The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC 04-21-99 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia APRIL 21, 1999 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) March 3, 1999 and March 17, 1999 Minutes ... .................... ..... A 2) Application Action Summary .......................................... B 3) Committee Reports ............................................... (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments .......................... ......................(no tab) DISCUSSION ITEMS 5) Discussion Regarding the Back Creek Elementary School Facility on Middle Road (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... C 6) Discussion Regarding the Handley Regional Library Facility on Tasker Road (Mr. Ruddy) ....................................................... D 7) Discussion Regarding the Proposed Update to the 1999-2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... E 8) Other 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 March 3, 1999. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Back Creek District; and S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Zoning Administrator; Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 6, 1999 AND FEBRUARY 3, 1999 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Light, the minutes of January 6, 1999 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of February 3, 1999 were unanimously approved as presented. APPLICATIONS ACTION SUMMARY Chairman DeHaven accepted the report for the Commission's information. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 311 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Mrs. Copenhaver, subcommittee member, reported that the CPPS will be holding two public meetings on the South Frederick Land Use Study; one on Thursday, March 18, and one on Wednesday, March 31, both at 7:00 p.m., at the Armel School. Economic Development Commission (EDC) Mr. George Romine, Planning Commission liaison to the EDC, reported that the EDC has published the Construction Service Directory and is working on the 1999 Commercial Profile. Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) Mr. Vincent DiBenedetto, member of the Winchester City Planning Commission, stated that the WPC has recommended the subdivision of the Grim Farm. Mr. DiBenedetto said that there has been good cooperation with the City staff and the applicant on the project. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #02-99 of Tybrooke, L.C., submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. to rezone 2.99 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). This property is located on North Frederick Pike (Route 522) at Albin; one mile north of Winchester Bypass (Route 37), and is identified with P.I.N. 42-A-253 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, noted two potential impacts: the Historic Resources Advisory Board has identified an impact to the viewshed of the historic Long Green property and has recommended that vegetative plantings be provided along the rear property line of the site; and second, the results of the Capital Facilities Impact Model run demonstrated a negative fiscal impact to Fire and Rescue Services for capital facilities costs. Mr. Wyatt said that the applicant's proffer statement appears to mitigate the impacts identified by the various review agencies and prohibits eight specific uses that would be permitted in the 132 Zoning District. He added that this site is located within an area that could be reasonably defined as the Albin Rural Community Center; the Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends the provision of commercial development within several community centers, including this one_ Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 312 -3 - Mr. John Lewis of Painter -Lewis, PLC, the design engineers for this rezoning, stated that the proposal is for minor commercial development and will be very restrictive because of two factors: the limited capacity of the drainfield and no fire protection availability. He said that the applicant is looking for small, commercial development, such as small shops that would complement the existing Ridge Country Store. Mr. Lewis said that once this property is rezoned, they intend to file a subdivision application to subdivide the store from the remaining three acres. There were no citizen comments. The Planning Commission believed this site was appropriate for commercial development and no issues of concern were raised. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #02-99 of Tybrooke, L.C:, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. to rezone 2.99 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) with proffers as submitted by the applicant and contingent upon all review agency comments being met. Rezoning Application #03-99 of Aikens & Allen L.P., L.L.P., submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 0.91 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General). This property is located on Ross Street, 90 feet from the intersection with Berryville Avenue (Rt. 7}, near the Rt. 7/1-81 Exit 315 interchange, and is identified with P.I.N.s 177-2-29B (City of Winchester) and 54G -1-13B in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, stated that the commercial property within the City is under development as a hotel and conference center, and the rezoned property within the County would be used for uses accessory to the hotel and conference center, mainly as parking. Mr. Ruddy said that this rezoning will present no impact to Frederick County capital facilities; the proposed uses would not generate any impact on Frederick County Schools, nor Parks and Recreation, and the property will be served by the City of Winchester Fire and Rescue Services. He said that for this reason, the Capital Facilities Impact Model was not run for this rezoning application. Mr. Ruddy added that access to the hotel and conference center is via Ross Street and Berryville Avenue, both within the City of Winchester. He further added that any impacts to the road infrastructure will be mitigated through the City's site plan review process. In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy stated that this 0.91 -acre rezoning request would not negatively impact Frederick County, and any impacts on adjoining properties are minimal and would be mitigated through the implementation of zoning district buffers. He added that the City of Winchester has expressed their support for this application. Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, the design engineers for this application, was available to answer questions from the Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 313 -4 - There were no citizen comments regarding this rezoning application. No issues of concern were raised by the Planning Commission. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval ofRezoning Application #03-99 ofAikens & Allen L.P., L.L.P., submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 0.91 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General). Rezoning Application #04-99 of AMK Products, Inc. submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. to rezone 7.354 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial). This property is located on the south side of Airport Road (Rt. 645), approximately 300 feet west of the intersection with Victory Road (Rt. 728), and is identified with P.I.N. 64-5-4 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers Commissioner Wilson said that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this rezoning application, due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, read the background information and review agency comments. Mr. Wyatt said that this rezoning request is consistent with the policies established in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and is in conformance with the development patterns depicted in the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan and the Airport Support Area. He continued, stating that the language within the proffer statement mitigates the impacts that would be realized by the Fire and Rescue Services, and the monetary amount slightly exceeds the impact demonstrated by the results of the Capital Facilities Impact Model run. A member of the Commission inquired if any other party had proposed to participate in the construction of the relocation of Airport Road (Rt. 645) and, also, if the proposed lot would have access to a state -maintained road. Mr. Wyatt replied that this road was identified in the County's Capital Improvements Plan (CIP); money has been secured from the FAA, as well as State funds and some local contributions that will be used for the engineering, the right-of-way acquisition, and the construction element. Mr. Wyatt stated that at this point in time, the money provided through the CIP is for design and right-of-way purposes; the construction element is still outstanding. He said that this is not on the County's Secondary Road Improvement Plan. He said that the airport, through their CIP, would relocate the road; however, it should be noted that all they are doing is simply relocating the existing road right-of-way. It will be the same two-lane segment that is currently existing on Rt. 645. Mr. Wyatt added that the property would have access to a state -maintained road because the property in front was secured by the airport. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin with G_ W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the design engineers for this rezoning application, along with the owner of the property, Mr. Randolph E. Rodgers, Jr., were present to represent AMK Products, the applicant. Mr. Gyurisin stated that AMK Products is a company from Oklahoma Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 314 -5 - that is relocating its operation to Frederick County. He said that the site plan will show all site improvements and will address the concerns raised about access to existing or future Airport Road. He added that AMK Products is proposing approximately 15,000 square feet of distribution space and they plan to employ 15 people. Another question from the Commission concerned how the applicant planned to address potential traffic impacts. Mr. Gyurisin replied that when they prepare the site plan, once they know exactly the size of the facility, they will prepare a traffic study and analysis for VDOT; this will be submitted to the Planning staff for review. Mr. Gyurisin envisioned they would initially have access from existing Airport Road via a 60' right-of-way provided by the airport; they would be looking at a driveway situation across the two acres owned by the Airport. He said that once the new road is implemented, they would anticipate a permanent situation and they would provide whatever VDOT required. Mr. Gyurisin added that they would install a standard commercial entrance and would align it with any airport entrances. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment, but no one came forward. No other issues of concern were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application #04-99 of AMK Products, Inc., submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone 7.354 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M 1(Light Industrial) with proffers as submitted by the applicant and contingent on all review agency comments being addressed by the applicant. This vote on this recommendation was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Miller, Stone, Ours, Thomas, Romine, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Morris ABSTAIN: Wilson Subdivision Application #04-99 of JASBO, Inc., submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for the subdivision of a 45.6727 -acre M1 (Light Industrial) tract into five lots. The property is located on the west side of Shady Elm Road (Rt. 651), south of Winchester Bypass (Rt. 37), and is identified with P.I.N. 63-A-60 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Zoning Administrator, stated that a master development plan would not be appropriate, nor apply to this site because there are no plans for internal road circulation or storm water management. Mr. Lawrence said that the staff had a concern with the access onto Shady Elm Road and discussed establishing possible easements to limit the number of entrances. He said that staff is recommending that Lots 1 and 2 share an entrance and it should align with Industrial Drive. Lots 3, 4, and 5 should share an Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 315 X9Me entrance and that entrance could be aligned with the entrance into Dawson Investments. Mr. Lawrence explained that one of the benefits to aligning the entrances is that Shady Elm Road is slated by WATS to be a four -lane divided highway and by aligning entrances, there is greater potential for crossovers, etc. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the design engineers for this subdivision, was present to represent the applicant, JASBO, Inc. Mr. Gyurisin stated that they will be dedicating approximately two acres along Shady Ehn Road for additional right-of-way, they have initiated a site plan for the development of Lot 1, and they plan to align the entrance for Lots 1 and 2 as suggested by the staff. He continued, stating that they will align future entrances for the remaining lots with the existing entrances across the street. Mr. Gyurisin informed the Commission that Lot 1 will be occupied by a local company which is planning to expand and relocate here. He said that the lot is served by Winchester City's utilities. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment, however, no one came forward to speak. No issues of concern were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision Application #04-99 of JASBO, Inc., submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. for the subdivision of a 45.6727 -acre, M1 -tract into five lots contingent upon the applicant satisfying all the review agency comments. Subdivision Application #10-99 of Viola M. Destefano, submitted by Dove & Associates, for the subdivision of a 1.0282 -acre RP tract into two lots. The property is located at the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522) and Bentley Avenue, and is identified with P.I.N. 64-2-A in the Shawnee District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Zoning Administrator, stated that the master development plan has been waived for this project, based on the scale of the subdivision proposal. Mr. Lawrence said that this is an older, established lot surrounded by the Chapel Hill subdivision which contains 15,000 square foot lots (this is a 45,000 square foot lot). He said that the applicant wishes to divide it in half, the original house will remain on the front portion and a 15,000 square foot lot will be created in the rear, with access onto Bentley Avenue. In addition, Mr. Lawrence stated that the lot in the rear will be made part of the Chapel Hill subdivision. A member of the Commission inquired if the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 1 would be in violation of the front setbacks bordering Bentley Avenue, if the subdivision was approved. Mr. Lawrence replied that it would, however, it is legally nonconforming. Mr. Edward Dove, President of Dove & Associates, was representing the applicant and contract purchaser, Valley Development Group, Inc., which is part of Oakcrest, the developer and builder of Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 316 -7 - Chapel Hill subdivision. Mr. Dove said that the owner, Ms. Viola M. Destefano, desires to sell her house and purchase a smaller home. Mr. Dove explained that Mr. James T. Vickers, one of the principals of Valley Development Group, Inc., will include the new 15,000 square foot lot within the Chapel Hill subdivision, as far as restrictive covenants are concerned. A member of the Commission said that if the lot is to legally become part of Chapel Hill, it will need to be reflected in the plat. It was also suggested by the Commission that Mr. Dove's client move the existing entrance on Route 522 over to Bentley Avenue. There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision Application # 10-99 of Viola M. Destefano, submitted by Dove & Associates, for the subdivision of a 1.0282 -acre RP tract into two lots with the stipulation that it be designated as a part of the Chapel Hill subdivision and also contingent upon the applicant satisfying all review agency comments. The following three rezoning applications were presented together, however, each of the rezonings were acted on individually. Rezoning #05-99 of Giles Farm, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 140.2 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), and 12.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). This property is located on the north side of Senseny Road, 850 feet east of Beans Pond Lane, across from the Burning Knolls and C.M. Lockhart subdivisions, and adjacent to the Bedford Village and Apple Ridge subdivisions, and is identified with P.I.N. 65-A-39 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Tabled; Applicant Waived Time Requirement Rezoning #06-99 of Sheppard/Futral, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 132.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). This property is located on Eddy's Lane (Route 820), approximately 0.8 miles from the intersection with Valley Mill Road and adjacent to the Apple Ridge and Senseny Glen subdivisions, and is identified with P.I.N.s 55-A-209, 55-A-211, 55-A-213 and 65-A-40 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Tabled; Applicant Waived Time Requirement Rezoning #07-99 of Lynnehaven, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 81.4 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), and 10.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). This property is located west of Beans Pond Lane, 400 feet from the intersection with Senseny Road, and adjacent to the Carlisle Heights subdivision, and is identified with P.I.N.s 55-A-206, 65-A-30 and 65-A-31 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Tabled; Applicant Waived Time Requirement Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 317 WE Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, read the background information and review agency comments for each of the three rezoning applications. He said that the cumulative total for all three rezonings is approximately 355 acres to be rezoned from RA to RP with the remaining 22 acres being rezoned from RA to B2. Mr. Wyatt pointed out the location of each of the properties on display maps. Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that three potential impacts have been identified by the staff. transportation, school facilities, and solid waste convenience centers. He said that the proposal is consistent with the land use patterns identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the general road network layout is consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan's Eastern Road Plan Map. Mr. Wyatt said that the Frederick County Public Schools and the County Engineer express concern with the impacts this proposal would create to their facilities, while staff has identified the need to adjust secondary road improvement priorities to fund future improvements to the road systems within the proximity of the properties. Mr. Wyatt added that the applicant's proffer statement provides significant concessions to offset the impacts created by the rezoning; however, the staff has concerns regarding the ambiguity of some of the proffered conditions which could make the timing for enforcement difficult. He said that the staff believes that many of these issues could be clarified through the submittal of a proffered generalized development plan which ties the proffered conditions for the construction of building lots, road segments, traffic signalization, pedestrian walkways, and other applicable development issues into a specific phasing plan. A member of the Commission asked the staff if the WATS plan shows Channing Drive going out to Route 50. Mr. Wyatt replied that Channing is defined as a major collector road and is ultimately envisioned to provide access from Route 7 all the way through to Route 50 East, however, this application alone would not get it there. He said that the ultimate design of the various subdivisions in this area, as they come into development, eventually would. Mr. Sager stated that a 15 -acre portion has been proffered for a school site; however, the County normally only looks at sites for schools that are 25-30 acres. Mr. Wyatt pointed out that normally, the County looks at larger school sites because there is a partnership with the County Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. Wyatt explained that this site would strictly accommodate a school and would not have a Parks & Recreation opportunity; he explained that the School System is very aware of this site and are studying the property's feasibility. Mr. Sager said that he is concerned because just across the street, over in the Redbud area, there is a 100+ acre site which the County had designed for schools, and it seems like a moot point to designate another school site less than a mile away. Another Commissioner said that ifthe parcels are considered together, there will be 355 acres of RP -zoned land which will require a minimum of 15% and a maximum of 30% open space, which calculates to approximately 56 acres of open space. It was pointed out that if you subtract the 15 -acre school site and the areas of steep slopes, there may be only 28 acres of "building property" that would need to go into open space on this development, which is not much of a contribution. Mr. Mark Smith with Greenway Engineering, the design engineers for the three rezonings, gave a brief history of how the project proposal and overall road network was accomplished. Mr. Smith explained that approximately in June of 1998, a couple of local builders were considering the Giles farm for development. He stated that in working with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, they proposed a revised road network that the Commission has reviewed several times and endorsed. He said that they arrived at a situation Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 318 where they realized that Channing Drive needed to be built and that aroused consideration of the Lynnhaven project. Mr. Smith said that a cost-sharing arrangement to build Channing Drive was worked out. He explained that as feasibility studies continued, along with discussions on the development potential of the property, the sewer capacity issues were considered, which brought the third property into play, the Sheppard/Futral property. He said that although the Sheppard/Futral property owners do not want to sell their property for a few years, they wanted to be included in the future planning effort. Mr. Smith next discussed the neighborhood commercial area, the entrance and streetscaping, the community recreation center, and the trail system. Regarding the school site, Mr. Smith said that they've had three meetings with representatives of the school system. He said that school representatives agreed to the 15 acres, partly because they will be provided road access, water and sewer, and off-site storm water management. Mr. Smith next discussed the proffers dealing with road planning and water issues. He believed the biggest commitment was the $75,000 that will be available at the time of rezoning for a traffic signal and improvements to Senseny and Greenwood Roads. He added that a pump station, designed to serve all three properties, will be built by the developers and then turned over to the Sanitation Authority for ownership and maintenance. Mr. Smith continued, stating that meetings were held with various homeowners groups and most of the attendees said they did not have problems with the plan, but were more concerned with the affect of increased development on the school system and the quality of education. Mr. Smith requested that the rezonings be tabled without a time frame, so they could rework the proffers in an acceptable fashion. There was discussion between the Commission and Mr. Smith about the traffic situation. Commission members believed that a detailed traffic analysis needed to be submitted by the applicant. Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT's Resident Engineer, and Mr. Norman Sparks, VDOT's Assistant Resident Engineer, came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Commission members wanted to know what level of service could be expected along Senseny Road, considering its present condition, once the development is built. They also wanted to know what could be expected at the intersections, and in the future, would there be a necessity to four -lane Senseny Road. Mr. Copp replied that VDOT is not only considering these three properties proposed to be rezoned, but the other properties between Route 7 and 5 0 that have already been rezoned. Mr. Copp stated that they are uncertain if, and when, Channing Drive will be built from Valley Mill Road to Senseny Road and when Channing Drive will be constructed from Senseny Road to Route 50. He said that there are many questions that they do not have the answers for at this time. Mr. Copp said that VDOT will be looking for the developer or the County to provide them with a traffic impact analysis with a level of service according to phases of development; VDOT will then review the analysis and determine if it is correct. Regarding the Greenwood/Senseny Road intersection, Mr. Copp said that VDOT will be advertising Greenwood Road construction, between Senseny Road and Valley Mill Road, in Spring of 2000 and a traffic signal at Greenwood Road and Senseny Road will be included as a part of the project. He said that no VDOT right-of-way is available along Senseny Road for widening purposes. He did not believe Route 37 would be constructed in this general area at any time in the near future. Members of the Commission asked Mr. Copp if he and his staff would be agreeable to reviewing an analysis to predict the level of service at various intersections under different scenarios; for example, a level of service without the connection to Valley Mill Road or the connection to Sulphur Spring Road. Mr. Copp replied that they would certainly want to review that, along with other scenarios to determine Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 319 -10 - the impacts to the overall road network within this area. Mr. Copp said that all this will be examined in conjunction with all the other impacts that are occurring everyday in this location. At this point, Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Richard Crane, Stonewall District, came forward to endorse the rezoning proposals. Mr. Crane said that he realized when he moved here that growth would occur and development would eventually line the entire Senseny Road corridor. He said that he wanted that growth to be planned, single-family dwelling communities and that is exactly what these three rezoning propose. Mr. Crane believed that the County should work with the developers to gain as many amenities as possible. Mr. Scott Gregory, Back Creek District, stated that he was one of the spokesman for Friends of Frederick. Mr. Gregory was concerned about the cost of residential growth. Mr. Gregory believed that the growth should be slowed down and be paid for as it occurs. Ms. Barbara Van Osten, Back Creek District, had many questions about the long-range impact that the proposed rezonings would have on Frederick County, such as: status of water resources, a build -out analysis for urban and rural areas, the ratio of industrial to residential development, and the impact to the school system. Ms. Van Osten urged the Commission to table the request until the carrying capacity of the County was determined. Mr. Blaine Dunn, resident of Bedford Village, was concerned about the previously -zoned RP areas that did not have to submit proffers and will take another five to ten years to develop. Mr. Dunn inquired why the Commission would consider rezoning additional land when there were already enough RP -zoned areas that have not yet been built upon. He was also concerned about the additional traffic impact to Senseny Road. Mr. Dunn suggested that there be a planned park, or some other area designated for the children to play, besides on the streets. Mr. William Rinkenburger, homeowner at Carlisle Heights, was concerned about overcrowding of schools, especially the Redbud Run Elementary School, and the effect of overcrowding on the quality of education provided. Because of the size of the facilities at the school, he believed that some children would be cheated on their library time, computer time, gym time, etc. Mr. Rinkenburger was concerned about how rapidly this area of the County was growing and he felt steps should be taken to slow the rate of growth down. Mr. Wayne Nicholson, resident at 123 Princeton Drive in the Shawnee District, was not convinced that the whole school issue had been examined thoroughly enough. He wondered if the trips per day associated with the proposed school were included in the traffic figures calculated by the applicant. Mr. Nicholson inquired if the City of Winchester was informed about the proposed rezoning because of the traffic impacts this proposal would create on the City. He inquired about whether the proffers were legally binding if the property was sold; and, he inquired if research was done to determine if any battlefields or historic areas were located on the property. Mr. Nicholson recalled that the Opequon Sewage Treatment Plant flooded within a short time after it opened and he wondered if the topography was considered in relation to the Opequon Creek and the surrounding hilly terrain. Mr. Nicholson believed that RP Zoning was going to be the ruin of Frederick County and he believed the County would soon reach a point when all the apple orchards were gone. Mr. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 320 -11 - Nicholson was opposed to the rapid growth that was occurring and its effect on the quality of life for the residents of Frederick County. Mr. Daryl Bean representing his mother, Mrs. Martin L. Bean, resident at 561 Bean Pond Lane, said that his mother does not approve of the proposed project. Mr. Bean said that his mother has lived on Senseny Road since 1961, when it was very rural, and they have watched the area grow. He said that some of the growth has been good, but he believed that some hadn't been planned the way it should. He believed that eventually, this land will be developed; however, he believed the road system, especially Senseny Road, needed to be addressed because of the traffic problems. Mr. Bean also believed the school situation needed to be addressed because of the overcrowding. Mr. Bean said that he appreciated Mr. Smith working with them to give them different road options on the property to his mother's, however, they are still concerned about her privacy, her right-of-ways, and her easements. Mr. Greg Bancroft, a resident of Frederick County since 1992, said that he was one of the persons hoping to get this property rezoned. Mr. Bancroft wanted to share with the Commission his and his partner's vision of what they planned for this area. He said that when they started working with staff over a year ago, the staff encouraged good planning and stressed the importance of working with VDOT, the Sanitation Authority, and the necessity to rework the Comprehensive Road Plan. Mr. Bancroft said that many people have asked him where they could find a home in a planned community in Frederick County that has curb and gutter, sidewalks, recreational areas, and/or a trail system that leads to a school. He stated that these types of communities are not available in the County. Mr. Bancroft believed their proposal fits the description of what many people are searching for and he believed this development would be a benefit to the County. Mrs. Gina Forrester, resident of the Stonewall District, said that she was representing 120 homeowners in the Apple Ridge Subdivision. Speaking for herself and the Apple Ridge homeowners, Mrs. Forrester believed that the County's infrastructure could not handle the additional growth that this rezoning would create and the impacts created would negatively affect their quality of life. Mrs. Forrester raised the following issues: the increased traffic on Senseny Road, the desire for no tractor trailers on Senseny Road, the opinion that there already was a sufficient amount of land zoned for residential development; the desire for no duplex or multiplex units because of the increased density; the amount of money it would cost to construct an additional solid waste facility to accommodate additional development; and, the cost of building additional schools and personnel salaries. Mrs. Forrester wondered where will the funds would come from. Mrs. Forrester stressed that the County did not have the school capacity or the road capacity to handle this kind of growth and the applicant's proffers did not come close to mitigating those impacts. Mrs. Janita Giles, one of the owners of the Giles farm, spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning. Mrs. Giles believed that the gentlemen who designed the plan did a very good job and that it would help development east of the City. Mr. Claus Bader stated that he is employed by Greenway Engineering, he is a landowner in Frederick Heights, and he was also purchasing a lot in Senseny Glen. Mr. Bader believed that this proposal would not increase the number of building permits issued per year, but would just draw more people from other subdivisions in the area. Mr. Bader said that he supported the proposed development and believed it was a good plan. Mr. Charles Pinkam, Vice -President of the Homeowners Association of Section I in Pioneer Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 321 -12 - Heights, stated that he represented 159 property owners in stating that they are unanimously against the proposition primarily on the basis of school impacts and taxes. Mr. Wilson Gilbert, President ofthe P.T.O. for both the Senseny Road Elementary School and the James Wood Middle School, stated that there are children in the Senseny Road area, who are in the fifth grade, who have been relocated to schools three times without ever leaving the same house. He was very concerned about the overcrowding of schools. Mr. Gilbert believed that growth at this accelerated speed had to stop. Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, former Chairman of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, and resident of the Stonewall District, stated that this property has been identified for residential use for more than 25 years. Mr. Stiles said that the best way to protect the rural parts of Frederick County is to allow development to occur where it is designed to occur and where the services are in place, such as with this location. He continued, stating that whether this project is approved or denied, next year the County will issue somewhere between 650-700 residential building permits; the number of building permits issued next year will not be a result of whether or not this rezoning is approved. Mr. Stiles believed that in a county the size of Frederick, with a population of 55,000, an additional 500-600 houses per year would not overwhelm us with growth. Mr. Stiles next spoke about the schools and overcrowding issue. Using the School Board's figures, Mr. Stiles stated that the elementary schools in Frederick County were approximately 800 students below capacity. He agreed that Redbud Run Elementary School is overcrowded; however, the four elementary schools whose attendance zones are adjacent to Redbud Run --Stonewall, Senseny Road, Robinson, and Armel, are all 100+ students below their capacity. Mr. Stiles also stated that the enrollment in the two high schools, James Wood and Sherando, is exactly the same this year as it was last year, and, in fact, Sherando's enrollment is down this year from last year. Mr. Stiles suggested that before the Planning Commission made a decision on this, that the Commission specifically tie down the completion of Channing Drive through Fieldstone to Valley Mill Road to get traffic off Senseny Road. He also suggested that the Commission address the issue of getting the bridge replaced at Dr. McHale's on Valley Mill Road which, as it is now, is and will become a worse bottleneck. Mr. Stiles concluded that this is good, long-range planning. He said that it has been suggested that a prudent approach needs to be taken and he believed that 79 units per year and 31 elementary students per year certainly qualified as prudent. Mr. Scott Straub, resident ofthe Stonewall District, compared the growth in Frederick County to the growth in Loudoun County. Mr. Straub believed the idea of building little feeder roads out to Valley Mill Road to get out to Route 7 was ludicrous because Valley Mill, Greenwood, and Senseny Roads were little two-lane roads. Regarding long-term traffic planning, he believed the County needed to look all the way out to Pleasant Valley. He believed that Frederick County was not ready to absorb this kind of growth. Mr. Randy Forrester, resident ofthe Apple Ridge Subdivision in the Stonewall District, stated that this proposal is not in the best interest of the citizens of the County at this time. Mr. Forrester believed that the County has already approved enough residential areas to keep area builders busy for over ten years. Regarding the subject of overcrowding of schools, Mr. Forrester disputed the school capacity figures previously Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 322 -13 - reported by one ofthe citizens who previously spoke, stating the figures were architectural capacity figures and not practical capacity figures. He said that the empty seats in question come from shared computer labs, smaller classes for special education, and art and music rooms. He continued, arguing that the applicant's school proffer does not meet the needs of even this proposal, let alone offset the cost to the County to build, staff, and supply a school at this site. Mr. Forrester next stated his concerns about the traffic impacts and the cost of a new solid waste facility. Ms. Katherine Winesong, resident of the Back Creek District, was concerned about the availability of water resources and the lack of a detailed water study. She felt the County needed to first determine if there was enough water to take care of the existing residences, before approving additional development. Ms. Audrey H. Gleske, resident of Gore in the Gainesboro District, said that the governing bodies, the citizens, and the school board should work together towards acquiring the necessary funds to support growth. She spoke about a defeated impact bill, Senate Bill #693, which would require subdivisions, approved prior to the proffers mandate, to pay impact fees at the time of building permit application. Ms. Gleske stressed the need to go back to Richmond and petition to have this bill re -issued. In addition, she said that House Bill #2324, a special use permit, would also have given local jurisdictions more control overgrowth. She said that because our legislators in Richmond turned this down, it negated our ability as residents to say that we do not want a particular development. Mrs. Gleske also believed that the County's real estate taxes needed to be increased. She concluded by saying that growth was good, as long as it was controlled growth. Mr. Philip Mew, ten-year resident of Frederick County in the Shawnee District, spoke in favor of the proposed development. Mr. Mew pointed out that this will be a planned community with homes, businesses, and educational and recreational areas; he believed this was the type of well-designed, well-planned community that Frederick County needs. He pointed out that the development would take ten years to complete. Ms. Marcella Vance, Vice -President ofthe P.T.O. on Senseny Road and resident of the Apple Ridge area, stated that Senseny Road Elementary School currently has 463 students and it has a capacity of 550. Ms. Vance said that next year, when Red Bud Run kindergarten comes over, it will put the school at capacity; she said that this doesn't include the 250 homes that have already been approved on Greenwood Road. She also mentioned the number of lots in Apple Ridge and the number of potential elementary students there. Ms. Vance stated that Frederick County teachers aren't getting the pay that Loudoun County teachers are getting; she believed the quality of education in Frederick County was lacking. She said that parents are pulling their children out of public schools to home-school them. She believed that Frederick County needed to re-evaluate approving 846 new homes when the schools were already at capacity. Mr. John Lamanna, resident of Shawnee District and President of the Frederick County Schools Council, stated that the Frederick County Schools Council is a group of volunteer parents, each representing the P.T_O.s of the local schools, whose mission is the quality of education in Frederick County. Mr. Lamanna said that over the past ten years, Frederick County schools have grown at a rate of three times the state average. He said that the proposed school board budget recognizes a projected enrollment of 10,697 -- which is up 272 students for this year. He said that unfortunately, our high schools are crowded and the school board budget includes three modular classrooms for each one of our high schools. Mr. Lamanna stated that, as previously mentioned, Senseny Road will be at capacity, Red Bud is over capacity, and those are two feeder Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 323 -14 - schools to James Wood Middle School, which is also crowded. Mr. Lamanna believed that County schools were in trouble, they are crowded; he remarked that we see this through behaviors and through the quality of education being offered. Mr. Lamanna concluded his statement by saying that he was not against growth, but he was for planned growth. He said that it was time for the County to take a stand and allow our schools to be ahead of the curve, rather than behind it. Mr. Dwayne Bean, son of Mrs. Martin Bean, an adjoining property owner, spoke about the congested traffic in this area. Mr. Bean said he lived only three miles from his mother, but it takes 20 minutes to drive to her home because of the traffic. Mr. Bean added that when he attended James Wood High School, his classes were held in the auditorium in 1963 because of overcrowding. He remarked that he didn't like that; however, he cared more so when two years later, Handley High School raised teachers' salaries and all the good teachers left James Wood to go to Handley. Miss Dusty Golden, a student of James Wood Middle School, said that she rides to school on a crowded bus, with three to four children per seat, to an at -capacity school. Miss Golden stated that if we can not provide for the students we have, why do we want to add more fuel to an already out -of -control fire. Mrs. Golden, Dusty's mother, said that she was seriously considering at-home schooling for her children because of the over -capacity conditions at Frederick County schools. She said that she was tired of her children being transferred from one school to the next because of poor planning by the County for the growth that is presently taking place. Mr. Bob Pownall, resident of Shawnee District, inquired about who would be responsible for the maintenance and taxes of the proposed school, trail system, and recreation center, once it was built. He raised the subject of the County's Impact Model, whereby the Board of Supervisors agreed with the Top of Virginia Builders Association in implementing the model beginning at 50% and then increasing it at 5% per year. Mr. Pownall said that in light of the fact that the old model was already eight years old, the County will be playing catch up. He also recalled that at that same Board session, a budget freeze on County departments was announced by the County Administrator. Mr. Pownall added that the Top of Virginia Builders Association boasted that the home construction industry was the biggest industry in Frederick County. Mr. Pownall said that he expects some growth, but he believed that the County could not maintain its present tax base while continuing to grow at this accelerated rate. Mr. Pownall concluded by mentioning a state legislation bill that was killed and that some of our representatives encouraged that; however, it would have given the Planning Commission and Board more capability towards encouraging smart growth. Mr. Paul Morgan, five-year resident of the Stonewall District, said that he was a parent of children in Frederick County's elementary school system and he opposed the rezoning. Mr. Morgan said that judging by the way the County has handled growth issues related to schools, especially at the recent budget hearings, it appears the County does not see the need to develop the educational infrastructure of public schools. He believed that this was not just a physical space issue, but a quality of education issue that requires investment and top-notch staff and curriculum. Mr. Morgan next read some student enrollment figures for several of the elementary schools and he also gave some lot figures on area subdivisions that are expanding, such as the Greenwood Road subdivisions, Carlisle Heights, and Regency Lakes_ He said that growth must be funded and we need to give the schools a chance to catch up. Miss Vance, a junior at Sherando High School and resident of Apple Ridge subdivision, said Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 324 -15 - that she travels 22 minutes to get to school. Miss Vance said that the two busses assigned to Senseny Road are overcrowded and this does not include students who drive to school. She continued, stating that school hallways are overcrowded and she has classes where every single seat is filled and still, more students are sent into the classroom. Ms. Vance said that the overcrowding creates a difficult learning environment for her because of the disruptive behavior it creates. She did not see where more children could be placed; she said that there were already three modular classrooms outside. She commented that she has lost friends due to the splitting of schools and she didn't feel that was right. Ms. Pat Gochenour, resident of the Shawnee District, said that she was proud of the people that spoke this evening and she hoped that the Commission would be good stewards of the land. She was concerned that development had destroyed all of the wetlands around her home. Mrs. Gochenour stated that as an educator, she believed the students in Frederick County were not getting the quality of education they deserved and she blamed it on the overcrowded conditions. She believed that splitting neighborhoods so that some children go to one school and others go somewhere else was causing children to lose their sense of community. She also pointed out that her area has been in a crisis situation over water. Mr. Mike Boda, resident of Gainesboro District, agreed with Mr. Stiles' comments that "Y'number of houses will be built next year, whether this plan is approved or not. Mr. Boda said that having been in the building business for 23 years, he believed this was the finest development plan he has seen in all those years. He said that he has worked in a professional capacity with the applicants for four years and he believed they should be recognized as true professionals. He stated they have done an excellent job with the homes they've built in the past and he expected this development to be no less. Miss Jessica Forrester, a student in the Frederick County School System, said that she has attended three overcrowded schools. Miss Forrester said that she first attended Armel School, from Kindergarten through fourth grade, which was 22 miles away from her home. She said that she made good friends at Armel, but all her friends lived far from her home. Miss Forrester told the Commission that she was then transferred back to Senseny Road, which was only two miles away from her home all along. She said that she is now at James Wood Middle School and it also is very crowded. Mr. Larry Duncan, a native of Winchester and a Frederick County businessman who currently resides in Clarke County, pointed out that approximately 100 people braved the severe weather and missed the Barbara Walters' interview with Monica Lewinsky to show their concern for this project. Mr. Duncan said that if this rezoning was tabled, the growing opposition movement could double or triple that amount. He stated that the points of this case are traffic and schools, and he did not feel the applicant could come up with anything material enough to eliminate those basic points of contention. Mr. Duncan requested that the Commission act on the rezoning this evening. Mr. Philip Lloyd, resident of the Stonewall District, said that he is originally from Fredericksburg, Virginia, which went through tremendous growth in the `70's and `80's. Mr. Lloyd believed that this project should not be approved until the roads are taken care of and the school situation is rectified. He has observed that traffic bottlenecks badly at Greenwood Store; he was also concerned about the costs for additional fire, rescue, and sheriff's services. Mr. Dave Hepler, resident of Senseny Glen, said that he was in favor of the proposed development. Mr. Hepler believed this was a wonderful development plan and that it would complement the Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 325 -16 - existing homes in the area. Mr. Bob Giles, resident of the Stonewall District, came forward to speak on behalf of the owners of the Giles farm. Mr. Giles said that they have had their farm for sale for several years; he said that his family is not making a lot of money on this sale, they are in debt. Mr. Giles explained that they've sold all their cattle because there is no pasture to raise cattle on; he said that with shale ground, you don't get pasture unless you have a good, rainy season. Mr. Giles stated that they have been approached by several developers, but these folks presented a well thought-out plan with single-family homes. He said that speaking for the Giles family, we didn't want just anyone coming in and building townhouses and multiplex dwellings. Mr. Charles Pitcock, resident of Frederick Heights and a retired police officer, was concerned about the costs of patrolling increased crime and traffic accidents. He was also concerned about the possibility of increased taxes to pay for growth and the effect on retirees who are on a fixed budget. Mr. Pitcock believed that growth needs to slow down and there was too much traffic. Mr. Wayne Nicholson, from Shawnee District, came back to the podium and requested that the numbers, facts, and figures presented by all represented parties be looked at very carefully. Mr. Forrester, Stonewall District resident, returned to the podium to state that he thought the proposed project called for duplexes and multiplexes. Mr. Forrester also announced that there were 160 people in attendance for this hearing. He also brought to the Commission's attention that, in only five days, they were able to get 360 signatures on petitions of opposition. Mr. Greg Bancroft, one of the proposed developers, returned to the podium to refute a statement made earlier about the types of homes planned. Mr. Bancroft stated that their plan is to have 100% single-family homes, with some patio homes. Ms. Diane Shuck, resident of Apple Ridge and adjoiner to the Giles farm, said that their community is small and they feel safe. She said the proposed plan is a wonderful plan, but it seems too big, and she believed it would affect her family's feeling of safety and security. Mrs. Alice Giles, one of the owners of the Giles farm, pointed out that many of the people that spoke in opposition have the luxury of her property. Mrs. Giles stated that they want to sell their property. She argued that all of the people who spoke in opposition came to Frederick County from somewhere else, while she and her husband have lived on Senseny Road for over 35 years. Mrs. Giles said that she never spoke against people coming into the County to build their home, or spoke against their children going to Senseny Road School. She said that she and her husband are helping to pay the taxes to send those children to school. She said that the people in opposition would not like someone telling them that they couldn't sell their home. She believed this was a well thought-out project and it will occur in phases. As all members of the audience had an opportunity to speak, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comments portion of the public hearing. Members of the Commission pointed out that the County's designated rural areas are west of Interstate 81; they stated that development needs to occur in areas east of 81, in the County's Urban Development Area (UDA), so that our rural areas west of 81 may be maintained. They pointed out that growth Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 326 -17 - will continue in Frederick County at the same rate it has been, even if this rezoning is not approved. They noted that a large portion of the 600+ building permits issued per year are occurring outside of the UDA, maybe as many as 35%40%, and this is eating up our rural land five acres at a time, not quarter or half -acre lots at a time. Commission members stressed the need to keep development within the UDA, so that it is not sprawling all over the County, ruining our viewsheds. Commission members stressed their desire to see master planning for large areas of land, so that they can see the bigger picture, so that there is an opportunity to signalize, to build roads, to have open spaces, and parks and recreation trails, etc. Members ofthe Commission did not believe that this development would destroy the quality of education offered in Frederick County. The Planning Commission believed that this developer had done an excellent job of bringing before the Commission a large, master planned area inside the UDA. They believed the problems could be mitigated. The Commission continued their discussion, stating that there were several issues that needed to be addressed before they could recommend approval of the proposal. Specifically, they requested that the applicant prepare a detailed traffic analysis providing levels of service under different scenarios. Further, this analysis needed to be reviewed by the VDOT staff at Edinburg and their comments submitted to the Planning Commission. They believed that access to Route 7 needed to be tied down and a commitment made, and the bridge at the McHale farm also needed to be addressed. Also mentioned was the plan to re-route Valley Mill Road to another location through here, and it was possible that this issue needed to be considered because it would have an impact on the phasing of this development. Commission members said that phasing will have to be associated with the traffic levels of service and the other issues that have already been mentioned this evening. They asked that the applicant re -address the proffers and the school site issue. Finally, Commission members believed the solid waste issue needed to be dealt with and, hopefully, the developers will provide a site where this could be accommodated. Members ofthe Commission believed that by properly addressing these issues, they would be in favor of the rezoning, primarily because the request is in the proper location and development of this area will eventually occur. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table Rezoning #05-99 of Giles Farm, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 140.2 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) , and 12.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) with a waiver of the time requirement, per the applicant's request. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table Rezoning Application #06-99 of Sheppard/Futral, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 132.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) with a waiver of the time requirement, per the applicant's request. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table Rezoning Application #07-99 of Lynnehaven, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 81.4 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 327 -18 - RP (Residential Performance) and 10.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to 132 (Business General) with a waiver of the time requirement, per the applicant's request. (Commissioner Light abstained from voting on this rezoning; 407-99 of Lynnhaven.) ADJOURNMENT unammous vote. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. Deflaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1999 Page 328 • .� u • 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 March 17, 1999. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Back Creek District; and S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Terry Stone, 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: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Zoning Administrator; Chris M. Mohn, Planner 11; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 17, 1999 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of February 17, 1999 were unanimously approved as presented. APPLICATIONS ACTION SUMMARY Chairman DeHaven accepted the report for the Commission's information. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 1999 Page 329 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Mrs. Copenhaver, subcommittee member, reminded members of the Commission that the CPPS will be holding two public meetings on the South Frederick Land Use Study: one on Thursday, iviarch 18, and one on Wednesday, March 31, both at 7:00 p.m., at the Armel School. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 3/16/99 Mtg. Mr. Morris, Board member, reported that the HRAB reviewed a site plan for the Northwest Storage Water Tank and a request by Lenoir City Company. Mr. Morns said that Lenoir City Company wishes to rezone land in the Stonewall Industrial Park. He said that there is an old home located on the property, which was discussed. Sanitation Authority (SA) Mrs. Copenhaver, the Commission's liaison to the SA, reported that there will be a meeting on Tuesday, March 23. Mrs. Copenhaver said that Ned Cleland is no longer chairman of the Sanitation Authority and Bob Carpenter has been appointed as a new member. Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) - 03/16/99 Mtg. Mr. Vincent DiBenedetto, member of the Winchester City Planning Commission, stated that the WPC will be reviewing City ordinances regarding densities downtown to determine if the George Washington Hotel could be used for residential housing. He said that the next few months may also be used for writing an ordinance to allow the City to get back into the flood insurance program. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #01-99, submitted by David L. Shull, Sr. to operate a public garage with body repair. This property is located at 7317 Northwestern Pike and is identified with P.I.N. 27-A-91 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 1999 Page 330 -3 - Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions and a 90 -day Stipulation Mr. Chris Mohn, Planner Il, read the background information and review agency comments. Mr. Mohn stated that this application was submitted following a site inspection by staff which was initiated by a citizen complaint. He said the site inspection revealed the operation of a public garage with auto body repair without the required conditional use permit. Mr. Mohn continued, stating that the requested use consists of general automobile repair activities, as well as body repair, occurring within an existing two -car attached garage. He said that such body repair has been observed to involve the application of paints and finishes. Mr. Mohn further stated that there is very limited natural screening between the subject property and the adjoining parcel in closest proximity to the requested use. He said that during periods of heavy business activity, vehicles awaiting service, as well as automobile parts, have been observed unscreened and visible from Route 50. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Robert Price, son-in-law of Mrs. Nancy Kercheval, an adjoining property owner, said that Mrs. Kercheval wanted to voice her approval of the requested conditional use permit. Mr. David Kollar, an adjoining property owner, said that he did not have any particular concerns or apprehensions about Mr. Shull's use, however, he believed that Mr. Shull should be required to abide by the same regulations as other public garages with body repair in the County. He pointed out that there are building code requirements that must be met for operation of spray painting booths. He also believed that installation of a commercial entrance would be somewhat problematic because of the elevation from Route 50 to Mr. Shull's property. Mr. David L. Shull, Sr., the applicant, was not present to answer questions from the Commission. Several items concerning Building Code compliance were discussed by the Commission and staff. It was noted that the Building Official would be responsible for ensuring that spray painting operations complied with Code requirements; in addition, the applicant would need to acquire a Change of Use Permit for the building. The staff noted that the applicant must comply with these requirements before the Building Official will issue a Certificate of Occupancy. It was also pointed out that the applicant's sign exceeded the size permitted for a Cottage Occupation and would need to be brought into compliance. A member of the Commission recommended that the applicant should be required to adhere to all review agency comments and conditions within 90 days of approval of the conditional use permit. This was considered appropriate due to the fact that the public garage with body repair had already been established on the property. However, another member of the Commission believed that no action should be taken until the applicant could be present to answer questions directly from the Commission. It was also remarked that a great deal of work needed to be accomplished by the applicant to conform with review agency requirements, which prompted the Commission to discuss whether the suggested 90 days would be enough time for compliance. The Commission ultimately decided to include the 90 -day deadline for compliance with their recommendation. It was further agreed that if the applicant needed more time, he could pursue an extension of time through standard CUP procedures. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 1999 Page 331 -4 - Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Miller, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval, by majority vote, of Conditional Use Permit 401-99 of David L. Shull, Sr. to operate a public garage with body repair with the stipulation that compliance with all review agency comments and the following conditions be accomplished within 90 days of final permit approval: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. In accordance with Cottage Occupation sign requirements, signage for the proposed use may not exceed four (4) square feet in area. No more than five (5) inoperable vehicles shall be permitted to be stored on the property at any one time. These inoperable vehicles shall be screened from view from adjoining properties and Route 50. 4. An opaque device at least five (5) feet in height shall be installed to screen all activities associated with the operation of the public garage from view from adjoining properties and Route 50. 5. All repair activities shall occur entirely within an enclosed structure. 6. Any expansion of the business shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Miller, Stone, Thomas, Romine, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Morris NO: Wilson (Note: Mr. Ours was absent from the meeting.) Proposed Amendments to Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplemental Use Regulations, establishing Section 165-23.F(7); "Protective Entrance Canopies" of the Frederick County Code. This amendment would allow the placement of protective entrance canopies and associated support structures within the front yard setback areas. Uses that might utilize this proposed amendment include funeral homes, schools, churches, day care facilities, and libraries. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Zoning Administrator, stated that staffhas received a request from Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow the placement ofprotective entrance canopies and associated support structures within the front yard setback areas. Mr. Lawrence said that Mr. Gyurisin has encountered several projects, such as child care centers, funeral Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 1999 Page 332 -5 - homes, churches, etc., where canopies would encroach on the front yard and the canopies are needed to protect patrons from inclement weather as they enter or exit the structure. He said that the ordinance permits canopies associated with retail petroleum pumps to be located within front yard setbacks. Mr. Lawrence continued, stating that the staffbelieved it would be appropriate to allow certain uses that utilize canopy structures to encroach on front yard setbacks. He explained that the typical front yard setback is either 35 or 50 feet from the road right-of-way, depending on the road's classification; therefore, staff is proposing a canopy setback of 20 feet. He said that this 20 -foot setback would essentially allow for a canopy to cover what would commonly be parking spaces or driveways. The 20 -foot setback would also maintain an area that would be structure -free; future road widening projects would not be complicated by the placement of structures within the areas necessary to expand right-of-ways. Mr. Lawrence next read the proposed amendment. A member of the Commission suggested that the amendment include the specific uses that would be permitted to encroach on front yard setbacks. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. was present to answer questions from the Commission. There were no public comments. Mr. Thomas made a motion to approve the proposed amendment with the addition to the text of the permitted uses: funeral homes, schools, churches, day care facilities, and libraries. This motion was seconded by Mr. Marker. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplemental Use Regulations, establishing Section 165-23.F(7); "Protective Entrance Canopies" of the Frederick County Code, as follows: 165-23.F(7)Protective Entrance Canopies. Protective entrance canopies and support columns which are attached to the primary structure may extend into the front yard setback areas for the following uses: funeral homes, schools, churches, day care facilities, and libraries. The purpose of such canopies is to provide protection to patrons from the elements of weather as the patron enters or exits the structure. In no case shall the canopy or its structure be located closer than 20 feet from a road right-of-way boundary. PUBLIC MEETING Subdivision Application #03-99 of Tybrook, L.C., submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., for the subdivision of a 4.1277 -acre tract into two lots. The property is located on North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522), one mile north of the Winchester Bypass (Rt. 37), and is identified with P.I.N. 42-A-253 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Stipulation Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 1999 Page 333 wow Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Zoning Administrator, said that the request is to subdivide the 4.1277 - acre property into two lots: Lot 1 (1.1931 acres), presently zoned B2, will be for the Ridge Country Store and Lot 2 (2.9346 acres), presently zoned RA, would be for a future use. Mr. Lawrence said that the Subdivision Ordinance requires Board of Supervisors' approval of subdivisions without master development plans and a recommendation will be needed by the Planning Commission. He also noted that there is a pending rezoning application on this property and approval of the subdivision will depend on the rezoning of the 2.9346 -acre portion of the property from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). Mr. Lawrence also stated that because of the minimum road frontage and the nature of Route 522 North, staff would encourage the use of a shared entrance between the two facilities. A member of the Commission inquired if there aren't already two entrances on the property. Staff replied that the goal is not to have any additional entrances to the ones that are already present. Commission. Mr. John Lewis of Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. was present to answer questions from the There were no citizen comments. Mr. Miller moved to approve the subdivision with the stipulation that no additional entrances be placed on the property, along with the applicant satisfying all ofthe review agency comments, and receiving approval of Rezoning Application 402-99. This motion was seconded by Mr. Stone. Chairman DeHaven asked the design engineer for his comments on the recommendation. Mr. Lewis said that when this project was initially brought to the Commission, approximately one year ago, one of the recommendations was that a deceleration and turn lane be proffered for this portion ofthe property. Mr. Lewis hoped that the Commission would let VDOT make the call as far as how the traffic would actually work out there. Mr. Lewis requested that the Commission allow him to come back with a design of the 2.9 acres at the time of site plan submission for the Commission to review the entrances. Mr. Lewis said that he would prefer that VDOT be provided the opportunity to look at the site and make a recommendation before the Commission limits the number of entrances. Mr. Miller amended his motion to approve the subdivision with a request for review ofthe site plan by the Commission, along with the applicant satisfying all of the review agency comments, and receiving approval of Rezoning Application 402-99. The amended motion was concurred with and seconded by Mr. Stone. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision Application #03-99 of Tybrooke, L.C., submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., for the subdivision of a 4.1277 -acre tract into two lots with a request for review of the site plan by the Planning Commission, along with the applicant satisfying all of the review agency comments, and with the stipulation of the approval of Rezoning Application #02-99. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 1999 Page 334 -7 - Request for Exemption from the 50' Right -of -Way Requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144-31.C(3), submitted by Greenway Engineering for Charles Willis. The property is located northeast of the intersection of Redbud Road and Milburn Road and is identified with P.I.N. 44-2-28 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Stipulation Mr. Lawrence stated that the staff has received a request from Mr. Gary Oates of Greenway Engineering, on behalf of Mr. Charles Willis, to gain an exemption to the 50' right-of-way width requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Lawrence explained that Mr. Willis owns a 16.725 -acre parcel, northeast of the intersection of Redbud Road and Milburn Road, which is used for agricultural use. He said that no residential structures are presently located on the property and access is via Marquis Court, a private road with a two -foot right-of-way width. As access to the parcel in question is via an existing right-of-way across property owned by others, the request is for the Board to exempt the land division from the 50' requirement so that the existing right-of-way may be utilized. Mr. Lawrence said that based on the location of this land division and the nature of the surrounding properties, staff feels that a waiver to allow for use of the existing right-of-way is reasonable. Commission members suggested the restriction of further divisions of the property, if this waiver was approved. A member of the Commission inquired if additional land could be acquired from the other adjoining property owners, in order to create the required 50' right-of-way. It was also commented that a state road could never be installed through here because of the insufficient right-of-way. Mr. Gary Oates of Greenway Engineering was representing the applicant, Charles Willis. Mr. Oates said that the road has been located here for 20 years, the neighbors are satisfied with the way it is, they have a maintenance agreement between them, and they do not want to give up any additional land. He said that the additional right-of-way would also place the setback line even further back for any future building construction. He explained that the second lot back from the road, owned by Mr. Boden, does not have a house on it at this time and he is concerned that increasing the setback may affect its resale value. Mr. Willis, the applicant, came to the podium and stated that he had no intentions of further subdivisions of the property. He said that he was giving one of the lots to his daughter. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the request for exemption from the 50' right -of --way requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144- 31.C(3), made by Mr. Charles Willis, with the limitation that only two lots will be subdivided in perpetuity on the Willis property. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Stone, Thomas, Romine, Wilson, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Morris, DeHaven NO: Miller Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 1999 Page 335 -8 - Request for Exemption from the Five -Acre Minimum Lot Size and the 50' Right -of -Way Requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144-31 and 14424, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and Fruit Hill Orchards. The property is located southwest of the Route 522 North and Route 37 interchange and will be accessed via a right-of-way at the terminus of Thwaite Lane. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 42-A-180 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Zoning Administrator, stated that staff has received a request from Stephen M. Gyurisin of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., on behalf of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, to allow for variations from the Subdivision Ordinance to establish a land parcel for the location of a water tank. Mr. Lawrence said that the site under consideration is zoned RA (Rural Areas) and is located southwest of the Route 522 North and Route 37 interchange, and will be accessed via a right-of-way at the terminus of Thwaite Lane. He explained that there is a minimum lot size requirement of five acres for land zoned RA and the ordinance also requires a minimum right-of-way width of 50' for access to the established land parcel. Mr. Lawrence said that the Authority requests that these requirements be waived so that a lot consisting of 2.5712 acres may be established and be served by a 30' right-of-way. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. and Mr. Wellington Jones, Engineer/Director for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, were available to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Gyurisin and Mr. Jones had a site plan available for the Commission's review. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the request for exemption from the five -acre minimum lot size and the 50' right-of-way requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144-31 and 144-24, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. on behalf of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and Fruit Hill Orchards. PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT SUMMARY Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Zoning Administrator, stated that the annual Planning Commission Retreat was held on February 6, 1999. He presented a prioritized list of the information discussed at the retreat for the Commission's information. Mr. Lawrence summarized the information for the Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 1999 Page 336 ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 1999 Page 337 APPLICATION ACTION SUMMARY (printed April 15, 1999) - APPlic ti on newl REZONING: •:..v..:. a..::•:": ^:'..'::?:'.•':"::'i :::...... Sf:S.%. .i: n:YrrS{Ji-:v}:: }:}: :�i%�1' •. .:}::+::p} .. :-... _ ..... nvvvn w..•:. :...... :::•n..... - - :v �►y�� .• .... } :, .��iW�-.{�1][4}]{•}:ti Cti - :4'i .i. r{.. {:i'-S{{::L{SCy.•v'}:• v............ :(-rrTiQ�}I{�:1.V3i��V0/::. �` a:::•:::::::vv; :va+v; ::.. .............. rt ... s.........:.................. ........... ��: ....... ... i .:......::: v........ vv:v.. ... •.'Sv. ..:.v.-.-.. v:.v.:.v.n :.:. �:�rr:..:.......:.,:. ........... a..:• .:i}::ni,.:.}::ti.:b is -r:. -: `:•iii%iv ::. ...........:.�..::. .. ..........-....-...... ::.iticv. v4.:.x: n .!i r:•::. v •}:O' "•:f}: S?Y... Location: 500'+ so. of intersection of Woodbine 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 BOS Review: 05/26/99 - tentatively scheduled .}} F:- f a •:.• - •::. •.. :�i%�1' •. .:}::+::p} .. :-... _ ..... nvvvn w..•:. :...... :::•n..... - - ..... .. ...., v:• ai::k:Rr.... --------- :;;n.v:vv.--.-.::::: {iv... r.: nv .. a. -.-..v. :.. .•--:: - - - j?}�(:i vti:�f ii}i:•: i:::ti ii: i.':hv i�:ti(v}i hC(Sf: }i:i i' ��:�?Viii iiiti�v}i}�v�vi:�ij: �: iiv{vii'::{<iv<::in% Location: U.S. Rt. 522,73 miles south of U.S. Rt. 50 Submitted: 04/13/99 PC Review: 05/05/99 BOS Review: 05/26/99 - tentatively scheduled David R. Madison (REZ #08-99) Stonewall 6.18 ac. of a 19.6 -ac. site from RA to B2 for self-service storage facilities Location: No. side of Rt. 761, approx. 700' west of the intersection w/ Rt. 666 & west side of Rt. 666, approx. 400' so. of the intersection w/ Rt. 664 Submitted: 03/12/99 PC Review: 04/07/99 - recommended denial BOS Review: 04/28/99 Lynnehaven (REZ #007-99) Stonewall 81.4 ac. from RA to RP for 203 s.f. homes; 10.0 ac. from RA to B2 for commercial use Location: West of Beans Pond Ln., 400' from the intersection with Senseny Rd., & ad'acent to the Carlisle Heights subdivision Submitted: 02/05/99 PC Review: 03/03/99 - tabled; applicant waived time requirement BOS Review: not yet scheduled Sheppard/ Futral Z #006-99 Stonewall 132.70 ac. from RA to RP for 293 single-family homes Location: -- - - - On Eddy's Ln. (Rt. 820), approx.- 0.8 mi. from the intersection with Valley Mill Road Submitted: 02/05/99 PC Review: 03/03/99 - tabled; applicant waived time requirement BOS Review: not yet scheduled Giles Farm (REZ #005-99) Stonewall 140.2 ac. from RA to RP for 350 sI homes; 12.0 ac. from RA to B2 for commercial use Location: No. side of Senseny Rd., 850' east of Beans Pond Ln., across from the Burning Knolls & C.M. Lockhart subdivisions, & adj. to the Bedford Village & Apple Ride subdivisions. Submitted: 02/05/99 PC Review: 03/03/99 - tabled; applicant waived time requirement BOS Review: not yet scheduled Applications Action Summary Printed April 15, 1999 AMK Products, Inc. (REZ #004-99 Shawnee 7.354 ac. from RA to MI for industrial/ warehouse use Location: So. side of Airport Rd. (Rt. 645), approx. 300'+ west of the Victory Lane (Rt. 728) intersection Submitted: 02/05/99 PC Review: 03/03/99 - recommended approval with proffers BOS Review: 04/12/99 - approved with proffers Aikens & Allen L.P. (REZ #003-99 Stonewall 0.91 ac. from RP to B2 Location: Ross St., 90' from intersection w/ Berryville Pk. (Rt. 7), & near the Rt. 7/ I-81 intersection Submitted: 02/05/99 PC Review: 03/03/99 - recommended approval BOS Review: 04/12/99 - approved T brooke, L.C. REZ #02-99 Stonewall Rezone 2.99 ac. from RA to B2 Location: E. side of N. Frederick Pk. (Rt. 522); 1 mile N. of Rt. 37 Interchange, adjacent to Ride Country Store Submitted: 01/22/99 PC Review: 03/03/99 - recommended approval with proffers BOS Review: 04/12/99 - approved with proffers Applications Action Summary Printed April 15, 1999 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Oakdale Crossing II (MDP #01-99 Shawnee 49 single family detached homes on 21.49 ac. Location: S. side of Senseny Rd. (Rt. 657) adjacent to southern boundary of Oakdale Crossin Submitted: 01/25/99 PC Review: 02/17/99 - recommended approval BOS Review: 03/10/99 - approved Admin. Approved: A pending SUBDIVISIONS:. ::.: ::.. :.. ........ }:{;.:..<.; ... < So.west corner of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642) & White Oak Rd. (Rt. 636) K. 02/18/99 .: ..: .......................................::.{.::fait'. =:;de�ed::1>.- Location: So. of existing Oakdale Crossing, off of Senseny Rd. (Rt. 656) Submitted: 03/31/99 1VIDP #01-99 Approved by BOS 03/10/99; Administrative Approval Pending Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending The Camp/Tasker Rd. (JASBO, Inc. /F. Glaiae) (SUB #011-99) Opequon Subdivision of 50.52 ac. into 170 1 single-family residential lots (RP) Location: So.west corner of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642) & White Oak Rd. (Rt. 636) Submitted: 02/18/99 MDP #004-98 (Tasker /ltd. Land Bays) MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP approved admin. 09/04/98 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Applications Action Summary Printed April 15, 1999 Fort Collier - Lot 32 (SUB #009-99) Stonewall Subdivision of 1 lot consisting of 1 4.7374 acres (Ml) Location: Property fronts the northwest corner of the intersection of Brooke Rd. (Rt. 1322) & West Brooke Rd. (Rt. 1320) Submitted: 01/29/99 11 MDP #00491 MDP approved by BOS 10/09/91; admin. approved 11/22/91 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Stonewall Industrial Pk. - Lot 32 (SUB #006-99) Gainesboro Subdivision of 1 lot consisting of 5.4455 ac. (Ml) Location: Comer 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 #005-99) 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 #00498 (Tasker Rd. Land Bays) MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP admin. approved 09/04/98 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending JASBO, Inc. (SUB #00499) NO MDP [Back Creek I Subd. of 45.6727 ac. into 5 lots with dedicated r -o -w Location: West side of Shady Elm Rd. (Rt. 651), so. of Rt. 37 Submitted: 02/08/99 PC Review 03/03/99 - recommended approval BOS Review 03/10/99 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Applications Action Summary Printed April 15, 1999 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. Bp (Rt. 37) Submitted: 01/22/99 PC Review: 03/17/99 BOS Review: 04/12/99 - tentatively scheduled Subd. Admin. Approved: pending Partnership (SUB #02-99) equon —]RT&T I 1 Lot (Lot 16); TL Acreage 29.6 (B2) Location: Rt. IIS, no. of Hortons Nursery across from Miller Honda Dealer- ealer- shi ; 1/2 mi. so. of Rt: 37 & Rt. -11S - ship; Submitted: 01/22/99 MDP#03-91 (Kernstown Bus. Pk) MDP approved by BOS 07/10/91; MDP admin. approved 09/03/91 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Autumn Glen, Sect. I (SUB 015-98) Opeyuon 21 lots - duplex & multiplex (52 1 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 07108/98; MDP Pending Admin. Approval Subd. Admin. Approved: Phase I approved on 11/04/98 for 21 dwellings Briarwood Estates (SUB #014-98) Stonewall 184 s.f. lots on 55.7887 ac. (RP) Location: East side of Greenwood Rd. (Rt. 656) midway between Senseny Rd. (Rt. 657) & Valley Mill Rd. (Rt. 659) Submitted: 06/29/98 MDP #003-98 MDP approved by BOS 05/27/98; MDP admin. approved 06/29/98 Subd. Admin. Approved: 04/09/99 Applications Action Summary Printed April 15, 1999 Mark & Rachelle Repine (SUB #004-98) NO MDP Location: Shawnee Subdivision of 1.3719 ac. into 3 s.f. lots (RP) Heritage Hills Subd.; along the eastern portion of Idlewood Drive Submitted: 01/26/98 PC Review: 02!18/98 -recommended approval BOS Review: 03/11/98 -approved Admin. Approved: Pending Lenoir City Co. Lot 2; Stonewall Indust. Pk. SUB #007-9 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. A .roved: Pending Dominion Knolls (SUB #005-97)Stonewall Back Creek 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: Section 1 (25 lots) approved 06/02/98; Sections 2 & 3 Pending Winchester -Fred Co. IDC (SUB) Back Creek 2 Ml Lots 0.552 acres & 20.285 acres Location: Southeast side of Development Lane Submitted: 09/08/95 MDP #003-87: Approved by BOS 07/08/87; Admin. Approved 06/08/88 Pending Admin. Approval Awaiting signed plats. Applications Action Summary Printed April 15, 1999 Abrams PoinL 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 - approved -Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed plat Harry Stim son SUB ro—peguon Two B2 Lots Location: Town Run Lane Submitted: 09/23/94 PC Review: 10/19/94 - recommended approval BOS Review: 10/26/94 - approved -Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting signed plat. SITE PLANS: Fion: --690 Shady Elm Road Submitted: 03/26/99 Approved: Pending Applications Action Summary Printed April 15,1999 C.B.'s Corner (Dennis N. Opequon 2,800 s.f. addition for office, car Thompson Property) (SP #13-99) sales/repair, residence) on 1.035 ac. parcel (B2) Location: 381 Fairfax Pike, Stephens City Submitted: 03/18/99 Approved: Pending Applications Action Summary Printed April 15,1999 Winchester Tool & Machine (SP #12-99) Back Creek 1 1 1,875 s.f. addition to existing bldg; .23 ac. disturbed of an 11 -acre site (Ml) Location: 110-A Industrial Avenue Submitted: 03/17/99 Approved: 04/05/99 Northwest Storage Tank (FCSA) (SP #11-99) Gainesboro Elevated Water Tank; 1.0000± ac. to be developed of a 2.5712 ac. site (RA) Location: Approx. 1,000' southwest of Thwaite Drive Submitted: 03/05/99 Approved. Pending Faith Baptist Church (SP #10-99) Opequon Church; 6.72 ac. to be developed of a 14.475 ac. site (RA) Location: Double Church Road, Stephens City Submitted: 03/05/99 Approved: Pending Penske Truck Service Facility (SP #009-99) 11 Gainesboro Truck Rental Depot; 5 ac. to be developed on a 5.4455 ac. site (Ml) Location: Lenoir Drive, Stonewall Industrial Park Submitted: 03/03/99 Approved: Pending Ralph Gregory/Aylor Rd. Site (SP #008-99) pequon L 3,395 s.f. one-story retail1office bldg; .70 ac. developed on .70 ac. site (B2) Location: Between I-81 & Rt. 647 at the intersection of Rt. 647 & Rt. 641 Submitted: 02/11/99 Approved: Pending Applications Action Summary Printed April 15, 1999 Food Lion (expansion) (SP #007-99) Gainesboro 4,719 s.f. addition to existing shopping 1 center (B2) Sunnyside Plaza Location: Submitted: 02/18199 Approved: 04/01/99 Glaize Components (SP #006-99) Shawnee 704 s.f. bldg. addition (M1); 13.350 ac. site Location: Arbor Court (Rt. 1000) Submitted: 02/1-9/99 . Approved: U 03/31/99 L.P. Strosnyder, Inc. (SP #00499) Back Creek. Office, Service Bays, Warehouse; 2 ac. 1 site developed (B3) Location: Prosperity Drive, Kernstown Business Park Submitted: 02/03/99 Approved: 04/01/99 Monoflo, Inc. (SP #02-99) Stonewall 78,000 sq. ft. addition; 5 ac. developed; (Ml) Location: 882 Baker Lane Submitted: 01/15/99 Approved: pending Applications Action Summary Printed April 15,1999 10 Insulated Building Systems (SP #03-99) Gainesboro Change of use and parking lot 1 modifications; 2 ac. developed; (M1) Location: 326 McGhee Drive Submitted: 01/15/99 Approved: 03/31/99 America House Assisted Living (SP #073-98) Opequon Assisted living facility/4.6 ac. developed on 73.4749 ac. site (RP) Location: South side of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642); 1,100 feet east of Aylor Rd.(Rt. 647) Submitted:- - - -- — ---- — 12/02/98 - - - Approved: Pending VDO-YAZAKI Corp. (SP #072-98) Stonewall 2,160 sf warehouse addition; 0.118 ac. developed on 16.927 ac. site (M1) Location: 188 Brooke Road Submitted: 12/07/98 Approved: Pending Jones & Frank (SP #06498) Stonewall Warehouse & office use; 5.0 ac. developed on a 5.0 ac. site (MI) Location: 150 Fort Collier Road, Fort Collier Industrial Park Submitted: 10/19/98 Approved: Pending Applications Action Summary Printed April 15,1999 11 God's Glory Land (SP #061-98) Back Creek Church Retreat; 26.45 ac. to be developed of a 85.7 ac. site (RA) Location: Back Creek Road Submitted: 10/01/98 Approved: II Pending Kim Henry Property - Mini Warehouse (SP #057-98) Stonewall 7,504 s.f. warehouse; 4 ac. developed 1 1 of a 7.74 ac. site (B3) 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 (B3) Location: 1154 Martinsburg Pike Submitted: 07121/98 Approved: Pending T.P. & Susan Goodman (SP #04498) ::]1 Stonewall Hackwood/ Minor Site Plan (RA) 1 Location: 534 Redbud Road Submitted: 06/10/98 Approved: Pending Applications Action Summary Printed April 15, 1999 12 Southeast Container (SP #001-98) Stonewall District Parking Lot; 0.2 ac. Disturbed on a 89.6 ac. Site (M1) Location: Ft. Collier Industrial Park Submitted: 01/06/98 Approved: Pending Agape Christian Fellowship Church Sanctuary SP #005-9 Shawnee Church Expansion; 2.5 ac. to be developed of a 29.5115 ac. site :1 Location: East side of Rt. 642; a rox. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/1-81 Interch . Submitted: 02/12/97 Approved: Approved Pending- - - Shenandoah Bldg. Supply SP #056-9 Gainesboro Warehouse on 5 acres (Ml) Location: 195 Lenoir Drive Stonewall Industrial Park) Submitted: 12/16/96 Approved: Pendin Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube Service SP #030-96 Opequon Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive - Thru on 2.97 ac. 2 Location: 152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store) Submitted: 07/03/96 Approved: Pendin Applications Action Summary Printed April 15, 1999 13 AMOCO/House of Gifts (SP #022-96) Gainesboro Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a 1 0.916 acre parcel (RA) Location: 3548 North Frederick Pike Submitted: 05/08/96 Approved: Pending I American Legion Post #021 (SP #018-96)_ Stonewall Addition to lodge building on 3.4255 1 acre site T2) Location. 1730 Berryville Pike -Location: 04/10/96 -Submitted: L -Approved: Pending CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: Winchester Chapter of the Izaak Walton League (CUP #06-99) Shawnee Outdoor Shooting Range (RA) 1 1 Location. Location: 1204 Greenwood Rd. 03/17/99 04109199 -Submitted: Review: /05/99 IPC BOS Review: 05126/99 - tentatively scheduled Winchester Chapter of the Izaak Walton League (CUP #06-99) Shawnee Outdoor Shooting Range (RA) 1 1 Location. 2863 Millwood Pike Submitted: 03/17/99 PC Review: 5/05/99 BOS Review: 05/26/99 - tentatively scheduled Applications Action Summary Printed April 15, 1999 14 Shannon Starliper Bridges (CUP #05-99) 11 Stonewall Re-establish a non -conforming use (kennel) (RA) Location: 1132 Cedar Hill Road, Clearbrook Submitted: 03/11/99 PC Review: 04/07/99 - recommended approval with conditions BOS Review: 04/28/99 Stephen Wayne Duncan (CUP #0499) Gainesboro Cottage Occupation/ Antique Restoration (RA) Location: 128 White Hall Road Submitted: 03/11/99 PC Review: 04/07/99 - recommended approval with conditions BOS Review: 04/28/99 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: 04/07199 - tabled at the applicant's request BOS Review: not yet scheduled SBA, Inc. (Raymond L. Fish property) (CUP #02-99) Stonewall (B3) Commercial Telecommunication Facility: 180' self-supporting monopole Location: No. on I-81 to Exit 321, Hopewell Rd. (Rt. 672E) to first right at Kingdom Farm sign. Follow road to end past AA Mobile Market to site. Submitted: 03/12/99 PC Review: 04/07/99 - tabled at the applicant's request BOS Review: not yet scheduled Applications Action Summary Printed April 15, 1999 15 David L. Shell, Sr. (CUP #O1-99) Back Creek Public Garage w/ body Repair (RA) Location: 7317 Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50) Submitted: 01/25/99 PC Review: 03/17/99 - rec. approval w/ conditions & a 90 -day stipulation BOS Review: 04/12/99 - rec. approval w/ conditions & a 90 -day compliance requirement Applications Action Summary Printed April 15, 1999 16 COLIN Y of FREDERICK Depart:xaent aF Planning and Development 540/665-5651 1l�E1VIO.ND U1V.� FAX: 540/678-0632 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, Planner H SUBJECT: Handley Library, Frederick County Branch Site Development Plan DATE: April 15, 1.999 At the April 21, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, staff will present the site plan for the Frederick County Branch of the Handley Library. Customarily, projects involving public facilities are brought before the commission for your review. As you are aware, the Library is to be located on Tasker Road, directly in front of the Lake at Lakeside. Painter -Lewis, PLC, presented the plan to the Technical Review Committee at their meeting on Thursday, April 8, 1999. Generally, the site plan meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the provision of sidewalks in conjunction with this project has yet to be determined. In light of the following information, and the potential future improvements to Route 642, Tasker Road, staffwould ask that the Commission allow for the provision of a modified sidewalk connection from the library to Lakeside Drive and the adjoining Lakeside Condominiums. Obviously, safe pedestrian access to the library from the adjoining residential neighborhoods is highly important. The subdivision ordinance requires that a sidewalk is provided, within the road right-of-way, when developing adjacent to a major collector road. Further, the Zoning Ordinance requires that safe pedestrian walkways be provided to all uses on land included in a site plan. The Planning Commission may require additional walkways on a site plan to promote a general system of pedestrian access in residential neighborhoods or business corridors. Access to the adjoining condominiums from the library site has been shown on the approved Lakeside Condominiums site plan. Staff would ask that the Commission review the site plan and forward a recommendation regarding the modified sidewalk layout to the Board of Supervisors. Please contact me if you have any questions or would like any additional information. MTR/cc U:\Mikc\Common\SrFEPLAiNAPCOMMIS\Iibrarypc.mem 107 North Kent Street . Winchester, Virginia 226015000 'DUI 1TY 01 JKIR�EDERJUIK :1JS'jt"artm.l:.ent o P.lc%;l—mil,�1 sar 5�1�rI665-a65Il FAX: 540/673-0632 ysMEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director , RE: 1999 Comprehensive Policy Plan Update Discussion DATE: April 15, 1999 - - - - The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) considered proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Policy Plan during their April 14, 1999 meeting. The CPPS examined six topics which involved amendments to text, tables and mapping. Following discussion ofthese topics, the CPPS recommended the forwarding of this information to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for inclusion in the 1999 Comprehensive Policy Plan. Included within this agenda item is the information that is proposed for the update of the 1999 Comprehensive Policy Plan as recommended by the CPPS. It is the desire of staff to present this information for discussion at the Planning Commission level to determine if modifications are necessary prior to the public hearing for this update. A topical list for items that will be discussed by the Planning Commission is presented below. Additional information for each topic is included in this packet or will be presented during the April 21, 1999 meeting. Topics For Discussion And Update (A) Southern Frederick Land Use Plan (B) Modifications To Existing Language As Proposed By Various Agencies (C) Amendments To The Eastern Road Plan Map (D) Sewer And Water Service Area (SWSA) Expansion (E) Third Winchester Battlefield Preservation Plan (F) Relocation Of Information To The Annual Report U 9Evan\Common\CompPlan\ 1999ComprehensivePolicyPlanUpda[eMemo_PlanningCommission.wpd 107 t -larch 7,Kesnt Stuvet a Hildinchesler, Virg nia 22601-5000 (A) SOUTHERN FREDERICK LAND USE PLAN The CPPS and staff have completed the public information meeting process for the Southern Frederick Land Use Study. This process, which accounted for 16 separate meetings, provided an opportunity for the general public and organizations to participate in issues identification and the development of land use plan alternatives. The Board of Supervisors endorsed a preferred land use plan during the January 27, 1999 work session with the Planning Commission and the CPPS. The text for the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan is provided under this agenda item for review and discussion by the CPPS. Staff will have the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan Map for the preferred alternative available during the meeting. Staff asks that the CPPS consider this information and forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission for the purpose of their discussion regarding this issue. Southern Frederick Land Use Plan General Information During the 1998 Planning Commission Retreat, held at the Wayside Inn in Middletown, the Board of Supervisors requested that a land use plan be prepared for the southern portion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The elements considered as a catalyst for the development of a land use plan in this area include the planned improvements to existing road systems, the development of new roads systems and sewer and water infrastructure, and the desire to establish industrial areas with rail access, as well as industrial areas that would utilize the Virginia Inland Port. A land use study was initiated to identify the most desirable land uses and plans for future development and preservation within the area as a whole. In May .1998, Frederick County identified a study area for. -the southernportion--of the Urban-- - Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) which would be significantly influenced by the planned road systems and sewer and water infrastructure. This study area, encompassing 7,050 acres (11 square miles), is bounded by the City of Winchester Corporate Limits, Interstate 81, and Buffalo Lick Run to the north, Airport Road (Route 645), West Parkins Mill Road (Route 644), and Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) to the east, the Upper Opequon Watershed and the Opequon Creek to the south, and Middle Road (Route 628) to the west. Several public information meetings were conducted in the fall of 1998. The purpose of these meetings was to identify issues and obtain input from the general public and local organizations that would be utilized to develop land use plan alternatives for the study area. A work session was conducted with the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission January 1999, to review the preferred land use plan alternative that was recommended by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS). A background report was prepared for this work session to provide information regarding the characteristics ofthe study area, issues and input received during the public information meetings, and the elements of the recommended land use plan. This background report is maintained in the Department of Planning and Development. Page -1- -3- Objectives for the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan Land Use • Promote orderly development within areas impacted by new infrastructure. • Provide an equal balance of industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural areas. • Develop land use patterns that promote Planned Unit Development (PUDs) and mixed- use development in -lieu of large areas of residential. • Concentrate industrial and commercial uses near and around interstate, arterial, and major collector interchanges and intersections. • Encourage the preservation of prime agricultural areas and the continuation of Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Identify environmental resources and develop methods to protect sensitive areas. Encourage land use patterns that are not automotive dependent to protect air quality. Promote development standards such as riparian zones and regional stormwater management facilities to protect water quality from point and non -point sources. Historical Encourage the protection of potentially significant historic structures and sites as identified by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. Encourage the establishment of historic districts and the protection of historic areas identified by the Battlefield Network Plan, particularly the Kernstown Battlefield site. Transportation • Ensure that components of the Interstate 81, Route 37, and WATS Plans arc implemented. • Promote areas of viable rail access for industrial uses. • Require connections between arterial and major collector road systems within industrial, PUD, and mixed-use and developments. • Provide signalization at major intersections to promote efficient traffic movement. • Encourage intermodal opportunities including bicycle and pedestrian systems. Public Utilities Ensure the availability of adequate water resources prior to future development. Determine the capacities of water and sewer treatment facilities and projected impacts of future land uses. Provide opportunities for expansion of water and sewage treatment facilities. Page -2- -4- Land Use Plan Existing areas of residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural land use are contained within the 7,050 -acre study area. The majority of the commercial and industrial areas are located on the west side of Interstate 81 near the Valley Pike corridor (Route 11 South), while residential areas exist along Valley Pike and Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South). Agricultural land use exists along the Front Royal Pike corridor; however, the greatest concentration is located west of Valley Pike due to the significant amount of prime agricultural soils. Approximately 4,500 acres of land within the study area is currently zoned RA, Rural Areas District. The majority of this land is located east of Interstate 81; therefore, it is probable that fixture zoning change requests will be presented to the county. The development of future land uses throughout the study area should be sensitive to existing uses and should demonstrate continuity with planned uses. Future land uses recommended for the 7,050 -acre study area include residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, mixed-use, planned unit development (PUD), and _a historic_ district. __A_ detailed description of the recommended land uses is described within three separate land areas due to the considerable size ofthe study area. The description of each geographic area and recommended land use is as follows: Western Area This land area includes the portion of the study area west of Interstate 81 to Middle Road (Route 628). Recommended land uses include industrial areas along the east and west side of the CSX Railroad, as well as the continuation of industrial use on the east side of Route 37 and the southwest side of Apple Valley Road (Route 652). Agricultural areas are recommended west of Route 37 and Shady Elm Road (Route 651). This will encourage the continuation of agribusiness activity and protect the integrity of the properties voluntarily placed in the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. A historic district designation is recommended for the portion of the Grim Farm that is located in the county. This designation is intended to assist in the preservation of the core area of the Kernstown Battlefield. County regulations stipulate that the formation of a historic district must be accomplished through the consent of the land owner. Central Area This land area includes the portion of the study area east of Interstate 81 and west of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South). Residential areas are recommended north of the Lakeside, Wakeland Manor, and Tasker Land Bay developments. Commercial areas are recommended at the Battaile Drive interchange between Interstate 81 and Warrior Drive. Mixed-use areas are recommended to occur within the proximity of the Route 37 interchange locations at Interstate 81, Front Royal Pike, and Warrior Drive, as well as in the northern portion of the study area between Front Royal Pike and Warrior Drive. Mixed-use areas are envisioned to include residential and commercial components, of which a maximum of 75% of the land area Page -3- -5- would be residential. A planned unit development (PUD) is recommended for the land area between Route 37, Front Royal Pike, Warrior Drive, and Papermill Road. The PUD is envisioned to include residential, commercial and light industrial/office components, of which a maximum of 50% of the land area would be residential. The mixed-use areas and the PUD are proposed as alternative land uses from the typical residential development patterns that have occurred in the past. The mixed-use and PUD concepts are intended to promote land use patterns that allow for internal service, employment, and intermodal transportation opportunities with public open space linkages between various developments. Eastern Area This land area includes the portion of the study area east of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South). Residential areas are recommended adjacent to Armel Elementary School and to the north and west of the proposed public golf course located along West Parkins Mill Road (Route 644)_ An industrial area is recommended on Front Royal Pike, north of the Route 37 interchange area, to take advantage of the arterial road systems and the proximity to the Virginia Inland Port. An area has been identified to the south of the relocated portion of west Parkins Mill Road for the future expansion of the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. It is believed that this would provide adequate area to expand the capacity of the existing facility from 2 MGD to 4 MGD. Infrastructure Components The majority of the land within the study area boundaries will be impacted by transportation, sewer, and water facilities improvements. These improvements are proposed to traverse properties that are currently located within and outside of the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Improvements to existing arterial and collector road systems, the development of new major and minor collector road systems, and the expansion and installation of public water and sewer facilities will be the responsibility of individual property owners and developers. Improvements to Interstate 81 and the Route 37 Eastern Bypass will be conducted by federal, state, and local officials; however, it is recommended that adjacent land uses be situated a minimum of 100 feet from these right-of-ways to avoid future conflicts associated with widening and interchange reconfiguration. A detailed description of the proposed transportation, sewer, and water facilities improvements are described below; Transportation The Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) and the Comprehensive Policy Plan's Eastern Road Plan identify several significant transportation improvements within the study area boundaries. These plans call for improvements to existing road alignments and interchanges, the relocation of existing roadways, and the construction of new road systems Page -4- Q.1 and interchanges. Transportation improvements to the interstate, arterial, and collector road systems will assist in improved levels of service throughout the study area, and will shape the land use patterns in the short and long term. The following table describes the transportation improvements that will occur within the study area: S.authern.Fredm k Land Use PI#n - T'ra purtati:on Improve:nerits Road Name and/or Route Number Functional Classification Type of Improvement Typical Section Interstate 81 Interstate Existing Alignment (I6); 6 lane Interstate Route 37 Major Arterial New Construction (R4D); 4 lane divided I- 81 Exit 310 Interstate Interchange Existing Alignment Full Cloverleaf 1-81Battaile Drive Interstate Interchange New Interchange Full Cloverleaf Rt.37/522 South Arterial Interchange New Interchange Diamond Rt.37/Warrior Drive Arterial Interchange New Interchange Diamond Rt.37/Shady Elm Rd. Arterial Interchange New Interchange Diamond Interstate 81 CD Lane Collector/Distributor New Construction (U2); 2 lane urban Rt.636 White Oak Rd Major Collector New Construction (U4R); 4 lane urban Tasker Rd. to Rt. 1 l Major Collector Relocation (U4R); 4 lane urban Tasker Rd.to Warrior Major Collector Relocation (R2); 2 lane rural. Rt.644 Papermill Rd Major Collector New Construction (R2); 2 lane rural Rt.644 Parkins Mill Major Collector New Construction (R2); 2 lane rural Rt.651 Shady Elm Rd Major Collector Existing Alignment (R4D); 4 lane rural Rt.652 Apple Valley Major Collector Existing Alignment (R2); 2 lane rural Warrior Drive Major Collector New Construction (U4); 4 lane urban In addition to the new road systems proposed by the WATS and the Eastern Road Plan, additional road systems are proposed to effectively manage traffic generated from residential, commercial, and industrial land uses along the Front Royal Pike corridor. These road systems are intended to link various land uses with arterial and collector road systems and to provide Page -5- 7- for signalization opportunities at critical intersections as areas develop. Development proposals submitted for these areas will be expected to provide for road connections and for signalization agreements with the Virginia Department of Transportation to achieve the intent of this plan, although the alignment of these road systems is not expected to be definite. The development of new road systems and the improvements to existing road systems will need to be planned to mitigate impacts to the environmental features and historic areas that are identified in the land use plan_ It is recommended that transportation systems planning efforts consider the feasibility of providing direct access or easements to historic properties and features to ensure public access opportunities, to encourage the development of bicycle facilities and pedestrian walkway systems that serve residential, mixed-use, and PUD areas, to discourage an excessive number of commercial and industrial entrances, to utilize master planned boulevard entrances with adequate turn lanes, and to increase setbacks for parking lots to provide for green space and landscaping opportunities, while providing future right-of- way to mitigate impacts to existing and future land uses. Water and Sewer In Fall 1997, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Frederick County Sanitation Authority to undertake a major capital project designed to provide public water and sewer service from the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility to the Kernstown environs. Construction of this project commenced in Fall, 1998, which involves the extension of a 20 -inch water transmission line from Front Royal Pike and a 15 -inch sewer interceptor line from the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility to Apple Valley Road (Route 652) and Shady Elm Road (Route 65 1) at Route 37. This project was authorized primarily to provide public water and sewer service to existing and proposed industrial uses west of Interstate 81 and northeast of Route 37; however, it is anticipated that this project will impact other portions of the study area east of Interstate 81. The sewer interceptor line follows Hoge Run, which is the current boundary of the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The water transmission line traverses a distance of approximately one mile within the study area that is located outside of the UDA and SWSA, then continues into the service area before crossing Interstate 81. The entire portion of the study area between Front Royal Pike and Interstate 81 that will be traversed by this water and sewer project is currently zoned for rural area use; therefore, the county should expect to receive requests for property rezoning in this portion of the study area over the short term. Page -6- -8- Future Land Use Development Phasing Approximately 3,470 acres, or 49%, of the 7,050 -acre study area is currently within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Of this 3,470 acres, 1,845 acres is currently zoned for rural area use (53%), 655 acres is zoned for residential use (19%), 645 acres is zoned for industrial use (19%), and 325 acres is zoned for commercial use (9%). The remaining 3,580 acres that is located outside of the UDA and SWSA is predominately zoned for rural area use, with the exception of small residential areas located along Papermill Road (Route 644) and Apple Valley Road (Route 652). The land use plan recommends an adjustment of the SWSA in the western portion of the study area in the proximity of Apple Valley Road. This adjustment relocates the SWSA to the southeast of the Kernstown Battlefield on the north side of Apple Valley Road and to the north of the Blackburn Limited Partnership tract on -the south side of Apple. Valley Road. This adjustment results in an addition of 3.5 acres into the SWSA, as 35.7 acres are included within the Blackburn Limited Partnership tract, while 32.2 acres is removed from the Kernstown Battlefield site. A phasing plan is not recommended for the acreage located within the UDA and SWSA boundaries, as favorable economic and market conditions will drive development decisions. Future expansion of the SWSA is appropriate to accommodate areas of future industrial use; however, the expansion of this service area should not extend west of Shady Elm Road or south of the proposed segment of Route 37 between Front Royal Pike and Buffalo Lick Run. The land use plan does not propose the expansion of the UDA in any part of the study area boundary. It is recommended that the county monitor growth trends within the UDA to ensure that the timing for expansion of this development area is linked to the need to provide additional residential areas to maintain a competitive market. It is recommended that the properties located west of Front Royal Pike and east of Interstate 81 be considered first for inclusion into the UDA when the expansion of this development area is determined to be appropriate. Page -7- -9- (B) PROPOSED AGENCY AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN Staff has received proposed addendums to the language within the Comprehensive Policy Plan for Chapter 3 - Population and Housing, Chapter 4 - Economy, Chapter 6 - Land Use, Chapter 8 - Community Facilities and Services, and Chapter 9 - Parks and Recreation. These addendums were submitted by the following agencies and departments: • Building Inspections • Economic Development Commission • Emergency Services (Fire and Rescue) • Frederick County Sanitation Authority • Handley Regional Library • Parks and Recreation • Public Schools • Public Works • Winchester Regional Airport The Chapter and associated text for the proposed addendums to the Comprehensive Policy Plan is provided under this agenda item for review and discussion by the CPPS. Staff asks that the CPPS consider this information and forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission for the purpose of their discussion regarding this issue. Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission In 1982, the Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission was created by joint resolution of the City of Winchester and the Frederick County governing bodies. The Commission is composed of representatives from the County and the City, along with representation from local industry the Econ uc Deyelopnatent ComtzzissYon's ss�on is ",.:..to creme a des able :balanceq. value xn the;form . fmcreased Tax .revenues_to the CiW ofWint pester and Me County of Freded&and fttowns ithina income to its cons, and an envn-ogWt *4 £acuate§ profit £t the hu cries comxnum 7. The Economic Development Commission is charged with fostering an efficient and cooperative effort toward economic development for the Winchester -Frederick County area. The Commission maintains an office and employs a director h.o's responibzlity is the coordination of efforts to. develop and implement an Economic Development ;:Strategy for Winchester-Fredei. the coP-munit. Revised annually, the f997- 199$ 12O00 strategy addresses feta threg program areas- Existing Industry Development, g Development, and Business Attr acti Bu*i w M 19W. and Travel. CURRENT PROGRAM AREAS OF THE WINCHESTER -FREDERICK COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY MISSIONS/OBJECTIVES Existing Industa Development Mission: To create an effective business environment which fosters the growth and prosperity of existing industries and to communicate the availability of supporting resources. Objectives: -5. 1: To assist in the maintenance of a fully trained, competent workforce +-,. To assist in increasing demand for local products and services. �- !; To help reduce the cost of business in order to increase profits and promote growth. -37 4 To assist with regulatory requirements. 4-'_ To increase public awareness ofthe economic impact of the community's industrial base. lrl�tis'A7:7:7�n<bn �lr:�li�1LG��l�i i�lrN NIPLIMlr.�ul�t:wr+lr�nnaa�:�ni�sLin.��.nR 2. Travel Mission: To develop a comprehensive plan to attract visitors whit with, benefit to the community. Objectives: 1. To increase the number of visitors to the community: • Leisure/group travelers • Conventions • Business travelers 2. To increase the average length of stay far each visitor. 3. To increase expenditures made by visitors 4. To improve the infrastructure which supports the travel effort. Kil�i�l• - : 1. To expand e)dStil-16- and ente, nevv markets > > -2. To increase income (profit) for agribtr ions by adding,value to iocal products. - 4: Business Attraction Mission: To conduct a coordinated program to target and attract compatible business and industry to Winchester -Frederick County. Objectives: 1. To balance the proportion of commercial and industrial real estate tax base for both the City and the County. 2. To create jobs, especially those which are - compatible with existing industry needs. 3. To impact the quality of life through increased income. -14- 4. To diversify the type of business in the economic base to provide stabilization and a broader selection of employment opportunities for community citizens. 5. To increase worker skills to remain competitive as a business location. 6. To build on the existing industry and business base by attracting new companies which provide services and products needed by the base. Multiple activities have been identified in support of these objectives along with impact measures to assess the effectiveness of each program. Employment Trends : : : pow -m -we wfi�ffi "M ON •'11- • : . • : • -0 41frolte - Mal lit- : - - •offolow go awmilm.1- Vista Employment Trends 15- : : : mogul am It-mvist-Ar-4 i i • • - • • : : .: • 1 I - • - - low •/ 101 15- •,set i ....;:, S' i :, , � .... - While for the first time the service sector has. exceeded the'perce�t ofinanufactunn�, the numbers ofin jabs continue to grow, partic xlarly inn Frederick Countyy �rhere mast ofthe mailable u clustdal sites are located. That sector accounts for 4,264 persons, or 28% ofthe total 15 51.9 in Frederick Cpunty -16 Emergency Services Thetporations Division is divided into three Batalons, having .a FtrefReseue Lieutenant Field Supervisor to oversee, the career fits and rescue personnel. These Field Supervisors also workvt the volunteer chief's to coordinate 444 aqt� t��s with�r� each campa�Y: -17- 8 Sewer and Water Facilities The location of public sewer and water lines determines where urban development will occur. The Urban Development Area described by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan is roughly the same as the service areas for public sewer and water. Because sewer and water facility location determines the location of urban development, great care is needed in planning where such facilities will be provided.. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has the responsibility for the treatment, transmission, and distribution of potable water and the collection and transmission of wastewater. Most of the sewer and water mains and laterals in the County are owned, operated, and maintained by the Sanitation Authority. Frederick County and the Sanitation Authority have executed a Facilities Planning Agreement which sets_ forth procedures_ for -the planning_ of sewer _and water mains in the County. The agreement includes provisions for adopting a water and sewer facilities plan as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, specifying the location of mains over eight inches in size. It also includes provisions for review and update of the plan and for including sewer and water facilities projects in the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan. The City of Winchester owns and maintains sewer and water Iines in portions of the County adjacent to the City corporate limits. Such lines have been extended into the County following a previous agreement between the City and the County. A Gravity Flow Sewer Agreement between the City of Winchester and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority has been adopted which specifies that either jurisdiction may transmit sewage from the other jurisdiction to the Opequon Plant if that sewage flows by gravity to the receiving jurisdiction. This agreement requires that the delivering area be of a minimum size and that the receiving jurisdiction has adequate collection system capacity to accommodate the additional flows. The delivering jurisdiction will be charged for the service provided by the receiving jurisdiction. The agreement expires Dege.. er31, 2000 and z ncr e pecte to be`fenewed by the City., The Winchester -Frederick Service Authority has the responsibility ofproviding wastewater treatment for the Sanitation Authority and the City of Winchester. The Service Authority currently owns the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility and the Parkins Mills Plant and contracts for their operation. The City operates the Opequon Facility and the Sanitation Authority operates Parkins Mills. Treatment of wastewater generated in the County is provided by two sewage treatment plants: the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility and the Parkins Mills Plant. The Opequon Plant serves the Abrams Creek drainage area and surrounding drainage areas east and north of Winchester, and provides sewage treatment for Winchester. The Parkins Mills plant serves the upper Opequon Creek, Wrights Run, and Stephens Run drainage areas. The Frederick -Winchester Service Authority is presently constructing the 19- expansion of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility to a capacity of 8.4 million gallons per day with an increase in the biological treatment capacity of 5;666 8,000 pounds per day or an increase of 56% 8€1%o in the present plant capacity. This expansion is projected by the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility Capacity Needs Evaluation Report to meet the needs for both flow and biological capacity through the year 2008. The Parkins Mills Plant serves the upper Stephens Run, Wrights Run, and Opequon drainage areas. The rated capacity of this plant is 2.0 million gallons per day. The current average daily flow of this plant is about one tntllon gallons per day. -20- Handley Library Library service is provided to Frederick County through the Handley Regional Library, which also serves Clarke County and the City of Winchester. Currently, there. are f7,34 21,16:1 active registered library card holders in Frederick County. During the 1997 1998 fiscal year, Frederick County residents borrowed 2 f 3,945 208,98 items from the Handley Library, the Clarke County Library, and the Bookmobile. , . The regional system supports education, preschool through post -secondary, by providing assistance and research materials for projects and papers, and by being open nights, Saturdays, some Sundays, and during the summer when schools are closed. It is also an important resource for adults seeking to improve their skills and for introducing preschoolers to books and reading. The library also provides the business community and the public with information for their research needs as well as recreational reading. in July 1996-, Bookmobile service to the residents of southern and western Frederick County was expanded tt Tuly 1996 as the result of an agreement between the library and Trinity Lutheran Church in Stephens City. This agreement has allowed the library to use the church parking lot on Wednesdays and Thursdays as a Bookmobile stop. In addition, Trinity has allowed the library to offer story hours for children in the church social hall. During fiscal year +997-, I99— nearly 1,000 children and adults have attended the story hours. The regional library system continues to be below per capita state standards in the areas of books, square footage, seating, and periodical holdings-, however, important steps have been taken to remedy this. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors designated a site fbi a libiary building witffin the -21- Parks and Recreation The purpose of this chapter is to outline the County's recreational policies and to identify implementation methods for accomplishing recreational facilities, programs, studies, and plans. It is not meant to be a detailed recreation plan, but rather it is a part of the County's continuing planning process and a guide to decision making. Facilities The County currently owns and operates two regional parks. Clearbrook Park, located five miles north of Winchester on Route 11, consists of approximately 55 acres and Sherando Park, located two miles east of Stephens City on Route 277, consists of approximately 330 acres. Both regional parks currently serve the County's population with both active and passive recreational programs and facilities. In addition to these regional parks, five neighborhood parks have been developed which serve a more specific group with more limited facilities than those in the regional parks. - The neighborhood parks are located at: Reynolds Store Fire Company and Gainesboro Fire Company in the Gainesboro District, North Mountain Fire Company and Round Hill Fire Company in the Back Creek District, and at Frederick Heights subdivision in the Shawnee District. These neighborhood parks consist primarily of playground equipment for young children. In 1987, master development plans were adopted for both Clearbrook and Sherando Parks. These master plans establish development goals for each park, identify unmet recreational needs, provide unified facility plans, and propose a development program for each park. The master plan for both Clearbrook and Sherando Parks reflect the recommendations of the County residents and national standards as outlined in the Virginia Outdoor Plan. These plans emphasize the development of a swimming pool complex and additional sports, picnic, maintenance, and other support facilities. Since the adoption of the master plans, the County has completed the construction of two outdoor swimming pool complexes, four soccer fields, a maintenance building, one shelter, two playground areas, and -two sand volleyball courts, and two fields of four field softball co nvlex. The County has also purchased an area to house the maintenance operation for Clearbrook Park. Additional recreational facilities currently provided are athletic fields, playground, and picnic areas with a variety of recreational opportunities such as horseshoes, fishing, paddleboats, and volleyball, open space areas and support facilities. Clearbrook Park, Sherando Park, andthe neighborhood parks and all public school athetic fields antigrounds are maintained by the Parks Division of the County Parks and Recreation Department. As a result of a joint operating agreement with the County School Board, the Parks and Recreation Department has use of the following Sherando High School facilities when they are not in use by the high school- lighted football field and track, baseball field, eight outdoor lighted tennis courts, and four outdoor lighted basketball courts. The Parks and Recreation Department's Community Center, which was built adjoined to Sherando High School, opened in September of 1993 and contains two racquetball courts, a weight room and a multipurposeroom. Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 9 - 1 - 23 - Parks and Recrealion Citizen Participation Citizen participation and input regarding recreation programs and park development have been actively solicited since the creation of the department in 1971. The Parks and Recreation Commission consists of seven members, including one from each magisterial district, appointed by the Board of Supervisors for four year terms and two at -large members recommended by the Commission and appointed by the Board to serve staggered four year terms. Future Demands To help plan for the future leisure service demands, the Parks and Recreation Department has completed master plans for the County's two regional parks, studied national standards provided in the Virginia Outdoor Plan, and gathered survey information relating to the provision of leisure services. Through the utilization of these and any other available resources, it is projected that the following areas must be addressed if we are to meet future leisure demands: 1. Land acquisition to meet minimum standards 2. Facility development to meet minimum standards 3. Development of recreational centers 4. Increased programming for special populations 5. Increased programming for teens 6. Great diversity of programming se -a -s -to better meet the needs of the entire community. 7. Establishment of trail systems and bikeways Area Standards As suggested by the 1996 Virginia Outdoor Plan, the area standard for local recreation and park sites in Virginia is ten acres of developed park land per thousand population. Frederick County has a population of approximately 53,20055,9 (based on -1-99,199, provisional estimate data provided by the University of Virginia Center for Public Services) and currently maintains 404 acres of park land. Of the 404 acres assigned to the parks, about 240 acres would be considered developed. By the year 2000, using the population projections provided by the Frederick County Planning Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 9 - 3 -24- Parks and Recreadan EXISTING REGI®NAI.. PARK FACILITIES Currently, the Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for .operating and maintaining the following facilities: Clearbrook Park Clearbrook Park, covering 55 acres, is located approximately five miles north of Winchester, on Route 11. Clearbrook Park is open 365 days a year, from 8:30 a.m. to dark and includes: Sherand6 Parkshe}ter Sherando *three -acre lake -*horseshoe pits -- *vintage red caboose *passive areas *tables & grills *fishing *volleyball -- -- *fitness court *picnic shelters Sherando Park is located on Route 277, approximately two miles east of I-81, near Stephens City. The park consists of 330 acres, approximately one-half of which is undeveloped. Sherando Park is open 365 days a year, from 8:3640 a.m. to dark and includes: Frederick County Comprehensive Plan basketball court *eighteen -hole disc golf course *community center facilities 25- areas- at Agent nt tp Sherando High School -*s inunmg*outd or swigMg. pg pool *fishing *four soccer fields *horseshoe pits 'keighteight lighten: tennis courts *hiking trails Parks and Recreation *paddleboats *passive areas *volleyball *playgrotmd *fitness per eatcrs�*playground s *picnic shelters *tables & grills .................. Based on the demand standards established by the 1996 Virginia Outdoor Plan, Frederick County should use the following recommendations as a guide for future park development. Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 9 - 9 -26- 3CH(DOLS The Frederick County Public School system is composed of ten elementary schools serving students in grades kindergarten through fifth grade; three middle schools serving grades six through eight; and two high schools serving grades nine through twelve. The Northwestern Regional Education Programs (NREP) is a regional program which provides special education services to students from Frederick and Clarke Counties and the City of Winchester. Approximately 58% of the students who receive services attending NREP are from Frederick County. The Dowell 1. Howard Center provides vocational education services for high school students and adults, and is also the location of The Learning Center, a high school alternative program. In addition to the seventeen school facilities, twenty-five modular classrooms are used at eight school sites to reduce overcrowding due to increased enrollment and to address the need for additional space due to changes in educational programs. During the past several decades student enrollment in the school division has increased steadily. In particular, the decade of the 1990's has witnessed a dramatic increase in student population. The school division is growing at a rate which is three times greater than the average for the state. Over the past ten years (1987 to 1997), student enrollment has increased 34.4%, while the state average has increased 11.3%. In the fall of 1998, student enrollment was 10,408, which represents an increase of 2,185 students since 1990. In order to meet the need for additional school space, a number of school construction and renovation projects have taken place in the last decade. Despite these efforts, four of the ten elementary schools exceeded 90% of their capacity (Apple Pie Ridge, 94%; Bass -Hoover, 93%; Indian Hollow, 94%; and, Redbud Run, 105%). Construction of classroom additions to Armel and Middletown Elementary Schools, which were completed in the fall of 1998, resulted in an increase in student capacity and red=action in the percent of practical capacity utilized at each of these sites. Construction of a new elementary school in the Back Creek Magisterial District will begin in the spring of 1999, and is scheduled to open for students in the fall of 2000. The renovation of the Northwestern Regional Educational Programs (NREP) facility will provide improved space for students whose educational needs cannot be met in the traditional classroom setting. As students matriculate from elementary school to the middle school level and ultimately to high school, the need to provide additional space for a steadily expanding student population and to meet changing educational requirements has increased pressure for new facilities and renovations to existing facilities. Projects included in the 1999 Capital Improvements Plan reflect the need to address space requirements for middle and high school enrollment, which is rapidly approaching 90% of capacity despite the use of twenty modular classrooms at five different locations. A major renovation project at lames Wood Middle School and construction of a third county high school are two projects planned to combat the effects of a steadily increasing middle and high school student population. During the decade of the 1990's, the need to replace older facilities and to address the consequences of significant residential growth in the county has resulted in the necessity to allocate financial resources to the capital requirements of the school division. The pace of residential growth continues to greatly impact the school system, particularly in southern and eastern Frederick County as Iarge subdivisions are developed in relatively small geographic areas. In addition, careful monitoring of incidental residential 27- growth, which accounts for approximately one-third of new residential building permits issued annually in areas of the county outside the urban development zone, is necessary to accurately predict enrollment trends. Along with growth in student enrollment, the school division is faced with the responsibility of providing instruction in order to prepare students to work and live in the 21" century. The use of technology as a tool in nearly every facet of education has dramatically changed the way in which instructional services are provided to students. Required technology -related instruction at all levels has and will continue to necessitate increased expenditures for computer and computer-related hardware and software. Mandates from state and federal government in numerous areas, and in particular special education, will require localities to expend additional financial resources to meet educational requirements established by numerous laws and regulations. Without question, requirements associated with technology - related instruction and providing appropriate special education services to students has and will continue to impact the need for investment in a wide variety of capital projects in the future. The 1999 Capital Improvements Plan for the Frederick County Public Schools reflects. the desire of the school board to _provide suf cie_nt _classroom space fora growing school_ population and maintain acceptable student/teacher ratios in order to provide students with a quality educational program and the opportunity to excel as they further their education or become part of the work force. Additionally, the 1999 Capital Improvements Plan coincides with several major efforts made by the school division and county government to consolidate services in order to serve the residents of Frederick County more effectively and efficiently. Cooperative agreements have been developed relative to sharing school facilities for recreational use by a wide variety of community organizations; maintenance of school grounds provided by parks and recreation department personnel, resulting in greater utilization of space; maintenance of the county office complex provided by school division buildings and grounds personnel; and, development of a memorandum of understanding concerning the construction of a combined school division and county government transportation/maintenance/central warehouse complex. One major component of the 1999 Capital Improvements Plan includes construction of a facility to fulfill the concept of combined services in the areas of transportation, maintenance, and warehousing. Accomplishing the goals contained in the Capital Improvements Plan is a difficult challenge for the school division and the county. In order to provide new facilities and renovate existing structures, scarce financial resources must be allocated for capital needs rather than instructional services for students. A dollar which is spent on renovating or building facilities cannot simultaneously provide direct instruction to students. At the same time, a growing student population demands space which can only be accomplished through funding. Long range planning is the primary avenue to achieve a balance between capital needs which continue to grow and the mission of the school division to provide instruction to students. -28- Refuse Collection, Landfall, and Recycling Refuse collection service is provided by Frederick County at 12 refuse collection stations. Nine of these stations consist of hydraulic compactor machines with separable roll -off containers and collecttpn.:facilites ft}r recyelbles; the other three sites consist of front end dumpsters. Currently, the County is in the process of converting dumpster sites to compactor stations when warranted by tonnage levels. The County should continue to convert dumpster sites to compactor sites as tonnage increases. Consolidation of sites during the conversion process is also desirable, when practical. The i�asecl ors r<eseaveh. y the Croverprnenl lZ �tradent Learning project and std; the concept of curbside pickup is d -in the densely populated areas of Frederick County that are currently served by public water and sewer was endorsed by a resolution.pfthe bard of supervisors MAugust, I9i. The Frederick County Landfill is a regional facility that receives refuse from Frederick and Clarke Counties and the City of Winchester. The landfill is operated by Frederick County as an enterprise fund and the landfill operation is fee sustaining. The management and planning of landfill operations is solely the responsibility of Frederick County, with input from an oversight committee comprised of representatives from Frederick County, Clarke County, and the City of Winchester. Closure of the older section of the landfill, which opened in 1976, was completed in 1994. A new 160 acre tract of adjacent land, purchased in 1986, was opened for landfilling during 1993. Approxirriately 90 acres of this tract has been permitted for landfilling under the newly adopted Subtitle "D" Solid Waste Regulations. Both the close-out of the old section and the construction of the new section have been carried out in accordance with new state regulations that require much more sophisticated environmental protection measures, including composite impermeable liners, a complete leachate collection system, leachate treatment facility, groundwater monitoring and gas monitoring. The current landfill was originally estimated to have adequate capacity for 25 years commencing in October of 1993. The development of a construction debris landfill should extend the life of the current sanitary landfill approximately eight years, resulting in a life of 33 years. A tract of land consisting of 109 wooded acres was purchased from Ryland Carper for the future development of a construction debris landfill_ The permitting -and design and cortstruction ,'of this new const, ucLion debrisconstnuction-Idebri-s landfill ewas completed in 1998 with the The County should reevaluate tonnage, revenue, and expenditure trends everyeac year and set fees accordingly. The County should also continue to evaluate new technologies for waste reduction and recycling that would extend the life of the landfill. During the 1990's, the County placed collection boxes for recyclable materials at alleach of the citizens' convenience areas located within the County. Through this effort, the County was able to meet the 1995 recycling mandate of 2-5%2Spprcent placed on - 29 - localities by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Due to the rapid growth in the County, additional programs have been implemented to enable the County to maintain the 1995 recycling mandate of 25%. These programs include brush and yard waste mulching, cornpostin waste oil recycling, tire shredding, and household hazardous waste collections. These new programs assisted the County in achieving the 25% recycling mandate for 1996. New developments need to be provided with appropriate means of solid waste collection. Either private collection or new collection stations should be provided by new developments. _3p- Environment The. Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Act and the Frederick County Code require that properties and waters be protected from soil erosion and sedimentation resulting from development activities. The current standards require that increased stormwater created by development be conveyed to an adequate channel, capable of carrying the maximum storm that will occur on the average once every two years. Stormwater Management Growth and development bring along with it changes in the natural condition of the land. Areas which were once woodlands or pastures have been developed with roads, parking lots, and buildings. This process brings changes to the runoff characteristics of surface water, both in quantity and quality. The County recognizes the need to develop ordinances and standards relating to stormwater runoff. fn or der to "=6mplish this tas Currently, a stormwater. these trans rdrnance �s being d affied and sl 0. be approved by the hoard a pery stirs on or about h ly lx 1999. I��l•l�l C�1MfIR�llt•I�tINT11�J■��\�l�i�Jl•f�CAlf R��JIIMIIlti7�R�fA��ly l�lilll�%�R' t I - � . t - - •' - G ` Insert Physical Cl aractenstics Mai Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 5 - 4 -31- Environment arry�ng C .pact i . i .' islr . .•'t.7214,10JIM ffl� Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 5 - 6 -32- k1wil Iloilo IN Wiwi 014 u • • PA Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 5 - 6 -32- Environment .:mzmaffs 0 V.&MA.Swam.1 on Lei 04 Moor,. .1121911 01115k qNIVII310411WIN, Local land use regulations typically establish maximum densities and intensities at which development can occur. Densities should be set based upon judgements concerning the capacity of the land to sustain such development. The capacity of the land to carry development in rural areas will depend upon a number of factors, including the following: • Natural constraints on development, including steep slopes and floodplains; • The ability of an area to accommodate sewage disposal; • The need to protect natural resources, including groundwater aquifers and significant agricultural and forestal areas; and, • The capacity of rural roads. Frederick County Comprehensive Plan 5 - 8 -33- Winchester Regional Airport The Winchester Regional Airport is a 364 -acre, all weather, 24-hour general aviation airport with a 5,500 -foot runway located southeast of the Route 50 interchange of Interstate 81. The facility currently has 75 tie down spaces, two 12,000 square foot public clear span hangars, 52 t -hangars and three private corporate hangars. Based aircraft total 72 and range in size from single engine to larger cabin class business aircraft. Services available include 24-hour U.S. Customs and Immigrations, 24 hour on call line service, automated weather observation system, computerized weather and flight planning equipment, full instrument landing system and rental car service. The Winchester Regional Airport Authority was formed by the Virginia General Assembly on July 1, 1987. The Authority consists of representatives from the Counties of Frederick, Clarke, Warren, Shenandoah and the City of Winchester. Since its formation, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority embarked on an extensive airport improvement program. Major capital improvements have been accomplished in order to comply with Federal safety and design standards. Completed construction projects include a 1,000 foot runway extension, pavement resurfacing of the entire runway, relocation of the taxi way and the creation of safety areas at each end of the runway. New buildings constructed under this program include a modern general aviation terminal; 12,000 square foot clear span hangar; maintenance hangar with FBO offices and 42 t -hangar units. Other projects included upgrading airfield lighting; installation of a 40,000 gallon above ground fuel storage facility; fencing of the Airport perimeter and installation of a precision instrument approach that provides better all weather access to the Airport. Collaborating with Frederick County and the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Authority has also made improvements to primary access roads to the airport. Sewer and water service has also been established. To date, more than $14 million dollars has been invested in Airport capital improvements, equipment, and promotions through funding received from the Federal Aviation Administration, Virginia Department of Aviation and the local jurisdictions. Future developments include relocation of Airport Road that will require additional land acquisition. Other land acquisition projects will include areas along Bufflick Road that infringe on controlled airspace. Through the support of the member jurisdictions, the Winchester Regional Airport will continue to evolve into a modern first class air transportation facility benefiting economic development in the attraction of new industries and commercial business to the region. -35- (C) EASTERN ROAD PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS Staff has revised the Eastern Road Plan Map to incorporate components of the Winchester Area Transportation Study and components of the various land use plans that have been approved in the eastern portion of the County between Route 37 and Fairfax Pike. The results of this revision encompass the addition of new road segments, the elimination of road segments, the relocation of road segments, and the modification of various road segments function classification. Staff will present information at the meeting which delineates the proposed modifications to the eastern Road Plan Map. The Eastern Road Plan Map is within Chapter 7 - Transportation on page 7-15. Staff asks that the CPPS review the existing plan for the purpose of discussion and comparison to the proposed amendments to the Eastern Road Plan Map. -37- (I)) SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA EXPANSION The CPPS considered a request to expand the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to incorporate approximately 160 acres of land near Tasker Road (Route 642). These properties are situated on the south side of Tasker Road between White Oak Road (Route 636) and the Eastgate Commerce Center/Jouan Global Center development. The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors held discussions regarding this request earlier in the year. The Planning Commission felt that the request was appropriate, while the Board of Supervisors had concerns with capacities and impacts to the service to the Eastgate Commerce Center/Jouan Global Center development. A straw vote indicated that the Board of Supervisors would support this request by majority vote; however, a final decision has not been rendered by this body. Staff has provided a map which delineates the proposed expansion of the SWSA. Staff requests that the CPPS review this information and determine if the proposed expansion should only include the properties on the south side of Tasker Road, or ifthe proposed expansion should include the portions ofthese properties which were severed by the construction of Tasker Road, and therefore, are located on the north side of the right-of-way. -39- r 88 BVI/SA EXPANSION REQUEST 31A 8 7 / 8 6 211-339 ; 49D CQ 7 MOSBY STATION 84498 ------, a q0 ryi n�" j o \. . 79i 3��r 49 41 8.: 49C o `, 49A \ ri �• I299-3 48 -----__._ J m O� A'ob/, 48A 51 51A \\ o 2 265-374 o 48A O� a 51 C 3 53C G} `co 4;y 53 D/// i ' 53 7 61 a 538 ^i`e EASTGATE COM M EFCE CEN TES a, 53E Q�l G I i � i 17 (E) THIRD WINCHESTER BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION PLAIT Staff will present maps and associated information regarding the Third Winchester Battlefield Preservation Plan during the April 14, 1999 meeting. The Third Winchester Battlefield Preservation Plan is a wide -area plan, accounting for properties that are located .outside of the core area of the battlefield. Therefore, it has been suggested that this plan be formally incorporated into the Comprehensive Policy Plan to ensure that issues associated with core area preservation, viewshed protection, and the goals of the plan are recognized during decision making processes within the study area for this plan. Staff asks that the CPPS consider this information, provide direction as to the mapping and text that should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and forward a recommendation endorsing this concept. -43- Comprehensive Plan Update: Third Winchester (Opequon) Battlefield Preservation Plan UIDA/SWSA Modification Modify the boundaries of the UDA and SWSA to exclude the core area of the Third Winchester (Opequon) Battlefield. The modified location of these boundaries should correspond with the recommendations of the Planned Land Use map of the Third Winchester (Opequon) Battlefield Preservation Plan. Pg. 6-30; Land Use Plan (Route 7 Corridor) Existing Language __._...The area shown to.the north of the study area boundary as being historic is the'core area of the Third Winchester Battlefield. Efforts should be made to buffer this area from development_ Proposed Language The area shown to the north of the study area boundary as being historic has been identified as the core area of the Third Winchester (Opequon) Battlefield. The recommendations of the Third Winchester (Opequon) Battlefield Preservation Plan should be implemented to ensure that surrounding development does not adversely impact this historic resource. Note: The Route 7 Corridor Land Use Study map could be modified to include the APCWS property within the designated historic area. Pg. 6-34; Figure 11: Objectives for the Route 11 North Land Use Plan Historical Existing Language Protect the historic areas and corridor as identified by the Battlefield Network Plan, to the extent practically possible, Proposed Language Protect the historic areas and corridors identified by the Battlefield Network Plan and the Third Winchester (Opequon) Battlefield Preservation Plan, using recommended treatments where practically possible. U: IChrislcommonlComp Plan lThird Winc. updt. wpd -45- (F) RELOCATION 0,�T INFORMATION TO THE ANNUAL REPORT Staff has reviewed the tables, figures, and maps within the Comprehensive Policy Plan to determine the information which requires update on an annual basis. It is the belief of staff that this type of information is better suited for inclusion in the Annual Report which is also prepared by the Planning Department. The relocation of this type of information would also eliminate the need to update the Comprehensive Policy Plan on an annual basis if this was the only information that changed. Therefore, staff has created a list which suggests items that could be placed in the. Annual Report. Should the CPPS agree with this recommendation, staff will modify any language that is afflicted by__ the removal of the various tables, figures, or maps. Recommended Annual Report Items Table 6 - Employment Trends within Private Sector (Frederick County/Winchester): page 4-5 Table 7 - Employment Trends within Private Sector (Frederick County): page 4-7 Table 14- School Capacity and Enrollment for Frederick County: page 8-4 Figure 2 - Building Permits for New Residences: page 3-2 Figure 16 - Public School Enrollment: page 8-3 Figure 17 - Total New Connections (Water and Sewer): page 8-10 Neighborhoods Map: page 3-3 ..47- Economy Yable 6: Employment Trends Within Private Sector (Frederick County and Winchester Source.: Virginia Employment Commission; Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Unemployment rates, and the percentage of the labor force which are unemployed, have fluctuated in Frederick County and Winchester in response to economic trends that have occurred nationwide. During the 1970's and 1980'x, average annual unemployment rates for the local area were generally above the state and national averages. During the peak recessionary year of 1982, the unemployment rates in the area reached a high of 11.71/6, above the national average of 9.7%. However, since 1983, average annual unemployment rates have generally fallen below the national average. In 1992, the average unemployment rate did rise to 7.8% which was above the national average of 7.4%, but has since dropped to the current 1995 unemployment rate of 5.0%. Conclusions Frederick County continues its recovery from two national recessionary periods in the early 1980's and 1990's. However, from 1980 to 1990, Frederick County has significantly increased its share of manufacturing jobs in the Lord Fairfax Planning District. This increase has caused both total employment and the percentage of workforce engaged in manufacturing to rise. While the number Frederick County 4 - 5 Comprehensive Plan -49- Winchester -Frederick Total 23,848 27,631 30,244 30,098 31,980 34,833 Agricultural services 438 517 534 491 634 570 Mining 122 144 172 1 157 148 1 155 Contract Construction 1,552 2,001 2,304 1,772 1,805 1,947 Manufacturing 7,906 8,962 8,654 8,809 9,679 10,013 Transstation and Utilities P� 1,251 1,291 1,317 1,474 1,219 1,302 Wholesale Trade 1,770 2,111 2,617 2,222 2,244 2,687 Retail Trade 5,064 6,204 7,399 7,148 7,099 7,666 Finance,lnsurance,Real Estate 824 930 944 966 1,017 1,072 Services 4,881 5,467 6,303 7,059 8,135 9,335 Nonclassifiable 40 4 0 0 0 0 Source.: Virginia Employment Commission; Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Unemployment rates, and the percentage of the labor force which are unemployed, have fluctuated in Frederick County and Winchester in response to economic trends that have occurred nationwide. During the 1970's and 1980'x, average annual unemployment rates for the local area were generally above the state and national averages. During the peak recessionary year of 1982, the unemployment rates in the area reached a high of 11.71/6, above the national average of 9.7%. However, since 1983, average annual unemployment rates have generally fallen below the national average. In 1992, the average unemployment rate did rise to 7.8% which was above the national average of 7.4%, but has since dropped to the current 1995 unemployment rate of 5.0%. Conclusions Frederick County continues its recovery from two national recessionary periods in the early 1980's and 1990's. However, from 1980 to 1990, Frederick County has significantly increased its share of manufacturing jobs in the Lord Fairfax Planning District. This increase has caused both total employment and the percentage of workforce engaged in manufacturing to rise. While the number Frederick County 4 - 5 Comprehensive Plan -49- Economy Projections, based on recent population and employment trends and national projections, suggest that the local economy will continue to grow. Table 7: Einnlovment Trends Within Private Sector (Frederick Coun ........:.. Frederick county Total 7,962 9,163 11,571 10,060 11,515 12,541 Agricultural services 404 450 387 323 473 472 Mining 122 144 172 157 .148 151 Contract Construction 1,013 - 1,262 - - 1,447 - 17122 - --1,126 - _.1,220 Manufacturing 2,473 2,715 3,607 2,908 4,127 4,252 Transportation and Utilities 727 746 841 944 754 893 Wholesale Trade 848 I,O34 1,356 937 857 958 Retail Trade 1,168 1,411 1,911 1,869 1,867 1,888 Finance,Insurarnce,Real Estate 150 163 434 367 418 476 Services 1,042 1,237 1,416 1,433 1,745 2,231 Nonclassifiable Source: Virginia Employment Commission; Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Economic Policy The policies in this section are intended to describe a general economic development policy which supports orderly economic growth in Frederick County. Economic development policies need to be coordinated with other types of planning policy. The primary economic issues identified include: Issues P. Rates of economic growth The location of available sites for business and industrial expansion The maintenance and expansion of the local tax base Frederick County 4-7 Comprehensive Plan -50- COmmunily Facilafaes and Services Table 14. School Capacity and Enrollment for Frederick County 1997-1998 Apple Pie Ridge Elem. K-5 625 584 93% 78% Armel Elements K-5 645 591 92% Bass -Hoover Elem. K-5 735 640 87% Gainesboro Elementary K-5 260 179 69% Indian Hollow Elem. K-5 585 528 90% Middletown Elementary_ K-5 - 585 592 101% Redbud Run Elem. K-5 750 690 92% Robinson Elementa K-5 318 156 49% Senseny Road Elem. K-5 570 477 84% Stonewall Elementa K-5 550 1 421 77% Robert E. Aylor 6-8 965 754 78% Middle School Frederick County 6-8 845 704 83% Middle School James Wood diddle 6-8 1,000 936 94% . -... Ji James Wood High 9-12 1,670 1,535 920 Sherando High 9-12 1,550 1,398 1 90% NUP Ages 2-21 1 56 1 30 1 54% <>:><::::>:'`.``''<`<"`"': .�.: Source. Frederick County School Board, September 1997 Frederick County 8 - 4 Comprehensive Plan _51_ �®ulafion and Housing Growth in Housing The number of permits issued for the construction of new homes has varied dramatically, following the rise and fall of the national housing market. The numbers of permits issued for new houses each year rose steadily in the early 1970's, but fluctuated in the middle 1970's. Starting from 1977, a steady decline in permits issued occurred reaching a low of only 212 permits in 1982. From 1982 to 1989, permits for new houses increased steadily to an all-time high of 1102 permits in 1989. However, between 1990 and 1992, building permits issued for new residences in the County declined dramatically as a result of a recession in the national housing market. By 1992, the amount of permits issued decreased to a total of 568 permits. The permits issued in 1993, however, ended this four year decline. Seven hundred sixty two (762) permits were issued for the construction of new homes in 1993. New home construction permits issued peaked in 1993, while figures for the last three years have declined. There were 653 permits issued in 1994, 610 premits issued in 1995, and 690 permits issued in 1996. Growth in the local economy is a major factor influencing overall growth in Frederick County. The economies of Frederick County and the City of Winchester are interrelated and economic changes affect both jurisdictions. There has been a continued growth in local employment in both the City and County. An additional factor influencing growth in Frederick County has been an increasing movement of people into the County from the Washington Metropolitan Area. It can be anticipated that economic growth will continue, thereby supporting continued steady rates of overall growth. Frederick County 3 - 2 Comprehensive Plan -53- Community Facilities and Services facilities. Enrollment, demographic, and development trends need to be carefully monitored - The school division faces a number of challenges as the 21 st Century approaches, which will require the careful allocation of scarce financial resources. Providing needed classroom space for a growing school age population and addressing the demand for educational services in the rapidly changing area of technology are two major obstacles which will need to be overcome in the years ahead. Continued residential growth in Frederick County during the 90's has resulted in the need to allocate significant financial resources to the building of new facilities and the renovation of older schools. Steady growth in student population, particularly in eastern and southern Frederick County, will continue to require the construction of additional student capacity for the foreseeable future. The impact of providing instruction in the use of technology to prepare students to work and live in the 21st Century will necessitate increased expenditures for c6m-puter and computer-related hardware and software. In addition, mandates from state and federal governments will require localities to expend additional financial resources to meet educational requirements set forth by numerous laws and regulations. Figure 16 PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Frederick County Students ;. 10,000 r 8,000 — 6,000 4,000 2,000 «�+♦ 0 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 School Year K-5 6-8 9-12 Total --E --+--- ---S Source: Frederick County School Board Frederick County 8 - 3 Comprehensive Plan -55J- COMMUnity Facilities and Services Opequon Water Reclamation Facility and the Parkins Mills Plant and contracts for their operation. The City operates the Opequon Facility and the Sanitation Authority operates Parkins Mills. Treatment of wastewater generated in the County is provided by two sewage treatment plants: the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility and the Parkins Mills Plant. The Opequon Plant serves the Abrams Creek drainage area and surrounding drainage areas east and north of Winchester, and provides sewage treatment for Winchester. The Parkins Mills plant serves the upper Opequon Creek, Wrights Run, and Stephens Run drainage areas. Figure 17 The Frederick -Winchester Service Authority is presently undertaking design of the expansion of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility to a capacity of 8.4 million gallons per day with an increase in the biological treatment capacity of 5,000 pounds per day or an increase of 50% in the present plant capacity. This expansion is projected by the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility Capacity Needs Evaluation Report to meet the needs for both flow and biological capacity through the year 2008. The Parkins Mills Plant serves the upper Stephens Run, Wrights Run, and Opequon drainage areas. The rated capacity of this plant is 2.0 million gallons per day. The current average daily flow of this plant is about 1.1 million 750,000 gallons per day. Frederick County 8-10 Comprehensive Plan _57_ r FrederickCounty Planning S Development Winchuotvr, Virgrio If Neighborhoods e`ghor oo s i 12-10-97 - 59-