Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 09-05-01 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) July 2,2001; July 18, 2001; and August 1, 2001 Minutes ..................... (A) 2) Committee Reports ....... ........................................ (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments ................................................ (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) 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 Property Identification Number 69 -A -44A in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (Mr.Cheran)........................................................(B) 5) 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 Property Identification Number 85B-1-22 in the Opequon Magisterial District. (Ms. Ragsdale).......................................................(C) 6) Conditional Use Permit #13-01 of Lynnette L. Embree for a Cottage Occupation - Counseling Service. The property is located at 687 Front Royal Pike and is identified with Property Identification Number 64C -A-2 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mr.Cheran)........................................................(D) 7) Proposed Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, to establish new Article XVI -I, 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. (Mr. Wyatt).........................................................(E) 8) 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 Coun . (Mr. Wyatt).........................................................(F) 9) 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. (Mr. Wyatt)........................................................ (G) 10) Proposed Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article IV Supplementary Use Regulations, Sec n 165-27 Off -Street Parking, Parking Lots; Section 165-27E(1) Surface materials,, tion 165-27E(3) Curbs and rs; Section 165-27E(4) Raised Islands; a2fater n 165-27E(11) Landscapin a proposed amendments provide consistencdevelopment of parking to dustrial zoning districts located within the Sewer Service Area. (Mr. Wyatt)........................................................ (H) PUBLIC MEETING 11) 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. (1W. Lawrence) ...................................................... (1) 12) 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. (Mr. Davenport) ...................................................... (J) DISCUSSION ITEM 13) Discussion Regarding Allowance of Mobile Homes as Accessory Dwellings. (Mr. Wyatt)........................................................ (I) 14) 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 July 2, 2001. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro 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: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; STAFF PRESENT: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 6, 2001 Upon motion made by Mr. Kriz and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of June 6, 2001 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 06/28/01 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed a proposed ordinance amendment to require radon -resistant construction and the development of the new Medical Support District. rredenck County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2001 page 692 -2 - AMENDMENT TO AGENDA Chairman DeHaven announced that Item 49 on the agenda, Tab G, which is a discussion item, will be postponed until July 18, 2001. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #09-01 of Alkire's General Store, submitted by Martin Niessner, Jr., to add a restaurant space to an existing general store. This property is located at 9263 North Frederick Pike and is identified with P.I.N. 06-A-77 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator, stated that the existing Alkire's General Store is a legally non -conforming use and the application for the conditional use permit (CUP) is to add a restaurant function within the existing building. Mr. Davenport said that stars opinion was that the proposed modification increased the degree of nonconformity and, therefore, the CUP is required to establish the use. He explained that approximately half of the existing store is being proposed to be converted into a restaurant containing six tables with 24 seats. Mr. Davenport continued, stating that two of the reviewing agencies indicated some concern. He said that VDOT has noted that the northernmost entrance does not meet minimum standards for sight distance due to topography and prefers the applicant use Cumberland Trail Road (Rt. 694) for egress from the site. He said that in addition, the Health Department provided an evaluation for a sewage disposal system which may accommodate fewer seats than what is being proposed in the restaurant; they have also indicated that the sewage disposal system has not been evaluated and a public water supply may be required. Commission members had several questions regarding the appropriateness of having two uses on a site with one being a non -conforming use and one being a conditional use. There were questions regarding the logistics of expanding one or the other use and how it would be handled. There were also questions regarding the uncertainty of the comments received from the health department. The staff noted that recommended Conditions #2 and #4 would require review and approval by the health department before utilization of the restaurant facility. Mr. Martin Niessner, Jr., the applicant, said that he owns property nearby, since 1987, and believes a small restaurant would fit nicely within the building. He said there is a one-story portion of the store that was added onto the original big country store and this is what he was proposing for the restaurant use. Mr. Niessner said he would like to place six tables, 24 seats, if the health department allows. He added that he has met with health department officials and six perc holes have been dug for a new septic site in conjunction with this use. He further added that he was comfortable with the recommended conditions of the permit. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2001 Page 693 INE One of the Commissioners inquired if a sufficient amount of land was available and Mr. Niessner replied that the owners of the property, Robert and Carmen Alkire, have optioned him three acres for this purpose. There were no public comments. The Planning Commission had no outstanding concerns with the proposal and believed the proposed addition of a restaurant facility within the existing Alkire's General Store would not be a detriment to the surrounding properties or the character of the district. Commissioners also believed that the conditions placed on the CUP were comprehensive enough to take care of any potential concerns by the review agencies. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #09-01 of Alkire's General Store, submitted by Martin Niessner, Jr., to add restaurant space to an existing general store with the following conditions: All review agency comments and requirements must be complied with at all times. 2. A site plan shall be approved by Frederick County and all site improvements completed prior to the use of this property as a restaurant. Appropriate parking and maneuvering areas shall meet the requirement of Section 165-27 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Parking and maneuvering areas shall be improved to contain asphalt, striping and concrete wheel stops_ 4. The sewage disposal and water supply system must meet all applicable Health Department regulations. Modifications to these systems (if necessary) must be completed prior to the use of this property as a restaurant. Any change of use or modification will require a new CUP application. Conditional Use Permit #08-01 of Rodney Lynn Hoffman for a Cottage Occupation for a Welding Business. This property is located at 1339 Ebenezer Church Road and is identified with P.I.N.18-A-69C in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator, reported that the applicant described the proposal for welding operations as a part-time business which would be in operation mainly in the afternoon and early evenings; the services would include customers bringing items to the premises for repair and traveling off-site to repair items; there are no plans to sell miscellaneous items in a retail manner. Mr. Davenport next Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2001 Page 69.1 -4 - reported observing possible inoperable vehicles and scattered mechanical and agricultural equipment on the property. He said that the applicant had explained that the vehicles were used for racing and the other equipment is used for spare parts. Mr. Davenport said that Mr. Hoffman's property consists of 5.2 acres and is approximately two miles from the intersection of Ebenezer Church Road with North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522). He added that the area would be screened from the roadway and adjoining properties by the local topography and natural vegetation. Commissioner Morris inquired if Condition #5 would prohibit the applicant from welding outside and Mr. Davenport replied that it would not. Mr. Reyes inquired if the scattered parts and equipment on the property could be seen from Ebenezer Church Road. Mr. Davenport replied that the adjoining properties, as well as Ebenezer Church Road, are screened by the local topography and natural vegetation. Commissioner Light confirmed with staff that Mr. Hoffman was properly informed of the section of the Zoning Ordinance which specifically addresses proper storage of junk, debris, and inoperable vehicles, so that if complaints were received, the applicant is aware of the regulations. The applicant, Mr. Rodney Lynn Hoffinan, was available for questions. There were no public comments. In the Commission's point of view, it appeared as though the property was sufficiently screened from the view of neighbors, as well as motorists along Ebenezer Church Road. They had no other issues of concern. Upon motion made by Mr_ Kriz and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 408-01 of Rodney Lynn Hoffman for a Cottage Occupation for a Welding Business at 1339 Ebenezer Church Road in the Gainesboro Magisterial District with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The hours of operation should be limited from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No retail sales should be permitted on the property. 4. Compliance with Chapter 16547 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding inoperable motor vehicles and trash storage. All materials and supplies used for the welding operation must be kept indoors. 6. In accordance with Cottage Occupation sign requirements, signage for the proposed use may not exceed four square feet in area. A sign permit must be issued by the County Building Inspections Department prior to the placement of a sign. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2001 Page 69-' -5- 7. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new CUP. Rezoning #05-01 of Timothy W. Johnson, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 1.89 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition). This property is located at 4489 Martinsburg Pike, 2.1 miles north of Clearbrook on the west side of Rt. 11, and is identified with P.I.N. 33-A-92 and 33-A-93 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director, explained that approximately one year ago, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for a conditional use permit for auto repair with auto body for this same applicant and property. Mr. Lawrence said there was considerable discussion and it was believed that a rezoning would be more appropriate because of the proximity to the interstate and Exit 323. He further explained that the Northeast Land Use Plan identifies this property for commercial use; the applicant is seeking a B3 use and, therefore, the request is consistent with the land use plan. In addition, the property is within the Sewer and Water Service Area, although this particular property is not now served with water and sewer. Mr. Lawrence continued, stating that because residences are located on adjoining properties to the south and east, zoning district buffers would be required against those properties. He reported no significant concerns by any of the reviewing agencies. Lastly, Mr. Lawrence reviewed the applicant's proffer statement with the Commission. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern for the lack of discussion regarding potential traffic problems within the impact study. Mr. Lawrence replied that staff concurs with VDOT that this site would generate minimal impact; he said the applicant has proffered, at his own expense, the installation of signage, turn lanes, and road widening as warranted. Mr. Wyatt, Planning Director, also commented that when projected vehicle trips from any given site are less than 5,000 vehicle trips per day, or less than 50% of the current traffic volume on the receiving road, the rezoning application does not require a full-scale transportation impact analysis statement, unless it is in an area where significant problems already exist. He said that in this particular situation, the applicant's total estimated traffic, using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, is less than 15 vehicle trips per day and based on the overall percent increase of traffic on Route 11, staff found that to be negligible. He added that from an access management standpoint, the applicant has proffered a limit of one commercial entrance for the property. Mr. Mark Smith, of Greenway Engineering, was available to represent the applicant and presented a site plan he had prepared for the property. Mr. Smith described the use as minimal because it is a two -person operation conducted by Mr. Johnson and his son. He pointed out that the building depicted on the plan is the maximum envelope he could design because of the buffers, the setbacks, and the drain fields. He said the church located on the property is actively being used and there is no intention of removing it. Regarding traffic generation, he said the rezoning application specifies the use of the ITE Trip Generation Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2001 Page 696 W1 Manual. Commissioner Thomas was concerned with the fact that the proffers allowed more intensive uses than just an auto body shop. Mr. Thomas stated that he could not support the rezoning application with the list of additi^nal ,uses, cwhmitted i_n the nrnffc-.r statement. Mr. Smith replied that he. did not believe Mr. Johnson was concerned about the additional uses, but from his business viewpoint, he added the uses for Mr. Johnson's future flexibility. Mr. Smith believed these were reasonable B3 uses. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak Mr. Thomas Stephenson, an area resident, commented that the aquifer Mr. Johnson will be tapping into is the same one used by the Flying J Restaurant and Mr. Jennings; Mr. Stephenson was concerned about the quality of that aquifer. Mr. Stephenson was also concerned about sewage and hazardous waste discharge, especially in consideration of the geology in the area. Mr. Smith returned to the podium and stated that Mr. Johnson met with Frederick County building officials regarding disposal of chemicals and he will be required to meet BOCA Code construction regulations. Commissioners believed the proposed zoning was appropriate for this particular area, considering the fact that the use would be minimal, and they believed the applicant had satisfactorily addressed the impacts through his submitted proffers. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Watt, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning #05-01 of Timothy W. Johnson, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 1.89 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition) with the proffers submitted by the applicant, by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Kriz, Fisher, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Watt NO: Thomas Request for extension of water and sewer service outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) at the I-81 Clearbrook Rest Stop, located on the west side of Interstate 81, at Mile Marker 320, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, stated that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has submitted a request for the extension of public water and sewer service to the Interstate 81 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2001 Page 697 -7 - Clearbrook Rest Area. He noted that the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundary is located directly across from the Clearbrook Rest Area on the east side of I-81, and approximately two miles south of the Clearbrook Rest Area, on the west side of I-81. Mr. Wyatt said that on April 9, 2001, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) considered this request and was advised that Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) would own the water line; however, the sewer force main line would be private. He said the eight -inch water line would allow for fire hydrants to be located at the Clearbrook Rest Area, while the private sewer force main would allow for a private package plant that is operating at 90% capacity to be taken off line. He added that VDOT advised the CPPS that placing the sewer force main within the I-81 right-of-way would prohibit properties on the west side of the interstate from connecting to their private system. Mr. Wyatt stated that the CPPS recommended approval of the extension of a 2 %2 -inch sewer force main line and an eight -inch water line to serve the I-81 Clearbrook Rest Area, conditioned upon the following: 1) That VDOT prohibit easements within their right-of-way to eliminate the potential for property owners on the west side of I-81 from accessing this system; 2) VDOT provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors which indicates that available capacity exists at the receiving pump station near Stonewall Industrial Park. This information should be obtained from the FCSA and indicate the amount of total remaining capacity that has been reserved for other users; and, 3) VDOT provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors which indicates how the private 2 %2 -inch sewer force main will be monitored to ensure that it is not seeping sewage into the ground between the Clearbrook Rest Area and the receiving pump station near Stonewall Industrial Park. Mr. Wyatt continued, explaining that subsequent to the CPPS's consideration of this request, a proposal to develop a public/ private partnership for the installation of a sewer line on the east side of I-81 was submitted to the County. He said that this partnership would involve land owners on the east side of I-81, VDOT, and potentially, Frederick County. Mr. Wyatt said that the FCSA is developing cost estimates for this proposal which is a preference of the locality and VDOT; however, should this preference not be realized, VDOT will request extension of service as previously described as a fall -back position for the I-81 Clearbrook Rest Area. VDOT's Assistant Resident Engineer, Ben H. Lineberry, Jr., was available to answer questions from the Commission regarding VDOT's timetable for completion of the project and the status of agreements for the public/ private partnership. Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Lineberry for confirmation that no easements will be granted to anyone on the west side of I-81, if the line is installed on the west side into VDOT's right-of-way. Mr. Lineberry confirmed that Mr. Moms was correct. Mr. Lineberry said that VDOT is interested in placing the force main within the I-81 right-of-way and, secondly, VDOT's wastewater treatment plant at this location is at capacity. He explained that the public/private partnership is desirable because VDOT would be like any other property owner discharging waste into a public system. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2001 Page 698 -8 - Mr. Reyes inquired as to how much larger the line would have to be, over the 2V2 -inch line requested by VDOT, if the sewer line was made available to the public. Mr. Wyatt replied that if the line goes in on the east side, it would need to to be much larger to serve the parcels that are between Exit 317 and the rest stop area which includes about two miles of property along I-81 frontage. Mr. Wyatt added that not only is the Stonewall School located here, but also the Frederick County Fairgrounds; therefore, there is the potential that the County may want to participate. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak Mr. Mark Smith with Greenway Engineering, representing property owners in this area, stated that they were in full support of the lines on the east side of I-81. In order to clarify VDOT's request, Mr. Wyatt said that the Commission is considering a request to serve a property that is not within the SWSA with public water and sewer service by a preferred alternative coming from the east side of I-81 or as a fall -back position, getting water from the east side, but with a 2%2 -inch sewer force main with the conditions as recommended by the CPPS for the sewer issue_ Commission members were in favor of eliminating small sewage treatment facilities. No other outstanding issues of concern were raised and the Commission believed the request was appropriate. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval for extension of water and sewer service outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) at the I-81 Clearbrook Rest Stop per VDOT's request. Proposed Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, Section 165-31B(7), Woodlands, ofthe Code of Frederick County. The proposed amendment provides the Board of Supervisors with a waiver provision for the disturbance of woodlands for parcels zoned RP (Residential Performance). Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, presented a two -phased approach for consideration of woodlands disturbance requirements for heavily -wooded RP -zoned parcels. Mr. Wyatt described the first phase as a simple ordinance amendment that would place heavily wooded RP lots on the same status as an industrial or office park, whereby, the applicant would have the ability to come before the Commission and Board with a master plan demonstrating areas, in addition to the maximum 25 % disturbance, they are seeking to disturb and provide alternatives that could be offered in return for the additional allowance. He said that the second phase would be the development of a detailed woodlands disturbance ordinance that would be Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2001 Page 699 M equitable and easily adapted to the construction process. Commission members inquired if the staff had been approached by RP developers asking for exceptions to the woodlands requirements. Mr. Wyatt replied that members of the design community have pointed out that the County's woodlands disturbance requirements, as written, make it very problematic to design RP -zoned land in the Urban Development Area. Commission members speculated whether developers would take the chance of coming before the Commission requesting a waiver or would they continue to clear- cut property, as they do now, before coming in with a master plan. Some Commissioners were of the opinion this waiver amendment was a "band-aid" approach and believed the entire woodlands ordinance needed to be re-evaluated in the RP, as well as the RA, Districts. They suggested that the entire issue be sent back to the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) and a comprehensive woodlands ordinance be written that applies to the RP area and any large -lot housing development in the RA area. Commissioners commented that the County is losing far more woodlands in the RA area than the RP areas. Commissioners also raised the issue of the need to be more selective of trees saved for woodlands preservation; it was pointed out that some of the trees preserved in the past were of poor quality or are now dying off because of root disturbance from foundation digging. Commissioner Thomas commented that he was opposed to the waiver as a stand alone measure, however, if the Commission and Staff agreed that a waiver was only the first phase and work begins immediately on a comprehensive woodlands ordinance which applies to RP and RA areas, working the ordinance from the standpoint of mitigation of impact and replanting, he would be very much in support. Mr. Thomas suggested that the Commission strive to get a comprehensive ordinance to the Board of Supervisors before the end of this calendar year that would take care of this problem. Two representatives of local design firms, Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering and Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. of G. W. Clifford & Associates, came forward to give the Commission their perspectives on designing projects on wooded areas in Frederick County. Both designers agreed on the short- sightedness of saving scrub or low -quality trees and that replanting may often result in a more aesthetically - pleasing development. Both designers stressed the importance of allowing designers "flexibility," because developers will save trees when they are able due to the premium value they bring. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment, but no one was present to speak. The consensus ofthe Commission was that they were in favor of recommending a case by case waiver, based on the proposal presented; they were in agreement that the ordinance as presently written was less than ideal; and they were in favor of proceeding with a comprehensive rewriting of the woodlands provisions throughout the entire ordinance. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the the proposed amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, Section 165-31B(7), Woodlands, of the Frederick County Code, which provides the Board of Supervisors with a waiver allowance for the disturbance of woodlands for parcels zoned RP (Residential Performance), along with a commitment to re-evaluate the woodlands provisions throughout the entire Chapter 165 for all zoning districts, including residential Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2001 page 700 Page -10 - development in the RA District, with the goal being to have a revised woodlands ordinance to the Board by the end of the calendar year. OTHER COUNTY -SPONSORED WATER RESOURCES WORKSHOP Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, announced that Wednesday, October 17, 2001 was the suggested date for the Planning Commission's Water Resources Workshop. Mr. Wyatt handed out a typical seminar description of the issues for the morning session, which was provided to him by the presenters of the workshop. Commission members requested that Mr. Wyatt ask the orator to use as many examples as possible from this particular area. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES - KELLERCO Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, provided information from a private company detailing an educational workshop centered on deciphering traffic impact analysis statements that come before the Commission. Mr. Wyatt said a representative of Kellerco has outlined a four-hour program they have done for other localities. Mr. Wyatt asked the Commission to review the material and let him know at the next meeting, if this was something the Commission would like to pursue. ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Evan A. Wyatt, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 2, 2001 Page 701 r. 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 July 18, 2001. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr_, Chairman/Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek 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: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District, Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 2001 Upon motion made by Mr. Kriz and seconded by Mr. Triplett, the minutes of June 20, 2001 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 06/28/01 Mtg. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, reported that the DRRS considered additions to the Medical Support District text and also recommended an amendment for radon resistant construction. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 18, 2001 Page 702 -2 - Comprehensive Plans &c Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 07/09/01 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS reviewed and discussed an extension ofthe Urban Development Area (UDA) towards the McTiernan property and the Burnt Factory Road area. He said the CPPS also had preliminary discussions on Planned Development Rights (PDR) Programs and how they may affect the economic well-being of the County. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 07/17/01 Mtg. Commissioner Moms reported that the HRAB continued their discussions on a rezoning application for the Duncan/Hoover property of which there is some historic reference to the Rutherford Farm area. He said that some agreeable solutions to issues raised by the HRAB with the developer's representatives were reached. Mr. Morris said that the HRAB also preliminarily discussed a conditional use permit application for a school with a residential component to be located along the area identified within Phase I1 of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Sanitation Authorit (SA) - 07/17/01 Mtg. Commissioner Fisher reported that the Sanitation Authority's Director/Engineer, Mr. Wellington H. Jones, reported that June's water demand was up by about 300,000 gallons over average and rainfall for the year is about 1.75 inches behind the yearly average. He also noted that the first report from the U.S. Geological Survey Study was received; its primary information is for monitoring and managing groundwater. PUBLIC HEARINGS Proposed Text Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Section 165-5(E) - Compliance Required; Required Permits. This amendment pertains to Radon Resistant Construction Standards for Residential Construction as required by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, stated that recently, the Uniform Statewide Building Code was amended to provide localities with the option of requiring radon resistant construction standards for residential construction. Mr. Wyatt said that localities desiring to implement this standard are required to develop appropriate language to be included within the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wyatt said that the Frederick Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 18, 2001 Page 703 County Public Works Committee has recommended that Frederick County adopt this standard. Mr. John S. Trenary, Frederick County Building Code Official, said that the amendment pertains only to new construction for single-family dwellings with basements. Mr. Trenary said that the Building Inspections Department has received input from the real estate industry in which they state that approximately 40% to 60% of new thomes are testing positive for radon gas levels above the allowed parameters and have to be retrofitted with some type of radon abatement system. He also pointed out that Frederick County personnel will not be involved in the testing aspect whatsoever; this amendment is for preventative measures only and any testing will need to be done by the homeowner, lending agent, or potential buyer. Mr. Unger inquired if the amendment also pertained to living spaces over garages. Mr. Trenary replied that any living space on a slab on grade will be required to meet the standards, with only crawl spaces being exempt. There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Unger and seconded by Mr. Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the text amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Section 165 -5(E) - Compliance Required; Required Permits_ This amendment pertains to Radon Resistant Construction Standards for Residential Construction as required by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, as follows: Section 165-5 Compliance Required; Required Permits. 165-5(E) Radon resistant construction measures shall be undertaken to meet the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Radon resistant construction measures shall meet all applicable permitting and inspection requirements as a condition of structural occupancy as described in Section 165-5(D) of this Chapter. PUBLIC MEETING Waiver request by Larry and Susan Merritt to grant an exception from the requirement of Section 165- 54 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance for a lot in the Rural Areas (RA) District to be created or adjusted to less than five acres. This property is located at 413 Poorhouse Road and is identified with P.I.N. 52-3-4 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, presented a letter from property owners, Mr. Larry D. and Susan Merritt, who desire to initiate a boundary line adjustment with an adjoining property owner. Mr. Davenport said that the two parcels involved are both legally nonconforming Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 18, 2001 Page 704 -4 - lots, both of which are under five acres. He said the proposed boundary line adjustment would increase the size of the Merritt's parcel from 0.68 acres to 1.19 acres and the adjoining property owners, Charles E. Cochran, Jr. and Mariam G. Cochran, would have an original parcel area of 3.075 acres reduced to 2.57 acres. Mr Davenport- continued, stating that. Chapter 165-140C of the 7,oning Ordinance requires that a nonconforming use may not be modified if the degree of nonconformity increases. He said that Chapter 165-54 of the Zoning Ordinance also requires that the minimum lot size in the RA District must be five acres with the exception of family variance lots or rural preservation lots. Mr. Davenport stated that the applicant is requesting a waiver to the aforementioned sections of the Zoning Ordinancein accordance with Section 144-5 of the Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, Mr. Davenport pointed out that the Merritts have submitted a petition that indicates support for the boundary line adjustment by the adjoining property owners. Commissioner Unger inquired if any homeowners' drain fields would be located on properties other than their own after the boundary line adjustment is made or if the adjustment would create a land -lock situation for someone. Mr. Larry D. Merritt, the applicant and property owner, replied no; he said there are no wells, septic systems, or drain fields on the piece of property involved in the boundary line adjustment. Mr. Merritt added that the property cannot be developed and he wanted the property to give him and his wife additional land for a garden site. Mr. Merritt said the boundary line adjustment will not cause a land -lock situation for anyone. There were no public comments. Commissioners commented that it seemed all the residents in the immediate area agreed with the boundary line adjustment, based on the petition of support and no citizen comments; therefore, they did not have any problems with the request. Upon motion made by Mr. Kriz and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the waiver request by Larry and Susan Merritt to grant an exception from the requirement of Section 165-54 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance for a lot in the Rural Areas (RA) District to be created or adjusted to less than five acres. This property is located at 413 Poorhouse Road and is identified with P.I.N. 52-3-4 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. DISCUSSION ITEMS MEDICAL SUPPORT DISTRICT WORKSESSION Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, gave an overall summary ofthe Medical Support (MS) District amendments. Design Engineer, Charles W. Maddox, Jr., and the Senior Vice President of Regional Services for the Winchester Medical Center, Douglas Rosen, were in attendance to answer questions. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 18, 2001 Page 705 -5 - Supervisor Reyes inquired if consideration was given to establishing a uniform color for signs within the MS District. Mr. Rosen replied that they were currently in the process of evaluating the entire Medical Center Campus signage to do just that and would mirror that signage on the new side as well. Commissioner Moms asked about a possible scenario whereby an MS District borders and Agricultural District, in which there is no orchard at the time of master planning, and then afterwards, an orchard is established. He inquired if there was any requirement or enforcement measure for the land owner to ensure the 100 foot setback, if no original agreement was made. Mr. Wyatt replied that there is no requirement for active agricultural/ orchard land to screen their use against adjoining properties in the County Code. Mr. Wyatt recalled there was a protection blanket placed over the agricultural community via the "Right to Farm" legislation; he added that active agricultural use does not require approval by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. Commissioners raised the issue of the inconsistencies of the setback requirements in the various districts within the ordinance; in the RA District, dwellings must set back 200 feet against orchards; in the RP District, dwellings must be set back 10 to 25 feet against an orchard; and in the proposed MS District, dwellings would be required to be set back 100 feet. Mr. Wyatt commented that the standards of the proposed MS District may set the groundwork necessary where everyone can actually see the results and, hopefully, consider this a reasonable compromise for reducing the RA "penalty" and adding something more in the RP that has been lacking. Commissioner Fisher believed that overall, the MS District was well done; however, he had problems with the 50 -foot and 100 -foot buffers. Mr. Fisher believed that the increased density ofthe proposed district and the allowance of parking areas within the buffer, combined with the reduced setbacks, would result in more people closer to agricultural property. He believed the RP District setbacks also needed to be changed. Mr. Fisher said that he could personally not support adoption of the MS District with the buffers designated. Mr. Wyatt explained that the buffer proposed in the MS District included both distance and screening, as opposed to flat visual distance, and would afford the adjacent landowner better protection. Mr. Wyatt said that although there would be parking and maneuvering in the inactive area, a six -foot -high by 36 - foot -wide earth berm on a three -to -one slope, with four -foot -high minimum vegetation at the time of planting, would be a more effective buffer than a straight visual distance. Mr. Wyatt recalled a good example already on the ground in the Red Fox Run subdivision that's being built on Rt. 522 South, adjacent to Chapel Hill. Mr. Wyatt encouraged the Commission to go in on the cul-de-sac; he said the berm is very effective and you don't realize that Route 522 is even there. Mr. Ours was pleased to see the efforts that were made to incorporate the "corridor design standards" into this plan. Mr. Ours commented that a lot of work had gone into the corridor design standards over the years and he was very pleased. He pointed out an editorial correction on Page 10, Section 165-127; he suggested the wording "may approve" instead of "shall approve." Chairman DeHaven recognized the tremendous amount of outstanding work that had gone into the development of the MS District and he believed everyone who was involved in the process should be commended. Chairman DeHaven believed it was an excellent document. He shared the concern about the setbacks, but was not uncomfortable with what was proposed and believed it was a good compromise, affording more efficient use of land for a more intense type of district. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 18, 2001 Page 706 !u Mr. Wyatt announced a work session on the MS District with the Board of Supervisors at 6:00 p.m. on August 8, 2001, for anyone who would like to attend. Mr. Wyatt said that if there are no changes to the proposed district, he believed it could be scheduled for public hearing for the Commission's first meeting in September. OTHER STATUS OF THE LAKE FREDERICK PUBLIC HEARING IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA Commissioner Morris asked the staff for an update on the Lake Frederick public hearing in Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Davenport replied that a public hearing in Richmond, Virginia is scheduled for tomorrow, July 19, 2001, regarding the issue of the proposed transfer of ownership of Lake Frederick from the State to private ownership, as well as other issues. When asked by Mr. Morns if Frederick County will have an official position on the matter, Mr. Wyatt said that the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution strongly objecting to the transfer of Lake Frederick to a private entity. INTRODUCTION OF REBECCA RAGSDALE, PLANNER I Mr. Evan Wyatt, Planning Director, introduced the Planning Department's newly -hired Planner I, Ms. Rebecca Ragsdale. Mr. Wyatt said that Ms. Ragsdale is a graduate of the University of Virginia and will be assisting with the Comprehensive Plans Committee, the Historic Resources Advisory Board, site plan and building permit review, and some enforcement work. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Mr. Wyatt reviewed some information on educational opportunities available for the Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 18, 2001 Page 707 ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. -7 - No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Evan A. Wyatt, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman liredcnck County Planning Commission Minutes of July 18, 2001 Page 708 0 n r] MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on August 1, 2001. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee 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: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District STAFF PRESENT: Evan A Wyatt, Planning Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II; 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) - 07/26/01 Mtg. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, reported that the DRRS considered three text amendment requests. Two were supported by the DRRS and one was not. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #10-01 of Route 37 Self -Storage, L.L.C. for an off -premise business sign. This property is located at 3862 Valley Pike and is identified with P.I.N. 75A -6 -B -41B in the Back Creek District. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 2001 Page 709 -2 - Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Commissioner Gene Fisher said that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this conditional use permit due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II, reported that the subject application is a request for a 4' X 8' off -premises business sign to advertise Route 37 Self -Storage, L.L.C. He said that the sign would be located on an adjoining parcel of land, located along Valley Pike (Rt. 11) just south of the Route 37 underpass, which is presently vacant and owned by another individual. Mr. Camp read the requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance for off -premises business signs and pointed out that the sign needs to be at least ten feet from the property line. He further explained that the subject property is two acres in size and is zoned B2 (Business General). Mr. Camp concluded by saying that no adverse comments had been reported by any of the reviewing agencies and there should be minimal impact to land uses within proximity of the site due to the sign's location, size and height. He next read a list of recommended conditions of approval, should the Commission approve the application. Ms. Joanne Whitacre, the applicant, proposed a painted wooden sign on wooden posts. Ms. Whitacre said the sign will be temporary because the property where the sign will be located is for sale. She said that when the property is sold, she will have to re -negotiate the placement of the sign with the new owners. There were no public comments. The Planning Commission had no issues of concern with the request. Upon motion made by Mr. Unger and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #10-01 of Route 37 Self -Storage, L.L.C. for an off -premise business sign to be located on property identified with P.I.N. 75A-6-B41B with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. A sign permit shall be obtained from the County Building Inspections Department prior to the placement of the sign. Any alteration of the sign shall require a new sign permit and zoning approval. 3. All applicable permits from the Virginia Department of Transportation shall be obtained prior to the placement ofthe sign. Any alteration of the sign shall require additional VDOT review and approval. 4. The sign shall be no greater than 35 square feet in size and 10 feet in height. The sign shall be properly maintained at all times, and shall be completely removed within 30 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 2001 Page 710 -3 - days by the property owner should the business cease to operate at the location advertised by the sign. (Note: Mr. Fisher abstained from voting; Mr. Wilson was absent for this vote.) Rezoning Application #06-01 of Keith and Robin Rodgers, submitted by Dove & Associates, Inc., to rezone 15.986 acres of a 20 -acre tract from RA (Rural Areas) to MI (Light Industrial). This property is located at 780 Airport Road (Rt. 645), west of the intersection of Airport Road and Victory Road (Rt. 728), and is identified with P.I.N. 64-5-3 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director, presented copies of revised proffers and a revised transportation analysis that were submitted by the applicant. Mr. Lawrence said that the applicant intends to relocate his company, Dove & Associates, Inc., to the site and to construct additional facilities on the site in the future. He said the property is located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA), the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and is a component ofthe Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1994, which identifies the general area of the subject parcel for future office and industrial use. In addition, Mr. Lawrence noted that the property is located within the Airport Support Area (ASA). Regarding the revised transportation analysis, Mr. Lawrence stated that both the applicant and staff have agreed that 2,600 vehicle trips per day would be generated from the site at maximum build -out and VDOT has determined that the impact to Airport Road (Rt. 645) would be minimal, based on this projected volume. Mr. Lawrence added that the applicant has proffered the establishment of a conservation easement to preserve environmental features and to reserve an area for a future stream valley park system. He further added that the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $0.04 per square foot of new building structure to the County for utilization by fire and rescue services. Mr. Edward Dove, President of Dove & Associates, Inc., explained that his company is an engineering and surveying business currently located within the City of Winchester and he and his wife are the contract purchasers for the property within the County, contingent upon its rezoning. Mr. Dove explained that in the late 1980's, Dove & Associates, Inc. was selected to design the Winchester Regional Airport Terminal and also provided contract administration for its construction. He said that since that time, it has been his desire to relocate his engineering company to the airport area. Mr. Dove envisioned that the other uses he hopes to locate at this site would be compatible with the airport and would promote the use of the airport. Mr. Morris recognized that the volume of traffic generated from Mr. Dove's engineering business would be minimal and he commented that the traffic studies presented to the Commission were based on the potential build -out of an M 1 property. Mr. Morris believed that as development occurs along Airport Road in this particular area, VDOT would have to consider a traffic light at Rt. 522. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 2001 Page 711 -4 - Mr. Light inquired if the proposed secondary development on the property would have its own entrance or if there would be a single entrance serving all of the uses in the developed area. Mr. Dove replied that he envisioned a single entrance because there really wasn't room for two entrances between his site and A'v1K. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Bob Pownall of the Shawnee District believed that based on the uses Mr. Dove was proposing, the property should be rezoned to business rather than industrial. Mr. Pownall expressed concern about all of the undesirable uses allowed under M 1 Zoning that could locate here in the future. Mr. Dove returned to the podium and stated that during his initial discussions with the staff, it was determined that M1 was the master planned zoning for the subject property. Mr. Dove said that he reviewed the list of allowed M 1 uses and there are a few that he seriously doubts if he would ever consider for the property. He projected approximately 65,000 square feet of office space and 65,000 square feet of storage facilities and he envisioned those to be the primary uses. Mr. Dove said that he didn't want to restrict his options, however, he guaranteed that the uses he plans will be compatible with the other uses at the airport. The Planning Commission believed the rezoning was consistent with the policies established in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and was in conformance with the development patterns depicted in the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan and the Airport Support Area. No issues of concern were raised. Upon motion made by Mr. Moms and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #06-01 of Keith and Robin Rodgers, submitted by Dove & Associates, Inc., to rezone 15.986 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M 1 (Light Industrial) contingent upon the County Attorney's satisfactory review of the submitted proffer statement. Request for Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) to incorporate approximately 95 acres of Parcels 55-A-105,106,107, and 107A, owned by Patrick A. McTiernan. The expansion would also include additional lands owned by others as the UDA expansion would establish Red Bud Run as its northern boundary. This expansion would occur on the north side of Berryville Pike (Rt. 7), adjacent to Red Bud Run, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action --Recommended Approval of McTiernan's Request Only -Other Adjustments to UDA Not Considered Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director, said the applicants have made a request to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) to incorporate approximately 95 acres located on portions of Parcels 55-A-105, 106, 107, and 107A, zoned RA (Rural Areas), and located on the north side of Berryville Pike (Rt. 7), intersected by Woods Mill Road. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 2001 Page 712 -5 - Mr. Lawrence stated that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) considered the McTieman's request during their meeting on July 9, 2001 and believed it was consistent with the County's Policy and it would be appropriate in this situation to include the entire property within the UDA. He said the CPPS also recommended that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors consider adjusting the UDA boundary at this time to take care of some other issues with properties in this area. Mr. Lawrence explained that what the CPPS proposed was to extend the UDA north to Red Bud Run, between Woods Mill Run and Burnt Factory Road, and to relocate the UDA to remove the historic Caleb Heights and Hackwood properties. He said that the resulting net change would be a decrease in the UDA of 202 acres. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., agent for the McTiernan Property and Redbud Associates, L.L. C., introduced himself and property owners, Mr. Patrick McTiernan and Mr. Thomas McTiernan. Mr. Maddox estimated that approximately 40% of the McTiernan property presently lies within the UDA. He said that development trends over the last ten years have developed a large percentage of the UDA to the south of Rt. 7 and lands north of Rt. 7 are either in schools, battlefields, planned for use or in previously -developed use. Mr. Maddox stated that there appears to be an essential public purpose for including this land in the UDA in order to properly and orderly expand the UDA to handle future growth and development. Mr. Maddox continued by saying that public water is available in the Rt. 7 corridor, sewer is available across Rt. 7 opposite Woods Mill Road, and storm water can be effectively handled using storm water management facilities within the Red Bud Run and Rt. 7 drainage corridors. He added that transportation to this site can be effectively managed by an improved intersection at Woods Mill Road (Rt. 660) and Rt. 7, which VDOT has reviewed and commented favorably on. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. David Darsey, a resident of Stephenson in the Stonewall District, was opposed to the request and believed a need had not been demonstrated to extend the UDA across Rt. 7. Mr. Darsey commented that this was the "thumb in the dike" for the Stephenson area in terms of the UDA. He was concerned about the precedent for development this property would set, especially for the Wilkins' property just up the road, once water and sewer is extended. Mr. Glen Penton, a resident of the Stonewall District, believed this area was conducive to development, however, the density of development was a concern and expansion of the UDA should be considered very carefully. Mr. Penton's main issue was Woods Mill Road (Rt. 660) and the ability to create an interchange that could handle the increase in traffic that is already beginning to tie up that intersection. Mr. Mark Stivers, a resident of Stonewall District, voiced a concern about what he perceived to be the County's position of expanding the UDA to include a property in its entirety when the property is currently bisected by the UDA line. Mr. Stivers also voiced concern that proper notice was not given to all of the property owners who would be affected by this decision, especially in light of the other adjustments that were being proposed to the UDA line by the CPPS. Mr. Stivers raised the point of the practice of just generally advertising in the newspaper, while it might be all that is legally required, he believed property owners were not being adequately informed of how their property was to be affected. In addition, he pointed out that the expansion of Woods Mill Road was not advertised and should have been because of the increase in the volume Predernck County Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 2001 Page 713 of traffic that would be experienced. Mr. Stivers concluded by saying he was concerned about what the public was able to discern from the advertisement in the newspaper. Mr. Morris pointed out that a misconception exists in Frederick County that a rezoning or UDA adjustment increases the demand for housing. He said that Frederick County has a history of building permits being issued at the rate of 650-700 per year. He said that 40% of those houses are being constructed in the RA area, which is consuming large parcels ofthe County's rural land; this development is occurring with little review, and no planning or proffers. Mr. Moms believed it best to cluster residential development where it can be managed, rather than allowing individual dwellings to use up five, ten, or 15 -acre tracts. He believed that expansion of the UDA in this area made sense because it clustered houses together in the UDA and it was also logical to follow the geographical boundary of the creek bed. Mr. Light was not in favor of crossing Route 7 with the UDA boundary line. He believed that if Route 7 is crossed and development occurs to the north, a new area will have been established where additional properties are going to be drawn into the UDA. Mr. Light believed that ifthe Commission addressed the northern corridor, it would only be after predominantly developing south and east. Mr. Light said that if the Shockey proposal and the development of the Duncan property are approved, the County will have to structure a new sewer and water service area that would run from Rt. 11 to the sewer plant. He stated that if the UDA is expanded to create a "development box," the logical place to create it is along Rt. 522 South from Parkins Mill to the north, where the potential "first leg" of Rt. 37 would be constructed. Mr. Light believed a larger UDA area should be created, instead of the piecemeal of small parcels on the north side of Rt. 7. Mr. Light believed the expansion request as presented should be denied; he said that Mr. McTiernan still has a by - right use for the portion of his property that is within the UDA. Mr. Fisher said that although he believed this area may be appropriate for UDA expansion in the future, the timing of this request was not good at this time. He explained that while the Commission is presently studying ways to preserve rural land, open space, and agricultural land, nothing has yet been established on the books to decrease density or maintain open spaces, and meanwhile, the density and size of the UDA keeps increasing. Mr. Ours inquired how much RP land was available for development in the County and Mr. Wyatt estimated that approximately 250 acres were zoned, but not master -planned. Mr. Ours suggested it might be time for a comprehensive review of the UDA, since the County has changed so much since the UDA was first established in the 1980's. Chairman DeHaven said that during the CPPS's discussions of the McTiernan's request, the committee looked at the other parcels in the area and believed it was appropriate to make some adjustments for some of the properties along the UDA boundary line that may have been overlooked previously, such as removing the Caleb and Hackwood properties. Chairman DeHaven had hoped the McTiernan's request would not be clouded by the other issues recommended by the committee. In light of all the discussion and concerns, the Commission decided it would be more appropriate to deal only with Mr. McTiernan's property and request at this time, and to examine the other properties and adjustments suggested by the subcommittee at another, separate meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 2001 Page 714 -7- A motion was made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Fisher to deny the request by Mr. Patrick A. McTierna`n to expand he UDA line to include his entire property. This motion failed, however, by the following vote: YES (TO DENY THE REOUEST): Fisher, Light, Watt NO: Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Wilson, DeHaven, Morris, Unger The majority of Commissioners believed it was appropriate to adjust the UDA line to include all of the McTiernan property at this time. A motion was next made by Mr. Wilson to recommend approval of the request by Mr. Patrick A. McTiernan to include his entire property within the Urban Development Area. This motion was seconded by Mr. Morris and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Request for Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) to incorporate approximately 95 acres of Parcels 55-A-105, 106, 107, and 107A owned by Patrick A. McTiernan. The vote on this request was as follows: YES (TO GRANT THE REQUEST): Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Wilson, DeHaven, Morris, Unger NO: Fisher, Light, Watt OTHF.R CANCELLATION OF THE COMMISSION'S AUGUST 15 2001 MEETING Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, stated that no applications for consideration have been received for the Commission's August 15, 2001 meeting. Upon motion made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Kriz, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to cancel their meeting of August 15, 2001. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 2001 page 715 ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote_ -8 - No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Evan A. Wyatt, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 2001 Page 716 PC REVIEW: 09/05/01 BOS REVIEW: 09/26/01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #11-01 Walter I. Floyd, Jr. Bed & Breakfast (Motel/Resort) LOCATION: This property is located at 6244 Wardensville Grade. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 69 -A -44A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential and Vacant PROPOSED USE: Bed & Breakfast Motel (Motel/Resort) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this property appears to have no measurable impact on Route 608, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Fire Marshal: Emergency vehicle access maintained at all times; a vertical clearance of 14.5 feet per NFPA 299 for the width of roadway. Narrow areas of turns in roadway cut back to accommodate a 34 -foot average fire apparatus. Plan approval is recommended. Inspections Department: Dwelling shall not require a change of use permit provided the occupant load does not exceed five. If you wish to exceed this amount, a Change of Use permit shall be apply for and the building shall comply with The BOCA National Building Code/1996 for Use Group R-1, Residential (Hotel. & Motel), Section 310.4. Please submit a floor plan at the time of permit application. A new certificate of use and occupancy shall Walter I. Floyd, Jr. CUP 411-01 Page 2 August 27, 2001 be issued prior to occupancy if change of use is necessary. Health Department: See attached Permit issued by the Health Department Planning and Zoning: This proposed Bed & Breakfast (Motel/Resort) use is permitted in the RA Zoning District with an approved conditional use permit (CUP). The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not specifically address a "Bed and Breakfast" type of operation. One reason for this is the fact that the use is very difficult to define. The National Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual lists bed and breakfast operations under the motel/resort category; staffbelieves this to be appropriate as related to the Zoning Ordinance. This bed and breakfast would take place in a three-bedroom house located on the property. The dwelling meets all of the RA District setback requirements. The property is surrounded by like properties, with the nearest property with a dwelling being 50 feet from the proposed bed and breakfast. The number of guests will not exceed eight (8) at any given time. It is staff's belief that this proposed use will not have any negative impact on the surrounding properties. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 09-05-01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use to be appropriate, staff would recommend the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than eight (8) guests shall be permitted at any given time. 3. Based on the scale of this proposed use, Cottage Occupation sign requirements would be appropriate. Signage shall not exceed four (4) square feet. 4. Any expansion or change of use will require a new conditional use permit. O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\2001 \Wal terFloyd,lr.wpd FLOYD, WALTER I JR 69 A 44 608 \\g BACK CREEK RURITAN CLUB 69 A 41 FLOYD, WALTER I JR 69 A 44 FLOYD, M -TER? A fig A 44A LOWERY POOLE 69 A 40 69 A 39D LITTLETON 6088�T j 69 A 39C 065 A 9B t 169 A 41 i� 1 55 �i1 'IIS 608 i ISI +.i i. w i i cUP#11- 01 Location Map For: Walter I. Floyd, Jr. PIN: 69 -A -44A I of Planning and Development, 08/01, Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the X owner other) NAME: U)t9 L'k e i' !%- , F Lo y b ADDRESS: 6I;t3S WA9Di5N"�V.rLC GflAOU7 SiAA «,-Jn16Iex, V;.1 a��S51 TELEPHONE (t374 -t0) ' i 77- ci7o5 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: I Aeko r. F` "y- (5cor,56) P�o�cR � j1cEJe� o��� v O-ALT&R-5 eJ4-u , ' ✓z`�';- t{:�JS� �1F13 t�' L� ���[G� �C'� /�/� n ^ 1 I ` � i t �c� 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 69,3$ [0.ARbc�0Svau.E GQAD6 (RT. 409)> fF9aAC6,0i To fEMBEcokC 5fZ: 6S NtSiIauc.kL (A,eafi 00C M LE WP -S 5 i CHJJRC" / M ( FkcLS ka A �. S Ot "LZ- CA 5l EF fiOOT ::5�5;, fg5«S� Rau IG - Ga Scurf 6 1 90v,t cSS; tv Ck'i 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) (3> 3G -z> A- B(e�AkFAs VAoT-PL:-tr 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: -I?6,J--1,4 r~ SrYL-C H - 0 5 E 3 L3P LJ -4S• a C�is� Lkf !'ti�rc (Loo/11 L. V, 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: I 1 Ct (3Lo 5 DV tic NAME ESL --CNE �rnirJ6l�� Esc, ADDRESS VA 22602 PROPERTY ID# (-9- A-14& ' ~%'Z MG`nHGRSUM1I C1ilCLL NAME RAY Li i i LE iaN FaM�i7 ADDRESS rr'-Rs-L c4(f-� -(A 201 / S PROPERTY ID# 69 - A - 39 c- '39(� t a cK r/2 <i4 Ii- c NAME �i��� ADAM � jP'tv'D GJo3��k(�cNe�) ADDRESS STAR Tisr�Js�y VA ZZbSS� T -RL GoC.i,< (oWNe9A wl;, PL6A$:3NTr FA tS 6G PROPERTY ID# l04- A -'P9 NAME 2 i c -V A'tD ADDRESS �nJ,',•i e�E S zC� , V/4 '7-Z(,.] PROPERTY ID# 6-q - A - 47 NAME Fr-A'JK f' i Goc.K PROPERTY IDI 4'3-A-113 1 27 Pact FEovs� (��, ADDRESS W'^'�`s �c,� �f� 2260Z" 47.7 SV 6-,AtiI Lllns& NAME WIkLE6rQ �2AtA� ADDRESS CM e-t#A9L6eJE PROPERTY ID# q -A -I — rHi 13Acrc C(QEFIC PL)Ri—,-AN �Lu3 p NAME Pr`P�tsaOSKt 5;�,�4s tA,5 or-'ar(� h��rA r?�' it�lHp1RD LAr+�c ADDRESS s «� ���Nt �1y� 926 -,y - PROPERTY IN " ` 4- 41 G-t'r+UC NAME J fk,s� . KA7L wN (-©LJtr'Lf ("�wa) ADDRESS 0 scq t 5 c"Z V,4 w 2 b -1 PROPERTY ID# L``F F,u.��G€� Bf ik6 f7'lE -k -9L l:�rR" yrs Ccy�� r� li'eC J (! nn (moi rl i?\J NAME HAC/Z. E ov�� F�Gr�n D ADDRESS S ��c� 1 VA Zz LSSA PROPERTY ID# -7 - A - 3 Gi1� GIAItEt,<.'sv,�u NAME k- U'L-overt ADDRESS -,J 6,t ; UA 2 z 6 - sq -PROPERTY ID# A - 66-15 NAMEcftG7 Ni e�{o�SarJ ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME VI'R ADDRESS -3' VA z26 s'A PROPERTY ID# 7a - A - ZZ S CIso8 (Ja9,0 l,uLLL CRA9c, l3nX lz3 NAME W L�'cAA N ccAoLs�IJ/ SP-, ADDRESS S �, X7 VA 6sz4 PROPERTY ID# ��-i"V4 (o��G"f W:+RDCJSv,c.Lc Grg1� � �aY 64 NAME W ADDRESS S 4R �N'cA7 va zz6s PROPERTY ID# &q-1-6- NAME q-1-5 NAME PROPERTY ID# R:u1 PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 12. Additional comments, if any: Ufa. % �5 L�oJs t f5 -SEiXRA ° C r \ ' n4 1 A" ay ,._ova LA,8L_t� frac 15 <-,0CL FAmiLY �r�� x ,;i ,4g,4,kxs / t>"t�z � 4 Lcy%S Cr✓ �J�'a"is� y Ci�r� i�C-Lsc::j a 004('�=Li -- x+1!1) "I1?cy Ac`r )fi--LLLf J 1 i rj a LL � Nr Awa Q 4 �.= c f� 4c` LL� '{ /�±--I+t.►�'°� �" vV S �h`� -.%'tet, . I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner G),4t, j , , .. k - t Owners' Mailing Address 623'5 GrcAoL�F VA Zzi;slj Owners' Telephone No. (6-`64 - S'71 - 9 7r- 5 - TO TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: RECEVE JUL 2 1 2-00 DEPT. OF PLAhiNINGIDEVELONIENIT L M- ~ � vr� I I C �View° Mountain Com;. 1Q•- I '3°J �- I� i 1 Pembroke rrn s DUCK .gPH O p, 55 l O l 08 i i I Run Swf X60 I pIFEF2�• / P ► �F r ✓7 r--@600 \vel prings 6041 ;\, r��s e T - rNER ` A� •i ( ��, r `� � 603 r Star anneey 0 �C � CC ' 1. Star' -`,-i r a6Q� I 55 �� �cFa 604 _ I O l � �` � I C'r'y( r✓'R �K e � pl+; v -!G S R C ` fZE.tE � ,. 3 s GJ1?i �A�,�sv:,i� CrzEiDE l �- \+ I ♦n� �' � ice` \. i 45 �o HIN 46 IHEMBROKE SPRiN /l A M 39B f An rf/ 39� 43 39D n -Z 8 .,•tytotSorlN se L"7 sg N4(ZTy 010UN'A1v UrL, �( I 1 P f[. by p PCiz I 1714 146,ee'5 I �(p238 WAKAcNS-U�Lt.C- G(UiDi: a»Ry 1 tIlA,cr(Ea I v('t_" I I I t f I...trQrcorS�svttc.s GRAIN kq L (r itEra�) FA -m L y .c , ("'o UCf_ r ©✓; PtJt/Jnlr�l(r I owe ocy FL,,YD t',coaA i y a fv� (GI{ u3Un_S No' io �><r}cT Scrl c 1 ,t n J UFL= U"Occ.Jp,�.q FoNeCsi LAAO r©F " „ 4PL j Ftcc D5 �. (lf.✓rdek teA13tN t KtCMf OF WAV N I i ADAM.5/0 ctG i Gwr•IEC: 1 311 ( t'i.,CKER T,4, L Lel• i t, aaA � 1 rX4,Jie PN TGOG1< iS I r r' r Ur'c. .F C t' " �eMBfCctc•E SP(1.,JGS iity'iva<rCraL EjR�/i CPt'IArJAGEL �y Q��� `«��K (ZuFr i.R �f CL✓ a ) r' R N+CµDLSorJ }'tdd R, t3LaUGp 114095 L�OYi �Szt 45 47 -k we VD�� -^- 4 rciJ�i�V'r�� jrKif`v'v,�5 `� 4 SQA 356 I Ac, 9- J �VA PC REVIEW: 09/05/01 BOS REVIEW: 09/26/01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #112-011 Mary C. Dixon (Expansion of CUP #13-99, Daycare Facility) LOCATION: This property is located at 128 Meadowbrooke Drive. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 85B-1-22 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Expansion of Daycare Facility REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 1021, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Fire Marshal: Portable fire extinguishers present, electric -operated and battery-operated smoke detectors in use. No additional comments. Plan approval is recommended. Inspections Department: No comment required provided dwelling is licensed as "Family Day Home" by the State. Health Department: Facility is on public sewer and public water. Daycare is serving less than 12 children, so is not subject to Virginia restaurant regulations. The Health Department has no objections to this conditional use. Mary C. Dixon CUP # 12-01 Page 2 August 24, 2001 Sanitation Authority: No comment. Planning and Zonin : Day care facilities are permitted in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The applicant currently operates a daycare facility as permitted by previously approved CUP #13-99. As a condition of the current CUP, the applicant is allowed only six (6) non-resident children. The applicant would like to expand the CUP to allow up to ten (10) non-resident children. A day care facility is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as a facility in which more than five children, not including those children related to the people who maintain the facility, are received for care, protection, and guidance during only part of the 24-hour day. The daycare facility is conducted within the principal structure. The surrounding properties consist of residential uses and are located 25 feet from the principal structure. Expansion of the daycare facility would not be inappropriate at this location. Mrs. Dixon has no other employees and is licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Social Services as a Family Day Home. The residence is on public sewer and water. There were no disapproving agency review comments. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 09-05-01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: If the Planning Commission finds the expansion of this use appropriate, Staff recommends 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 (10). No business sign shall be permitted. 4. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 0:\Agendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\200I WaryDixonlwpd � IANDER801y OV�IELDSRBKARENE 85B 1 75 NHITLOCK ROGER R 85B 1 77 I 85B 1 76 Wooke I „ ° P 85B 1 24 W8-- RMALD STEPHEN &.-NICE L 85B 1 20 a IDECJR J -t". WnAC YD&CLOR 85B 1 23 85B 1 21 7 cumvAxmxrrw 85B 1 22 RACEY, CHARLES W 85 A 140 CECT( W WAM E & JCDI8 86E 1 17 SMI}{ DAMDA & LINDA W 86E 1 18 85 A 140 n r i i. o - �1 / OGp 1 ' 1, I85B 1 22 If ( \ / I t N 1 Dept. of Planning and Development, 08/01, , N. - It LzU AL`G Q 9 2001 Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting 7EPT, OF PLANiNIWG/DEVELOPiv1ENT BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: ADDRESS: -eadooib TELEPHONE (5n) g b q_ 3 d& q 0 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: aa1,ss 3. The property is located at; (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 07-'9 1tt-ead61JbrM4Qr,,_F;-k 302 6o E -as+ -o , 9-k. a9-7 �,V J mI 1, -burr, r,C41-41- QnJV I -h tr6)a,1 ,< Ry n QL iA Me a dk:5 S bid,,�, sev, l urr-) C)�f ct jsrs�yr� s��.-�_..,-,�v M-Pc�C��vJbrr� 4. 5. C. 7. The property has a road frontage of AJ, -9 to feet and a depth of / F(o feet and consists of _ , �j'�3 acres. (Please be exact) The property is owned by Anihon0- -�a r C, )D;Xon as evidenced by deed from OpaaloL t_,1,1hJarn<recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. on pageo'� , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 14 -Digit Property - Magisterial Distric Current Zoning el Adjoining Property: USE North East ti South t� West ZONING 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) C"-> T© f} ellw)'-ar 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: P / /9- 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME Ano-hL)gw D. -t' 61 r a.M , ADDRESS 1a (v McQdwJ,br-U-V4Dr kW Q n rn 5& n 5-�eph e ).s Va , A a PROPERTY ID# NAME 0-1 uCie �©r-CLO, LTi", ADDRESS /3a /�%ac�'vvJl�nrol `�LLA-L �5{-ephe-n5 ., VA b,cZ PROPERTY ID# MO- I-dZ 3 NAME Ke1-rn A, a r -c -von ADDRESS /a !._ A4,eGLd6-yJ brwDtoQruA PROPERTY ID# gJrk �- to ,V-1-ee",Ps ei4c, VA -I.;f, 5 NAME ..Dru�%C.m� 5' ivns WA S PROPERTY ID# - % -- % NAME -D a_ ✓, CE �- I-) r - cd . S rv-;11!6 ADDRESS 13 y VA .29&5NAME PROPERTY ID# 36 A�-'- DZ 5 1e,S Rr3 r, -,P -o ADDRESS 3187 jEM✓i r 06 6il V19 PROPERTY ID#� �� -�i - t q D NAME PROPERTY IDI NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS ADDRESS 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. I btu% (5q 0) S& q -3 4� V -- TO TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Developr A 540/665—A FAX: 540/678-0682 September 23, 1999 Ms. Mary C. Dixon 128 Meadowbrooke Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 RE: CUP #13-99 of Mary C. Dixon - Property Identification Number 85B-1-22 Dear Ms. Dixon: This letter is to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on September 22, 1999. Your Conditional Use Permit, #13-99 for a Day Care Facility -Child Care, was approved with the following conditions: 1. 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 day care facility shall be limited to six (6). 3. No business sign shall be permitted. 4. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. If you have any questions regarding this action, please feel free to call this office. Sincerely, /ar R. Cheran MRC/ch cc: Commissioner of Revenue O'Wgendas\APPR_DEKLTR\CLTRA. yDixon.CUP.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 { NOTES, --",�—i ���63Pc734 SSJ3Q6lJ�•= \ it SEC ATTACHED ff?,.01T Of SURVEY. - 21 LISCR' 0.8. 503 r6.` 051 E 0.8. ]63 r0. 656, O. 399 rd. 10 LOT 34lDDIViSlCN 17EA00 021 REF. - TZ NSERr 08 dl 22 owWP DONALD R. 6 LISA R 1RLLIAUS A•.1N.]a• HpcANDER M n In .- v +D /RESwr ppopory SHOWN IS LOCATED N H.V.D. FLOOD \ AREA OF ir+wAL FLOOONG Te 122 S a2' S' E SEAL£' i • R � ' ' 41 ZONE C' THERE ARE NO CASEmCNTS OR ENCROACiAws THE GRoUW orHCR THAN THOSE SHOW" �• 160.29' I• . 2m � • D Q VIMLE oN ON THIS PIAT. \! A• f].f4' ROUTE 111 .. h M 51 CURVE DATA' \ , `O 1. - - ARC' 6196'- RADIUS120.00 S7 EEARNG• N 76' 35' [ ROUTE OZD L a CHORD' 6].21• J� RTE W S�?. 1021 C LOT 22 i°v o VICINITY MAP Tv CHARLES W. RACEY D.D. 586 /0. 120 • TAX REF. WW • 140 o: �+ oAl_ou t 1 cE4a1 FY M \ �'► �\ > > RtTENOl1R �� 1 . W J D!! 259 TAX W. 16W ' to r c LOT 22 . 22,764 S0. FT.' ri OR =� T, Q 0.523 ACRE LOT 21 0 0 ca CD JAY N. BAILEY 66 1/ 1 DAL 627 r6. "I TAX REF. NSEAT IN - U • Ti off I _J WAYNE,&NK ZACE P. 1 'o ew 1 N 12•,9 • • owl 21 TAX MW. WMT ON -13 i ZZ" . MIM •, motor of IEGEt�• .' e3.s6• ?., •z $a Nott 5 a E=TIM RoIAA ► ROAD . M: ��� rep".wnUeM -AND5ER mot-DER �•—• / I10UTE 10201 row" POLE. / LJc MEADOWBROOK DRIVE r VIRGmA ROUTE 1021 ; :60' R/W SURVEY FOR --MARY-.( ANTHONY C. F- DIXON THEMEADOWS ' SUBDIVISION OPEOUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT edt' FREDERICK COUNTY,VIRGM SURVEYED MAY 27, 1988 SCALE- 1' - 30' O , •Id >� PLAT N X 50.0006 - 3 -1 �•..y h0. t819S ���• �r �'''�'�� ..6. DRAWN BY-ELZABf _ - .: Tri �.► si ..1 3R lF011 41 , "A x44 ba" b....L1'L Y ...r.Na Tonwonwtaft4 of 78trptnts DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES LICENSE FAMILY DAY HOME Issued to DIXON FAMILY DAY HOME T/A Mary's Little People (Operated by Mary C Dixon) Address 128 Meadowbrook Drive Stephens City, Vireinia 22655 This license is issued in accordance with provisions of Chapter 10, Title 63.1, Code of Virginia as amended, the established rules and regulations of the State Board of Social Services and the specific limitations prescribed by the Commissioner of Social Services as follows: Number or Children An assistant must be provided based on numbers and ages of children in care as required by the Minimum 6 Standards. This license does not exempt the licensee from maintaining compliance with local ordinances and laws. Sex Age Birth M/F Through 12 Years This license is not transferable and will be in effect from _ August 11, 2001 through August 10, 2002 unless revoked for violations of the provisions of law or failure to comply with the limitations stated above. ISSUING OFFICE: Virginia Department of Social Services Division of Licensing - Northern Region - Verona Office P. O. Box 350 Verona, Virginia 24482 Telephone: (540) 248-9350 V LO -01-220 LICENSE NUMBER SONIA RIVERO COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES By Christopher H. Fracher Title LICENSING ADMINISTRATOR Date July 20, 2001 C7 • • PC REVIEW: 09/05/01 BOS REVIEW: 09/26/01 CONDITIONAL USE (PERMIT #13-01 Lynnette L. Embree Cottage Occupation - Counseling Service LOCATION: This property is located at 687 Front Royal Pike. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64C -A-2 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Land Use: Residential ADJ01NING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Land Use: Residential and Vacant PROPOSED USE: Cottage Occupation - Counseling Service REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 522, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Inspections Department: No comment required provided existing business use was in place. Fire Marshal: Portable fire extinguishers are recommended. Fire hydrant is located at drive entrance off Rt. 522. Smoke detectors are recommended along with fire extinguisher(s) meeting a 2A:IOBC rating. Plan approval is recommended. Health Department: The Health Department has no objection as long as there is no increase in water use generated by the proposal. Lynnette L. Embree. CUP #13-01 Page 2 August 23, 2001 Frederick County Sanitation Authority: No comment. Winchester Regional Airport: See attached letter dated 8/7/01 from S. R. Manuel, Executive Director. City of Winchester: No comments. Planning and Zoning: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for cottage occupations in the RP Zoning District. This proposed Conditional Use Permit application is for a counseling service to occur in a detached garage. This garage has been modified into an office. No more then one client will be seen at any one time, and no more then five per day. This detached garage is located more than five (5) feet from any adjoining properties. No screening or buffers would be required. Based upon the limited scale of the proposed use and evaluation of the property, it appears this use would not have any significant impacts on the adjoining properties. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 09-05-01 PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING: If the Planning Commission finds this use to be appropriate, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements; sign is not to exceed four (4) square feet. 3. Any change of use or expansion of this use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. 0-\Agendas\CONSNIENTS\CUP's\2001 \LynnetteEmbree. wpd Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, .VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the X owner other) NAME: Lynnette L. Embree ADDRESS: 6A7 Front Royal Pike Winchester, VA 22602 TELEPHONE 540-722-0133 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Joseph Embree and Lynnette LEmbree 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 687 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 From intersection of Routes 50, 522 and 81 proceed south on Route 522 for 1.2 miles. House is on the left. House is white vinyl siding with green shingle roof and green shutters. 4. The property has a road frontage of 75.20 feet and a depth of 28-16-1 feet and consists of 1/2 acres. (Please be exact) (21,059 sq. ft.) 5. The property is owned by Joseph and Lynnette Embree as evidenced by deed fromC;PnPva Dean (Collis) recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 956 on page 846 as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 64C000A0000020 Magisterial District Shawnee Current Zoning 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North Vacant Lot RP East Residence (Apartments) RP South Residence RP West ' Residence (Farm) RA 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) Co a r) e, I _r) a 41-0)1- - Cel 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME Joseph and Lynnette L. EmbrAQARESS 687 Front Royal Pike Winchester, VA 22602 PROPERTY ID#64C000A0000030 NAME Elmer A Sherman and ADDRESS 699 Front Royal pike Eura Darlene Sherman Barnard Winchester, VA 22602 PROPERTY ID# 64.00OA0000040 NAME June H. Russell ADDRESS 740 Front Royal Pike Winchester, VA 22602 PROPERTY ID#64000A00000120 NAME Preston Place IIApartment ADDRESS 601 South Belivedere Street c/o Vir inia Housing Development Authority Richmond, VA 23220 PROPERTY ID � 64nnnAnnnnn45A PROPERTY ID# 6-4-0 /q — z o I�5± PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 12. Additional comments, if any: Coachinq works with individuals on a one-on-one basis to assist them in getting the results they want in life with a sense of well-being. Each coaching meeting lasts two hours. The minimum number of clients seen per day is one (�) with a maximum per day of five (5). I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address 687 Front Royal Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Owners' Telephone No. 540-722-0133 TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: ff I � E ._i -- --•a•• —11 .•,.E.i�•.[LUE11-IELI 1> v1L)13SLL City THE GROUND OTHER THAN 7'11C1SR SHt�i„N HFkLON. '11115 LOT OOFS NOT FALT. TN A FLOOD H R1) ZOfIL. SILVER pEV. 77SN S 05045'00"W 75.00' REMAINDER LOT 6 LOT 5 21,059 5Q.FT, LOT 7 � I cd cn C4 C�1 W d O Lrf - GD fit, t z -37-5'- TO ROYAL . FRO 0 fps . - I In c K I E. 522 RECOKL PLAT IS RECORDED IA! DEED BOCK 174 AT PACE 394. DAVW 1t. FURSTENAU NO. LASS l/' ';d -`SIV REMAINOER LOT 6.6LOCK 4 --------_ _ LCLR M. MILLER SIM. SHAWNEE DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA J HOUSE LOCATION SURVEY DAMNOV,3o, 1994 FURSTENAU SURVEYING DWI#. By: S 'EPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA -.2285S /c 9�M3:1'�REGIONAL%ij1L P�j�� 7 �a ty SERVING THE 491 AIRPORT ROAD TOP OF VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 -1 HOR►I-4 (540) 662-2422 . 2001 Lynnette L. Embree 687 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re: Conditional Use Permit Comment 687 Front Royal Pike Dear Ms. Embree: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority offers the following comments regarding the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a coaching business at the above referenced address: Development of the business adjacent to or under a flight path used regularly by aircraft as they arrive or depart the airport is subject to aircraft noise. Due to the proximity of this proposed business to the flight pattern at Winchester Regional Airport, the property owner is likely to experience aircraft noise and fly -over from aircraft entering into or departing the flight pattern. As the airport continues to expand services and operation, noise associated with such expansion will likely increase. The owner should be aware of the airport's existence and forewarned about aircraft noise and fly -over nuisance from aircraft that may or may not impact their business. Winchester Regional Airport is a vital link in the National Air Transportation System used by private citizens, commercial air carriers, business and industry throughout the region to transport people and goods around the world. The Winchester Regional Airport has a direct and principal economic impact on our community and is continually working towards expanding operations. To be successful in our ventures, we need citizen support, which causes us concern regarding potential complaints about aircraft noise. While the Authority poses no objections to the proposed Conditional Use Permit, I would request that the above comments be included and acknowledged by the owner in the approval process. Thank you for giving this your consideration and should you have questions, please contact my office. Sincerely, < I ,�ku _Z() c _Yu S. R. Manuel Executive Director Cc: Evan Wyatt, Director, Frederick County Planning C: • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAY: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Director RE: MS (Medical Support) District Public Hearing DATE: August 27, 2001 Staff conducted a work session with the Board of Supervisors on August 8, 2001 to review the draft MS (Medical Support) District. The Board of Supervisors were 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 surfaced. Staff revised the MS District text to increase the buffer distance between the new district and adjoining properties that are zoned RA (Rural Areas) District, and to eliminate the language which provided for modifications to the buffer and screening requirements provided that a legal agreement was entered into by both parties. Please find attached the proposed Medical Support District text for consideration and recommendation. The development of this new district required amendments to existing sections within Chapter 165 Zoning of the Code of Frederick County. Please also find attached proposed amendments to Section 165-27 Off-street parking; parking lots, Section 165-30 Signs, Section 165- 37 Buffers and screening requirements and Section 165-145 Definitions and word usage. Staff requests that the Planning Commission consider this information and forward a recommendation for consideration by the Board of Supervisors during their September 12, 2001 meeting. U.-\COMMITTEES\DRRS\Projects\Medical Support District\MSDistrictTextArnendm nt_9-5-01 PCAgendaPublicHearingMemo.wpd 107 North Xert Street + Winchester, Virgiiiia 72601-5000 ARTICLE XIII MS (Medical Support) District [Added 9-12-20011 § 165-96. Intent. The MS (Medical Support) District is intended to provide for areas to support hospitals, medical centers, medical offices, clinics, and schools ofinedicine. These areas are intended to allow for a variety of support services and related residential land uses to be within close proximity of each other to provide for professional and patient convenience. All land to be contained within the Medical Support District shall be included within a master development plan to ensure that land uses are compatibly mixed, designed in a harmonious fashion, and developed to minimize adverse impacts to adjoining properties. § 165-97. Permitted Uses. A. All land uses shall be developed in accordance with an approved master development plan that meets the criteria in Article XVIII of this Chapter. B. Structures are to be erected or land used for one or more of the identified uses. The permitted uses are identified by Standard Industrial Classification. All uses described by Standard Industrial Classification are allowed only if the Major Group, Industry Group Number, or Industry Number general group titles are used. Educational Support Services Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools, SIC 822 And Junior Colleges Libraries SIC 823 Nursing schools, practical SIC 8249 2. Research Support Services Research and Development Facilities for the Following Manufacturing Groups: Drugs SIC 283 Commercial Physical and Biological Research SIC 8731 Noncommercial Research Organizations SIC 8733 Testing Laboratories SIC 8734 -1- 3. Professional and Commercial Support Services Convenience Stores Retail Bakeries Coffee Stores, Health Food Stores, and Vitamin Stores Retail Uniform Stores Eating Places Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores Book Stores Stationary Stores Gift Shops, Greeting Card Shops, and Balloon Shops Florists News Dealers and News Stands Optical Goods Stores Orthopedic and Artificial Limb Stores Life Insurance Offices Accident and Health Insurance Offices Hospital and Medical Service Plans Offices Pension, Health and Welfare Funds Offices Insurance Agents, Brokers and Service Offices Operators of Nonresidential Buildings Real Estate Agents and Managers Offices Holding Offices Hotels and Motels Organizational Hotels and Lodging Houses Garment Pressing and Agents for Laundries And Drycleaners Linen Supplies Beauty Shops Barber Shops Photocopying and Duplicating Services Medical Equipment Rental and Leasing Data Entry, Data Processing, Data Verification, and Optical Scanning Data Service Hearing Aid Repair and Medical Equipment Repair, electrical Dental Instrument Repair, Laboratory Instrument Repair, Medical Equipment Repair, except electric, Microscope Repair, Optical Instrument Repair, Scientific Instrument -2- SIC 5411 SIC 546 SIC 5499 SIC 5699 SIC 5812 SIC 591 SIC 5942 SIC 5943 SIC 5947 SIC 5992 SIC 5994 SIC 5995 SIC 5999 SIC 6311 SIC 6321 SIC 6324 SIC 6371 SIC 6411 SIC 6512 SIC 6531 SIC 671 SIC 701 SIC 704 SIC 7212 SIC 7213 SIC 7231 SIC 7241 SIC 7334 SIC 7352 SIC 7374 SIC 7629 SIC 7699 El 5. Repair, except electric, and Surgical SIC 3559 Instrument Repair SIC 384 Physical Fitness Facilities SIC 7991 Membership Sports and Recreation Clubs SIC 7997 Offices and Clinics ofDoctors and Dentists SIC 801-804 Hospitals SIC 806 Medical Laboratories SIC 8071 Dental Laboratories SIC 8072 Miscellaneous Health and Allied Services SIC 809 Child Day Care Services SIC 8351 Public Buildings Including the Following: Social Services Offices Free Medical Clinics Manufacturing and Wholesaling Support Services Pharmaceutical Machinery SIC 3559 Surgical, Medical, and Dental Instruments SIC 384 and Supplies SIC 7021 Ophthalmic Goods SIC 385 Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies SIC 5047 Ophthalmic Goods SIC 5048 Laboratory Equipment, except Medical and Dental SIC 5049 Drugs, Drug Proprietaries, and Druggist Sundries SIC 512 a) All permitted manufacturing and wholesaling support services shall meet the flex -tech performance standards as identified in Section 165- 48.7(C) of this Chapter. b) All outdoor lighting fixtures designed to illuminate parking lots, loading bay areas, maneuvering areas, staging areas, and outdoor storage areas shall be shielded to direct light downward. Related Residential Uses Operators of Apartment Buildings SIC 6513 Operators of Dwellings other than Apartment Buildings SIC 6514 Dormitories, commercially operated SIC 7021 Nursing and Personal Care Facilities SIC 805 Residential Care Facilities SIC 836 Dormitories, medical and allied health (As Defined) -3- Halfway House (As Defined) Adult Treatment Home (As Defined) Drug Treatment Home (As Defined) Family Care Home (As Defined) Group Home (As Defined) Protected Population Home (As Defined) 6. Other Related Uses Ambulance Service, Road and Vanpool Operation SIC 4119 Ambulance Service, Air SIC 4522 Automobile Parking SIC 7521 Churches SIC 8661 Fire Protection SIC 9224 Conference/Events Center (As Defined) Fleet Maintenance Facility, Medical and Allied (As Defined) Health On-site Utility Systems (As Defined) Telecommunication Towers and Facilities (As Defined) Warehousing, Medical and Allied Health Services (As Defined) Wellness Centers (As Defined) § 165-98. District Area, Floor -To -Area Ratios and Residential Gross Densities A. All parcels that are zoned MS (Medical Support) District shall contain a minimum of twenty (20) acres. These parcels shall be required to receive approval of a master development plan which meets all applicable requirements of Article XVIII of this Chapter. B. Parcels that are less than twenty (20) acres in size that are contiguous to a master planned MS (Medical Support) District development, including those parcels that are directly across public right-of-ways to a master planned MS (Medical Support) District development, may be rezoned to the MS District. C. The Planning Commission may provide for the administrative approval of parcel subdivisions which front on private street systems during the master development plan approval process. -4- D. Hospitals, office buildings, conference/events centers, wellness centers, and all land use permitted under Section 165-97(B)(1) Educational Support Services shall be allowed to develop a maximum floor -to -area ratio (FAR) of two (2). The maximum FAR shall be based on the total site area for a master planned MS (Medical Support) District that is to be developed as one parcel, or for the total site area of individual parcels that are subdivided for development purposes. E. All permitted land uses other than those described in Section 165-98(D) providing support services to this district shall be allowed to develop a maximum floor -to -area ratio (FAR) of one (1). The maximum FAR shall be determined as described in Section 165-98(D). F. The overall gross densities for permitted land uses identified in Section 165-97(B)5 shall be calculated as described under this subsection: 1. Detached and semi-detached residential structures having individual access may have a minimum lot size of three thousand (3,000) square feet per dwelling unit. 2. All other related residential land uses shall provide a minimum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area per bedroom. § 165-99. Access Regulations A. All land uses permitted in this Article shall be served by street systems that are constructed to the geometric design standards for Urban Collector Streets and Urban Local Streets. Such street systems may be private or may be dedicated to Frederick County for eventual acceptance into the state secondary road system. B. Parcels that contain portions of collector street systems that are intended to continue through to other parcels to meet the intent of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan shall be built to applicable state secondary road standards and shall be dedicated to Frederick County for eventual acceptance into the state secondary road system. C. Commercial entrances for permitted support services and entrances for related residential developments on Urban Collector Streets shall have a minimum spacing requirement of 150 feet between entrances. D. Commercial entrances for permitted support services and entrances for related residential developments shall have a minimum spacing requirement of 100 feet from street intersections to provide for adequate vehicle stacking. -5- E. Driveways serving individual related residential land uses shall only be permitted along Urban Local Streets. F. All permitted land uses shall be designed to provide for internal traffic circulation and inter -parcel connectors to adjoining land uses to provide for access between uses without entering onto Urban Collector Streets. § 165-100. Structural and Parking Lot Setback Regulations A. All permitted educational, research, professional, commercial, and other related support services shall have a minimum front yard setback of fifty (50) feet from any Urban Collector Street and a minimum front yard setback of thirty-five (35) feet from any Urban Local Street. B. All permitted related residential uses shall have a minimum front yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet from any Urban Local Street. C. All permitted support services and related residential land uses are not proposed to have minimum side or rear yard setbacks. Individual parcels which are designed to be placed on a side or rear property line shall obtain a maintenance easement from the adjoining parcel that is a minimum of ten (10) feet in width. D. Parking lots shall be setback a minimum of twenty (20) feet from Urban Collector Streets and shall be setback a minimum of ten (10) feet from Urban Local Streets to provide for safe ingress and egress into developed parcels. E. Parking lots located between the Urban Collector Street and the building front shall be developed to include an earth berm or natural topography that is a minimum of three (3) feet in height above the finished grade developed at a 3:1 slope. Evergreen shrubbery that is a minimum of two (2) feet in height at the time of planting shall be provided along the apex of the berm at a rate of twenty-five (25) plantings per one hundred (100) linear feet. This element shall begin at the street right-of-way and end at the beginning of the parking lot. Parking lots located between the Urban Local Street and the building front shall be developed to the standards set forth in Section 165-27 of this Chapter. F. Parcels which are designed to have parking lots located behind the building shall have a reduced front yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet from any Urban Collector Street and fifteen (15) feet from any Urban Local Street. W § 165-101. Height Regulations A. The maximum structural height for hospitals, office buildings, and all land use permitted under Section 165-97(B)(1) Educational Support Services shall be ninety (90) feet. B. The maximum structural height for residential care facilities, nursing and personal care facilities, dormitories, and automobile parking structures shall be seventy (70) feet. C. The maximum structural height for all other land uses permitted in this Article shall be thirty-five (35) feet. D. Structural setbacks for all land uses permitted under Section 165-101(A) and 165- 101(B) shall be increased one (1) foot for every foot that the structure exceeds thirty- five (35) feet in height. The increased structural setback shall be measured as follows: From the minimum front yard setback established along Urban Collector Streets and Urban Local Streets for a master planned MS (Medical Support) District that is to be developed as one parcel, or from the minimum front, side, and rear yards of individual parcels that are subdivided for development purposes. 2. From any required buffer area for a master planned MS (Medical Support) District that is to be developed as one parcel, or for individual parcels that are subdivided for development purposes. 3. From the minimum building separation distance established between residential and non-residential land uses. E. A clear zone void of structures, signage, vegetation, and berms shall be established in areas determined by the Fire Marshal to ensure appropriate emergency access for all land uses permitted under Section 165-101(A) and 165-101(B). These identified areas shall begin at a distance of twenty-five (25) feet from the structure and shall have a minimum width of twenty (20) feet. An easement shall be obtained on adjoining properties to establish required clear zone areas if they cannot be provided on the individual lot proposed for development. -7- § 165-102. Open Space, Landscaped Area, and Buffer and Screening Regulations A. The minimum open space percentage for the MS (Medical Support) District shall include: 1. Twenty percent (20%) of the overall gross area of a master planned MS (Medical Support) District that is to be developed as one parcel. 2. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the total site area of individual parcels that are subdivided for support services and thirty (30%) of the total site area of individual parcels that are subdivided for related residential land uses. B. All open space areas shall be landscaped to provide for a grass cover and vegetative elements as required under Section 165-27(E)(11) Parking Lot Landscaping, and 165-37 Buffers and Screening of this Chapter. Minimum standards for required vegetative elements include two-inch (2") caliper trees and three-foot (3) shrubs at the time of planting. Stormwater management facilities and landscaped parking lot raised islands shall be permitted to be calculated as part of the overall open space percentage. C. Buffer and screening requirements for the MS (Medical Support) District shall include: Master development planned area that is to be developed as one parcel. a. A fifty -foot (50) perimeter buffer from all adjoining parcels. The first twenty-five (25) feet of this buffer area, measured from the adjoining property line shall provide vegetative plantings including a single row of evergreen trees on ten -foot (10) centers that are a minimum of four (4) feet at the time of planting, and a single row of deciduous trees spaced thirty (30) feet apart that have a minimum two-inch (2") caliper at the time of planting. An earth berm that is four (4) feet in height and constructed on a 3:1 slope shall be provided in addition to the vegetative plantings if the primary use of the adjoining property is residential. Parking and maneuvering areas may be established within the remainder of the buffer area, provided that all requirements of Section 165-27(E)(11) Parking Lot Landscaping are met. b. A fifty -foot (50) internal separation buffer between all support service land uses and related residential land uses meeting the vegetative planting and earth berm requirements specified in Section 165- 102(C)(1)(a) of this Article. C. An internal residential separation buffer between detached, semi- detached, and all other related residential land uses containing a twenty-five (25) foot buffer with a single row of evergreen trees on ten (10) foot centers that area a minimum of four (4) feet at the time of Planting. 2. Master development planned area that is to be developed as individual parcels. a. Buffer and screening requirements between all land uses which are not contained within the same categories identified in Section 165- 97(B) of this Article. b. All land uses required to provide buffers and screening internal to the MS (Medical Support) District shall meet the requirements of a "B" Category Buffer as described in Section 165-37 of this Chapter; as well as all other applicable provisions of this section. 3. All parcels within the MS (Medical Support) District which adjoin parcels that are utilized for agricultural activities shall provide the following buffers: a. A one hundred (100) foot buffer adjacent to a parcel whose primary use is agriculture. Agricultural land use shall be considered to be any parcel zone RA (Rural Areas) District whose primary use is not residential or orchard. A twenty (20) foot landscaped easement, measured from the adjoining property line, shall be provided which contains a single row of evergreen trees on ten (10) foot centers that are a minimum of four (4) feet at the time of planting and an earth berm that is three (3) feet in height and constructed on a 3:1 slope. Parking and maneuvering areas may be established within the remainder of the buffer area, provided that all requirements of Section 165-27(E)(11) Parking Lot Landscaping are met. b. A two hundred (200) foot buffer adjacent to a parcel whose primary use is orchard. A forty (40) foot landscaped easement, measured from the adjoining property line, shall be provided which contains a double row of evergreen trees on ten (10) foot centers that are a minimum of four (4) feet at the time of planting and an earth berm that is six (6) feet in height and constructed on a 3:1 slope. Parking and maneuvering areas may be established within the remainder of the buffer area, provided that all requirements of Section 165- 27(E)(11) Parking Lot Landscaping are met. u 4. A road efficiency buffer meeting the requirements Section 165-37(E) of this Chapter shall be provided for all related residential land uses permitted in Section 165-97(B)(5) of this Article. § 165-103. Sign Regulations A. Land uses within the MS (Medical Support) District shall be permitted to utilize business signs, directional signs, on-site informational signs; building entrance signs, and wall -mounted signs to effectively communicate the location of and direction to support services and related residential structures. B. All business signs shall be monument -style signs that are a maximum of twelve (12) feet in height. Business signs shall not exceed 100 square feet in area. C. All wall -mounted signs shall be permitted to encompass 20% of the wall area to which they are attached, provided that the total area of the wall -mounted sign does not exceed two -hundred (200) square feet. D. All business signs shall be setback a minimum of ten (10) feet from all Urban Collector Streets and Urban Local Streets and shall have a minimum spacing requirement of one hundred (100) feet between business signs. E. Directional signs and on-site informational signs shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from all Urban Collector Streets, Urban Local Streets, street intersections, and street entrances to provide for safe and adequate sight distance. Directional signs shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in area, and informational signs shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet in area. Directional signs and informational signs shall be exempt from minimum spacing requirements between business signs and other directional signs. -10- Section 165-27 Off-street parking; parking lots (Amendments) Section 165-27(E) Parking lots. (1) Surface materials. In the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the B 1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, and the B3 Industrial Transition District, and in shopping centers, office parks and industrial parks, the M.1 LightlndustrialDistrict, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District, parking lots shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete or similar materials. Such surface materials shall provide a durable, dust- and gravel -free, hard surface. The Zoning Administrator may allow for the use of determine other hard -surface materials for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area if the site plan provides for effective stormwater management and efficient maintenance. In outer such cases, parking lots shall be paved with a minimum of double prime -and -seal treatment or an equivalent surface. (3) Curbs and gutters. Concrete or curbing and gutters shall be installed around the perimeter of all parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the BI Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, and the B3 Industrial Transition District, , the MI Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District. The curbing shall be a minimum of six (6) inches in height. All parking lots shall be included within an approved stormwater management plan. The Zoning Administrator may allow for the use of concrete bumpers instead of curbing for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area vrhere such ineans are necessary to implement the sturnivyater mariagernent plan. if the site plan provides for effective stormwater management and efficient maintenance. (4) Raised islands. Raised islands shall be installed at the ends of all parking bays abutting an aisle or driveway in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the NMI Mobile Home Community District, the B 1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, and the B3 Industrial Transition District, and in shopping centers, office parks and indushial parks, the MI Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District. The raised islands shall be bordered by concrete or rolled asphalt curb. All islands shall be at least nine (9) feet wide and shall extend the length of the parking space or bay. The islands shall be landscaped with grass, shrubs, or other vegetative materials. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for raised islands for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and gutter is not proposed. (11) Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the B1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, and the B3 Industrial Transition District, and in shopping centers, office parks mtd industriaf parks, the MI Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District shall be landscaped to reduce the visual impact of glare and headlights on adjoining properties and rights-of-way. Parking lots should shall be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat. Landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the visual expansiveness of parking lots. Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots as follows: (11)(a) Perimeter Landscaping Required parking lot setback areas, abutting the parking lot, shall be planted with shade trees and other landscaping. A three -foot -high evergreen hedge, fence, berm or wall shall be provided as necessary to prevent headlights from shining on public rights-of-way and adjoining properties. A minimum of one (1) shade tree for every forty (40) feet of parking lot perimeter shall be provided. All shade trees shall have a minimum two-inch (2 ") caliper at the time of planting Additional trees may be required to properly shade the lot. (11)(b) Interior Landscaping. A minimum of five percent (5%) of the interior portions of parking lots shall be landscaped for the purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior landscaping shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous raised strips extending the length of a parking bay. Within the parking lot, raised islands and landscaped areas should be used to delineate traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns. The shade trees provided shall be of an appropriate type to ensure shading at maturity. No less than one (1) shade tree shall be provided for each ten (10) parking spaces. All shade trees shall have a minimum two-inch (2') caliper at the time ofplan ting. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for interior landscaping far parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and gutter is not proposed Section 165-27 Off-street parking; parking lots (Complete Amendments) Section 165-27(E) Parking lots. (1) Surface materials. In the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the MH 1 Mobile Home Community District, the B 1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the B3 Industrial Transition District, the M1 Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District, parking lots shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete or similar materials. Such surface materials shall provide a durable, dust and gravel -free, hard surface. The Zoning Administrator may allow for the use of other hard -surface materials for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area if the site plan provides for effective stormwater management and efficient maintenance. In such cases, parking lots shall be paved with a minimum of double prime -and -seal treatment or an equivalent surface. (3) Curbs and gutters. Concrete curbing and gutters shall be installed around the perimeter of all parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the NMI Mobile Home Community District, the B 1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the B3 Industrial Transition District, the M1 Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District. The curbing shall be a minimum of six (6) inches in height. All parking lots shall be included within an approved stormwater management plan. The Zoning Administrator may allow for the use of concrete bumpers instead of curbing for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area if the site plan provides for effective stormwater management and efficient maintenance. (4) Raised islands. Raised islands shall be installed at the ends of all parking bays abutting an aisle or driveway in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the NMI Mobile Home Community District, the B 1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the B3 Industrial Transition District, the M1 Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District. The raised islands shall be bordered by concrete or rolled asphalt curb. All islands shall be at least nine (9) feet wide and shall extend the length of the parking space or bay. The islands shall be landscaped with grass, shrubs, or other vegetative materials. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for raised islands for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and gutter is not proposed. Section 165-27 Off-street parking; parking lots (Complete Amendments) (11) Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the MMI Mobile Home Community District, the B 1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the B3 Industrial Transition District, the M1 Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District shall be landscaped to reduce the visual impact of glare and headlights on adjoining properties and rights-of-way. Parking lots shall be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat. Landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the visual expansiveness of parking lots. Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots as follows: (11)(a) Perimeter Landscaping Required parking lot setback areas, abutting the parking lot, shall be planted with shade trees and other landscaping. A three -foot -high evergreen hedge, fence, berm or wall shall be provided as necessary to prevent headlights from shining on public rights-of-way and adjoining properties. A minimum of one (1) shade tree for every forty (40) feet of parking lot perimeter shall be provided. All shade trees shall have a minimum two-inch (2") caliper at the time of planting. Additional trees may be required to properly shade the lot. (11)(b) Interior Landscaping. A minimum of five percent (5%) of the interior portions of parking lots shall be landscaped for the purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior landscaping shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous raised strips extending the length of a parking bay. Within the parking lot, raised islands and landscaped areas should be used to delineate traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns. The shade trees provided shall be of an appropriate type to ensure shading at maturity. No less than one (1) shade tree shall be provided for each ten (10) parking spaces. All shade trees shall have a minimum two-inch (2") caliper at the time of planting. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for interior landscaping for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and gutter is not proposed. U:\COMM=EES\DRRS\Projects\Mcdical Suppon District\Section165-27ParkingLatAmendmentsForMSDistict.wpd Section 165-30 Signs (Amendments) Section 165-30(A) Signs prohibited in all districts. (3) Inflatable signs. (4) Roof signs. (5) Portable signs. Section 165-30(B) Signs allowed in all districts. (11) Temporary campaign signs "(12) Entrance signs for developments or subdivisions. (13) Monument signs Section 165-30(C) Signs allowed in certain districts. (5) On-site Informational signs. Section 165-30(H) Size. The following restrictions shall apply to the size of signs: (3) 2kilowe l Wall -mounted business signs attached to the side of buif6TSs in the B2 Business General, the B3 Industrial Transition, M1 Light Industrial or, the M2 Industrial General District or the MS Medical Support Districts may exceed the above si= limitations. Attached b i . - may exceed one htmdTed (HO) square feet but shall not exe shall be permitted to encompass twenty percent (20%) of the area of the wall to which the sign is attached, provided that the total area of the wall -mounted business sign does not exceed two -hundred (200) square feet, Section 165-27 Signs (Complete Amendments) Section 165.30(H) Size. The following restrictions shall apply to the size of signs: (3) Wall -mounted business signs in the B2 Business General, the B3 Industrial Transition, M 1 Light Industrial, the M2 Industrial General or the MS Medical Support Districts shall be permitted to encompass twenty percent (20%) of the area of the wall to which the sign is attached, provided that the total area of the wall -mounted business sign does not exceed two -hundred (200) square feet. U:ICOMMITTEES\DRRSTmjccts\Medical Support District\Scrdon165-3OSignsAmendmrntsForMSDistrict.wpd Section 165-37 Buffer and screening requirements (Amendments) Section 165-37D(1)(b) Buffer and Screening Matrix for Adjoining Land Uses Zoning of Land to be Developed Zoning ofAdjoining Land RP R4 R5 MH1 B1 B2 B3 M1 M2 EM MS RP - - - - A A A A A A A R4 - - - - A A A A A A A R5 - - - - A A A A A A A MH1 C C C - B B B B A A C B1 B B B B - - A A A A B 132 B B B B - - A A A A B B3 C C C C B B - - - - C M1 C C C C B B - - - - C M2 C C C C B B B B - - C EM C C C C B B B B - - C MS C C C C B B B I B B I C - Editor's Note: This is a new subsection of the ordinance; therefore, all subsequent subsections (currently 165-37D(5) -165-37D(9)) will require renumbering. Section 165-37D(5) Whenever land is to be developed in the MS Zoning District that is adjacent to land primarily used for residential purposes in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, a C Category buffer shall be provided on the land to be developed. Whenever land is to be developed in the MS Zoning District that is adjacent to all other land zoned RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, the requirements for buffer and screening shall be provided in accordance with Section 165-120.7(C)(3) of this Chapter. D:\: OMMITTEES\DRRS\Projects\Medical Support District\Section 165-37 I3ufferAndScreeningA mendmentsForMS District, wpd ARTICLE XXI - DEFINITIONS ADULT TREATMENT HOME - A residential facility for persons recovering from alcohol abuse where supervision, rehabilitation and counseling are provided to the residents. AUTOMOBILE PARKING STRUCTURE - A building or structure consisting of more than one level designed and used for public or private parking of motor vehicles. BERM - A mound of earth utilized to separate and screen land uses. BUFFER, ROAD EFFICIENCY - A linear distance containing landscaping and an opaque element that is intended to separate residential lots from interstate, limited access, arterial and major collector road systems. CALIPER - The diameter of a tree trunk measured twelve (12) inches from the ground level. CLEAR ZONE - A designated area void of buildings, structures, fences, berms and vegetation. COMPATIBLE - Capable of existing together in harmony; congruous. CONTIGUOUS - Next to, abutting, or touching and having a boundary, or portion thereof, that is coterminous. CONFERENCE/EVENT CENTER - A structure or facility designed to accommodate meetings and other events with or without food service developed to be either stand-alone or within a hotel or motel. DEDICATE - The transfer of property by the owner to another party. DORMITORY, MEDICAL AND ALLIED HEALTH -A building used as a group living quarters for students and medical and allied health personnel that is owned by a hospital, medical center, clinic, university, college or professional school. DRUG TREATMENT HOME - A residential facility for persons recovering from drug or controlled substance abuse where supervision, rehabilitation and counseling are provided to the residents. DWELLING, DETACHED - A dwelling that is not attached to any other dwelling by any means. DWELLING, SEMI-DETACHED - A dwelling attached to one or more dwellings by a common vertical wall, with each dwelling located on a separate lot. DWELLING, ATTACHED - A dwelling attached to two or more dwellings by common vertical walls. EASEMENT - A grant of one or more of the property rights by the property owner to and/or for use by the public, a corporation, or another person or entity. FAMILY CARE HOME - A residential facility intended primarily for mentally retarded or developmentally disabled residents, or residents with emotional or behavioral problems who are provided with a program of services and protective supervision in a home setting. FLEET M -AI v T ENANCE FA CILiTY, TMIEDICAL AND ALLiEi, HEAL TH - A structure or facility designed to maintain vehicles, aircraft and equipment associated with medical and allied health services. GROUP HOME - A residential facility for mentally retarded or developmentally disabled persons who may require personal care and supervision, and who may be considered to be potential candidates for independent living. HALFWAY HOUSE - A residential facility for persons on release from more restrictive custodial confinement where supervision, rehabilitation and counseling are provided to mainstream residents back into society enabling them to live independently. INTER -PARCEL CONNECTOR - An at -grade entrance between adjoining properties that is designed to facilitate vehicular access between land uses without use of the street system. MANEUVERING AREA, PARKING LOT - A traveled way including driveways and aisles by which vehicles enter and depart parking spaces. MEDICAL AND ALLIED HEALTH - Medical related facilities, activities, and personnel including administrative, clinical support, and general support services and personnel. ON-SITE UTILITY SYSTEMS - On-site heating and cooling plants, pump stations, electro- magnetic systems, distribution transformers, pipes and meters, water and sewer lines, booster or relay stations, transformer substations, and water supply stations either located within a structure or free- standing. OPAQUE FENCE - A fence that is constructed to visually obscure structures, outdoor storage areas, and other uses. A chain-link fence with slats shall not be constitute an opaque fence. ORCHARD - An area of land devoted to the cultivation of fruit trees. RAISED ISLAND - A built-up structure containing curbing or curb and gutter, placed within or at the end of parking rows and within property entrances to guide traffic and/or provide space for landscaping, signage, or lighting. PROTECTED POPULATION HOME - A residential facility for persons protected pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act. RELATED RESIDENTIAL LAND USE - A dwelling, structure or facility that has a specific affiliation with or whose residents receive a direct benefit from hospitals, medical centers, medical offices, clinics, and schools of medicine. SCREENING - A method of visually shielding or obscuring one abutting or nearby structure or use from another by fencing, walls, berms, or densely planted vegetation. SIGN, ANIMATED - Any sign or part of a sign that changes physical position or light intensity by any movement or rotation or that gives the visual impression of succi movement or rotation. SIGN, DIRECTIONAL - An off -premise sign containing directional messages concerning the distance or direction to particular locations. SIGN, FLASHING - Any sign directly or indirectly illuminated that exhibits changing natural or artificial light or color effects by any means whatsoever. SIGN, ILLUMINATED - A sign lighted by or exposed to artificial lighting either by lights on or in the sign or directed toward the sign. SIGN, INFLATABLE - Any display capable of being expanded by air or other gas and used on a permanent or temporary basis to advertise a product or event. SIGN, INTERSTATE OVERLAY - An on -premise business sign located within the Interstate Area Overlay District meeting all requirements of Article XVI of this Chapter. SIGN, MONUMENT - A business sign or subdivision entrance sign placed directly on the ground by means other than a support pole or brace in which the message portion is either on top of, or affixed to, the support structure. SIGN, ON-SITE INFORMATIONAL - A sign commonly associated with, and not limited to, information and directions necessary for the convenience of visitors coming on the property, including signs marking entrances and exits, parking areas, circulation direction, rest rooms, and pick-up and delivery areas. SIGN, ROOF - A sign that is mounted on the roof of a building or a sign that projects above the top wall or edge of a building with a flat roof, the eave line of a building with a gambrel, gable, or hip roof, or the deck line of a building with a mansard roof. SIGN, PORTABLE - A sign that is not permanent, not affixed to a building, structure, or the ground, and is intended to be moved or intended for temporary use. SIGN, WALL -MOUNTED - A sign fastened to the wall of a building or structure in such a manner that the wall becomes the supporting structure for the sign. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY - A facility designed to Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law standards that is intended for the control and management of stormwater to minimize the detrimental effects of surface water runoff. STREET ENTRANCE - The location where at -grade access from a street to a parcel is provided. STREET INTERSECTION - The location where two or more streets cross at -grade without abridge. STREET, PRIVATE - A street that has not been accepted by the County of Frederick or the Virginia Department of Transportation for use by the public. STREET, URBAN COLLECTOR - A public or private street that is constructed to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) geometric design standards for urban collector street systems. STREET, URBAN LOCAL - A public or private street that is constructed to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) geometric design standards for urban local street systems. SUPPORT SERVICE - A commercial, industrial, or institutional use providing a specific service for employees and patrons of hospitals, medical centers, medical offices, clinics, and schools of medicine. TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS - A structure, including the tower, antennas, panels, microwave dishes, receiving dishes, equipment building, other transmitting and receiving components and other accessory structures, used for the wireless electromagnetic transmission of information, excluding structures utilized as satellite earth stations and structures utilized for amateur or recreational purposes such as ham radio or citizen band radio. TREE, DECIDUOUS - Trees which drop their foliage annually before becoming dormant. TREE, EVERGREEN - Trees with foliage which remain green year-round. WAREHOUSING, MEDICAL AND ALLIED HEALTH - A structure or facility designed for the storage of medical supplies, equipment, furniture and fixtures associated with medical and allied health services. WELLNESS CENTER - A structure or facility designed to provide recreational, educational, and medicinal benefits to the public. • C, • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEM0,"NDu7] To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director `,3 Subject: Chapter 144 Subdivision Ordinance - Violations and Penalties Amendment Date: August 21, 2001 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Recently, staff met with the County Attorney's Office to review information pertaining to violations and penalties for enforcement measures within the County's Subdivision Ordinance. Violations pertaining to this chapter of the Code of Frederick County are treated as a misdemeanor and are filed with the courts as an unclassified misdemeanor. The opinion from the County Attorney's Office is that the County's Subdivision Ordinance needs to be amended to specifically address language within the Code of Virginia pertaining to misdemeanors. The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered this issue during their July 26, 2001 meeting. The DRRS expressed no concern with the proposed text amendment. Please find attached the proposed text amendment that was recommended by the DRRS. Existing language proposed to be eliminated is indicated with a strike through, while new language is indicated as bold and italicized print. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider this language and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final resolution. 107 Xum S1revi IiestL�s-, ljiI:j � , )1-5i)i)() Section 144-6 Violations and Penalties All land divisions requiring subdivision approval shall conform to the provisions of this chapter. Any person(s), firm or corporation, whether owner, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction of such misdemeanor, the guiltyparty such person(s), firm or corporation shall be stibjeet to a fifle tip to one subject to punishment by a fine of not more than five hundred ($500) dollars for each lot or parcel of land so subdivided, transferred or sold The description of the lot orparcel by meted and bounds in the instrument of transfer or other document used in the process of selling or transferring shall not exempt the transaction from the penalties or remedies herein provided Complete Text Amendment: Section 144-6 Violations and Penalties All land divisions requiring subdivision approval shall conform to the provisions ofthis chapter. Any person(s), fum or corporation, whether owner, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction of such misdemeanor, such person(s), firm or corporation shall be subject to punishment by a fine ofnot more than five hundred ($500) dollars for each lot or parcel of land so subdivided, transferred or sold. The description of the lot or parcel by meted and bounds in the instrument of transfer or other document used in the process of selling or transferring shall not exempt the transaction from the penalties or remedies herein provided. U.\COMMITTEES\DRRS\Projects\Violations & Penalties\Chapter144Violations&PenaltiesTextAmendment-PCPublicHearingMemo.wpd C: i COUNTY of FRFDERfCK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director Subject: Chapter 165 Zoning Ordinance - Violations and Penalties Amendment Date: August 20, 2001 Recently, staff met with the County Attorney's Office to review information pertaining to violations and penalties for enforcement measures within the County's Zoning Ordinance. Violations pertaining to this chapter of the Code of Frederick County are treated as a misdemeanor and are filed with the courts as an unclassified misdemeanor. The opinion from the County Attorney's Office is that the County's Zoning Ordinance needs to be amended to specifically address language within the Code of Virginia pertaining to misdemeanors. The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered this issue during their July 26, 2001 meeting. The DRRS expressed no concern with the proposed text amendment. Please find attached the proposed text amendment that was recommended by the DRRS. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider this language and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final resolution. 107 North Kent Street • NN"inchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Section 165-6 Violations and Penalties; Enforcement 1) Misdemeanor. Any person(s), firm or corporation, whether owner, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, who violates any provision of this chapter or who uses land or constructs or alters structures in a fashion that is not in conformance with the requirements and procedures in this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction of such misdemeanor, such person(s), firm or corporation shall be subject to punishmentpuflishab!e by a($2,500) or by a period a at not exeeeding twelve (12) months, orbybeth sueh fine . fine of not less than ten ($10) dollars nor more than one thousand ($1,000) dollars. If this violation is uncorrected at the time of conviction, the court shall order the violator to abate or remedy such violation in compliance with the zoning ordinance, within a time period established by the court. Failure to remove or abate a zoning violation within a specified timeperiod shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offensepunishable by a fine of not less than ten ($10) nor more than one thousand ($1,000) dollars, and any such failure during any succeeding thirty -day (30) period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense for each thirty -day (30) period, punishable by a fine of not less than ten ($10) dollars nor more than one thousand ($1,000) dollars. eonfitittes shall be deemed a separate eff�nse- Complete Text Amendment: Section 165-6 Violations and Penalties; Enforcement A. Misdemeanor. Any person(s), firm or corporation, whether owner, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, who violates any provision of this chapter or who uses land or constructs or alters structures in a fashion that is not in conformance with the requirements and procedures in this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction of such misdemeanor, such person(s), firm or corporation shall be subject to punishment by a fine of not less than ten ($10) dollars nor more than one thousand ($1,000) dollars. If this violation is uncorrected at the time of conviction, the court shall order the violator to abate or remedy such violation in compliance with the zoning ordinance, within a time period established by the court. Failure to remove or abate a zoning violation within a specified time period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not less than ten ($10) nor more than one thousand ($1,000) dollars, and any such failure during any succeeding thirty - day (30) period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense for each thirty -day (30) period, punishable by a fine of not less than ten ($10) dollars nor more than one thousand ($1,000) dollars. O:\CON M T-rEES\DRRS\Projects\Violations & Penalties\Chapterl65Violations&PenaltiesTextAmendment-PCPublicHearingMemo.wpd TO: FROM: RE: DATE: COUNTY of FREDERICX Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Deputy Director � Request for Waiver to Increase Woodlands Disturbance with the Stonewall Industrial Park August 23, 2001 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Attached is a letter from Mr. Mark Smith, on behalf of the Lenoir City Company of Virginia, owner of the Stonewall Industrial Park in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The Lenoir City Company requests that a waiver of the woodlands disturbance requirement of the Zoning Ordinance be granted. The woodlands waiver would apply to property identified by P.I.N. 43-A-63, an approximately 119 - acre site zoned M1, and previously master planned in 1999. The Zoning Ordinance allows for no more than 25 percent of woodlands to be disturbed (§ 165-3 LB). The Ordinance further states that the Board of Supervisors may allow larger woodland areas to be disturbed in industrial parks [§ 165-31.B(7)]. 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 industrial use. The 4.8 acres of woodlands that would be disturbed are presently located adjacent to a developed industrial site (Toan & Associates LTD Partnership) and an adjoining RA -zoned, agricultural property. The applicant has provided for the establishment of a 20 -foot -wide easement along the northern property line, essentially preserving the natural landscape while maintaining a buffer against the adjoining agricultural property. This easement would contain approximately 1.6 acres, protecting approximately 25 percent of the site's woodlands. 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; at such time, the utilities will run perpendicular to the property line, minimizing disturbance. A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the request is desired. ERL/ch U,Tnc\Common\MDP\Stonewall IP Woodlands Waivu.PC.wpd 107 Norn, fycjit Strcvt 1L'inc�jestir, �lr,,3ni.j 22b0J-_5D00 ►,�1 'J I5] iIfmdy hill Lane Winchester, Vi", nia 22602 0 Pounded in 1971 April 26, 2001 Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 ATT: Evc Lawrence RE: Stonewall Industrial Park — Woodlands Waiver Dear Mr. Lawrence: Please find enclosed a copy of the recent Master Development Plan approved for the Stonewall Industrial Park. I have highlighted an area along the property line that has some trees by visual inspection. These trees range in a variety of species with some showing signs of disease due to their age. By way of this letter, we are hereby requesting a waiver be granted on the Woodlands Disturbance Ordinance 165-31 B7 for the Stonewall Industrial Park. This waiver should apply to the areas we have shown highlighted on the approved Master Development Plan. Please review and contact me m-ith any additional information that you may need to process this Woodlands Waiver. Sinc rel Greew� Eugineeri g V Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. President Enclosure DEPT. rj' ; 'TIENT; Pdc,723I/KIDS/dls L.nginrcl tiunr"(,I Iclr��h,uir mill l,o � I7 ; . I '•� 0 - --sem- --.mmp,.w • 'ai ' �i Y' � Y i\TI 7A\ ■ • r I J:l•1U=. • I J:l•1U=. :� � � `, t-:`; _ ,;.- . .-�F�. =�..�� � � m.r' � .. - - f_ _ jam. _ `hf .r,� . .. _- ��. i _ _ _. ��r.'tr' ;' �eTA r � � - - � ,y .af F ..+ �, , � y � �#,'*���+°i '" tom"' � NC't,� r Wy �' ti ��� ,Ar,� '�,°' ,. [MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development FROM: Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator RE: Request of Exception DATE: August 23, 2001 ff) 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Attached is a letter from Ms. Wendy Baruch, owner of approximately 7.6 acres in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Ms. Baruch wishes to subdivide her 7.6 -acre property, to create a Family Variance lot of approximately 2.6 acres and keep a remainder of 5.0 acres. The Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 144-24 C states that "All lots shall abut and have direct access to a public street or right of way...". Chapter 144-31 C(2) states that vehicular access to minor rural subdivisions may be provided by means of shared private driveways." The same section further states in subsection (3) that the minimum width for shared private drive ways shall be fifty (50) feet. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the aforementioned sections of the Subdivision Ordinance in accordance with Section 144-5 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Ms. Baruch was required to request the necessary right-of-way from an adjoining property owner, Ms. Susan Golden, who owns an existing 12' private access easement known as Boyers Mill Lane. This easement is currently utilized by Ms. Baruch and others for access to Route 622 (Minebank Road). Ms. Baruch has been unsuccessful with her request to have Ms. Golden to widen the existing access easement to the required fifty feet. Ms. Baruch has submitted a request for a waiver that would permit her to complete the proposed subdivision. Attached are exhibits A through E which summarize the relevant plats for this parcel and the adjoining property of Susan Golden. Exhibit "A" gives an overall perspective of the adjoining property owners and the widths of the Boyers Mill Lane easement. Exhibit `B" illustrates an existing 50' access easement across the Greathouse property and the Anton property. Exhibit "C" includes a Deed and a plat describing an existing 12' easement across the Golden property which is the missing portion of the required 50' wide easement. Exhibit "D" illustrates the first subdivision of the property which occurred in March of 1994 when 5,0 acres were subdivided from the original 12.6 acres. Exhibit "E" is the proposed subdivision of the remaining 7.6 acres. 107 -N(.rth Rent Street • Nkinchester. N'irginia 22601-5000 Also attached is: A letter from Ms. Baruch to Ms. Golden which requests the expansion of the existing 12' access easement. A letter from Ms. Golden to Ms. Baruch denying the ability to receive necessary right-of-way through donation or purchase. A letter from Ms. Baruch requesting a waiver from the aforementioned requirements ofthe Subdivision Ordinance. A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the request is desired. PTD/ch Attachments O'\Agendas\COMMENTS\Waivers\Baruch report.wpd fiu� 1-1 ;tc)()/ ,)a(c467 ReaLtv Counsel (540) 535-2200 [19 REALTOR ••- •....• 148 N. Indian Alley, P. 0. Box 1611, Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 535-2202 Fax �r per MIDDLETOWN � � 2264 o- ^�,�a o- ' i'-~Postage08-16-01 � 04 " .W- Certified Fee � n� "=~..,~,.,. orsement Required) --_---_-- RECEIPT ,q C3 M109 Restricted Delivery Fee V. POST !,,,,L ------------------- cz , r^ Total '=n °""" TO7AL -------- r-qSent TouHE 0BcK #2 ^ 394 cz cz J^94 r- ^�0 ~="==�, -_------- *'* 06/21/2001 11726 7325B926825405352202 REALTY000!,ISEL PAGE 01 G 4 � �'-(�� � A.0'w-20-01 l6=1C FR^UV- Susan M. Golders, Fsq, 207 Boyers Mill Lane N iddletown, Va 22645 BY FACOMILE AD U.S. MAA. August 20, 2001 Ms. Wendy Baruch Boyers Mill Lane Middletown, Va 22645 T-172 P 01/0 F-704 MU Ms. Baruch: Y am in receipt of your certified letter requesting my price to sell you a 50 fnot on Boyers Mill Lane, tax map number 82-A-8. Aa I right-of-way across my property manner the have consistently told you, I wtll not grant, sell, or provide you in any requested right-of-wav_ Again I sin sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you. Sincerely, Susan A Golden, Esq. JASrA1�El'� 1. st�PI4�Ni Keue STAGE OF MARYWO My Co I" J*om tub 26,2W August 0, 2001 Patrick T. Davenport Dept of Planning and Zoning County of Frederick Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Tax Map 82-A-6 _Dear Mr. Davenport, Reafty (540) 535-2200 ""° ��,ou sel [11,21 REALTOR In accordance with your letter to me dated August 6th I am making formal written application to appear before the Planning Commision regarding a family subdivision of my home land at 353 Boyers Mill Lane, Middletown. The twelve acres that I bought in 1993 has already undergone one subdivision and there was no requirement at that time for a 50 foot right of way all the way out to Minebank Road. The statute has not changed since then, so I'm uncertain why I have been asked to make this request. I have read the unchanged Chapter 144-24C of the Subdivision Ordinance, and I am grateful that Chapter 144-5 of that same ordinance allows my appeal of your denial. 1) There was no certified letter to my friend and neighbor Susan M. Golden regarding a 50 foot right of way over her property_ The letter she faxed me that I hale already given you is motorized and enclosed. She is not disposed in any way to give me the access. She has no need of the money, does not want to relinquish her land, and will appear at the hearing on September 5t" with photo Identification to reiterate the denial. 2) The piece of the property in question that Ms. Golden owns is a steep cliff that drops 150 feet down to Cedar Creek. I completely understand her denial. A color topographical map is included herewith for your graphic understanding. Enclosures: a) Original survey of the twelve acres b) The first subdivision with Mr. Millers signature c) A color topographical map of the area d) The survey of other lands in front of this parcel to Minebank Road e) The new survey noting the proposed subdivision f) The Family Subdivision Affidavit g) The recorded Health Permit for the Parcel Most Sincerely, Wendy Baruch 148 N. Indian Alley, P. O. Box 1611, Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 535-2202 Fax 82-A 6A ainendinst property 5.0 acres (formerly Baruch) 82-A-6 Baruch property 7.6 acres ��• 12' easement Mill Lane 82-A-8 Golden property 51.6 acres -` 82-A 8A Anton property 5.22 acres � C0� • 50,E �c'� R°ad 83-A-33 thouse property 9.16 arses r Ov Ofl Z—iRCN ?'4 ;SETI 2 rOQ RESSIE F. CLEM ROY JACKSOIy CLEM HELEN LoLgSE CLEM O.H. SO0 - P. 40 ZONED RA nk9rI011, �0"J `8� 33.13.-27 3y sr 6q 1 � I � I II I LOTcm I CD 9.160 ACRES I CHAPTER 24 ARTICLE 4, SECTION , , N I I I I pp I 1 I � I I , I SII I 1 1 ` I HAUS£ H 69:3 Skis `So o3' 3�F e,23 g29s- e000e 63ss Qe 2jNFFq r 2 q _N U °NrosB - p p q'3o? s /Nc R SF 4G q4 649 3O2/ - -` /coGr�4 m m Z` 622 ova E L ALLEN EBER C �t1Q. 0- (LICENSE) No. 1498 t Zl9UR`IE I Afdili Mbweeil:ails...,,.11�'..�'lruL:'1&-..�Lr�,P-z9+t 2 1 X92 1-1111) l)1'FI ). C].1lic '111d J.itcd !11!. L% .4 r I, II!J i and SUSAN.M. GOLDEN, V ITNESSETH: That for and in con',idcratWn '11ril of -1".!l I,,d and valuable- consideration. the receipt ofL0,, hcrcbs a. kii,m 11-114cli. 111c (,r n.i, r\ J hereby grant and convt:%, with General Warraniv .1n,j' English "AL11MI!, "t HiL, ur,r , 1!1( Grantee, in fee simple, the following described real estate: All that certain lot or parcel of land, IyIn.g and being -.1tki.lic III 01-c'111''11 Magisterial District.. Frederick County. Virginia, containing; . 51.012acre" more or less, Approximately five miles West of Middictown, Along with Parcel -A" described As a steep bluff containing Approximately 1.i Attv,' more or less, all as more particularly described by plat And -,urvcy of L Ailen Ebert, P.S., dated January 15. 1986, of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick. County, Virginia, III Deed Book 612 at Page 450, together with a 12 foot right of way as shown on the aforesaid Attached pl.,_ for ingress and egress; AND BEING the same property conveyed to the Grantors fit -rein by deed dated January 2, 1991, recorded In Deed Book 756 at flagc 454 among the aforesaid County land records. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments and the attachments and the references therein contained for a more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to all easements, rights of sway and restrictions of record affecting the subject property. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: ojV��SE A 1.) All VIH HAEL /NAOIN. r . ,I c t SUSAN G. BENTON. Ti aster k� ~b A Jai i ®� g tit± & 12 P6 4 5 0 '",�y ���• 10 SM3 BAHCtL A L9 A VIM BLU" OYBRLOGIING CEDAR CRM, CWTAINLIG ArPROSI- NkTELY 3.5 AC. iaT AN airamoB JLUI'8 IrF 6y:. PARCEL A t8 TO 91; COUVETED WITH AND AS A BMT uk ThN TUTAL nUCT OF UM) CVIIYEYSD Zr THIJ DEED, MD I9 GvT TO M CMISIDEM AS A :i ?AUIB TIUCT OF LAND. 0 .." W. 4 1498 s $ s � t � 2 s /Oi wd Exisnus � W O awWt ROAD WAY ! Viv; % OR RAW p- N \� rr'.1*` G fib'' { e _-- T`p Sao so O o • �.9 Q°� �:Ole�'�51.012 .*; { o fr}\ ACRES . .9 s oM�ly x',10 p� ^ 1 ! •. �o o , SM3 BAHCtL A L9 A VIM BLU" OYBRLOGIING CEDAR CRM, CWTAINLIG ArPROSI- NkTELY 3.5 AC. iaT AN airamoB JLUI'8 IrF 6y:. PARCEL A t8 TO 91; COUVETED WITH AND AS A BMT uk ThN TUTAL nUCT OF UM) CVIIYEYSD Zr THIJ DEED, MD I9 GvT TO M CMISIDEM AS A :i ?AUIB TIUCT OF LAND. 0 .." W. 4 1498 s $ s � t � 2 s /Oi wd Exisnus � W O awWt ROAD WAY ! Viv; % OR RAW p- N \� rr'.1*` G fib'' { e _-- FINAL PLAT FOR MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF WENDY L. BARUCH AND FRANCIS DICESARE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT TAX MAP x 82-A-6 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ZONED: RA I, LARRY C. HIMELRIGHT P. C., A DULY AUTHORIZED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND EMBRACED IN THIS SUBDIVISION IS A PART OF THE LAND THAT WAS ACQUIRED BY WENDY L. BARUCH AND FRANCIS DICESARE FROM MARY FLORENCE PIGGOTT RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA IN DEED BOOK 804, PAGE 528. I, FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION IS WHOLLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE ORIGINAL TRACT AND THAT IRON PINS WILL BE SET AT ALL PROPERTY CORNERS. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND TNI 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 1994. 3 - Z- q4 LARRI�C. HIMELRIGHT P. C. DATE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE THIS SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF WENDY L. BARUCH AND FRANCIS DICESARE IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE D IRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS. WENDY � ARUCH DATE F AN CIS pICESARE DATE OWNER'S CONSENT ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THISLt-DAY OF JTA2lH 1994. MY COMMISSI XPIRES -t NOTARY P BLIC rn APPROVA S FREDERICK CfOUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FREDERICK COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT } N F- N Z o v a o J� 1 Z GO �•6y Q R� Z Y W W Y = W U u K cr U W W c cF pq R u- `ry SITE ROAD AND R.O.W, RTE, 627 �& Zf �L i A E 3J/9 D TE PREPARED BY LARRY C. HIMELRIGHT P. C. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR RTE. 3, BOX 446, STRASBURG, VA PHONE 465-8767 MARCH 2, 1994 N -•.. i�•iG J Q SHEET I OF 2 sy FINAL PLAT scnLE-r.loo' as64- gtioD MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION 0 50 100 200 300 4Qqc� 41t OF THE LAND OF �`'• C c&(T6 OGi{.P} WENDY L. BARUCH AND FRANCIS _: •\ 2S6 �O� R,�( DICESARE THE PROPOSED SHARED PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 1'S NOT BUILT ACCORDING 3 \\ 98 9 BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT TO STREET STANDARDS OF AND WILL NOT BE MAINTAINED BY THE VA. ^ DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION OR THE CO. OF FREDERICK. THE IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID DRIVEWAY SHALL BE THE 0• S? SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNERS OF LOTS WHICH ARE •R'ry CO �B'Q( /•S FREDERICK COUNTY9 VIRGINIA PROVIDED WITH ACCESS VIA THE DRIVEWAY. SAID SHARED DRIVE- �4>" S3gy WAYS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION INTO THE \ F MARCH 2, 1994 STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM UNTIL THEY MEET THE APPLICABLE �v CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS OF THE VA. DEPT. OF TRANSPOR- •ti 0 TAT ON. THE COST OF BRINGING SAID DRIVEWAYS TO rbti�°� p ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS SHALL NOT BE BORNE BY THE \� o VA. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION NOR BY FREDERICK CO. 0 \ �0• \ •3 r �(lb OOp ohm \ ° ��� 4^ O j ^p,qD'tu ,o h : (i.'. i .,=', i pip• \ CF O4`p \ '. X te0. \yrF b s� ry p �'9( V Q .0 \.o b .3 / 440 0 4 e0.9 011•"4b •09 e3 Q . \. v �+:n,b- V �A / / e'! p�O� REMAINING T.601AC. OF FRANCIS OF Q - G,H AND g WENDY L. ° o' OQ'�o @� DICESARE RECORDED IN D. B. $04, b \ 0 3 \QQ Qg �i.; PG, 528. ti Jg \A�'. ZONED: RA \ as USE; AGRICULTURAL hh Y �O IOO' SRL -� �'1 i TAX MAP 0 82-A-6 \ 100' BRLLOT 4 SEPTIC FR. \� SYSTEM SHED \ \ .o tpRtE'622 PLANTED STONE o, FOUHDATIOW j 0.$9 N. 880.35 CISTERN ( 324.07 "RENTON" ZONED: RA S72.03'18"W SHEET 2 OF 2 ' P0. 464 USE: AGBICULTURAL FINAL PLAT FOR MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF WENDY L. BARUCH BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TAX MAP # 82-A-6 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ZONED: RA I, LARRY C. HIMELRIGHT P. C., A DULY AUTHORIZED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND EMBRACED IN THIS SUBDIVISION IS A PART OF THE LAND THAT WAS ACOUIRED BY WENDY L. BARUCH FROM FRANCIS DICESARE AND WENDY L. BARUCH RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA IN DEED BOOK 843, PAGE 566. 1, FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION IS WHOLLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE ORIGINAL TRACT AND THAT IRON PINS WILL BE SET AT ALL PROPERTY CORNERS. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND THI§ 24TH DAY OF JULY 2001. C• 7- Z L 0 1 l.A- R�R1-JC. HIMELRIGHT P. C. DATE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE THIS SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF WENDY ,L, BARUCH IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNER. WENDY L. BARUCH DATE OWNER'S CONSENT ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS_DAY OF 2001. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOTARY PUBLIC THIS PROPERTY IS BEING SUBDIVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS FOR A FAMILY DIVISION. WENDY BARUCH (DAUGHTER) TO DONNA POLK (MOTHER). APPROVAL FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE F- m Z n vi PREPARED BY O U LARRY C. HIMELRIGHT P. C. -k RTE, s27 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR a �RTE. 3, BOX 446, STRASBURG. VA. n GpJ� gZ1 PHONE 465-8767 2 Y W w Y vi � V v � W t4 z cr- SITE ROAD AND R,O.W,4,.s3 rcvw. SHEET I OF 2 """�" J a F - z W D W W w N U J W U Ir a CL SHENANDOAH COUNTY ZONED: A USE: AGRICULTURAL CEDAR irtRiECK S71'55'34"E \" 465.33 136.87 FLOOD ZONE A h LpO N ? ... <J CIL 100' BRL. 100 BRL.d J ¢� 3 3 ¢� m ti Ns m 40 t m �o >r m O M O cD a FLOOD ZONE C - ' o of M p' 6 0' BRL'ND °F SA RA H `t 60' BRL. V, OTHER ZONED LA c N84.35'30"W = H 2�EIREgIDENTIAI c - 0 41.41 50' R.O.W. -S- FR. pWL. O. H. WIRE 60' BRL. PARCEL 'Do J � 5.000 AC. /a PIN • 82 -A -6-B AS ASSIGNED BY FREDE CO. xO Go 4 0!A4 12g v r.9 O� 3 86.72 COR. 7.95 S. WELL -HOUa � E 2.180i AC. �p (AFTER ADJ.) a \� y M TAX YAP 82-A-6 .G00 M f�'�Gf. C vy�O O N 0 ti . 0 I\ THE PROPOSED SHARED PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 15 NOT BUILT ACCORDING TO STREET STANDARDS OF AND WILL NOT BE MAINTAINED BY THE VA. DEPT. Of TRANSPORTATION OR THE CO. OF FREDERICK. THE IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID DRIVEWAY SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY Of THE OWNERS OF LOTS WHICH ARE PROVIDED WITH ACCESS VIA THE DRIVEWAY. SAID SHARED DRIVE- WAYS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION INTO THE STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM UNTIL THEY MEET THE APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS OF THE VA. DEPT. OF TRANSPOR- TATION. THE COST Of BRINGING SAID DRIVEWAYS TO ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS SHALL NOT BE BORNE BY THE VA. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION NOR BY FREDERICK CO. i DENOTES IRON PIN SET Q DENOTES EXISTING PIN OR PIPE SURVEY OF THE WENDY L. BARUCH PROPERTY RECORDED IN D. B. 843, PG. 566 AND D. B. 689, PG, 1394. BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA PREPARED BY LARRY C. HIMELRIGHT P. C. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR 694 RED BUD ROAD. STRASBURG. VA. PHONE 465-8767 sCALE-t'•100' JULY 24. 2001 200 300 0 30 100 SHEET 2 OF 2 AFFIDAVIT FOR FAMILY DIVISION DATE Oki r\0 of (address) J affirm that I am the owner (GPIN) Is 3 A In of a certain parcel of land identified as on the Frederick County tax map and is located along or near Route (nearest public road) M I L RI� K K . I hereby affirm that I am familiar with the prerequisites of Section 15.2 - 2244 of the Code of Virginia and the requirements and provisions of 165-54 B., Chapter 165, Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance; and 144-15, 144-31 C. and 144-391 Chapter 144, Frederick County Code, Subdivision Ordinance. I will convey by deed legally authorized portions of the above identified property to the following immediate family members) as defined in the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2 - 2244, 1950, as amended. -�F`U</--- I further affirm that this division of land is for the accommodation and use of the listed family member(s) and will not be used to circumvent the applicable subsection of the Code of Virginia, and that I have not previously conveyed a lot to this family member under paragraph 165-54 B., Chapter 165, Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance. STATE OF VIRGINIA Property Owner (Grantor) COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, c -Q , a notary public in and for the state and county aforesaid,'do hereby certify that this day personally appeared before me and acknowledges the above affidavit dated 'S — i 3 _ �--,( that affirms division of land under the family division procedure. Given under my hand this i2" day of r� Notary' Pub1ic My commission expires �( � � — �`" � , COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Director RE: Accessory Dwellings Discussion DATE: August 23, 2001 Staff has received a request from Mr. Cecil Boyce of 1759 Wardensville Grade to consider an amendment to Chapter 165-26 of the Zoning Ordinance which would allow mobile homes to be used as accessory dwellings throughout the RA District. Mr. Boyce also requested "a waiver" to 165-26 B(1) which involves size requirements for accessory dwellings. The consideration of the waiver is not within the authority of the Planning Commission but this Section of the Zoning Ordinance should be pertinent to the discussion. Staff Comments Section 165-26 Section E of the Zoning Ordinance states that: "In no case shall a mobile home or temporary trailer be allowed as an accessory use, unless it is used for temporary or permanent housing on a bona fide, operating farm." This- was added to the Zoning Ordinance on June 9, 1993. This Section prohibits the use of mobile homes for accessory dwellings and for storage units. Chapter 165-26 B (1) states that: "The floor area of an accessory dwelling shall be no more than 25% of the gross floor area of the primary residential structure." DRRS Recommendation The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered this request during their meeting on July 26, 2001. The DRRS did not believe that mobile homes should be allowed as an accessory residential dwelling. The DRRS felt that the amendment request would open the door for establishing two residential uses per lot within the RA District and may negatively affect the overall character of the District. Furthermore, the DRRS felt that the current language governing accessory residential dwellings should be amended to require the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for property owners desiring this use. 11)7 North Xviii Street • INJ11chester, N ir-Mia 2261)1-5!)1)1) Accessory Dwelling Discussion Memo Page -2- Auaust 23, 2001 Should the Planning Commission determine that it would be appropriate to allow mobile homes as an accessory dwelling, staff would request that this issue be sent back to the DRRS to consider the following issues: ► Structural setbacks for accessory mobile home dwellings. ► On-site sewage system requirements for accessory mobile home dwellings. ► A minimum acreage requirement for accessory mobile home dwellings. 11- Other issues identified by the Planning Commission. U:\COMMITTEES\DRRS\ProjectsWccessory Dwelling Discussion\PC_DiscussionMemo_Septcmber5,200 l.wpd