPr •zzWH r NAME 6J{i.LiAM Nt �rj A, ADDRESS t �tu'. � PROPERTY XD# 4' - A -'fit r r4�x t j x , Z�.�fo�� N MSLO'g M N4EZ.DD+�T -E tti ADDRESS t 10 Z. 47 IM I U— jZ. � � j tJA- 2 Z &-I� TXOPMTY I!# 4- A -- 2afe T, NAMEk f.��cP. LMSF- P . ADDRESs ' J tUt L PROPERTY IDf�,;...&,2" I .�.�_�_„=i NAME " c 4: M ADDRESS t�� trVC�i .ts � PROPERTY ID#C. - SEP 0 7 2001 5EP-06-20+01 15:25 TEI WINC P. 84 NAME "r1 1•ik IJP !-1 r� - ADDRESS RI ) PROPERTY ID# '" �' `"'� j'j { q -- 7,74;,6f -o, NAr�1rJ {�) f ADORESs lap T3LG77TGe PROPERTY ID# S ' - - 1 I 4 zo + V� a�7 NAXX U i fJ 1 L ,� �' AMRLSS ( 6()1,) C-( _l) �7 ie�• PROPERTY ID# NAHSVZ�i bL.l PROPERTY In# �7� - ! — _,_, � V � Z�-�`✓� ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# - � ADDRESS Q j B��s PROPE M MFL P - tf (k)- `J i .�. v 9AX2 C4i rt Sri tyv}} F gI ADDRESS � p l 137 ZeO A-1'3& -r ra j PROPERTY ID#�1{,r NAME @D�3E'W+ Cfk�%I\J ADDUss -Ro fI4M ( 11W l rpt - PROPERTY ID# '✓ , ` -110) - i 1 — � r mm tJ1� -P.' A Ei2t ADDRESS r Po ,&X zZ --t-HD PROPERTY IDV,4a ((V1) ` 1r NAM3 I �- Imo' _ [vt _ ` _ _ iLDDRESs 170 rnl� tkClTGjr-v PROPERTY ID`_- CtL� l 'hot z NAZS3s ) ADDRESS; Z 20 PROPERTY NAME �I ' i�ADDRESS �o PROPERTY ID# l ADDRESS C PROPERTY IN ��- -� .! r %q & sw e c% 36-a 4-5-T-3-1 W 4)NdM: rbgl f J- 5-- -5 z 17 kaAL k, c HAA SAIL EY LOCKHART s S 7 333 6 t2'Q� a N/LY'E 3 11 4 N MAGNET/cs /95L S'CA[ E / ; SOD• N O/4NooFF I I SB2.� i 1� • 8 V�.GlrrxA r,DExICR COUNTY, (SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me on the 15th day of July 1952 at 1:00 P. M. and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was admitted to record. ��. , CLERK l' a LAND of COOPE'.Y �+ p W N. M. S Tp vEJ4 v H. T- 6troNEit Es r• �, Z g 7'f. ¢ 9 Ac.4�s To Z O 8 *jj W. Al A4. SroVER°c yf4g` � /s /6 I116� mad xas• Ne3'3 III /z FO /CM.1 AICNARC Juan 4, /95z U. G000t LOCATED Aeour ¢ % M/L,.s CERT/fico $urevEYoR NORTN6A.fr OF W/NCNE,JTLR, ON BOTH .S/DES OF ROAD IVO• 66¢, IN $rONEWALL D/srf/cr, . FREOEA'JC/C COUNTY , VA'. V�.GlrrxA r,DExICR COUNTY, (SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me on the 15th day of July 1952 at 1:00 P. M. and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was admitted to record. ��. , CLERK Q It 0 kk VC W 2 QC SOAVGYEO N1.4r 24, 195-1 R/cs/n.eo V. G000E CFR ri F�6O ,s uAVGr YoA LocArEo Aeour A/ox TN E,4 s r OX �/i�/n c�✓ Es rEK //V STONEWALL D/JTit/cT, FREOER/G K CouvrY , VA_ SEP -06-2001 15:25 TEI WINC 12. Additional comments, if any: P. OED i (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Plarming and Development Department to inspect your property Where the proposed use will be conducted. a • Signature of Applicant ' 1ta !� iQIP� eP.7o ISG Signature of Owner Missionary Servants of the Most Holy Trinity Owners' Mailing Address 9001 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, M0 20903 Owners' Telephone No. 301-439-0333 TO BL CdMPI,rrSD BY O -NI: Q- ADMINIS'tTRATOR; USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: � �1 l !- � r :-' - ,� •S� �% -ter >'r •x��"'A•1(� �° ._ . ,., • LLLIII � �. r•� ! ,� � !' r '` '.' ..r'•',..tr_Ay •�.� -i 61 a ,�•r' oj} •:S,T 1i.:: .:-r.; _• `: (t` S ' it •,''�'a (/ , r ' • C - '' f'.' .:a _ � � %` YP�j ' +. \L JFK' 1 - `� ' 1,, ��'a�" ;-:-,,., �' �' . : �;.;s • .:,--''ir�si— . Wiz::��-�,� �� - _.: ' � • ' T p....:` - / `-' '' i /E ,.. ) r, �. -gay �: •S: � •,•�y�. ', •�,•` r 1 ({' I tom~' R/ `+' lrl <.-+w\ f�-,r'•la �'-•i'!'r J - - __ �• Tr 1h- _ M1'. r4 df- i`.rr! ..1..:^, �//.4 .4�`l'.�{• ,*j A- r<,'• !.'Yt�,�' .'i .., ,r �' i... ` •'�`. .. _ -�5,;• �- - tj �; �i s I "`'• r -iv.�J _ _ �.�. •Y, -••,Sri•;•.• 1 J..! c--,�j•r(�''••'`0,��' :,i .,rss '^,"�-�+4 ,ar�rrr� � r '4'':• '....'_ ^�-�• .. �''� • ti L Y"o`. �iJ �� T; � ��-j/{a t _ `1P ���� rT.:�:::5...�7_ ".*� a,'`, 1 1�-'.-`y`��••;�-y�..-`C � .f"` ,r; I/• - t- . �Y �"°' '.1 : _tit, t��x '�a r'� - z hr �•=�''' ., ��: '• :•.sir •. .��••4 -._ �:.:. `��~ +•..tis �+[ � "�..• "•' ; F' : r:�•r,.. - ;•:°' _ •`�:- 'sP'� ti `--'rte `-`�•.� ±' •: ;4_:• tri• I. •J �y,i. �.:�•,. ��.�''-C.t ,,,_ `.� , w• - •\'�'Fx;:_< ,,• f Sk• w.r .. +' I '' % �• i �, �.; / '�f'.; ; ,a.1. ' : 'Fly : �� ` moi,'• .'�j ;yr ti; 17 i. 1:-:f^� .a' : F•��_,, �,�` r'•\,i'�:�r -- \ zr�:�i •`�j=•' ..ice :Jirds V i j•-r1J rJ .•t - .+Yui'!.' r �r-•,`.-<. Jordan ria ; �-��.°'•= dq{',-''j r '•i =:_:x .r.�+� �r+4e. +� "C �`J __� �� ti.. F, �.'";.=,•,.{.`.� :;''':f' �:.i s C 4'�... -; .` a:.'l' is •� +r. :\- y�� _K-,.'..r�: '� !4 _- �-- 1 .: '� e i �.� ', ., `'ti;,;•, : -.k.d Ste&-r^f'� "-`%`- 'IICt ; r ilr..�._�r'-!;•,.'�fa`-•�=y�,r j:V .. _ ..�C_r''_ :'\ ' =��`'}.�- r - ��' '•y+-:,� :} �j,' '�'!`..IFf1r�v....a '1 ,'•�'`�-�ya?s��,.. _ '-��=;'.T—. ;�',- •'�'i-'�!.-.�- 'ntii 1�': 'rte r � � }a ' ��.. _},...- "e •- L;J<' F` _�,+--�•'��''.: • •�. nn • �-y1 if l S/ -• i � S• •ice r .j ' .: >...J ��� !�.'Xr:� _ '.: 1 4^r G •i`,i, z i. ,'.^:�• �y , 1 ;4 -n ',I � fr'1 ' • � \„r: �i:'•^ - 3�. p�y���cyk •'-• �•'� � { _..+5-' `+i:.•;•�i :?,.l �, ,i�'��.. � i,�..:. l ' � Cyt, � •_ � .. .: �. 'iTi,+•.. .y•� r�'.�,'�%�K��•'...•:' /epi' r`, .r r _....'- � j4f.l.,•=��...� ) ,r '1;} _ ,` I•_l: S',.''''' _a' .1 tsrp�'�:,,'�( S`.�1.,'� ^`tY ]�'.r` '•4a'•<�„": `'��;•�r''....'_ � l.. -.i. t' ter_ "--• •y. f +�' '�.''+'-,; . ''+_�-�:`�...•���-, -:`• i ''rtiv-., ra+ _,,.a'G � , s _ _ 1 � • t. I''ss''�r '' ..R S. " `'•>�.�'��� a� � ��s{e . �.,i:''�cl'• - *ny 'X ••Srih :? ,.,.P i�'2 `. _ _-r�>i..: - r .j''-•>^ i, i i•. .. ; C7�'- fic+✓ `�•a :�-:::+.s. _ .^���7r��.'jV,f:' �......---fff""" •,`tir'7t_ '�-� �J �� • �)'tr,%�... ,;?='�;':.. �..� r ,fes r,,.. /•� -.; �.. �_c.T-`�}y-"�.1.; .�."_ s_ Z _ i19 t. •��'^ . `A- y �.«, '�f-�7.}p�_4�T.'�'4 �- •• ':;' /}'x' : �.1 . 1 1 ��..1�''" • `r. w+� ��� ' .' r 3 '�'.•'—`art:"�h �1J,�i��`r. 2 c, -.� ter. _ .,,.� a'•rl- •:• x}r�iea ':�•'Jg C �n.,.rq•...�, _ '.�_kc,=�-- :-•�. '•I , :iley'p�"• iC r}.• k=•Sp:'.�"�r`N .!!tr,,-. +c. _ - r7'Fs`i';• - sil • �., �n t • - e Mr tu�a..ti.rti liE' YIL S�ILYe �6'S . W w w. -1-'n as !rr.a- n� rv� �vd 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: 2002-2003 Secondary Road Improvement Plan DATE: October 25, 2001 The Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan is updated annually in the fall through a public hearing process involving reviews by the Transportation Committee, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The adopted plan is submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Edinburg Residency who in turn develop cost estimates and advertisement dates for road improvement projects within the County. Allocations for major road improvement projects, hard surface improvement projects and incidental construction projects are provided based on priority. The Frederick County Transportation Committee considered the drafl update during their October 2, 2001 meeting. No citizens addressed the committee during this meeting and a recommendation was forwarded to approve the draft 2002-2003 Secondary Road Improvement Plan as presented by staff. Please find attached a draft update for the 2002-2003 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. A summary of the modifications from the previous Secondary Road Improvement Plan is also included for information. Staff requests that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter. U:\COMMITTEES\TRANSPORTATION\Projects\Road Plan Updates\Secondary\2002-2003SecondaryRoadlmprovementPlan PCMemo.wpd 107 ]north bent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2002/2003 SECONDARY ROAD PIAN 'UPDATE SUMMARY Major Road improvement Projects • Rt. 669 (Exit 323) bridge Preliminary Engineering - Removed From Plan • Warrior Drive project - Ad Date Revised From 03/01 to 03/02 • No revisions to the Unscheduled Project section Ilardsurface Road Improvement Projects • Klines Mill complete but on plan to allow VDOT to charge to project line • Adams Road split into two projects to allow southern segment to begin while right-of-way is accomplished in northern section • Unscheduled projects were rerated and reprioritized to reflect new project request for the unpaved segment of Chestnut Grove Road (Rt. 681) Incidental Construction Projects • Item #32 is a continuation of the program to install guardrail at various locations throughout the county • Projects #33 - #47 are new to the plan • Several of these projects involve the overlay of existing subdivision streets with plant mix, including Burning Knolls, Brentwood Terrace and Fairway Estates r'vnPral • All projects have been reviewed to ensure conformity with new magisterial district lines U:\COMMITTEES\TIZANSPORTATION\Projects\Road Plan Updates\Secondary\2002-2003SecondaryRoadPlioUpdateSummwy wpd MAJOR ROAD-) !T:PR IVEMENT PROJECTS 1001/2003 "rough 2007 1 '1008 Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to enhance public safehy Improvements required for road width, road alignment, road strength, and road gradient are considered major road improvements projects. UJ W "- U. w ¢ O U w QZ� Q �� U�. �j Q pW— fL W Lli T P f>�f W >- V! W 93 LU g 0 w 656 Route 657 Route 659 4237 1.01 miles RB 8,200,000 Under Const. 2) 647 Route 277 Route 642 7241 2.08 miles OP/SH 5,400,000 12/03 3) 719, Route 277 Route 642 n/a 1.55 miles OP Revenue Sharing 03/02 Warrior Dr. Fund _ 4) 656' Route 657 Route 655 -50 2,934 1.36 miles SH/RB 7,072,000 UN/SH 5) 655 Route 656 Route 4,282 0.78 miles SH 5,056,000 UN/SH UNSCHEDULED MAJOR ROA® IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2002/2003 through 20107/2008 The order of unscheduled major road improvement projects was established based on the year that the specific project request was received by Frederick County. This order will be maintained until an objective rating system is approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors o o c� z �J w 608 Route 50 West Route 616 1527 2.83 miles BC 659 Route 820 Route 7 401 0.2 mile RB Towns curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Stephens City Towns curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Middletown 664 Route 761 Route 660 1898 1.1 miles ST 660 Route 664 Route 7 East 1268 2.13 miles ST 622 Winch. City Limits Route 37 9192 1.03 miles SH 600 1.07 Mi. N Rte. 679 Route 684 942 1.93 miles GA 659 Route 656 Route 820 401 1.8 miles RB 657 Winch. City Limits Route 656 9197 1.6 miles SH/RB 739 Route 673 Route 522 North 2763 1.66 miles GAlST 636 Route 277 Route 642 874 1.6 miles OP/SH 644 Winch. City Limits Route 522 South 4835 1.36 miles SH 661 Route 11 North Route 660 397 3.24 miles ST 622 Route 629 Route 37 3211 5.86 miles BC 657 Route 656 Clarke Co. Line 4779 2.07 miles RB 641 Route 647 Route 277 2980 0.68 mile OP 761 Route 11 North Route 664 2239 1.13 miles ST 659 Route 7 Route 656 4524 1.09 miles RB 636 Route 277 1.5 Mi. S. Rte. 277 522 1.5 miles OP 621 Route 1109 Route 628 1080 0.57 mile BC 600 Route 753 Route 614 2075 1.8 miles BC 642 0.2 Mi. W. Rte1070 Route 1031 8046 0.9 mile SH 661 Route 663 Route 11 North 7729 1.21 miles ST 628 Route 621 Winch. City Limits 2722 1.25 miles BC/SH 627 Interstate 81 Route 11 South 5187 0.49 mile BC 704 Route 751 Route 683 282 4.11 miles BC The order of unscheduled major road improvement projects was established based on the year that the specific project request was received by Frederick County. This order will be maintained until an objective rating system is approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT ENT PROJECTS 2002/2-003 through 2007/2008 Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction of non-hardsurfaced secondary roads. Hardsurface improvement projects are prioritized by an objective rating system which considers average daily traffic volumes, occupied structures, physical road conditions including geometrics, drainage, and accident reports; school bus routing; and the time that project requests have been on the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. I iU. V Z Y W ! W iLL Le Cli F W LU E I Z l 0 o 2© Za i ,,.� P Io 4a W w I D g v aC 1) 633 Route 625 Route 11 South 91 1.4 miles BC 726,831 Under Construction 2) 629 0.27 Mi. E. Rt. 622 1.15 Mi. E. Rte. 622 98 1.05 miles BC 724,454 09/01 3A) 689 Route 600 S. 2.30 Mi. N. Rt. 600 S. 100 2.3 miles GA 1,662,400 08/03 36) 689 2.54 Mi.N. Rt. 660 S. Route 600 N. 100 1.7 miles GA 914,024 07/04 4) 704 Rt. 683 W. VA Line 174 3.30 miles BC 2,600,000 UN/SH UNSCHEDULED HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2002/2003 through 2007/2008 Yw z a o �a 3 � 0 z I 1 r i 1) 618 Route 622 Route 608 90 3.3 miles BC 92 2) 705 0.25 Mi. E. Rt. 703 Rt. 522 120 4.25 miles GA 81 3) 679 0.3 Mi. W. Rt. 608 0.5 Mi. E. Rt. 600 90 2.5 miles GA 79 4) 692 1.2 Mi. N.E. Rte. 600 Rt. 671 230 1.4 miles GA 77 5) 734 1.27 Mi. SW Rt. 522 N. 2.27 Mi. SW Rt. 522 N 80 1 mile GA 76 6) 709 Rt. 636 Rt. 735 130 2.7 miles OP 75 7) 612 Route 600 Route 600 51 1.6 miles BC 71 8) 676 0.83 Mi. S. Rte. 677 Rt. 677 240 0.87 mile GA 71 9) 629 Rt. 631 Rt. 625 150 1.8 miles BC 70 10) 636 Route 640 Route 641 150 1.5 miles OP 70 11) 707 W. VA line Rt. 610 90 1.6 miles BC/GA 69 12) 607 Route 600 End of State Maint. 110 0.78 mile BC 69 13) 681 Route 805 Route 685 100 1.62 miles GA 63 14) 695 2.3 miles north Rt. 522 WV State Line 83 0.9 miles GA 62 15) 644 Rt. 50E Clarke Co. 260 0.81 miles SH 60 16) 733 Rt. 50W Rt. 707 60 1.3 miles GA 59 17) 836 Route 11 North End of State Maintenance 80 0.8 mile ST 59 18) 638 Route 625 Route 759 70 0.8 mile BC 57 19) 636 Route 709 Route 735 50 1.1 miles OP 57 20) 671 Route 669 WV State Line 170 0.3 mile ST 57 21) 696 Route 522 North Route 694 100 1.3 miles GA 55 22) 811 Route 671 to End of State Maintenance 240 0.25 mile ST 51 23) 634 Route 635 Route 11 South 260 0.25 mile BC 50 INCI®E35TAI 1CONSTRUCTION 2002/2003 through 2007/2008 Tncidental construction projects are defined as minor construction projects including drainage improvements, site distance improvements, spot widening, replacing overflow pipes with box culverts, and the application of plant mix on existing road surfaces. The Virginia Department of Transportation determines if a proposed pr: ject qualifies for l;�cidentai action based On the overall scope of the improvement. � '" I j 0 a.- !H G UJ d Q t` c 'cf~#: �U co UJ W G3 I 1) 608 0.12 Mi. S. Rt. 50 R/R Crossing -- Install Flashing Lights BC $10,170 -10% 2000/01 Match 2) 621 Previously Funded R/R Crossing - Install Flashing Lights SH $10,040 -10% 2000/01 Match 3) 661 0.10 Mi. N. Rt. 11 R/R Crossing - Install Flashing Lights ST $12,000 -10% 1999/00 Match 4) 600 From: 0.98 Mi. N Rte. 685 Widen slope and shoulder to improve GA $35,000 2001/02 To: 1.08 Mi. N. Rte. 685 sight distance 5) 608 At 0.04 Mi. N. Rte. 616 Replace bridge BC $100,000 2001/02 6) 645 From: 0.78 Mi. E. Rte. 728 Construct bridge and approaches SH $104,500 2001/02 To: 0.85 Mi. E. Rte. 728 7) 660 From: Int. Rte. 661 Widen slope to improve sight distance ST $12,000 2001/02 To: 0.02 Mi. N. Rte. 661 �} 671 From: 1.30 Mi. N. Rte. 690 Widen curve to improve sight distance GA $30,000 2001/02 To: 1.38 Mi. N. Rte. 690 672 From: 0.11 Mi. W. Rte 663 Lower vertical curve to improve sight ST $100,000 2001/02 To: 0.19 Mi. W. Rte. 663 distance - *Construction Complete L9) 10) 752 From: Int. Rte. 705 Widen to improve alignment GA $40,000 2001/02 To: 0.15 Mi. S. Rte. 705 11) 803 At 0.25 Mi. SW Rte. 50 Widen box culvert and shoulders BC/GA $20,000 2001/02 12) 1160 Greenbriar Subdivision Plant mix SH $200,000 2001/02 Improvements 13) 672 0.05 M. W. Rt. 11 RIR Crossing -Install flashing ST $12,500 2001/02 li hts/Im rove surface 10% Match 14) 638 0.10 M. W. Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install flashing lights BC $8,500- 2002/03 10% Match 15) 657 Intersection of 779, 807, & 1201 Widen bridge, construct turn lanes SH/RB $50,000- 2002/03 10% Match 16) 657 Intersection of 1265 & 1228 Construct tum lanes SH/RB $50,000- 2002/03 10% Match 17) 641 From: 0.02 Mi. N. Rt. 636E Improve drainage & widen shoulder OP $22,000 2002/03 To: Rt. 636W 18) 636 From: 0.53 Mi. W Rt. 641 Widen slope OP $30,000 2002/03 To: 0.60 Mi. W Rt. 641 19) 671 From: 0.49 Mi. E Rt. 739 Widen curve ST $35,000 2002/03 To: 0.54 Mi. E Rt. 739 20) 660 From: 1.00 Mi. S Rt. 664 Install guardrail ST $5,000 2002/03 To: 1.04 Mi. S. Rt. 664 21) 660 From: 0.66 Mi. S Rt. 664 Install guardrail ST $8,000 2002/03 To: 0.70 Mi. S Rt. 664 22) 660 From: 1.07 Mi. S Rt. 664 Install guardrail ST $10,000 2002/03 To: 1.11 Mi. S Rt. 664 23) 739 From: 0.38 Mi. S Rt. 672 Install guardrail both sides ST/GA $19,000 2002/03 To: 0.45 Mi. S Rt. 672 24) 739 From: 0.50 Mi. S Rt. 672 Install guardrail ST/GA $13,000 2002/03 To: 0.63 Mi. S Rt. 672 25) 654 From: 0.21 Mi. S Rt. 671 Install guardrail GA $16,000 2002103 I. To: 0.24 Mi. S Rt, 671 V 26) 645 From: 0.05 Mi. W. Rt. 50 Road widening SH To: 0.2 Mi. W. Rt. 50 27) [28) 600 From: 0.05 Mi. S Rt_ 608S Widen slope to improve sight distance GA EEH9 To: 0.05 Mi. N Rt. 608S 600 From: 1.15 Mi. S Rt_ 693 Widen slope and shoulder both sides GA $45,000 To: 1.42 Mi_ S Rt. 693 -9)1049 The Pines Subdivision Plant Mix OP $100,000 2002/03 Improvements 30) 1225 Frederick Heights Subdivision Plant Mix RB $100,000 2002/03 Improvements 31) 783 From: 0.15 Mi. S. of City Limits Widen Pavement Industrial Access — ST $70,000 2002/03 To: 1322 Kent Street 32) 600 County -wide Improvement Install guardrail at various locations N/A 40,000 2003/04 33) 684 0.2 E. Rt. 600 R/R Crossing - Flashing Lights, & GA $12,500 —10% 2003/04 Surface Match 34) 684 0.5 S. Rt. 522 R/R Crossing - Flashing Lights & GA $12,500 —10% 2003/04 Surface Match 35) 672 0.45 E. Rt. 11 R/R Crossing — Flashing Lights & Bell ST $8,500-10% 2003/04 Match 36) 1200 Int. of Rt. 1322 Traffic Light ST $12,000 —10% 2003/04 37) 764 0.5 W. Rt. 11 Replace Pipe w/ Box Culvert ST $7Match 5,000 2003/04 38) 627 0.02 M. W. 1-81 Tum Lane Into Carolyn Avenue at BC $75,000 2003/04 Middletown 39) 661 Rt. 11 To RR Tracks Tum Lane ST $75,000 2003/04 40) 636 From: 0.5 Mi. N. Rt. 641 Spot Improvements OP $100,000 2003/04 To: 2 Mi. N. Rt. 641 41) 831 Burning Knolls Subdivision Plant Mix RB $80,000 2003/04 42) 1251 Brentwood Terrace Plant Mix RB $70,000 2003/04 43) 1201, Fairway Estates Plant Mix SH $50,000 2003/04 44) 618 From: 2.09 Mi. S. Rt. 608 Widen Curve BC $30,000 2003/04 To: 2.12 Mi. S. Rt. 608 >) 654 From: 0.11 Mi. N. Rt. 679 Regrade Slope GA $30,000 2003/04 To: 0.16 Mi. N. Rt. 679 46) 647 0.1 Mi. N. of Rt. 277 Curb & Gutter OP $10,000 2003/04 47) 707 1 From: Rt. 733 Spot Improvements — Two locations BC/GA $60,000 2003/04 To: West Vir inia State Line DGiG^lFp REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK Staff Report for the Planning Dommission Public Hearing Prepared: October 24, 2001 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/7/01 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/12/01 Pending PROPOSAL: • To rezone 113 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 3.7 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to M1 (Light Industrial); • To rezone 21.8 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 1.4 acres of RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General); To rezone 14.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to 133 (Industrial Transition); To include the entire 154.4 tract in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District. LOCATION: This property is located on the northeastern quadrant of Interstate 81, Exit 317. The tract is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11 North) on the east and south. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43 -A -96;43 -A -97;43 -A -98;43 -A -99;43 -A -100;43-A-111 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Agricultural / Vacant RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Agricultural / Vacant Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 2 October 26, 2001 ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Zoned M2 (Industrial General) District South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District East: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District West: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District PROPOSED USE: 154.4 acres Commercial and Industrial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Use: Agricultural/Nursery Use: Industrial Use: Commercial/Industrial Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Agricultural/Residential Use: Vacant Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letters from Homer Coffman, Trans. Assistant Resident Engineer, dated September 6, 2001, and from Steven Melnikq ff, Transportation Engineer, dated October 18, 2001. Rutherford's Industrial Park trip assignments include the Route 11/1-81 interchange. However, the 2010 Build Out Traffic Condition at the interchange and the proposed right in -out Rutherford entrance/intersection are excluded from the intersection analysis of the study. There is no "method of management" suggested for the northbound ramp/Route 11 intersection, the southbound ramp/Route 11 intersection or the Rutherford right in-out/Route 11 intersection, all of which should be addressed. Fire Marshal: Access identified during site plan process, along with waterline extension for fire protection services. Plan approval is recommended. Historic Resources Advisory Board: See attached letter dated July 19, 2001. Inspections: No comment required at this time. Shall comment at the time of site plan review. County Engineer: See attached letter from H. E. Strawsnyder, Jr., Director ofPublic Works, dated 9/5/01. Frederick Counly Sanitation Authority: This property is in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). FCSA has sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve it. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 3 October 26, 2001 Frederick -Winchester Health Department: Public water and sewer must be provided. County AttorneX: Once signed by owners and changes as shown on proffers are made, they appear to be in proper form. Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick Co. Public Schools: No direct impact on Frederick County Public Schools. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U. S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning as R-3 (Residential -General) District. On October 8, 1980, parcels 43-A-96; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-111; and a portion of 43-A-97 were rezoned from R-3 to A-2 during a Comprehensive Downzoning. 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 R-3 (Residential -General) District zoning classification was modified to RP (Residential Performance) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance; this action affected 43-A-100, and a portion of 43-A-97. 2) Location The six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning are located on the north side of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11); and on the east side of Interstate 81. The parcels are located on the northeast quadrant of Interstate 81 interchange Exit 317. Martinsburg Pike is classified as a major arterial roadway. The site is bisected by a north -south running CSX rail line. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The parcels are within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and are a component of the Northeast Land Use Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. The parcels were also a component of the Route 11 North Corridor Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 8, 1997. Both land use plans proposed future commercial and industrial development within the area of these parcels; as well as the provision of a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) overlay along Martinsburg Pike. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 4 October 26, 2001 The Northeast Land Use Plan also identifies a major collector road along the northern portion of the subject tract. This planned roadway would intersect with Martinsburg Pike and travel westerly towards I-81, and then angle towards the north. The applicant has made provisions to construct this planned roadway. 4) Site Suitability The six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning contain areas that are defined as floodplain and wetlands. The majority of the defined environmental features are located in the vicinity of Hiatt's Run which travels through the northern section of the tract. The soil types on the property are well -drained and predominantly moderately sloping terrain. The southern portion of the property contains rock outcrops. All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without fertilization, liming, and soil management. All of the soils are suitable for agricultural use such as hay, pastures, and orchards. 5) Potential Impacts a) Transportation Impact Analysis Statement Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement advises that traffic generation from the 154 acres requested to be rezoned will produce 9,744 vehicle trips per day on the existing road system, as calculated utilizing The Institute of Transportation of Engineers Trip Generation 6' Edition, Volume 1, Classification 130 -Industrial Park. The applicant conducted traffic count studies at Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park in November 2000 to determine the vehicle trips per day (VPD) per square foot generation of these industrial parks. The applicant's traffic study identified a range between 4.14 VPD per 1,000 sf. and 3.12 VPD per 1,000 sf, respectively. The applicant has assumed a projected VPD of 3.63 per 1,000 sf which would yield 5,082 VPD for the development of 1.4 million square feet. The applicant's impact analysis projects traffic generation between 5,082 and 9,744 VPD. The Impact Analysis Statement refers to the applicant's Proffer Statement to indicate what improvements will occur with the development. Review Agency Comment Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 5 October 26, 2001 The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has reviewed the traffic impact analysis dated September 28, 2001. The VDOT comments, dated 9/6/01 and 10/18/01, acknowledge the applicant's proposed road improvements. However, the traffic impact analysis does not adequately assess impacts on the existing road network. Additional information has been requested to allow VDOT to complete the analysis and determine the impacts this proposed development will have on the I-81 interchange and Route 11. Planning Staff Comment The information within the applicant's traffic impact analysis does not provide current traffic count information for the impacted roadways immediately southwest of the site; does not estimate the percentage of vehicle trips that will be tractor -trailer and normal vehicle; nor does it provide current and projected Level of Service (LOS) information for impacted roadways. The 2000 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes Jurisdiction Report 34 indicates that the average annual weekday traffic (AAWDT) counts for Martinsburg Pike from Interstate Exit 317 to Old Charles Town Road was 10,000 trips. The applicant has estimated that the build -out of this acreage would generate between 5,082 and 9,744 VPD; therefore, the projection would increase traffic on Martinsburg Pike by at least 50%, and possibly up to 97% of the current average daily traffic volume. The applicant's traffic impact analysis projects that approximately 75 percent of the trips generated would travel through the Exit 317 interchange area (southwest of the site), yet the applicant has not addressed this anticipated traffic impact. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for the provision of a new east -west collector road throughout the subject tract. The applicant, through the proffer statement, has proffered to provide the necessary right-of-way and construct the segment of the planned collector road as it transverses the subject tract. b) Water and Sewer: Impact Analysis Statement Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement advises that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that on average, 500 gallons -per -day -per - acre is reasonable to use for sewer impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. The proposed zoning will add 0.08 mgd to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 6 October 26, 2001 The applicant has also provided information advising that the FCSA has determined that 1,000 gallons -per -day -per -acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the water impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. The maximum design consumption for the subject site is determined by comparing the current use of water within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. The proposed zoning will use 0.15 mgd of the public water conveyance system. The applicant has projected that the development of 155 acres will result in water usage of 154,400 gallons -per -day and 77,200 gallons of service discharge per day. Review Ag!znCy Comment The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) comment, dated 7/20/01, states that sufficient water and sewer capacity exist to serve the demands of the rezoning. The proposed service discharge will not negatively impact the projected available 250,000 gallons -per -day allocated for this area of Frederick County. Planning StaffComment Staff contacted the FCSA prior to the commencement of the Northeast Land Use Plan process to discuss water and sewer capacity issues. Representatives of the FCSA advised staff to assume a 1,000 gallon -per -day -per -acre quantity to project potential water and sewer capacity needs for the planned area. These figures have been revised more recently to adjust to more realistic consumption figures. Staff would agree with the applicant's assumptions that while water continues to be consumed at 1,000 gallon -per -day -per -acre, sewer discharge is more closely generated at 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre. Staff compared the current water and sewer use within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park to determine which projection was more realistic. The data for water and sewer consumption within these industrial parks was provided by the FCSA which accounts for use from August 1999 to August 2000. The following tables provide the gallon -per -day -per -acre quantity for water and sewer use for each industrial park during this time period: Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 7 October 26, 2001 Existing Industrial Park Water Use Name Total Developed Total Gallons of Total Gallons of Gallons/Day Acreage Acreage Water Used Between Water Per Day /Acre 8199-8100 Per Day Fort Collier 442 acres 370 acres 110,979,000 gallons 304,000 gpd 822 gpd/acre Stonewall 494 acres 205 acres 13,503,000 gallons 37,000 gpd 180 gpd/acre Existing Industrial Park Sewer Use Name Total Developed Total Gallons of Total Gallons of Gallons/Day Acreage Acreage Sewer Generated Sewer Generated /Acre Between 8/99 - 8/00 Per Day Fort Collier 442 acres 370 acres 55,959,000 gallons 153,300 gpd 415 gpd/acre Stonewall 494 acres 205 acres 8,151,000 gallons 22,330 gpd 110 gpd/acre Based on existing water and sewer consumption patterns, it appears that the 1,000 gallon -per -day - per -acre projection that was utilized by staff during the Northeast Land Use Plan process is reasonable to consider for the applicant's water, and 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre is reasonable for sewer impact analysis. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 8 October 26, 2001 C) Solid Waste: Impact Analysis Statement The applicant has provided information which projects potential solid waste generation associated with the development of the 155 acres requested to be rezoned. This analysis utilizes an industrial waste calculator from Fairfax County. The calculator assumes a worst case scenario and does not account for recycling. The applicant has projected that the potential solid waste generation from this acreage would account for approximately 4,494 tons -per -year. Implementation of a recycling program could reduce the potential solid waste by approximately 50 percent, to 2,247 tons -per - year. Review Agency Comment The Department of Public Works (County Engineer) comment, dated 9/5101, endorses the recycling proffer and recommends that it also be included in the deed covenants. Accordingly, it will be important to inform potential lot buyers and developers that the respective certificate of occupancy will not be issued until a recycling program has been reviewed and approved by Frederick County. Plannigg Staff Comment The county landfill is designed to dispose of solid waste that is generated by residential, commercial, and industrial land uses within the municipal solid waste landfill (MSW); and to dispose of construction waste in the construction demolition debris landfill (CDD). The county has an anticipated MSW landfill life of 20 years, based on a 3% average annual increase in solid waste disposal. The Department of Public Works has filed an application with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to increase the permitted air space (vertical capacity) at the landfill. The amended permit to extend air space capacity would expand the landfill life by an additional 15-20 years. The DEQ will render a final decision regarding this application in July 2002. Based on existing development patterns in Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park, it appears that the approximately 4,500 -ton -per -year solid waste generation is reasonable to consider for the applicant's solid waste impact analysis. This figure suggests that the build -out of the acreage requested to be rezoned would generate the average annual increase of solid waste disposal experienced by the county for a one-year period. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 9 October 26, 2001 d) Historic Resources: Impact Analysis Statement The applicant has provided information which identifies Rutherford's Farm (VA Historic Landmark Commission File # 10082 34-727) as a Historical Landmark. However, all that remains of the house is a set of concrete steps that lead from Route 11 up to the site of the house. There is a historical marker south of the site on Route 11. One archeological site is noted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. It is a raised berm allowing access to the opposite side of the rail line. However, it is abandoned and no longer in use. This site does not exhibit features that suggest eligibility for National Register consideration. Review A�ncy Comment The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) comment, dated 7/19/01, encourages the implementation of a number of improvements offered by the applicant that would further assist in the preservation and the historic interpretation of the subject site. Specifically, the applicant offered, and the HRAB supported, the establishment of a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm. The HRAB also encouraged the provision of linear landscaping along Route 11 to maintain the visual rural community features existing along Martinsburg Pike. Planning Staff Comment The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second Winchester study area, and are also within the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the HRAB; has expressed concern for the loss of historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. The applicant has proffered to establish a Civil War interpretive site pull -off along Route 11, in the general area where the existing historical marker is currently located. This site will offer an opportunity for interpretation of Second Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm operation. The HRAB will review the information that will be placed on the proposed interpretative markers. It will be imperative of the applicant to design the pull -off area so as to not further detract from the interpretive site. The applicant has also proffered to establish and maintain the proposed interpretive site. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 10 October 26, 2001 e) Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed by the property owner, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's office. The following list is a summary of the conditions voluntarily proffered by the applicant: • Establish a maximum building square footage of 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154 acre site. • Prohibit the Truck Stop use from the entire site. • Installation of a traffic signal at the site's main entrance (Route 11 and the planned Major Collector Road, as illustrated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan). • Prohibit building construction adjacent to 1-81 and within the proposed right-of-way for the I-81 improvement project. • Construction of intersection improvements at the two proposed entrances. The time at which the improvements would be constructed has not been addressed The extent of improvements should also be addressed in greater detail. • Construct the planned Major Collector Road as it transverses the site. • Construct a third southbound lane along Route 11. The time at which the improvement would be constructed has not been addresser • Provide an accumulative traffic tabulation for the entire development on each site plan. When th( accumulative traffic generation exceeds 10,000 VPD, a traffic study outlining the necessary improvements will be conducted for the site plan exceeding 10,000 VPD, and improvements constructed, to maintain a level of service "C" on the affected road systems. • Establish an interpretative area and pull -off along Route 11 for historical interpretation of Second Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and Rutherford's Farm. • Establish a 15 -foot transitional landscape buffer along Route 11, extending the length of the site. Ground cover, trees, and an earthen berm of 2-3 feet in height would be provided within the transitional buffer. • Establish maximum height of 12 -foot for all monument signs in the M1 Zoning District. As proffered, the maximum sign height would not apply to any freestanding sign, regardless of the zoning district. The height limitation, as proffered, would only apply to `monument signs' in the MI District. • Limit the total number of IA (Interstate Area Overlay) signs to three within the subject site. • Establishment ofrecycling program to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. Such programs must be approved by the County prior to issuance of certificate of occupancies. This program should be included in the development's covenants to ensure all property owners are aware of the requirements. • Provide a monetary contribution of $10,000 to the county to be utilized for fire and rescue services. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 11 October 26, 2001 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The 155 -acre site proposed for rezoning is located within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area; is within the portion of the Northeast Land Use Plan which recommends future commercial and industrial land use; is adjacent to the identified Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA); and contains a portion of the Second Battle of Winchester and the Battle of Rutherford's Farm. The Northeast Land Use Plan recommends that commercial and industrial land uses should only occur if impacted road systems function at a grade "C"level of service (LOS) or better; that commercial and industrial land uses be developed with public water and sewer service; and that commercial and industrial land uses be adequately screened from adjoining land uses to mitigate visual and noise impacts. The applicant has submitted proffered conditions including the elimination of the Truck Stop land use; various road improvements to address the projected build -out of 5,082-9,744 VPD; future studies and improvements to the impacted road systems, in the event the project VPD exceeds 10,000; and the establishment of a pull -off area for historic interpretation. A monetary contribution for fire and rescue services has also been proffered. In an effort to address the Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA), the applicant has proffered the establishment of a landscape buffer along the entire Route 11 road frontage. This buffer, to be 15 -feet in depth, would contain a 2-3 foot berm and various landscape plantings. Deciduous and evergreen trees would be planted throughout the length of the landscape buffer. There continues to be a number of concerns regarding transportation issues, identified by the Virginia Department of Transportation and staff. The Traffic Impact Analysis did not adequately address the necessary items for inclusion in a traffic impact analysis, as indicated in the rezoning application package. Most specifically the analysis should provide traffic count information for all roads impacted; pre- and post- development Level -of -Service for the affected roadways; details regarding vehicle composition; and traffic movements. Rutherford's Industrial Park trip assignments include the Route 11/1-81 interchange. However, the 2010 Build Out Traffic Condition at the interchange and the proposed right in -out Rutherford entrance/intersection are excluded from the intersection analysis of the study. There is no "method of management" suggested for the northbound ramp/Route 11 intersection, the southbound ramp/Route 11 intersection or the Rutherford right in-out/Route 11 intersection, all of which should be addressed. Without a thorough Traffic Impact Analysis, it is unclear if the proposed rezoning will have a detrimental impact on the road network servicing the site. The applicant has proffered to construct various road improvements, but the time at which the improvements will be completed, and agreements executed, have not been addressed. The applicant should provide a more thorough Traffic Impact Analysis for review, and be prepared to address how the proffer statement addresses the various issues identified by staff. Staff would recommend that action on this rezoning request be deferred until the identified issues are provided and resolved. OUTPUT MODULE Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Madjustgd) _-Cost Balance APPLICANT: PIN 43-A-96,97,98,99,100,111 Dwelling Unit Net Fiscal Impact $0 $730,362 ERR LAND USE TYPE business/industr Costs of Impact Credit: ERR INTwIQDUL_F CredLs to be REAL EST VAL $127,780,934 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ FIRE & RESCUE 1 Capital Faciitiie col sum only) OpprCap Fcguip_ Expend/Deb>b_ Taxes, Other Fire and Rescue Department $730,362 ERR $561,961 $561,961 $0 Elementary Schools $0 $602,313 $128,049 ERR $32,184,482 Middle Schools $0 ERR $0 $0 $01 High Schools $0 Parks and Recreation $0 $0 Public Library $0 $0 Sheriffs Offices $0 $40,352 $0 $0 Administration Building $0 $0 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $0 $467,822 $94,139 SUBTOTAL $730,362 $508,174 $94,139 $0 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $32,184,482 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Total Potential Adjustment For Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Madjustgd) _-Cost Balance Fa-0ilittes Ima _ Dwelling Unit $0 $0 $730,362 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $0 $0 �$0 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $40,352 $40,352 $0 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $561,961 $561,961 $0 ERR $602,313 $602,313 $128,049 ERR $32,184,482 $32,184,482 ERR $01 ERR INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 1.433 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 10/15/01 ERL P.I.N. 43-A-96,97,98,99,100,111 Rezoning: Assumes 155 acres zoned B2, B3, M1 utilizing a maximum of 1,400,000 square feet Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. Post -it' Fax Note Ek Rezoning Continents« 'Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Trarsportatien Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Ofd Vallev Pike Edinburg, Virginia 12824 (540) 984-5600 571 Oat') r Psgee)' From . 7 CO. Phone Y Fax t l M/ flA r Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 1550 Commerce Street Winchester, Virginia AppEcant's Nance: Greenway Engineering Mailig Address: . 151 Wintly Hill Lane Winchester , VA 22602 Telephone: 5401 662-4185 Location of property: Located on the natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the track. US Rt 11 bisects this area in a North/South line•;r fashion. CSX and Winchester & Western Railroad have lines paralleling Rt. 11 North. Current zoning: I Zonin; requested: M1,B2,B Acreage: 154,4 Acres Vir�inla Department of Transportation Continents: The Jowing menta are offered naseJ Loon a review of Ilhrstrations detailed asart of the rezon A Ing reque-It for t -le proposel Rjth Farm Irulirchial Park* • VDOT Is in agreement with the proposed intersection Improvements at the coltsctor road ertrarce at the unnamed comprehensive i4 +k - tr south of the unnamed comprehensive co:tector road, right and !eft tum lanes and a tum lane from the northern most enhance t northbound entrance ramp of 1-81 with improved hirning radius. • A second entrance south of ttie collector road entrancx is of concern to V�QT e to safety cf t7e traveling aublic end se! -backs from The second entrance maybe permitted based upon finai ceslgn. Should the second entrance be provided, a median crossirg from. the !1 bound are of ,Rte. 1 / to the second entrance may rot be permitted due to minimal distance between r asso+ers not being met. in adeit I traf`Ic signal may be required at the seconyl entrance deHendtng upon final design and a determined imoaCi. • :'DCT has not seen a traffic impact thus we cannot co5gAe7 on the traffic impact of the proposed dQvelopmert on Rte. 11 north or bcL;nd or the 317 interchange and its ramp system. 44 VDOT Signature & Date: 09/06/01 Trans. Assistant Resident Engineer ,ii.1���"fh�"l��'��l' �.�i � �'�G.�isa ��i�i .•r %il�«Y�iY ford >:an aryl the _8, Orth in uth FW: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Subject: FW: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:27:44 -0400 From: "Funkhouser, Rhonda" <RFunkhouser@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> To: 'Eric Lawrence' <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> > ___-_Original Message----- > From: Funkhouser, Rhonda On Behalf Of Melnikoff, Steve > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:23 PM > To: 'Mark Smith @ Greenway Engineering'; Greenway Engineering (E-mail) > Cc: Coffman, Homer; Clem, Sam; Melnikoff, Steve; Heironimus, David > (Dave); 'Evan Wyatt'; 'Eric Lawrence' s Subject: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park } m Virginia Department of Transportation > Edinburg Residency > October 18, 2001 s > Mr. Mark Smith > C/O Greenway Engineering > 151 Windy Hill Lane > Winchester, VA 22602 } > Ref: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park > Route 11, Frederick County } > Dear Mr. Smith: > > Staff comments regarding the traffic impact analysis dated September 28, > 2001 as received from PHR&A are as follows: > > This impact analysis states the four -lane divided section of Route 11, > which presently transitions to three (3) lanes just north of I-81, will be > extended to the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Roadway. All > site entrance roadways will include left and right turn lanes where > applicable. The County Comprehensive Plan Collector Roadway will have two > inbound left turn lanes from Route 11 and will be signalized. > > The Rutherford's Industrial Park trip assignments include the Route > 11/I-81 interchange. However, the 2010 Build Out Traffic Condition at the > interchange and the proposed right in -out Rutherford entrance/intersection > are excluded from the intersection analysis of the study. There is no > "method of management' suggested for the north bound ramp/Route 11 > intersection, the south bound ramp/Route 11 intersection or the Rutherford > right in-out/Route 11 intersection. All of which should be addressed. > > It is anticipated this development will generate traffic volumes that will > warrant signalized intersection and ramp roadway improvements. > > Please submit the additional information to allow VDOT to complete the > analysis and impacts this proposed development will have to the I-81 > interchange and Route 11. > > Steven A. Melnikoff > Transportation Engineer > VDOT - Edinburg Residency > Permit & Subdivision Section > 14031 Old Valley Pike > Edinburg, VA 22824 > (540) 984-5611 > (540) 984-5607 (fax) 1 of 1 10/26/2001 3:23 M July 19, 2001 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford's Farm Rezoning Proposal Dear Mr. Smith: COUNT' of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of July 17, 2001. This proposal involves the rezoning of approximately 144 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial Transition), and M 1(Light Industrial) Zoning Districts. The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second Winchester study area, and are also within the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the HRAB has expressed concern for the loss of historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. In response to the HRAB's concerns, you presented a number of proffered condition concepts and indicated your willingness to incorporate the conditions with the formal rezoning application submittal. Specifically, you offered the following concepts: To establish a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm. The interpretation area would contain historical markers and be maintained by the Industrial Park Association. It was also stated that the marker design and textual content would be returned to the HRAB for review and approval. Maintain the visual rural community elements existing along Martinsburg Pike by providing linear landscaping. This landscaping along Martinsburg Pike would include combinations of three-foot high evergreen hedges and berms, and mass clustering of tree and shrub plantings. The landscaping is intended to retain the natural feel of the rural community and utilize native vegetation including red buds, oaks, _and cedars: A combination of hedges, berms, and tree clusters would be implemented to lessen the visual impact of the proposed development. u 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President, Greenway Engineering Re: Rutherford's Farm July 19, 2001 Establish a link to the property's history by naming the development after the Rutherford's Farm. The BRAD felt the rezoning proposal would be more palatable for the historic preservation community, if the above identified concepts were included in the rezoning application's proffer statement. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. Eric& Lawrence, AICP Deputy Director cc: Dr. Richard R Duncan, 6101 Edsall Road, Apt 1802, Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Mr. StephenL. Pettler, Jr., Harrison & Johnston, 21 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 Mr. R. !.'Turner, Adams -Nelson & Assoc., 303 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 U:TnOCommonMAB\RjAcrford FumH UX R=mn=daUm wpd COUNTY of FREDERICK September 5, 2001 Mr. Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mark: Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of the rezoning request for the proposed Rutherford Farm Industrial Park and offer the following comments: 1) A review of exhibits "C" and :'E" revealed that a substantial portion of the proposed M-1 zoning is located within the 100 -year flood plain. This delineation should be reflected on the master development plan. Also, the impact of proposed development on the 100 -year flood plain should be addressed in the master development submittal. 2) Existing wetland areas and obvious karst features (i.e., sinkholes), should be reflected on the master development plan. 3) In an earlier proffer submittal (July 19, 2001), regional stormwater management was proposed for low-lying areas. This facility or facilities should be highlighted in the master development plan. This same proffer statement indicates that BMP facilities might be required on individual sites if regional stormwater management is not available. We applaud this approach considering the sensitive nature of Hiatts Run. This requirement should be added to the deed covenants for each building lot considering BMPs implementation is not a county requirement. 4) We strongly endorse your recycling proffer and recommend that it also be included in the deed covenants. Please insure that the buyers or potential lot developers are informed of this requirement that a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until a recycling program has been reviewed and approved by nt 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Rezoning Page 2 September 5, 2001 Frederick County. We certainly do not, want any misunderstandings at a later date. This requirement should also be highlighted in the master development submittal. I can be reached at 665-5643 if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, tO\AE. h)�z ey . Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Patrick Davenport, Zoning Administrator file Greenway Engineering July 19, 2001 Rutheri—is Farm Industrial Park Revised October 20, 2001 RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARI REZONING Tax Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-979 43-A-989 43-A-99, 43-A-100 Stonewall Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # _ -tb7-OLfor the rezoning of 154.4 acres from the Rural Area (RA) zoning district to the following: Zoning districts • 116.7 acres Light Industrial (M1) • 23.2 acres Commercial (132) • 14.5 acres Commercial (133) Overlay district • 154.4 acres Interstate Area Overlay (IA) Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Richard Ray Duncan, Janet D. Riddick, and Turner Enterprises, LLC being all or part of Tax Map Parcels 4.3-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, and 43-A-99, 43-A-100 and further described by zoning plat prepared by Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S., dated July 16, 2001 (Exhibit A). A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154.4 acres. Greenway Engineering July 19, 2001 Rutherloid's Farm Industrial Park Revised October 10, 2001 B.) Prohibited Uses The following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed Industrial Park: Description Sic Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) C.) Transportation 1.) Traffic Signalization A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation at the intersection of the proposed Industrial Park entrance and the unnamed Comprehensive Plan collector road in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement and pay their pro -rata portion as determined by VDOT. 2.) Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements at the proposed two entrances will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The existing multi -lane system on U.S. Route 11 will be extended north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road. All left and right turn lanes and pavement transitions north and south of proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road on U.S. Route 11will be installed and paid for by the applicant. 3.) Right of Way Dedication The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along U.S. Route 11 adjacent to the property as determined by VDOT. This right of way dedication shall be requested prior to or at the time of the master development plan for said Industrial Park. Additionally, the applicant hereby agrees to prohibit the construction of buildings adjacent to Interstate 81 and within the proposed right-of-way as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-1711, PE -100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). Greenway Engineering July 19, 2001 Ruthert,.. it's harm Industrial Park Revised October 10, 2001 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The applicant hereby agrees to coordinate, set aside right of way, and construct the portion of the major collector road traversing on the land herein to be rezoned and developed and as outlined in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Northeast Land Use Study adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. Said collector road will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or part of the site plan. 5.) Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements The applicant will construct a third southbound lane on US Route 11 from the northern most entrance of the applicant's property to the northbound I-81 ramp of Exit 317. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the northbound entrance ramp of the Exit 317 interchange. Additionally, the applicant will construct turning radius improvements at the entrance ramp to ensure a smooth transition. 6.) Traffic Generation Cap The applicant hereby proffers to provide an accumulative traffic tabulation for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park on each site plan submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department. When the accumulative traffic generation from the Industrial Park exceeds 10,000 VPD, the applicant of the site plan exceeding the 10,000 VPD will prepare a traffic study outlining necessary improvements to maintain a level of service "C" on the effected road systems. These said improvements will be paid for and installed by the applicant of the submitting site plan. D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The applicant hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along U.S. Route 11 and more particularly at the location of the old concrete steps that now remain. An easement of sufficient size will be provided for a pull -off area and viewing. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: • The Second Battle of Winchester ® The Battle of Rutherford's Farm 3 Greenway Engineering July 19, 2001 Rutherlord's Farm Industrial Park Revised October 10, 2001 • The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative plaques will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. All work performed for the pull -off area will meet the minimum standards of Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County Ordinances in respect to Highway pull -off and safety. Ground maintenance of the interpretative area will be performed by the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association under a separate continuous approved permit issued by VDOT. 2.) Landscaping A transitional landscape buffer will be provided along U.S. Route 11 from Interstate 81 traveling north to the Comprehensive Plan collector road and transmission power line easement. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, and grasses. Indigenous trees such as redbud, oaks, cedars, etc. will be incorporated along said landscape easement in a cluster mass fashion to provide a naturally planted look. The maintenance of said landscape buffer will be the responsibility of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association and will be installed with the first commercial development adjacent to said easement. 3.) Industrial Park Name The applicant hereby proffers the naming of the Industrial Park to: "Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park" E.) Lighting Building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature and shielded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. Lighting plans will be submitted as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to installation. F.) Signage 1. Within the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit all monument signs to 12' in height. 2. Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of signs to three. 4 Greenwav Engineering July 19, 2001 RutherttA's Farm Industrial Park Revised October 1.0, 2001 G.) Recycling Proffer Recycling programs will be implemented with each Industrial Park user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycliiig of any waste or byproduct material. This program will be reviewed and approved by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to final occupancy permit. H.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above-described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # ATO is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within an B2, B3, and M1 zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $_10,000 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the first site plan submission. I.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the F k County Code. Respe lly b tted: By:l Richard Ray Duncan Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Cit Count r62To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I`�� day of 2001 by {R I Cha cL Pru o v`)CC -j Notary Pu My Commission Expires Ce kj)1',,tC.;_ .i 2-Rt-2cY—)L'.... Greenway Engineering July 19, 2001 Rutheriord's Farm Industrial Park Revised October 10, 2001 CA et D. Riddick Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City�ountf(`(-ec(2�i'ci-- To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12.. day of QC�Obf 2001 by Jane- 'D, Q idd Lck- Notary P 'c My Commission Expires Fed ZR 2,00,4— By:ljz /4 Z Q Tiknr*ehfrlses, LLC Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City(County f To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this rZ dayof f 2001 by_ "R• J L) rr)e-(' (>wix, i r ePrr Notary Pub My Commission Expires ehr 2 2-0O4- 6 IMPACT STATEMENT RUTHERFORD' S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK Stonewall District Frederick County, Virginia TM 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-989 43-A-99, 43-A-100 154.4 Acres July 5, 2001 Revised September 28, 2001 Current Owners: Richard Ray Duncan Janet D. Riddick Turner Enterprises, LLC Contact Person: Mark D. Snaith, P.E., L.S. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's harm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of 154.4 acres parcel owned by Richard Ray Duncan, Janet D. Riddick and Turner Enterprises, LLC. The subject site is located on.a natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the tract. Norfolk Southern and the Winchester and Western Railroads have rail lines paralleling Route 11 North. The current zoning is RA. Duncan, Riddick and Turner Enterprises proposes to rezone 154.4 acres to commercial (B -2B-3) and Industrial (M-1). See attached Proposed Zoning "Exhibit A". Basic information Location: Magisterial District: Property ID Numbers: Current Zoning: Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning: Total rezoning area: Proposed build -out COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Intersection of Interstate 81 and Route 11 Stonewall 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 RA Agriculture Industrial Park and Business B2 — 23.2 Acres B3 — 14.5 Acres M1-116.7 Acres 154.4 Acres (Exhibits A & D) 1.4 million sf (Based on 9000 sf per acre) The proposed site is being developed in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Northeast Land Use Study adopted in 1996 and updated in 2000. With in the limits of the study, the property will consist of commercial and industrial development. 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 10 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject site, tax parcels 43-A-96, 43-A- 97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100, 43-A-111 is located on a manmade boundary created by interstate 81 on the western edge of the tract and U.S. Route 11 to the east. U.S. Route 11 enables vehicular traffic to quickly travel to the south onto interstate 81 at Exit #317. The availability of rail through the north portion of the tract increases the opportunities of transporting freight in and out of the area. Flood Plains (Exhibit C) The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map #510063-0105 -B. The majority of the site is located as "Zone C", area outside the 100 -year flood plain. The area traversing Hiatt Run is indicated "Zone A", 100 -year flood plain. See Exhibit C. Wetlands The soil types on the property are well -drained and predominantly moderately sloping terrain. The southern portion of the property contains rock out crops. However, Hiatt Run travels through the northern section of the tract, which is estimated to contain one- tenth of an acre of wetland. The National Wetlands Inventory Map indicates this feature. Any disturbance of this area will be in conformance with Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality permitting procedures. Gradual Slopes — 2-7 The site contains gradual slopes with well -drained soils draining into Hiatt Run. Prime Agricultural Land Use All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without fertilization, liming, and soil management. Portions of the property contain rock out crops however; all of the soils are suitable for agricultural use such as hay, pastures, and orchards. Soil Types (Exhibit B) The following soil types contained in this tract have been obtained from the Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. 3 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park The subject site is located on map sheet number 24, and contains nine soil types: 6C -Carbo Oaklet — Silt Loam covers approx. 13 % of site 7C -Carbo Oaklet — Rock Out Crop covers approx. 15 % of site 1413 -Fredrick Poplimento — Loams covers approx. 25 % of site 1613 -Fredrick Poplimento — Loams, very rocky 2-7 percent slopes, covers approx. 4 % of site 16C -Fredrick Poplimento — Loarns, very rocky 7-15 percent slopes, covers approx. 13% of site 17C -Fredrick Poplimento — Rock Out Crop, covers approx. 9 % of site 3213-0aklet Silt Loam, covers approx. 16 % of site 5B -Carbo Silt Loam, covers approx. 4 % of site 34-Pagebrook Silt Loam < 1% of site B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: Zoned M2 (General Industrial) District South: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District RA (Rural Area) District See existing Zoning Map East: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District `Exhibit F' RA (Rural Area) District West: Zoned B-2 (Business, General) District B-3 (Industrial Transition) District M-1 (Light Industrial) District C. TRANSPORTATION 1. Traffic The traffic impact for the proposed 154 -acre Industrial Park has been calculated by using two methods for traffic projections. The Institute of Transportation of Engineers Tri Generation 6th Edition, Volume 1, Classification 130 -Industrial Park, estimates the following: Method 1 Trip generation per 1,000 sf gross floor area: Range of trips = 0.91 to 36.97 Average trip = 6.96 Projected sf = 1.4 million Projected traffic = 9,744 VPD Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park Method 2 Based on existing counts that Greenway Engineering conducted on Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park during the month of November, 2000, and knowing at that time the total developed square feet of 2,344,104 and 1,767,877 respectively, it was determined that Stonewall Industrial Park produced 3.12 VPD per 1,000 sf and Fort Collier produced 4.14 VPD per 1,000 sf which is within the range of rates listed in the Industrial Park's 130 classification. Therefore, the Method 2 traffic study is as follows: Average trip = 3.63 Projected sf = 1.4 million Projected traffic = 5,082 VPD Method 3 A traffic impact analysis has been performed and is attached and made part of this application. The highlights from that study are as follows: • Existing level of service on US Route 11 is currently "A" at the existing median break of the divided highway and "C" at the three -lane section north of the median break. Proposed level of service on US Route 11 will be `B" at the median section and "C" at the three -lane section. The main entrance level of service will be "C" (see Figure 6 of the Traffic Study). Total projected ADT for the project will be 9,744. In conclusion, with the vision of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park having a small sector utilizing the B3 (Industrial Transition) and B2 (General Business), the traffic projections for this Park should range between the three methods stated above. For simplification and as an added safeguard to insure compliance with the Traffic Study, Proffer Statement C.6. has been prepared to insure the County that accumulative traffic tabulations will be made part of each site plan submission and, if at any time the accumulative traffic reaches 10,000 VPD, a new traffic study will be performed to outline additional improvements to the road system that would be caused by these additional vehicles. This Proffer has been created because of the varying uses of the three different zones within the Industrial Park. By preparing a second traffic study, the County, VDOT, and the users of the Industrial Park are ensured of adequate improvements being installed. 2. Interstate Improvements Exhibit E shows the Interstate 81 lane -widenings and future Route 37 interchange improvements. The Exhibit has been color -coordinated to match Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project # 0081-968-F11, PE -100 to demonstrate the different widening requirements. 5 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park CONCLUSION OF TRANSPORTION IMPROVEMENTS Based on Greenway Engineering's feasibility study of this 154 -acre project and in discussions with VDOT on August 9, 2001 and with the dialogue in preparing the Traffic Study, the following items have been determined for the proposed Rutherford's Farm rezoning: 1. The applicant will install a traffic signal at the main entrance to the site (per Proffer C.1.) Estimated Cost: $115,000 2. Intersection improvements at the proposed two entrances will be installed by the applicant with the main site entrance requiring the extension of the existing grass median north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan collector road. All left and right turn lanes will be installed by the applicant and pavement transitions on US Route 11 will be north of said entrance (per Proffer C.2.). In accordance with the Traffic Impact Analysis, dual left turn lanes will be installed on US Route 11 at the main entrance of the Industrial Park. Estimated Cost: $310,000 3. The applicant will dedicate right-of-way along US Route 11 that will be offset approximately 59' from the existing right-of-way. This area is estimated at 50,000 sf (per Proffer C.3.). Estimated Cost: Value of Land 4. The applicant will construct the Comprehensive Plan collector road as outlined in Proffer CA. The length of this collector road is estimated at 4,200 linear feet traversing through the 154 -acre project. The estimated construction cost is projected at $150 per linear foot. Estimated Cost: $630,000 5. The applicant will construct a third southbound lane on US Route 11 from the southern most proposed entrance to the northbound I-81 ramp. Additionally, the applicant will improve the turning radius of the said entrance ramp and the proposed third lane improvement. This lane widening is approximated at 600 linear feet. This improvement will be installed to facilitate traffic movement on the Stephenson Exit 317 interchange. Estimated Cost: $200,000 6 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The subject site is within the northeastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The maximum design usage for the subject site is determined by comparing the current discharge of sewage within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. Based on discharge patterns, FCSA has determined that 500 gallons/day per acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the sewer impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. The proposed zoning will add 0.08 mgd to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Waste Water Treatment plant. Q=500 gallons/day/acre 0=500 gpd x 154.4 acres Q=77,200 gpd (0.08 mgd) E. WATER SUPPLY The maximum design consumption for the subject site is determined by comparing the current use of water within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. Based on existing water consumption patterns, FCSA has determined that 1,000 gallons/day per acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the water impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. Q=1000 gallons/day /acre Q=1000gpd X 154.4 acres for Q=154,400 gpd (0.15 mgd) F. DRAINAGE Currently the runoff from approximately 154.4 acres drains into fingers, natural streams, and drainage ditches. These conveyances flow into Hiatt Run, which flows from the northern boundary to the east and off site. The following calculations estimate the proposed storm water runoff for a ten-year flow: Existing C = 0.30 (pasture) Iio = 4.6 in/hr (15min) A = 154.4 acres Qio = 213 cfs (Q = CIA) Reference: VDOT Drainage Manual Proposed C = 0.90 (commercial) I io = 5.5 in/hr (10 min) A = 154.4 acres Qio = 764 cfs (Q = CIA) 7 Greenway Lngineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park Development of the subject site at maximum build -out will therefore result in an increased runoff of 559 cfs. A detailed stormwater evaluation shall be included with any site plan submittals. Detention ponds and other stormwater management facilities will be built to control storm water discharge into the above referenced streams and Hiatt Run. By controlling runoff of the site, the impact of developing the subject site on Hiatt Run will be within acceptable limits. Based on historical knowledge of this area, and in consultation with the Frederick County Public Works Department, karst topography appears to be present at the western property line adjacent to Interstate 81. Prior to master development plan preparation, an analysis of the karst topography in relationship to surface drainage will be performed to protect any further degradation that could be caused by surface drainage. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Using Fairfax County design requirements, the following calculations were made to estimate the maximum impact of solid waste generated by the proposed rezoning of the subject site. At 100% buildout of 1,400,000 sf Building Industrial waste generated rate = 3210 lb 1000 sf/yr Total solid waste Maximum total solid waste = 1,400,00 sf X 3210 lb 1000 sf/yr = 4,494 tons/year It should be emphasized that the above calculations do not include any recycling by industry. Most industries recycle a large percentage of their waste stream due to economics and cooperation with local landfill authorities. Therefore, the above calculations are generally conservative and indicate a "worst-case scenario" of maximum impact for solid waste generation. A 50% recycling program would produce a 2,247 tons/year solid waste. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES 1. Virginia Historic Landmark Commission The Rutherford's Farm File # 10082 34-727 is sited as a Historical Landmark. However, all that remains of the house is a set of concrete steps that lead from Route 11 up to the site of the house. There is a historical marker south of the site on Route 11. Landmark records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. R, Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park 2. Vir img is Department of Historic Resources and Archeological Sites One archeological site is noted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. It is a raised berm allowing access to opposite side of rail lines. However, it is abandoned and no loner in use. This site does not exhibit features that suggest eligibility for National Register consideration. Records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Conclusion of Historic Resource Advisory Board Meeting that was held on July 17, 2001, the Historic Resource Proffer D.1, D.2, and D.3 were a result of the HRAB meeting. E REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 Telephone: (5401 662-4185 2. Property Owners (if different than above), Name: Richard Ray Duncan & Janet D. Riddick Address: 6101 Fisel Rd. Apt# 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Telephone: (703) 461-7988 Name: Turner Enterprises, LLC Address: 317 Greenfield Avenue Winchester, VA 22602 Telephone: (5401722-2200 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. Telephone: (540, 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees _X Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 5. The Code of VirgiliLallows 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: Richard Ray Duncan Janet D. Riddick Turner Enterprises, LLC 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural, undeveloped B) Proposed Use of the Property: 154.4 acres Commercial & Industrial 7. Adjoining Property: Please see attached 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): The subject site tax parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-100, 43-A- 99, 43-A-96, 43-A-98, 43-A-97 is located on a natural boundary created by interstate 81 on the western edge of tract. U.S. CSX and the Winchester and Western Railroads have rail lines paralleling Route 11 North. 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 or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number Magisterial: Stonewall Fire Service: Stonewall Rescue Service: Stonewall Districts High School: Stonewall Middle School: Stonewall Elementary School: Stonewall 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 116.7 RA M1 23.2 RA 132 14.5 RA B3 154.4 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : _ Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other: • To rezone 113 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 3.7 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to M1 (Light Industrial); • To rezone 21.8 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 1.4 acres of RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General); • To rezone 14.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition); • To include the entire 154.4 tract in the I.A. (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District. Supplement to Item 9 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property # 43 (A) 96 Name: Turner Enterprises, Inc. 317 Greenfield Ave. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #: 43 (A) 97 Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property # 43 (A) 98 Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property #: 43 (A) 99 Name: Richard R. Duncan 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property: 443 (A) 100 Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property # 43 (A) 111 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. WAM, OWNEKO fl AA 'I-Y-Q)Date: r �k • Date: Date: PQPLI�-rart7 Date: G �4r-�.►L. c� sv�.� �'rH (,�- Adjoining Property Owners Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Taylor Charles C & Mary M 1849 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-101 Name Bradford Village Apartments LC 2520 Bradford Court Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43-(A)-102 2054Northwestern Pike Name Johnson Robert B Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-103 Name Moore Michael A 1927 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-104 Name Rissler Thomas W& Mary L 1937 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-105 Name Lee Ronald A & Mary C 1947 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-106 Name McQuain Clifford D & Etals 1957 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-107 Name Kercheval Ethel T 1985 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-108 Name Keiter Mildred P 412 S Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43-(A)-109 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Riddick Thomas E Jr & Janet 2045Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-110 Name DeHaven Charles Stuart 2073 Bradford Court Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43 -(A) -112A, 112B, 113 Name Buckley Lages Inc P.O Box 337 Stephenson, VA 22656 Property # 43-(A)-84, 85 Name Messick Roy R & Nancy L 1897 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43C -((1))-A Name Elliott Barbara E. 6115 E. Peabody Street Long Beach, CA 90808 Property # 43B-((8))-22 & I 1 end tY1a Loln( lhes-eQ- vl4 as[D03 a) L0 m M rn N z Q U o 0 N a jib 8.92600 ACRES (TOTAL) THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON MARCH 13. 2001 I MADE AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE PREMISES SHOWN HEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS VISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON. THIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOOD ZONE C, AREA OF MINI O FLOODING AS SHOWN ON FIRM MAP # 510063 0105 B EFFECTIVE JULY 17, 1978. J)jj S .?SO 1�CQN 0'y 1004.211 P S? I f- Iw w ar U) Ia w F- F - CL [L ,a OFl� m 0 IN 25 'logia -- o BURTON HOOVER LOTS DB. 214 P. 433 I 24 Y R=abZ9.58' CH. 517.33- 1=517.51, 3'1=517.51' CH. BRG. N 14.4455" E INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 ( WIDTH VARIES) 23 N 13021'.20"E 467.57 ELLIOTT 943/22 : 0.5 Mie To " WTe u FURSTENAU SURVEYING 1•L I SOUTH LOUDOUN ►rd set STATE Z�RD BOUNDARY SURVEY LAND OF BURTON HOOVER 5TONEWRLL 015TRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEED REF. DB, 207P. 62 (640) 662-9323 ATFMARC. aCALE: 1.• INCHESTER. V � TAX MAP 4: A17r'A TAP111 ATMA! TOTAL AREA 116.7 ACRES 14.5 ACRES 23.2 ACRES 154.4 ACRES B-2 \� \ 23. J AC 1 1 , N'l I &mss fru ftfte �'ESTERN RAILROAD mommm I — �0 60 — 0 � U.S. ROUTE 11 MARTINSBURG PIKE /Yl 1 61.3 AC d v:bV ED SEP 0 7 zoo -1 nA.r,�r,nrn,ncVr�nP,�AF'. EXHIBIT A fr 1--Q co :s '0 a a A J t U' z z O N O in cc 0 LL w I DATE: • JULY 16, 2001 1 SCALE: • 1' — 500, DESIGNED BY: • AIDS JOB N0. • 2795 SHEET -1 OF • 1 % c La .A c d M-1 / W U� THOFp'�_ MARK D. SMITH v' \ ,. N0.02253 i (xy� I �rt S ONAL 5x.4 A 61.3 AV J c o z H Q > wa 9)� �0 �o 8 A 1 W a 0 z A d tl 0w 013 A W o P; � DATE 3/8/01 �\0� C 500 1000 Ic 5,--ALE: 1 "-500' �"PEI 1 FV `c°�O SCALE: ! " = 500' DE516NED ardNT /P F Boa Na- 2795 SHEET 1 DE 1 SOURCE OF DATA: INTERSTATE 81 IMPROVEMENT STUDY `OT PROJECT No. 0081-968—F11, PE -300 MP 305 TO WEST VIRGINIA STATE LINE FREDERICK COUNTY LEGEND PROPOSED R/W, L/A LINE PROPOSED INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED MAINLINE WIDENING COLORS MATCH SOURCE DATA F IS I , 00 m, N g PROPOSED R/Pq FLOOD PLAIN 11 9 A® R / \7, All 0 4, 22 HAW.O.5M)TH N®.022537 0 500 SCALE: 1" = 500' DATE: 3/8/01 SCALE: V=500' 1000 DE51c+ED SY: JNT JOS NO. 2795 SHEET I OF I E�z o w a �z hz Co U2�D 0 El 94 ril �. HA o z z o� w 0 500 SCALE: 1" = 500' DATE: 3/8/01 SCALE: V=500' 1000 DE51c+ED SY: JNT JOS NO. 2795 SHEET I OF I % _ o f x � ��• / / El E- \\_ E- Z %y' ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT a E RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT f40/1 R-4 RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED COMMUNITY z / z� l I % R-5 RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY O �u MH -1 MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT iJ Q Z W W B-1 BUSINESS, NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT F, 14 [/1 (:) O i:' B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT W E- 15 1 i yon B-3 INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT ;o ®� ° ° M-1 INDUSTRIAL, LIGHT DISTRICT r E-=� M-2 INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT % EM EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DISTRI'T R % / GAIN iSTRf T LINE HE HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT � / / DATE: 3/8/01 TONEWALL DIS ICT LINE / 500 25 0 500 1000 51 --ALE: 1°=500, BM 762 _ DESIGNED BY: ,INT I / SCALE: 1 " - 500' �L d JOB NO. -2 ras SHEET t OF I 0 0 REZONING APPLICATION #09-01 ESTATE OF NAOMI ADAMS POOLE Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Bearing Prepared: October 24, 2001 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/7/01 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/12/01 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 7.6 acres from M2 (Industrial General) to B2 (Business General) LOCATION: The parcels are located on either side of Hood Way, adjacent to Valley Pike (Route 11), approximately 2,200 feet northeast of the intersection of Route I 1 and Route 37. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 63 -A -86B and 63 -A -86C PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: M2 (Industrial General) District ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned M2 (Industrial General) District South: Zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) District East: Zoned M2 (Industrial General) District West: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District Zoned MI (Light Industrial) District Land Use: Vacant Use: Industrial Use: Commercial Use: Industrial Use: Residential/Commercial Use: Industrial Estate of Naomi Adams Poole, REZ #09-01 Page 2 October 29, 2001 PROPOSED USE: Commercial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application to rezone this property appears to have a significant measurable impact on Valley Pike (Route 11), the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Fire Marshal: Fire lanes required at all fire hydrants, as well as all normal and emergency access points to the structure(s). Additional requirements may be necessary during the site plan process. Plan approval is recommended. Stephens City Fire Co.: The Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company does not have any concerns or objections regarding this rezoning request. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Water and sewer are available to the site. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: Health Department has no objections to rezoning. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB has no concerns regarding this rezoning request. The property in question is not within a historic district and there are no significant structures on the subject site. Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, the public school system anticipates no impact to capital facilities or division operating expenses. Winchester Regional Airport: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority has no objections to this rezoning request. County Attorney: Once signed by applicant and changes made as set out in proffer sheet, appear to be in proper form. Estate of Naomi Adams Poole, REZ #09-01 Page 3 October 29, 2001 Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the two parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning as M-2 (Industrial General) District. The subject parcels were created through approval of the Estate of Naomi Poole Adams subdivision on April 28, 1999. 2) Location The two parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning are located on the east side of Valley Pike (Rt. 11), approximately 2,200 feet northeast of the intersection of Route 11 and Route 3 7. The site is bisected by Hood Way; Hood Way provides the road frontage for the HP Hood dairy processing facility. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The subject parcels are within the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Located north of the Route 11 South Corridor land use study area, the requested zoning is consistent with the commercial and industrial development occurring in the immediate vicinity. The subject sites have road frontage on Valley Pike (Route 11 South) and Hood Way. Route I 1 is classified as a Major Collector Road, and commercial uses are appropriate along such classified roadways. 4) Site Suitability The subject sites are located adjacent to established commercial and industrial uses. The property contains no environmental features as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, no wetlands identified in the National Wetlands Inventory, and no historical features identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey. 5) Potential Impacts a) Transportation Land use in the B2 District has the potential for generating a greater amount of vehicular traffic than land use in the M2 District, as presently zoned. The parcels are located along Valley Pike (Route 11 S), a Major Collector Road. The applicant's Impact Analysis Statement suggests that there is a projected increase of approximately 4,000 AADT. The 2000'Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes Jurisdiction Report 34 indicates that the average annual Estate of Naomi Adams Poole, REZ #09-01 Page 4 October 29, 2001 day traffic (AADT) counts for Valley Pike from the City of Winchester boundary line to Route 37 was 16,000 trips. Based on the 2000 data, the proposed rezoning could generate an approximately 25 percent increase in AADT on Valley Pike. b) Capital Facilities Impact Model The Capital Facilities Impact Model was applied to this rezoning request on June 6, 2001, assuming a worst case development scenario of 149,528 square feet of retail use on the seven - acre site. The result of this impact model run demonstrated a positive impact to Frederick County. 6) Proffer Statement The applicant has prepared a proffer statement that has been signed, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. The proffer statement provides for: the preparation of detailed traffic studies during the site plan stages; the prohibition of entrances onto Valley Pike; and to provide the necessary right-of-way along Route 11 and Hood Way for road improvements. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposal to rezone 7.6 acres from M2 (Industrial General) District to B2 (Business General) is consistent with the land use policies described in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the statement of intent in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires the development of buffers and screening between properties zoned B2 and those in the RP, B3, M1, and M2 Districts; therefore, the impact on adjoining properties associated with the allowance of commercial use development could be adequately mitigated if this rezoning was approved. Staff believes that the applicant should address the issues identified by the review agencies, in addition to any concerns raised by the Planning Commission when forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\REZONRJG\Stati Report\2001\NaomiAdamsPooleEstate.wpd OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: PIN 63 -A -86B Net Fiscal Impact Net Capital Net Cost Per (Una ustedt LAND USE TYPE Business Costs of WwactrelmL. INPUT MODUt F Credits $0 REAL EST VAL $4,866,268 Required (entered In Cur. Budget Cur, Budget Cap. to he Tak Future CIP/ FIRE & RESCUE 11 S+�Wta1 E�ciitiles col sum only) Qper Can Eauip EXPUW20LS. Taxan, -QJbW Fire and Rescue Department $49,045 $0 $0 ERR Elementary Schools S0 $0 ERR $o Middle Schools s0 $0 $0 $20,687 High Schools j0 Parks and Recreation $0 $O Public Library $0 Sheriffs Offices $0 $1,466 $0 $0 $0 Administration Building $0 $0 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $0 $17,230 $3,467 Total Potential Adjustment For Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per (Una ustedt Cost Bala= Facilities Imnact LWWII"a $0 $0 $49,045 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $1,486 $1,486 $0 ERR $o $0 $0 ERR $20,697 $20,687 $0 ERR SUBTOTAL 549,045 $18,718 $3,467 $0 $22,183 $22,183 $26,862 ERR LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $2,904,301 $2,904,301 $2,904,31)1 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT ERR INDEX: '10 If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX: '1.0' tf Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0- N Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Cc Avg = 1.433 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations Is input in row total of second column (zero It negative): included are the one-time taxestfees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future ops cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated In fiscal Impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal Impacts. 5. NPV of future tastes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through rive are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not Include include Interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do Indude interest if the projects are debt financed. NO Model Run Date 6/8!01 ERL P.I.N. 63 -A -86B R oning: Assumes 74,754 sq.ft. retail use on 3.5 acres zoned B-2 Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. L 7 r NOTE . el Run Date 618101 ERL .I.N. 63 -A -86C zoning. Assumes 74,754 sq.ft. retail use on 3.5 acres zoned 0-2 Due to changing conditions associated with development In the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. OUTPUT MODULE L APPLICANT: PIN 63-A-86C Net Fiscal impact LAND USE TYPE Business REAL EST VAL $4,886,268 Costs of IIDRac1S.l8dtt: INPUT MODULE Crediln to be Take Required (entered In Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIPI Total Potential Adjustment For FIRE & RESCUE 11 Capital Faeiitiies col sum only) Opgr Cap Eoulo FEt n{MdrL Tax Credfts Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per )L TaX05'_0jtW W011 ju W) QQ81,@213=11 Facilities—IMP= Ipwellino Unit Fire and Rescue Department $49,045 Elementary Schools $0 $0 SO $49,045 ERR Middle Schods so s0 $0 $0 _ $0 - High Schools $0 $0 ERR Parks and Recreation $0 $o _ Public Library S0 SO $0 $0 $0 $O so ERR Sheriffs Offices Building so $1,486SO S0 $1,4 $1,486 $O $0 $O ERR ERRAdministration Other Miscellaneous Facilities $0 $O $17,230 $3,457 $0 S20,697 SO ERR 97 $20,697 $O ERR SUBTOTAL $49,045 $18,716 $3,467 SO LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $2,904,301 $22,183 $22,183 $26,862 ERR NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $2,904,301 $2,904,301 1.@B 7 $01 ERRI INDEX "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX '1.0' if Rev-Cost Bal, '0.0' it Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev-Cost Bal = 1.000 = PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 1.433 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model —� 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is Input in row total of second column ' (zero ff negative); Included are the one-time taxestleas for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in thins column as calculated in fisLal impacts. ' 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth cot as calculated in fiscal impacts. q 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new Willy. - 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). 7 NOTE: Proffer calculations do not Include Include Interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do Include Interest If the projects are debt financed. NOTE . el Run Date 618101 ERL .I.N. 63 -A -86C zoning. Assumes 74,754 sq.ft. retail use on 3.5 acres zoned 0-2 Due to changing conditions associated with development In the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Parcel Identification Numbers 63 -((A)) -86B and 63 -((A)) -86C Back Creek Magisterial District Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. Seg., of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provision of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application# -O -01 for the rezoning of 7.6 (+/-) acres from M-2 (Industrial General District) to B-2 (Business General District), the undersigned applicant will adhere to the proffer conditions noted below. Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. Transportation The undersigned, that owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 7.6 (+/-) acres the undersigned will: Conduct detailed traffic studies and analyses at the site planning stage for proposed uses on the 7.6 (+/-) acres in accord with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards. Provide necessary right-of-way along Route 11 and Hood Way for road improvements. All entrances shall be along Hood Way. 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 grants 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 OWNER By: (signature) (printed name) w _ WK --.-- % (date) STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE =foreTo -wit: going� t was acknowledged before me this day of 206)1 by - My commissi& expires Notary Public ��//! .�� IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT A PROPOSED REZONING For PARCEL ID 63 -((A)) -86B AND 63 -((A)) -86C Back Creek Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia August 2001 (original) September 2001 (Revision 1 including agency comments) Prepared For: Estate of Naomi Poole Adams.— owner Prepared By: Triad Engineering, Inc. 200 Aviation Drive Winchester, Virginia 22604 540.667.9300 Impact Analysis Statement Parcel Ids 63 -A -86B and 63 -A -86C Table of Contents IIntroduction..................................................................................................................1 2 Site Suitability.............................................................................................................1 2.1 100 Year Flood Plain...........................................................................................1 2.2 Wetlands..............................................................................................................1 2.3 Steep Slopes.........................................................................................................1 2.4 Mature Woodlands...............................................................................................1 2.5 Soils.....................................................................................................................1 2.6 Comprehensive Planning.....................................................................................1 3 Surrounding Properties................................................................................................1 3.1 Nuisance Factors..................................................................................................2 4 Traffic..........................................................................................................................2 5 Sewage Conveyance and Treatment............................................................................2 6 Water Supply...............................................................................................................2 7 Drainage.......................................................................................................................2 8 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities...................................................................................3 9 Historic Sites and Structures........................................................................................3 10 Impact On Community Facilities.............................................................................3 10.1 Education.............................................................................................................3 10.2 Emergency Services.............................................................................................3 10.3 Parks and Recreation...........................................................................................3 Impact Analysis Statement Parcel Ids 63 -A -86B and 63 -A -86C 1 INTRODUCTION The subject parcels contain a total of 7.6 (+/-) acres. The properties are located to either side of Hood Way immediately adjacent to Route 11 in Frederick County, Virginia. Both parcels are currently zoned M-2 (Industrial General District), and the owner desires to reduce the zoning to B-2 (Business General District). The intended purpose of this zoning is to offer the land for sale to retail and financial service customers. The proximity of these lots to a residential area and their immediacy to Route 11 create favorable circumstances for businesses in a General Business District. 2 SITE SUITABILITY The site is very well suited for development. 2.1 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN The parcels are 23 feet above the 100 year flood plain based on NAD27 data. They are approximately 2000 feet from the nearest flood plain border. 2.2 WETLANDS There are no observed wetlands within the boundaries of the parcels. Additionally, there are no observed hydrophilic flora that might suggest the potential for wetlands reclassification. 2.3 STEEP SLOPES The site slopes to gradually to the southeast. Slope within these parcels is less than 2%. There are no 15% slopes in evidence. 2.4 MATURE WOODLANDS The site contains no mature woodlands. 2.5 SOILS There are no critical soil areas on the site. The soil type is 7C (Carbo-Oaklet-Rock Outcrop Complex) and is suitable for development. The soil is not classified as prime farmland. There are some outcroppings of rock that will require particular attention during initial grading. 2.6 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING The site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the Urban Development Area (UDA). The site is currently zoned M-2. The proposed rezoning current M-2 to B-2 is in conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. 3 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The sites are bordered to the southeast by the existing industrial facilities of HP Hood, a dairy processing facility with M-2 zoning. Both plots to the southwest are zoned B-3. One is vacant, and the other is in commercial use. The northeastern side is bordered by a Page 1 Impact Analysis Statement Parcel Ids 63-A-8613 and 63 -A -86C lot owned by Allegheny Power and zoned M-2. The lots across Route 11 are similarly zoned B-2, and are in use by Schenk Foods, Incorporated. 3.1 NUISANCE FACTORS There are no anticipated nuisance factors inappropriate to the zoning. No air or water pollution sources will be generated, and the noise potential is not expected to reach the 75 dBa threshold for nuisance as noted in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance 165-35- (H). There are no anticipated residential impacts associated with the rezoning. 4 TRAFFIC The combined parcels have approximately 500 feet (+/-) of frontage to either side of Hood Way. Projected vehicular volumes are anticipated to increase with the change of zoning from industrial to retail as the table below illustrates. Category Measure AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg. 24-hour Two- otal Tri s) Total Trips) Way Volume Current Zoning 7.6 acres 6 4 51 (M-2) Proposed 100,000 s.f. 641 493 4067 Zoning (B-2) Trip Generations by MicroTrans These changes are over and above the existing annual average daily traffic (AADT) on Route 11. In CY 2000, the AADT was 16,000 vehicles. By the date of the expected project completion in Spring 2002, the AADT is expected to be approximately 17,640. 5 SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT There are no known limiting factors for the conveyance of sewage from treatment from this property. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority serves the site. A previously approved 30' right-of-way is on the southwestern border of the parcels. 6 WATER SUPPLY There are currently available public water facilities available in the right-of-way in the southeast edge of each parcel. 7 DRAINAGE The site has no identified drainage problems. The property slopes from the northwest to the southeast toward the existing HP Hood facility. There are no existing streams or ponds on the property. An increase in storm water runoff can be expected with development of the property. Storm water management will be provided in accordance with Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County. Page 2 Impact Analysis Statement Parcel Ids 63 -A -86B and 63 -A -86C S SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES No additional solid waste disposal facilities will be required for the proposed rezoning. 9 HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The site contains no sites or structures of historic significance. 10 IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES This rezoning request is to move from M-2 (Industrial General District) to B-2 (Business General District). There are anticipated to be no significant impacts to community facilities. 10.1 EDUCATION No impacts to education facilities are anticipated. 10.2 EMERGENCY SERVICES Police protection is provided by the Frederick County Sheriffs Department. The nearest fire and rescue facility is Company 11 to the south in Stephens City. No additional police, fire, or rescue facilities will be required due to the rezoning. 10.3 PARKS AND RECREATION No impacts to parks and recreation facilities are required. Page 3 ADAMS REZONE M -2 -TO B-2 Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation For 7.6 Acres of General Heavy Industrial August 07, 2001 Average Weekday Saturday Sunday 24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour Two -Way Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit 51 0 0 0 0 24 hour Peak Hour Two -Way Volume Enter Exit 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS ADAMS REZONE M-2 TO 2-2 Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 7.6 Acres of General Heavy Industrial August 07, 2001 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume 6.75 8.62 1.00 51 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 1.98 1.93 1.00 15 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 2.16 0.00 1.00 16 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 6.41 0.00 1.00 49 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 4.22 4.18 1.00 32 Saturday 2 -Way Volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday 2 -Way Volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS ADAMS REZONE M-2 TO B-2 Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 7.6 Acres of General Heavy Industrial August 07, 2001 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume 6.75 8.62 1.00 51 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 1.98 1.93 1.00 15 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 2.16 0.00 1.00 16 Saturday 2 -Way Volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Adams rezone M-2 to B-2 Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation For 100 T.G.L.A. of Specialty Retail Center August 07, 2001 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour Two -Way Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit Average Weekday 4067 0 0 111 148 24 hour Peak Hour Two -Way Volume Enter Exit Saturday 4204 0 0 Sunday 2043 0 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Adams rezone M-2 to 3-2 Summary of Trip Generation Rates For 100 T.G.L.A. of Specialty Retail Center August 07, 2001 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Avg. Trip Rate Min. Trip Rate Max. Trip Rate Std. Dev. No. of Studies Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume 40.67 21.30 50.94 13.70 3 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 1.11 0.87 2.22 0.00 0 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 1.48 1.16 2.94 0.00 0 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 2.59 2.03 5.16 1.74 3 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 3.08 2.59 4.25 0.00 0 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 3.33 2.81 4.60 0.00 0 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 6.41 5.40 8.85 0.00 2 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 2.81 2.62 3.28 0.00 0 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 2.12 1.97 2.47 0.00 0 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 4.93 4.59 5.75 0.00 2 Saturday 2 -Way Volume 42.04 22.57 54.47 13.97 3 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Sunday 2 -Way Volume 20.43 6.96 32.82 10.27 3 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Adams rezone M-2 to B-2 Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 100 T.G.L.A. of Specialty Retail Center August 07, 2001 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Average Rate Standard Deviation Adjustment Factor Driveway Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume 40.67 13.70 1.00 4067 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 1.11 0.00 1.00 111 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 1.48 0.00 1.00 148 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 2.59 1.74 1.00 259 Saturday 2 -Way Volume 42.04 13.97 1.00 4204 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff Zoning Amendment Number PC Hearing Date 1/ - 67- D! Fee Amount Paid $ ?z Date Received /Q -- •¢ - a_�,_ _ BOS Hearing Date /, —� 01 The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Triad Engineering, Inc Address: _P.O. Box 2397 Winchester, VA 22604 2. Property Owner (if different than above)' Name: Estate of Naomi Adams Poole Telephone: '/G G � 7 / 2 6 � Address: 5223 12'' Street North Arlington, VA 22205 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone: _540-667-9300 Name: _Steve Gyurisin at Triad Engineering Telephone: _540-667-9300 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Plat Deed to property Verification of taxes paid Agency Comments Fees Impact Analysis Statement Proffer Statement RECEIVED OCT 0 4 Mi , IPPT. OF PLANNINGIOEVELOPMENT 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: Catamount Management Corporation. 6. A) Current Use of the Property: M-2 (vacant) B) Proposed Use of the Property: _B-2 (for resale as financial/retail space)_ 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 63 -A -86A 63-A-81 63-A-82 63-A-72 63-A-73 —63-A-68 —63-A-69 63-A-70 63-A-71 63-A-80 _Industrial Commercial _Commercial _Residential _Residential _Commercial _Commercial _Residential _Residential industrial M-2 _M-2 B-3 M-1 RP M-2 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): The parcels are located on either side of Hood Way adjacent to Route 11 approximately 2200' northeast of the intersection _of Route 11 (Valley Pike) and Route 37. Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model in order ivr we Plaruung auui to use As capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 63 -A -86B and 63 -A -86C Districts Yhvjo ee,, Magisterial: �;aak-Qee1,- Fire Service: _Company 11_ Rescue Service: _Company I 1 High School: _ Middle School: _ Elementary School: 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 7.6(+/-) M-2 B-2 7.6(+/-) Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: _0 Townhome: _0 Multi -Family: _0_ Non -Residential Lots: 2_ Mobile Home: 0 Hotel Rooms: 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses (NOT APPLICABLE) Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other: 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. , I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): (Z" Date: 10 -OZ -01 U Date: Owner(s): D1�cz.;. �,� Date: a) Date: / 3 �i-v+1 Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commisioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name: Schenk Foods Company, Inc. P.O. Box 2398 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 63-A-67 Name: Schenk Foods Company, Inc. P.O. Box 2298 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 63-A-68 Name: Schenk Foods Company, Inc. P.O. Box 2298 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 63-A-69 Name: William H. (Jr.) and Barbara W. Black 220 Clayhill Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Property # 63-A-70 Name: Edgar C. and Lucy M. Baker 3514 Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Property # 63-A-71 Name: Kenneth W. Turner 3510 Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Property # 63-A-72 Name: Margaret D. Bloxom 113 King Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Property # 63-A-73 Name: Allegheny Power Company Property # 63-A-80 10435 Downsville Pike Hagerstown, MD 21740 Name: Allegheny Power Company 10435 Downsville Pike Hagerstown, MD 21740 Property # 63-A-81 Name: Carl E. and Ann Lee Frye P.O Box 2467 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 63-A-82 Name: HP Hood, Inc. 90 Everett Avenue #200 Chelsea, MA 02150 Property # 63 -A -86A f,F i f� / O O vall 237 �s 93 Vicinity Map for Rezoning Request Tax Map IN: 83—A -88B and 83—A -86C Date: 9-05-01 SCALE: L R'AD Triad Engineering, Inc. 1 : 1 000 OP 3 f,F i f� / O O vall 237 �s 93 Vicinity Map for Rezoning Request Tax Map IN: 83—A -88B and 83—A -86C Date: 9-05-01 SCALE: L R'AD Triad Engineering, Inc. 1 : 1 000 t . 3! • OM1. . Al.l ESNi, NI POW[ A CURVE NO. ARC DELTA RADIUS TANGENT CHORD CHORD DISTANCE C3 68.16' 5T•25'55' 68.00' 37.25' N82.30'14'W 65.34' C4 80.86' 68.07'42' 68.00' 45.98' S34.42'58'W 76.18' C5 154.94' 130.33'15" 68.00' 147.69' N64.3T'31'W 123.53' C6 42.51' 76.06'52' 32.00' 25.05' N88.09'18'E 39.45' C7 17.48' 07.42'19' 130.90' 8.75' N57.38'35'W 17.47• itiVED: M-� I -" -" NAIL FND IN CONC S5:i'50'02'E 745.11' I� t \�t I n T 3 SETBACK 4:253 AC ��- � IRS \�IA` S1r 75' SETDACK _ ©_1F�-, \ cA--- ---IRS , r7 t _ /IRS IRS' ,\ WV, LOT 2 25' SETBACK \o\ CARL E• 3 o;�\} ANN L EE FRYE �• v 738.'302 \ \�\ \ [ISE: OM4ERC1AL LINE NO. BEARING DISTANCE L7 N70°04'1 71..64' L8 I N25.45'3O'W \� 60' FUTURE R.O.M. EASEMENTAmEr 0!p LOT 1 $ F Iccs ( SEE' SHEET 2)D No. 1853 25' ACTIVE .l 75•ITOTALI RAJ S �- FUTURE 30' \ WATER Ak0 SAN. SEW. ESMT. J.S. COOLEY 489/334 ZONED: S-3 USE: COMMERCIAL S : i TS' INACTIVE STTR.>. APRIL 16. 1999 COO 0 200 K� se.�u.E.r•roo• FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT rOR THE ESTATE OF NAOMI POOLE ADAMS '--tDO' S -TYPE BUFFER BACK CREEK MAGESTER I AL 0 1 STR I C' W/ LANDSCAPE SCREEN FREDERICK COUNTY, 'V I RG I N 14 DISTANCE-1.770'(TOTAL) DATE: APRIL 16. 1999 SCALL: 1" - 2C .m0 IL or&` TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. 200 AVIATION DRIVE WINCHE';.TE". VIRGINIA (540) 667-9300 FAX 1540) 667-2260 SHEET 4 OF 4 • C n .� COUNTY of FREDERICK ®M Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator RE: Request of Exception DATE: October 17, 2001 Attached are two exhibits and a letter from John C. Lewis of Painter -Lewis L.L.C., representing Space L.L.C.- the owners of approximately 8.6 acres in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Lewis is proposing a subdivision of the property owned by Space L.L.C. Exhibit "A" illustrates the proposed private access easement which will serve the interior lots of the proposed subdivision. The Subdivision Ordinance currently does not allow the proposed subdivision illustrated on Exhibit "A". Chapter 144-24 Section C requires that "All lots shall abut and have direct access to a public street or right of way dedicated for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation." The proposed subdivision would create two additional lots labeled on Exhibit "A" as Lot 1 and Lot 4. The remaining Lot 5 would comprise the existing Trex Center site. Lot 1 would have State road frontage and direct access as required by the Subdivision ordinance. Lot 4 and Lot 5 would not have the required road frontage and direct access, thus the waiver request applies to these two proposed lots. Exhibit "B" illustrates the existing conditions where now only three lots have been subdivided. Existing Lot 2 is now the Bank of Clarke County property and existing Lot 3 is the Funkhauser property. The remainder currently belongs to Space L.L.C. On October 3, 2001, the Planning Commission approved an entrance spacing waiver for access to Route 522. The entrance spacing waiver will allow Lot 2 and Lot 3 to share direct access to Route 522. Attached is a letter from Mr. Lewis dated October 12, 2001, which describes the maintenance of the private access easement by a property owners association through established deed restrictions, and provides a justification for the waiver request. On behalf of the property owners, Mr. Lewis is requesting a waiver to the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the proposed subdivision. A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the request is desired. PTD Attachments C\MyFiles\Waivers\Space LLC waiver report_wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 H 'STINES �~- OlD F`�DR`_= /� CHAPEL t / J \ \ \ COMMON ACCESS ESMT. EXISTING LOT 3 1.07 AC. �� // LOT 4 H. N. FUNKHOUSER 2.03 AC. 12 EXISTING LOT 2 1\ 0.98 AC. BANK OF CLARKE COUNTYZI 12 \ 1 �` 4LOT 5 � 1 TREX % I COMMON ACCESS ESMT. \�\ / BUILDING ,' //__�= \•� �`� / ONE // L1 i TREX CENTER FREDERICK COUNTY, VA SCALE. 1'=120' DRAWN BY: JCL DA7E:22O T01 JOB #0002004 REVISED: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. , WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAN DRAWING NO.: PLATE 2 H pNq H STINES CHAPEL EXISTING LOT 1.07 AC. REMAINDER \ \ H. N. FUNKHOUSER 7.54 AC. 1 \ EXISTING LOT 2 0.98 AC. BANK OF CLARKE COUNTY / � 1 COMMON ACCESS ESMT. TREX / -� l,.a \ \ � // BUILDING �' // �- �••_• l% �/ ONE / 1 TREX CENTER _••�•• �/�/ ! / FREDERICK COUNTY, VA �•• _ t /SCALE: 1'=120' DRAWN BY- JCL • _ • - / / DATE:220CT01 JOB #0002004 REVISED: / PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA EXISTING SUBDIVISION PLAN DRAWING NO.: PLATE 1 PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 12 OCTOBER 2001 Mr. Patrick Davenport Frederick County Zoning Administrator 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: TREX CENTER SUBDIVISION PLAN Dear Patrick: tel.: (540)662-5792 fax.: (540)662-5793 email: paintlew@mnsinc.com Space, LLC, as the current owner of the parcel containing Trex Building One, is pursuing the subdivision of the remainder of the property. As you know, Lot 2 has been subdivided and purchased by the Bank of Clarke County. There is another subdivision plat now being circulated for review and signature for Lot 3. The owner desires to create three lots from the residual acreage as shown on the attached exhibit. Language in the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance prevents the division of the lots depicted on the attached exhibit. Section 144-24.C. Requires that "all lots shall abut and have direct access to a public street or right-of-way dedicated for maintenance by -the Virginia Department of Transportation". While all lots in this proposed subdivision abut a public right-of-way, Lots 4 and 5 do not have direct access from these same rights -of -way - The attached exhibit depicts the proposed internal, private roadway network which will provide access from Route 522 to all five proposed parcels. The roadway from Route 522 to Lot 5 has been installed. The remaining roadway between Lot 3 and Lot 4 is currently under design and should be constructed early in 2002. This roadway can access the Route 522 signalized intersection at Fox Drive via existing easements_ The proposed, on-site roadway network will be contained within common access and maintenance easements. Covenants are in place to describe the financial responsibilities of all property owners to maintain the roads as well as other common areas. The roadways have been designed to high usage standards, with curb and gutter and storm sewer conveyance systems. I request that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors consider a variance to that portion of Section 144-24.C. that requires direct access to a public street for Lot 4 and Lot 5. The basis for this request is as follows: A. Access from Route 37 is not permissible; B. Extending public streets into the site would prevent substantial amounts of land from attaining its maximum development potential by the creation of public rights-of-way and associated building and parking setbacks; page 1 PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. Mr. Patrick Davenport 10/12/2001 C. The existence of Route 37 prevent the extension of public roads through the site to the north, D. The site is fairly unique due to its location between two public rights-of-way, one of which is a limited access right -of -way - If you have any questions, please call me. Since ly; John wis, P.E., C. L.A. Cc: Thomas Lawson Richard Bell File: 0002004 RECEIVED OCT 12 2001 Apr, OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT page 2 PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. • • C PC REVIEW DATE: 11-07-01 BOS REVIEW DATE: 12-12-01 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 402-01 RED FOX RUN II LOCATION: The property is located northeast and adjacent to Red Fox Run I, 600' _+ east of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and 2,400'+ southwest of Airport Road (Route 645). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64-A-40 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North -Zoned: M 1 (Light Industrial) District South - Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District East - Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District West - Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Environmental Corridor & Warehousing (Kohl's Distribution & Vacant) Use: Residential (Red Fox Run I & Chapel Hill) Use: Agricultural Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: 66 Single-family detached urban lots REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter dated 4/5/01. Sanitation Authority: First review - approved - two comments. Frederick County Inspections: No comments required at this time. Shall comment at the time of lot site plan review. Fire Marshal: Fire lane markings required at all fire hydrants, temporary street signs during Red Fox Run II, MDP #02-01 Page 2 October 26, 2001 construction and other requirements of Frederick County Chapter 90. Plan approval recommended. County Engineer: See attached letter dated May 7, 2001. Parks and Recreation: The Master Development Plan for Red Fox Run II, dated 2/19/01, appears to meet open space requirements. Planning and Zonin: (1) ' Location The 35.4151 acres is a portion of the total acreage within the Airport Business Center. While the majority of the acreage within the Airport Business Center is accessible from Airport Road (Route 645), all of the subject property is accessible from Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) via Bentley Avenue in the Chapel Hill, Morgaine Trace, and Red Fox Run I subdivisions. (2) Site Histor The original Zoning Map for Frederick County (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) designated this land in the RI (Residential Limited) District. The land was down -zoned from R1 (Residential Limited) to A2 (Agricultural General) District on October 8, 1980. The Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning of the land from A2 (Agricultural General) to M 1 (Light Industrial) District on October 10, 1986. Rezoning application 402-00 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 28, 2000 which changed the zoning to its current designation in the RP (Residential Performance) District. A master development plan for the Upper Valley Business Park, now referred to as the Airport Business Center, was approved on October 19, 1987. Since the original approval of the Upper Valley Business Park, there have been two approved revisions to the master development plan. The first revision was approved on January 15, 1998, which allowed for a waiver to be granted for the percentage of woodlands and steep slopes that could be disturbed in the entire Airport Business Center. Specifically, the disturbance of 56% woodlands and 50% steep slopes was allowed. An environmental corridor was created along Buffalo Lick Run with this waiver to preserve the environmental features of the entire area. The second revision of the Airport Business Center was approved on June 22, 1999. In this revision, the master development plan was revised to incorporate the Flex -Tech designation to various locations throughout the Airport Business Center. Both revisions of the master development plan show the area of the proposed development as being planned for future residential use. Red Fox Run II, MDP #02-01 Page 3 October 26, 2001 (3) Site Suitability The 35.4151 acre site is located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). This acreage is a component of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan, which was first incorporated into the Comprehensive Policy Plan in 1999, and is presently shown in the 2000 Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning approved on April 28, 2000 changed the zoning designation to allow residential development on this particular property. Adjoining land uses are consistent with the proposed use. (4) Project Scope The applicant has prepared a preliminary master development plan for the development of 66 single-family detached urban lots which will have a minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet. The proposed development creates an overall gross density of 1.86 units per acre of the 35.4151 acres zoned for residential land use. The housing type requires all lots to be developed with curb and gutter, sidewalks, and street lights at all road intersections. As a condition of the proffer statement, a payment of $5,645.50 will be paid to the Treasurer of Frederick County upon receipt of a building permit for each lot. The money will be allocated to the Fire and Rescue Department, Schools, Parks and Recreation Department, Public Library, Sheriff's Offices, and the Administration Building as designated in the proffer statement. Part of the request proposed by the applicant is a waiver to the woodland disturbance requirement, Section 165-31 B (7). The proposed development would disturb 50% of the existing woodland areas, or rather, 17.70 acres. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance only allows the disturbance of 25% of existing woodlands. However, the Zoning Ordinance allows for the Board of Supervisors to approve the disturbance of more than 25 % woodlands on parcels located in the RP (Residential Performance) District that have 25% or more land designated as woodlands. (5) Issues a) Environmental Corridor. The land included in this master development plan is part of the Airport Business Center. The master development plan of the Airport Business Center prohibits all development within the environmental corridor, other than for utilities. Therefore, the proposed lot encroachment into the environmental corridor is not permitted based on the master development plan. Even though the primary building footprint may not be constructed within the environmental corridor, future lot owners could easily disturb protected areas on their property for a variety of reasons. In a situation like this, it would be extremely difficult for staff to enforce how a person wants to use their own residential lot. Red Fox Run II, MDP 902-01 Page 4 October 26, 2001 b) Tree plantings. In order to compensate for the 50% woodland removal, the applicant is proposing a replanting plan that appears to require all lots to plant three new trees. Based on the information provided, the planted trees should provide a canopy cover of at least 50% by maturity. A list of desirable trees are provided on the plan as possible tree planting species. There are three (3) main concerns identified by staff regarding the proposed tree planting plan. First, the plan does not recognize who will be responsible for planting and maintaining the proposed trees. Second, no indication is given regarding when the trees will be required to be planted during the development process. Third, the required tree caliber, at the time of planting, is not provided. Two additional issues for discussion may include whether or not it would be better to replant the same species of trees that are being removed; and also, whether or not the selected tree species list is the most appropriate for creating canopy cover. For the latter, some of the tree species selected for replanting are not generally considered to be canopy cover trees. Perhaps a reasonable approach is to restrict trees that have less than 1000 square feet of canopy cover at maturity. c) Zoning District Buffer. Part of the purpose of the existing environmental corridor is to function as a buffer and screen between the light industrial land uses to the north and the residential land uses to the south. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to allow for the environmental corridor to serve as the required buffer as permitted under Section 165-37B(2) ofthe Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approved the woodland and steep slope waiver requests for the Airport Business Park in 1999. A major reason for this decision was because the environmental corridor was proposed to be preserved completely. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11-07-01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The preliminary master development plan depicts appropriate land uses for the zoning of the property. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed master development plan to the Board of Supervisors, it would be appropriate to place a condition on the approval that restricts lot encroachment into the environmental corridor. In addition, the applicant should adequately address the other issues identified by staff and other review agencies, as well as concerns of the Planning Commission. O- i JScndasl COA9Al1:NTSI MDP's l Red F— Rif r Mrd COMMONWEALTH ©f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDINBURG, VA 22824 JERRY A. COPP COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER April 5, 2001 FAX( a°)' Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Ref: Red Fox Run, II PMDP G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Route 1368, Bentley Avenue off Route 522 200 North Cameron Street Frederick County Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Chuck: A VDOT review has been completed on the preliminary master development plan dated 02/19/01 (received 03/26/01) for the referenced project. Our comments are as follows and as shown in red on the enclosed plan. • Sight distance at Melissa Avenue/Bentley Avenue is a major concern. The sight distance should be determined and posted on the plan. There is a limited window for access to Bentley and it should be determined now that sight distance is adequate. • All utility lines should be established outside the proposed road rights -of -ways. Generally on new subdivisions this should be considered to be desirable. A road typical section, urban or rural in geometrics, should be provided. • The traffic volumes appear to be different from those normally allotted: 66 lots should shown 660 trips per day, Melissa Avenue shows 650. If Travis Court East volume of 400 trips per day are added to Travis Court West volume of 110 trips per day, the total on Melissa Avenue should be 510 trips per day - ? We recommend the above comments be addressed now to avoid unnecessary review time at the site plan stage of development. Please call with any questions. Sin Barry J. Sweitzer, Tway E meer For: Steven A. Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer BJS/rf Enclosure xc: Mr. Eric Lawrence WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING May 7, 2001 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, P.E. Vice President G. W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Master Development Plan - Red Fox Run II Frederick County, Virginia Dear Chuck: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0582 We have reviewed the proposed Master Development Plan for Red Fox Run II and offer the following comments: 1) It appears that the lot development at the ends of Mate Court, Trent Court and the west end of Travis Court encroach on the dedicated woodlands corridor. All development should be located outside of this non -disturbance area. 2) The 25 percent woodlands disturbance requirement may be exceeded if the stormwater detention areas and utility corridors are included. The final subdivision designs should include these areas in the calculation of woodland disturbance. 3) An additional stormwater detention facility may be required at the east end of Travis Court depending on the actual detention achieved by the other stormwater management facilities. I can be reached at 665-5643 if you have questions regarding the above comments. Please submit a revised master plan for our records. HES/rls Sincerely, Harvey Otrawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works 107 North Kent Street . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 —(— --- �� 1 q , i j 1V{ / �- ILid i A JENICOMPANY<<� 64 A 4Q1 ,. --�—� 1 1111A 1 i I ML M1 VrREGIORTE n J AL NRPORT AUTN V 54 5 to / -�Z �t}(5-, I RIGGLE RR wwr E ( Tf 64 A64 REGIOR41 1 r � nn , NR�T Kohl's Department Stole RA L�t� auc_ UNGFB_64 A 40E �a n m nti 64. —A--42 / 1 /TJem , I , % vaGErrr.LEonw/ 64 5 4; irFF 11 40f l l l 54F 1 SA, R°� TMP# 02► 01 _ 1T 1) g ERs �P 84 I�Grind rpr.., I T, j RUSSELL 54 6RS�W on Map For Red Fox Run .! RUSSELL / �� i f 84 5 B , RA , 64-A-40 ... � RUSSELL. JUSTUS J. JR ---L_.-- ---- Dept. of Planning and Development, 10/01, Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Project Title: Red Fox Run II 2. Owner's Name: Jeni Company _Fred L. Glaize, III, Billy Jo Tisinger, & James L. Bowman 112 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone (540) 667-2139 4. Design Company: G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number (540) 667-2139 Frederick Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: Northeast & adjacent to Fox Run I, 1600' :L east of Route 522 and 2400' ± southwest of Airport Raad^ 6. Total Acreage: 35.4151 Acres 7. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): 64-A-40 b) Current Zoning: RP c) Present Use: Vacant d) Proposed Use: SF — Detached (Urban) e) Adjoining Property Information: Property Identification Property Uses See attached North South East West I) Magisterial District: Shawnee 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original X Amended I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required mal w' e complete prior to the submission of my master development pla app tio, Signature: Date:�/ 2 64D-8-39 Jeni Company Zoned Use J D # Owner/Address P.O. Box 888 64-A40E Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. M-1 Warehouse Winchester, VA 22604 17000 Ridgewood Drive 64D-840 Jeni Company RP Menomonee Falls, WI 53051 64F-1-6 Adams Family LTD PR M-1 Vacant Winchester, VA 22604 303 S. Loudoun Street 64D-841 Jeni Company Winchester, VA 22601 Vacant 64-A-37 Justis J. Russell, Jr. RA Agricultural Winchester, VA 22604 1 281 Laurel Wood Drive 64D-8-37 Glen W & Pamela Russell4RP Winchester, VA 22602 Vacant 64-A40J Airport Business Center M-1 Vacant Winchester, VA 22603 4264 Q Entre Court 64D-8-38 Glen W & Pamela Russell Chantilly, VA 20151 Vacant 64-A-44 Dawson W. Riggleman, Jr., Et UX RP Residential Winchester, VA 22603 120 Longcroft Road 64D-8-32 Glen W & Pamela Russell Winchester, VA 22602 Vacant 64-A42 Boyd J. Unger, ET UX RP Residential Winchester, VA 22603 25I Songbid Lane 64D-8-30 Glen W & Pamela Russell Winchester, VA 22603 Vacant EEI 64D-7-28 Gregory Scott Mason RP Residential Winchester, VA 22603 111 Shelby Court V413-8-31 Larry & Sharon Russell Winchester, VA 22602 Vacant 64D-7-27 Sammy & Peggy Carter RP Residential Clear Brook, VA 22624 — 112 Shelby Court / J J'j 1 'f',) ? i! — n Winchester, VA 22602 64D-7-19 William & Barbara Funck RP Residential 235 Bentley Avenue Winchester VA ,77Km 64D-8-39 Jeni Company RP Vacant P.O. Box 888 Winchester, VA 22604 64D-840 Jeni Company RP Vacant P.O. Box 888 Winchester, VA 22604 64D-841 Jeni Company RP Vacant P.O. Box 888 Winchester, VA 22604 64D-8-37 Glen W & Pamela Russell4RP P Vacant 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 64D-8-38 Glen W & Pamela Russell Vacant 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 64D-8-32 Glen W & Pamela Russell RP Vacant 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 64D-8-30 Glen W & Pamela Russell RP Vacant EEI 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 V413-8-31 Larry & Sharon Russell RP Vacant 338 Dehaven Drive Clear Brook, VA 22624 — / J J'j 1 'f',) ? i! — n N DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA E STREET NAME COMMENTS SUBDIVISION COMMENTS S DATE: October 23, 2001 STAFF MEMBER: Marcus Lemasters, GIS Manager SUBDIVISION: Red Fox Run, Section II, (MDP) COMMENTS: GIS Manager has reviewed the requested road names for the Red Fox Run, Section 11, MDP With the following results: 1. The following road names have been accepted into the Frederick County Road Naming System and reserved as "Paper Streets." Upon development of the subdivision, these names will be given structure numbers and officially adopted as road names in Frederick County. Melissa Avenue Travis Court Trent Court Mate Court Az Frederick County Planning and Development, 107 North KepeStreet, Wi &ester, VA 22601, COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Director RE: Discussion - Route 277 Area SWSA Expansion DATE: October 26, 2001 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Board of Supervisors have directed staff to develop options for the extension of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), in the Sherando Park area. This extension is intended to enable existing residences, many of whom have claimed to have failing health systems, to utilize the public water and sewer system. In recent months the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee has reviewed, and the Board of Supervisors approved, an extension of the SWSA to enable the Pioneer Trailer Park to utilize the public sewer and water system. As you may recall, Pioneer Trailer Park had made the extension request as the result of a failing lagoon system. A number of the residential properties in the vicinity of the Pioneer facility have also expressed concern with the potential for failing health systems. During the Pioneer Trailer Park discussion, the Board expressed interest in considering the inclusion of some of the adjoining residences in the SWSA. Three alternatives for SWSA expansion were presented to the CPPS. The CPPS felt that none of the three alternative expansions, as presented by staff, were acceptable. The CPPS did respond to the Board's request with the following recommendation: Expand the SWSA to include Sherando High School, Sherando Park, Pioneer Trailer Park, residences on the east side of Hudson Hollow Road, and the Fulton trucking property (Alternative 4). Other than the residences on Hudson Hollow Road, the other properties are already served by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Staff will present for discussion four possible alternatives to address the Board of Supervisors' directive. Descriptions of each alternative and maps illustrating the possible expansion areas are attached. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Alternative 1: Alternative 1 expands the SWSA by approximately 304 acres, and encompasses 42 properties. Of the 42 properties, 17 are currently serviced by public facilities. Staff estimates that 38 structures are located within the proposed extension area. A majority of the acreage included in Alternative 1 is county owned: Sherando High School and Sherando Park. The proposed expansion would include those properties fronting on Fairfax Pike and White Oak Road. Alternative 2: Alternative 2 expands the SWSA by approximately 380 acres, and encompasses 51 properties. Of these 51 properties, 19 are currently served by public facilities. Staff estimates that 44 structures are located within the proposed extension area. A majority of the acreage included in Alternative 2 continues to county owned: Sherando High School and Sherando Park. The proposed expansion would include those properties generally located north of Brandy Lane, and fronting on White Oak Road. Alternative 3: Alternative 3 expands the SWSA by approximately 1,035 acres, and encompasses 219 properties. Of the 219 properties, 28 are currently served by public facilities. Staff estimates that 100 structures are located within the proposed extension area. The proposed extension area would include those properties located north of Double Church Road and the Lone Oak subdivision. The extension would also include a portion of the Forest Lakes mobile home park. Alternative 4: Alternative 4, recommended by the CPPS. Expands the SWSA by approximately 199 acres, and encompasses 15 properties. Of the 15 properties, 5 are currently served, or have been approved for service, by public facilities. A majority of the acreage included in Alternative 4 is county owned: Sherando High School and Sherando Park (approximately 170 acres). U:\COMMITTEES\CPPS\Projects\SWSA Extension.Rt 277.PC.Discussion.wpd SWSA Extension Alternative 1 (304.182 acres added) LTIM A I lk WA (w 101 IMA k (4 9 W- I d offs L . • . • •'r. -re wR 1j 1.1 M rA (-;: q i=*I " I i D-135.735 acres addec S��'VSA Extension Alternative 4 (CPPB Recommended) dka (199 acres) �• SWSA 00.000 SWSA Expansion COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM T0: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II . .X 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 SUBJECT: Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Loading Space Requirements DATE: October 25, 2001 Staff has drafted the attached amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, from direction by the Planning Commission and the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee. The idea was brought forward during a joint work session held between the Planning Commission and the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee on December 15, 1999. During this meeting, the Planning Commission requested that consideration be given to modifying the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to loading spaces. The Development Review and Regulations Committee recommended approval of the attached text amendment in their meeting held on September 27, 2001. The goals of the amendment are to provide flexibility to smaller industrial and commercial users with minimal loading space activity. The amendments also clarify several ambiguities with the existing text. The Industrial Parks Association has participated in the discussions held during various Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee meetings, and supports the proposed changes. Please review the attached text amendments for discussion during the November 7, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Specifically, changes are proposed to Sections 165-28, Loading Areas, and 165-145, Definitions. Staff will present this information to the Board of Supervisors for discussion in December. All comments received from the Planning Commission will be presented at that time. JFC/ch Attachments 107 North hent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-000 165-28. Loading areas. Spaces for the loading and unloading of trucks and vans shall be provided in association with business and industrial uses as follows: A. Loading spaces required. (1) The number of loading spaces required shall be as follows: Type of Use Food stores, restaurants and taverns Retail and personal services Hotels and motels, lodges, clubs, fraternal organizations and indoor recreation Office buildings Manufacturing, wholesale, trucking, construction and industrial uses Schools, hospitals and nursing homes (2) Interpretation. Loading Spaces Required 1 for first 10,000 square feet of floor area plus 1 for each additional 30,000 square feet 1 for first 10,000 square feet of floor area plus 1 for each additional 30,000 square feet 1 for each 20,000 square feet of floor area 1 for structures between 30,000 and 100,000 square feet; 1 for each additional 100,000 square feet 1 for each 40,000 square feet of floor area 1 for each structure with more than 100,000 square feet of floor area (a) When a use is not specifically listed above, the Zoning Administrator shall determine which of the above categories to use to determine the spaces required, based on similarities between the characteristics of the uses. When a use is not specifically listed above, the Zoning Administrator may also use information provided by the application or other sources of information to determine the number of spaces required. (b) In cases where mixed uses share the same loading area, the loading spaces required shall equal the sum of the spaces required for the various uses. In some cases, different uses will be contained in a single structure or site plan, and in those cases, the spaces required shall equal the sum of the spaces for each use. I . . W.0 11L.10.11FINELVINk' .11 B. Design Standards. (1) Dimensions. Each required loading space shall be twelve (12) feet wide and forty- five (45) feet long. Each loading space shall have a vertical clearance of fourteen (14) feet. (2) Obstructions and structures. Loading spaces shall be designed to permit loading and unloading without requiring the moving of any parked motor vehicle. Utility poles, light standards, trash containers and similar structures shall not be permitted within loading spaces. (3) Access. Inno case shall a loading space be approved which requires that a vehicle enter or back directly from loading spaces onto public roads. All loading spaces shall be provided access to a public road using an entrance which meets all requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Virginia Department of Transportation. (4) Surface Materials and Curb and Gutter. Loading areas shall meet the surface material and curb and gutter requirements for one of the following categories: (a) Loading areas separated from parking lots. Loading areas that are separated from parking lots shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete, or similar materials. Curb and gutter shall not be required when loading areas are separated from parking lots. (b) Loading areas that are part of parking lots. Loading areas that are part of parking lots shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete, or similar materials. Curb and gutter shall be required for all loading areas that are part of parking lots when curb and gutter is required for the parking lot. (c) Loading areas with two (2) or less loading spaces proposed. Loading areas serving uses identified in Section 165-28(A) may have a gravel surface if two (2) or less loading spaces are proposed, and if the loading area is separate from the parking lot. Curb and gutter shall be required for loading areas with two (2) or less'loading spaces when the loading area is part of the parking lot, and when curb and gutter is required for the parking lot. (d) Stormwater management plan and erosion control plan requirements. The Zoning Administrator may require curb and gutter and different surface materials for loading areas when necessary to implement a stormwater management plan or an erosion control plan. 165-145. Definitions. Loading Area - An ofPstreet vehicles. An off-street area containing loading spaces and maneuvering areas, as well as their associated driveways. Loading Space - An off-street space used for loading or unloading by commercial, industrial, public, or semi-public vehicles. Maneuvering Area - A traveled" way by which commercial, industrial, public, or semi-public vehicles enter and depart loading spaces. (l. { OA'fAII7 7EESURRS'Projecis Loading Space Requirements'i.PCMI Mo.wpd COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director Cq RE: Planning Commission Bylaws DATE: November 6, 2001 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Planning Commission conducted a comprehensive review of their Bylaws in Spring 2001. Amendments to these Bylaws were officially adopted by the Planning Commission on June 20,200 1. The current Bylaws state that the Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review; shall consider any potential amendments in November of each calendar year; and shall adopt the Bylaws at the first meeting of each calendar year. The comprehensive review process has allowed the Planning Commission to adopt Bylaws that reflect current procedures and processes. However, staff suggests that the Planning Commission consider an amendment to Section 8-2, Minutes, to reflect the recently adopted Frederick County policy for responses to requests for public records. In order to ensure consistency with this policy, the following amendment to the Frederick County Planning Commission Bylaws is recommended: 8-2-1 The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting. The Chairman and Secretary shall sign all minutes following approval by the Commission certifying that the minutes are true and correct. The rifinutes shall not be inade available to the public until they w e appi oved by th%, Minutes made available to the public prior to formal approval by the Commission shall be clearly identified as a draft version of the meeting. Editors Note: indicates current language to be eliminated. Bold and italics text indicates proposed amendments for consideration. O:\aoards & Committees\Planning Commission\BYLAWS\2002 Bylaws\2002BylawAmendments NovembcrReview PCMo-pd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000