Loading...
PC 02-16-00 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia FEBRUARY 16, 2000 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) January 5, 2000 and January 19, 2000 Minutes .............................. A 2) Application Action Summary ............................................ B 3) Committee Reports ............................................... (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments..................................................(no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) 2000-2005 Agricultural & Forestal District Update. This public hearing is to consider the renewal of the South Frederick District, the Double Church Road District, and the Refuge Church Road District. The renewal of these districts will establish a total of 13,367 acres within the Agricultural and Forestal District program for the ensuing five-year period. Properties that are incorporated into an Agricultural and Forestal District are guaranteed certain protections as specified in Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia. (Mr. Wyatt)........................................................ C 6) Proposed Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplemental Use Regulations, Section 165-24 "Height Limitations; Exceptions" of the Frederick County Code. The proposed amendment would allow general office uses in the B2 (Business General) District and B3 (Industrial Transition) District and hotel and motel uses in the B2 (Business General) District to be exempt from the maximum height requirement. The amendment also stipulates that the height of such buildings may not exceed sixty (60) feet. (Mr. Mohn).................................. ....................... D 2 PUBLIC MEETING 7) Master Development Plan #02-00 for Cross Creek Village, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for the development of 91 single-family small lot residences. The property is located on the north side of Apple Valley Road (Route 652), approximately 400' north of the intersection with Shady Elm Road (Route 651), adjacent to the Woodbrook Village development, and is identified with Property Identification Number 63-A-40 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (.Mr. Wyatt)...........................................................E 8) Other MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION This meeting was held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on January 5, 2000. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice -Chairman/ Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director/Secretary; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Planner II; Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPLICATIONS ACTION SUMMARY Chairman DeHaven accepted the report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 12/20/99 Mtg. Mrs. Marjorie Copenhaver, subcommittee member, reminded the Commission of the two Northeast Land Use Study public information meetings scheduled for January 13 and January 18 at 7:00 p.m. in the Stonewall Elementary School Cafeteria. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 2000 Page 456 -2 - Sanitation Authority (SA) - 12/21/99 Mtg. Mrs. Marjorie Copenhaver, Planning Commission's Liaison to the SA, reported the following topics from the last SA meeting: Engineer/Director, Wellington Jones, reviewed the Drought Management Plan; discussion on closing the Echo Village Lagoon; approved a contract with the owners of the Long Acre Kennel property; the status of the Northwest Water Storage Tank. Winchester Planning Commission Mr. Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City's Liaison, reported that Chairman Richard DeBergh has reached his term limit, which is two four-year terms, on the Winchester City Planning Commission. He said that the City Council chose to appoint Broc Johnson to a four-year term on the Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #29-99 of John Chamberlain Bellingham and Claire Austin Bellingham for a Cottage Occupation to establish a counseling practice. This property is located at 200 Crestwood Lane (zoned RP -Residential Performance) and is identified with P.I.N. 63B-2-2-74 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Mark R. Cheran, Planner I, read the background information and review agency comments. He said that the applicants have stated that the counseling practice will be conducted in a separate room of their home, the number of clients seen on a weekly basis will not exceed ten, and there will be no weekend hours. Mr. Cheran added that the adjoining properties are located approximately 25 feet from the principal structure and no screening or buffers will be required. Mr. John Chamberlain Bellingham and Claire Austin Bellingham, the applicants/ owners, were available to answer questions from the Commission. A member of the Commission inquired of the Bellinghams if they were aware of any deed covenants that would preclude business in this particular development. Mrs. Bellingham stated that before .Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 2000 Page 457 -3 - moving into Woodbrook Village, they checked with Mr. Jim Vickers, the ownerlbuilder, and he waived the covenants that preclude any home occupations. There were no public comments. Based on the limited scaie of the proposed use, the Commission believed the use would not have a significant impact on the adjoining properties. Upon motion made by Mr. Romme and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #29-99 of John Chamberlain Bellingham and Claire Austin Bellingham for a Cottage Occupation for a Counseling Service at 200 Crestwood Lane in the Back Creek District with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. Days of operation shall be limited to weekdays only. < Any expansion of use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit #30-99 of "The Van Man" submitted by Winchester Motor Service to operate a public garage without body repair. This property is located at 2372 Berryville Pike (zoned RA -Rural Areas) and is identified with P.I.N. 55-A-102 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval w/ Conditions Mr. Mark Cheran, Planner I, read the background information and review agency comments. Mr. Cheran stated that the business will be located in a 24'X 24' garage located on the property fronting on Route 7 and is located on property that is being used as a legally non -conforming salvage yard. He explained that this non -conforming use was established prior to November 1973, when the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance was enacted. He said that the adjoining properties are setback 50' from the property as required in the RA (Rural Areas) District and 100' from the garage where the business will be located. Mr. Cheran added that the applicant's use of this business will not impact or expand the non -conforming status of the property. He further added that prior to operation of the business, the Fire Marshal's comments need to be addressed, as well as the VDOT comments on entrance requirements. Ms. Sheila Marie Beach, the owner and applicant, was available to answer questions from the Cormnission. Ms. Beach stated that Mr. Clark S. Loy, her step -father, turned the business over to her and her plans were to continue with the salvage business, however, she will not continue to buy and sell vehicles. A member of the Commission inquired as to how the County would distinguish between the salvage yard vehicles and the vehicles associated with the public garage awaiting repair. Mr. Cheran explained Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 2000 Page 458 -4 - that two businesses will be operating on this property—one with a conditional use permit (CUP), the public garage, and one as a non -conforming use, the salvage yard. He said that vehicles associated with the public garage must be legal to operate on the roads of Frederick County, i.e. must have a valid inspection sticker, county sticker, and license plate; vehicles associated with the salvage yard will not be registered vehicles. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Dionisio Urena, an adjoining property owner at 227 Cavalry Drive, asked if the boundaries of the legal non -conforming use of the salvage yard had already been exceeded by the discontinuance of the operation before Mrs. Beach acquired it. _ The Planning Staff addressed Mr. Urena's concern and stated that if the use is discontinued for more than one year, it is considered abandoned and an application for a CUP could be made to re-establish a previously -existing, non -conforming use. It was noted that in this case, however, the use was determined not to have been discontinued as evidenced by the yearly issuance of a salvage license and a county business license to the property owner. Mr. Larry P. Ulsh, an adjoining property owner at 221 Cavalry Drive, stated that the auto repair operation has been ongoing at this location for the past few weeks. He said that repair work is taking place at all hours, including 9:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m., and on weekends. Mr. Ulsh was concerned that the setbacks were not being met towards adjoining residential properties_ He mentioned the existence of a residence and livestock on the property. Mr. Ulsh was concerned about security because there was no fence along the rear of the salvage yard and he was also concerned about pollution of the creek that runs through the property by fluids draining from the inoperable vehicles. Mr. and Mrs. James Freeman, adjoining property owners at 231 Cavalry Drive, next came before the Commission to speak. Mr. Freeman said that the salvage yard is an eyesore. He said that when he and Mrs. Freeman bought their lot three years ago, there were perhaps three or four vehicles on Mrs. Beach's property, however, now there are approximately 75 to 150. Mr. Freeman expressed his aggravation with the noise and banging as late as 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. at night, along with dogs barking and lights that are on all through the night. Mr. Freeman said that because there is no fence around the rear of the property, children from the neighborhood go into the salvage yard and play. Mrs. Freeman believed the condition of the property has gotten progressively worse in the last three years. She said that they have made numerous complaints and have asked Frederick County officials and sheriffs to come out to the property. Commission members discussed the possibility of having the owner place a fence around the salvage yard for safety and screening purposes. Mrs. Beach commented that she has made considerable progress towards cleaning up the property. She said that she removed 800 vehicles from the upper and lower lots and numerous tires because Frederick County had asked her to do so. Mrs. Beach stated that the vehicles located in the rear area were not placed there by her, but she intends to have them removed. She said that her future plans were to place clusters of pines in the back area. Mrs. Beach added that she inherited this property with all its junk and that it will take her some time and money to clean it up. Members of the Planning Commission had concerns about the appearance of the property, especially since this was one of the major corridors coming into Frederick County. In addition, they were concerned about its appearance because of the efforts that have been put forth in the last seven or eight years Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 2000 Page 459 -5 - by Frederick County and the City of Winchester towards developing the major corridors. In response to the residents who spoke, the Commission believed their concerns were legitimate and the question of whether the residents and the County would be better served by voting against or for the CUP was debated. Commissioners believed that if the CUP was granted, the regulations and the law would work for the residents in case the undesirable situations continued. Upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #30-99 of "The Van Man" submitted by Winchester Motor Service to operate a public garage without body repair at 2372 Berryville Pike with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. Fire Marshal comments to be complied within 30 days of permit approval. All work shall be accomplished within an enclosed structure. 4. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements; sign shall not exceed four square feet. No outdoor storage of equipment associated with the business. 6. No more than five vehicles awaiting repair shall be permitted. 7. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No expansion of the legally non -conforming salvage yard will be permitted. 9. Any change of use or expansion of the business will require a new Conditional Use Permit. This conditional use permit was approved by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Ours, Thomas, Romine, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Marker NO: Miller, Stone TEA -21 (Transportation Equity Act) Enhancement Project Funding Proposal: To establish a TEA -21 Enhancement Project for Frederick County for the provision of a facility for bicycles and pedestrians. This TEA -21 Enhancement project will develop Phase II of the Sherando Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility through the portion of Sherando Regional Park located on the north side of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277). Action - Recommended Approval Prederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 2000 Page 460 Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, stated that the Planning Department, working in conjunction with the Parks & Recreation Department, has prepared a Transportation Efficiency Act (TEA - 21) grant application for consideration by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). He said that this particular grant application is for the development of Phase II ofthe Sherando Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility. Mr. Wyatt pointed out the location of the proposed facility on a map. He stated that Phase II of the facility would be developed as a 10' -wide asphalt path within a 20' easement, spanning a distance of 3,200'. Mr. Wyatt next explained the anticipated costs and local shares. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment, however, no one was present to speak. The Planning Commission believed this project would establish the necessary linkage to develop a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian facility within this portion of the County. They recognized the benefit of providing residential subdivisions with the ability to access the Sherando Regional Park and the Sherando High School through an alternative transportation system. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval ofthe TEA -21 (Transportation Equity Act) Enhancement Project Funding Proposal for the provision of a facility for bicycles and pedestrians and will develop Phase II of the Sherando Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility through the portion of Sherando Regional Park located on the north side of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277). TEA -21 (Transportation Equity Act) Enhancement Project Funding Proposal: To establish a joint TEA - 21 Enhancement Project for Frederick County and the City of Winchester and to assist with the acquisition of the remainder of the historic Kernstown Battlefield site. This TEA -21 Enhancement project is a continuance of the grant application which was successful in securing funds to acquire a portion of the Kernstown Battlefield. Complete acquisition of the Kernstown Battlefied site would be the first step toward the creation of a Civil War Battlefield Network in the City of Winchester and Frederick County. Recommended Approval Mr. Christopher M. Mohn, Planner II, statedthat Frederick County andthe City ofWinchester planned to submit an application for a joint TEA -21 Enhancement Project to further assist with the acquisition of the remainder of the historic Kernstown Battlefield site. He said that this TEA -21 Enhancement Project is a continuance of two previous ISTEA grant applications that were successful in securing funds to acquire a portion of the Kernstown Battlefield. Mr. Mohn explained that complete acquisition of the Kernstown Battlefield site would be the first major step toward the creation of a Civil War Battlefield Network in Frederick County and the City of Winchester. He said that purchasing the Grim Farm and preserving the Kemstown Battlefield is a goal that is being pursued by Frederick County, the City of Winchester, and the Kernstown Battlefield Association. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment, however, no one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 2000 Page 461 -7 - The Planning Commission reviewed the application and was in support of the proposal as presented. No issues of concern were raised. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE TI` RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the TEA -21 (Transportation Equity Act) Enhancement Project Funding Proposal to establish a joint TEA -21 Enhancement Project for Frederick County and the City of Winchester to assist with the acquisition of the remainder of the historic Kernstown Battlefield site. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2000-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR FREDERICK COUNTY Mr, Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, stated that the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) has forwarded a recommended draft ofthe 2000-2001 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to the Planning Commission for discussion and consideration. Mr. Wyatt said that the CPPS evaluated new project requests provided by the Frederick County School Board, the Regional Airport Authority, and the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department. He said that 28 projects were submitted by five agencies and departments with a total project cost of $71,825,263 and a total debt service of $34,761,405. He said that the CIP total County cost would be $106,586,668. Members of the Commission had several questions pertaining to the County's support of the Winchester Regional Airport in the CIP. The Executive Director of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority, Serena "Renny" Manuel, was available to respond to the Commission's inquiries. Ms. Manuel explained that at this time, the Airport Authority is not their own fiscal agent. She said that even if this agency status is acquired, the Winchester Regional Airport, as do most airports throughout the State of Virginia, will require and approach supporting jurisdictions towards capital improvements and towards the operations of the facility itself. Ms. Manuel added that the Authority will still have to submit a CIP for consideration and approval and the participation level is determined by the jurisdictions themselves. Members ofthe Commission also discussed the issue ofagencies establishing "working capital funds" for County improvements. No action was taken or needed at this time by the Planning Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 2000 Page 462 -8 - ELECTION OF OFFICERS & MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2000 Election of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman The Chairman declared nominations open for Chairman. The nomination of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. for Chairman was made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Ours. Motion was made by Ms. Copenhaver, seconded by Mr. Thomas, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year of 2000. Election of John R. Marker, Vice Chairman Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Vice Chairman. The nomination of John R. Marker for Vice Chairman was made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Morris. Motion was made by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Ours, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Vice Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect John R. Marker as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year of 2000. Election of Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Secretary. The nomination of Kris C. Tierney for Secretary was made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Miller. Motion was made by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Ours, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Secretary. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Mr. Kris C. Tierney as Secretary of the Planning Commission for 2000. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 2000 Page 463 2000 Meeting Schedule Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have regular monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. and worksessions on the fourth Monday of each month, as needed, at 7:30 p.m. Both the regular meetings and the worksessions will be held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. 2000 ANNUAL RETREAT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director, reminded the Commissioners that the Planning Commission's Annual Retreat for 2000 will be held on Saturday, February 12. ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 2000 Page 464 �� • C� MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION This meeting was held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on January 19, 2000. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District, Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John R. Marker, Vice-Chairman/Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and Terry Stone, Gainesboro District. STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director/Secretary; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPLICATIONS ACTION SUMMARY Chairman DeHaven accepted the report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Sanitation Authority (SA) - 01/18/00 Mtg. Mr. W. Wayne Miller, Planning Commission's Liaison to the SA, reported the following topics from the last SA meeting: In addition to obtaining water from the City of Winchester in order to allow the quarries to refill with water, the Sanitation Authority is staffing a water conservation ordinance. There is not Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 19, 2000 Page 465 -2 - likely to be a moratorium on residential connections within the next year. The SA passed a motion to proceed with the Echo Village rehabilitation project; the new tank on the Solenberger's property is in the process of being filled and should take about two weeks. INTRODUCTION OF MR. SIDNEY A. REYES, NEWLY APPOINTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' LIAISON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman DeHaven welcomed Mr. Sidney A. Reyes, the newly appointed Board of Supervisors' liaison to the Planning Commission. PUBLIC MEETINGS Request for a waiver to the cul-de-sac length requirement, Section 144-17.G(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance, submitted by Artz & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Norman I Secrist to permit a cul-de-sac length of 2,500 feet. This property is located on Wright's Road (Rt. 661) and is identified with P.I.N. 23-A-5 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (This item was tabled from the Commission's 12/01/99 Meeting.) Action - Recommended Approval Mr, Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator, stated the waiver proposed is a request to extend the cul-de-sac length beyond the maximum length mandated by the Subdivision Ordinance, which is 1,000 feet. Mr. Ruddy said that the Commission tabled this request at the December 11 1999 meeting to give Mr. Norman J. Secrist, the applicant, the opportunity to pursue several alternatives that were suggested at the meeting. He said that those alternatives included contacting adjoining property owners and evaluating the possibility of a two -acre rural preservation subdivision. Mr. Ruddy stated that he had conversations with an adjoining property owner, Mr. Leight, owner ofthe adjoining parcel to the southwest, identified as Parcel 33-A- 4, to discuss the potential for connection. He said that while Mr. Leight expressed the potential for future development of his property, he would be unwilling at this time to commit concretely to a connection to the Secrist property. Mr. Ruddy continued, stating that he met on several occasions with Michael M. Artz, the surveyor, and Mr. Secrist on the property and upon evaluating the property in comparison with the plat, it was observed that Sylvan Springs Road is approximately 1,000 feet from Wrights Road. The topography in this area is quite severe and somewhat unbuildable; however, beyond Lot 13, the property opens up into a more suitable area for pore sites. He was also of the opinion that the property was somewhat self-contained in that the adjoining Leight property and the adjoining Kidwell and Ganse properties are on somewhat of ridge line. Mr. Ruddy also pointed out that tax maps confirm that the proposed subdivision is compatible with adjoining land uses and lot sizes. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 19, 2000 Page 466 -3 - Mr. Norman J. Secrist, the owner, was interested in pursuing his waiver request as originally presented. Mr. Secrist read a section of the ordinance which stated that a waiver could be granted "...where there is extreme topography or other factors which make it impractical, the Planning Commission may grant a waiver." Mr. Secrist pointed out the location of 15 -20 -foot rock breaks, which causes him to be limited in the number of perc sites he can establish and which will limit him to no greater than 13 lots. He said that the extension of the road length is not to increase the number of lots that he can get. Mr. Secrist added that the power company has already placed an easement through one area and if he had to make the lots any smaller, he was afraid it would be almost impossible to establish perc sites. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, but no one was present to speak. During the discussion between the Commission members and staff, one of the interpretations of the sketch plat raised was that Sylvan Springs Road terminated where it intersected with Secrist Court and, therefore, Sylvan Springs Road would not be classified as a cul-de-sac; it was believed that the cul-de-sac existed with both ends of Secrist Court, both of which met the requirements of the ordinance and a waiver would not be required. Other members of the Commission believedthat Sylvan Springs Road had only one outlet, Wrights Road, and was, therefore, a cul-de-sac. Commission members believed that a waiver in this case was justified because no other alternatives or layouts could be pursued in this particular situation. They believed that the type of precedent that should be avoided was permitting a road to extend a long way, possibly 5,000 feet in length, with a great deal of lots along it, with just two hammer -head cul-de-sacs on the end and only one point of egress and ingress. The Planning Commission also believed that the proposed residential use was compatible due to its proximity to Orchardale and the residentially -zoned properties along Ruebuck Road (Route. 670). Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the request for a waiver to the cul-de-sac length requirement, Section 144-17.G(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance, submitted by Artz & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Norman J. Secrist, to permit a cul-de-sac length of 2,500 feet along Wright's Road (Rt. 661) and identified with P.I.N. 23-A-5 in the Stonewall District. This request was approved by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): DeHaven, Miller, Romine, Morris, Copenhaver, Light NO: Thomas Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 19, 2000 Page 467 -4 - Master Development Plan #01-00 of Morgaine Trace Subdivision, submitted by Greenway Engineering for the development of 88 single-family detached urban residential lots. This property, zoned RP (Residential Performance), is located on the east side of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522), 1.2 miles south of Airport Road (Rt. 645), and 0.30 miles north of Paper Mill Road (Rt. 644), and is identified with P.I.N. 64-2-C1 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, read the background information and review agency comments. Mr. Wyatt discussed three issues identified by the staff as significant with regard to this master plan. The first issue discussed was the applicant's desire to provide access to the adjoining Adams Family Ltd. Partnership property. Mr. Wyatt said that because of the M1 (Light Industrial) zoning of the Adams' tract and the residential zoning of the Morgaine Trace property, it was not desirable, from a planning perspective, to have an access connection between the properties. Mr. Wyatt pointed out, however, that because this property is severed by Buffalo Lick Run and because of the topography, it was doubtful that this portion of the Adams' property would be developed industrially. He said that the MDP map shows a "T" intersection with the extension of Bentley Avenue, which would provide access to the Adams tract, and staff is recommending that there be a narrative placed on the plan stating this access would be permitted if the property owned by the Adams' is rezoned to residential use. The second issue discussed involved buffer requirements. Mr. Wyatt said that the MDP is required to provide a 100' road efficiency buffer along Rt. 522 South, however, the applicant has shown only a 50' buffer. He explained that Rt. 522 South is a major arterial road system, therefore, the buffer requirements are either an 80' minimum width with a full screen or a 100' width with a landscaped screen. In addition, because of the zoning difference of the Adams' property, a buffer is also required along this property line to provide relief between the residential and the industrial uses. Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that the application calls for the disturbance of the maximum allowance of environmental features, which is five acres of this site, and is primarily steep slopes and woodlands. He said that the MDP shows a typical lot section depicting how they would be able to disturb the maximum allowance of woodlands and still meet the requirements of the ordinance. The final issue raised by the staff was a potentially significant historic feature, the Evendale School. Mr. Wyatt said that the staff believed the required road efficiency buffer would adequately mitigate any visual impacts associated with this use. A member of the Planning Commission believed the potential existed for a connection between this parcel and the Russell property to the south because of the shape and size of the two parcels. Staff advised the Planning Commission that the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan recommends that the Russell property be used for industrial purposes in the future; therefore, the road connection may not be desirable. Mr. Claus Bader with Greenway Engineering, the design/engineering firm representing the owner/developer, said that regarding the road efficiency buffer, the MDP is being revised to show an 80 foot road efficiency buffer with a full screen along Route 522. Regarding the zoning district buffer between the Morgaine Trace parcel and the Adams' tract, Mr. Bader proposed putting in a 25' landscaping easement across the rear of the property, which would also be used as the buffer, noting that the area was heavily wooded. He Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 19, 2000 Page 468 -5 - said that a caveat could be added that if the Adams' property is rezoned to RP, the easement would become null and void because at that point, there would be no need for a buffer between the two residential tracts. With regard to extending a cul-de-sac to the Russell property to the east, zoned RA, Mr. Bader said that the topography becomes fairly steep on that side of the Morgaine Trace property and engineering a continuous roadway through there would be problematic. Members of the Commission discussed the appropriateness of allowing an open space easement to be placed in the rear setbacks of homeowners' lots. Mr. Bader commented that homeowners are not permitted to build within the setback area anyway. Commissioners predicted that accessory structures would be placed in the open space easement and had concerns about who would police that situation. Mr. Bill Tisinger, a partner of the JENI Company, the owners/developers of the Morgaine Trace Subdivision, said that a rezoning application will be forthcoming within the next month for the adjoining Adams tract for single-family housing- He stated that when the overall Airport MDP was done, 35 acres just north of where the connection is made was slated for future residential growth. Mr. Tisinger said that the 35 acres is actually cut off from the airport property by the stream and steep banks run down in both directions. He said that if the rezoning is approved, and he believed it would be, there will be no requirement for a buffer. Commissioners inquired ifthe ordinance prohibited the setback and the buffer to overlap. The staff confirmed that the two could overlap. The staff believed the plan should designate the required buffer and if the adjoining property is rezoned, the applicant could modify their MDP administratively. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Jeffery D. Jerome, adjoining property owner at 269 Vine Lane, read a petition signed by 19 residents of the adjoining Southview Development. Mr. Jerome stated that the residents of Southview were concerned about erosion, if the wooded areas were removed; they were concerned about whether the school infrastructure would be able to handle the additional influx of students; and they were concerned about the impact of the proposed development on the value of their properties. The Planning Commission believed the overall master plan was consistent with the policies for suburban residential development as specified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. They also believed that the overall gross density and general site layout were consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance. However, they recommended that the MDP designate the required buffer between the Morgaine Trace property and the Adam's property. Concern was also raised about some of the steep slopes, but it was felt this could be discussed at the time of subdivision review. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Miller, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #01-00 of Morgaine Trace Subdivision, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for the development of 88 single-family detached urban residential lots on 3 8. 1 acres, zoned RP (Residential Performance). Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 19, 2000 Page 469 Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to make the petition submitted by Mr. Jeffrey D. Jerome and the residents of Southview Development a part of the official record. OTHER COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Chairman DeHaven formally appointed Commissioner W. Wayne Miller as the Planning Commission's Liaison to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Chairman DeHaven also appointed Ms. Marjorie H. Copenhaver as a citizen member of the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee. In addition, Chairman DeHaven appointed Commissioner Robert A. Morris and Commissioner John H. Light, both former members of the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee, to the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee. ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 19, 2000 Page 47C APPLICATION ACTION SUMMARY (printed February 3, 2000) Application newIv submitted. REZONINGS: Manuel C. & Pearl A. DeHaven & W.D. & Dorothy Orndorff (REZ #10-99) "Mr. Fuel" Stonewall 9.4382 acres from M2 to B3 and .8263 acres from RA to B3; 10.2645 ac. of IA OverlU District Location: 500'+ so. of intersection of Rest Church Rd. (Rt. 669) & Martinsburg Pk. (Rt. 11), betwn Rt. 11 & I-81, & continuing so. to Duncan Run, Submitted: 04/13/99 PC Review: 05/05/99 - recommended approval with proffers BOS Review: 05/26/99 - tabled MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Morgaine Trace Subdivision (MDP #01-00) Shawnee . ... ..... . C ................... ........................... . . ... ................ .. ............ .......... ... ..... .... ............... ......... ......... ... .. ......... . ....... ..... . x . ..... ....... __ --- : . ................. .................... ", -------------- ................. BOS Review: 02/08/00 - tentatively scheduled 11 Admin. Approved: 11 Location- Apple Valley Road (Rt. 652) Submitted: 01/24/00 PC Review: 02/16/00 BOS Review: 03/08/00 Admin. Approved: Pending Morgaine Trace Subdivision (MDP #01-00) Shawnee Residential Single -Family Detached Urban Lots on 38.1 acres Location: East side of Front Royal Pk. (Rt. 522), 1.2 mi. south of Airport Rd. (Rt. 645), 0.30 miles north of Paper Mill Rd. (Rt. 644) Submitted: 12/23/99 PC Review: 01/19/00 - recommended approval BOS Review: 02/08/00 - tentatively scheduled 11 Admin. Approved: 11 Pending Lexington Court (MDP #04-99) Opequon 26 townhouse units & 3 urban single - I family lots on 4.8635 ac. Location: Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) Submitted: 07/14/99 PC Review: 12/15/99 - recommended approval BOS Review: 01/12/00 - approved Admin. Approved: Pending Oakdale III, Raven Pointe, Raven Oaks, Ravenwin (MDP #02-99) Shawnee 668 residential dwelling units on 247 acres of RP -zoned land Location: North side of Rt. 50, East of Winchester Submitted: 05/11/99 PC Review: 06/02/99 - recommended approval BOS Review: 07/14/99 -approved Admin. Approved: Pendia SUBDIVISIONS: Commonwealth Business Center - Lot 4 SUB #29-99 Back Creek Subd. of 2 lots: Lot 4A: 1.0000 ac. & Lot 4: 2.9346 ac. (B3 Location: On Commonwealth Dr., approx. 661' from intersection w/ Valley Pk. Submitted: 12/15/99 MDP #03-99 MDP approved by BOS 07/14/99; MDP admin. approved 07/19/99 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pendia Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 Ralph S. Gregory & Battlefield Partnership SUB #28-99 [Back Creek Subdivision of 82.136 acres into two lots - Lot 27A & Lot 27B (Ml) Subd. of 2 lots & boundary line adjustment; 1.4.1559 ac. 2 Location: Rt. I IS. (650' north of Marathon Dr., & at end of Sulky Dr. Submitted: 12/01/99 Subd. Admin. Approved: MDP #001-92 MDP approved by BOS 4/8/92; Rev. MDP admin. approved 10/13/99 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Ft. Collier Industrial Park (Win- chester Pasta) (SUB #26-99) Stonewall Subdivision of 82.136 acres into two lots - Lot 27A & Lot 27B (Ml) Location: SE end of Park Center Dr. (Rt. 1323), approx. 0.15 mi. SE of the Westbrooke Rd. (Rt. 1320) intersection Submitted: 10/13/99 MDP #004-91 MDP approved by BOS 10/09/91; MDP admim. approved 02/24/98 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Adams Family Ltd. Ptnrsbp. SUB #25-99 Shawnee Subdivision of 26.45 acres into 2 lots 1 Location: Airport Business Center, Parcel 4, Airport Road Submitted: 10/07/99 MDP #009-87 last revision of MDP was admin. approved 06/22/99 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Airport Parc Bldg. A (Airport Business Center) SUB #23-99) Shawnee Subdivision of 64.2 ac. into 2 lots (Ml w/ Flex Tech Overlay) Location: Intersection of Airport Road & Admiral Byrd Drive Submitted: 10/05/99 MDP #009-87 MDP DP approved by BOS 09/23/87; latest MDP revision Ladininistrativelyapproved 06/22/99 Subd. Admin. Approved: endin Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 Prince Frederick Office Park, Phase II SUB #22-99) Shawnee Subdivision of 49.910 acres into 5 lots (B2) ILocation: 1/4 mi. so. F Rt. 50E., 1/4 mi. east of Rt. 522N., immediately west of Prince Frederick Dr., immediately south of Winchester Reg. Airport Submitted: 09/30/99 MDP #001-93 MDP approved by BOS 04/14/93; MDP admin. approved 06/08/93 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Frank W. Nichols Property SUB #21-99 NO MDP Opequon Subdivision of 2 lots: Lot 1 - 14,742 s.f.; I Lot 2 -14,987 s.f. Location: 239' northwest of the Montgomery Circle/ Fairfax Dr. intersection Submitted: 09/27/99 PC Review: 10/20/99 - recommended approval w/ sidewalk exception BOS Review: 11/10/99 - approved w/ sidewalk exception Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending RavenWing, Section 1 (SUB #20-99) Shawnee 80 single-family urban lots on 24.5711 acres Location: North side of Rt. 50 East of Winchester Submitted: 08/27/99 MDP #02-99 MDP Approved by BOS 07/14/99; Admin. Approval is Pending Subd. Admin. Approved: LPending Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 Thomas A. & Helen S. Grove Subdivision (SUB #19-99) NO MDP Shawnee Subdivision of 5.958 acres into 2 lots (Ml) Location: South side of Aio.,. load Wit. 645, Submitted: 08/06/99 PC Review: 09/01/99 - recommended approval BOS Review: 09/08/99 - approved Admin. Approved: Pending Merriman's Chase (SUB #13-99) Back Creek Subdivision of 26.895 ac. into 48 single- family residential lots (RP) Location: W. side of Merrimans Ln. (Rt. 621), along Rt. 37 at Abrams Creek and Winchester & Western Railroad Submitted: 04/26/99 MDP #006-98 (formerly known as Willow Branch) Approved by BOS 01/13/99; Admin. Approved 02/12/99 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending The Camp/Tasker Rd. (JASBO, Inc. /F. Glaize) (SUB #011-99) Opequon Subd. of 50.52 ac. into 170 single-family residential lots w/in 3 sections (RP) Location: So.west comer of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642) & White Oak Rd. (Rt. 636) Submitted: 02/18/99 MDP #004-98 (Tasker Rd. Land Bays)MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP approved admin. 09/04/98 Subd. Admin. Approved: Section 1 approved 10/27/99; Sections 2 and 3 are pending Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 Fort Collier - Lot 32 (SUB #09-99 Stonewall Subdivision of 1 lot consisting of 4.7374 acres 1 Location: Property fronts the northwest corner of the intersection of Brooke Rd. (Rt. 13 22) & West Brooke Rd. (Rt.1320) Submitted: 01/29/99 MDP 9004-91 MDP approved by BOS 10/09/91; admin. approved 11/22/91 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Stonewall Industrial Ply. - Lot 32 (SUB #06-99 Gainesboro Subdivision of 1 lot consisting of 5.4455 ac. 1 Location: Corner of Century Ln. (Rt. 862) & Lenoir Dr. (F-732) Submitted: 01/27/99 MDP #006-93 MDP approved by BOS 07/14/93; MDP admin, approved 07/28/93 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Canter Estates - Section I SUB #05-99 Shawnee Subdivision of 24.5524 ac. into 60 lots for single-family det. traditional homes Location: Northwest corner of intersection of White Oak_ Rd. (Rt. 636) & Macedonia Church Rd. (Old Rt. 642) Submitted: 02/08/99 MDP #004-98 (Tasker Rd. Land Bays) approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP admin. approved 09/04/98 Subd. Admin. A roved: LPen Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 Tybrooke, L.C. (SUB #03-99) NO MDP Gainesboro 2 Lots; TI. Acreage 4.1277 (B2 & RA) Location: Front Royal Pk (Rt. 522) at Albin; 1 mile N. of Winch. B (Rt. 37) Submitted: 01/22/99 PC Review: 03/17/99 - recommended approval BOS Review: 04/12/99 - approved Subd. Admin. Approved: pending Autumn Glen, Sect. I (SUB #015-98) Opcquon 21 lots - duplex & multiplex (52 dwellings) on 14.8 ac. (RP) Location: South side of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642), 0.25 mi. East of Rt. 647 Submitted: 06/30/98 MDP#004-98 (Tasker Rd Land Bays) MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP Pending Admin. Approval Subd. Admin. Approved: Phase I approved on 11/04/98 for 21 dwellings Lenoir City Co. Lot 2; Stonewall Indust. Pk. SUB #007-97) Gainesboro Subdivision of a 2.6584 ac. lot (Ml) Location: McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861); approx. 1,000' from Tyson Dr. intersection Submitted: 07/28/97 MDP #006-93 Approved by BOS 07/14/93; Admin. Approved 07/28/93 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Dominion Knolls (SUB #005-97) Stonewall 75 s.f. zero lot line lots on 20.278 ac. Location: So.west corner of Baker Ln. (Rt. 1200) & Ft. Collier Rd. (Rt. 1322) Submitted: 05/16/97 MDP #001-97 Approved by BOS 04/09/97; Admin. Approved 06/30/97 Subd. Admin. Approved: Sect. 1 (25 lots) approved 06/02/98; Sect. 2 approved; Sect. 3 pending Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 Winchester -Fred Co. IDC SUB) Back Creek 2 Mi Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 acres Location: Southeast side of Development Lane OSubmitted: 09/08/95 MDP #003-87: Approved by BOS 07/08/87; Admin. Approved 06/08/88 rPendingAdmin. Approval Awaiting signed lats. Abrams Point, Phase I SUB Shawnee 230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots Location: South side of Rt. 659 Submitted: 05/02/90 PC Review: 06/06/90 - recommended approval BOS Review: 06/13/90 - a roved Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed plat Harry Stimpson (SUB) IFopeguon Two B2 Lots Location: Town Run Lane Submitted: 09/23/94 PC Review: 10/19/94 - recommended approval BOS Review: 10/26/94 - a roved Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting signed plat. SITE PLANS: Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 Winchester Regional Airport Authority (SP #04-00) Shawnee Aircraft Parking Apron; 2.3+ acres to be developed; (API) Location: Winchester Regional Airport at 491 Airport Road Submitted: 01/11/00 Pending Approved: Pending Signet Screen Printing (SP #03-00 Stonewall 10,000 s.f, warehouse for printing; 0.98 acres (B2) Location: South side of Ft. Collier Rd., 460' east of Baker Lane Submitted: 01/06/00 Approved: Pending Grace Brethren Church (SP #02-00) Stonewall Church; 3 ac. developed of a 22.6 ac. tract (RA) Location: Rt. 656 Submitted: 01/06/00 Approved: Pending Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 Products, Inc. (SP #01-00 Shawnee FAMK Phase I - 12,000 s.f. warehouse 1 Location:800 Submitted: Approved: Airport Road 12/20/99 1 PendingI Dawson Industrial Park SP #68-99) Back Creek Maintenance Shed; 6.95 ac, site to be deveio ed 1 Location: Rt. 651 & Dawson Dr., just north of Rt. 37 Submitted: 12/16/99 Approved: 01/10/00 Powell's Plumbing (SP #67-99) Shawnee office & storage for bldg. -related con- truction; 1.0366 ac. 1 w/ Flea Tech Location: Muskoka Court, adjacent to Airport Rd.; Airport Business Center, Section 2, Parcel 20 Submitted: 12/06/99 I Approved: APending IJ WN203 Roadway/ Gap Run (Calvin Ritterprop.) (SP #65-99 Gainesboro commercial telecommunications tower Location: Rt. 50W to last driveway before Mahlon Dr.; up drive to quarry site on right of hillside Submitted: 12/01/99 Approved: Pendin Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 10 WN206 Hi -Way (Round Hill Utd. Meth. Churchprop.) (SP #64-99 Gainesboro commercial telecommunications tower Location: Round Hill United Methodist Church property; 161 Trinity Ln. Submitted: 12/01/99 Approved. 02/02/2000 Lakeside Library (SP #56-99) Shawnee Library Complex; 5.40 ac. of a 16.0 ac. site to be developed (RP) Location: Macedonia Church Road Submitted: 10/29/99 Approved: Pending Central Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. (SP #55-99 Back Creek 400,000 s.f. multi -phase mfg. facility; 24.87 ac. site 1) Location: Intersection of Shady Elm Rd. & Apple Valley Rd, Submitted: 10/21/99 Pending Approved: q Pending Kraft Foods Wastewater Treatment Bldg, (SP #54-99) Stonewall 2,300 s.f. addition to existing mfg. facility; 20 -acre site 1 Location: 220 Park Center Drive Submitted: 10/12/99 Approved: Pending Jim Wilson Warehouse #2 (SP #49-99) Stonewall Reconstruct 30,000 s.f. warehouse bldg. On existing foundation (Ml) Location: Lenoir Drive Submitted: 08/31/99 Approved: Pending Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 11 Irongate, Inc. (SP #48-99)l Opequon Addit. to exist. steel fabrication shop; 1 0.25 ac. develop. on 1.438 ac. site Ml Location: 201 Ridings Lane Submitted: 08/30/99 -Approved: Pending Park Place Condominiums, -Section II SP #44-99 Shawnee 88 unit apartment complex; 9.52 ac. of 11- ac. parcel developed (RP) Location: S.E. corner of Valley Mill Rd. (Rt. 659) & Brookland Ln. (Rt. 658) Submitted: 08/18/99 Approved: -Approved: Pending Stonewall Industrial Park, Lots 26, 27, & 28 (SP #42-99 Gainesboro 10,450 s.f. office/ 154,325 s.f. warehouse; 12.08 ac. parcel (MI) Location: McGhee Road; Stonewall Industrial Park Submitted: 07/30/99 Approved: Pending Shenandoah Valley Baptist Church (SP #40-99) Opequon 2- 756 s.f. additions to existing church bldg. for storage use (RA) Location: 4699 Valley Pike Submitted: 07/12/99 Approved: Pending Fairfax Court (SP #38-99) Opequon Single-family & Multi -family Residential Use Location: Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) Submitted: 07/14/99 Approved: Pendin Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 12 Appleland Sports Center, Inc. (SP #37-99) Back Creek Expansion of existing commercial recreation area; Location: 4490 VaRey Pike Submitted: 07/14/99 Approved: P Pending Kim & Marietta Walls (SP #34-99 Stonewall office (B2); 1.58 ac. parcel (1.0 ac. in City of Winc.; 0.58 ac. in Fred. Co. Location: 909 North Loudoun St. Submitted: 06/22/99 Approved: Pending Winc.-Fred. Co. Chptr. of the American Red Cross SP #23-99) Stonewall 16,160 sq.ft. office facility on 2.0213 ac. 1 1 parcel 2 Location: E. side N. Frederick Pk; approx. 1/4 mi. N. of Wine. Corp. limits Submitted: 05/13/99 Approved: Pending Kim Henry Property - Mini Warehouse (SP #057-98) Stonewall 7,504 s.f. warehouse; 4 ac. developed of a 7.74 ac. site 3 Location: Intersection of Baker Lane & Fort Collier Road Submitted: 08/26/98 Approved: Pending Moffett Property (SP #050-98) Stonewall Metal warehse. addition (4,800 g.s.f.); 1.392 ac. site; 0.465 disturbed (113 Location: 1154 Martinsburg Pike Submitted: 07/21/98 Approved: Pending Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 13 T.P. & Susan Goodman (SP #044-98) Stonewall Hackwood/ Minor Site Plan (RA) Location: 534 Redbud Road Submitted: 06/10/98 -Approved: Pending Southeast Container (SP #001-98) Stonewall District Parking Lot; 0.2 ac. Disturbed on a 59.6 ac. Site (Ml) Location: Ft. Collier Industrial Park Submitted: 01/06/98 Approved: Pending Agape Christian Fellowship Church Sanctuary (SP #005-97) Shawnee 1 Church Expansion; 2.5 ac. to be developed of a 29.5115 ac. site (RA) Location: East side of Rt. 642; approx. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/1-81 Interch . Submitted: 02/12/97 Approved: Pending Shenandoah Bldg. Supply (SP #056-96) Gainesboro Warehouse on 5 acres (Ml) Location: 195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park) Submitted: 12/16/96 Approved: Pending Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube Service (SP #030-96) Opequon Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive - 1 Thru on 2.97 ac. (B2) Location: 152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store) Submitted: 07/03/96 Approved: Pending Applications Action Summary r Printed February 3, 2000 14 AMOCO/House of Gifts (SP #022-96) Gainesboro Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a 0.916 acre parcel (RA) Location: 3548 North Frederick Pike Submitted: 05/08/96 l� Approved: I Pending I American Legion Post #021 (SP #018-96) Stonewall Addition to lodge building on 3.4255 acre site (132) Location: 1730 Berryville Pike Submitted: 04/10/96 Approved: Pending CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: Edwin L. Lambert, Jr. (CUP #01-00) Stonewall Cottage Occupation - Contractor Location: 1521 Cedar Hill Road, Clearbrook Submitted: 12/27/99 PC Review: 02/02/00 - recommended approval w/ conditions BOS Review: 02/23/00 Winchester Motor Service - The Van Man (CUP #30-99) Stonewall Public garage w/o body repair (RA) Location: 2372 Berryville Pike Submitted: 12/10/99 PC Review: 01/05/00 - recommended approval w/ conditions BOS Review: 01/26/00 - approved w/ conditions Applications Action Summary s Printed February 3, 2000 15 John C. & Claire A. Bellingham (CUP #29-99) Back Creek Counseling Practice (RP) Location: 200 Crestwood Lane Submitted: 12/01/99 PC Review: 01/5/00 - recommended approval w/ conditions BOS Review: 01/26/00 - approved w/ conditions SBA, Inc. (Richard Miller Cooley Property) (CUP #03-99) Opequon Commercial Telecommun. Facility: 250' self-supporting lattice tower (RA) Location: 173 Catlett Lane, Middletown Submitted: 03/12/99 PC Review: 04/07/99 - tabled at the applicant's request for 90 days to 07/07/99; 07/07/99 - tabled at the applicant's request for 30 days to 08/04/99 08/04/99 - tabled at the applicant's request indefinitely BOS Review: not yet scheduled VARIANCES: Lawrence Coverstone Estate Stonewall 20' front yd. setbk var.; 35' side yd. (VAR #10-99) setbk var.; & a var. to floor area re mts. applicable to access. dwellin s Location: So. side of High Banks Rd. (Rt. 660), bordering Opeq. Crk., approx. 1,900' west of the Rt. 660/664 intersection. Submitted: 11/23/99 BZA Review: 12/21/99 -rescheduled to 01/18/00; 01/18/00 -tabled the 20' front yd. setbk var. & 35' side yd. setbk var. until 02/15/00; and denied the var. to floor area requirements applicable to accessory dwellings; 01/25/00 - applicant withdrew request for 20' front yd. setbk var. & 35' side yd. setbk variance. Applications Action Summary Printed February 3, 2000 16 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director RE: 2000-2005 Agricultural and Forestal District Update DATE: February 1, 2000 of Planning and Development 5401 6,55-565? FAX: 540/673-9,6;32 The Frederick County Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) will review the proposed update to the County's three Agricultural and Forestal Districts on February 7, 2000. These districts include the South Frederick District, established in 1980, and the Double Church Road and Refuge Church Road Districts, established in 1995. All three districts will be up for renewal in March 2000. Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, enables local governments to establish Agricultural and Forestal Districts to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural products and to provide natural and ecological resources. The Code of Virginia requires the local governing body to establish an ADAC for the purpose of reviewing proposals that establish or renew districts to ensure conformity with the provisions of section 15.2-4300. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors approves, approves with modifications, or denies the proposal to establish or renew an Agricultural and Forestal District. The Code of Virginia provides assurances to property owners who voluntarily place their land into an Agricultural and Forestal District. These assurances include: Land lying within a district automatically qualifies for land use value assessment, even if the locality does not offer that program. 2. Local governments cannot enact laws or ordinances which would unreasonably restrict or regulate farming practices or farm structures unless the restrictions have a direct relationship to public health and safety. No special district for sewer, water or electricity or for nonfarm or nonforest drainage may impose benefit assessments or special tax levies on the basis of frontage, acreage, or value on land within a district that is utilized for agricultural or forestal purposes. 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22,501-5000 Page -2- Agricultural District Memo February 1, 2000 4. State agencies, political subdivisions, and public utilities that desire to obtain more than one acre on any parcel within a district or more than 10 acres in total within the district, are required to receive approval to do so through a public hearing process which involves recommendations by the ADAC, the Planning Commission, and a final decision for approval of denial by the Board of Supervisors. Included with this memorandum is a map which delineates the general boundaries of each district, and information pertaining to the three Agricultural and Forestal Districts which includes a district summary and property ownership information tables. Staff will present the recommendations of the ADAC to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, as well as additional mapping features for each Agricultural and Forestal District. Staff will request a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission which will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final action during their March 8, 2000 meeting. U:\Evan\Common\PROJECTS\2000-2005 Agricultural & Forestal District\PlarmingCommissionPub4cHearing02l600Mecting.wpd 5117.1 In DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . .... --------- District Summary: 0 1,106.96 acres are proposed for renewal for the 2000-2005 District. a 27 parcels are proposed for inclusion which are under 14 separate ownerships. • 1,405.31 acres are currently in the 1995-2000 District; therefore, this update will result in the loss of 298.35 acres. A..4..A..P .4 . .... . ��:?ROPMTY OWNER.ACREAGE 85-A-126 Clayton Hartley, Jr. 22.42 85 -A -131A Louis Stelzl 24.74 85-A-139 Gary & Stephen Scothorn 103.60 85-A-140 Charles Racey 132.15 86 -A -21A Herbert Painter 6.34 86-A-23 Herbert Painter 0.25 86-A-25 Louis Stelzl 150.50 86-A-27 Arthur Ritenour, Jr. 10.50 86-A-32 Stuart Madagan 80.97 86 -A -32A Nelson Clevenger 7.14 86-A-33 Louis Stelzl 0.12 86-A-35 Louis Stelzl 111.00 86-A-39 Kay Rosenberger 22.00 86-A-46 Herbert Painter 29.00 86-A-70 Kenneth Wymer 28.98 86-A-7213 Kenneth Wymer 10.21 86-A-228 Howard White 91.50 86-A-232 Howard White 66.22 MAP #' PR��PERTY OWNER ACREAGE 86-A-241 Karl Copp 10.59 86-A-242 William Ireland 3.00 86-A-245 John Booth 0.50 86-A-250 Howard White 9.00 86-A-254 Howard White — 5.00 86-A-264 Arthur Ritenour, Jr. 0.50 86 -A -264A Arthur Ritenour, Jr. 0.53 86-A-266 Nelson Clevenger 74.26 93-A-79 Stuart Madagan 105.94 REFUGE CHURCH ROAD AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT District Summary: • 335.76 acres are proposed for renewal for the 2000-2005 District, • 13 parcels are proposed for inclusion which are under 6 separate ownerships. • 366.80 acres are currently in the 1995-2000 District; therefore, thi's update will result in the loss of 31.04 acres. M ..... ......... . .... .. . . .. . ... ... ... ..... ..... .... ... PROPERTY OWNER ..... ........... � ACREAGE;! .... .. .. . ... . ... .... . .. ... 93-A-16 James Greene 100.00 93-A-17 Dale Ballenger 39.97 93 -A- I 7B James Greene 71,83 93-A-20 Austin Conner 34.00 93-A-22 Raymond Conner 26.00 93-A-23 Raymond Conner 32900 93-A-36 Donald Jones 3.00 93-A-37 Donald Jones 0.50 93-A-38 David Hartley 2.00 93-A-48 David Hartley 2.50 93-A-49 David Hartley 10.00 93-2-2 Austin Conner 5.96 93-2-4 Raymond Conner 8.00 SOUTH FREDERICK AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . District Summary: • 11,924.71 acres are proposed for renewal for the 2000-2005 District. • 178 parcels are proposed for inclusion. • 15,105.98 acres are currently in the 1995-2000 District; therefore," this update will result in the loss of 3181.27 acres. PROPERTY OWNER..ACREAGE 51-A-42 James Merriner 24.50 51-A-108 Fruit IFE11 Orchard, Inc. 102.00 51-3-12 Fruit Iffill Orchard, Inc. 3.06 52 -A -124A Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 12.08 52-A-300 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 305.43 52-A-305 Cloverdale Farms, Inc. 433.01 60-A-25 Mark Secrist 13.53 60-A-27 Mark Secrist 33.48 60-A-73 Thomas Fawcett 113.80 60-A-7313 Robert Fawcett 16.00 60-A-75 Triple S Associates 39.03 60-A-77 Thomas Fawcett 9.75 61-A-7 Roland Snapp 109.51 61-A-8 Roland Snapp 5.00 61 -A -8A Roland Snapp 5.00 61-A-9 Roland Snapp 97.00 61-A-21 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 34.00 MAP # PROPERTY OWNER ACREAGE 61-A-22 Vernon Wright 89.48 61-A-23 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 154.75 61-A-24 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 20.16 61-A-25 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 5.50 61-A-26 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. — 4.50 61-A-27 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 4.00 61-A-28 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 3.00 61-A-29 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 1.25 61-A-30 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 44.00 61-A-31 Lawrence Nelson 52.32 61-A-34 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 14.00 61-A-37 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 11.60 61-A-40 Roland Snapp 28.00 61-A-41 Roland Snapp 42.00 61-A-42 Snapp Brothers 42.00 61-A-43 Wayne Snapp 7.50 61-A-43A Wayne Snapp 37.50 61-A-43B Wayne Snapp 10.00 61-A-44 Roland Snapp 2.00 61-A-45 Thomas Fawcett 35.99 61-A-48 Carlton Snapp 28.00 61-A-49 Carlton Snapp 1.00 61-A-76 Sue Boyd 6.86 61-A-77 Eugene Kerns 36.22 61-A-106 Marker Miller Orchards, L.P. 42.00 61-A-107 Marker Miller Orchards, L.P. 19.00 61-A-116 Marker Miller Orchards, L.P. 49.00 61-A-117 Marker Miller Orchards, L.P. 29.00 MAP # PROPERTY OWNER ` ACREAGE 61-A-118 Marker Miller Orchards, L.P. 77.50 61-A-119 Marker Miller Orchards, L.P. 16.00 61-A-120 Marker Miller Orchards, L.P. 9.92 61-A-126 Marker Miller Orchards, L.P. 11.00 61 -A -126A Marker Miller Orchards, L.P. 4.81 61-A-127 Marker Miller Orchards, L.P. 166.62 61-A-128 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 137.50 61-A-129 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 48.00 61-A-130 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 30.00 61-A-131 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 7.75 61-A-132 Long Creek Farm, Inc. 78.97 61-A-133 Long Creek Farm, Inc. 13.25 62-A-23 Dr. Robert Boyd 262.00 62-A-26 Edward Copenhaver Trust 0.25 62-A-27 Edward Copenhaver Trust 1.00 62-A-28 Edward Copenhaver Trust 76.00 62-A-29 Ruble Enterprises, L.P. 233.86 62-A-35 Long Creek Farm, Inc. 130.84 62-A-40 Long Creek Farm, Inc. 250.00 62-A-53 John Rudolph 88.87 62-A-69 Cloverdale Farms, Inc. 138.56 62 -A -72G Triple S Associates 0.85 63-A-1 Triple S Associates 198.51 63-A-11) Triple S Associates 63.91 72-A-3 L.V. Ridings 33.50 72-A-12 Roland Snapp 89.75 72-A-22 Philip Brumback 43.35 72-A-23 Harvey Brumback 144.00 lIAI' # PROPERTY OWNER ACREAGE 72-A-25 Philip Brumback 18.00 72 -A -29L Jeffrey Stout 15.85 72-A-30 Anna Richard 72.50 72-A-31 Steven Black 38.11 72 -A -31B Steven Black — 6.88 72-A-36 John Fout 68.95 72-A-38 John Fout 36.00 72-A-44 Dogwood Knoll, L.C. 6.75 72-A-45 Dogwood Knoll, L.C. 5.25 72-A-46 Dogwood Knoll, L.C. 128.00 72-A-53 Albert McDonald 197.00 72-A-54 Philip Brumback 105.00 72-A-58 Vasiliki Baughman 168.50 72-A-59 Vasiliki Baughman 20.00 72-A-60 Charles Bauserman, Jr. 15.00 72-A-82 Constance Meagher 12.00 72-A-83 Constance Meagher 0.50 72-A-85 Roy McDonald 12.25 73-A-3 VPI & State University 119.78 73-A-9 Dogwood Knoll, L.C. 19.50 73-A-10 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 190.80 73-A-11 Walter Miller, Jr. 5.00 73 -A-11 C Walter Miller, Jr. 21.90 73-A-12 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 2.64 73-A-13 Alfred Snapp, Jr. 84.69 73-A-16 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 134.21 73-A-17 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 160.00 73-A-18 Charles Bauserman 135.93 73-A-19 Stanley Bauserman 197.51 73-A-20 Charles Bauserman 234.43 73-A-21 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 271.00 73-A-24 L.V. Ridings 10.00 73-A-27 L.V. Ridings — 4.00 73-A-28 L.V. Ridings 4.00 73-A-29 L.V. Ridings 45.57 73-A-30 Dudley Rinker 4.83 73-A-3013 Shirley Anderson 5.95 73 -A -30D Suzanne Walsh 17.99 73 -A -30E Dudley Rinker 1.01 73 -A -30H Joseph Swack 6.15 73 -A -30I Dudley Rinker 6.43 73-A-31 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 83.62 73-A-32 James Brumback 4.73 73-A-39 David Carbaugh 11.90 73-A-63 Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. 240.17 73-A-65 Frank Brumback 5.00 73-A-66 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 290.01 73-A-67 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 18.00 73-A-73 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 45.54 73-A-93 James Musser 1.50 73-A-94 L.V. Ridings 12.35 73-A-95 Rinker Properties, L.C. 22.50 73-A-97 H & E, L.C. 89.63 73-A-99 Rinker Properties, L.C. 46.92 73 -A -99A Rinker Properties, L.C. 38.58 73-A-100 Paul Anderson 100.00 MAP # PROPERTY OWNER ACREAGE 73-A-101 Stanley Bauserman 69.00 73-A-102 Rinker Properties, L.C. 52.80 73-A-103 James Huey 24.40 73-A-104 Kent Barley, Inc. 111.80 74-A-5 Long Creek Farm, Inc. - 20.00 74-A-10 Charles Glover 1.18 74 -A -10E Gary DeOms 3.13 74-A-12 Glenn Barley 9.00 74-A-13 Kent Barley, Inc 139.86 74 -A -13A Kent Barley, Inc 27.32 74-A-14 Philip Whitney 2.00 74-A-15 Philip Whitney 3.00 74-A-18 Kent Barley, Inc 188.00 74-A-34 Gary Holder 0.20 74-A-47 Long Creek Farm, Inc. 73.26 74-A-48 Long Creek Farm, Inc. 14.25 74-A-51 Long Creek Farm, Inc. 31.86 74-A-52 Long Creek Farm, Inc. 44.00 74-A-53 Long Creek Farm, Inc. 22.50 74-A-64 Charles Brown 76.00 74-A-65 Long Creek Farm, Inc. 275.05 74-A-66 Long Creek Farm, Inc. 109.00 74 -A -75A Long Creek Farm, Inc. 20.50 83 -A -1C Snapp Brothers 151.21 83-A-100 Winston Huffman 11.00 84-A-1 Albert McDonald 214.34 84-A-2 Constance Meagher 66.50 84-A-6 Constance Meagher 60.00 MAP # MPMY OWNER ACREAGE 84-A-16 Garrett Farms, Inc. 104.00 84-A-17 H & E, L.C. 105.50 84-A-29 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 106.46 84-A-40 Alfred Snapp, Jr. 69.30 84 -A -40A Alfred Snapp, Jr. — 46.00 84-A-41 Donald Redmiles 6.00 84-A-44 L.. V. Ridings 51.95 84-A-46 Kahn, LLC 149.95 84 -A -47B Roy McDonald 131.85 84-A-48 Roy McDonald 204.09 84 -A -48A Roy McDonald 6.43 84 -A -49B Roy McDonald 25.70 84-A-50 Woodbine Farms, Inc. 197.00 84-6-21 John Scully, IV 42.71 85-A-1 Kent Barley, Inc 189.00 85-A-3 Margaret Pfahl 175.00 90-A-10 Garrett Farms, Inc. 202.00 90-A-20 Garrett Farms, Inc. 92.25 90-A-21 Garrett Farms, Inc. 29.57 91 -A -8A Douglas Beatty 1.40 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/673-0632 MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commission Members From: Christopher M. Mohn, Planner II Subject: Public Hearing: Proposed Amendment to the Height Limitations; Exceptions Section of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Date: February 4, 2000 A request has been submitted by Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin of G.W. Clifford & Associates to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit general office uses in the B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning Districts and hotel and motel uses in the B2 (Business General) District to exceed the maximum permitted height of3 5'. Staffpresented a proposed amendment to Section 165-24., Height Limitations; Exceptions, of the Zoning. Ordinance to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their January 27, 2000, meeting. Following discussion, the DRRS endorsed the proposed amendment. Summary: Specifically, this amendment would exempt general office and hotel and motel uses in the B2 District and general office uses in the B3 District from the maximum height requirement of 35'. The amendment further stipulates that the height of such buildings may not exceed 60'. As with all other height exceptions, general office and hotel buildings that are developed to a scale exceeding the maximum height requirement would be subject to a corresponding setback requirement equivalent to one (1) foot of additional setback area for every one (1) foot of height above 35'. The proposed amendment is intended to facilitate the development of general office and hotel buildings that consist of approximately four to five stories in height. It is important to note that such building designs reflect the industry standard; therefore, the economic viability of general office and hotel development in the commercial zones of Frederick County may arguably be dependant upon increasing the maximum permissible height applicable to these uses. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, 'Virginia 221601-50!G,0 Proposed Amendment to Height Limitations Page 2 February 4, 2000 Review of Planning Commission Discussion: Following the Planning Commission's discussion regarding this issue during the February 2, 2000, meeting, staff has added language to clarify the proposed amendment as requested. It is important to note that pursuant to Section 165-37.A.(3) of the Zoning Ordinance, when development is proposed within 1,000 feet of existing uses, the Planning Commission may require increased buffer distances or additional screening should they be deemed necessary to mitigate anticipated impacts. Staff believes that such authority may address the concern expressed by some members regarding the adequacy of standard buffer and screening requirements to protect adjacent residential uses from buildings developed in excess of the maximum height requirement of 35'. Indeed, it is possible for staff to present any site plan involving hotel or general office development that is adjacent to existing residential development to the Commission for review and comment regarding the need for additional buffer distances, regardless of the proposed building height. If appropriate, such authority may be reiterated through the addition of language to the proposed amendment. Attached for your reference is the existing language of Section 165-24, as well as the proposed addition. Following receipt of public comments, a recommendation to forward to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. Staff will be available to address your questions and concerns. CNEWch Attachment U: IChrisl commonW mendmentslPC MemosUleight Exception for General Office and Hotel Uses. wpd Editorial Key: Text presently in Zoning Ordinance prQp4sec text;a mons Article IV Supplementary Use Regulations § 165-24. Height limitations; exceptions. [Amended 4-10-1991] A. No structure shall exceed the height limitations described in this chapter. B. Exceptions to height requirements. (1) The maximum height requirements shall not apply to the following: (a) Barns and silos. (b) Belfries. (c) Bulkheads. (d) Chimneys. (e) Church spires and towers. (f) Flagpoles. (g) Monuments. (h) Domes and skylights. (i) Masts and aerials. (j) Radio and television transmission towers and commercial telecommunication facilities. [Amended 4-9-1997] (k) Smokestacks and cooling towers. (1) Utility poles and towers. (m) Water tanks § 165-24 ZONING § 165-25 (n) Windmills (2) Parapet walls may be up to four (4) feet above the height of the building on which the walls rest. (3) Solar collectors, air conditioners and other mechanical equipment may exceed the height limitations if they are screened from the public view of surrounding properties and rights-of-way. (4) Automated storage facilities in the M1 and M2 Zoning Districts shall be exempt from the maximum height requirement. This exemption shall be granted only when the facility is provided with full sprinkling for fire protection according to the specifications of applicable codes. Such exemptions shall be approved by the Frederick County Fire Marshal. In no case shall the height of these facilities exceed one hundred (100) feet in height. (5) (6) O:\Agendas\Amendments\HeightLimitations.wpd All of the above exceptions shall be allowed only if they accomplish the purpose for which they are intended, if they are not intended for human occupancy and if they do not infringe on the solar access of surrounding properties. If any of the above exceptions exceed the height limitation of the proposed zoning district, the structure shall be:requi:red to be set back the normal setback far r€rec. br �tancplus one (1 ) foot for every foot over the maximum allowed height of that zoning district. [Added 6-9-1993] PC REVIEW DATE: 02-16-00 BOS REVIEW DATE: 03-08-00 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #02-00 CROSS CREEK VILLAGE LOCATION: The property is located on the north side of Apple Valley Road (Route 652), approximately 400 feet north of the intersection of Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road (Route 651), and is adjacent to the Woodbrook Village development. _ MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 63-A-40 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North - Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District South - Zoned: MI (Light Industrial) District RP (Residential Performance) District East - Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District West - Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District PROPOSED USE: 91 Single-family small lot residences REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Use: Woodbrook Village Opequon Presbyterian Church Use: Vacant (future Coca-Cola site) Residential; Vacant Use: Plainfield Heights; Residential Use: Kernstown Battlefield Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to preliminary master plan. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition, for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of- way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to construction on the State's right-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work. Cross Creek Village, MDP #02-00 Page 2 February 3, 2000 Sanitation Authority: First review - correct and resubmit, two items. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time; shall comment on lots at the time of subdivision review. Fire Marshal: Fire hydrants installed per Chapter 90 of Frederick County Code. Plan approval recommended. County Engineer: A full review will be performed at the time of full subdivision plan submittal. Due to existing drainage problems within Plainfield Heights, stormwater from the stormwater pond along the eastern portion of the, subdivision will need to be properly routed so as not to cause additional drainage problems. Parks and Recreation: Plan appears to meet open space requirements. The Parks and Recreation department will need additional information on the proposed recreation units before commenting on the suitability for this development. City of Winchester: No comment. Planning and Zoning: Site History The original Zoning Map for Frederick County (U. S. G. S. Winchester Quadrant) depicts the 42.68 acres as R3, Residential General District. This acreage was reclassified as RP (Residential Performance) District on September 28, 1983 when this zoning district replaced the R1, R2, R3, and R6 zoning districts. Frederick County approved Master Development Plan #004-97 for two parcels containing 42.68 acres on December 10, 1997. This plan called for the development of 81 multiplex residential units and 81 single family zero lot line residential units. The first phase of this project, identified as Woodbrook Village, is currently under construction. Approximately 75% of the multiplex residential units have been built or are under construction to date. Project Scope The proposed master development plan has been revised to eliminate the 81 single family zero lot line residential units and incorporate 91 single family small lot residential units on lots that are a minimum of 3,800 square feet. The development of 91 single family small lot residential units would create an overall gross density of 4.03 units per acre for the 42.68 -acre project, which is less than the density of 5.5 units per acre as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Cross Creek Village, MDP #02-00 Page 3 February 3; 2000 The minimum lot size requires the developer to provide curb and gutter along all public and private streets, sidewalks along all public and private streets, and street lights at all street intersections. One public street, identified as Cross Creek Lane, is proposed to provide access from Apple Valley Road into this site. All other streets serving the single family small lot residential units are proposed to be private. The applicant has proposed to provide an inter -parcel connector to the adjoining Woodbrook Village subdivision to facilitate safe and efficient access to Valley Pike (Route 11 South) via Apple Valley Road. Site Suitability The 23.0894 -acre tract that is proposed for the Cross Creek Village development has approximately 600 feet of frontage along Apple Valley Road which would allow for the development of a right turn lane for safe ingress and egress. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has existing water and sewer infrastructure adjacent to this tract which would serve the development. The 23.0894 -acre tract contains a pond that is approximately 0. 15 acres in area. The 23.0894 -acre portion ofthe master development plan drains towards the Woodbrook Village and Plainfield Heights subdivisions; therefore, the applicant has identified two stormwater management facilities to intercept stormwater runoff at these locations. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify significant historic features within the project site; however, the Kernstown Battlefield site and the Opequon Presbytcrian Church adjoin the 42.68 acres along the western property boundary. Issues 1) Site Access The proposed Cross Creek Lane intersection with Apple Valley Road appears to align with the entrance into the Coca-Cola property located on the south side of Apple Valley Road; however, it is not clear as the Coca-Cola entrance is not delineated on this plan. The final master development plan will need to delineate the Coca-Cola entrance and adjust Cross Creek Lane accordingly if necessary to ensure appropriate alignments between these projects. 2) Inter Parcel Connector The master development plan identifies an access easement between the Woodbrook Village and Cross Creek Village developments. The purpose of this access easement is to accommodate an inter -parcel connector between the two subdivisions, or to provide an emergency access facility for fire and rescue services. Staff met with the applicant, the project engineer, and members of the Woodbrook Village Homeowners Association Board of Directors (WVHABD) on January 25, 2000 to discuss this issue. The WVHABD believed Cross Creek Village, MDP #02-00 Page 4 February 3, 2000 that the inter -parcel connector may provide a benefit to their association to facilitate safe and efficient access to Valley Pike via Apple Valley Road, provided that they could establish certain controls to prohibit through traffic movements. Methods that were discussed to prohibit through traffic movement included horizontal curvature street design, the use of speed bumps, or a gated mechanism that could only be accessed by residents within each subdivision. The Virginia Department of Transportation has acknowledged that a traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Valley Pike and Apple Valley Road by June 2000. This signalization improvement will occur prior to the development of the access easement; therefore, the residents of Woodbrook Village would be provided with a second means of access to Valley Pike which would allow for controlled left turn movements. The WVHABD did not formally endorse the inter -parcel connector concept during the January 25, 2000 meeting; therefore, the applicant will need to advise the Planning Commission how this access easement will be improved. 3) Pond Disturbance The master development plan calls for the removal of the existing 0.15 -acre pond site and the development of residential units and a portion of Butterscotch Court in this location. Section 165-31(B)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance provides the Zoning Administrator with the authority to allow for the removal of a pond if certain conditions are met. The Zoning Administrator has not been contacted by the applicant to discuss this issue to date. The Zoning Administrator has advised staff that a field review of this pond area will need to be conducted by the County Engineer to determine if it is appropriate to situate housing and a roadway in this location. 4) Zoning District Buffer The 23.0894 -acre portion of the master development plan is located directly across Apple Valley Road from the Coca-Cola parcel which is zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District. The Zoning Ordinance requires the provision of an "A Category"buffer along the frontage of the Cross Creek Village development. The final master development plan will need to delineate this area and insure that structures are located outside of the required buffer. 5) Private Street Sidewalk Waiver Section 165-29(A)(14) of the Zoning Ordinance provides the Planning Commission with the authority to waive the requirement for sidewalks along private roads provided that another recreational amenity is substituted for the sidewalk. The applicant has requested that the Planning Commission grant a waiver to this requirement based on an alternative design for the Cross Creek Village subdivision. Please find included in your agenda package a letter from Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E., to Evan Wyatt dated February 2, 2000, and two attachments which depict the required sidewalk design and the proposed alternative design in which a waiver is being sought. 0 Cross Creek Village, MDP #02-00 Page 5 February 3, 2000 6) Evergreen Planting Adjacent To Plainfield Heights The master development plan delineates a residential separation buffer between the Woodbrook Village subdivision phase and the Plainfield Heights subdivision along the eastern property line. This residential separation buffer is required due to the development of multiplex units adjacent to single family units. Staff believes that it would be appropriate for the applicant to provide a single row of evergreen plantings along the remainder of the Plainfield Heights boundary line to adequately screen the remaining three lots within Plainfield Heights from the stormwater management facility and the Cross Creek Village development. This is not a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, the applicant will need to advise the Planning Commission if they are amenable to this concept. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 02-16-00 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposed master development plan is consistent with the policies for suburban residential development as specified in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The overall gross density and general site layout are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant will need to address the issues identified by staff and advise the PIanning Commission how these issues will be designated on the final master development plan. The Planning Commission should determine if there are additional issues that should be addressed by the applicant when forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\MDP's\CrossCreek Village.MDP.wpd gillbert w. clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Surveyors Land Planners — Water Quality 2 February 2000 Mr. Evan Wyatt Frederick County Planning Department 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Cross Creek Dear Evan, Board of Directors: President: Thomas J. O'Toole_, P.E. Vice Presidents: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland. P.E. Ronald A Mislowsky, P.E. David J. Saunders, P.E. Directors: P. Duane Drown, L.S. William L. Wright Michael A Hammer Thomas W. Price The current ordinance requirement for the small lot subdivision requires curb and gutter and sidewalk along all private roads. The developer feels this requirement would create for too much unnecessary concrete in the Cross Creek development. We are proposing a modified trail network supplemented by creative use of landscaping, walking trails, and benches within the grass islands labeled A through E on the attached sketches. Two plans are provided. One shows the sidewalk layout which would be required. The other shows our proposed alternate. The developer will be providing plans for the grass island treatments separately. ,ease call if you have any questions. Regards, gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. t -Ronald A:lMislowsky, P.E., Vice President RAM/lff Enclosure cc-. Julie Hylton 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 c -mail gwcliff@mnsinc.com AdemherAmerican Consulting Engineers Council CROSS CREEK REQUIRED SIDEWALK PLAN CROSS CREEK PROPOSED MDP #02-00 PIN: 63—A-40 Cross Creek Village Produced by Frederick County Planning and Development, 02-02-00 PC: 02-16-00 BOS: 03-08-00 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application PackaL, - APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN ....::.. Ike artmPla�ii�u ani:et�el� :i�yent 0i p P .--- ------ ::.-......- --- Dt� a�7fiti nate�l� 1. Project Title: Cross Creek Vill 2. Owner's Name: Bowman Trucking Co., Inc. P.O. Box 2598 VA 22601 _Winchester, (Please list the names of all owners or parties in intrest) 3. Applicant: G.W. Clifford & Associates_ Inc. Address c/o Stephen M. Gvurisin 200 N- Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone (540) 667-2139 4. Design Company: G. W Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number (540) 667-2139 l Frederick County, VirLyinia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: Apple Valley Road (Route 652) 6. Total Acreage: 42.5 �, '= : C5,�q 7. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): 63-A-39 / 63-A-40 b) Current Zoning: RP c) Present Use: Residential & Vacant d) Proposed Use: Residential Small Lot e) Adjoining Property Information: Property Identification Property Uses North 63-A-88 Vacant South 63 -A -52A+ Residential East 63-A-38+ Residential West 63-A-40+ Residential + see adjoiner list f) Magisterial District: Back Creek 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan' Original Amended X I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will becompleteprior to the submission of my master development plan apocati�n. Signature: Date: 2 Tax Ma Owner 63 -A -18B Trede ar Trust 63 -A -19A Presb erian Parsona e 63-A-20 Richard A. & Ma Joleen Garber 63-A-21 Richard A. & Mary Joleen Garber b3 -A -24A Richard A. & Ma Joleen Garber 63-A-27 63-A-29 Lisa K. F e & Lindsa M. Zickefoose b3 -A-30 Valle Avenue Rental Properties LLC Ind A Brokers Associates 63-A-38 BettB. Stine & Patricia B. Harrigan 63-A-37 Pe L. Ritter 63 -A -52A Judy K. Michael/Jud Neff 63-A-41 Alvin G & tjIlly G Fletcher 63-A-42 Betty Barton & Charles R. Stine -Betty 63 -A -40A Barton & Charles R. Stine 63-A-43 Emo D. Wilson 63-A-44 Emory D. Wilson 63-A-58 6313-1-9 Central Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc 318 Apple Valle Road Winchester, VA 22602 William L. McDonnell 6313-1-10 Nina J. Fleenor Res.,— Res. bert F. &Martha M. Lantz 246 A2ple Valley Road Winchester, VA 22602 246 Apple Valley ert A. McDonaldce EEE M. Plummer/Jo ce M. Duncan Res. �— le Develo ment Grou Inc. 63B-2-65 le Develo ment Grou Inc. Valley Development 6313-2-66 Gro u Inc. Valley Development Group Inc. 6313-2-67 Valley Development Group Inc. 6313-2-68 Valle Development Group Inc. 6313-2-69 Valley Development Group Inc. 6313-2-70 Valley Develo ment Group Inc. 6313-2-71 Valley Development up Inc. 63B-2-72 Valley Development up Inc. 63B-2-73 Valley Deloment Grou Inc. 6313-2-74 Valle Development Group Inc. Address P.O. Box 5 Middleburg, VA 20118 USeZonin 3119 Valle Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Res. 1712 Handley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Reli ious RA 1712 Handle Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Ind. B2 1712 Handle Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Ind. B2 137 O e uon Church Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Ind 132 3186 Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Ind. RP 3202 vallely Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Ind. B3 1 I I W. 10 Street Hobart In 46342 Office B2 3266 Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Ices. Rp 200 Apple Valle Road Winchest6r, VA 22602 Res. Rp 336 Apple Valle Road Res . RP 318 Apple Valle Road Winchester, VA 22602 Res. RP 318 Apple Valle Road Winchester, VA 22602 Res.,— Res. 246 A2ple Valley Road Winchester, VA 22602 246 Apple Valley Res. RP Road Winchester, VA 22602 1706 Roseneath Road Richmond, Res. �— RP RP . VA 23230 122 Plainfield Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Unde—ye —Io p ed RA 120 Plainfield Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Res. RP 118 Plainfield Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Res. Rp 609 Clark Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Res. R 114 Plainfield Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Res. Rp 2055 Valle Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Res. RP 2055 Valle Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Res. Rp 2055 Valle Avenue Winchester VA 22601 Res. RP 2055Valle Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Res. Rp 2055 valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601Res. RP 2055 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Res. RP 2055Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Res. RP 2055 Valle Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Res. RP 2055 Valle Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Res. RP 2055 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Res. RP 2055 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Res. RP 2055 valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Res. RP Res. RP